Why do Atheists not want to consider FineTuning ?

[variant]

If you imply that life could evolve in any conditions as long as it evolves to fit the environment, why is earth the only planet with life in the solar system?

"life can evolve to fit any conditions" wasn't the claim either.

We actually don't know what range of conditions life can exist in. We have one good example of it and not very much of the known universe explored.

 

[quatona]

Unless if preassuming that there is an intention behind the universe, and unless if preassuming that the universe as it is is as it is intended to be I am not impressed by the fact that one of countless hypothetical outcomes has been the outcome.

 

[Strathos]

it it?
I didn't realize that it has been Verified that their is No life anywhere else in the solar system.

We haven't found any. There might be microbes somewhere on Titan or Europa, but really.

 

[biggles53]

If you imply that life could evolve in any conditions as long as it evolves to fit the environment, why is earth the only planet with life in the solar system?

Please don't put words in my mouth....it only serves to weaken your argument.

My quoting of Douglas Adams' puddle analogy was to illustrate the incredibly arrogant view of those who think that the universe has been designed with them in mind.

Life arose here because an environment existed in which this particular form of life was able to establish......not the other way around...

And....finely tuned....? Designed....? Consider this....

We live on a planet where only about 4% of it is able to support our survival.....some design...

We are slowly but surely losing our moon, as its orbit steadily escapes our gravity.......some design.

Our planet is/ has been regularly struck by objects from space, resulting in widespread destruction.....some design.

We live on the thin crust of a cooling planet, resulting in frequent earthquakes and volcanic disturbances.....some design.

It is debatable which will happen first - our sun running out of fuel, or the collision of our system wit the Andromeda Galaxy.....some design.

 

[TheBear]

Is a water-filled pothole fine tuned for the water?

 

[sfs]

If you imply that life could evolve in any conditions as long as it evolves to fit the environment, why is earth the only planet with life in the solar system?

If the water fits this pothole perfectly just because the shape makes it fit, why are there potholes without water in them?

 

[HitchSlap]

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 ???
bvious personal Creator , and the ball
is in your court<edit>:



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

Why would a god bother with all this ^^^, but decides to Ctrl+Alt+Del her "good" creation and start all over again, only to end up with seven billion people just like the ones he already decimated? No, it's more likely you're using confirmation bias to construct a case for your god.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fine tuning argument is nothing more than the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I could use the same argument to show that the last 10 lottery results were fine tuned so that 10 specific people would win.

Even more importantly, no one can even show that it was fine tuned for us. For all we know, the universe was fine tuned to produce humans that could house the all important E. coli bacteria that the designer is actually interested in.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

If you say the world requires a creator and that creator is your God, I would ask; who created your God? If you say your God does not require a creator than maybe the world does not need a creator either.

K

 

[durangodawood]

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.

Who needs proof? Do you need "proof" of God?
.

 

[Strathos]

If the water fits this pothole perfectly just because the shape makes it fit, why are there potholes without water in them?

Because the water only fell into that one, from rain? Implies an external source.

 

[RedRover]

If you imply that life could evolve in any conditions as long as it evolves to fit the environment, why is earth the only planet with life in the solar system?

There was life on the other planets and there will be again.

 

[TheBear]

wrong thread

 

[Strathos]

There was life on the other planets and there will be again.

Possibly...

 

[RedRover]

Possibly...

Of course the real question is: could life on another planet be the same as life here on Planet Earth. Some people say the universal laws are the same so life is going to be the same. Other people say it is all chance and even if you were to start all over here on earth you would end up with totally different results.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course the real question is: could life on another planet be the same as life here on Planet Earth. Some people say the universal laws are the same so life is going to be the same. Other people say it is all chance and even if you were to start all over here on earth you would end up with totally different results.

We would never expect life on another planet, which originated and evolved independetly of us, would be the same as life on Earth. Even life on different continents is different after just a relatively short period of isolation.

To use an analogy, if you took two human populations, wiped their memory, and allowed them to start separate colonies on separate planets, would you expect both of them to develop the same exact language? Of course not, right?

 

[RedRover]

We would never expect life..... would be the same as life on Earth.

If you look at Stars they are different, some bigger, some smaller, older, younger, perhaps even different elements, but still Stars are made up of all the same elements. I know there is a theory that life does not have to be carbon based. Still it would be reasonable to expect that we could find carbon based life on other planets. Some people believe both theorys are true. Some planets have life very much like on Earth and in some places life is very different from what you would find here on Earth. Science fiction if filled with guesses of what alternate life forms may look like.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you look at Stars they are different, some bigger, some smaller, older, younger, perhaps even different elements, but still Stars are made up of all the same elements.

There are 8 planets in our solar system, and none are exactly like Earth.

I know there is a theory that life does not have to be carbon based. Still it would be reasonable to expect that we could find carbon based life on other planets.

But we wouldn't expect to see rhinos, giraffes, and great white sharks. We would expect evolution to take a different course from the very start. There is nothing in the laws of physics that requires that bison evolve, or that stingrays evolve. Even the basic genetic and metabolic systems that make up all of life on Earth could be different on another planet, even if that life is carbon based.

We could even look at Earth species for examples of evolution taking different routes. The eyes of vertebrates and octopus are a perfect example. As it turns out, the retina in vertebrates faces backwards while the retina in octopus face forward (as well as in other cephalopods). Each retina also originates from a different type of tissue. These eyes evolved independently, and in doing so found different solutions for the same problem. We would expect life on another planet to do the same, but much more dramatically since they will be evolving independently from the very start.

Science fiction if filled with guesses of what alternate life forms may look like.

Science fiction uses humanoids for alien lifeforms because it tells a better story, not because it is scientifically sound. I would be careful taking lessons away from SF.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This has always been my favorite refutation of the fine-tuning argument...

" Then we must ask why God needed to even bother with awkward designs like the flawed and ridiculously concocted ones we see in nature; why, for instance, did God give us skin as protection from germs and foreign particles, and yet not make us to thrive on what we know as harmful radiation? Or, if God gave us ears to hear with, noses to smell with, eyes to see with, taste buds to taste with, and nerve cells to feel with, then why did he only give us those senses? Why not also the ability to see gamma radiation and rays of light not visible to the human eye? We see them with telescopes, we detect them with finer instruments, so why not with the eye? God was not limited in having to create cardboard creatures as flimsy as ourselves. He could have made us to exist and thrive in black holes or within the hearts of blue stars, and yet he went through the senseless trouble to create (or some would stupidly say, “evolve”) these bundles of bunions called human bodies. Words don’t describe the asininity of it."

" And this is the real foolishness of the fine-tuning argument—its limited focus. Just look at how much of the universe is inhospitable to any type of life. If the universe was fine-tuned for life, why is there so little life in it? Why is most of our world trying to kill us, let alone all of space and time beyond this odorous outhouse called Earth? Not even a seedling can grow and thrive on Mars, and yet Mars is the closest to habitable planet in this solar system we have knowledge of outside of our own. This realization makes our own evolution rather unique and spits on the dumb notion that the universe has been tailor-made as an environment for the growth of carbon life forms (and even more arrogantly, for the growth of the human race, so that we may fight and quarrel and give credit to a fictitious being for its existence)." ---Joe Holman

I think I like this explanation because you don't need to understand the mathematics of the argument to understand why its wrong. The fine-tuning of this universe is a lot less "fine" than the OP would have you believe.

Anyone interested in reading the entire debunking that I pulled those quotes from need only PM me for the link.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip....

Anyone interested in reading the entire debunking that I pulled those quotes from need only PM me for the link.

You really should provide the source when pulling large quotes, without having to ask for them.