The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Names and posts of anyone who says it is impossible that the Invisible Pink Unicorn fine tuned the universe to that My Little Pony would be made, please.

No one is saying that it is impossible there's some sort of fine tuner responsible. It is just that there's no reason to think there is.

Why is there no reason to think there is? What is your reasoning to believe there is no Intelligent Being responsible?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So basically it is somewhere between wildly unlikely and a dead certainty that the universal constants would be compatible with life as we know it. And no matter what range along that continuum, it is certainly evidence for gods. And definitely not an argument from ignorance in any way.

Uh huh. Sure it is.

When you come to the same conclusion no matter what the facts might be, is it really the facts leading to a that conclusion?

Fine tuning is what it is and if it were not we would not be here discussing it. It wouldn't matter whether God fine tuned the universe with fundamental constants that could not be different and would guarantee our existence or whether they could have been different but He chose the ones out of a multitude of possible ones and tweaked them to specifically allow our existence. The outcome...US was His intent. If it could be shown that just any fundamental constants could give rise to life such as us then there would be no fine tuning involved in our arrival. That is not an argument from ignorance but one of known data...the fundamental constants being set to allow us.

 

[KCfromNC]

As with any explanation it is what best explains the data. I believe that theism best explains the data.

Good on you. Keep on believing. Nothing can stop you!

It makes no sense for a lot of fine tuners

Why? We see teams of designers here in the real world all the time. Why can't they exist in magical play-time land as well?

you could not be the fine tuner you have not always existed

I fine tuned things back through time. Evidence? The fact that things are fine tuned, obviously.

there is no evidence for a chain of fine tuners all causing each other

Sure there is - the fact that fine tuning exists.

and it is not consistent with theism.

At last we come to the real reason for all of this : "because I really wish it were true because it fits with my religious preconceptions"

 

[Oncedeceived]

That would be your job - because you are the one who concludes from (1) on (2).
I am just pointing out that those scientific source say (1).

Why do the scientific sources say (1)? That is an important question. Many have said that God could be the explanation but one in which they don't allow because it isn't scientific. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense, or that it doesn't explain it best but that it isn't something scientific.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why is there no reason to think there is?

Well, either it doesn't exist or the people who know the reasons are doing a really bad job of presenting them.

What is your reasoning to believe there is no Intelligent Being responsible?

Never said I did.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is not an argument from ignorance but one of known data...the fundamental constants being set to allow us.

Evidence for this claim? Sure the constants are compatible with us being here (yay evolution!) but what reason should we think that the constants were set specifically to lead to us?

 

[[serious]]

If an Intelligent Being wished to create a universe specifically for created intelligent beings making certain the universe would give rise to these intelligent beings would be evident by the necessary elements for their existence be present in that universe. If the universe has those properties that allow for those life forms to exist whether they could or could not be different would not affect the outcome. If God provided the needed calculations for the universe to permit complex life and set them so that they could not be different so as to quarantee their arrival it would be 100% certainty that they would, it would still be fine tuned to allow for complex life to exist. The same is true if He took all the possible combinations and tweaked them just right with all the possibilities to allow for complex life to exist...fine tuned still shown. The only way to eliminate the fine tuning of the universe is show that complex life such as ours could exist in another universe in a different set of fundamental constants. That would show that complex life could arise with different fundamental constants and still give rise to intelligent beings.

All "fine tuning" presented thus far only gets us to "fine tuned for rocks" at best. Given that there are lots of rocks all over the universe, that seems like a potential theory. If you are saying that the simple fact we ended up existing makes it fine tuned just for us, well, bacteria exist and have had a far better run.

But again, if the values are set, that implies they could have been different. If they couldn't be different, they aren't set, they just are.

For example, pi comes up in all manner of equations, could pi be different? Does pi need to be set to be just as it is? I don't see how the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle could be different. If a circle's circumference was anything but pi times the diameter, it wouldn't be a circle.

 

[quatona]

Why do the scientific sources say (1)?

Because that´s what´s observable.

Many have said that God could be the explanation but one in which they don't allow because it isn't scientific.

This isn´t about allowing or not allowing - it´s about clarifying what those scientific sources you are quoting mean when saying "fine-tuned".
Plus, "Goddidit" has never been and still is no explanation. It is assertion.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense,

No, it just means you need to explain how you get from (1) to (2) - instead of using them as though they were interchangeable.

or that it doesn't explain it best

It doesn´t explain anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I totally understand your point, I just disagree with it. If a deck (universe) has only a single card (30 constants), it would still need to be fine tuned to allow for complex life. It would just mean that the universe was specifically fine tuned to permit complex life and could do nothing but permit complex life. It would even make a better argument for God as it would show that not only did God create the universe it was specifically created for us to arise and no other group of constants were used because of that purpose. That is why the multiverse is being promoted.

If it wasn't a semantic misstep then it borders on intellectual dishonesty which is why I assumed the former. It has repeatedly been pointed out that we are only talking about life as we know it and so to say that complex life (instead of "our form of complex life") requires the constants we observe is speculative at best.

How would it be intellectual dishonesty? I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other. In fact, not only complex life of any kind but life at all seems to be non-existent in most other models. Please then explain how it is intellectually dishonest when one has support to their claims?

I think I see your pint with regard to my analogy. You are saying that even if there is only one card in the deck that your God made that card. In your worldview that makes sense although it is of course not demonstrable in any way.
I think in all honesty I am getting pretty close to the end of my interstate in this paricular topic. It has been a great discussion and I have very much enjoyed being exposed to the best Christian apologetics has to offer on the subject even if I remain unconvinced

It is demonstrated by the universe being fine tuned to the exact requirements of intelligent beings arising in this universe. That is the demonstration of fine tuning.

I am glad that you enjoy the discussion, however, you seemed not to interested in joining in especially when you were the reason this thread was opened. Oh well. I didn't hold out any real hope that you would be convinced, it is hard to be convinced of something that you don't agree exists and when your mind set is so against what is being promoted. I can only hope that knowing that God exists and knowing how important these questions are to all intelligent life on this planet, that as limited as we human beings are in regard to explaining how we see evidence in our own lives and how that is confirmed in the universe that I make as clear and honest argument from that position.

It still seems to me like an argument from ignorance although I know you disagree. Essentially we don't know how our universe came to be or how it is or if there is any reason it has the features it does. We don't know of the constants could be different or not. There is no answer to the life as we know it objection or to the multiverse or mega verse possibilities. There is no demonstrable link between the features of our universe and any specific deity. And into this sea of unknown elements you are asserting that your God did it. You are of course welcome to speculate to this effect but I have not seen any evidence that this is the case and some to the contrary.

This is what we do know:
1. The universe has the exact parameters that allow for intelligent life.
2. There is only empirical evidence for our universe.
Due to scientific models and calculations we have good reasons to think:
There is no life possible on most of the planets in our solar system and now coming from a view that life would be plentiful in the universe; scientists now believe that life at all is probably rare and and complex life probably doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe.

Even if there are other universes, which can not be demonstrated, life would be extremely rare and complex life even rarer if it existed at all.

So considering what we know, your argument seems to be based on ignorance and speculation. In fact, the evidence is in favor of my claim and yours is based on speculation. You speculate that this is not the only universe, this is not the only complex life possible, you speculate that the constants might or might not be different when we know in this universe they are constant and set exactly where they need to be for us to exist. You have no reason for there to be a universe at all. Why there is life at all. You have no reason why the universe is explained by mathematics for instance, or why we thinking mathematically in abstract concepts. That is why I feel the fine tuning and in fact existence is best explained by theism and no one in this entire thread has given any concrete evidence against such a claim or any evidence that would show the claims are invalid.

Thanks again

Anytime.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good on you. Keep on believing. Nothing can stop you!



Why? We see teams of designers here in the real world all the time. Why can't they exist in magical play-time land as well?



I fine tuned things back through time. Evidence? The fact that things are fine tuned, obviously.



Sure there is - the fact that fine tuning exists.


At last we come to the real reason for all of this : "because I really wish it were true because it fits with my religious preconceptions"

And nothing can stop you from your own a priori worldview. You are equating man with God which is not the case. You have no actual good argument for fine tuning and so you make ignorant comments.
I don't wish something to be true. I could have lived just fine when I wasn't aware of God. I would have lived much the way I had always lived. God changed it all when He revealed Himself and the universe is confirmation of His existence as well.

 

[Athée]

How would it be intellectual dishonesty? I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other. In fact, not only complex life of any kind but life at all seems to be non-existent in most other models. Please then explain how it is intellectually dishonest when one has support to their claims?

It is demonstrated by the universe being fine tuned to the exact requirements of intelligent beings arising in this universe. That is the demonstration of fine tuning.

I am glad that you enjoy the discussion, however, you seemed not to interested in joining in especially when you were the reason this thread was opened. Oh well. I didn't hold out any real hope that you would be convinced, it is hard to be convinced of something that you don't agree exists and when your mind set is so against what is being promoted. I can only hope that knowing that God exists and knowing how important these questions are to all intelligent life on this planet, that as limited as we human beings are in regard to explaining how we see evidence in our own lives and how that is confirmed in the universe that I make as clear and honest argument from that position.

This is what we do know:
1. The universe has the exact parameters that allow for intelligent life.
2. There is only empirical evidence for our universe.
Due to scientific models and calculations we have good reasons to think:
There is no life possible on most of the planets in our solar system and now coming from a view that life would be plentiful in the universe; scientists now believe that life at all is probably rare and and complex life probably doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe.

Even if there are other universes, which can not be demonstrated, life would be extremely rare and complex life even rarer if it existed at all.

So considering what we know, your argument seems to be based on ignorance and speculation. In fact, the evidence is in favor of my claim and yours is based on speculation. You speculate that this is not the only universe, this is not the only complex life possible, you speculate that the constants might or might not be different when we know in this universe they are constant and set exactly where they need to be for us to exist. You have no reason for there to be a universe at all. Why there is life at all. You have no reason why the universe is explained by mathematics for instance, or why we thinking mathematically in abstract concepts. That is why I feel the fine tuning and in fact existence is best explained by theism and no one in this entire thread has given any concrete evidence against such a claim or any evidence that would show the claims are invalid.



Anytime.

I did say I would give you the last word so I will only respond to the first point since you asked. I don't actually think you are being intellectually dishonest, I think it is just loose use of language. What I was pointing out is evident in your response as well when you said "I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other." I think what you mean is that you have provided sources showing that carbon based life in our universe is possibly or probably extremely rare if not one of a kind. But again this only addresses life as we know it so you can't say, as you did above, that we have evidence that no form of comex life that is not life as we know it could arise under different constants.
I'm sorry you felt I didn't contribute very much As I said it is not my area of expertise so while I did post several messages I was generally happy to read what others were saying and post my own thought's only when they were different from what was being said. I figured you had enough people to respond to without me repeating the exact same arguments they were making

Feel free to send a message in our conversation thread about which topic would be most interesting to you going forward.

Peace

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because that´s what´s observable.

What is observable is that there is one universe and it has the life permitting fundamental constants that are precisely what they are required to have to allow intelligent life.

This isn´t about allowing or not allowing - it´s about clarifying what those scientific sources you are quoting mean when saying "fine-tuned".
Plus, "Goddidit" has never been and still is no explanation. It is assertion.

They mean it is fine tuned for intelligent life to exist. That is what I've posted. God is an explanation that has been given for thousands and thousands of years. It is an explanation, it might not be one you accept but it is an explanation and one in which billions of people think best explains the universe.

No, it just means you need to explain how you get from (1) to (2) - instead of using them as though they were interchangeable.

It doesn´t explain anything.

You are welcome to have that opinion.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually that is not true. Bernard Carr actually said: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

I didn't say it didn't answer the problem posed by the Fine-Tuning argument, I said that isn't the reason why it is being promoted. Schrodinger came up with the multi-worlds idea before Dicke came up with his Fine-Tuning argument too, so it wasn't written as a response to the argument either.

 

[quatona]

What is observable is that there is one universe and it has the life permitting fundamental constants that are precisely what they are required to have to allow intelligent life.

Thgat´s (1).

God is an explanation that has been given for thousands and thousands of years.

It´s an assertion, not an explanation. And, yes, that´s what humans have been doing for ages: Whenever something deems them insignificant and they had no explanation, they conveniently postulated some obscure conscious entities as the cause. Until an actual explanation was eventually found (and even then, they often kept believing in this entity).
Interestingly, the first thing you, Lady Oncedeceived, do when someone gives another hypothesis, is asking: "How?". Just with your own hypothesis, the fact that you can´t answer "how?" (that which would render the assertion an explanation) isn´t a problem for you.

It is an explanation, it might not be one you accept but it is an explanation

No, it´s not. An explanation answers the question "how?".

and one in which billions of people think best explains the universe.

Bandwaggon appeals aren´t that impressive.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are equating man with God which is not the case.

Of course. We can actually see man designing things. Not so for gods.

You have no actual good argument for fine tuning and so you make ignorant comments.

Why would I need an argument for it in the first place?

I don't wish something to be true. I could have lived just fine when I wasn't aware of God. I would have lived much the way I had always lived. God changed it all when He revealed Himself and the universe is confirmation of His existence as well.

Uh huh, sure it is.

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't say it didn't answer the problem posed by the Fine-Tuning argument, I said that isn't the reason why it is being promoted. Schrodinger came up with the multi-worlds idea before Dicke came up with his Fine-Tuning argument too, so it wasn't written as a response to the argument either.

Hey, if I can time travel back billions of years to fine tune the universe (and no one has presented evidence I can't) a talented physicist could have easily time traveled to the future to see what sorts of argument religious apologists would be making. Makes perfect sense.

Or in other words, this thread would have been over months ago if reality was involved. No point in starting now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't say it didn't answer the problem posed by the Fine-Tuning argument, I said that isn't the reason why it is being promoted. Schrodinger came up with the multi-worlds idea before Dicke came up with his Fine-Tuning argument too, so it wasn't written as a response to the argument either.

It was actually Hugh Everett that originated the theory, which was prior to Dicke yes but Dicke was not the originator of the premise of fine tuning. Early in the 1900, 1914 I believe maybe sooner a chemist named Henderson was working on the fine tuning. Yet, it wasn't until recently that the multiverse was considered to be a valid explanation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All "fine tuning" presented thus far only gets us to "fine tuned for rocks" at best. Given that there are lots of rocks all over the universe, that seems like a potential theory. If you are saying that the simple fact we ended up existing makes it fine tuned just for us, well, bacteria exist and have had a far better run.

Nonsense.

But again, if the values are set, that implies they could have been different. If they couldn't be different, they aren't set, they just are.

How would you know if they couldn't be different that they aren't set?

For example, pi comes up in all manner of equations, could pi be different? Does pi need to be set to be just as it is? I don't see how the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle could be different. If a circle's circumference was anything but pi times the diameter, it wouldn't be a circle.

Pi comes up in equations and nature. Why would it come up in equations and nature if it is random?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course. We can actually see man designing things. Not so for gods.



Why would I need an argument for it in the first place?



Uh huh, sure it is.

How would you see design of God if you don't think the appearance of design is anything but an illusion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey, if I can time travel back billions of years to fine tune the universe (and no one has presented evidence I can't) a talented physicist could have easily time traveled to the future to see what sorts of argument religious apologists would be making. Makes perfect sense.

Or in other words, this thread would have been over months ago if reality was involved. No point in starting now.

I have been the only one providing support for my claims. You have supplied nothing but assertion, speculation and anti-religious rhetoric.