Fine Tuning Universe

[Confused]

At the cosmological level, we see that so many things had to occur for earth to become habitable. The parameters for our universe had to be just right in order for the earth to form and create an atmosphere hospitable for life. A mere 1/1,000,000 of a change in some constant parameters would have made it impossible for life to exist as we now know it to.

It seems to me that most of the theistic scientists that I read all resort to the unexplainable process that is considered essential for life to exist, ie: the universe and its undeniable requirement for certain parameters to exist in order for life to ever have a chance of existing, as their ultimate reason for retaining their faith in light of science and the advancement of technology. The vast majority state that they see the evidence for a creator in the hidden requirements of our universe, not in mankind alone.

When you view man from the universe’s perspective man seems pretty unimportant. We live on a small planet circling an ordinary middle-aged star on the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy; one of millions of other ordinary galaxies. It is not hard to see why many people misinterpret this to mean God does not exist. If you are willing to open your eyes to the possibilities there are many signs of God’s hand at work in the creation. Examine the fine-tuning seen throughout our universe. Consider the fine-tuning of our solar system. Even our earth and moon show signs of fine-tuning. Non-theistic scientists do not deny this, but they see it as an incredible set of coincidences. The "coincidences" are amazing. Hugh Ross covers much of this in his book "The Creator and the Cosmos".


For debate:
1) Could we consider the universe "fine tuned"? Was it tinkered with by something greater than nature to give rise to an environment suitable for life?

[The Corinthian]

I think there is a vital part missing in this fine-tunning debate.

It is the question of "why did he only stop at fine-tunning?". When he now bothered to make condition for life to arise at all, then why not perfect-tune the universe and our solar system, so that it would be improbable for life not to exist on all planets, and in every solar system. I mean, why would he only create an universe where life just barely could arise, and not a universe where it was highly likely?

(Sorry if I my tone is a little sarcastic)

[The Duke of Vandals]

The odds that life will originate on any given planet depend entirely on what conditions must prevail for life to be possible. The more narrow these conditions must be, the greater the odds are that life will not originate in any given place. Either the prevailing conditions will sustain life or they will not. Until we know exactly what conditions will allow life to exist, we cannot put numbers on the odds.

Whatever those odds are, we know they do happen because we're here. So, we can play with making them astronomically high and still rely on the anthropic principle to deliver life into the universe based on the absurdly high number of planets.

Says who? If the universe is infinite, then there must be an endless supply of new planets- but this would violate the law of conservation of matter.

Please demonstrate how an infinite number of planets would cause planets (presumably) to be spontaneously created or destroyed in a closed system.

[flaja]

I think there is a vital part missing in this fine-tunning debate.

It is the question of "why did he only stop at fine-tunning?".

If He had fine tuned the entire universe, then life would likely exist throughout the universe. This would strongly indicate that life in the universe was inevitable and then life wouldn’t be all that special and thus man wouldn’t be all that worthy of God’s attention.

[The Corinthian]

Who is it that gets to decide that the earth is such an ordinary planet with an ordinary sun in an ordinary galaxy? The very fact that Earth is the only known place in the known universe that can sustain life makes it the most extraordinary planet in the known universe. The argument of ordinariness is what the secularists rely on. If you concede that the earth is ordinary, you have effectively lost the battle.

These astronomer guys have these over-sized binoculars, with which, they can see distant solar systems. And they have all these very cool techniques to say all kinds kinds of things about the planets in them. Based on all the data they have collected with these methods, and on different very complex calculations, the can say a great deal about how ordinary our planet and galaxy is in the universe.
By the way, I think we should be agnostic about whether or not there are life on planets and in galaxies we can't visit. This is luckily falsifiable, not practically falsifiable at the moment, but it might be someday.
I don't understand why we would have effectively lost the battle, if we were to concede that the earth is ordinary.

I think there is a vital part missing in this fine-tunning debate.

It is the question of "why did he only stop at fine-tunning?".

If He had fine tuned the entire universe, then life would likely exist throughout the universe. This would strongly indicate that life in the universe was inevitable and then life wouldn’t be all that special and thus man wouldn’t be all that worthy of God’s attention.

It might be likely, but we really don't have the technology to test this hypothesis.

And why wouldn't life in that case be all that special? What about the individual? From what you are saying, the individual isn't worthy of god's attention either, because there are 6.7 billion people in the world?

[flaja]

These astronomer guys have these over-sized binoculars, with which, they can see distant solar systems. And they have all these very cool techniques to say all kinds kinds of things about the planets in them. Based on all the data they have collected with these methods, and on different very complex calculations, the can say a great deal about how ordinary our planet and galaxy is in the universe.

I’m not saying otherwise, but what entitles these astronomers to be arbiters of opinion regarding the universe? What entitles scientists to make judgment calls about what they observe?

And why wouldn't life in that case be all that special?

Because life would then be the rule rather than the exception.

What about the individual? From what you are saying, the individual isn't worthy of god's attention either, because there are 6.7 billion people in the world?

These 6.7 billion people are still confined to planet earth- the only place in the universe where life is known to be possible; this alone makes them worthy of God’s attention.

[The Corinthian]

I’m not saying otherwise, but what entitles these astronomers to be arbiters of opinion regarding the universe? What entitles scientists to make judgment calls about what they observe?

You asked who gets to decide whether or not our earth/sun/galaxy is ordinary. It is to some degree an assessment, but it is a qualified assessment done by those who knows the most. Especially when it comes to our sun, you can see pretty accurately how many stars are just like it. It then becomes subjective whether you wish to call 0,1%, 2%, 5%, or 75% ordinary. It all depends on the context.

Because life would then be the rule rather than the exception.

Just because something happens a lot, doesn't make it any less special. Ok appeal to emotion, baby births, they happen all the time, meh nothing special. Do you need to feel so damn special for your life to have meaning? When people found out that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, did it make them any less special?

These 6.7 billion people are still confined to planet earth- the only place in the universe where life is known to be possible; this alone makes them worthy of God’s attention.

Do you decide who is worthy of God's attention? Does the Bible eliminate the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe, just because the stories in the Bible takes place on earth. If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, he could have small earths all around the universe, and give them equal attention. And since he created them, they would be worthy. However, I'm an atheist and don't believe in any of this.

[Goat]

I think there is a vital part missing in this fine-tunning debate.

It is the question of "why did he only stop at fine-tunning?".

If He had fine tuned the entire universe, then life would likely exist throughout the universe. This would strongly indicate that life in the universe was inevitable and then life wouldn’t be all that special and thus man wouldn’t be all that worthy of God’s attention.

If we find life outside of earth, would you then think Man was not special?

[flaja]

I think there is a vital part missing in this fine-tunning debate.

It is the question of "why did he only stop at fine-tunning?".

If He had fine tuned the entire universe, then life would likely exist throughout the universe. This would strongly indicate that life in the universe was inevitable and then life wouldn’t be all that special and thus man wouldn’t be all that worthy of God’s attention.

If we find life outside of earth, would you then think Man was not special?

Yes.

[Confused]

If you are willing to open your eyes to the possibilities there are many signs of God’s hand at work in the creation.

That is one possible interpretation, but there are others having equal validity.

Examine the fine-tuning seen throughout our universe. Consider the fine-tuning of our solar system. Even our earth and moon show signs of fine-tuning.

Why stop there? Why not continue all the way down to the apparent fine-tuning of your eye for it to see so clearly?

Non-theistic scientists do not deny this, but they see it as an incredible set of coincidences. The "coincidences" are amazing.

I must disagree with you here. I really think you'd find it very difficult indeed to find a scientist who sees things just as "amazing coincidences". If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this rather unrealistic notion from?

Ok then. Next time I get some crazy idea to play devils advocate, feel free to knock me upside the head with a proverbial cyberhammer.

The notion came from mostly evolutinary theists who seem to find everthing in nature to be ok in terms of natural explanations, but seem to fall back to the supernatural when we leave the earth and start to view the universe. From Collins to Polkinghorne to Ross etc... they all seem to return to faith and creation when we start to evaluate the origins of our universe. It seems like leaving the earth to explore the universe is the equivalent of leaving the natural to explore the supernatural when I read their books, articles, etc... The idea they project is that there are certain things about our universe that science isn't meant to explain or that science can never hope to explain.

[QED]

I’m not saying otherwise, but what entitles these astronomers to be arbiters of opinion regarding the universe?

Because they're the ones who are studying it rather than simply theorizing in the absence of any actual data.

What entitles scientists to make judgment calls about what they observe?

Ditto. The ancient Greek philosophers did a lot of theorizing in the absence of data and they got mixed results. The scientific method takes the theory and puts it to the test. Note that theories can generally be proved wrong by testing, but rarely cant they be proved absolutely right. This doesn't mean we haven't got a clue, it means that a theory that has withstood countless tests can be relied upon to serve as our best explanation. The utility of this is that we can then build on this understanding and get predictable results. Nothing built on this understanding can fall over so long as it doesn't represent a new test. If things do start falling over its because we've found a new test which the theory fails to pass, and we usually get a clue or two for how to modify our theory.

Hopefully you'll understand why its so vital to be able to test ideas in this kind of way. Any theory that can't be tested can easily fall over when we build on it.