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.

[Jose Fly]

Otherwise, why do they keep doing it?

To convince you that they're rational and reasonable.

That seems to contradict the above. "I'm justified because of apparent fine-tuning" is only necessary when faith, experience, and scripture aren't enough by themselves.

That's right. Faith is enough to be convinced themselves, but if they want to argue with you, faith is a non-starter.

That's not really the case in the religious circles I've been in. Being overcome by the spirit, speaking in tongues, healing the sick, and prophetic dreams are all seen as very good indications that the underlying beliefs are valid.

And they don't waste time talking about fine-tuning with each other. They're slain in the Spirit when they're with their fellows. With you, it's fine-tuning.

So what you're saying is, they realize that since other people will not see subjective experiences, faith, and scripture as persuasive, they must appeal to something that society does usually find persuasive....science.

IOW, threads like this are testament to the fact that society generally sees science as more authoritative than religious experiences, faith, and scripture. So the theist feels compelled to argue that their beliefs are supported by science.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Got it, thanks!

It's interesting though that this compulsion to appeal to science seems to be a fairly recent development. IMO, that's because science has usurped religion's place as the primary means of determining reality. I guess that presents the religious with a choice....either fight to put religion back on top, or try and give religion credit for science.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

I'm leaving it as an exercise for you, it will possibly be more instructive if you attempt to prove that cosmology can in principle scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

I'm leaving it as an exercise for you, it will possibly be more instructive if you attempt to prove that cosmology can in principle scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Your concession is noted.

I never claimed to be able to prove that cosmology can do that. I simply noted that it's one of the things cosmology investigates.

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

I'm leaving it as an exercise for you, it will possibly be more instructive if you attempt to prove that cosmology can in principle scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Your concession is noted.

I never claimed to be able to prove that cosmology can do that. I simply noted that it's one of the things cosmology investigates.

I know you never claimed it, I'm suggesting you attempt it, in doing so you'll encounter the contradiction that I told you about.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #142]

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.

Your stock response when someone doesn't buy what you're selling (apart from not including the word vacuous). Claiming fine tuning by some superior being provides absolutely nothing useful when no such being has ever been shown to exist. It is a textbook example of attributing something to a god being when you don't understand it. It does nothing to help answer any questions.

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.

It was a very simple answer ... nature (the universe) developed from its origin point (which we don't know the details of yet) without the input from any imaginary god beings. If you can't understand something that simple I don't know what to tell you to help. And I'm not the least bit ashamed of not believing in imaginary gods, as amazing as that may seem.

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

There's nothing "futile" about the answer ... just a lack of belief in god beings and taking an alternative view. You don't agree with it, so respond with the usual condescension.