Which you view as evidence for a deity. Why? We have no idea how probable physics like those we observe are, so I fail to see how the requirements for life as we know it matter.
I understand that you don't.
As a non-physics major, I'm not shocked by not knowing about that. That doesn't negate my point that a lot of pertinent information about universes that we'd HAVE to know in order for someone to claim that the universe was fine-tuned, in the sense that you are using the definition as evidence for a deity, is missing.
Really? What would we have to know?
You do realize that the universe has physical properties that aren't constant, right? Or, at least, ones we don't understand well enough to recognize consistency in. Constants are just a portion of physics equations, in case you haven't noticed. But, frankly, if you can't demonstrate that universes would ever form with different physics, this idea that the illusion of fine tuning would require a deity has as much substance as an empty portion of space.
I am not sure if you realize that anything that isn't "constant" isn't the fundamental constants we are discussing. Constants are not just a portion of physics, how did you arrive at that conclusion.
In reality, there is no reason to believe that other universes even exist, however we can determine much from our own about the physics that would be possible. Fine tuning is real and not illusion.
Irrelevant; unless you provide evidence that naturalistic processes CAN'T produce a universe like our own because of the narrow parameters of physics you think are necessary for life, it wouldn't matter if no degree of variation was acceptable. We can't determine the probability of a universe like ours forming, so it's a moot point.
What do you mean by natural processes producing a universe? Could you explain.
-_- it's fairly easy to construct a model of a universe that would result in life fundamentally different than what we have observed, I even gave you an example with oxygen having the properties of carbon. And I only have life on our planet to actually study, and the universe we exist in; if we discover life from somewhere else within my lifetime, I will gladly study it, but I have to work with what I have, as well as other universes. But, I can't, I can only speculate, and the same goes for you. That's why you can't assume that our universe is somehow special, because the sample size is just too small if there is a multiverse, and we know so little that we have no idea how many universe there could be. They could be practically infinite, negating any statistical nonsense you want to try to throw even more than I have already challenged without you being able to meet said challenge. In order to even try to calculate how likely it would be for our universe to exist, we'd have to know what physical properties a universe could have, if any of those properties are more likely to occur than others, and how many universes exist at a bare minimum. We know none of that.
You didn't read the link I gave you did you?
Hahahahahahaha, this is like presenting evolution and how well evidenced it is, and suggesting that all theories in biology are equally well-evidenced. Even the Wiki feels the need to bring up the fact that this particular physics theory is one of the most well-supported in the field. Not all theories are equal. But hey, let's see some of what wikipedia has to say about fine tuning in regards to physical constants, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant
"Fine-tuned Universe[edit]
Main articles:
Fine-tuned Universe and
Anthropic principle
Some physicists have explored the notion that if the
dimensionless physical constants had sufficiently different values, our Universe would be so radically different that intelligent life would probably not have emerged, and that our Universe therefore seems to be
fine-tuned for intelligent life. The anthropic principle states a logical
truism: the fact of our existence as intelligent beings who can measure physical constants requires those constants to be such that beings like us can exist. There are a variety of interpretations of the constants' values, including that of a
divine creator (the apparent fine-tuning is actual and intentional), or that ours is one universe of many in a
multiverse (e.g. the
Many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics), or even that,
if information is an innate property of the universe and logically inseparable from consciousness, a universe without the capacity for conscious beings cannot exist."
Well, what do you know, both alternatives of interpreting fine-tuning as not being indicative of deities are listed. I wonder why.
What do you know, they have a Divine Creator as an explanation. Did you miss that one? There are three there.
Understand, I do think that life as we know it would not exist if the physical constants were messed with, but I view the fact that our universe does have us within it more as life developing in the form that it could if it could rather than something intentional. Under one view of fine-tuning, I would be considered a supporter of it. However, that's not the definition you use. You assume that this means a deity had to be involved, but whether or not the conditions needed to support life as we know it are narrow, I don't view that as even related to deities at all. I can't even comprehend how anyone could view it as such without falling to some bias.
You are confusing definitions with explanations. While I agree that I believe God was the explanation, but I use the same definition. Definition what fine tuning is, explanation...God. Now you can't even comprehend how anyone could view it as support for God and claim it is due to bias, but you see it works both ways. I can't comprehend how anyone could view it as anything but God without a strong bias against that notion.
I dismiss tons of theories unrelated to theological discussions. This just happens to be a subforum in which the subject matter wouldn't have me bring those theories up very much, if at all. But, I think you are confused, because there's not really a standard to what people mean when they say "fine tuning"
Well I would agree it might be more refined but there is an understanding with the scientists in the field which pretty much is the standard.
Definition you seem to be using: The universe was purposely given physical rules that made life possible by necessity.
I disagree with the necessity, the purpose, and the concept that physical rules are something beyond just us observing how the universe works, and designing equations for the bits we can grasp.
No, that is the explanation not the definition. You are being very conflicting here, on one hand you say that we don't know enough to discern the universe and on the other you claim you disagree with necessity and the purpose, how would one determine necessity or purpose if they can't discern the universe?
Alternative definition that is very common: The universe has physical properties that allow life to form, and even slight adjustments to those physical properties could make life as we know it impossible.
Note how this is different from your definition.
I will highlight again: I use the same definition as scientist use, and you are confusing definition with explanation.
A key trait of actual theories is that they are secular, due to the absence of evidence for deities (not that I think this is so much a theory as an observation).
Science by its nature is about nature. Nature can and does support the existence of God. That doesn't mean that theories and laws should be any different due to that.
It wouldn't matter if the universe was demonstrably impossible without some outside force to guide it, that wouldn't make said guide a deity, or even sentient. And as is it, the universe is not demonstrably evidenced to require such a guide, so not only are you incorrectly extrapolating this as evidence for a deity, but the item you are extrapolating doesn't have a particularly solid foundation.
What makes it not evidence for God?
I'm personally skeptical of Universal ancestor theory in biology. I have mentioned that to you before, why would you think I am not skeptical or critical of scientific theories independent of my personal views on deities? Additionally, we may have debated many times, but only in a very narrow range of topics. You don't know me well enough to judge what I am and am not skeptical of beyond what I have directly said to you.
I apologize if I misrepresented you.
I disagree with what people have presented as "evidence" for deities, because of fundamental flaws always being present. I'm not making those errors up, but if you refuse to look at them, that's on you.
What flaw are you referring to here?
Demonstrably wrong, because the majority of scientists in the field of physics are non-theists, so they aren't using fine-tuning to mean the same thing you are. The fact that you think that some atheists would support fine-tuning should indicate that they wouldn't view said item as evidence for a deity's involvement.
I hope that after this post you will understand the difference between definition and explanation.
