• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The fine tuning of the universe.

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why is there no reason to think there is? What is your reasoning to believe there is no Intelligent Being responsible?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Fine tuning is what it is and if it were not we would not be here discussing it. It wouldn't matter whether God fine tuned the universe with fundamental constants that could not be different and would guarantee our existence or whether they could have been different but He chose the ones out of a multitude of possible ones and tweaked them to specifically allow our existence. The outcome...US was His intent. If it could be shown that just any fundamental constants could give rise to life such as us then there would be no fine tuning involved in our arrival. That is not an argument from ignorance but one of known data...the fundamental constants being set to allow us.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As with any explanation it is what best explains the data. I believe that theism best explains the data.

Good on you. Keep on believing. Nothing can stop you!

It makes no sense for a lot of fine tuners

Why? We see teams of designers here in the real world all the time. Why can't they exist in magical play-time land as well?

you could not be the fine tuner you have not always existed

I fine tuned things back through time. Evidence? The fact that things are fine tuned, obviously.

there is no evidence for a chain of fine tuners all causing each other

Sure there is - the fact that fine tuning exists.

and it is not consistent with theism.
At last we come to the real reason for all of this : "because I really wish it were true because it fits with my religious preconceptions"
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Davian
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That would be your job - because you are the one who concludes from (1) on (2).
I am just pointing out that those scientific source say (1).
Why do the scientific sources say (1)? That is an important question. Many have said that God could be the explanation but one in which they don't allow because it isn't scientific. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense, or that it doesn't explain it best but that it isn't something scientific.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why is there no reason to think there is?

Well, either it doesn't exist or the people who know the reasons are doing a really bad job of presenting them.

What is your reasoning to believe there is no Intelligent Being responsible?
Never said I did.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That is not an argument from ignorance but one of known data...the fundamental constants being set to allow us.

Evidence for this claim? Sure the constants are compatible with us being here (yay evolution!) but what reason should we think that the constants were set specifically to lead to us?
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
All "fine tuning" presented thus far only gets us to "fine tuned for rocks" at best. Given that there are lots of rocks all over the universe, that seems like a potential theory. If you are saying that the simple fact we ended up existing makes it fine tuned just for us, well, bacteria exist and have had a far better run.

But again, if the values are set, that implies they could have been different. If they couldn't be different, they aren't set, they just are.

For example, pi comes up in all manner of equations, could pi be different? Does pi need to be set to be just as it is? I don't see how the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle could be different. If a circle's circumference was anything but pi times the diameter, it wouldn't be a circle.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Why do the scientific sources say (1)?
Because that´s what´s observable.
Many have said that God could be the explanation but one in which they don't allow because it isn't scientific.
This isn´t about allowing or not allowing - it´s about clarifying what those scientific sources you are quoting mean when saying "fine-tuned".
Plus, "Goddidit" has never been and still is no explanation. It is assertion.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense,
No, it just means you need to explain how you get from (1) to (2) - instead of using them as though they were interchangeable.
or that it doesn't explain it best
It doesn´t explain anything.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How would it be intellectual dishonesty? I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other. In fact, not only complex life of any kind but life at all seems to be non-existent in most other models. Please then explain how it is intellectually dishonest when one has support to their claims?

It is demonstrated by the universe being fine tuned to the exact requirements of intelligent beings arising in this universe. That is the demonstration of fine tuning.

I am glad that you enjoy the discussion, however, you seemed not to interested in joining in especially when you were the reason this thread was opened. Oh well. I didn't hold out any real hope that you would be convinced, it is hard to be convinced of something that you don't agree exists and when your mind set is so against what is being promoted. I can only hope that knowing that God exists and knowing how important these questions are to all intelligent life on this planet, that as limited as we human beings are in regard to explaining how we see evidence in our own lives and how that is confirmed in the universe that I make as clear and honest argument from that position.

This is what we do know:
1. The universe has the exact parameters that allow for intelligent life.
2. There is only empirical evidence for our universe.
Due to scientific models and calculations we have good reasons to think:
There is no life possible on most of the planets in our solar system and now coming from a view that life would be plentiful in the universe; scientists now believe that life at all is probably rare and and complex life probably doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe.

Even if there are other universes, which can not be demonstrated, life would be extremely rare and complex life even rarer if it existed at all.

So considering what we know, your argument seems to be based on ignorance and speculation. In fact, the evidence is in favor of my claim and yours is based on speculation. You speculate that this is not the only universe, this is not the only complex life possible, you speculate that the constants might or might not be different when we know in this universe they are constant and set exactly where they need to be for us to exist. You have no reason for there to be a universe at all. Why there is life at all. You have no reason why the universe is explained by mathematics for instance, or why we thinking mathematically in abstract concepts. That is why I feel the fine tuning and in fact existence is best explained by theism and no one in this entire thread has given any concrete evidence against such a claim or any evidence that would show the claims are invalid.



Thanks again
Anytime.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And nothing can stop you from your own a priori worldview. You are equating man with God which is not the case. You have no actual good argument for fine tuning and so you make ignorant comments.
I don't wish something to be true. I could have lived just fine when I wasn't aware of God. I would have lived much the way I had always lived. God changed it all when He revealed Himself and the universe is confirmation of His existence as well.
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
42
✟46,986.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
I did say I would give you the last word so I will only respond to the first point since you asked. I don't actually think you are being intellectually dishonest, I think it is just loose use of language. What I was pointing out is evident in your response as well when you said "I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other." I think what you mean is that you have provided sources showing that carbon based life in our universe is possibly or probably extremely rare if not one of a kind. But again this only addresses life as we know it so you can't say, as you did above, that we have evidence that no form of comex life that is not life as we know it could arise under different constants.
I'm sorry you felt I didn't contribute very much As I said it is not my area of expertise so while I did post several messages I was generally happy to read what others were saying and post my own thought's only when they were different from what was being said. I figured you had enough people to respond to without me repeating the exact same arguments they were making

Feel free to send a message in our conversation thread about which topic would be most interesting to you going forward.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because that´s what´s observable.
What is observable is that there is one universe and it has the life permitting fundamental constants that are precisely what they are required to have to allow intelligent life.

This isn´t about allowing or not allowing - it´s about clarifying what those scientific sources you are quoting mean when saying "fine-tuned".
Plus, "Goddidit" has never been and still is no explanation. It is assertion.
They mean it is fine tuned for intelligent life to exist. That is what I've posted. God is an explanation that has been given for thousands and thousands of years. It is an explanation, it might not be one you accept but it is an explanation and one in which billions of people think best explains the universe.

No, it just means you need to explain how you get from (1) to (2) - instead of using them as though they were interchangeable.

It doesn´t explain anything.
You are welcome to have that opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,640
✟499,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Actually that is not true. Bernard Carr actually said: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
I didn't say it didn't answer the problem posed by the Fine-Tuning argument, I said that isn't the reason why it is being promoted. Schrodinger came up with the multi-worlds idea before Dicke came up with his Fine-Tuning argument too, so it wasn't written as a response to the argument either.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
What is observable is that there is one universe and it has the life permitting fundamental constants that are precisely what they are required to have to allow intelligent life.
Thgat´s (1).

God is an explanation that has been given for thousands and thousands of years.
It´s an assertion, not an explanation. And, yes, that´s what humans have been doing for ages: Whenever something deems them insignificant and they had no explanation, they conveniently postulated some obscure conscious entities as the cause. Until an actual explanation was eventually found (and even then, they often kept believing in this entity).
Interestingly, the first thing you, Lady Oncedeceived, do when someone gives another hypothesis, is asking: "How?". Just with your own hypothesis, the fact that you can´t answer "how?" (that which would render the assertion an explanation) isn´t a problem for you.
It is an explanation, it might not be one you accept but it is an explanation
No, it´s not. An explanation answers the question "how?".
and one in which billions of people think best explains the universe.
Bandwaggon appeals aren´t that impressive.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are equating man with God which is not the case.
Of course. We can actually see man designing things. Not so for gods.

You have no actual good argument for fine tuning and so you make ignorant comments.

Why would I need an argument for it in the first place?

I don't wish something to be true. I could have lived just fine when I wasn't aware of God. I would have lived much the way I had always lived. God changed it all when He revealed Himself and the universe is confirmation of His existence as well.

Uh huh, sure it is.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hey, if I can time travel back billions of years to fine tune the universe (and no one has presented evidence I can't) a talented physicist could have easily time traveled to the future to see what sorts of argument religious apologists would be making. Makes perfect sense.

Or in other words, this thread would have been over months ago if reality was involved. No point in starting now.
 
Reactions: Davian
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It was actually Hugh Everett that originated the theory, which was prior to Dicke yes but Dicke was not the originator of the premise of fine tuning. Early in the 1900, 1914 I believe maybe sooner a chemist named Henderson was working on the fine tuning. Yet, it wasn't until recently that the multiverse was considered to be a valid explanation.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nonsense.

But again, if the values are set, that implies they could have been different. If they couldn't be different, they aren't set, they just are.
How would you know if they couldn't be different that they aren't set?

Pi comes up in equations and nature. Why would it come up in equations and nature if it is random?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course. We can actually see man designing things. Not so for gods.



Why would I need an argument for it in the first place?



Uh huh, sure it is.
How would you see design of God if you don't think the appearance of design is anything but an illusion?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have been the only one providing support for my claims. You have supplied nothing but assertion, speculation and anti-religious rhetoric.
 
Upvote 0