The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

No, they simply are as they are. You've presented no reason to think there was any possibility for them to be anything else.

I am not sure what you mean by simply they are what they are. We know that atoms are what they are but we don't leave it at that. We know that black holes are what they are but we don't leave it at that. Why do you assume that there is no reason for them to be what they are?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You seemed to place so much on their conclusions that certain events are unlikely. But no weight on their conclusions that gods are imaginary. Seems a bit selective to me.

Why? There conclusions on the unlikeliness of the universe is based on facts that are measured and observed. Evidence.....evidence....evidence. There conclusion that God doesn't exist is not based on evidence.

 

[Athée]

Why?

In my own thinking about design I would say that an elegant one planet universe or a universe where every planet is suitable for life would look more like design. If God created it all he didn't need a super old universe, supernovae to create heavy elements etc. Heck he didn't even need atoms to behave the way they do or gravity to work the way it does. He could have made life despite any change in the constants we now observe. I find it telling that we observe a universe where life arising by chance is possible with only natural processes. I guess it just doesn't look designed to me and even if it did there is no need for all of that on the god hypothesis.

I think that if you had used books it might be more in line with evolution. Pasta? Not near as interesting.

Sure, insert books in there and respond to the argument as if I had used books instead of pasta.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In my own thinking about design I would say that an elegant one planet universe or a universe where every planet is suitable for life would look more like design. If God created it all he didn't need a super old universe, supernovae to create heavy elements etc. Heck he didn't even need atoms to behave the way they do or gravity to work the way it does. He could have made life despite any change in the constants we now observe. I find it telling that we observe a universe where life arising by chance is possible with only natural processes. I guess it just doesn't look designed to me and even if it did there is no need for all of that on the god hypothesis.

Yet, if God wished to have us understand that He created the universe and that we could have evidence that would show how unlikely it would happen by sheer chance this is a very good model to do so. While we don't know everything about the universe we do know that Earth is a pretty special place.

Earth May Be a 1-in-700-Quintillion Kind of Place
By Nathaniel Scharping | February 22, 2016 5:39 pm
2.8K

A Hubble image that captures a small sampling of the galaxies within the universe. (Credit: NASA/ESA)

A new study suggests that there are around 700 quintillion planets in the universe, but only one like Earth. It’s a revelation that’s both beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

Astrophysicist Erik Zackrisson from Uppsala University in Sweden arrived at this staggering figure — a 7 followed by 20 zeros — with the aid of a computer model that simulated the universe’s evolution following the Big Bang. Zackrisson’s model combined information about known exoplanets with our understanding of the early universe and the laws of physics to recreate the past 13.8 billion years.

Zackrisson found that Earth appears to have been dealt a fairly lucky hand. In a galaxy like the Milky Way, for example, most of the planets Zackrisson’s model generated looked very different than Earth — they were larger, older and very unlikely to support life. The study can be found on the preprint server arXiv, and has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal.

It seems to me that God making Earth a rare place, and its life including life that can ponder such wonders is a very good way to make His presence known. The principles of our existence were something that God wanted us to know and be able to comprehend. Gravity and atoms and all the incredible elements of our existence point to an order that provides insight on the design and the intelligence behind it.

Sure, insert books in there and respond to the argument as if I had used books instead of pasta.

All creative endeavors of mankind stem from the very order within the universe. Pasta to books are reflections of man's thoughts and personal implements from a sense of intelligence that no other creature here on earth nor anywhere we know of in the universe exhibit. Which again fits best with theism rather than naturalism.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why? There conclusions on the unlikeliness of the universe is based on facts that are measured and observed.

What facts? I thought you had given up looking for actual science which backed up this claim.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am not sure what you mean by simply they are what they are.

What don't you understand?

We know that atoms are what they are but we don't leave it at that. We know that black holes are what they are but we don't leave it at that.

Yes, but those are cases where we can effectively research using actual science. Admitting we don't have answers in cases where we actually don't isn't a flaw - no matter how much it means your apologetics are now dead in the water.

Why do you assume that there is no reason for them to be what they are?

I do what now?

 

[KCfromNC]

I am not a physicist. So I am not sure what you are saying.

Not sure why you'd need to be a physicist to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Athée]

It seems to me that God making Earth a rare place, and its life including life that can ponder such wonders is a very good way to make His presence known

it seems odd to me that in order to demonstrate himself cleary that he would choose a method that is compatible with naturalism and doesn't give any indication of his specific personhood.

Pasta to books are reflections of man's thoughts and personal implements from a sense of intelligence that no other creature here on earth nor anywhere we know of in the universe exhibit. Which again fits best with theism rather than naturalism.

This doesn't a dress the fact that clearly the universe had to be even more fine tuned for books than for humans. Therfore the purpose of the universe must be to permit the advent of books.

 

[Oncedeceived]

it seems odd to me that in order to demonstrate himself cleary that he would choose a method that is compatible with naturalism and doesn't give any indication of his specific personhood.

We live in the natural world, what else would there be?

This doesn't a dress the fact that clearly the universe had to be even more fine tuned for books than for humans. Therfore the purpose of the universe must be to permit the advent of books.

Explain how the universe had to be more fine tuned for books than for humans?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not sure why you'd need to be a physicist to understand what I'm saying.

No, you asked me for MY work. That was in response to that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What don't you understand?

I don't understand what you mean by they are what they are? Trees are what they are, plants are what they are and on and on.

Yes, but those are cases where we can effectively research using actual science. Admitting we don't have answers in cases where we actually don't isn't a flaw - no matter how much it means your apologetics are now dead in the water.

You are begging the question.

I do what now?

To say they are what they are to me connotes no reason for them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What facts? I thought you had given up looking for actual science which backed up this claim.

I gave you Penrose remember.

 

[Athée]

We live in the natural world, what else would there be?

I don't see how this adresses the objection I made that the universe looks suspiciously like the kind of universe you would need in order to produce life by chance and that there is no reason for God to create the universe this way.

Explain how the universe had to be more fine tuned for books than for humans?

To get humans you need a certain set of values etc. But to get books you need those particular values plus even more specific conditions that would give rise to humans that would make books.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see how this adresses the objection I made that the universe looks suspiciously like the kind of universe you would need in order to produce life by chance and that there is no reason for God to create the universe this way.

You said that you didn't believe it was due to chance? Are you rethinking your point of view?

To get humans you need a certain set of values etc. But to get books you need those particular values plus even more specific conditions that would give rise to humans that would make books.

I understand what you are saying but you are not giving any reasoning for it.

 

[Athée]

You said that you didn't believe it was due to chance? Are you rethinking your point of view?

I don't see how this question answers the objection I was proposing.

I understand what you are saying but you are not giving any reasoning for it.

You are saying that it is obvious to you the the purpose of the universe was to give rise to intelligent life. Your evidence is the amount of apprentice fine tuning required for this to happen. By that logic it is clear that the purpose of the universe is actually books (or some other example) because for books to exist requires an even greater amount of fine tuning than intelligent life. This would undermine your claim that the purpose of the universe was intelligent life and it uses the exact same evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see how this question answers the objection I was proposing.

The statement was in regard to the universe existing by chance, which you had already said you didn't think was feasible.

You are saying that it is obvious to you the the purpose of the universe was to give rise to intelligent life. Your evidence is the amount of apprentice fine tuning required for this to happen. By that logic it is clear that the purpose of the universe is actually books (or some other example) because for books to exist requires an even greater amount of fine tuning than intelligent life. This would undermine your claim that the purpose of the universe was intelligent life and it uses the exact same evidence.

I don't know what you mean by apprentice fine tuning in the first place. Secondly, You are not showing how by that logic the purpose is actually books or whatever or how it requires even more fine tuning.

 

[Athée]

The statement was in regard to the universe existing by chance, which you had already said you didn't think was feasible.

I understand the question I just don't see that it addresses the objection I was raising.

I don't know what you mean by apprentice fine tuning in the first place. Secondly, You are not showing how by that logic the purpose is actually books or whatever or how it requires even more fine tuning.

Oops that was supposed to be *apparent fine tuning.
For intelligent life to exist the universe needs to be fine tuned to degree X. But to produce a specific life form with the intelligence, desire and opportunity to make books requires X plus Y. But X +Y just gets you potential books to actually get books you need fine tuning of X+Y+Z. Clearly such an unlikely combination can't have happened by chance and since the existence of books requires even more fine tuning than either intelligent life or people, the purpose of all those fine tuned parameters must be books.
When you point to fine tuning as proof that the universe was made with the purpose of creating humans this is the argument you are making. I am just extending it one step farther so that the flaw becomes more obvious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I understand the question I just don't see that it addresses the objection I was raising.

The objection you were presenting was the universe appearing to be by chance but that is not a reality of which you even observe.

Oops that was supposed to be *apparent fine tuning.

That is priceless.

For intelligent life to exist the universe needs to be fine tuned to degree X. But to produce a specific life form with the intelligence, desire and opportunity to make books requires X plus Y. But X +Y just gets you potential books to actually get books you need fine tuning of X+Y+Z. Clearly such an unlikely combination can't have happened by chance and since the existence of books requires even more fine tuning than either intelligent life or people, the purpose of all those fine tuned parameters must be books.
When you point to fine tuning as proof that the universe was made with the purpose of creating humans this is the argument you are making. I am just extending it one step farther so that the flaw becomes more obvious.

What are you claiming is the plus Y? Why is there any plus Y?

 

[Athée]

The objection you were presenting was the universe appearing to be by chance but that is not a reality of which you even observe.

I don't think the universe looks designed for us but that wasn't my point. The point was that the only kind of universe that could create life by chance just happens to be the kind of universe we observe. God didn't have to make it that way. You think it is a proof of his power that shows he made it but I see it as rather second rate. If God wanted to show that he made it a single planet that allows life in a brand new universe that would look like design.

What are you claiming is the plus Y? Why is there any plus y

Y could include any number of things like evolving a human that wants to share their thoughts, a group that learn to write, a group that both wants to and has the ability to writ all of these require more specific conditions that just an intelligent life form..ie more "fine tuning".

 

[DogmaHunter]

So are you claiming that we can't recognize design? What would the appearance of design then mean to you and what would it look like in your subjective opinion?

We can recognize human design, for the most part.
It's not clear to me we would also recognize alien design.

But here's the thing... if we recognize design, we would simply call it designed and not an appearance of design.

And we recognize design primarily by signs of manufacturing.
We need quite some knowledge about the natural world to be able to do that as well.
Some things are obvious, others are not and some things are simply unrecognisable as being designed.

The universe bares no signs of manufacturing. At all.
And, to repeat myself, "appearance" is by definition a subjective opinion.
What may appear as X to you, doesn't necessarily appear as X to me.

We understand that design has certain aspects that non-design doesn't. The universe has these certain aspects that design does.

What aspects would that be?

Nope, it is your assertion based on your anti-religious belief.

I'm not making any assertions. I'm responding to YOUR assertion.

What evidence do they use to refute the claim?

What claim??
You claimed that "scientists consider it a valid argument".
I responded with the fact that it's quite easy to find scientists that don't.

I'm pointing out, once more, how cherry picking you are when it comes to your fallacious arguments of authority.

You praise all scientists you think agree with your view, while ignoring all those who clearly don't.

You: What about physicists that went from christian to atheist?
Me: It wasn't due to a lack of evidence or evidence against God.

Me: It wasn't due to a lack of evidence or evidence against God.
You: Says who? You?

Now this lead me to believe you thought they had evidence. If not, fine. But then what did you mean?

You said: "you claimed that they did have evidence that would show God didn't do it."
In the above quote, I'm not making such a claim at all.

It seems you think that a person can only become an atheist if, and only if, they have evidence that excludes a god from creating the universe. This is beyond ridiculous.

It seems I caught you red-handed strawmanning me.

We don't need to KNOW the origins to know that they are fine tuned for life on earth.

Except that we do. If you wish to claim that it was pre-planned, we do. If you wish to claim that the values could have been different, we do. If you wish to make ANY CLAIM whatsoever about how the values are assigned/obtained, you do.

There is no reason to believe at this time they couldn't be different.

Just like there is no reason to believe that they could.
That's kind of the thing with the unknown.... it isn't known.

It is, and it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. You might not like that fine tuning is evidence for a fine tuner but that doesn't make it less valid.

It's not valid. Values being what they are could have all kinds of reasons:
- an infinite amount of universes with different values, it's inevitable that one like ours exists
- an infinite amount of universes, all with the same values, because they might not be able to have any other value
- just this universe with the values it has, because they might not be able to be any different
- just this universe with the values it has by pure coincidence: they might be able to have different values, so the universe would end up having SOME configuartion, and this particular configuration is just as likely as any other configuration
- just this universe with the values it has by pure probability: they might be able to have different values, but with these values being some kind of "hot spot", so the universe would end up having SOME configuartion, and this particular configuration is actually more likely then other configurations.
- .......


There's an inumerable amount of possible explanation. And the values being what they are don't point to any specific one.

You are just going on and on about a tuner, only because your a priori religious beliefs. Your religion requires you to believe in a tuner. It's not because of supposed "evidence". It's because of religious dogma.


As for me, I leave all options open and am happy saying "I don't know" while experts in the field are trying to find out.

And like I've been trying to tell you all these pages is that Design is just as valid as any of the other explanations being worked on presently.

That's just not true, because your "design" argument requires assumptions that aren't justified or supported.

Even right out the gates, the obvious big assumption is the existence of an unsupported entity you like to call "god".

Occam's razor.

The explanation with the least unfounded assumptions is the most likely one.

Consider this...
I leave my house and the tv is intact.
I come back home a couple hours later and the tv is smashed to pieces.
Which is most likely:
- some human entered my house and smashed my tv
or
- an extra-dimensional alien appeared in my living room and smashed my tv.

Both are, strictly speaking, "possible".
Which is most likely? And why?

The fact that you don't like it really doesn't mean it isn't a valid conclusion.

It's not about "liking" it or not. It's about unfounded assumption upon unfounded assumption resulting in an extremely poor and fallacious argument.

Also, the projection in that quote is kind of hilarious...

Strange that the scientists who are working on this think it is a valid argument

You keep saying this.....
Hawking, for one, disagrees.
So does Krauss.

But I'm sure they are just "rebels against god" who "just want to sin", so that's the reason why they reject your god-argument, I bet.

and so much so that they are considering multiverses to explain it away.

ow my........

genuine scientific hypothesis vs faith based god-arguments....

But the hypothesis is what is attempting to "explain it away".... my, my.

I never claimed we know. I said that I think that design is the best explanation for the fine tuning we observe in the universe.

And I'm saying you're wrong and have explained why it's wrong on countless occasions.