It's kind of the whole point of the analogy...the puddle sees its hole as being specially made for it.
I thought it was about the water being fluid and therefore it can fit any hole. The idea is because the puddle fits the hole and the hole must have been made for the puddle.
How could you possibly do that?
Because under a chance process that natural processes promotes the outcome of the hole (universe) from the big bang could have ended up being any hole (universe) that had hostile conditions that were not accommodating for life.
1. First of all, our "universe" doesn't have the exact physical makeup to produce and sustain life. An extremely tiny portion of our universe does.
yes and so far that tiny oasis is planet earth. There are around 140 constants that are associated with allowing our universe and planet and therefore intelligent life. Some are associated with how our galaxy is positioned, how our earth is positioned within the galaxy, how the moon is positioned to the earth. So are associated with the physical constants like the ratio of electron to proton mass, the values of the strong and weak nuclear forces the list goes on.
2. When you talk about life, really, you are talking about life as we know it.
The fine tuning argument is talking about intelligent life, one that can contemplate their place in the universe.
3. You still have not demonstrated that it is even possible for there to be other physical constants
Nor have the science proved that our constants are not the only ones. All we can do is go by what we know and that is the constants that we have.
4. We don't know if we are the only universe
How do we verify that there are other universes. All we can do is go by what we have. If we took the approach that there may be other dimensions and psychics somewhere else which may alter our reality then we cannot be sure of any of our theories.
When you put that together, there are many other possible answers to your question than intelligent design. Maybe there are infinite opportunities for such constants to exist, maybe there is only one, Maybe there is more intelligent life capable of living in different conditions. There simply is not enough information available from the fine tuning argument to conclude anything about a tuner.
Maybe so and time will tell. But we can only go by what we know and have at the moment and this seems to point to our universe being well suited to produce and sustain life in our little corner of the universe. If they find intelligent life somewhere in our universe then this may show we are not so special. But I cannot see how we can verify other universes as we cannot leave our reality and go to another.
We are just as ignorant about the answer to that question as the puddle.
The puddle does not even go as far as investigating things. It just assumes because it is there that everything must have been set up that way.
Good, I'm glad we agree in that at least...cause that is exactly what ID does; appeals to non-verified situations.
Yes I am aware of that and am not trying to prove God. But in saying that multiverses are also something that cannot be verified but scientists are not hesitant in using them as support.
This tuning implies variable constants. In order for the fine-tuning argument to work, you have to demonstrate that the constants are not actually constant. And I don't mean actually showing that they vary in our universe, I mean showing that there is a possibility they COULD be different....anywhere.
Then why do scientists make a big thing out of our constants being so fine tuned. They can only do that if they are acknowledging that those constants are subject to other values. If they are not and are fixed then there is no big deal of fine tuning. So the question is do they know that our constants can only fall within the values they did and nothing else. Most scientists including ones like Hawking, Weinberg, Rees, Davies, Hoyle all make a big deal out of the fine tuning of our universe.
Again I ask the question: how can you possibly know the odds of our universe being the way it is, if you can't even quantify the different ways that it could be? For all we know, the odds could be 1 in 1.
Because our science is based on naturalism and that is the way we determine all happenings. That is things happen by chance and are not directed by anything to happen in any particular way. That means from the big bang things expanded randomly and chaotically and the outcome could have been any possibility. If things happened where the odds were certain that a specific outcome was going to happen then that would point more to some directions and orchestration behind things in a naturalistic chance process.
Sure, you can arbitrarily change numbers around, but we have no idea if those changes reflect a possibility in reality or not.
We cannot change our numbers for our universe as the science shows for example
- Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
- Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
- Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
- Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
- Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
- Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
- weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
- gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
- electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
- ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
How did scientists work these results out. Are they making the above results up. Why would they even claim these results if they are not something they have calculated. How did they work out the negative effects from varying the constants. Was this based on science or did they make them up.
