Is The Universe Fine Tuned for Human Life?

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

I say yes.

This thread was created in order to discuss/debate what is called the argument from design (teleological argument), which is a classical argument for the existence of God.

For more on what fine tuning is as it pertains to the argument, please read this wikipedia article..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Now, it is well known and established in science, that the constants and values which govern our universe is mathematically precise.

How precise?

Well, please see this article by Dr. Hugh Ross...

https://wng.org/roundups/a-fine-tuned-u ... 1617224984

Excerpt...

"More than a hundred different parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist." (see above article for list of parameters).

Or..(in wiki article above, on fine tuning)..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... e#Examples

When you read the articles, you will find that there isn't much room for error.

If you start with a highly chaotic, random, disordered big bang, the odds are astronomically AGAINST the manifestation of sentient, human life.

How disordered was the big bang at the onset of the expansion...well, physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the chances of life originating via random chance, was 1 chance in 10^10^123 ( The Emperor’s New Mind, pg. 341-344.....according to..

https://mathscholar.org/2017/04/is-the- ... 20universe.

That is a double exponent with 123 as the double!!

The only way to account for the fine tuning of our universe..there are only 3 possibilities..

1. Random chance: Well, we just addressed this option..and to say not likely is the biggest understatement in the history of understatements.

If you have 1 chance in 10^10^123 to accomplish something, it is safe to say IT AIN'T HAPPENING.

2. Necessity: This option is a no-go..because the constants and parameters could have been any values..in other words, it wasn't necessary for the parameters to have those specific values at the onset of the big bang.

3. Design: Bingo. First off, since the first two options are negated, then #3 wins by default...and no explanation is even needed, as it logically follows that #3 wins (whether we like it or not). However, I will provide a little insight.

You see, the constants and values which govern our universe had to have been set, as an INITIAL CONDITION of the big bang. By "set", I mean selectively chosen.

It is impossible for mother nature to have pre-selected anything, because nature is exactly what came in to being at the moment of the big bang.

So, not only (if intelligent design is negated) do we have a singularity sitting around for eons and expanding for reasons which cannot be determined (which is part of the absurdity), but we also have this singularity expanding with very low entropy (10^10^!23), which completely defies everything we know about entropy, to a degree which has never been duplicated since.

So, we have a positive reasons to believe in intelligent design...an intelligent design...a Cosmic Creator/Engineer...

We have positive reasons to believe in a God of the universe.

In closing...

1. No need to downplay fine tuning, because in the wiki article, you will see the fact that scientists are scrambling to try to find an explanation for fine tuning..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... planations

If there was no fine tuning, then you wouldn't need offer any explanations to explain it away, now would you?

2. Unless you can provide a fourth option to the above three options, then please spare me the "but there may be more options" stuff.

If that is what you believe, then tell me what they are, and I will gladly ADD THEM TO THE LIST AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY ALSO FAIL.

3. 10^10^123. Ouch.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #138]

Nonsense.

The Swamp Thing bit was analogous to chemicals reacting, and human beings resulting (eventually).

Because after all, that is what ultimately happened, isn't it?

You left out some 4 billion years of evolution between throwing the chemicals in and getting humans. That process represents far more than just a few buckets of chemicals reacting after being thrown into the pond.

Um, that is a point that I've been making from jump street.

Glad you are finally here, after 10+ pages in.

The point you've been making (and in title of OP) is about LIFE arising that otherwise would not if the physical constants (or Big Bang initial conditions) were not as they are/were. When you've mentioned atoms, chemistry, etc. not being possible without things playing out as they did, the reference was always to life arising. But the physical constants, atoms, chemistry, etc. could all be exactly as they are now WITHOUT life ever arising. If the universe were fine tuned for life then life MUST arise as that would be the whole purpose of the exercise. I could equally claim that the universe was "fined tuned" for atoms to exist, and once that happened chemistry did its thing (regardless of whether life arose).

He is not insinuating that the constants of nature aren't fine tuned. He is saying there is something even bigger going on, namely, the fine tuning of the initial conditions..and that should be the real focus.

That is his point.

Exactly as I said in my post.

The physical constants (different values) may have produced life of different kinds (keyword: may), but the initial conditions are independent of the physical constants and need to be fine tuned for ANY kind of life to exist.

They need to have the values they do for atoms to exist, and life may or may not develop afterwards. There's nothing in the Penrose video or his book chapter relating to the 10^10^123 number that says anything about LIFE developing or its probability. In the video he mentions how rare intelligent life may be, but the 10^10^123 number does not come from any consideration as to whether life develops, or not.

He clearly states "there is fine tuning in the ORIGIN of universe", of which you are on the record of saying there isn't....so the answer to the thread title AND the video title, according to Penrose and every other physicist that you've been presented, is YES.

Then he clearly states that this particular "fine tuning" refers to the precision in the initial conditions of the Big Bang, and NOT the usual fine tuning in the physical constants (ie. they are not the same thing).

Well first off, you are simply confusing what Penrose is implying.

You say above (about video)..

"Then he goes on to point out that the precision needed in the (few) physical constants is nothing by comparison and are dwarfed by the precision needed for the initial condition of the Big Bang to get a universe identical to ours"

What he is saying is, the precision of the physical constants are NOTHING compared to the precision needed for the initial conditions...and this is OBIVOUS because even with the erroneous 10^123 number that I originally gave, that number is STILL an astronomically large number, but compared to 10^10^123, the number is chump change.

Again, this is EXACTLY what I said in my post! And you just repeated it in the above quote. Read what you quoted me as saying directly above, and your comment just below it. They are the same.

You turn around and then say we have no idea what the exact conditions of the Big Bang was, which is contradictory to being able to calculate the initial conditions for the Big Bang.

YOU are the one hanging your hat on the 10^10^123 number and the Big Bang as being THE correct mechanism for origin of the universe, and using Penrose as the source. I've stated multiple times that we don't yet know the mechanism for origin of the universe, and that the Big Bang hypothesis has not been proven (and that I'm surprised you believe it so strongly). I also pointed out in post 34 (which, yet again, you've decided to ignore) that the Penrose calculation is based on a lot of assumptions and guesses. So my comment above about a singularity is perfectly consistent with my prior posts. It is you who are resting all you claims on the Big Bang being correct, and Penrose's calculation being gospel truth.

Nonsense. The question that was posed to Penrose is; is the Universe fine tuned for life...and he answered yes.

Point blank, period.

And he explained that "fine tuned" refers to the precision in the initial conditions of the Big Bang (not the physical constants) to produce a universe identical to the one we have. Then he elaborated on the details regarding life later on. The two points made in that regard were (as posted several times before), that other universes may have arisen with galaxies identical to ours (with life, obviously, if it is identical to ours) but be different elsewhere in the universe, or that life of a different type may have arisen. He made no guesses on what fraction of the total possible universes these alternatives might represent. Finally, he said considering only our galaxy or solar system, the 10^10^123 number would be ridiculously smaller (with no guesses on that either).

I don't buy any of it anyway because I don't believe we know enough about the initial conditions of the Big Bang to make such guesses, and I think the whole "fine tuning" idea is ridiculous and without any evidence whatsoever. I'm responding to your claims in the OP, but it really is a waste of time until someone can demonstrate that a "fine tuner" actually exists to do that work. So far, that is a complete dud.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #137]

The point is that none of what you describe could ever have happened unless various constants had very very very specific values, such specificity suggests a cause, at least to me with my science education anyway.

And my science education says the "cause" was more likely nature...

Right there is where we depart down different paths. To me that sentence reads like "And my science education says the "cause" was more likely the cause..." it is empty, a con, says absolutely nothing of substance. An absence of an answer pretending to be an answer.

Any philosophical mindset that leads to such statements is - IMHO - deeply flawed. That one could be satisfied with such an answer, unashamed to seriously proffer it, amazes me and convinces me more that I am seeing all this correctly.

If you cannot really see, appreciate the futility of your answer, then no wonder we disagree!

[Jose Fly]

Something I've always wondered about with threads like this...

To the theists making this argument, why do you feel so compelled to try and appeal to science as supporting your belief in gods? Are your personal experiences, scripture, and faith not sufficient for you?

[Inquirer]

Something I've always wondered about with threads like this...

To the theists making this argument, why do you feel so compelled to try and appeal to science as supporting your belief in gods? Are your personal experiences, scripture, and faith not sufficient for you?

Science, a universe that adheres to incredible mathematical rules, that is predictable, is itself evidence of God. So it is not making a scientific argument that God exists, it is arguing that God is the reason science does exist, is even possible - as I've said before one can contentedly ignore the reasons for the existence of science or man up and admit that science cannot be the reason for science - until one faces that philosophical reality then one is wandering around in the dark.

[Jose Fly]

Science, a universe that adheres to incredible mathematical rules, that is predictable, is itself evidence of God.

Why?

So it is not making a scientific argument that God exists, it is arguing that God is the reason science does exist, is even possible

Pay closer attention to what I wrote. I didn't say theists were "making a scientific argument", I said they are "appealing to science".

as I've said before one can contentedly ignore the reasons for the existence of science or man up and admit that science cannot be the reason for science - until one faces that philosophical reality then one is wandering around in the dark.

So your interpretations and beliefs about gods = reality?

[Inquirer]

Science, a universe that adheres to incredible mathematical rules, that is predictable, is itself evidence of God.

Why?

Because that's how I interpret all this.

So it is not making a scientific argument that God exists, it is arguing that God is the reason science does exist, is even possible

Pay closer attention to what I wrote. I didn't say theists were "making a scientific argument", I said they are "appealing to science".

Oh I see, my apologies.

as I've said before one can contentedly ignore the reasons for the existence of science or man up and admit that science cannot be the reason for science - until one faces that philosophical reality then one is wandering around in the dark.

So your interpretations and beliefs about gods = reality?

What I was referring to as reality is the realization that logically we can never explain science, why it works and so on, using science.

[Jose Fly]

Because that's how I interpret all this.

And I interpret it differently.

What I was referring to as reality is the realization that logically we can never explain science, why it works and so on, using science.

I don't see how that's a logical argument. The existence of science is explained by one simple reality....we (H. sapiens) invented it. It works because that was our desired outcome (finding a way to figure things out).

[Inquirer]

Because that's how I interpret all this.

And I interpret it differently.

What I was referring to as reality is the realization that logically we can never explain science, why it works and so on, using science.

I don't see how that's a logical argument. The existence of science is explained by one simple reality....we (H. sapiens) invented it. It works because that was our desired outcome (finding a way to figure things out).

So if there were no people, there'd be no law of gravitation? If the last person died the laws that govern the behavior of the universe would just "pop" and cease to exist? That's a most unusual and - dare I say - unscientific claim (if you are claiming that).

[Jose Fly]

So if there were no people, there'd be no law of gravitation? If the last person died the laws that govern the behavior of the universe would just "pop" and cease to exist? That's a most unusual and - dare I say - unscientific claim (if you are claiming that).

What th.....?

We were discussing the existence of science. Sheesh....

[Inquirer]

So if there were no people, there'd be no law of gravitation? If the last person died the laws that govern the behavior of the universe would just "pop" and cease to exist? That's a most unusual and - dare I say - unscientific claim (if you are claiming that).

What th.....?

We were discussing the existence of science. Sheesh....

So you were referring to science in the sense of the subjective human activity. I was referring to the objective structure and nature of what the activity is concerned with.