• 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.

Why do Atheists not want to consider FineTuning ?

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
71
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are people..even Scientists who want to be atheist, backed into a corner IF they are willing to look at the FineTuning evidence to our Universe ???

The Cosmological Constant is to within 120 decimal places and the
Expansion Rate of the Universe according to Prof. Stephen Hawkins is
1/1,000,000 th otherwise we arent here. Considering these two , plus
the following that has been scientifically verified, it is completely
absurd to think this Universe/Solar System/Earth wasnt pre-planned ,
incredibly well designed , and Created by a Mind at work ....and one
is so powerful that it boggles the Mind. Your ultimate purpose to
living is to get to know this obvious personal Creator , and the ball
is in your court<edit>:

The table below lists the parameters required for a planet to be able
to sustain life. Individually, the probabilities of occurrence of each
parameter are not particularly impressive. The fact that all of these
parameters are found on the Earth is extremely impressive, indicating
an extreme deviation from random chance. The probability values below
are ones obtained from that observed in the universe as a whole.

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and
ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star
formation long enough for life to form
galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy
elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times)
and life-essential heavy elements would not form
galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally
unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result
supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life
white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted;
life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry
parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky
planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density
would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible
parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the
stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for
formation of life-supportable planets
z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be
too great
number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of
life-supportable planets too unstable for life
if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry
parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)
if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system
would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry
if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy
elements for life chemistry
parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)
if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support
if younger: same result
parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)
if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn
up too quickly to support life
if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of
life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be
insufficient for photosynthesis
parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)
if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy
element concentrations would be poisonous to life
parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life
if bluer: same result
H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1)
if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life
chemistry would never form
if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life
parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and
methane for life
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life
distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)
if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)
if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too
extreme for life
orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)
if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life
axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to
sustain diverse life-forms
if lesser: same result
rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life
rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life
rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)
if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too extreme for sustained life
if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too slow for the development of advanced life
planet's age (9) (p = 0.1)
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life
magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately
protected from hard solar and stellar radiation
thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)
if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life
if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life
albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
(9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed
if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements
mass of body colliding with primordial earth (9) (0 = 0.002)
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life
if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be
too luminous for subsequent life
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)
if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly
if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life
atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life;
insufficient UV radiation for life
if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation
would be too intense for life
oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily,
destabilizing Earth's ecosystem
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)
if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be
recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide
would be released from carbonate buildup
volcanic activity (26)
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would
be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be
insufficient for life advanced life support
if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life
if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for
sustained land life
if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for
sustained land life
oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result
rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be
insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle;
increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for
advanced land life
frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for
advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for
advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result
gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational
period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic
instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the
continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic
field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent
asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter&#8217;s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter&#8217;s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and
comet collisions
drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too
infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life;
insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV
radiation would reach Earth's surface
atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be
too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for
most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too
low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most
life forms
iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure;
crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive
species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to
produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing
skin cancers and reducing plant growth
mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would
disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with
insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food
production
quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity,
and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from An organic compound made of amino
acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds
between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid
residues.protein deficiency
biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway
greenhouse effect
quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)

Taken from 'Big Bang Refined by Fire' by Dr. Hugh Ross
 
Last edited by a moderator:

football5680

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2013
4,138
1,517
Georgia
✟105,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Atheists try to pride themselves on logic and reason but their position forces them to conclude illogical answers.

If you look at the creation of the world from a logical standpoint you must say there has to be a creator. The creation needs a creator.

Now what would be the attributes of this creator. He would have to be eternal, immaterial, all-powerful, and personal because he decided to create something. This is exactly what we say God is.

Saying everything just happened to fall into place so perfectly and lifeless material all of a sudden came to life is not logical. From a logical standpoint the most logical thing is that a high being brought it into creation.

Once you conclude that you can begin to think about what personal attributes this being would have with his creation. Why would he create us and what is our purpose? When you begin too think about this the Christian God makes the most sense because he simply wants a relationship with us and not mindless submission. Jesus said the most important thing is to love God. It makes sense that a being would give us free will to love him. If he simply wanted mindless worship he would have just made us robots programmed to worship him but there is nothing to gain from that relationship.
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟27,729.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Some have acknowledged that our universe is fine-tuned. However, in order to keep God out of the equation, they have also stated as fact (even though there is absolutely no evidence for it) that we are living in a multiverse. Instead of there being one universe, which God fine-tuned to such a degree that we are able to thrive in it, there were an infinite number of universes formed (the multiverse), and the universe in which we live just happens to be one of them.

The bottom line is that those who don't want to accept that there is a Supreme Being to whom we will all answer for our actions, will go to whatever lengths they can in order to promote their lack of belief. And in many instances what it 'boils down to' is their own narcissistic desire to live their lives without being held accountable for whatever actions they commit.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
71
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

And...when you ask for proof of MultiVerses , they are quick to either get off the subject and/or start up with hostility and mockery attempts.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
71
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

What is rather ironic , is, there isnt an atheist around that would deny the physics associated with a simple Bicycle...yet when you enter the realm of cosmology , suddenly all the Physics Constants whereby some are to within a 120 decimal point maximum allowable deviation otherwise we arent here...suddenly become inconsequential to them. When you think about it, it can be no other way for them...for... if they were to seriously consider them and admit to the extraordinary design and engineering behind our cosmos/solar system/earth , then their 'atheism' becomes compromised ; and most of all...they cant have that occur.
 
Upvote 0

football5680

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2013
4,138
1,517
Georgia
✟105,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yep. When you admit there is a God you become responsible for your actions and you will have to account for them. Atheists do not want to do that so they will stick to their illogical positions and try to convince other people to believe them. Atheism has become more militant recently and it comes from a place of deep insecurity.
 
Upvote 0

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
That has been my experience too.
Not only do they refuse to believe when christians tell them the universe is fine tuned but they also refuse to believe Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan: “It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with galaxies and stars, planets, life and intelligence
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
71
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, let the good people get back to talking about how and what atheists think. No need for actual atheists to cloud the issue.

Many Christians can claim that they were once atheists , such as myself for a good 10 adult years ; so, I do happen to know how atheists think having been one and having virtually nothing but atheist friends . Back then, my trouser snake ruled my life ... and stopping that for God was like a Theif looking for a Policeman (it aint going to happen) .
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
71
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, its very fascinating. The part you neglect to put forth is why should this make me believe that there is a God, much less a personal one.

How about because the dozens of Fine tuned Design Parameters are all required to produce and maintain a PERSONAL Universe that we enjoy (?) . Or, can you bolster your atheist position by showing how Nothing produced non material entities such as reason, rationale, abstract thoughts, Mind, emotions, feelings, consciousness, love, discernment , etc... from materials and a massive explosion ? Finally, why dont you want a personal Theistic Creator to exist ... because atheism is far more rational ????

Can you answer the 3 questions by elaborating ? Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟27,729.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When Albert Einstein first heard of The Big Bang Theory, he argued against it. He wanted to believe that the universe was static in both time and space. It had always existed as it is now, never changing and never moving, and it would continue to exist in this same manner for all time. However, he was shown through actual observation and mathematics that the universe was expanding at an astronomical speed, and would continue to expand at this speed for many millennia to come. His mathematical mind realized that this expansion meant that at one time the entire universe was at a single point, where the universe began its journey to where it is now.

Up to this point Einstein had also been an atheist. Because of his acceptance of the universe as being infinite and unchanging, he saw the universe itself as the prime action out of which all other actions have sprung. However, upon his realizing that even the universe itself had begun at a certain time, he realized that it also had a Prime Mover which began its journey. For this reason he revised his belief, and stated that instead of believing that there was no Supreme Being through whom all that exists had its beginning, he accepted a belief in God as the philosopher Spinoza described him to be.

Further evidence of fine-tuning to a degree that necessitates a conscious and intelligent Creator is to be found in our own solar system. When NASA sent the Messenger satellite to study our sun, scientists had already calculated the gravity of Mercury. Since the satellite would be flying near Mercury on its way to study and measure the sun, the scientists decided that they would use the instruments on that satellite to verify their calculations. But when they measured the actual gravity of Mercury, it was so much greater than their calculations that they decided to study Mercury more closely.

What they found gave them some answers, but also led to even more questions. Actual measurements of Mercury's gravity caused them to decide that Mercury was not a planet. Instead, it was the core of what either had been a gigantic planet at one time (3 to 5 times the size of earth), or had been the core of a planet which according to the laws of physics should have formed, but didn't.

If it was at one time a gigantic planet that was destroyed, the scientists say there should be debris left over from its destruction. But there is no debris field anywhere near Mercury. And if it is a core which never formed a complete planet, why not? Being the closest to the sun, that metal core we now call 'Mercury' formed first after the sun itself, with the planets farther from the sun (including the earth itself) forming later. That would imply that it had 'first dibs' on all the matter that the sun itself didn't take. So Mercury should be a monster of a planet according to the laws of physics. But it isn't, and physics, which is supposed to explain the mathematics of the universe, can't explain what happened.

May I offer a theory? Mercury is the size it is as a direct result of God's determining that it should be that size. And the matter which according to the laws of physics should have been Mercury's has instead become the core and mantle of the planet we are on right now.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
71
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
......................



Why would that lead me to the conclusion of a personal god?


.........

If you dont believe that the dozens of scientifically defined Life Enabling Constants , all working collaboratively with one another with some to a maximum allowable 120 th decimal place tolerance otherwise life of any kind is impossible for Earth including yours , isnt the intended work of personal intelligent Being .... then your desire for there being no Creator is based on you :

a. Not wanting to have the Creator of the Universe in authority over you.
b. Not wanting the ultimate moral accountability for your lifestyle choices .
c. Not wanting to be told thru prescribed absolute moral laws, that you are in violation for how you desire to live.
d. You desire to be your own 'god' and cannot accept that you are NOT at the center of the universe (or even of your own life) .

You have the choice of continuing to play the atheist charade game if you so desire, or, to surrender your pride and experience what the Creator has in mind for your life , and eternity. You pick, and the Creator grants...only forever. Choose wisely. End.
 
Upvote 0

Valekhai

Newbie
May 2, 2012
38
0
✟22,656.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

You dodged his question and then told him you know what he thinks better than he does and accused him of dishonesty. I find this is a poor way to do apologetics.
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,976
1,007
America
Visit site
✟321,830.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

But Spinoza's god is not a personal god. In fact, it is essentially pantheism, which itself is just the other side of the coin of strong atheism.


I had discussions with others about such things before, even with hearing the identity of sceptic being claimed. With reasons of there needing to have been necessary existence to have always been to explain the universe having begun or for it limited as it is to have any legitimate explanation, and with exposure of fine-tuning shown to be needed to have us with the universe as it is from the big bang, I have been answered that shows some necessary unlimited Cause that might be called god, but it would hardly be the personal God that Yahweh is. I can always say more to show how it is Yahweh the personal God who is revealed to us, but they would not listen that far, walking away with conclusions already had, as a "sceptic", still being essentially atheistic, but they are exposed in not being sceptical, as they are not open to learning other things for coming to truth, but are just run of the mill unbelievers.
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
151,831
19,657
USA
✟2,034,499.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
MOD HAT








This thread has had a clean up. As a reminder, the site rule include:


Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.

Respect and become familiar with each forum's Statement of Purpose. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.
 
Reactions: drstevej
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟261,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How could you conclude that the fine tuning argument is true? What does a non-fine tuned universe look like? To prove that the universe is fine tuned, you must somehow compare it to in universes that are not fine tuned. Then you would calculate the probability that our universe was designed given the set of fine tuned things we observe.

This is impossible to do though since we have no known universes to compare to. We don't know the probability distributions of non-fine tuned universes or the distribution of supposed fine tuned variables across universes.

An atheists probably doesn't find the fine tuning argument convincing because it's impossible to prove using scientific or mathematical methods. The argument is really just an appeal to intuition. While appealing to intuition isn't always or necessarily a bad thing, it's not always convincing to everyone.
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,976
1,007
America
Visit site
✟321,830.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

I cannot tell from this what. you believe. This universe has a number of parameters that are constants for all of it, they are not ever known to be any different, anywhere, but there is no explanation for what value they are, as they are independent of other things in the universe. If any of several of them had been just slightly different, it would not be a universe that could have any life, as our own, surviving in it, the universe depending on which way there would be very slight difference might have quickly dissipated or quickly collapsed right after the big bang that they talk about. There is indeed no evidence there are any other universes, but without admitting there is intelligence that is behind these constants set as they are, the universe needing them not being an explanation itself, they are forced to talk of there being others with this the one out of multitudes that works with us and anything living possible in it.
 
Reactions: granpa
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,469
1,453
East Coast
✟261,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I cannot tell from this what. you believe.

Is this relevant to what I said?


This goes right to my point. You cannot demonstrate in a scientific or mathematical way that universal constants are fine tuned. Nobody has observed another universe, so you don't know probability distributions of these supposed fine tuned values across other fine tuned and not-fine tuned universes.

The fine tuning argument is based on intuition - the universe looks like it might be fine tuned. But when asked how you know that it's fine tuned, there is no reason that can be given other than it has the appearance of being fine tuned. Intuition serves a pragmatic purpose, but it doesn't equate to proof. Intuition can be right, but it can also be, and often is, wrong.
 
Upvote 0