What is Fine Tuning in General?

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I agree the language is loaded, but unavoidably so. Can you unload it? The numbers are tuned, coordinated, arranged, "monkeyed with" (as Fred Hoyle said)... or what?

First of all... Fred Hoyle didn't say that they WERE monkeyed with. He said "as if".

And I don't see why any of these terms are necessary. I just say that the values of the constants are such that the universe as we know it is possible. And that's it.

I see no point in using loaded language.

I think the premise is the raw observations, and the premise contains its own argument.

That would be an assumed conclusion.

If the burden of proof were on me, I'd submit "fine tuning" as Exhibit A. I say it's clearly undeniable overwhelming evidence. Now it's your turn.

I'ld say that declaring things to be a certain way, does not make it so.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
First of all... Fred Hoyle didn't say that they WERE monkeyed with. He said "as if".

And I don't see why any of these terms are necessary. I just say that the values of the constants are such that the universe as we know it is possible. And that's it.

I see no point in using loaded language.
The point of the language is to describe reality, which you didn't do. All you said was a tautology - "it is what it is". You didn't say anything.
That would be an assumed conclusion.

No, it's not. "Tuning" doesn't need to assume a tuner, it necessarily implies a tuner. The premise is like the salesman said about the product that was so good, "it sells itself!"
I'ld say that declaring things to be a certain way, does not make it so.
Obviously. But the empirical observation does make the empirical observation so.
Please use your own words to explain it here. Don't tell me to go watch a video.
I pointed to the video because it has the words of respected scientists and philosophers and I figured you'd respect their words more than mine. Basically, there is no connection between the laws and the numerical constants. There's no evidence and no reason that they necessarily have to be what they are. If we existed due to physical necessity it would mean that a life-prohibiting universe was impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logical and probable.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thought you did the research? Virtually every debate between atheist and theist in the last 25 years gives an argument for P2.

I won't do your homework for you but here are a couple links that might shorten your effort and let you land on the more sound philosophical argument rather than a straw version.

Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith

Luke Barnes' Blog

I didn't ask for "an argument" of P2. I asked for a demonstration thereof.
Again, can P2 be demonstrated?

ps: I know for a fact that it can't... it's just yet another bare assertion made, for the only purpose of making the overall argument "work".

We would require a solid explanation for the origins of the universe. We'ld require a "theory of everything" or a "unified field theory" to be able to unify classical physics with quantum mechanics or to unify gravity with the other forces.

The fact of the matter is that we have no such theory at this time. Contrary to popular belief, Big Bang Theory is NOT an explanation of the origins of the universe. Rather, it explains what happened to the space-time continuum AFTER it already existed (inflation and all that stuff). At present, our knowledge of physics and relativity breaks down completely at T = 0. We simply do not know.

From that follows, that P2 is just an arbitrary statement that can not be demonstrated or even only supported.

So P2 has only one purpose: making the god-argument "work".
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Big Bang Theory is NOT an explanation of the origins of the universe.

Non-sequitur. We aren't talking about cosmogony and it is unrelated.

So P2 has only one purpose: making the god-argument "work".

You seem unfamiliar with the approach as no other atheists with an iota of philosophy training make this claim. It is foolish.

Here is a scenario that will help assuming you put more time in it than you have researching the fine-tuning argument)

WW3 happens and wipes out the entire population of Earth. 500 years pass and aliens land the planet. They land next to Mount Rushmore and see four what appears to be the likeness of not one, bit four US presidents. There is no history or people to give an account of what caused the four faces.

They investigate and try and ask if the figures were there by chance erosion, necessity of nature always having to form rock molecules into shapes of former presidents heads once they reach a certain size or a intelligent agent carved them.

Same inference as fine-tuning. But when you assume the very thing you are trying to prove (namely that an intelligence agent couldn't be involved) you make the fallacy of begging the question (or reasoning in a circle).

You send 1000 scientist to Rushmore today and given your method they would be unable to determine that an intelligent agent caused it.

All scientific methods to investigate archeology are now defunked given your method. Forensic science and cryptology gone.

More research, less reading new atheists should restore a method less destructive to scientific knowledge than your current approach.

start reading the old ones like Antony Flew, J.L. Mackey, J.h. Sobel, or Graham Oppy. Flew credits a switch from atheism to theism as a result in large part to the fine-tuning argument you eliminated fallaciously. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: dcalling
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Non-sequitur. We aren't talking about cosmogony and it is unrelated.

If you are talking about how and why the cosmological constants got to have the value that they have at the start of the universe, you very much are talking about cosmology.

They are called cosmological constants, after all.

You seem unfamiliar with the approach as no other atheists with an iota of philosophy training make this claim. It is foolish.

I don't require any philosophy training to be able to spot unsupported premises that are presented as if they are facts.

Here is a scenario that will help assuming you put more time in it than you have researching the fine-tuning argument)

WW3 happens and wipes out the entire population of Earth. 500 years pass and aliens land the planet. They land next to Mount Rushmore and see four what appears to be the likeness of not one, bit four US presidents. There is no history or people to give an account of what caused the four faces.

They investigate and try and ask if the figures were there by chance erosion, necessity of nature always having to form rock molecules into shapes of former presidents heads once they reach a certain size or a intelligent agent carved them.

False analogy. Mt Rushmore shows signs of manufacturing. It is carved rock. Not eroded rock.

Same inference as fine-tuning. But when you assume the very thing you are trying to prove (namely that an intelligence agent couldn't be involved) you make the fallacy of begging the question (or reasoning in a circle).

Lol... no, that is what YOU do. It is assumed that a God (oeps, sorry, an "intelligence") WAS involved. Hence the loaded language of "tuning" and stuff.

I'm not assuming anything. In fact, I'm the one who says that I don't know why and how the constants got to have the value that they have.

I'm not the one making any assumptions....

You send 1000 scientist to Rushmore today and given your method they would be unable to determine that an intelligent agent caused it.

Nope. As I said previously, Rushmore shows signs of manufacturing. Carving.
And if such signs aren't present (or just unrecognisable for some reason) and there is no explanation for it then..... there is no explanation for it. And the only proper, valid, answer at that point is "we don't know".

All scientific methods to investigate archeology are now defunked given your method. Forensic science and cryptology gone.

Again, nope.

More research, less reading new atheists should restore a method less destructive to scientific knowledge than your current approach.

start reading the old ones like Antony Flew, J.L. Mackey, J.h. Sobel, or Graham Oppy. Flew credits a switch from atheism to theism as a result in large part to the fine-tuning argument you eliminated fallaciously. Hope this helps.

I don't care what Flew, Dakwins, Hawking, Captain Kirk or anyone else believes.
I care about what these people can demonstrate.

I could go on and give examples of people who did the exact opposite of Flew, but I see no point in engaging in such name-dropping and arguments from authority.

The only thing left for me now is to repeat my question, which you still haven't answerd:

Can you demonstrate P2?
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
you are talking about how and why the cosmological constants got to have the value

You said and I quoted, "Big Bang Theory is NOT an explanation of the origins of the universe."

I said non-Sequtur. Nobody is stating Big Bang cosmology is an explanations of origins!!!

So you are leading us away from the fine-tuning argument and Icalled BS.

Then apparently realizing you got caught you changed the subject again. Wow.

don't require any philosophy training

That is where you foolishly miss that you are making a philosophical statement about the lack of requiring philosophy.

False analogy. Mt Rushmore shows signs of manufacturing. It is carved rock. Not eroded rock.

Apparently you didn't understand. The rocks appear to be carved but how do they know since there is no record and the marks could be there by chance or necessity.

So until you are willing to engage fine tuning and not keep changing the subject, or engage philsophy as the best atheists do I am tired of trying to educate someone on their own worldview, namely what the best arguments against design are.

Your approach is circular, you assume what you are trying to prove. What you miss, due to your demand that you remain ignorant about philsophy and science, is that your justification can't possibly be true.

You are trying to prove something similar to a square circle. Then bragging about how you don't need any geometric definitions. A few junior college courses ought to solve your aversion to philosophy and scientific method.

3 strikes...your out.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You said and I quoted, "Big Bang Theory is NOT an explanation of the origins of the universe."

I said non-Sequtur. Nobody is stating Big Bang cosmology is an explanations of origins!!!

And neither did I say that anyone said that. I was saying that the origins of the universe are unknown at this time. In anticipiation of a common misconception I merely mentioned that big bang cosmology is not a theory of origins of the universe. Which is why I prefixed it with the words "contrary to popular belief". But apparantly you choose to not quote that part... Perhaps, because otherwise it would be to obvious that your accusation is invalid?

So you are leading us away from the fine-tuning argument and Icalled BS.

I'm not. I'm merely explaining that in order to have an explanation for the cosmological constants, we would have to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

In other words, I'm showing that "the fine tuning" argument, is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

Then apparently realizing you got caught you changed the subject again. Wow.

I did not. If anything, you're just not understanding the point I'm making.
The "fine tuning" argument IS an argument that lives in the space of cosmology, as it pertains to cosmological constants. These values are either set at very start of the universe, or during the creation of the universe, or they are truelly constant and simply can't have any other value.

Either way, we would have to understand the process by which a universe can come into existance, in order to answer those questions.

That is where you foolishly miss that you are making a philosophical statement about the lack of requiring philosophy.

This has nothing to do with "philosophy". You are talking about physics.

Apparently you didn't understand. The rocks appear to be carved but how do they know since there is no record and the marks could be there by chance or necessity.

No, they could not. That's what I'm saying. Marks of carving look very different from marks of erosion.

And as I also stated, if such marks would not exist and if there would be no explanation for it.... then there is no explanation for it and those aliens wouldn't be justified to just assume things - that would be an argument from ignorance.

So until you are willing to engage fine tuning and not keep changing the subject

I'm not changing any subjects. The fine tuning argument deals with the cosmological constants. It is an argument about physics and about cosmology.

, or engage philsophy as the best atheists do I am tired of trying to educate someone on their own worldview, namely what the best arguments against design are.

1. atheism is not a worldview.
2. cosmology/physics is not philosophy
3. argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

Your approach is circular, you assume what you are trying to prove.
My argument is: we don't know. That's the opposite of assuming things.

The one presenting the "fine tuning argument" to prove/support the idea of a "tuner" is the one that is assuming the conclusion. As I have shown before, which you , for some reason, consider to be "changing the subject".

What you miss, due to your demand that you remain ignorant about philsophy and science, is that your justification can't possibly be true.

What justification? What are you talking about?

Again, the one presenting this fine-tuning nonsense is the one who is pretending to have knowledge about things that are currently simply unknown.

You are trying to prove something similar to a square circle.

Again, I'm not trying to "prove" anything.
I'm merely pointing out that the assumptions you make can not be justified or demonstrated.

I note you still haven't answered the question I began with:
Can you demonstrate P2??????


3 strikes...your out.

Claiming strikes, does not make it strikes.

Invalid accusations of whatever are irrelevant as well.

Now, try to answer the call: can you demonstrate P2?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
". But apparantly you choose to not quote that part... Perhaps, because otherwise it would be to obvious that your accusation is invalid

Read it. We start with the fine-tuned constants and initial conditions.

We don't say well, but they are a result of the Big Bang and we don't have an explanation for that yet.

This s known in philosophy of science (which you no doubt don't believe in) an explanation of the explanation.

In order to explain dual properties we see in light (the double slit experiment) we need to explain quantum mechanics, but in order to explain quantum mechanics we need a hand unified theory.

Again no one is arguing the way you are. If you had read the links I provided originally we wouldn't be having this endless discussion.

I'm merely explaining that in order to have an explanation for the cosmological constants, we would have to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

See above. Also recognize that fine-tuning goes up not down with the multiverse according to many cosmologists.

This has nothing to do with "philosophy". You are talking about physics.

Again all experiments in science are based on inductive or abductive logic. They have premises, arguments, and inferences to the best explanation of the experimental data.

1-year jr college science class or philosophy class will make this point.



1. atheism is not a worldview.
2. cosmology/physics is not philosophy
3. argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

Again does the "atheist" have a different answer than the theist to the following questions: where did I come from? Where will I go when I die? How do I live my life? How do I find meaning in life?

If you are telling us you have no view whatsoever to those questions and never thought about them then I would be suspicious.

Finally, you keep asking "Demonstrate p2, demonstrate p2, ...,"over and over again. I posted this,

"I won't do your homework for you but here are a couple links that might shorten your effort and let you land on the more sound philosophical argument rather than a straw version.

Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith

Luke Barnes' Blog"

Do your own homework, p2 is demonstrated all over the internet just type fine-tuning problem. Also other have given links you have not followed! I can't make you read apparently.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Read it. We start with the fine-tuned constants

Yes. You start with an assumed conclusion. Exactly.
You just declare the constants to be fine-tuned and then conclude that they are fine-tuned.

But I'm the one with the "invalid logic" when I say that we don't know, ha?

and initial conditions.

We don't know what the initial conditions were.

We don't say well, but they are a result of the Big Bang and we don't have an explanation for that yet.

Neither did I say that you do.

This s known in philosophy of science (which you no doubt don't believe in) an explanation of the explanation.

You can't explain the explanation that you don't yet have knowledge about.

In order to explain dual properties we see in light (the double slit experiment) we need to explain quantum mechanics, but in order to explain quantum mechanics we need a hand unified theory.

Again no one is arguing the way you are. If you had read the links I provided originally we wouldn't be having this endless discussion.
I'm not having an "endless discussion". I merely asked a question. That question being "can you demonstrate premise 2?".

You then started an "endless discussion", instead of just answering the question. Which you, again, did not do in this post either.

Do you plan on actually answering the question one of these days or....?

See above. Also recognize that fine-tuning goes up not down with the multiverse according to many cosmologists.

What multi-verse?

I wasn't aware that it was demonstrated that other universes exist.

Again all experiments in science are based on inductive or abductive logic. They have premises, arguments, and inferences to the best explanation of the experimental data.

1-year jr college science class or philosophy class will make this point.

Yes. And conclusions are only as good as the premises are valid.

So..... can you demonstrate premise 2????

Again does the "atheist" have a different answer than the theist to the following
An answer to what? The "following" what?

Once more: can you demonstrate premise 2?

How many times must I repeat that I'm not pretending to have any answers? That's what you are doing.

You presented that "fine tuning argument". It included premises.
Can you demonstrate those premises?
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes. You start with an assumed conclusion. Exactly.
You just declare the constants to be fine-tuned and then conclude that they are fine-tuned.

But I'm the one with the "invalid logic" when I say that we don't know, ha?



We don't know what the initial conditions were.



Neither did I say that you do.



You can't explain the explanation that you don't yet have knowledge about.


I'm not having an "endless discussion". I merely asked a question. That question being "can you demonstrate premise 2?".

You then started an "endless discussion", instead of just answering the question. Which you, again, did not do in this post either.

Do you plan on actually answering the question one of these days or....?



What multi-verse?

I wasn't aware that it was demonstrated that other universes exist.



Yes. And conclusions are only as good as the premises are valid.

So..... can you demonstrate premise 2????


An answer to what? The "following" what?

Once more: can you demonstrate premise 2?

How many times must I repeat that I'm not pretending to have any answers? That's what you are doing.

You presented that "fine tuning argument". It included premises.
Can you demonstrate those premises?

Do the homework. Or do you want me to cut and paste the argument from the sites.

So how LINKS work on the internet is that they are highlighted (usually in blue but not always). You slide your mouse pointer over a link and click once and presto....it take you to a whole different page that discusses a dozen or so out of 31 fine-tuned constants. It looks at the fact that those constants are not constrained by physical necessity.it then looks at how fine-tuned they are and calculates the chances that they would fall in a small range of values. Just one of these constants the entropy fine tuning is 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power. Now we only 10 to the 87th power sub-atomic particles in the universe.

Now DEMONSTRATE YOU CAN FOLLOW A LINK AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

Here ...have some more links




See also: home | Consolidation of Fine-Tuning

To get various perspectives on this inference from many different cosmologist. That site is OXFORD university not Oral Roberts University BTW.

IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE FACTS or clicking through on the P2 resources I provided, THEN WHY KEEP POSTING?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
There is another thread on fine tuning, but I have a more basic question. I am confused about the general philosophy/math/whatever of "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" arguments for God.

Here is my understanding of the argument using an analogy. I am standing in a maze facing an obelisk. I assume that the purpose of the universe is for me to find something interesting like this obelisk. I recall all the correct choices I had to make from the time I entered this maze until I found this obelisk, and I think about the low probability of reaching this destination by random decisions. Therefore, I conclude that God was at work somehow.

If my analogy is correct, then I think "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" make the mistake of assuming a divine purpose to our current circumstances. Maybe God's goal was to create a perfectly empty universe or something as opposed to the universe we have.

I think the rationale is fairly simple:

1. There is a very low objective chance that the universe would have come together the way it did without any higher power guiding the process.
2. Therefore there must have been some higher power guiding the process.

Another way to put it: either we were very, very, very lucky, or else the outcome was not pure chance but rather the product of a higher intelligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uber Genius
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think the rationale is fairly simple:

1. There is a very low objective chance that the universe would have come together the way it did without any higher power guiding the process.
2. Therefore there must have been some higher power guiding the process.

Another way to put it: either we were very, very, very lucky, or else the outcome was not pure chance but rather the product of a higher intelligence.

I hear this often, but when it comes to demonstrating the claim I find my expectations underwhelmed.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think the rationale is fairly simple:

1. There is a very low objective chance that the universe would have come together the way it did without any higher power guiding the process.
2. Therefore there must have been some higher power guiding the process.

Another way to put it: either we were very, very, very lucky, or else the outcome was not pure chance but rather the product of a higher intelligence.

There are so finer points to include here although you stat the gist of the argument.

There are three possible inferences to the data of fine-tuning for life:

1- chance (as you pointed out)
2 - necessity
3 - an intelligent designer

Of the three above science tells us 2 (necessity) is not the case as the fine- tuning elements rule out (don't make the list of fine-tuned elements if other precursor laws determine the fine-tuning.

So we currently have 31 fine-tuned conditions and laws. This number oscillates downward as deterministic relationships are discovered. This has happened several times since Brandon Carter's research was published just over 40 years ago.

The argument is there is fine-tuning for life in the universe. It is either a result of chance, necessity, or design. It is not necessity or chance. Therefore the best explanation we have of fine-tuning is design.

That is the abductive form of the argument.

Why we need to get these right is that New Atheists are fundamentalists misrepresenting arguments and evidence wherever they can. Unlike the "Old" Atheists like Antony Flew who follow the data and evidence where it points. These New Atheist would try and conflate your point and point out necessity as an alternative even though they might know that necessity has been eliminated by science (current science that is). Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do the homework. Or do you want me to cut and paste the argument from the sites.

I don't want any extra arguments.
I want a demonstration of the premises of the argument already given.

For some reason, none of you are willing or able to answer that request.


It looks at the fact that those constants are not constrained by physical necessity

This is the interesting part.

By whom, how, where and when was it demonstrated that the values could have been different?

IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE FACTS or clicking through on the P2 resources I provided, THEN WHY KEEP POSTING?

I am interested in the facts.
That's why I'm asking you to share them.

After all, YOU people are the ones that are putting up this argument. It's upto YOU to support it.

I'm not asking for a cosmology crash course.
I'm asking a simple question.

By whom, how, where and when was it demonstrated that the constants of the universe were "not due to physical necessity or chance"?
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Of the three above science tells us 2 (necessity) is not the case as the fine- tuning elements rule out

How was it ruled out, by whom?
Citation needed.

The argument is there is fine-tuning for life in the universe. It is either a result of chance, necessity, or design. It is not necessity or chance.

How was chance ruled out and by whom?
Citation needed.

Therefore the best explanation we have of fine-tuning is design.

That depends on your ability to answer the previous two questions.

These New Atheist would try and conflate your point and point out necessity as an alternative even though they might know that necessity has been eliminated by science (current science that is). Hope this helps.

Citation needed.
And let's not forget that you also claim that "chance" is ruled out as well.

I haven't seen any support for that claim either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't want any extra arguments.
I want a demonstration of the premises of the argument already given.

For some reason, none of you are willing or able to answer that request.




This is the interesting part.

By whom, how, where and when was it demonstrated that the values could have been different?



I am interested in the facts.
That's why I'm asking you to share them.

After all, YOU people are the ones that are putting up this argument. It's upto YOU to support it.

I'm not asking for a cosmology crash course.
I'm asking a simple question.

By whom, how, where and when was it demonstrated that the constants of the universe were "not due to physical necessity or chance"?

This is not hard. Just click and read! No new arguments, why do you keep misrepresenting what I am writing. Just slide your mouse over and click the link with one click of the left button on your mouse. Here are some additional resources.

Central to the fine-tuning problem since Carter in 1974 as I have said is that there is nothing constraining the constants. Ellis below is the only theist. If you want to read about the constants all these discuss in depth. Or you could go to the Luke Barnes site I posted earlier, remember the are the very things your asking for so just point and click and read. Don't misrepresent and make me do your homework. The wide range of values is what creates the fine-tuning problem in the first place. There is only one person who denies this is a problem (Vic Stenger). Again Barnes (among other cosmologists) shows why Stenger's work is false and misrepresents the problem.

Davies – The Goldilocks Enigma; Rees – Just Six Numbers; Barrow – The Constants of Nature; Barrow & Tipler – The Anthropic Cosmological Principle; Leslie –Universes; George Ellis articles
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0