A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Michael]

I agree, science will present these ideas as strong possibilities.

Actually, they tend to present them as "scientific fact" at this point, and ignore any controversy, or any other alternatives. Therein lies the rub.

They present them one after the other theorizing that the answer will be somewhere along one of these ideas maybe with a bit of tweaking.

It's actually worse than you think. In order to justify one one hypothetical entity, you're forced to accept the scientific legitimacy of every single one. "Space expansion" is a hypothetical process that has never been seen in any lab, or any controlled experiment. "Dark energy" is another hypothetical process/entity that has never been demonstrated in controlled experimentation. Ditto for all types of hypothetical extensions to the standard particle physics model. Inflation is also another hypothetical entity. In order for current BB theory to be "right", each and *every* one of these four "unseen" (in the lab) entities must be *assumed* to exist, and they ultimately all have to be demonstrated to be true. In the long range scheme of things, Lambda-CDM is just as bad as string theory, and just as unfalsifiable.

String theory has been around for some time now and is being adjusted and added to such as with M theory now. Thats because this idea has the possibility of answering everything that scientist are finding hard to explain.

String theory just has great mathematical appeal to mathematicians. It's never known any empirical justification, and falsification is impossible. In terms of shear faith, it's the equivalent of having faith in a multidimensional "God" in physics.

 

[Black Dog]

Some of the evidence that supports my certainty that God produced and sustains the universe is that it is finely tuned all over to allow even the existence of atomic matter, let alone life and consciousness. If one of the fundamental constants (the weak atomic force for example) was off by a scale of a hair, molecular existence would not form at all.


What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos


Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.3

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - The Nature of Reality

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.


Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."




When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe

Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:


"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

To summarize: A universe which has life is a universe which can have life. OK, I'll agree with that.

 

[stevevw]

This sentence is nonsensical.

If you read the sentence you quoted in the context of the entire paragraph I wrote then you would have known what I was referring to and meant. Your point was that the science hadn't proved that a universe from a natural cause should not have to many parameters that were finely for existence and life. I stated that the science has proved this by the fact that the odds were beyond chance. It doesn't matter whether or not they have proved how the universe began. The odds for so many conditions being so precise is beyond chance no matter what. Its the science that states that from the way odds and probability are calculated.

The only thing I'm objecting to is your woo, which you often conflate with science.

If the above is woo then we can count many claimed ideas from mainstream science as woo including multiverses, string theory, hologram dimensions, time travel as claimed by scientists with quantum physics, the big bang theory, black holes, ect ect ect.

 

[Belk]

So are you saying that the physical parameters like the Ratio of Electrons to protons 1:10/37, Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10/40, Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10/55 and say the Mass Density of Universe1 1:10/59 are not finely tuned and can exist in other ratios.
If we change them slightly it wont make any difference.

No. I claimed nothing of the sort.

I thought the measurements they made for these parameters was backed by the science and is part of the laws of physics.

They are.

Changing these parameters will affect the physics of these constants which will produce a different outcome.

Show me the peer reviewed science that tells us how universes are formed so we know there could be different outcomes.

When you consider the earths position o our Sun which is a rare star in itself.

Rare? there are 512 within 100 light years.

http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm

When you consider the moons position to us and its unique size which is very big compared to other moons. When you consider the unusual tilts and spins they have/ How this all adds up to creating an atmosphere with the right reasons, tides, gravity for organic life its quite amazing. When you consider the position of our solar system in our galaxy that its in just the right place it all adds up to incredible odds. And thats just a small portion of the incredible things that have had to occur to bring life to our planet.

We do not know what all parameters can result in life so this claim is simply credulity at the fact that our particular form of life exists.

But the life we know of is the life we have to measure. If we use our life as the measuring stick then the parameters will have to be like the ones we have. If there was some other life that was more primitive to ours its still going to need an awful lot of similar parameters. Even if you consider bacteria as life it still needs some amazing conditions to occur.

How would we know what all parameters could result in life?

I dont think scientists have come near to finding anything that is remotely similar.

http://www.space.com/30172-six-most-earth-like-alien-planets.html

But the strange thing is evolution keeps saying that life can create itself through chemicals and a few other conditions.

Evolution says no such thing.

Now the universe is full of these things so it would seem likely that some form of life should be created somewhere. Now if our parameters aren't that special and evolution is able to produce certain results in certain conditions and with such an unlimited universe with billions upon billions of stars and planets we would expect to find some life. In fact we should find similar life if its not so special.

And we have explored how much of this massive universe? One planet well, two others a little and a cursory glance at 6 others?

Its open access so its freely available for all to view and assess. I cant find anything that states its position either way. But these journals are normally peer reviewed. I only found this statement. Normally if anyone supporting the the mainstream opinion or something like evolution will accept papers no matter what.

No they won't. Especially if they are interested in science over opinion.

Is it true that Open Access articles and journals are not peer-reviewed?
No. A journal”s economic or access policy does not determine its peer review policy. Most scholarly journals, whether open access or controlled-access journals, are peer-reviewed. There are both open and controlled journals that are not peer-reviewed.

You found this statement where? I'm certain there are some open access articles that are peer reviewed. This does not appear to be one.

Yet many scientists will accept things like string theory and multiverses.

Not as evidenced science they don't. Only as hypothesis.

I would have thought the science for calculating the measurements of the physical constants was proven. That any adjustments to those exact calculations would change things one way of another. It doesn't take rocket science.

I would of thought it obvious that the fine tuning argument does not rest on the measurements but on the claim that it required an outside agency. That is the piece that is opinion not supported by evidence.

Yeah he states that the physical parameters for our universe and life are finely tuned.

No, he states they appear to us as finely tuned.

You have to remember that the fine tuning argument is only part of why people say that existence and life are designed and have some intelligence behind them. All of life has to much order, code, patterns, even maths that can beautifully add up to showing how things conform to a calculated existence that has been designed rather than popped into existence by random chance and accident.

All of which rest on opinion, not science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you read the sentence you quoted in the context of the entire paragraph I wrote then you would have known what I was referring to and meant. Your point was that the science hadn't proved that a universe from a natural cause should not have to many parameters that were finely for existence and life. I stated that the science has proved this by the fact that the odds were beyond chance.

That again makes no sense.

If the above is woo then we can count many claimed ideas from mainstream science as woo including multiverses, string theory, hologram dimensions, time travel as claimed by scientists with quantum physics, the big bang theory, black holes, ect ect ect.

Nope, just your stuff. Your stuff is woo.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evolution says no such thing.

I corrected his misconception on this point so many times. Yet he still continues to make the same claims.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you read the sentence you quoted in the context of the entire paragraph I wrote then you would have known what I was referring to and meant.

In context, it's still nonsensical. The only point in probability that's beyond the point of chance is when the probability is zero.

Your point was that the science hadn't proved that a universe from a natural cause should not have to many parameters that were finely for existence and life. I stated that the science has proved this by the fact that the odds were beyond chance.

And this is incorrect. The probability, no matter how remote, is still greater than zero.

It doesn't matter whether or not they have proved how the universe began. The odds for so many conditions being so precise is beyond chance no matter what. Its the science that states that from the way odds and probability are calculated.

Pure drivel. So long as the odds are greater than zero, it's still possible.

If the above is woo then we can count many claimed ideas from mainstream science as woo including multiverses, string theory, hologram dimensions, time travel as claimed by scientists with quantum physics, the big bang theory, black holes, ect ect ect.

Hypotheses to be tested... not woo based on incredulity and doubletalk.

Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they can't happen.

 

[Belk]

I corrected his misconception on this point so many times. Yet he still continues to make the same claims.

If they learned from evidence they would not be creationists.

 

[Michael]

Hypotheses to be tested... not woo based on incredulity and doubletalk.

False.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

It's been tested over and over and over again, and it *always* fails! Pure supernatural woo, requiring *four* supernatural constructs no less!

Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they can't happen.

See, even agnostics have "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab). When can I see a lab experiment that empirically demonstrates that any of the following claims of BB theory actually have some tangible effect on a photon?

A) Space expansion
B) Dark energy
C) Dark matter
D) inflation

 

[stevevw]

No. I claimed nothing of the sort.

Ok so your saying that we cant change them otherwise we would not be here.

Show me the peer reviewed science that tells us how universes are formed so we know there could be different outcomes.

How universes are formed comes from mainstream science and the main theory is the big bang. That has been indirectly verified according to scientists with evidence such as background radiation, red shift and expansion. That requires specific conditions to come about and produce the universe we see today. It is pretty well accepted today by most scientists.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/evi...ground-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html

Rare? there are 512 within 100 light years.

I could say show me the peer reviewed evidence for this. But that would depend on if you are inferring that these planets have life on them. There are many other factors that go into making a planet viable for life. n many of these cases so far scientists have said that it is unlikely that life would exist on these planets. Other factors like their orbits, rotations, axis ect or the type of star they rotate around make them unsuitable.
What Makes Earth So Perfect for Life?
http://www.livescience.com/31788-why-earth-perfect-for-life.html

But its funny how you insist on peer reviewed evidence for what I say but you can put forward you views without the same level of support. When it comes down to it scientists promote a lot of ideas with flimsy support but still stand on these ideas like they are true such as the big bang theory. Some of the greatest minds will bet their careers on these theories such as Mr Hawkins who I referred to earlier.

We do not know what all parameters can result in life so this claim is simply credulity at the fact that our particular form of life exists.

I though scientists say that the existing parameters are set and cant be varied. If they are changed and in some case by even a hairs width they will produce a different for which one is it wont lead to life or stars wont exist for example. So we do have a pretty good idea that what we have now is what is needed to produce life and the universe. If the parameters for this are changed then we wont have life or existence.

The fine tuned argument also applies to the universe itself. There are certain parameters that need to be within certain levels other wise things like stars would not come into existence. IE Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.

How would we know what all parameters could result in life

Because like I said the scientists have told us what the results would be if we change our existing parameters. In some cases even by a hair width it will result in a different outcome that wont produce the life as we know it.
If the masses of particles or the values of fundamental constants were much different from what physicists have measured, carbon-based intelligent beings might not be here to measure them, because fundamental particles might not assemble into stable atoms, atoms might not form rocky planets and dying stars might not produce the chemical elements we find in our bodies.
https://www.insidescience.org/content/more-finely-tuned-universe/2601

http://www.space.com/30172-six-most-earth-like-alien-planets.html

Evolution says no such thing.

yeah I know OK I slipped and said it. I know its a sensitive topic for evolution. So OK lets see so life came from non life well thats a hard one to get around. Anyway apart from that evolution states that once life is there it can create itself through random mutations so it should be no problem for it to happen anywhere in the universe. In fact one of the ways that scientists have dealt with the difficult problem of how life began is to say it came from somewhere else in the universe and piggy backed its way to us. That says two things life must be in other places in the universe and it is to hard to explain how life can come from non life. .

And we have explored how much of this massive universe? One planet well, two others a little and a cursory glance at 6 others

We are sending signals out all the time which can reach far into the universe. You would think that there would be intelligent life out there is its so easy to create. All it takes is some water, rocks, a few chemicals which seem to be abundant and as you said there are plenty of candidate planets even within 100 light years. Imagine the entire universe. But that will be the big question. If there's intelligent life somewhere that would put a nail in the Christian coffin in some ways. If not then it makes a better case for life being fine tuned and that there is some intelligence behind it. Though I'm sure that both sides will come up with other reasons why

No they won't. Especially if they are interested in science over opinion.

So you dont think that both sides of the debate dont put forward opinions , views evidence without proper support. You have made statements yourself without peer reviewed support so does that count as opinion as well. The thing is many top notch scientists will say things without peer reviewed support and people will take it as true. I have seen countless quotes and articles posted by people without peer reviewed support being used to prove their side of the debate.

You found this statement where? I'm certain there are some open access articles that are peer reviewed. This does not appear to be one.

The statement below comes from the same people who have the journals. As you can see it states that most open access journals are peer reviewed. So on what basis do you think its not peer reviewed if most of their papers are peer reviewed.

Is it true that Open Access articles and journals are not peer-reviewed?
No. A journal”s economic or access policy does not determine its peer review policy. Most scholarly journals, whether open access or controlled-access journals, are peer-reviewed. There are both open and controlled journals that are not peer-reviewed.

So basically this is a peer reviewed paper talking about the fine tuning. But at the end of the day even this isn't sufficient. So the idea that peer reviewed papers is the be all and end all is untrue. In fact there have been research done that shows a high level of peer reviewed work was either wrong, falsified or not researched very well.

Not as evidenced science they don't. Only as hypothesis.

They talk about them like they are true. The big Bang is a theory. A theory is beyond a hypothesis.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I would of thought it obvious that the fine tuning argument does not rest on the measurements but on the claim that it required an outside agency. That is the piece that is opinion not supported by evidence.

Thats where you are jumping ahead of yourself. I am only trying to establish the fine tuning itself and not what caused it. What may have caused the fine tuning has nothing to do with the fine tuning itself which is based on the science.

No, he states they appear to us as finely tuned.

What does appear mean. (To be likely or evident) At least he is acknowledging that there appears to be fine tuning.
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

All of which rest on opinion, not science.

No many of the patterns, codes, language is based on maths and the calculations have been done to verify that there is a mathematical formula for them. Such as
Can the genetic code be mathematically described?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15039650
Symmetry is found everywhere in nature and is also one of the most prevalent themes in art, architecture, and design
https://www.mum.edu/academic-depart...symmetry-a-link-between-mathematics-and-life/

 

[stevevw]

That again makes no sense.

Its easy to understand. We all know that a natural cause is based on random causes and effects and isn't designed. So the the results will be sporadic and hit and miss. So there won't by too many patterns, or specific conditions that have been predetermined by some controlling agent. One or two conditions may come from a random cause but not many. In calculating odds there is a point where you begin to say that it is no longer a coincident or random chance. The fine tuning argument has too many parameters that are precise and geared towards a specific outcome. They go beyond the point of random chance and naturalistic causes. Thats why its called fine tuning.

It's like if you had a machine with 100 dials on it to set different levels of something, anything. If you put a blind fold on and randomly set the dials at any level 10 or 100 times in a row you will get random results that are different each time. But if you want to get a particular set of conditions you have to set each dial at specific levels. You can't randomly get those specific setting by spinning the dials at any level even if you tried and tried and if you did it would be luck. So when someone sees that there is a specific result they know that someone has set those dials to get that specific outcome.

Nope, just your stuff. Your stuff is woo.

How is it my stuff when the fine tuning is supported by many scientists including Hawking. How is the fine tuning woo. All I am doing is explaining that the fine tuning is the result of specific settings that give a specific outcome. Can you explain to me in what I have said is woo. It seems you are putting just about anything as woo.

 

[stevevw]

In context, it's still nonsensical. The only point in probability that's beyond the point of chance is when the probability is zero.

And this is incorrect. The probability, no matter how remote, is still greater than zero.

Pure drivel. So long as the odds are greater than zero, it's still possible.

But chance would mean there were 1000s if not billions of possibilities that could have happened. But out of all those possibilities the one that was just right for life to be made that could even ask the questions and do this very equation were created. All the other possibilities may have resulted in no life or no existence or hostile conditions ect ect. It seems only one set of conditions was just right for the universe and for life to have come about. In some cases the condition has to be so precise that even a hairs width difference would change the results.

Hypotheses to be tested... not woo based on incredulity and doubletalk.

The fine tuning argumanet is based on as much science as multiverses ect. Science calculated what the 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life's existence. Science has calculated what would happen if these measurements were different and they say that things would not be as they are now including no existence or life in many of these cases. So its the science that is saying this including scientists like,
Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist)
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life.

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe)
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they can't happen.

Luckily the scientists understand better than you or me to be able to explain to us whats happening.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, they tend to present them as "scientific fact" at this point, and ignore any controversy, or any other alternatives. Therein lies the rub.



It's actually worse than you think. In order to justify one one hypothetical entity, you're forced to accept the scientific legitimacy of every single one. "Space expansion" is a hypothetical process that has never been seen in any lab, or any controlled experiment. "Dark energy" is another hypothetical process/entity that has never been demonstrated in controlled experimentation. Ditto for all types of hypothetical extensions to the standard particle physics model. Inflation is also another hypothetical entity. In order for current BB theory to be "right", each and *every* one of these four "unseen" (in the lab) entities must be *assumed* to exist, and they ultimately all have to be demonstrated to be true. In the long range scheme of things, Lambda-CDM is just as bad as string theory, and just as unfalsifiable.




String theory just has great mathematical appeal to mathematicians. It's never known any empirical justification, and falsification is impossible. In terms of shear faith, it's the equivalent of having faith in a multidimensional "God" in physics.

What you say makes a lot of sense. I guess some of these ideas have been around for so long that people just accept them as fact and don't question them. Like you say if it fits in with the calculations for a pre conceived idea then it will be the best thing they have to work with until something else comes along that works better. String theory or M theory is popular at the moment as it covers so much and is the closest to explaining some of the difficult and near impossible things that scientists have been facing for a long time.

Uniting quantum physics with relativity is the ultimate goal with a theory of everything. As Stephen Hawkins quipped thats when we will know the mind of God, metaphorically in case I get some back lash for that one. But then that may have some truth to it anyway as far as some believe. I guess it all comes down to the premise you begin with as to how you build your view of things. As they say if you dont get the foundations right then everything else is going to be out of line as you build.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But chance would mean there were 1000s if not billions of possibilities that could have happened.

And one that did.

But out of all those possibilities the one that was just right for life to be made that could even ask the questions and do this very equation were created.

True, but we don't know how many of those possibilities would've resulted in life to be made capable of asking those questions.

All the other possibilities may have resulted in no life or no existence or hostile conditions ect ect.

As could this one... the conditions were right, but having life arise was another set of circumstances.

It seems only one set of conditions was just right for the universe and for life to have come about.

Wrong. We don't whether or not life would've arose under different conditions.

In some cases the condition has to be so precise that even a hairs width difference would change the results.

And other cases allow for a wide latitude.

The fine tuning argumanet is based on as much science as multiverses ect. Science calculated what the 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life's existence. Science has calculated what would happen if these measurements were different and they say that things would not be as they are now including no existence or life in many of these cases.

Indeed -- if things were different, they wouldn't be the way they were... they would be... different.

And if life developed in these circumstances, it, too, would've have been... different.

Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist)
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life.

And Hawking is correct -- if certain things were different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist.

It'd be the universe as we wouldn't know it.

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe)

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

And your assumption that this is "beyond the point of chance" is still rubbish. Nobody ever claimed that the odds weren't (pardon the pun) astronomical that the universe is the way it is, nevertheless, it was always a possibility.


there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

Luckily the scientists understand better than you or me to be able to explain to us whats happening.

And why they don't use nonsensical doubletalk like "beyond the point of chance" to explain things.

 

[stevevw]

And one that did.

So why has the one that "did" work out to be the perfect one for us. That would be like winning the biggest lottery in all existence. There are more chances of a universe not happening or happening without life than this one. Its like finding a fish tank with all the filters, PH balance of water, fish food, water temperature, plants ect in just the right the right combinations to keep gold fish you might reasonably infer that someone put it there because they wanted goldfish, not that it occurred by accident.

True, but we don't know how many of those possibilities would've resulted in life to be made capable of asking those questions.

Many of the physical constants will prevent existence and/or life from forming in the first place. Its not just a case of the possibility of another type of life but having life at all.

As could this one... the conditions were right, but having life arise was another set of circumstances.

Yes there were some sets of parameters for existence (our universe)to come into reality which needed to be precise. As stated just the slightest bit of a difference in the cosmological constant and there would be no universe. Not a different universe but no universe at all. That is a phenomenally small difference to the point of not leaving much room at all for any second goes. 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, is beyond chance to happen.

There were also some sets of parameters if varied only slightly there would be no life at all. Not a different life but no life at all. There are 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life's existence.

As Professor Steven Weinberg (a Nobel laureate in high energy physics) states
The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.(there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe as Weinberg states

The decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation, if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life. Thats all life and not some life. There are many constants like this that will eliminate all life let alone the entire universe and existence.

Wrong. We don't whether or not life would've arose under different conditions.

Well the science seems to tell us that if we vary many of our present physical constants there would be no life at all. These particular constants will be involved in all the possible variations for life. So in some cases it will be a case of life or no life.

And other cases allow for a wide latitude.

Indeed -- if things were different, they wouldn't be the way they were... they would be... different.

And if life developed in these circumstances, it, too, would've have been... different.

Well no as stated above some of the constants dont allow any life full stop. Those constants are involved in all possible scenarios.

And Hawking is correct -- if certain things were different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist.

I think you will find he was also referring to the results being that there would be no life at all.

And your assumption that this is "beyond the point of chance" is still rubbish. Nobody ever claimed that the odds weren't (pardon the pun) astronomical that the universe is the way it is, nevertheless, it was always a possibility.

Yes they did. many great scientists who were also atheist stated that the odds astronomical or something similar to this.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist), The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist) Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author) "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

And why they don't use nonsensical doubletalk like "beyond the point of chance" to explain things.

Gee condemn me for the type of language I use. I never said I was a A grade grammar student.

 

[Armoured]

What is the chance that a puddle will find itself in a whole that perfectly fits it? Must be a miracle.

 

[KCfromNC]

So why has the one that "did" work out to be the perfect one for us.

Perfect? Humans can survive in basically 0% of the known universe. I have no idea how you judge perfection but I'm not seeing it here.

That would be like winning the biggest lottery in all existence.

And here in reality, people win lotteries all the time.

There are more chances of a universe not happening or happening without life than this one.

And to prove this, all you have to do is present a complete tested model of how universes form. Feel free to start whenever you like.

1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, is beyond chance to happen.

No, it is just unlikely.

But that's putting the cart before the horse. Again, let's see your validated model of how universes form before we start dissecting the numbers.

Well the science seems to tell us that if we vary many of our present physical constants there would be no life at all. These particular constants will be involved in all the possible variations for life. So in some cases it will be a case of life or no life.

If only you'd presented any reason to think the values could have been outside the range needed for life. Again, let's wait until you've presented a peer-reviewed and tested model of how universes form before getting into the consequences of such a model.

 

[stevevw]

Perfect? Humans can survive in basically 0% of the known universe. I have no idea how you judge perfection but I'm not seeing it here.

Perfect in that we have the air to breath, the atmosphere to grow plants and trees that are like a living organism which keep the atmosphere just right and breathable. The entire ecosystem of the earth is just right to keep everything supported for life. The right balance of everything to make earth perfect for humans and other living creatures that are needed to sustain life. The moon is positioned in just the right place in relationship to the earth. The earth is placed in our solar system in just the right place, our solar system is placed in our galaxy in just the right place. Maybe our galaxy if in just the right place. The universe has just the right balance to keep everything in just the right place. Maybe as some say the entire universe was made just for us and everything is just right for us to be here.

And here in reality, people win lotteries all the time.

Yes but life and existence is the biggest lottery of all. The fine tuning isn't just about one number out of thousands. It would be equivalent to 100s of correct numbers out of billions.

And to prove this, all you have to do is present a complete tested model of how universes form. Feel free to start whenever you like.

No all we have to do is show just how scientists have stated that to change some of the constants that are involved in forming the universe and life will result in no universe or no life of any sort what so ever. So it doesn't matter how a universe if formed. The fact is we know how it is not formed.

No, it is just unlikely.

Unlikely, those odds are another way of saying impossible. All the scientists will tell you those sort of odds are impossible.
Keep in mind that according to mathematics principle a probability of 1 in 10/50 means zero probability.

But that's putting the cart before the horse. Again, let's see your validated model of how universes form before we start dissecting the numbers.

Like I said the calculations are already done for us ie For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all.

So no stars then no carbon, no carbon then no life. This is just one example of the fine tuned physical constants for existence and life. Many state there the slightest of change in them will result in no existence and/or no life. So we dont need to know how the universe was formed because we know how it wont form.

If only you'd presented any reason to think the values could have been outside the range needed for life. Again, let's wait until you've presented a peer-reviewed and tested model of how universes form before getting into the consequences of such a model.

Already address by the above.[/quote]

 

[KCfromNC]

The right balance of everything to make earth perfect for humans

So "perfect" that we can't survive without clothes and shelter. That's a peculiar use of the word. I can think of any number of ways the universe could be better for us, which kinda says that it is the opposite of perfect.

Yes but life and existence is the biggest lottery of all. The fine tuning isn't just about one number out of thousands. It would be equivalent to 100s of correct numbers out of billions.

Still waiting for your well-tested model showing that these "tuned" values could be different enough to cause problems. I think everyone understands that if the values were different enough there would be issues. What you now need to show is that they could have been different, and if so, what the probability distribution is for those variations.

 

[stevevw]

So "perfect" that we can't survive without clothes and shelter. That's a peculiar use of the word. I can think of any number of ways the universe could be better for us, which kinda says that it is the opposite of perfect.

I am not sure that smaller details like cloths is going to make much of a difference to survival. Never the less we have all the necessary materials to make cloths and shelters. I dont think everything was meant to be provided so that we would just snap our fingers and it was there. Its more to do with life itself as a biological being able to exist. Or about the environment that is able to cater to living organisms. These things in themselves are very complex and amazing feats.

Still waiting for your well-tested model showing that these "tuned" values could be different enough to cause problems. I think everyone understands that if the values were different enough there would be issues. What you now need to show is that they could have been different, and if so, what the probability distribution is for those variations.

The fine tuned values have already been shown to cause problems if different. I have been posting examples as we speak. The way science measures everything through cause and effect tells us that there could have been other values created from a naturalistic process. So when they say that the ( ratio for nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction then no stars could have ever formed at all). They are also saying that the ratio could have been other values. The ratios were formed naturally which means they were not preset and could have fell at any value. If they couldn't then you would have to say they were pre determined which is more about design than anything.

That is the whole argument. If the values couldn't have been anything but what they are then that would mean they were made that way and meant to be that way. But according to science all measurements are determined through a naturalistic cause and effect. So the fact that these values did have the possibility of being many different values and that many of those different values have been calculated to cause problems that is the proof in itself. Thats what the science has already done and thats why its called fine tuning of the universe and life. So as I keep saying I dont need to do anything because the science has already done it.