• 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 must that something be conscious, or directed, or anything other than just an extension of natural processes of universes?
Natural processes of the universe is what we are talking about.

First of all, fine tuning as used in Physics is not about what we don't know, it is about what we do know. There may be plenty we don't understand but we do know quite a lot. We know what those parameter's values are and what would happen if they were not as they are. We know that there are necessary requirement for this universe to exist and to permit life to exist. These are things we know. WE know there are four fundamental forces of nature and what what they need to be to bring about our universe. Sure there are things we don't know but there a mass of information we do.


I don't know what you means by the last sentence here.

I am not sure that is true. I think it is incredible that we can know anything at all about the beginning of the universe, what elements came into existence and probably when. I don't think you really have an argument really. I think you might not understand what fine tuning actually means nor what we know about it.


Yeah, and the presence of measured constants doesn't equate to deities on any objective level.
This speaks volumes about what you don't understand about the fine tuning being discussed. Which is fine, your training is in biological sciences. However, to claim that the argument is wrong you need to have better reasons than that.

You really believe that don't you?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The argument is about fine tuning: In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small. There is a narrow range in around 30 fundamental constants that will permit life or the universe to exist and those are what we see in our universe.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Regardless of what number of other gods that people worship, in Christianity it is not inconsistent with the theology. God put the desire of God in us. That being said, I don't expect you to get that. But you can't back your statement up with any evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I see that you continue not to understand or refuse to understand a simple example.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single


This is complete nonsense on your part, and what do you need backed up with evidence?

I see that you were not honest enough to answer the questions as asked. In my book that is an admission by you that you were wrong.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is complete nonsense on your part, and what do you need backed up with evidence?

I see that you were not honest enough to answer the questions as asked. In my book that is an admission by you that you were wrong.
Think what you will. At this point I really don't care.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Natural processes of the universe is what we are talking about.
Yeah, and the supposed fine-tuning.

First of all, fine tuning as used in Physics is not about what we don't know, it is about what we do know. There may be plenty we don't understand but we do know quite a lot.
What we know is but a pittance, a dust mote in a mansion, compared to what there is still unknown. Just because the volume of information we have seems like a lot, and, heck, could even take a lifetime to learn, that doesn't mean we aren't just barely making a tiny scratch on the surface of the topic. Also, we are talking universe origins here, something that is still relatively unknown. We can approximate the start of it existing, but we have no means of studying whatever existed prior to that point.

We know what those parameter's values are and what would happen if they were not as they are.
We know quite a bit of the physical properties of the universe, sure, but there are unknowns in that regard. If that wasn't the case, then how are we ending up dating some stars as being older than the universe from which they came, which obviously can't be right, and if it is, we have no working explanation other than human error.


We know that there are necessary requirement for this universe to exist and to permit life to exist.
We actually don't, only for a universe exactly like ours to exist, and for life exactly like ours to exist to some extent. Those aren't completely understood either. Consider this: abiogenesis experiments got promising results each time they were adjusted for changes in the models of the early Earth. Some were better than others, but all resulted in amino acids necessary for life as we know it to exist. Dozens of variations in environments, some purposely made to be hostile, can still get some indication for potential life formation. And that's just for life as we understand it. Yes, there are limits on the physics range that would allow that type of life specifically to exist, but that doesn't necessarily apply to life in general. In a universe where Oxygen has properties similar to carbon in our own, life may be oxygen based. Stuff like that could actually exist within our universe, and we just haven't found it yet. The properties of our universe make carbon-based life make sense, chemically speaking. In another universe, it might be uranium, or argon, or some element so strange we wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Or, maybe this is the only universe amongst a vast multiverse that can support life of any sort. That also makes it the only universe in which anything could become self-aware and question its own origins and existence, so even if this universe were extremely unlikely, it ended up existing anyways, so playing that numbers game is pointless. Unlikely events happen from time to time. In any case, we have no idea what physics combinations would permit life, because we don't know all the forms life could take. We only really know those on this tiny planet of ours.

These are things we know. WE know there are four fundamental forces of nature and what what they need to be to bring about our universe. Sure there are things we don't know but there a mass of information we do.
Or, there could be a fifth fundamental force we don't know about, and so on and so forth. If you go back far enough, any event will seem so unlikely as to be impossible. Doing it happens to be using statistics incorrectly, which is why you end up with that paradoxical result.

I don't know what you means by the last sentence here.
It's addressing you mentioning before that there are physicists that believe in a fine-tuned universe, and asking me if I honestly think my arguments haven't been addressed by them.

I know fine tuning doesn't mean consistent universe, and that even if it did, black holes like to mess physics up and constants are just what we measure to the best of our ability. The "universal constants" are demonstrably not precise, just close enough that the degree at which we are off doesn't prevent their utilitarian uses from continuing while we try to improve upon them.

This speaks volumes about what you don't understand about the fine tuning being discussed. Which is fine, your training is in biological sciences. However, to claim that the argument is wrong you need to have better reasons than that.
And your training is in...? I may not be a physics major, but I do have to take physics classes as a requirement for my major. And so much chemistry that I get an automatic minor in it. And a statistics class and calculus, both which I excelled in. I don't think you understand how few unknowns it takes to throw a calculation off. It can take as few as 1, and statistics are explicitly useless on a cosmic scale. If I am wrong, REFUTE ME, show me the information, demonstrate that what I think is unknown is actually known, or my position still stands. That you don't like my reasons, that we don't know enough about the universe to make claims on it being designed or not, that's a personal problem, and I won't care unless you demonstrate an actual flaw in my reasoning.

You really believe that don't you?
I never defend a position I don't support without vocalizing that I'm doing it... well, typing it, in this case. I've seen the fallacy in action outside of this issue, with people assuming a natural formation that looked like steps to be a designed stairway, and other similar situations. I'll admit that I am not everyone, so I can't confirm how much the fine-tuning idea stems from that fallacy, but the behavior is mimicked, so it's not much of a stretch to think it contributes. I highly doubt it's the only contributor, that bias is pretty easy to overcome if a person tries.
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
42
✟46,986.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
OK so here we have Once giving her definition of fine tuning. I see a few problems with it as written:
1) set if possible physics - how do we determine what the possible sets of physics are?
2) evolution of life. I would want to amend to "life as we know it". Are you willing to accept that as part of your definition Once or should we go deeper into that?
3) This one isn't so much a problem as an admission of my ignorance. What are these 30 that keep getting mentioned and how do they break down, meaning which are required for life as we know it and which are required for our universe to exist? Also what are the relationships or proven lack of relationships between these numbers?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Nor do most scientists. The Anthropomorphic Principle is as much of a scientific dead end as: "God did it". It may be correct but it does not explain anything and no new knowledge will come from it.

Yes, I agree.

My only point is, that there is nothing TO explain about the idea that things that exist, exist in such a way that they actually can exist - or they wouldn't exist.

Oncedeceived seems to be suggesting the opposite..
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Science is all about that. Are you against science for some reason?
No, but I am aware what the field, purpose and limitations of science are.
Science is about how things work within this existing observable universe. It starts at a point where the parameters in question are already a given.
 
Upvote 0

Robert Palase

Active Member
May 9, 2016
385
175
UK
✟1,434.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Saying fine tuning is a real thing is like a child saying, 'Mommy mommy I was born on my birthday'.
If the child had not been born it would not have a birthday.
If conditions were not exactly like they are everything would not be exactly like it is.

Do fish say the world was designed for them? do birds say the world was designed for them?
No the only animals to do that are creationists.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Robert Palase

Active Member
May 9, 2016
385
175
UK
✟1,434.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
...but you gotta admit that that´s an amazing coincidence!
You're right, I still find it amazing that out of the billions of people in the world I was born to the two people who would love me the most, what are the odds on that happening?
If my aunt had not broken her leg my mother would not have been at the hospital to meet my father and I would never have been born, it's obvious to me that that there must be a fat controller sitting somewhere making sure these things happen in the right order, if anyone thinks I'm wrong please tell me how else it could all work?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

I wished both atheists and creationists would read a book like Paul Davies' Goldilocks Enigma before making irrelevant posts.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What evidence do you have that life is tuned to the universe and not the other way around?

Logic.
Life developed IN the universe.
Obviously, things that develop IN the universe are going to develop in such a way that they actually CAN exist IN the universe.

Why would you expect something else?

Evolution of life would not be possible if not for the way the universe is

And ice at the north pole wouldn't exist if it didn't freeze there.

but most importantly is for the order we see in the universe. Evolution doesn't evolve. For evolution to even begin there must be order.

Yes, for evolution to occur, it must be within the realm of possibilities to occur.
What is the point?

Naturalistic principles are what we are talking about and you are denying them.

I haven't seen you talk about naturalistic principles at all.
The only thing you are doing is expressing some kind of amazement that we exist in a universe in which we can actually exist.

And it's still not clear to me at all why you find that so surprising.
 
Reactions: Robert Palase
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The argument is about fine tuning: In the set of possible physics, the subset that permit the evolution of life is very small.

Back up there....
How and when was it demonstrated that other sets of "physics" are actually possible?

Having said that... we live in a universe which, unsurprisingly I would think, has a set of physics in which life is actually possible. Again, what is the problem?

I could see how it would require an explanation if it could be demonstrated that:
- existing life actually could NOT exist in this universe, yet does exist
or
- our current set of physics actually being impossible, yet existing anyway

But neither is the case... so I'm still left wondering what the problem here is ....

There is a narrow range in around 30 fundamental constants that will permit life or the universe to exist and those are what we see in our universe.

And that surprises you...why, exactly?
 
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Think what you will. At this point I really don't care.

Perhaps if you held up your end of the conversation I would be able to help you more. One more time can you describe what you think 'fine tuning' is in your own words? You seem to have a different definition than scientists do. Very few see it as evidence for any gods.
 
Upvote 0