The fine tuning of the universe.

[Subduction Zone]

How do you observe the difference between we being fine tuned to the universe or vice versa?

A rather pointless question since one is assuming in that there is fine tuning going on. A better question would be to say "How do we know if the universe is fine tuned?" The only correct answer to that is "We don't know yet."

The problem with the fine tuning argument that creationists use is that it finds some unanswered questions and tries to claim "therefore God". That is why it is an argument from ignorance. "We don't know therefore God" will always be an argument from ignorance. Once again, we don't know if many of the chosen parameters had to be the value that they are. They could be, like Kepler's laws due to underlying natural forces that we don't understand yet. The proper course is to keep looking for answers. To date no one has demonstrated a need for a God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there any necessary elements or parameters for the hole to have for water to fill it?

Now now, you cannot answer a question with a question. Also it seems that you did not understand the analogy. The hole exists, somehow the water in the hole (the puddle) is fine tuned to that hole. Therefore God.

See? It does not work.

 

[AirPo]

To have chemistry you need the heavier elements. To have the heavier elements you need stars. To have stars you need gravity to be fine tuned by one part in 15 million.

Any more, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang. Any less, and the universe would have expanded to quickly for stars to form.

Still backwards. Since gravity happens to be one part in 15 million, stars were able to, and did, form.

 

[AirPo]

What evidence do you have that would show that life came about because of chemistry and not the other way around?

I didn't say life came about because of chemistry. I said it was possible to come about because of chemisty.

 

[lesliedellow]

Still backwards. Since gravity happens to be one part in 15 million, stars were able to, and did, form.

No it's not backwards. To spell it out even more explicitly, without fine tuning of the sort mentioned, the universe would be mostly hydrogen, some helium, and nothing else. Helium is inert, and hydrogen, although reactive, would have nothing to react with.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A rather pointless question since one is assuming in that there is fine tuning going on. A better question would be to say "How do we know if the universe is fine tuned?" The only correct answer to that is "We don't know yet."

So your answer to the fine tuning argument is that there is no argument because you deny fine tuning is real. There is agreement of the majority of scientists in the field that fine tuning is real. Are you arguing they are incorrect?

The problem with the fine tuning argument that creationists use is that it finds some unanswered questions and tries to claim "therefore God". That is why it is an argument from ignorance.

The problem with this type of thinking is that you dismiss any argument by claiming that creationists do a certain thing. I think you would agree that not all atheists think the same and to claim they do would have you dismissing the person's argument making that claim...would you not?

"We don't know therefore God" will always be an argument from ignorance. Once again, we don't know if many of the chosen parameters had to be the value that they are. They could be, like Kepler's laws due to underlying natural forces that we don't understand yet. The proper course is to keep looking for answers. To date no one has demonstrated a need for a God.

The fine tuning argument is about what we do know and not what we don't know. Your assumption is that there is just something we don't know that will explain the fine tuning. Now you see the problem with your argument. On one hand you claim fine tuning is not real and on the other you are claiming that fine tuning will someday be explained. It is contradictory and begging the question.

You are also equating Kepler/s law with the fine tuning and they are not the same. Kepler's law was never considered a fine tuned constant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't say life came about because of chemistry. I said it was possible to come about because of chemisty.

Well yes, that is obvious. That is what is at issue. The chemistry and many other elements were necessary to make it possible to come about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still backwards. Since gravity happens to be one part in 15 million, stars were able to, and did, form.

There were many factors that allowed for stars to form. Those are the parameters that we are discussing when we are looking at the fine tuning in the universe to allow for intelligent life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now now, you cannot answer a question with a question. Also it seems that you did not understand the analogy. The hole exists, somehow the water in the hole (the puddle) is fine tuned to that hole. Therefore God.

See? It does not work.

Don't talk down to me SZ. You are the one lacking understanding and the question is valid if you wish to claim it is the same as the universe's fine tuning. Are you going to answer?

 

[AirPo]

No it's not backwards. To spell it out even more explicitly, without fine tuning of the sort mentioned, the universe would be mostly hydrogen, some helium, and nothing else. Helium is inert, and hydrogen, although reactive, would have nothing to react with.

Yes it is. Fine tuning is not required since the universe could have been this way to start with.

 

[AirPo]

There were many factors that allowed for stars to form. Those are the parameters that we are discussing when we are looking at the fine tuning in the universe to allow for intelligent life.

That doesn't mean those parameters were tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes it is. Fine tuning is not required since the universe could have this way to start with.

Fine tuning is required, for the universe to exist at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't mean those parameters were tuned.

Really, what does it mean then?

 

[AirPo]

Well yes, that is obvious. That is what is at issue. The chemistry and many other elements were necessary to make it possible to come about.

That doesn't imply the elements had to be fine tuned. There is no reason to assume that they could not have been that way from the start.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes it is. Fine tuning is not required since the universe could have this way to start with.

"Could have this way to start with". What does that even mean?

 

[AirPo]

Fine tuning is required, for the universe to exist at all.

No it's not.

 

[AirPo]

"Could have this way to start with". What does that even mean?

Sorry, post now corrected. My brain works faster than my fingers. Sometimes.

 

[AirPo]

Really, what does it mean then?

It doesn't mean anything other than this is the way it is.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes it is. Fine tuning is not required since the universe could have been this way to start with.

The universe wasn't any way to start with. To start with, it didn't exist.

 

[AirPo]

The universe wasn't any way to start with. To start with, it didn't exist.

If the universe didn't exist, then it did exist, that would be the start.