A Fine Tuned Universe is Evidence for God

[Jazer]

Darwin really raised the standard with the Theory of Evolution. No matter how you work out the exact details the theory basicly says that you do not need a designer to have a design. It can design itself using evolution. Creationists are not willing to give up a Creator, after all a watch has to have a watchmaker and the eye is far to delicate to have made itself. Yet some people are willing to accept the Theory of Evolution as the Creator of Creation.

The problem is this takes you to the next step. Evolution is a part of nature and it is a part of the creation. According to the Laws of Science your First Cause CAN NOT be a part of the Universe. Next you have to deal with an extreamly fine tuned universe. The best explaination is that God or an Intelligent Designer Created the Universe. The First Cause can not be a part of nature. The Creator has to be outside of time and space. Evolution did not create the cosmos and evolution did not fine tune the Universe. To date Science has no First Cause other then God or an Intelligent Designer.

If you want to eliminate God, then you will need another Darwin to come along with a explaination on how the universe fine tunes itself. The problem is all the current theorys require things to be random. A fine tuned universe is just the opposite of random. It requires a standard. A very delicate balanced standard.

 

[impblack]

(Warning, Boring intro for my post)
I like your text. Even though you don't believe in evolution you can see beyond that and come up with an argument that doesn't need evolution to be wrong for God to exist.
I was a catholic until i was 13 years old, then i stopped being a catholic, or in any way religious, but i still believed in god (with arguments similar to those you use in your post), then i became agnostic and then atheist. Strikly speaking, i accept the fact that whe can't prove 100% there isn't a God, and that whe can't understand him, if there is one, good chances we don't. On those grounds i'm still an agnostic, but you can't prove any theory 100%, there's always a chance they're wrong. So i'm actually a skeptic. But i also accept that different theories have different proof, and so, different "probability" of being wrong. So, same way as i believe relativity and evolution are right, i believe that there is no God. Therefor Atheist. Anyway, what i wanted to say is, only when i was 17/18 i knew that some religious people didn't agree with evolution. I'm from a country where there's really not much people who are creationists. I never needed to argue in favor of evolution for a long time, and most people in my country don't interpret the bible literaly (until i met the ones who do). So you're post actually reminds me of my first religious discussions where evolution wasn't the center of discussion, and i believe that there should be more of those discussions (more philosophical).
(End of boring intro)

Evolution explains how we, humans, and all species became what we are. Doesn't really explain why there's life, with earth exists, or why the universe exists. And you're right, for a long time physicists have admited that spacetime was created in the big bang and that whatever created it was outside of spacetime and even very probably incomprehensible for human logic (because if you accept we're not perfect and that there are things we cant comprehend, and i know you do, you can also accept that there may be some kind of "order" that we can't understand). And because of that many people call whatever existed before the big bang and/or created the big bang, God. Well, if you do that then i believe in your god, because i believe in the big bang, and i believe there at least a possibility that it was created by something (i say this because you never know, there may be a theory that contradicts that possibility, advanced physics can be very counterintuitive some times, that's why i love it). But with this argument alone, you can't say that with that your God is the christian God. It could be, it could be a greek god, it could be allah, it could be the multiverse, a white whole, etc. There are many Gods and, more importantly, many scientific theories that fit in that description. So science does have a First Cause (it might not have a first cause to that first cause but we're not discussing that, you also don't have a first cause for God so by now me telling that the multiverse is eternal or god is eternal has the same validity).
But then you say that the order in the universe suggests a creator. Well, if there are other universes for instance, and depending on what kind of parallel universes they are, they could even have very diferent laws of physics. So the fact that this one has order, if that theory is true, is just a statistical necessity. If there are infinit, or a very great number of universes without any order we have to accept that it is then very probable (or even necessary) that there are many others with order. You don't need an intelligent designer here. Random creation of many many universes with random laws of physics would explain this universe's order. By now (i mean, in my post) we have only two theories and (still talking ONLY in my post) no proof for any of them. Then there's a 50% chance you're wrong. You're theory is possible but not necessarily right. So, you're argument is not by itself right. There are many other hypothetical theories like this one, some of them have proof, some of them don't, but all of them possible.
Now lets say there's order in the universe because we see order. We only know this universe, there could be one with more order (even if i can't be other universes, there's the possibility that this universe could've been created different) , more beautiful, etc. But because we only know this one, and we only can think inside this one, to us this is perfect order. We only see order because we evolve to see order, and no one can say that that's not usefull for a specie. As far as we can tell there's at least a little bit of order (laws of physics) but beyond that, we cannot compare this universe to anything so we can't judge its caracteristics.

Conclusion (if you don't feel like readind all of this, you can just read the conclusion)
So, we can't really say how fine tuned it is (only that it isn't completly random, unless reality is an ilusion), and the "God created the universe" theory is only one of milions of theories (some of them we can think about, some of them we can't, some of them we probably can't even imagine it), many of those theories with good/better proof then that one. And even if it is true the God theory, what God? What religion is right? Is any religion even right? It might be some kind of personal God we never thought of, or even something that's not even like anything similar to a God that created the Big Bang. It's possible but very unlikely. Or at least not necessarily true, your argument.

 

[Freodin]

Darwin really raised the standard with the Theory of Evolution. No matter how you work out the exact details the theory basicly says that you do not need a designer to have a design. It can design itself using evolution. Creationists are not willing to give up a Creator, after all a watch has to have a watchmaker and the eye is far to delicate to have made itself. Yet some people are willing to accept the Theory of Evolution as the Creator of Creation.

The problem is this takes you to the next step. Evolution is a part of nature and it is a part of the creation. According to the Laws of Science your First Cause CAN NOT be a part of the Universe. Next you have to deal with an extreamly fine tuned universe. The best explaination is that God or an Intelligent Designer Created the Universe. The First Cause can not be a part of nature. The Creator has to be outside of time and space. Evolution did not create the cosmos and evolution did not fine tune the Universe. To date Science has no First Cause other then God or an Intelligent Designer.

If you want to eliminate God, then you will need another Darwin to come along with a explaination on how the universe fine tunes itself. The problem is all the current theorys require things to be random. A fine tuned universe is just the opposite of random. It requires a standard. A very delicate balanced standard.

Two problems that I'd like to point out here.

The first is a problem with your presentation. You make the distinction between "random" and "balanced". This is an unnecessary - even wrong - distinction. Most random processes are "balanced".

The second problem is a basic flaw in the fine-tuning argument: to work, it needs to assume the existence of "natural laws" - the "standard" you mentioned - for the universe to be fined-tuned to. But without a universe in existence, such a standard would not exist.
The universe is simply "fine-tuned" (if you have to use this term) by its own existence to its own existence.

 

[Jazer]

we can't really say how fine tuned it is

The point is that a fine tuned universe still need a fine tuner. Then we get into a question with parellel universe if you can have a universe that is not fine tuned. That is a big question as far as I am concerned. Evolutions would say if you started all over again here on earth it would all turn out different then it did. Then you have other evolutionists that say anywhere you go in the universe it is all going to turn out the same because the laws are the same and because the elements are the same. Yet suns are not the same size, planets are not the same distance from the sun. Planets have different moons and the planet themselves are a different size. It just seems impossible that you would find a planet with the exact same conditions as the earth. At least not from a random process. Yet there is evidence that life would be fairly consistant anywhere in the universe.

Still fine tuned or not, you still need a first cause outside of the universe. I am not sure if the fine tuner needs to be outside of the system or if perhaps it can be a part of it.

 

[Jazer]

The universe is simply "fine-tuned" (if you have to use this term) by its own existence to its own existence.

Ok, so your saying that the fine tuning is internal and like evolution a part of the system. Still you need a first cause outside of the universe. Science is not able to produce a first cause, even though they turn to Quantum Physics in an effort to find what created the universe we live in.

Seems like atheists tie their hands because their first cause can not have any intelligence. We have intelligence to try and figure this out. But the first cause can not have intelligence. So they want a non intelligent first cause that somehow creates intelligence. They also want fine tuning to be a random process that is almost a contradiction in itself.

Atheism can only go so far before it all comes crashing down like a deck of cards.

 

[impblack]

Seems like atheists tie their hands because their first cause can not have any intelligence. We have intelligence to try and figure this out. But the first cause can not have intelligence. So they want a non intelligent first cause that somehow creates intelligence. They also want fine tuning to be a random process that is almost a contradiction in itself.

The problem is in defining inteligence different from ours. If we're only molecules, and our inteligence is chemistry, are we really more inteligent than a rock, or a star, or the universe? And if there's something that's outside this universe, outside our laws of physics and logic, can we really think about it? It all seems outside our understanding. We may never understand or even know what created everything. We, inside this universe and logic, might even think that only design can create order. That might not be true outside this universe, every logical argument isn't necessarily true outside this universe. 2+2 might be 3, you might think but not exist, etc. We might even explain the origin of the universe, but what will explain that? At some point we will stop understanding.
So, i really have to say i don't know what created this universe. Or the multiverse. But we can't claim it was a god, a personal god, or you're God (because you didn't prove a christian god). The order on the universe might only be an ilusion of man. Or, outside this universe, chaos is order and order is chaos. Outside this universe chaos may create order. You don't know.
And finally, order is a human concept. What's exacly order for the universe in general? What is order for an inteligence that's not human?

I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying you're not necessarily or even probably right

 

[impblack]

Yet suns are not the same size, planets are not the same distance from the sun. Planets have different moons and the planet themselves are a different size. It just seems impossible that you would find a planet with the exact same conditions as the earth. At least not from a random process. Yet there is evidence that life would be fairly consistant anywhere in the universe.

I agree. You can say that, having the exact same origin, our universe would always develop exactly the same way. It may or may not be true. But just because we have same laws and elements? That would just mean we would have similar universes, not necessarily equal.
Having a planet just like earth is probability. If we had "almost infinit" matter in the universe and therefor "almost infinit" planets, then we could say there could be at leat one planet exactly like earth, no?
Yes, if there isn't a God, i think we can be sure that there's life out there!

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Fine-tuning is not evidence for any designer. There are certain competing theories in cosmology where a universe like ours is the most 'natural state'; i.e. any divergences from our current path in the development of the universe tend back to our current path.

Also, note that this is the ultimate in cherry-picking. If the universe weren't so that life would eventually develop, there would be nobody to notice that it would never have life. Essentially, your entire OP is based on a logical fallacy.

 

[impblack]

Also, note that this is the ultimate in cherry-picking. If the universe weren't so that life would eventually develop, there would be nobody to notice that it would never have life. Essentially, your entire OP is based on a logical fallacy.

That's very true. But what he's saying is that any universe without order would be impossible without. So without God we wouldn't be here. That doesn't contradict your sentence.

 

[Jazer]

say there could be at leat one planet exactly like earth, no?

Not if evolution is random. I can not do the math, but I would say it is impossible. Just look at our earth and how much change it has gone through in the last 4.5 billion years. So even if you have everything else identical, you still have to hit an exact point in time. Just like twins are not 100 percent identical. There is variation that takes place during development.

The sun would have to be the same size as our sun and the same age. The earth would have to be the same size and the same distance from the sun. The moon would have to be the same size and the same distance from the earth. The moon is following an exact path as it moves away from the earth that could not be duplicated in a random situation.

 

[Freodin]

Ok, so your saying that the fine tuning is internal and like evolution a part of the system. Still you need a first cause outside of the universe. Science is not able to produce a first cause, even though they turn to Quantum Physics in an effort to find what created the universe we live in.

I think you missed my point. No need to worry about that... it is rather subtle.

It is a problem of reference systems, standards and a way to not imagine any of these.
In the post before mine, you mentioned a universe that is not fine tuned. Basically, this is not possible. Any potential universe is "fine tuned" (that is: internally consistent) to its own existence... or else it would not exist.
But that is not the fine tuning that you mean, is it? Creationists use this as a fine tuning to us. The universe has to be this way, and exactly this way, or we would not exist.

But such an argument is irrelevant for the existence of a "outside cause" of the universe. Our existence is completely dependent on the inside mechanisms of the universe. To conclude an outside source for that based on the necessity of these mechanisms would mean the existence of an outside "fine tuning".

Plainly said: it would mean that "the creator" would have to follow certain rules - "outside rules" - to make our "inside" universe run... and these rules would have to be identical. That would invalidate this "creator" as the source and first cause of these rules.

Seems like atheists tie their hands because their first cause can not have any intelligence. We have intelligence to try and figure this out. But the first cause can not have intelligence. So they want a non intelligent first cause that somehow creates intelligence.

The "first cause" does not need to be intelligent. There are enough processes known that produce results without intelligence, and there is no need to assume that intelligence itself is not the result of such a process.
Rather, our "intelligence" is very firmly based on our "natural" makeup. An intelligent creator could thus be assumed to be equally based on his "natural" makeup... and thus he would not be the "first cause".

They also want fine tuning to be a random process that is almost a contradiction in itself.

Random processes can result in some very structured results. There are numbers of interesting mathematical examples. Your misunderstanding seems to derive from a misapplied equating of "random" to "unspecified".

Consider a perfect die. Throws will result in numbers from 1 to 6. A single throw is completly random. A series of throws will result in an even distribution of numbers. The more throws, the better equalized the numbers will be. And never ever will such a throw result in a "G" or "blue".

 

[freezerman2000]

how can something that is fine tuned be so full of chaos?
Black holes, Super Novas, galaxies colliding, and other material altering occurrences.
To be fined tuned is to be running smoothly, which the Universe is definatly not doing!

 

[AV1611VET]

how can something that is fine tuned be so full of chaos?
Black holes, Super Novas, galaxies colliding, and other material altering occurrences.
To be fined tuned is to be running smoothly, which the Universe is definatly not doing!

I wonder if something happened that caused God to put a curse on His creation; a curse in the form of a withdrawal of a type of sustaining energy that is now causing the universe to run on "batteries".

 

[Freodin]

I wonder if something happened that caused God to put a curse on His creation; a curse in the form of a withdrawal of a type of sustaining energy that is now causing the universe to run on "batteries".

But that would mean that the universe that we see - and use for our arguments - is NOT fine tuned. The universe that was sustained by his energy was.

(Which by the way gives leave to the question: how is a universe that needs constant 'sustaining' to work fine tuned?)

 

[AV1611VET]

But that would mean that the universe that we see - and use for our arguments - is NOT fine tuned.

Why not?

A house can be built just right, then slowly decay over the years through neglect.

As I understand it, the universe will eventually reach a state of thermal equilibrium; but LONG before that happens, God is going to intervene.

 

[Nostromo]

Next you have to deal with an extreamly fine tuned universe.

Why would you think the universe is fine-tuned?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would you think the universe is fine-tuned?

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical argument that observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the argument reason that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact that the universe's fundamental constants are within the narrow range thought to allow life is not remarkable.

SOURCE

 

[Non sequitur]

SOURCE

Same source:

"...a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly)"

 

[Davian]

Darwin really raised the standard with the Theory of Evolution. No matter how you work out the exact details the theory basicly says that you do not need a designer to have a design. It can design itself using evolution. Creationists are not willing to give up a Creator, after all a watch has to have a watchmaker and the eye is far to delicate to have made itself. Yet some people are willing to accept the Theory of Evolution as the Creator of Creation.

The problem is this takes you to the next step. Evolution is a part of nature and it is a part of the creation. According to the Laws of Science your First Cause CAN NOT be a part of the Universe.

Please provide a citation for these "Laws of Science" that require a "first cause".

Next you have to deal with an extreamly fine tuned universe.

Only after you provide another one to compare it to.

The best explaination is that God or an Intelligent Designer Created the Universe.

You have not yet established that the universe required a creator, and that it had to be god-like.

The First Cause can not be a part of nature.

Why not?

The Creator has to be outside of time and space.

A meaningless statement. Outside where?

Evolution did not create the cosmos and evolution did not fine tune the Universe.

The theory of evolution as it applies to biological organisms certainly didn't.

To date Science has no First Cause other then God or an Intelligent Designer.

Please provide citations for the 'science' that has "God" or an "intelligent designer" as the only "first cause".

If you want to eliminate God, then you will need another Darwin to come along with a explaination on how the universe fine tunes itself.

My aim is not to eliminate "God". You have yet to demonstrate that "God" explains anything about the universe.

The problem is all the current theorys require things to be random.

Can you cite the specific theories you are referring to?

A fine tuned universe is just the opposite of random. It requires a standard. A very delicate balanced standard.

Baseless assertion, and already dealt with by others.

 

[Freodin]

Why not?

A house can be built just right, then slowly decay over the years through neglect.

As I understand it, the universe will eventually reach a state of thermal equilibrium; but LONG before that happens, God is going to intervene.

How do you distinguish a decayed house from a badly build house? How can you say: hey, this house once was a real mansion, a palace.... but it decayed over time to this reet and mud shack that you see now?