A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[JimFit]

And if the laws were different then our universe would be different. A different universe would have characteristics unique to that universe, and since you paint the bullseye around the bullet hole, we would have to conclude that every univese is fine tuned for the unique features found in that universe.

What you have is an argument from ignorance:

1. I don’t know what other universes are like
2. Therefore, we are here by chance
It doesn’t follow.


We IDers have an argument from analogy:

1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence
The only argument the atheists have is a mere wish:
1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. I wish like causes did not spawn like effects or I wish fine-tuning were the result of chance.
5. therefore, we are here by chance.

 

[RichardParker]

We can't know therefor chance, therefor the Fine Tuning is proof of chance not designer, it doesn't follow.

I'm astonished about what you think you can get away with.
You even posted a part of a comment of mine above your quote, where I said absolutly nothing like that... and still pretend that I did.

Either you can't read, or you hope that other readers can't.

Just for your information:
An argument from ignorance is:
"We don't have an explanation. Therefore, the explanation I've made up is valide, without having to support it."
Like: "We don't know, how life started, therefore, my assertion that it was created by a god becomes valide, just because you are honst enough to say that you don't know".

Now, what was it I said?

"Because we can't know if other constances would have created a universe with different kind of life, maybe a universe with better conditions for life..."

Do we have to read it out loud together?
I didn't say: "Because we don't know X, therefore there have to be other possiblities."
I didn't say: "You can't explain how something happend, therefore my assertion is valide".
What I did say was, that we have no justification to say that a universe with different constances couldn't also create some kind of life. Are you arguing against that? Are you saying that we DO have justification to make this claim?

Even if, it still wouldn't be an argument from ignorance (you then would just say that I'm wrong... which is NOT an argument from ignorance) and it doesn't even come CLOSE to me saying: "We can't know therefor chance..."
Not even CLOSE.

It's rather: "We don't know, therefore we can't rule out."
If you can't see the difference, then you can't be helped!

Btw: I appriciate that you've acknowledged that you've accused me of something I didn't do. Fair enough.
Maybe if you stopped interpreting things into my comments, and actually adressed the comment I actually DID make, such things could be avoided...
Because you clearly did it again, in this very poste!

 

[BL2KTN]

We IDers have an argument from analogy:

1. like causes spawn like effects

Only in Newtonian Physics, which is one set of rules for describing one aspect of one universe.

2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune

No. We see atheistic evolution fine tune organisms for their environments all the time. Any of a plethora of species which adapt immunities to environmental hazards is an example.

3. the universe is fine-tuned

For what?

4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence

Considering the premises are flawed, no.

The only argument the atheists have is a mere wish:
1. like causes spawn like effects

Cause and effect are not specific to atheists... it's a fairly well-adopted concept.

2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune

I don't think atheists, or anybody who actually studies science, believes that at all.

3. the universe is fine-tuned

Again, for what?

4. I wish like causes did not spawn like effects or I wish fine-tuning were the result of chance.

Nobody who studies science "wishes" anything, except maybe they'll be able to verify or discredit something using repeatable results.

5. therefore, we are here by chance.

If this is as good as intelligent design advocates get, ID is woefully in trouble.

 

[JimFit]

The problem is that you are only aware of one winner, and you don't know how many times the roullete wheel has been spun.

To have a winner you must first play the game.

The whole fine tuning argument assumes that this is the only universe, and they have no evidence to support this assumption. Therefore, any claims of improbability are baseless. What you have instead is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy where you draw the bullseye around the bullet hole.

Wait Wait the Multiverse delusion DOESN'T SOLVE THE FINE TUNING. We are capable to prove that there are no other Universes, i suggest you to read this blog that debunks the Multiverses as pseudoscience without proof.

Multiverse Mania | Not Even Wrong

BVG Theorem also says that even Multivers demands a beginning!

Read the last paragraph on page 3. It specifically states that the result shows that inflation must be finite in the past, and there must be space-time boundary.

arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

How did you determine that the goal of the Universe was biology instead of geology, black holes, or pretty stellar nebulae? The universe is as fine tuned for the moon Io orbitting around Jupiter as it is for life. The same balance of constants is needed for many, many non-biological features of the universe. Picking life out of all of these other features is nothing more than bias.

The sun, the moon and even earth are lifeless rocks but without them there would be no biology and no life. The planets play a crucial role for life to begin.

If the expansion was smaller we also wouldn't have Io.

Also we wouldn't have the stupid arguments of the cosmic mistakes like yourself.

We don't know, therefore we don't know. You are claiming that you do know.

Lol, i remember the good old days when the Atheists used science to explain the Universe as a goldless mistake, times has passed, they stored the weapon they called science in their drawer until their child founded and kill itself. The Fine Tuning is observable and it depends on well established facts about the Universe, if you for example don't believe in the gravitational constant why don't you jump from your balcony? If it is not a constant you have trillions of odds to survive.

 

[JimFit]

Only in Newtonian Physics, which is one set of rules for describing one aspect of one universe.

Is there any other aspect i miss? Are there events without a cause? Hm...

No. We see atheistic evolution fine tune organisms for their environments all the time. Any of a plethora of species which adapt immunities to environmental hazards is an example.

"atheistic" evolution...lol, so evolution works without physics and constants? Evolution is Deterministic

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study -- ScienceDaily

So are mutations

www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

The Fine Tuning goes before Biological Evolution, before planetary systems, before the stars, if the constants were different there would be NO evolution. I already replied that the Fine Tuning is not through necessity.

For what?

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

Considering the premises are flawed, no.

No they are not.

I don't think atheists, or anybody who actually studies science, believes that at all.[

So whoever studies Science doesn't have intelligence?
The intelligent scientists for Atheists are the people that please your nihilistic masochistic desires that you are cosmic mistakes that nothingness spewed? Oh i imagine pseudoscientists like Krauss , Caroll and Dawkins must cause you a lot of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Again, for what?

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

Nobody who studies science "wishes" anything, except maybe they'll be able to verify or discredit something using repeatable results.

Yes Science is neutral on questions about existence.

If this is as good as intelligent design advocates get, ID is woefully in trouble.

Prove the Fine Tuning wrong and then we can have a talk.

 

[JimFit]

I'm astonished about what you think you can get away with.
You even posted a part of a comment of mine above your quote, where I said absolutly nothing like that... and still pretend that I did.

Either you can't read, or you hope that other readers can't.

Just for your information:
An argument from ignorance is:
"We don't have an explanation. Therefore, the explanation I've made up is valide, without having to support it."
Like: "We don't know, how life started, therefore, my assertion that it was created by a god becomes valide, just because you are honst enough to say that you don't know".

Now, what was it I said?

"Because we can't know if other constances would have created a universe with different kind of life, maybe a universe with better conditions for life..."

Do we have to read it out loud together?
I didn't say: "Because we don't know X, therefore there have to be other possiblities."
I didn't say: "You can't explain how something happend, therefore my assertion is valide".
What I did say was, that we have no justification to say that a universe with different constances couldn't also create some kind of life. Are you arguing against that? Are you saying that we DO have justification to make this claim?

Even if, it still wouldn't be an argument from ignorance (you then would just say that I'm wrong... which is NOT an argument from ignorance) and it doesn't even come CLOSE to me saying: "We can't know therefor chance..."
Not even CLOSE.

It's rather: "We don't know, therefore we can't rule out."
If you can't see the difference, then you can't be helped!

Btw: I appriciate that you've acknowledged that you've accused me of something I didn't do. Fair enough.
Maybe if you stopped interpreting things into my comments, and actually adressed the comment I actually DID make, such things could be avoided...
Because you clearly did it again, in this very poste!

If we change the Planck constant there would be no life so yes if the constants were different there would be no life.

 

[BL2KTN]

Is there any other aspect i miss? Are there events without a cause? Hm...

You're moving the goal posts. You originally said: "like causes spawn like effects." Please do not attempt to broaden your statements without making note of the change.

"atheistic" evolution...lol, so evolution works without physics and constants? Evolution is Deterministic

Evolution occurs according to natural causes, unaffected by divine intervention. If you believe that physics is divinely authored, this does not mean that evolution is divinely orchestrated. It would simply mean that evolution occurs according to the laws we observe which you hold to be divinely originated.

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study -- ScienceDaily

I don't know of anyone knowledgeable who believes that evolution is random.

So are mutations

www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

From the very first line of your link:

Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones.

In the future, please do not put forth articles as evidence for an absolute statement, when in fact they are obviously inconclusive.

The Fine Tuning goes before Biological Evolution, before planetary systems, before the stars, if the constants were different there would be NO evolution. I already replied that the Fine Tuning is not through necessity.

So what? Change the rules and let it run... evolution might not happen, planetary systems might not happen, but guess what? Other things will happen. And maybe in that crazy universe there are sentient beings of some kind arguing that their universe is fine tuned for them.

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

Another link, another sensational headline... and here's another less sensational quote from the article:

"If the Hoyle state energy was at 479 keV or more above the three alpha particles, then the amount of carbon produced would be too low for carbon-based life."

I take it you are using your article to show that the universe is tuned for life, yet the article clearly states that it's only tuned for carbon-based life. Carbon's just an atom, and there's no evidence that other forms of life are prohibited. The universe may be teeming with all sorts of other lifeforms... perhaps made of dark matter? Anyway, your argument is based on ignorance; anything coincidental is declared divine without any desire for alternative methods.

Yes Science is neutral on questions about existence.

You are correct.

Prove the Fine Tuning wrong and then we can have a talk.

I live on a tiny blue marble, circling around a star, itself one of two-hundred billion other stars in a galaxy that is clustered with billions of other like-galaxies. Of all those places, I know of only one place in the septillions of possible locales which is habitable by me. And on this 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 places that I can live, I can only actually survive on the 30% that is not covered in water. And of this remaining 30%, only about half of it is truly inhabitable for me... 15%. And within this 15% are many poisonous plants, carnivorous animals, deadly diseases, and horrible potential injuries. Whereas the universe has existed for approximately 14 billion years, I am likely to survive in the .15/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that allows me for a total of 85 years before I can no longer live. Take away all my technology and my life expectancy will go to about 35 years. So in this finely-tuned universe you say I inhabit, I can only actually live for about 35 years naturally in less than a fifth of one septillionth of its area.

Finely tuned my cuss.

 

[RichardParker]

If we change the Planck constant there would be no life so yes if the constants were different there would be no life.

Assertion!
No life as we know it, sure! But if we change ANYTHING about the universe we wouldn't have any life as we know it!
How did you demonstrate that there couldn't be any possible life, things similar to life, or things superior to life AT ALL in a universe with different constances?

 

[JimFit]

You're moving the goal posts. You originally said: "like causes spawn like effects." Please do not attempt to broaden your statements without making note of the change.

The Universe had a cause. Present me something causeless.

Evolution occurs according to natural causes, unaffected by divine intervention. If you believe that physics is divinely authored, this does not mean that evolution is divinely orchestrated. It would simply mean that evolution occurs according to the laws we observe which you hold to be divinely originated.

I create the constants for life to arise, God didn't had to create each animal separate, each planet separate and so on... he just tuned the beginning and the creation unfolded.

I don't know of anyone knowledgeable who believes that evolution is random.

If you don't believe that it is random why you can't see intention behind? I mean the constants were fine tuned for evolution to occur. Of course Evolution is a Fine tuned process as well.

From the very first line of your link:

Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones.

There are trillions of mights and maybes in Natural selection and Neo Darwinian Evolution (which is dead) but i see lots of Atheists present it as FACT. Anyway it has been known for decades in bacteria and phage that mutations can occur in clusters and in hotspots that occur in particular sequence contexts. We have not always understood the molecular explanations for why hotspots occur where they do but several hypotheses have been offered. So no, they are not random.

In the future, please do not put forth articles as evidence for an absolute statement, when in fact they are obviously inconclusive.

In the Future spot mights and maybes in lot of Evolution theories you present as fact.

So what? Change the rules and let it run... evolution might not happen, planetary systems might not happen, but guess what? Other things will happen. And maybe in that crazy universe there are sentient beings of some kind arguing that their universe is fine tuned for them.

Others can happen? Change the Planck Constant and the Universe collapses on itself before it began. KABOOOM Fireball!

Another link, another sensational headline... and here's another less sensational quote from the article:

"If the Hoyle state energy was at 479 keV or more above the three alpha particles, then the amount of carbon produced would be too low for carbon-based life."

I take it you are using your article to show that the universe is tuned for life, yet the article clearly states that it's only tuned for carbon-based life. Carbon's just an atom, and there's no evidence that other forms of life are prohibited. The universe may be teeming with all sorts of other lifeforms... perhaps made of dark matter? Anyway, your argument is based on ignorance; anything coincidental is declared divine without any desire for alternative methods.

Argument from ignorance, maybe there are other forms of life from other elements therefor the Fine Tuning for Carbon life is not Fine Tuned...yeaapp sounds legit! Anyway other elements can't produce life, all the results were negative.

I live on a tiny blue marble, circling around a star, itself one of two-hundred billion other stars in a galaxy that is clustered with billions of other like-galaxies. Of all those places, I know of only one place in the septillions of possible locales which is habitable by me. And on this 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 places that I can live, I can only actually survive on the 30% that is not covered in water. And of this remaining 30%, only about half of it is truly inhabitable for me... 15%. And within this 15% are many poisonous plants, carnivorous animals, deadly diseases, and horrible potential injuries. Whereas the universe has existed for approximately 14 billion years, I am likely to survive in the .15/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that allows me for a total of 85 years before I can no longer live. Take away all my technology and my life expectancy will go to about 35 years. So in this finely-tuned universe you say I inhabit, I can only actually live for about 35 years naturally in less than a fifth of one septillionth of its area.

Finely tuned my cuss.

You don't live in a tiny marble, everything consists of atoms and they are equal in size, if i build a lego house and a lego human the house will look bigger because it consists of more legos not because it is truly bigger, also something from above looks smaller but if you go near it stops to look small, it depends on the perspective.

The Universe is huge because of the Big Bang, if the Bang was smaller there would be no Universe to observe, also what we see as lights it doesn't mean that they are galaxies, the constant of the speed of light were proven not constant in the vacuum and that means that our calculations about the distances or each of the galaxies maybe are wrong. Of course everything inside the Universe is an open system, planets belong to planetary systems and galaxies belong to galaxy clusters, that shows connection, maybe this connection is crustal for life, recently it was discovered that the planet Zeus affects the atmosphere of the earth, maybe the chain is much much much much more bigger, no one knows yet what it takes to have life, maybe it takes the whole Universe! This will help you to understand the probabilities of life.

Probability of Life-Support Planets for Extraterrestrials & SETI Success

Water, plants even poisonous, wild animals, bacteria, EVERYTHING is part of the ecosystem, without them there would be no life. What did you expect from God? To put you inside a white room without anything beside you? Your thoughts are purely egoisticial and lots of atheists adopt this type of thinking "If God did create the earth for me why there are animals or plants or other human beings?" Science answers all that.

The goal of this life is not to live long, it is to be like God, to reach perfection through actions of love, to sacrifice your Ego and create a society equal just like the people on the paradise. I suggest you to read my Thread about Adam and Even and a secular approach i did.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7843973/

 

[JimFit]

Assertion!
No life as we know it, sure! But if we change ANYTHING about the universe we wouldn't have any life as we know it!
How did you demonstrate that there couldn't be any possible life, things similar to life, or things superior to life AT ALL in a universe with different constances?

There would be no life because there would be no Universe, the Universe collapses on itself and becomes a huge fireball that burns it.

 

[RichardParker]

There would be no life because there would be no Universe, the Universe collapses on itself and becomes a huge fireball that burns it.

That's complete [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!
"It" burns "it"?
It "becomes a fireball"? And what would be burning there, please? No universe, no oxigen or burnable material. No oxigen or burnable material, no fire, and no fireball.
These kinds of comments make it evidence that you know too little about science to even takle subjects like the origin of the universe or the Planck constant.
That's why I don't buy your assertion that the universe necessarily collapses either. That seems to be an assertion from you.
And even if all of this was true (which you cannot demonstrate), even if I granted you all of it: So what? Did you show, that the Planck-constance could even be any other way? Because if not, then there is no mystery about why it is that way!

But again, this doesn't matter, because you can't even get that far. Your claim here was so baseless and internally non-sensical, that I don't have to grant you anything.

 

[BL2KTN]

The Universe had a cause. Present me something causeless.

Nobody has said the universe is without a cause. You are making a strawman argument.

I create the constants for life to arise, God didn't had to create each animal separate, each planet separate and so on... he just tuned the beginning and the creation unfolded.

Well, that's the deist position (which I hold), but it doesn't represent intelligent design in relation to evolution.

If you don't believe that it is random why you can't see intention behind? I mean the constants were fine tuned for evolution to occur. Of course Evolution is a Fine tuned process as well.

Because causation does not equal intention. And as I have repeatedly tried to show you, the universe is fine tuned only for what occurred according to its programming... different programming would result in different actions, and perhaps somewhere there are beings in a totally different universe debating whether their universe is "fine-tuned".

There are trillions of mights and maybes in Natural selection and Neo Darwinian Evolution (which is dead) but i see lots of Atheists present it as FACT. Anyway it has been known for decades in bacteria and phage that mutations can occur in clusters and in hotspots that occur in particular sequence contexts. We have not always understood the molecular explanations for why hotspots occur where they do but several hypotheses have been offered. So no, they are not random.

Mutations are necessarily random in that they arise in part from quantum particles that are, indeed, random.

In the Future spot mights and maybes in lot of Evolution theories you present as fact.

The grammar here is broken to the point I do not understand.

Others can happen? Change the Planck Constant and the Universe collapses on itself before it began. KABOOOM Fireball!

An implosion can't go "kaboom," and an infinitely small universe to the degree of a singularity cannot inverse. It does not appear you have any expertise in physics.

Argument from ignorance, maybe there are other forms of life from other elements therefor the Fine Tuning for Carbon life is not Fine Tuned...yeaapp sounds legit! Anyway other elements can't produce life, all the results were negative.

Alien Biochemistries --Astrobiologists Anticipate Discovering Non-Carbon Life Forms

You don't live in a tiny marble, everything consists of atoms and they are equal in size, if i build a lego house and a lego human the house will look bigger because it consists of more legos not because it is truly bigger, also something from above looks smaller but if you go near it stops to look small, it depends on the perspective.

I'm not responding to any more of your post nor to you in the future. This sort of statement reveals possible drug use or mental disease. You are not logical (even if you think you are), and there is no point in me trying to have a dialogue with you based on something you lack. The universe has real dimensions that can really be measured.

 

[JimFit]

That's complete [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!
"It" burns "it"?
It "becomes a fireball"? And what would be burning there, please? No universe, no oxigen or burnable material. No oxigen or burnable material, no fire, and no fireball.
These kinds of comments make it evidence that you know too little about science to even takle subjects like the origin of the universe or the Planck constant.
That's why I don't buy your assertion that the universe necessarily collapses either. That seems to be an assertion from you.
And even if all of this was true (which you cannot demonstrate), even if I granted you all of it: So what? Did you show, that the Planck-constance could even be any other way? Because if not, then there is no mystery about why it is that way!

But again, this doesn't matter, because you can't even get that far. Your claim here was so baseless and internally non-sensical, that I don't have to grant you anything.

From the book The Grand Design by Hawking

Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you have is an argument from ignorance:

1. I don’t know what other universes are like
2. Therefore, we are here by chance
It doesn’t follow.

False. We don't know how many universes there are, therefore we can not calculate the probability of a universe like ours appearing by chance.

If we can't calculate that probability, then the fine tuning argument can not go anywhere.

We IDers have an argument from analogy:

1. like causes spawn like effects

This is already falsified. Both humans and natural forces can create waterways, as one example.

2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune

Now you have inserted your conclusion in your premises which is begging the question.

Your argument fails in the very first two premises.

 

[Michael]

False. We don't know how many universes there are, therefore we can not calculate the probability of a universe like ours appearing by chance.

If we can't calculate that probability, then the fine tuning argument can not go anywhere.

Perhaps that calculation is a problem for you, but Penrose was able to 'calculate the odds' of a universe that looks like ours based on inflation theory:

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation ... Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly – without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose's shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!"[103][104]

Ten to the 100th power sounds pretty 'fine tuned' to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps that calculation is a problem for you, but Penrose was able to 'calculate the odds' of a universe that looks like ours based on inflation theory:

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also need the number of universes that have come into being.

Ten to the 100th power sounds pretty 'fine tuned' to me.

The result will always be fine tuned when you draw the bullseye around the bullet hole.

 

[Michael]

You also need the number of universes that have come into being.

By "definition" that would be exactly one. Anything else would be a "multiverse" theory, and there is less evidence to support a multiverse than there is to support the concept of "God".

The result will always be fine tuned when you draw the bullseye around the bullet hole.

That may be true, particularly when looked at over the scope of eternity.

 

[Loudmouth]

By "definition" that would be exactly one. Anything else would be a "multiverse" theory, and there is less evidence to support a multiverse than there is to support the concept of "God".

Either way, you don't have a verified count of the number of universes.

That may be true, particularly when looked at over the scope of eternity.

It is one of the problems inherent in the anthropic principle. It assumes from the start that humanity was the target.

 

[Michael]

Either way, you don't have a verified count of the number of universes.

But you don't have any evidence that there is/was ever more than *one* universe in the first place. Why would I *assume* there ever was more than one?

It is one of the problems inherent in the anthropic principle. It assumes from the start that humanity was the target.

It's hard not to notice the fact that even so called 'random' genetic mutations are "passed on" because they ultimately either serve 'awareness' in a way that increases it's physical capacity to reproduce or it doesn't. The whole "advantage" of the mutation is an improved awareness of environment, or an improved ability to deal with that environment and pass on sentient genes.

What is 'awareness', and how do you know it's not a fundamental feature of the universe itself?

 

[Loudmouth]

But you don't have any evidence that there is/was ever more than *one* universe in the first place.

And you have no evidence that there isn't more than one. In order to have a realiable calculation, you have to know for sure.

Why would I *assume* there ever was more than one?

Why would you assume there was just one?

It's hard not to notice the fact that even so called 'random' genetic mutations are "passed on" because they ultimately either serve 'awareness' in a way that increases it's physical capacity to reproduce or it doesn't. The whole "advantage" of the mutation is an improved awareness of environment, or an improved ability to deal with that environment and pass on sentient genes.

There are only a handful of species that show signs of sentience. In fact, the vast majority of life on Earth is unicellular.

Also, the feedback that causes beneficial mutations to increase in number is really no different than other feedback systems in nature, such as the production of tonal resonance in confined chambers.

What is 'awareness', and how do you know it's not a fundamental feature of the universe itself?

Your definition of awareness seems to boil down to the ability of particles to interact. In that way, it is a fundamental feature.