The fine tuning of the universe.

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a topic that another member, Athee, and I have determined would be a good one to explore in our opposing views.

Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author has said of fine tuning:
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

There is agreement between the majority of physicists, cosmologists and astrobiologists in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why? Why is our universe the way it is and could it have been different? What best explains the universe and its very narrow parameters that allow for intelligent life to exist?

These are the questions and more that we will be addressing in this thread.

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

Get ready, get set, and go......
 

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You do realize that the "fine tuning" argument is not an argument against the theory of evolution at all, don't you? It is merely a claim by some that God was needed to start everything (meaning the universe).
Your point? Do you think this is the wrong forum for this topic?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Your point? Do you think this is the wrong forum for this topic?
It should really be one bracket up. In the Physical and Life Sciences section of the forum. This argument in effect assumes that evolution is proven, which it is far beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It should really be one bracket up. In the Physical and Life Sciences section of the forum. This argument in effect assumes that evolution is proven, which it is far beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
Is it not about the Creation of the universe? I also don't understand how this argument assumes that evolution is proven?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Is it not about the Creation of the universe? I also don't understand how this argument assumes that evolution is proven?

Then you don't understand the fine tuning argument fully. The person that you sited knows that life evolved. He is just not sure of the beginning of the universe. Also the fine tuning argument is largely an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know why certain constants have the values that they do is not evidence of a creator. It amounts to "I don't know, therefor God".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davian
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then you don't understand the fine tuning argument fully. The person that you sited knows that life evolved. He is just not sure of the beginning of the universe. Also the fine tuning argument is largely an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know why certain constants have the values that they do is not evidence of a creator. It amounts to "I don't know, therefor God".
I believe I have a pretty good handle on the fine tuning argument and considering that you believe that because someone (Paul Davies) "knows" that life evolved has something to do with the fine tuning argument I see a definite problem in your understanding of it. Claiming it is "largely" an argument from ignorance is another sure sign that your assessment of the argument might be in need of more information. :)

Edited to add: Evolution is not specifically a fine tuning subject but of course it couldn't happen if not for the fine tuning...so I'll grant that.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I believe I have a pretty good handle on the fine tuning argument and considering that you believe that because someone (Paul Davies) "knows" that life evolved has something to do with the fine tuning argument I see a definite problem in your understanding of it. Claiming it is "largely" an argument from ignorance is another sure sign that your assessment of the argument might be in need of more information. :)

Edited to add: Evolution is not specifically a fine tuning subject but of course it couldn't happen if not for the fine tuning...so I'll grant that.

Now, now. Just because you don't like the fact that Davies knows that life evolved is no excuse to use scare quotes. And as I said this only shows that you do not understand the various aspects of the fine tuning argument itself since they claim as part of it that life would not have evolved as it did. In fact many fine tuning arguments point out that life as we know it would not be possible if various constants had different values. Creationists quite often misinterpret that as them saying that life would be impossible. Of course creationists also mistinterpret arguments that disprove their versions of God as attacks on God.

You seem to think that the fine tuning argument is not an argument from ignorance. How do you defend that belief?

And in response to your edit, you sadly have underscored your ignorance of this topic.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now, now. Just because you don't like the fact that Davies knows that life evolved is no excuse to use scare quotes.
Scare quotes? lol

And as I said this only shows that you do not understand the various aspects of the fine tuning argument itself since they claim as part of it that life would not have evolved as it did. In fact many fine tuning arguments point out that life as we know it would not be possible if various constants had different values. Creationists quite often misinterpret that as them saying that life would be impossible. Of course creationists also mistinterpret arguments that disprove their versions of God as attacks on God.
Yes, that is why I added my edit. Life as we know it could not exist at all if the parameters were not what they are.

I don't know what you mean by misinterpret arguments that disprove "their versions of God"?

You seem to think that the fine tuning argument is not an argument from ignorance. How do you defend that belief?
It is from what we know that the fine tuning argument stems.

And in response to your edit, you sadly have underscored your ignorance of this topic.
Explain please?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why is our universe the way it is and could it have been different?
I'm going to answer this from what I think would be a theistic evolutionist's POV, because I think they have a good answer for this.

The universe certainly could have been different ... but remember ... we are made in the image & likeness of God.

Who knows what we would look like if the universe was otherwise.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Scare quotes? lol

Yes, that is why I added my edit. Life as we know it could not exist at all if the parameters were not what they are.

So what? There still could have been life in many of those case and we don't know if the parameters are purposefully set or if they are simply a result of natural laws that we do not fully understand yet. There have been examples in the past of fine tuned parameters that turned out to be just the product of natural law.
I don't know what you mean by misinterpret arguments that disprove "their versions of God"?

You have to be kidding me. Many creationists accuse scientists of trying to disprove God. They think that if the entire Bible is not correct then it is all wrong. They tend to have an all or nothing mentality. The sad part about that is if one can't be honest about the flaws in the Bible then one is left with nothing or at least a small bit of insanity.

It is from what we know that the fine tuning argument stems.

Wrong, it is from what we don't know that the fine tuning argument stems. As I pointed out earlier you don't seem to understand the fine tuning argument. Again, the fine tuning argument is not an anti-evolution argument. It pretty much assumes that evolution is the fact that it has been shown to be.
Explain please?
You don't seem to even understand this argument. Let me hear your version of it, perhaps I can help then.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So what? There still could have been life in many of those case and we don't know if the parameters are purposefully set or if they are simply a result of natural laws that we do not fully understand yet. There have been examples in the past of fine tuned parameters that turned out to be just the product of natural law.
What cases are you referring to?

Result of natural laws? Rather begging the question don't you think? And what examples of the past of fine tuning are you referring to that have turned out to be just the product of natural law? And how? And what of the natural law that explains it?


You have to be kidding me. Many creationists accuse scientists of trying to disprove God. They think that if the entire Bible is not correct then it is all wrong. They tend to have an all or nothing mentality. The sad part about that is if one can't be honest about the flaws in the Bible then one is left with nothing or at least a small bit of insanity.
Well that is another topic for another time. ;)



Wrong, it is from what we don't know that the fine tuning argument stems. As I pointed out earlier you don't seem to understand the fine tuning argument. Again, the fine tuning argument is not an anti-evolution argument. It pretty much assumes that evolution is the fact that it has been shown to be.
Please provide any confirmation that I believe that the fine tuning argument is an anti-evolution argument? Straw man perhaps?

You don't seem to even understand this argument. Let me hear your version of it, perhaps I can help then.
You seem to think you are making my case for me. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm going to answer this from what I think would be a theistic evolutionist's POV, because I think they have a good answer for this.

The universe certainly could have been different ... but remember ... we are made in the image & likeness of God.

Who knows what we would look like if the universe was otherwise.
Well indeed, one would need to quantify life as we know it. The fine tuning argument is not saying that there could never be a universe with life unlike ours. The point is that for life as we know it, the measurements must be set to a very narrow margin to accomplish not only life but the universe and the elements that make that life possible.

Edited to add: There is reason though to question just what kind of life would be possible though even unlike ours. There are parameters that would eliminate any sort of life including our own.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well indeed, one would need to quantify life as we know it. The fine tuning argument is not saying that there could never be a universe with life unlike ours. The point is that for life as we know it, the measurements must be set to a very narrow margin to accomplish not only life but the universe and the elements that make that life possible.
Yes, indeed!
Oncedeceived said:
Edited to add: There is reason though to question just what kind of life would be possible though even unlike ours. There are parameters that would eliminate any sort of life including our own.
Yes, you're right.

I forgot that even atoms couldn't exist otherwise.

(I answered your OP too soon ... without thinking it through! :eek:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What cases are you referring to?

Result of natural laws? Rather begging the question don't you think? And what examples of the past of fine tuning are you referring to that have turned out to be just the product of natural law? And how? And what of the natural law that explains it?

Calm down. There is no need to get all excited. When you don't understand something the proper thing to do is to ask questions politely. And no, it is not begging the question. Seriously creationists should never try to use laws of logic that they do not seem to understand. This one is for free: Kepler's Law used to seem to have a very fine tuned relationship involving the area that a planet's radius to the Sun swept out, even though those radii are always changing due to the elliptical nature of orbits. For the same time periods that area was always the same, though the planet got noticeably closer or further from the Sun. It was not until Newton came along and explained it with his Law of Gravity and the tool of calculus. Until then it was a "finely tuned constant".

Well that is another topic for another time. ;)

No need to get rude just because you were ignorant of a flaw that you probably have.

Please provide any confirmation that I believe that the fine tuning argument is an anti-evolution argument? Straw man perhaps?

I have seen foolish creationists try to use it as such. Since you seem not to understand it that seemed to be the case, especially when you posted it in this section of the forum. So you accept the theory of evolution, fine, let's deal with the argument that you posted.

You seem to think you are making my case for me. ;)

Wrong. You are making my case for me. I see that you cannot even state it in this argument in your own words. Again, when it is obvious that you are wrong, as you are here, that is no time to get rude and try to use the smiley's to goad someone.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
This is a topic that another member, Athee, and I have determined would be a good one to explore in our opposing views.

Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author has said of fine tuning:
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

There is agreement between the majority of physicists, cosmologists and astrobiologists in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why? Why is our universe the way it is and could it have been different? What best explains the universe and its very narrow parameters that allow for intelligent life to exist?

These are the questions and more that we will be addressing in this thread.

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

Get ready, get set, and go......
I´m amazed how each puddle is fine tuned to hold the exact amount of water it holds.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I´m amazed how each puddle is fine tuned to hold the exact amount of water it holds.
Ya ... just enough to make us in God's image & likeness.

That puddle analogy doesn't hold water.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,289
✟272,305.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This is a topic that another member, Athee, and I have determined would be a good one to explore in our opposing views.

Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author has said of fine tuning:

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

I wonder, did you read all the way through Davies' article about fine tuning that you took this from, rather than just the first paragraph? You know, the one entitled: "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it"

Where he concludes that (bolding mine):

"Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealisation with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness.

Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."

When the source you are using to support your argument doesn't agree with your conclusions, and indeed actively argues the counter factual, your original hypothesis might be in a spot of trouble.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Calm down. There is no need to get all excited. When you don't understand something the proper thing to do is to ask questions politely. And no, it is not begging the question. Seriously creationists should never try to use laws of logic that they do not seem to understand. This one is for free: Kepler's Law used to seem to have a very fine tuned relationship involving the area that a planet's radius to the Sun swept out, even though those radii are always changing due to the elliptical nature of orbits. For the same time periods that area was always the same, though the planet got noticeably closer or further from the Sun. It was not until Newton came along and explained it with his Law of Gravity and the tool of calculus. Until then it was a "finely tuned constant".
Believe me I am calm, what made you think I wasn't?

I don't know how it was considered a finely tuned constant when at the time Kepler's predecessors thought the heavens were even made of a different material called the "quinta essentia". In fact, it was due to Kepler's belief that God made the universe orderly and accessible to man that allowed him to view the universe differently than those who had come before. The earliest concept of "finely tuned" elements was by a chemist by the name of Henderson who wrote a book titled " The Fitness of the Environment".



No need to get rude just because you were ignorant of a flaw that you probably have.
How did you conclude I was being rude? I have many flaws but I am not sure what you might be referring to.



I have seen foolish creationists try to use it as such. Since you seem not to understand it that seemed to be the case, especially when you posted it in this section of the forum. So you accept the theory of evolution, fine, let's deal with the argument that you posted.
I haven't given you enough information to determine what I know.



Wrong. You are making my case for me. I see that you cannot even state it in this argument in your own words. Again, when it is obvious that you are wrong, as you are here, that is no time to get rude and try to use the smiley's to goad someone.
I was just being friendly. Maybe its the tone in your head rather than my intent?
 
Upvote 0