Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

For me I think there is some indirect evidence for Gods creation and ID. For example the fine tuned universe and the complexity of DNA. Also some say that science is actually proving Gods existence as time goes by.

Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'

No matter which way we turn, the properties of our universe have finely tuned values that allow us to be here. Deviate ever so slightly from them and the universe would be sterile – or it may never have existed at all. What explanation can there be for this fine-tuning?
A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life | Cosmos

How Contemporary Physics Points to God
Teleological Argument and Entropy
A Beginning in Physics Implies A Creation of the Universe
According to Roger Penrose the probability of the occurrence of a universe in which life can form is 10 to the 10 to the 123 . Thats a 1 followed by 123 zeros.
Keep in mind that according to mathematic principle a probability of 1 in 10 to the 50 means zero probability.
http://www.strangenotions.com/how-contemporary-physics-points-to-god/
Teleological Argument and Entropy

Recent scientific discoveries have physicists and philosophers alike radically revising their ideas on the nature of the universe, and indeed the existence of God. Countless years and hours of calculations and mind-bending theories continue to reach the conclusion that the universe has a beginning, and did not occur by chance.
Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

Evolution: A View from the 21st Century
By James A. ShapiroThere is a convincing (perhaps overwhelming) case for the role of basic engineering principles in genome evolution. We now have many clear examples of genome restructuring by natural genetic engineering functions. nonetheless the phrase natural genetic engineering has proven troublesome to many scientists because they believe it supports the Intelligent Design argument.

The Universe May Be Conscious, Say Prominent Scientists
The Universe May Be Conscious, Say Prominent Scientists

DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.
DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes. - PubMed - NCBI

How Quantum Physics Proves God’s Existence
How Quantum Physics Proves God’s Existence

stevevw said:

For me I think there is some indirect evidence for Gods creation and ID. For example the fine tuned universe and the complexity of DNA.

Click to expand...

But then, wouldn't a puddle look at the shape of the hole it was in and conclude that since the shape of the hole matches their shape, that obviously the hole was designed for them?

Don't confuse adapting to fit the conditions that already existed with those conditions being predetermined. It's an easy mistake to make.

stevevw said:

No matter which way we turn, the properties of our universe have finely tuned values that allow us to be here.

Click to expand...

I dunno about that. Most of the universe seems to want to kill us.

Kylie said:

But then, wouldn't a puddle look at the shape of the hole it was in and conclude that since the shape of the hole matches their shape, that obviously the hole was designed for them?

Don't confuse adapting to fit the conditions that already existed with those conditions being predetermined. It's an easy mistake to make.

Click to expand...

I like how John Lennox addresses this explanation.

Lennox explains:

Some scientists and philosophers maintain that we ought not to be surprised at the order and fine-tuning we see in the universe around us, since if it did not exist then carbon-based life would be impossible, and we would not be there to observe the fine-tuning. In other words they use the anthropic principle against the inference of design. In fact, Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion tells us that the anthropic principle and God function as alternative explanations.

One response, then, to fine tuning, is to say that we should not be surprised at fine tuning because if there were no fine tuning to explain the origin of intelligent observers, then we would not be alive, as intelligent observers, to observe the fine tuning. Does this really explain anything, though? This explanation seems like a sleight of hand, or no explanation at all. Lennox reveals why we feel this way:

All the anthropic principle does is to tell us that for life to exist, certain necessary conditions must be fulfilled. But what it does not tell us is why those necessary conditions are fulfilled, nor how, granted they are fulfilled, life arose. Dawkins is making the elementary mistake of thinking that necessary conditions are sufficient. But they are not: in order to get a first class degree at Oxford it is necessary to get into the University; but, as many students know, it is certainly not sufficient. The anthropic principle, far from giving an explanation for the origin of life, is an observation that gives rise to the need for such an explanation.

One of the easiest ways to see that the anthropic principle, by itself, is not a sufficient explanation, is by reviewing an illustration given by philosopher John Leslie. He says that using the anthropic principle against the design hypothesis

sounds like arguing that if you faced a firing squad with fifty guns trained on you, you should not be surprised to find that you were alive after they had fired. After all, that is the only outcome you could possibly have observed – if one bullet had hit you, you would be dead. However, you might still feel that there is something which very much needs an explanation; namely why did they all miss? Was it by deliberate design? For there is no inconsistency in not being surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, and being surprised to observe that you are still alive.

Rather than give an explanation of the fine tuning of the universe, the anthropic principle merely invites us to ask for a real explanation. I think we would all like to know why all 50 people in the firing squad missed us.
Does the Anthropic Principle Explain the Fine Tuning of the Universe?

pitabread said:

I dunno about that. Most of the universe seems to want to kill us.

Click to expand...

Then thank God we ended up on this little pin point of a planet called earth.

stevevw said:

I like how John Lennox addresses this explanation.

Lennox explains:

Some scientists and philosophers maintain that we ought not to be surprised at the order and fine-tuning we see in the universe around us, since if it did not exist then carbon-based life would be impossible, and we would not be there to observe the fine-tuning. In other words they use the anthropic principle against the inference of design. In fact, Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion tells us that the anthropic principle and God function as alternative explanations.

One response, then, to fine tuning, is to say that we should not be surprised at fine tuning because if there were no fine tuning to explain the origin of intelligent observers, then we would not be alive, as intelligent observers, to observe the fine tuning. Does this really explain anything, though? This explanation seems like a sleight of hand, or no explanation at all. Lennox reveals why we feel this way:

All the anthropic principle does is to tell us that for life to exist, certain necessary conditions must be fulfilled. But what it does not tell us is why those necessary conditions are fulfilled, nor how, granted they are fulfilled, life arose. Dawkins is making the elementary mistake of thinking that necessary conditions are sufficient. But they are not: in order to get a first class degree at Oxford it is necessary to get into the University; but, as many students know, it is certainly not sufficient. The anthropic principle, far from giving an explanation for the origin of life, is an observation that gives rise to the need for such an explanation.

One of the easiest ways to see that the anthropic principle, by itself, is not a sufficient explanation, is by reviewing an illustration given by philosopher John Leslie. He says that using the anthropic principle against the design hypothesis

sounds like arguing that if you faced a firing squad with fifty guns trained on you, you should not be surprised to find that you were alive after they had fired. After all, that is the only outcome you could possibly have observed – if one bullet had hit you, you would be dead. However, you might still feel that there is something which very much needs an explanation; namely why did they all miss? Was it by deliberate design? For there is no inconsistency in not being surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, and being surprised to observe that you are still alive.

Rather than give an explanation of the fine tuning of the universe, the anthropic principle merely invites us to ask for a real explanation. I think we would all like to know why all 50 people in the firing squad missed us.
Does the Anthropic Principle Explain the Fine Tuning of the Universe?

Click to expand...

So we could only experience an aftermath of the firing squad in which we had lived, but we couldn't take that as evidence that the shooters WANTED us to live, we should not be surprised that we can experience a universe in which the laws are such that we can exist, but we must not assume that it is because there is some deity that wants us to live here.

Kylie said:

So we could only experience an aftermath of the firing squad in which we had lived, but we couldn't take that as evidence that the shooters WANTED us to live, we should not be surprised that we can experience a universe in which the laws are such that we can exist, but we must not assume that it is because there is some deity that wants us to live here.

Click to expand...

I think the point was more about how the anthropic principle itself does not explain the fine tuning but invites us to ask for a real explanation. How did the 50 gun shots miss. Was there some meddling going on. It does not take into account how the puddle got there in the first place or its surroundings. The fine-tuning argument for intelligent life and the universe is about why our universe is here at all so it is about why the hole was there to accommodate the puddle. It doesn't explain why our universe didn't expand too fast or collapse or be incapable of producing the type of stars we have or unable to produce matter or the right forces but produced the one we have.

In other words, it does not account for the road the puddle is in and how it is nice and flat to accommodate the puddle. Also what about the other puddles around that puddle who also have holes that perfectly fit. This does not compare to the earth being so perfect for intelligent life. If there were many other earthsthen yes it would make our earth no so special.

If the puddle analogy was sufficient to explain the fine-tuning argument then why do so many scientists talk about string theory and multiverses as a way of accounting for the fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life. If there are many other universes that have varying physical makeups then our fine-tuned one is not so special. There would be billions of other universes where there may have been no life, strange life, hostile conditions, expanding too fast, imploding universe etc. We just happen to be in the one that produced our life.

stevevw said:

If the puddle analogy was sufficient to explain the fine-tuning argument then why do so many scientists talk about string theory and multiverses as a way of accounting for the fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life. If there are many other universes that have varying physical makeups then our fine-tuned one is not so special. There would be billions of other universes where there may have been no life, strange life, hostile conditions, expanding too fast, imploding universe etc. We just happen to be in the one that produced our life.

Click to expand...

Of course, we could only ever have been in the one that produced life, that's kinda the point. But if every other possible universe exists out there somewhere, then we do not need to assume that there's some deity out there fine tuning the settings of this universe to suit us.

Kylie said:

Of course, we could only ever have been in the one that produced life, that's kinda the point. But if every other possible universe exists out there somewhere, then we do not need to assume that there's some deity out there fine tuning the settings of this universe to suit us.

Click to expand...

Yes that is one of the reasons a multiverse is used. But if we are the only universe and the only intelligent life in that universe then we would have to be asking how come that happened. The thing is scientists do not hestitate to include these far fetched ideas that have no direct scientific support and even contradict existing scientific theories to help explain away things and account for other difficult to explain problems but when creator is suggested they immediately say there is no evidence for this.

From what I understand from the first split seconds of the big bang which is the most supported idea of how the universe came to be certain conditions had to be place to produce the type of universe we have today which would not be expected from a random event that is more likely to produce chaos and almost any random set of outcomes.

The flateness problem.
The universe is flat and so well balanced between the positively-curved closed universe and the negatively-curved open universe. Of all the possibilities from very positively-curved (very high density) to very negatively-curved (very low density), the current nearly flat condition is definitely a special case. It gives us just the right balance in matter and density and this balance would have to have been set and even finer from the very split second of the big bang as any deviation would have been magnified over time. Hense we dont fly apart of collaspe in on ourselves.

stevevw said:

Then thank God we ended up on this little pin point of a planet called earth.

Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but.... the vast majority of places on this planet are also environments that are extremely hostile for us - not to say flat out uninhabitable.

Then there are also millions, billions, of things crawling, flying, floating and swinging on this planet which are also out to kill us.

And it's not like we are safe on this planet from all the cosmic stuff that would kill us either.....
A super nova a little to close to home with the gamma rays pointed at us and it is game over.
Or a little bigger-then-average space rock that happens to hit us. UV sunrays that give us cancer. Etc.

To survive on this planet is a serious struggle you know... Even if our comfy 21st high tech society makes it feel like a walk in the park at times.

stevevw said:

Yes that is one of the reasons a multiverse is used. But if we are the only universe and the only intelligent life in that universe then we would have to be asking how come that happened. The thing is scientists do not hestitate to include these far fetched ideas that have no direct scientific support and even contradict existing scientific theories to help explain away things and account for other difficult to explain problems but when creator is suggested they immediately say there is no evidence for this.

Click to expand...

First of all, the multiverse isn't motivated by "it makes god unecessary". Instead, the multiverse is a prediction of inflation theory.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that the multiverse contradicts existing science. I'ld like you to explain how and what exactly.

Third, no scientific idea is ever presented like god ideas are presented. The fact that the highest status any idea in science could ever get is "theory", should ring a bell. God ideas are presented as "Truth". Not even just "truth", but "Truth", capital T.

The two are nothing alike.

From what I understand from the first split seconds of the big bang which is the most supported idea of how the universe came to be certain conditions had to be place to produce the type of universe we have today which would not be expected from a random event that is more likely to produce chaos and almost any random set of outcomes.

Click to expand...

The universe IS pretty chaotic you know. The order you perceive is the result of deterministic forces (like gravity and such) acting on that chaos.
It's also not clear to me how you have determined that the initial set of our universe wasn't "random". And note that I'm not claiming that it was random. Just questioning how you could possibly justify the claim that it wasn't.

The flateness problem.
The universe is flat and so well balanced between the positively-curved closed universe and the negatively-curved open universe. Of all the possibilities from very positively-curved (very high density) to very negatively-curved (very low density), the current nearly flat condition is definitely a special case. It gives us just the right balance in matter and density and this balance would have to have been set and even finer from the very split second of the big bang as any deviation would have been magnified over time. Hense we dont fly apart of collaspe in on ourselves.

Click to expand...

Nice copy paste.

DogmaHunter said:

I hate to break it to you but.... the vast majority of places on this planet are also environments that are extremely hostile for us - not to say flat out uninhabitable.

Then there are also millions, billions, of things crawling, flying, floating and swinging on this planet which are also out to kill us.

And it's not like we are safe on this planet from all the cosmic stuff that would kill us either.....
A super nova a little to close to home with the gamma rays pointed at us and it is game over.
Or a little bigger-then-average space rock that happens to hit us. UV sunrays that give us cancer. Etc.

To survive on this planet is a serious struggle you know... Even if our comfy 21st high tech society makes it feel like a walk in the park at times.

Click to expand...

The point is that we are here in the first place which seems against the odds. I dont think we could have a planet that is not going to have some places that some may consider hostile, it will depend on what you mean by hostile and what role it plays in making earth livable. I would say the ecosystems and the creatures they produce are all part of why planet earth is livable.

The oceans take up most of the earth and if it wasnt for that we would not have the climate which contributes to having drinkable water, forests which then contributes to the breathable atmosphere. The same will go for what you may call hostile like the polar ice caps which plays a role in ocean currents which help balance the weather patterns. Besides people have learnt to adapt quite well to the extreme places on earth.

stevevw said:

The point is that we are here in the first place which seems against the odds.

Click to expand...

So how did you calculate those odds?

And if us being here against the odds, so what? "against the odds" is not the same as "impossible".

It's "against the odds" to win the lottery, but somebody wins it every week.

I dont think we could have a planet that is not going to have some places that some may consider hostile, it will depend on what you mean by hostile and what role it plays in making earth livable. I would say the ecosystems and the creatures they produce are all part of why planet earth is livable.

Click to expand...

There are places on this planet where literally nothing can survive.

The oceans take up most of the earth and if it wasnt for that we would not have the climate which contributes to having drinkable water, forests which then contributes to the breathable atmosphere. The same will go for what you may call hostile like the polar ice caps which plays a role in ocean currents which help balance the weather patterns. Besides people have learnt to adapt quite well to the extreme places on earth.

Click to expand...

Not just people. Every single species is "fine tuned" for the niche it inhabits.

Not because those environments were "made for them". But because those species all evolved to live in those environments.

It is not surprising that we live on a planet on which we can actually live.

DogmaHunter said:

So how did you calculate those odds?

Click to expand...

This has been calculated by much greater minds than you or I. Physicist Roger Penrose has calculated the odds that the entire universe is as orderly as our galactic neighborhood to be one in 10 to the 10 to the 123 to 1, a number whose decimal representation has vastly more zeroes than the number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. Extrapolating back to the big bang only deepens this puzzle.


Stephen Hawking (The Nature of Space and Time, page 89) “Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.”

Steven Weinberg Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

And if us being here against the odds, so what? "against the odds" is not the same as "impossible".

Click to expand...

Maybe but with those sort of odds, I think people begin to say it may as well be impossible odds. It is not just about getting one number right like in a lottery but getting many right at the same time.

It's "against the odds" to win the lottery, but somebody wins it every week.

Click to expand...

It depends on which lottery. Lotto where you have to pick 6 or more numbers often have no winners and there is a rollover. At one stage the English lotto rolled over 14 weeks in a row. They are thinking of adding more numbers which some say will make it near impossible for anyone to win the big prize. The lotto is small odds compared to the fine-tuning of the many constants for producing a specific universe and intelligent life. So this can be impossible odds.

There are places on this planet where literally nothing can survive.

Click to expand...

I agree but that hardly diminishes the fine-tuning of many conditions for life. It isn't just about our planet but also about a bunch of conditions that allow our planet to exist the way it does and for our solar system to be in the right place and in fact for our universe to exist in the right way to produce our earth.

heres just a few
- Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic goldilocks zone of low radiation
- Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate
- The Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons
- The Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water
- The Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem
Fine Tuning of the Solar System

So having a few places where intelligent life cannot exist I think is irrelevant. Besides, I would say that even these places where nothing can exist would also be needed in the scheme of things to allow us to be here.

Not just people. Every single species is "fine-tuned" for the niche it inhabits.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats probably true as well. They all need to be in their places so that the connecting life can also exist.

Not because those environments were "made for them". But because those species all evolved to live in those environments.

Click to expand...

That's the assumption. It could be that life has a natural ability to adapt to environments already built in. That environment is not just separate things but are connected to life and they work together. In that sense, things would be even more fine tuned. A whole ecosystem is the sum of all its parts and can be affected by one part being damaged. We see many examples of this in nature.

It is not surprising that we live on a planet on which we can actually live.

Click to expand...

It is when you consider that if existence is subject to random events and the immense possibilities of alternative outcomes that may not have produced life as we know it.

Aman777 said:

Heaven, the first creation element made, is the Hebrew word for Air/Atmosphere.

The Water came forth from the atmosphere so it was not "created". A plain reading does NOT give you understanding but STUDY does: 2Ti 2:15

Click to expand...

Are you not understanding that AIR (let alone hot gasses & molten rock) is not WATER? It doesn't matter whether it was created or not - you're just ricochetting off in all directions trying to grab at anything to help you get through this - it just isn't going to work. You seem to have forgotten your failed claim - it is that Genesis 1:2 and 1:6 are Scientifically Accurate and they are NOT! Let's Recap:

Not Air, but Waters!, WATERS!!

So, definitely no mention of Hot Gasses and Molten Rock, which is what would be required if it were to be Scientifically Accurate! and not allegorical or mistranslated by fallible men when writing the Bible in the first place.

And now you're saying that your God isn't clear in his communication without study? I might also point out that other Christians study the same Bible you do and get very different conclusions to both you and to other Christians alike. If you think your God wrote it, then he's clearly the author of confusion, and not anything less. Are you sure you still want to stand by your claim?

Aman777 said:

Absolutely not and neither does it agree with what is actually written.

Click to expand...

Okay, Thank you for conceding that Genesis 1:9 does NOT agree with Science. Moving on...

Aman777 said:

Grass appeared on Adam's Earth BEFORE the beginning of our cosmos. Adam was made the 3rd Day but our Earth was not made until the 5th Day, 9 Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. Adam was first made. Gen 2:4-7

Click to expand...

This is all pure speculation and unfounded conjecture on your part. All the evidence we have shows Dinosaurs existing well before grass. This passage does NOT agree with Science, you Fail.

Aman777 said:

Since Adam's Earth was made BEFORE the Big Bang, it was more than 14 Billion years ago, in man's time. Your confusing is caused by the incomplete ToE which knows Nothing of Adam's small world which was only miles wide. IOW, Science is ignorant of Humanity's true origin. Amen?

Click to expand...

Your Imagination of course doesn't agree with Science then, Does It? Another Fail! Humans in our current form didn't exist until around 100,000 to 250,000 years ago - not Billions of years prior to the Big Bang, that's just your hyperactive imagination playing tricks on you to protect your Scientifically inaccurate worldview.

Aman777 said:

False, since Humans were first made, Billions of years BEFORE any other living creature. Adam lived in a perfect body, like Christians will have in Heaven, for Billions of years BEFORE the first prehistoric beings came forth from water on the 5th Day. Get this one thing straight. God made 3 Heavens or Universes.

Click to expand...

ALL OF IT IS UNFOUNDED CONJECTURE AND DOES NOT FIT WITH SCIENCE! You, Aman, are peddling a False belief if you actually think that all your ramblings agree with Science! Humans in our current form didn't exist until around 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, This is what Science tells us!

Aman777 said:

Sure it does. Show us where God said Whales were made first or straight up. Just because Whales are listed first does not mean they were first made, just that Whales AND every other living creature came forth from Water at God's command.

Click to expand...

It should be read as "whales and every living thing that comes from the water"....and of course "every winged fowl" as well don't forget - A plain reading of Genesis indicates a time-ordered turn of events because Genesis speaks about creation of the various elements in a time ordered fashion, even delineating days as they come. Genesis 1:22 conforms to this because it goes on to tell all the "Whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly" to then "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas" then as if to follow on from Genesis 1:21 with like, Genesis 1:22 continues on in the same sentence; "and let fowl multiply in the earth" as if to mirror and follow on from the previous statement in Genesis 1:21 of these things having been created in the water and in the air. It's as if Genesis 1:21 is actually only talking about living things in the water and in the air, because no mention is made of any Land creature in Genesis 1:21 being created, or in Genesis 1:22 being blessed to go on and be fruitful and multiply! The narrative only speaks of water bound life, and life that falls specifically under the "winged Fowl" kind...

Or are you going to tell us all now that everything living goes back into the sea to give birth? I don't think so.

Aman777 said:

God the Trinity made birds (fowl) from water on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 and Lord God/Jesus made birds/fowl from the dust of the ground on the 6th Day. Gen 2:19 You keep forgetting that Genesis is speaking of two separate Heavens or Universes.

Click to expand...

No, I haven't forgotten because it isn't mentioned to be remembered in the first place. That is strictly your own unfounded conjecture of a set of texts that have been written by fallible men to be misunderstood by all manner of Jews, Christians and even Muslims throughout the ages, just as You have, Aman.

Aman777 said:

It hasn't happened YET and won't until Jesus returns and changes Bears and Lions into Vegetarians. Read Isaiah 11

Click to expand...

I don't have to read it because it's a non-event so far and Genesis 1:30 says it has already happened, so it doesn't agree with Science.

Aman777 said:

Since it hasn't happened in the past and Isaiah shows that it will happen when Jesus returns to rule and reign for a thousand years, it's PROPHECY of what will happen when Jesus returns...a Future event.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. This is just a failed Scientific Claim. Genesis 1 clearly states a full suite of events that HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST (i.e. the Beginning of Creation), and as such, does not comport with Reality as Science shows. It therefore DOES NOT AGREE WITH SCIENCE - so FAIL! I can't be any clearer.

Aman777 said:

Chapter and verse please.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1:24-30. Plainly read it.

Aman777 said:

False accusation from someone who ALSO disagrees with God the Holy Spirit, the Author of Genesis. God Bless you

Click to expand...

Not False, because the Bible clearly doesn't agree with Science. I've amply demonstrated this fact above. Also, since you've conceded that Genesis 1:9 doesn't comport with Science, you can no longer claim the Bible is 100% accurate with Science.

Thank you.

stevevw said:

This has been calculated by much greater minds than you or I. Physicist Roger Penrose has calculated the odds that the entire universe is as orderly as our galactic neighborhood to be one in 10 to the 10 to the 123 to 1, a number whose decimal representation has vastly more zeroes than the number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. Extrapolating back to the big bang only deepens this puzzle.


Stephen Hawking (The Nature of Space and Time, page 89) “Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.”

Steven Weinberg Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

Click to expand...

You're aware all those people have no belief in Gods or supernatural deities, right? It's almost as if they understand the subject matter so well that they don't have to fill in some hole of knowledge and/or ignorance with a stop-gap measure, or something...

stevevw said:

Maybe but with those sort of odds, I think people begin to say it may as well be impossible odds. It is not just about getting one number right like in a lottery but getting many right at the same time.

Click to expand...

...but it's still not impossible. If it is that we're part of a "multiverse" of infinite universes, then there's going to be an infinite amount of universes that can support life, no matter how unlikely the odds are. Do you not understand this (I'm genuinely asking & not having a go at you...just in case...)?

stevevw said:

Maybe but with those sort of odds, I think people begin to say it may as well be impossible odds. It is not just about getting one number right like in a lottery but getting many right at the same time.

It depends on which lottery. Lotto where you have to pick 6 or more numbers often have no winners and there is a rollover. At one stage the English lotto rolled over 14 weeks in a row. They are thinking of adding more numbers which some say will make it near impossible for anyone to win the big prize. The lotto is small odds compared to the fine-tuning of the many constants for producing a specific universe and intelligent life. So this can be impossible odds.

Click to expand...

How many people enter this Lotto? Is it an infinite amount of people, or just a few tens of millions? No matter how miniscule the odds, when you have an infinite amount of tries, you'll be successful an infinite amount of times. That's how the odds work in an infinite multiverse.

Let's see if you understand this concept - if I have a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or 1 in 10^23) chance of getting something right and an infinite amount of chances, how many times will I get it right?

stevevw said:

I agree but that hardly diminishes the fine-tuning of many conditions for life. It isn't just about our planet but also about a bunch of conditions that allow our planet to exist the way it does and for our solar system to be in the right place and in fact for our universe to exist in the right way to produce our earth.

heres just a few
- Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic goldilocks zone of low radiation
- Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate
- The Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons
- The Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water
- The Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem
Fine Tuning of the Solar System

So having a few places where intelligent life cannot exist I think is irrelevant. Besides, I would say that even these places where nothing can exist would also be needed in the scheme of things to allow us to be here.

Click to expand...

If the Multiverse hypothesis is correct (or the 'Many Worlds' interpretation to be precise), there will be another universe where you, stevevw, are an Atheist. There'd also be another universe where the Nazis won World War Two, there'd even be another universe yet again where you're a card-carrying Nazi - and yet another where you're a Nazi Atheist! Heck, there's even a universe where you're a gay nazi woman feminist who understands and accepts science, gets vaccinated regularly, and is an Atheist as well!

lol!

The point I'm making is no matter how many seemingly far-fetched and unlikely combination of events you want to throw into the mix, if the many worlds interpretation holds true, then there's an infinite variety of universes that not only support the same conditions, but are home to the most sublime, through to the most radical version of you in particular, that you could ever imagine. Then there's also the fact that even here in this universe, there's around 1 in 10 star systems that are ideally positioned as we are to our Sun, supporting liquid water and having about the right amount of gravity and mass needed to sustain our form of life, let alone any of the other forms of life here on this planet that exist in conditions we couldn't survive in, so that last list about Fine tuning in our Solar System isn't really that unique tbh...

stevevw said:

Yeah, thats probably true as well. They all need to be in their places so that the connecting life can also exist.

Click to expand...

maybe, but we get by without some of them too - about 98% of them so far - so ymmv

stevevw said:

That's the assumption. It could be that life has a natural ability to adapt to environments already built in. That environment is not just separate things but are connected to life and they work together. In that sense, things would be even more fine tuned. A whole ecosystem is the sum of all its parts and can be affected by one part being damaged. We see many examples of this in nature.

Click to expand...

But it is this way, and we call it Evolution - we've done the experiments to prove it - the Lederberg Experiment is an immediate one that comes to mind: The Lederberg experiment

stevevw said:

It is when you consider that if existence is subject to random events and the immense possibilities of alternative outcomes that may not have produced life as we know it.

Click to expand...

except as mentioned, even here in this universe, the amount of stars with planets around them that are Earth analogues is astounding, way more than we anticipated. I also fear your conflation of natural processes with entirely random events is getting in the way of your understanding what evolution actually is.

I think all those lotto winners who won with such long odds, should have to return the money, because it was impossible that they won.

stevevw said:

Then thank God we ended up on this little pin point of a planet called earth.

Click to expand...

We didn't end up here; this planet is what shaped us. We adapted to living here over time. A crack in the road wasn't made for a plant to grow in it, but since the plant can, it does. For all we know, we live on a hellish planet that barely qualifies for what is necessary for life to develop and thrive.

PsychoSarah said:

For all we know, we live on a hellish planet that barely qualifies for what is necessary for life to develop and thrive.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be nice if we could choose Someone to take us to a better place?