A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

Why? What is so special about intelligent life?

From a believers perspective if there is a creator then he created humans to have relationship with them which can only happen with sentient beings.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes but that seems like a contradiction. If a divine cause was chance then there would be no guarantee of intelligent life. In fact there would be no guarantee of a universe for intelligent life. Why would God take such a gamble.

There are too many assumptions about the nature of God and the universe in that question for a useful answer to be possible. But what we do know for a fact, is that there is intelligent life in the one universe we know for sure exists.

“All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good.
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear, 'Whatever is, is right.”

--Alexander Pope​

 

[Bungle_Bear]

From a believers perspective if there is a creator then he created humans to have relationship with them which can only happen with sentient beings.

Interesting that you changed "intelligent" to "sentient". Can you distinguish between the two? Is intelligent life not special, only sentient life? Perhaps sentient life isn't special per se, only humans?

We're left with the argument that the universe was created specially for humans. That's really not a convincing argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's right which makes it even more amazing that life could have been produced in our little corner of the universe.

Life is amazing whatever its ultimate origins, and intelligent life even more so; but given the circumstances, suggesting it's the deliberate product of a creator god takes it from amazing to quite implausible.

Whats the difference between creative agent and creative God...

That's what I'm asking you. You said you were "not even mentioning anything about God being the cause of fine tuning..." and then used 'creative agent' instead. Now you're back to 'creative God' - I'm just curious to know why.

I said I am not trying to directly prove that God created life as that would be impossible. But I also said that even non-religious people/scientists pose the question and idea that things like the fine tuning can be indirect evidence for a creative agent just like they can point to a multiverse. This seems like a reasonable and logical proposition...

OK, if you feel think it's reasonable and logical, you should be able to provide the reasons and logic; i.e. why is a creative agent a reasonable & logical proposition for fine-tuning a universe to be like ours, particularly since there's no guarantee of life, let alone intelligent life.

You should also be able to provide a reasonable and logical argument why a creative agent is a better explanation for fine-tuning than that most unreasonable and illogical of explanations, 'Magic'.

Should I hold my breath?

The problem for those who believe in creator God is trying to separate their personal beliefs from what can be scientifically supported. But even non-religious people can be influenced by their personal beliefs in how they see things. That is why there are calls for philosophy to be more included in issues like how sis life and the universe come about as they are so closely intertwined and hard to separate sometimes.

I'm all in favour of philosophy getting wider exposure and discussion in all areas. However, when it comes to our direct observations of the world, we should focus on the best tools we have developed to describe and explain our observations of the world, i.e. science.

 

[stevevw]

Interesting that you changed "intelligent" to "sentient". Can you distinguish between the two? Is intelligent life not special, only sentient life? Perhaps sentient life isn't special per se, only humans?

We're left with the argument that the universe was created specially for humans. That's really not a convincing argument.

I use sentient in the context for what I was talking about re why a creator made humans. It extends intelligence into self perception in that humans can perceive themselves and a relationship with a creator. As mentioned this is more a philosophical/theological argument that a scientific one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is why some make the case for fine tuning as being indirect support for a creative agent behind things.

Wait, the fact that fine-tuning makes a universe that's largely redundant and largely hostile to life and has no guarantee of life, let alone intelligent life, is indirect support for a 'creative agent'? Can you explain the reasoning there?

At the end of the day if existence and life was the result of a creator then at some point there had to be some contribution from them. From a believers perspective the bible says that God created us to have relationship with him. So we were intended.

Sure, for some believers, what the bible says is true by divine fiat. But you can't argue with beliefs that are not open to argument. If you're one of those people, this has all been a waste of time; if not, it's irrelevant.

So maybe a universe as we know it today was the only type that could have produced life if God uses natural processes as part of creation. That means we have to include block holes to get life. But there is some purpose to the universe as well.

This is special pleading with added GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways). If God created the universe, then 'natural processes' were God's creation.

You're suggesting that God (or some powerful creative agent? it's confusing) might have created the universe with the intent of producing life, but since the universe we see looks quite unlike one intended to produce life, being generally hostile and having features that are entirely irrelevant to creating life, and in any case doesn't guarantee life, then God must have decided to do it that way for... reasons.

Does that seem reasonable and logical to you?

This is different to how atheists see things in that the universe has no purpose. As Dawkins says The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

Dawkins overeggs his pudding; but do tell, what particular aspect of the universe seems purposeful to you?

Scientists talk about the universe having a beginning and they mention that even from the very beginning the parameters for our universe and life had to have been set right to ensure they panned out to produce what we have today. So the question is how could those specific parameters be there from the very beginning if we only have one universe.

When scientists say that the universe had a beginning, they mean the universe as we know it originated from a certain state beyond which we currently have no data and our physical models break down. There are plenty of ideas about what might have preceded that state.

Seems as some say that someone has messed around with things. Otherwise we have to go with a multiverse where those specific parameters for intelligent life were eventually going to happen in one universe.

The state from which our universe originated was totally inimical to any conceivable form of life, yet you're happily suggesting there could have been an intelligent entity for which you cannot account, and for whose existence you have no evidence, and which you think intended to create life, but could only tweak the universe to give a chance of life; and you make it sound like you think this equally or more plausible than the multiverse predicted by a physical hypothesis that has explanatory power in our universe... seriously?

Can you explain how 'someone has messed around with things' is a better explanation than no explanation at all? Or 'Magic', come to that?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I use sentient in the context for what I was talking about re why a creator made humans. It extends intelligence into self perception in that humans can perceive themselves and a relationship with a creator. As mentioned this is more a philosophical/theological argument that a scientific one.

I mentioned before that your argiments are all over the place, and here's another example. You seem to have decided that "intelligent life" can be changed to "God worshipping humans" simply because that's the only outcome you can think of.

 

[stevevw]

Wait, the fact that fine-tuning makes a universe that's largely redundant and largely hostile to life and has no guarantee of life, let alone intelligent life, is indirect support for a 'creative agent'? Can you explain the reasoning there?

The reasoning is based on the fact that we have intelligent life against the odds. But saying that the entire universe is hostile to life is missing the point. The universe is also an amazing feat that has baffled scientists by the fact that it is there in the first place.

Sure, for some believers, what the bible says is true by divine fiat. But you can't argue with beliefs that are not open to argument. If you're one of those people, this has all been a waste of time; if not, it's irrelevant.

As I said I was making a philosophical argument which has nothing to do with scientific fact.

This is special pleading with added GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways). If God created the universe, then 'natural processes' were God's creation.

You're suggesting that God (or some powerful creative agent? it's confusing) might have created the universe with the intent of producing life, but since the universe we see looks quite unlike one intended to produce life, being generally hostile and having features that are entirely irrelevant to creating life, and in any case doesn't guarantee life, then God must have decided to do it that way for... reasons.

Does that seem reasonable and logical to you?

Once again this is going off track. I was talking philosophically/theologically. Like you say God works in mysterious ways and Know one can know for sure his intentions or ways of doing things. I am only trying to put some logic to it if that is possible. To say the universe is totally hostile for life is your perspective. For all we know the what may seem hostile to life is necessary to produce life. For example Stars are hostile to us yet scientists say we are made of the same stuff of stars. So without stars we cannot have life. Without the other elements and celestial bodies in the universe we don't have stars.

Dawkins overeggs his pudding; but do tell, what particular aspect of the universe seems purposeful to you?

Dawkins may do that but there is some truth in what he says as far as atheists are concerned. Speaking philosophically/theologically the universe reflects God. It is part of his creation and we are the crown of creation. This is encapsulated in the anthropic principle.

When scientists say that the universe had a beginning, they mean the universe as we know it originated from a certain state beyond which we currently have no data and our physical models break down. There are plenty of ideas about what might have preceded that state.

Yes but as far as our universe, time and space began with the big bang. What happened before this is beyond that and who knows as the answer would need to be outside the classical explanations. Apart from a multiverse re-birthing universe at some point there had to be something from nothing (nothing I mean nothing and not the appeal to quantum states which is actually something).

The state from which our universe originated was totally inimical to any conceivable form of life, yet you're happily suggesting there could have been an intelligent entity for which you cannot account, and for whose existence you have no evidence, and which you think intended to create life, but could only tweak the universe to give a chance of life; and you make it sound like you think this equally or more plausible than the multiverse predicted by a physical hypothesis that has explanatory power in our universe... seriously?

Most articles I have read on the subject which are mostly non-religious mention multiverse and a creative agent as being the two logical possibilities. They usually count both out through lack of direct verification. The point with the fine tuning is that to allow our universe as we know it and intelligent life to exist the parameters had to be fine tuned from the very beginning. If we take a naturalistic view based on chance happenings then this should logically point to us considering at least these two options of some sort of influence from a creative agent or a multiverse that will allow many variations including the one that produced us.

Can you explain how 'someone has messed around with things' is a better explanation than no explanation at all? Or 'Magic', come to that?

Because the indirect evidence logically points to this and as far as I know science considers the logic. You don't have to say it is verified but you can consider it as an option just as we do other speculative ideas like multiverses and hologram worlds. For what I understand scientists rarely leave it at "no explanation" and will come up with something. Look at all the wrong ideas they have speculated about.

 

[Ophiolite]

Once again this is going off track. I was talking philosophically/theologically. Like you say God works in mysterious ways and Know one can know for sure his intentions or ways of doing things. I am only trying to put some logic to it if that is possible. To say the universe is totally hostile for life is your perspective. For all we know the what may seem hostile to life is necessary to produce life. For example Stars are hostile to us yet scientists say we are made of the same stuff of stars. So without stars we cannot have life. Without the other elements and celestial bodies in the universe we don't have stars.

@FrumiousBandersnatch I have to go along with stevew here.

As he notes, the character of the universe makes life possible. The universe could well be teeming with life, even with intelligent life. We don't know either way, but that ignorance means favouring one position over another is unjustified.

An analogy: human civilisation is hostile to soap operas. Only an incredibly tiny fraction of the population, or of the land area are committed to the production of soap operas. Clearly it is just the remotest chance that soap operas have managed to emerge in this antagonistic environment.
The flawed logic of this position should be clear.

 

[stevevw]

I mentioned before that your argiments are all over the place, and here's another example. You seem to have decided that "intelligent life" can be changed to "God worshipping humans" simply because that's the only outcome you can think of.

I actually clarified that I was talking about two different arguments, one based on science and one based on philosophy and theology. When God was mentioned it necessitated a different set of criteria where we cannot support arguments based on scientific verification. I mentioned that for believers in God they say that God produced the universe for them but as clarified that is only for those who have faith in God. Otherwise the conclusion that the physical parameters are fine tuned to make the universe suitable for intelligent life is one option offered based on indirect scientific support. You have just mixed the two and are applying scientific verification to a philosophical argument.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I actually clarified that I was talking about two different arguments, one based on science and one based on philosophy and theology. When God was mentioned it necessitated a different set of criteria where we cannot support arguments based on scientific verification. I mentioned that for believers in God they say that God produced the universe for them but as clarified that is only for those who have faith in God. Otherwise the conclusion that the physical parameters are fine tuned to make the universe suitable for intelligent life is one option offered based on indirect scientific support. You have just mixed the two and are applying scientific verification to a philosophical argument.

Your original statement:

I would imagine if there was a creative God then he must have included some way of ensuring that intelligent life would eventuate.

You are changing your argument and apparently you don't even realise it.

 

[stevevw]

Life is amazing whatever its ultimate origins, and intelligent life even more so; but given the circumstances, suggesting it's the deliberate product of a creator god takes it from amazing to quite implausible.

I agree when it comes to scientific verification.

That's what I'm asking you. You said you were "not even mentioning anything about God being the cause of fine tuning..." and then used 'creative agent' instead. Now you're back to 'creative God' - I'm just curious to know why.

I was using creative agent originally to try and not personalize it into a specific religious belief. But when asked specifically about why God made the universe that took things into a more personalized situation. But I clarified things by stating that this was more about a philosophical and theological argument than a scientific one. It can be hard to keep things separate but If I have confused you I did not mean to. But as mentioned this is a common problem facing science where the search for answers often goes into philosophical areas.

OK, if you feel think it's reasonable and logical, you should be able to provide the reasons and logic; i.e. why is a creative agent a reasonable & logical proposition for fine-tuning a universe to be like ours, particularly since there's no guarantee of life, let alone intelligent life.

The fact that we have intelligent life that requires many fine tuned conditions in a universe that does not guarantee intelligent life is one logical reason that may point to a creative agent that controls the dials for those parameters. Just as Hoyle points out that it is a logical conclusion. But rather than I trying to support this let me post some independent support where a creative agent of some sort seems a reasonable and logical conclusion just as a multiverse does.

The fine-tuning argument does not prove that God as the Designer of the universe exists if proof means a knock-down, drag-out, deductive proof, the conclusions of which cannot reasonably be denied. It does, nonetheless, offer evidences of God’s design. Fine tuning is consistent what we would expect from a Designer, and it supports theism better than materialism.
Does the Fine-Tuning Argument Work? | HuffPost

Even strongly atheistic physicists seem to believe the choice is unavoidable. Steven Weinberg, the closest physics comes to a Richard Dawkins, told the eminent biologist: "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."
Mark Vernon: God or a multiverse?

You should also be able to provide a reasonable and logical argument why a creative agent is a better explanation for fine-tuning than that most unreasonable and illogical of explanations, 'Magic'.
Should I hold my breath?

I never said I could make an argument for a creative agent above all other possible options. As mentioned several times I said that the two main options are a creative agent and a multiverse and both have no direct scientific support. But a creative agent should have just as much consideration as any option as no option can be verified. The problem I see is that all options are allowed except a creative agent.

I'm all in favour of philosophy getting wider exposure and discussion in all areas. However, when it comes to our direct observations of the world, we should focus on the best tools we have developed to describe and explain our observations of the world, i.e. science.

I agree but what some are finding especially when it comes to areas that involve quantum physics like a multiverse, the creation of the universe and really most things associated with the universe cannot be directly verified by science and may never be able. So some are appealing to indirect support and taking a more philosophical approach. Maybe there is a point where science cannot find the answer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The reasoning is based on the fact that we have intelligent life against the odds. But saying that the entire universe is hostile to life is missing the point. The universe is also an amazing feat that has baffled scientists by the fact that it is there in the first place.

Firstly, we can't really say we are here against the odds. We don't know what the odds are. In terms of our existence in a hostile universe, the space of possibilities (e.g. number of habitable planets) may well be large enough that life is likely despite those planets being a relatively negligible component of the universe. In terms of the universe being here at all, at present that's just a brute fact, we have no way of telling how probable a sample of one is.

As I said I was making a philosophical argument which has nothing to do with scientific fact.

I'm sorry, I missed the argument - all I saw was two disconnected statements - that if God created the universe He had some contribution, and that some people believe what the bible says is true (i.e. that God created us intentionally). Perhaps you could clarify?

I was talking philosophically/theologically. Like you say God works in mysterious ways and Know one can know for sure his intentions or ways of doing things. I am only trying to put some logic to it if that is possible.

If we can't know His intentions or ways, or even if He exists at all, we can only speculate that he would act logically and rationally. That is why I was asking whether you really thought your suggestion was reasonable and logical.

To say the universe is totally hostile for life is your perspective.

I said largely hostile and generally hostile. If it was totally hostile we wouldn't be here.

For all we know the what may seem hostile to life is necessary to produce life. For example Stars are hostile to us yet scientists say we are made of the same stuff of stars. So without stars we cannot have life. Without the other elements and celestial bodies in the universe we don't have stars.

Sure, I agree with that. But you were proposing that some entity created all that with the express intent of producing intelligent life. I'm pointing out that if such a potent entity intended to create intelligent life, the universe we observe does not seem a logical and reasonable way of ensuring it.

Speaking philosophically/theologically the universe reflects God. It is part of his creation and we are the crown of creation. This is encapsulated in the anthropic principle.

I don't follow your point. If you invent a God to explain the universe, you'll obviously see the universe as a reflection of that God. If you don't, you won't.

The anthropic principle is essentially a statement about self-selection - observers should not be surprised to find themselves in an environment that can support observers like them; the basic principle is no more than that. The article you linked isn't clear about which kind of anthropic principle it's talking about, but it sounds like the version of the strong anthropic principle conflated with the FTA. But the idea that the universe must have been made for us is unjustified speculation - as the puddle argument points out, and that same article undermines the FTA premises:

"There are many reasons, in any event, to doubt that the universe has been fine-tuned for our benefit.
...
physicist Fred Adams maintains that the necessary conditions for a life-supporting universe aren’t so demanding after all. “The parameters of our universe,” he writes, “could have varied by large factors and still allowed for working stars and potentially habitable planets.”"​

Apart from a multiverse re-birthing universe at some point there had to be something from nothing (nothing I mean nothing and not the appeal to quantum states which is actually something).

The 'nothing' we use in everyday life is a relative concept, not absolute. The nothing you're talking about is literally not a thing, it's the concept of negation, it's not a physical state, so it doesn't make sense to say something came from it - there is no 'it'.

There are alternatives to an eternally recurrent universe, such as no-boundary proposals, where the time dimension becomes imaginary (in the mathematical sense) towards what would appear to be a beginning to observers in that universe, so that there is no time before the start (just as there is no direction north at the north pole), and others. When dealing with GR, you don't have a classical flat space with absolute time, spacetime is dynamic, so you can have finite 'temporal bubble' universes that 'just are', and you can have a spatially infinite universe emerge from an event in a finite volume in a finite time, and so-on.

The point with the fine tuning is that to allow our universe as we know it and intelligent life to exist the parameters had to be fine tuned from the very beginning.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, we don't yet know why the constants have the values they have. They may necessarily have those values, through interdependence. One objective of a Theory Of Everything is to have the physical constant values emerge from the fundamental theory. We don't know that they had to have those values - the physics ideas that we have to describe how a universe like ours can come about can allow a huge variety of possible values to emerge - like the huge variety of holes that puddles can fill.

If we take a naturalistic view based on chance happenings then this should logically point to us considering at least these two options of some sort of influence from a creative agent or a multiverse that will allow many variations including the one that produced us.

We only speculate about chance because we don't know enough about how things came to be the way they are. I suspect you only talk about a 'creative agent' (God or a simulation hypothesis?) because you have a supernatural belief system to support that depends on a God - is there other reason to suggest it?

Because the indirect evidence logically points to this and as far as I know science considers the logic.

Science doesn't say it looks as if 'someone has messed around with things', that was a scientist expressing his personal opinion. As I've said before, scientifically, the God hypothesis is a non-starter - untestable, makes no predictions, leads to no deeper understanding, doesn't cohere with our existing body of knowledge, is not parsimonious (requires a whole new ontology), and raises more questions than it answers (all unanswerable); you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

If you disagree, you should be able to tell me what makes it a better explanation than saying that the indirect evidence points logically to 'Magic'.

 

[stevevw]

Your original statement:

I would imagine if there was a creative God then he must have included some way of ensuring that intelligent life would eventuate.

You are changing your argument and apparently you don't even realise it.

As I said there were two different conversation with two different basis. I was debating with Speedwell about the divine implications of the fine tuning arguments from a believers perspective as we have discussed this perspective earlier on this thread.

My question to Speedwell was PM#544
Just out of interest if the universe came about by a naturalistic cause which could not guarantee that we humans would not result then how do you think God created the universe to ensure intelligent life came about.

FrumiousBandersnatch came in on that conversation at post #552
and I gave that answer you quoted the following post. But it was all part of another conversation based on theology and philosophy and not science.

This was the following post to Speedwell after post 544 showing the context of the conversation.
#554
Speedwell
Why a naturalistic cause? Would not a divine contingent cause be equally problematic for your theology?
Stevevw
Yes but that seems like a contradiction. If a divine cause was chance then there would be no guarantee of intelligent life. In fact there would be no guarantee of a universe for intelligent life. Why would God take such a gamble.

As you see it was based on theology and philosophy and not a scientific one and coming in on another conversation without knowing the context can lead to misunderstandings.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@FrumiousBandersnatch I have to go along with stevew here.

As he notes, the character of the universe makes life possible. The universe could well be teeming with life, even with intelligent life. We don't know either way, but that ignorance means favouring one position over another is unjustified.

An analogy: human civilisation is hostile to soap operas. Only an incredibly tiny fraction of the population, or of the land area are committed to the production of soap operas. Clearly it is just the remotest chance that soap operas have managed to emerge in this antagonistic environment.
The flawed logic of this position should be clear.

I'm not sure what you think I've said that your post is arguing against.

I'm not saying that the chance of life emerging in our universe is extremely small - I think it's very high. But I think that the appearance of intelligent life is not guaranteed.

I'm saying that if you propose an entity potent enough to create a universe like this one ex-nihilo, and you claim that this entity intended to create intelligent life, then a universe like this doesn't seem the most logical and reasonable way of ensuring that - an entity that can arrange things how it wants can ensure that its intent is realised more efficiently and effectively.

It would be quite reasonable to claim that the intent was to create a universe like ours on the off-chance that something interesting, such as intelligent life, might arise, but that isn't the claim - although it does highlight the pointlessness of speculating about the intentions of speculative entities that can create universes.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not sure what you think I've said that your post is arguing against.

I'm not saying that the chance of life emerging in our universe is extremely small - I think it's very high. But I think that the appearance of intelligent life is not guaranteed.

I am suggesting* that we lack sufficient data, at present, to decide on the odds of intelligent life developing. Consequently the view that "the appearance of intelligent life is not guaranteed" has as much, or as little, evidential support as stevew's speculations.

*Suggesting is a diplomatic, British euphemism. I am really making one of my rare absolute statements: we do not have the data.

 

[stevevw]

Firstly, we can't really say we are here against the odds. We don't know what the odds are. In terms of our existence in a hostile universe, the space of possibilities (e.g. number of habitable planets) may well be large enough that life is likely despite those planets being a relatively negligible component of the universe. In terms of the universe being here at all, at present that's just a brute fact, we have no way of telling how probable a sample of one is.

According to this study earth maybe a lucky planet.
This study showed that there are around 700 quintillion planets in the universe, but only one like Earth.
TERRESTRIAL PLANETS ACROSS SPACE AND TIME
Earth May Be a 1-in-700-Quintillion Kind of Place - D-brief

I would have thought having such a large universe with that many planets that the chances of having an earth like planet would be fairly high. I know we cannot tell as yet but maybe we will never be able to know. But I guess the more that time goes by and we don't find any other life the more we can say that life on earth is an extremely rare thing.

I'm sorry, I missed the argument - all I saw was two disconnected statements - that if God created the universe He had some contribution, and that some people believe what the bible says is true (i.e. that God created us intentionally). Perhaps you could clarify?

That's OK, it was a theological discussion. I was trying to apply some logic to Gods intentions which probably is not a good idea. I thought if God intended humans to be part of his creation and they could not come along until long after the universe had begun and developed earth then surely he must have put some mechanisms in place to ensure humans came about. If God uses naturalistic processes that are said to be chance then how can this guarantee the creation of humans (intelligent life). Surely God would not take a gamble on this.

It is the same for how life begun which is more relevant to the OP as far as protein evolution. Theistic evolution supporters say that God created the first universal living cell or organism. Some say God set this to happen with the creation of existence with the universe (big bang). So this would indicate that at some point God had ensured life would come about and therefore not leave it us to a chance naturalistic process.

Some say a natural process is what God used but many scientists say there is no purpose with natural process and are based on blind chance which for me would not guarantee life happening. If a multiverse is used then this means things are subject to chance so therefore if that same chance is applied to only one universe then any outcome could have occurred including no intelligent life or some other kind of life that cannot have relationship with God.

If we can't know His intentions or ways, or even if He exists at all, we can only speculate that he would act logically and rationally. That is why I was asking whether you really thought your suggestion was reasonable and logical.

I agree and that is what I am doing speculating about Gods logic. I agree it is not something associated with scientific inquiry.

Sure, I agree with that. But you were proposing that some entity created all that with the express intent of producing intelligent life. I'm pointing out that if such a potent entity intended to create intelligent life, the universe we observe does not seem a logical and reasonable way of ensuring it.

Once again speculating into Gods logic I would imagine if intelligent life is the end result of a universe warts and all then for whatever reason that had to happen first to enable life. It is interesting that this is how it happened. The universe had to form putting all its stars and galaxies in place and then earth came along more recently and then gradually developed the right conditions for life. So earth could not happen unless our galaxy happened and our galaxy could not happen etc including all the not so good stuff. It sort of makes sense in an orderly way. But hey I am only speculating so who knows there may be some greater overall plan we cannot begin to comprehend.

I don't follow your point. If you invent a God to explain the universe, you'll obviously see the universe as a reflection of that God. If you don't, you won't.

I guess so but I think there is more to it than that. This has been a question human kind has asked and sought to find answers.

The anthropic principle is essentially a statement about self-selection - observers should not be surprised to find themselves in an environment that can support observers like them; the basic principle is no more than that. The article you linked isn't clear about which kind of anthropic principle it's talking about, but it sounds like the version of the strong anthropic principle conflated with the FTA. But the idea that the universe must have been made for us is unjustified speculation - as the puddle argument points out, and that same article undermines the FTA premises:

"There are many reasons, in any event, to doubt that the universe has been fine-tuned for our benefit.
...
physicist Fred Adams maintains that the necessary conditions for a life-supporting universe aren’t so demanding after all. “The parameters of our universe,” he writes, “could have varied by large factors and still allowed for working stars and potentially habitable planets.”"
​

I am not saying the fine tuning argument is rock solid or direct evidence. There are varying views and claims about the evidence just as there are with the other ideas like a multiverse.

I will leave it there with this post as I can see it will be a long one so I can break it up. Kind regards Steve.​

 

[Speedwell]

Surely God would not take a gamble on this.

You don't know that He did. What you are looking for is a determinism that you can perceive and comprehend. You don't know that He needs that, either.

Some say a natural process is what God used but many scientists say there is no purpose with natural process...

It would not be detectable there in any case.

...and are based on blind chance...

Which is not the opposite of purposeful.

I agree and that is what I am doing speculating about Gods logic.

That God is logical is itself a speculation. As Bungle Bear pointed out already, there appears to be some confusion in your theology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... rather than I trying to support this let me post some independent support where a creative agent of some sort seems a reasonable and logical conclusion just as a multiverse does.

I wanted to hear your argument, not the quoted opinions of people I can't discuss with. If you're saying you just think it's right because other people say so, the obvious question is why take their word for it and not someone else's?

I never said I could make an argument for a creative agent above all other possible options.

That wasn't the question; you said you thought the idea of a creative agent was a reasonable and logical proposition. I asked you to explain how it was more reasonable and logical than the most unreasonable and illogical explanation I could think of, 'Magic'.

Are you saying that you think 'Magic' is as reasonable and logical an explanation as a 'creative agent'? If not, you should be able to say why you think a creative agent is more reasonable and logical.

As mentioned several times I said that the two main options are a creative agent and a multiverse and both have no direct scientific support. But a creative agent should have just as much consideration as any option as no option can be verified. The problem I see is that all options are allowed except a creative agent.

You've already based your support for a creative agent on quotes from other people who apparently think it is allowed, so claiming that it isn't allowed seems to contradict that.

But as I've explained more than once, verification is not the sole criterion, otherwise any old nonsense would have equal consideration with predictions based on solid physics, such as the prediction of black holes long before it was thought possible to ever detect them.

My argument here is that a bigger picture of cultural norms is being ignored. Humans have an apparently innate drive to attribute hidden agency to unexplained events. Over history this has taken many forms - animism, nature spirits & elementals, polytheisim, non-specifics such as synchronicity, magic, karma, and fate, and in our culture, monotheism. All these are, or have been, the default cultural go-to explanations for the unexplained or inexplicable.

So it's not surprising that when addressing the biggest unexplained question of all, the choices are seen to be between a controversial physical explanation, the multiverse, and the cultural default, in this case God. If we were a culture with a polytheistic default belief system, we might say it was either a multiverse or one of the creator gods, if we had a concept of fate as our cultural default, we might say it was either a multiverse or it was 'just meant to be'. Similarly, if magic was our cultural default, we might say it was either a multiverse or 'Magic'.

The point is that right or wrong, the multiverse explanation and the hidden agency explanations are qualitatively different; the former is an extrapolation of physical theory based on well-tested fundamentals, the latter are belief systems with no physical basis beyond a history of feelings and emotions.

Given human evolutionary history, one can argue that it's logical and reasonable that people have such beliefs, but that doesn't mean the beliefs themselves are logical or reasonable. If you want to argue that the God explanation is logical and reasonable, then the burden of proof rests with you. This is why I continue to ask for how it is a more logical and reasonable explanation than 'Magic', another belief with no physical basis, and generally considered to be unreasonable and illogical.

... what some are finding especially when it comes to areas that involve quantum physics like a multiverse...

Everything involves quantum physics; but the inflationary multiverse that is suggested as an explanation for the appearance of fine-tuning is not directly dependent on it. Don't confuse the Everettian 'Many Worlds' quantum multiverse with the inflationary multiverse, they're not the same thing.

... Maybe there is a point where science cannot find the answer.

There will inevitably be such a point; even if a Theory of Everything is developed, there will be the question, 'why that theory and not some other?' There are a number of fundamental questions that can't logically be answered, like 'what is the universe ultimately made of?'

But we should be able to eventually distinguish the questions that are unanswerable in principle from those that are potentially answerable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am suggesting* that we lack sufficient data, at present, to decide on the odds of intelligent life developing. Consequently the view that "the appearance of intelligent life is not guaranteed" has as much, or as little, evidential support as stevew's speculations.

OK; I disagree, but I can drop that point and propose that, assuming that the universe is large enough and/or the odds of intelligent life emerging on a habitable planet are sufficient that we can consider intelligent life inevitable, there are still features of the universe that are quite unnecessary in respect of producing habitable planets, and which we would not expect to observe if the intent was solely to produce intelligent life.