Why do Atheists not want to consider FineTuning ?

Davian · May 18, 2015

TheyCallMeDavid said:
Are people..even Scientists who want to be atheist,

I do not "want" to an atheist; it is only a label for my absence of belief in gods.

TheyCallMeDavid said:
backed into a corner IF they are willing to look at the FineTuning evidence to our Universe ???

What tuning?

TheyCallMeDavid said:
The Cosmological Constant is to within 120 decimal places

Indeed, the constants are constant. If they were not, we would not be here to observe them.

TheyCallMeDavid said:
and the
Expansion Rate of the Universe according to Prof. Stephen Hawkins is
1/1,000,000 th otherwise we arent here.

Do you accept everything else Hawking has to say about cosmology and the age of the cosmos? Or are you only cherry-picking here?

TheyCallMeDavid said:
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 ,

What other universes have you compared it to?

TheyCallMeDavid said:
and Created by a Mind

The only "mind" that I am aware of is a process, an emergent property of a brain. From where did this brain come from?

TheyCallMeDavid said:
at work ....and one
is so powerful that it boggles the Mind.

Yours, perhaps.

TheyCallMeDavid said:
Your ultimate purpose to
living is to get to know this obvious personal Creator , and the ball
is in your court<edit>:

Produce this "creator".

TheyCallMeDavid said:
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’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’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

You do not know what choices were available to this hypothetical deity of yours at the instantiation of the cosmos, do you? Was "tuning" even possible?

Besides, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing deity need to fine tune anything? The argument from design is an argument against your kind of god.

FredVB · Jun 2, 2015

The universe is so vast, and certainly it can be conceived that there are inhabitants anywhere else in this universe. What still is neglected is that with any of the parameters for the universe a little bit different, this universe could never come into being as it was said to do, such that any life here or anywhere in the universe would be possible. It is too great a fluke for that, without God behind it all, or an appeal to believing in a huge multitude of universes evolving in a multiverse, which has no evidence for that.

quatona said:
No, this is not neglected at all. What, however, isn´t accepted is the premise that the universe as it is was an/the intended goal - simply because you´d be left with circular reasoning: The universe must have been intended....because it was intended.

But this position is neglecting that with the big bang as explained bringing about this universe, with universal constants not having any goal for design determining them, that shouldn't have happened, as with the constants just being what they are independent of anything there is no reason for them to correspond to us or any life possible anywhere in the universe, as the slightest difference would make that absolutely impossible from the time of that big bang onward. The fluke is too great, and this is astronomically an understatement. Though you might not see this scientists do understand that. So without having God's involvement being acceptable to include in the explanations, a multitudinous variety of many many universes is considered for this, though there is not the slightest evidence suggested for just one other universe than the universe we are in. Yet there is evidence for God and even what I and other believers understand, and I know of it. So any circular reasoning is not that but it can be seen in that opposing view.

DogmaHunter said:
Right, that's what people call the argument of ignorance.
And plenty of other explanations can be imagined easily:
- there is an infinite amount of universe, making it inevitable that at least one like ours exist
- a universe with this parameters is the only one that can physically exist.
You have no clue about which parameters actually CAN naturally fluctuate and which can't.
You have no clue on how universes come into existance.
You have exactly one universe to observe. To draw any conclusions about it on such a scale... I'ld say that you'ld need a slightly bigger sample...

There is still no evidence for any other universe. If you really understand and deal with the argument it would be with seeing it does not depend at all on whether parameters can fluctuate. If the almighty unlimited necessary being would not be able to adjust any such parameter, the universe with us or any life still shouldn't happen from the big bang. A great multitude of universes wouldn't explain it either. The constants are not being presumed to be set for the universe evolving with any life possible, with no way for it to be that, it shouldn't happen.

Loudmouth said:
For that argument to work, you have to know how many universes there are and how universes come about. We are greatly ignorant of both, so it is impossible to calculate any probabilities.

No I don't, if it is thought I do need to know such things the argument made here is not understood. Constants being known and what would be with them slightly different is all that is needed. There is still no evidence at all for any other universe.

Loudmouth · Jun 2, 2015

FredVB said:
But this position is neglecting that with the big bang as explained bringing about this universe, with universal constants not having any goal for design determining them, that shouldn't have happened, as with the constants just being what they are independent of anything there is no reason for them to correspond to us or any life possible anywhere in the universe, as the slightest difference would make that absolutely impossible from the time of that big bang onward. The fluke is too great, and this is astronomically an understatement.

For it to be so improbable as to be impossible you need to show how many times a universe has come about and how many universes there are. The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1 in 150 million, but people win it all of the time.

quatona · Jun 2, 2015

FredVB said:
But this position is neglecting that with the big bang as explained bringing about this universe, with universal constants not having any goal for design determining them, that shouldn't have happened, as with the constants just being what they are independent of anything there is no reason for them to correspond to us or any life possible anywhere in the universe, as the slightest difference would make that absolutely impossible from the time of that big bang onward.

I would like to understand what you are trying to say here. If you also would like me to understand it, you may want to grammatically restructure this sentence in an intelligible way. Thanks for your efforts.

FredVB · Jun 5, 2015

Loudmouth said:
For it to be so improbable as to be impossible you need to show how many times a universe has come about and how many universes there are. The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1 in 150 million, but people win it all of the time.

My argument shows this isn't at all true, and this posted response to me shows lack of understanding, whether it is deliberately not wanting to acknowledge the truth of the logic or not. Even if it is not acknowledged, it is not at all needed for there to be knowledge of other universes, as there certainly isn't among any of us, and there is no evidence at all of such. Once more, the universe coming from the presumed big bang with universal constants being only slightly different would not have us or any kind of life possible, this we can know, as scientists do. There are many many people, we know this, such that there is some better probability for someone among all of them to win. With our one universe, there isn't such probability for it to be expected at all. If the constants are not in any way parameters that are set, no other universes from their big bangs could have the possibility either. But if they are possibly arranged differently, I show there is evidence of God, and only seeking explanation without necessary existence finds this need for many other universes to explain ours, while there still is absolutely no evidence for such, and it would be inadequate with no explanation for anything ultimately, with dismissing necessary existence.

quatona said:
I would like to understand what you are trying to say here. If you also would like me to understand it, you may want to grammatically restructure this sentence in an intelligible way. Thanks for your efforts.

My statement was using correct grammar, with understandable terms to just about anyone, which not all posts around here do. I explain the necessary existence behind the universal constants being needed to be just as they are with the universe coming from the big bang.

I think all the complexity that works so well in many cases that are not from any human origin of design is good evidence, and there are so many testimonies supporting the perspective of God's invovement. And the universe itself with what I see must be with fine-tuning of parameters to explain it coming from a big bang isn't with a good explanation other than there being necessary existence behind it all with intelligence and power for all the design, with there being evidence for God that I have been mentioning, and theorizing multiple universes so that this one working, and with us in it, is possible to explain it is without any evidence at all.

Loudmouth · Jun 5, 2015

FredVB said:
My argument shows this isn't at all true, and this posted response to me shows lack of understanding, whether it is deliberately not wanting to acknowledge the truth of the logic or not. Even if it is not acknowledged, it is not at all needed for there to be knowledge of other universes, as there certainly isn't among any of us, and there is no evidence at all of such.

For your claims of impossibility to be supported, you need to show that this universe is the only universe or one of a limited number of universes. Where is that evidence?

Once more, the universe coming from the presumed big bang with universal constants being only slightly different would not have us or any kind of life possible, this we can know, as scientists do. There are many many people, we know this, such that there is some better probability for someone among all of them to win. With our one universe, there isn't such probability for it to be expected at all.

However, with many universes it would be expected that one of them would win, just as with the Powerball lottery.

If the constants are not in any way parameters that are set, no other universes from their big bangs could have the possibility either.

Do we have to set the order of the balls in the Powerball lottery so that someone wins?

[serious] · Jun 5, 2015

TheyCallMeDavid said:
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’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’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

It's called the weak anthropic principle and is an old argument that has been addressed many times. From talk origins:

Claim CI301:

Click to expand...

The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible. (This claim is also known as the weak anthropic principle.)
Source:
Ross, Hugh. 1994. Astronomical evidences for a personal, transcendent God. In: The Creation Hypothesis, J. P. Moreland, ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, pp. 141-172.
Response:

The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.

We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.

Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?

Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).

How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.

The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.

If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.

Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).

In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

AV1611VET · Jun 5, 2015

TheyCallMeDavid said:
Why do Atheists not want to consider Fine Tuning?

Isn't the term "fine tuning" misleading?

It implies that the universe was created discordant, then fine-tuned to perfection.

Loudmouth · Jun 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Isn't the term "fine tuning" misleading?

It implies that the universe was created discordant, then fine-tuned to perfection.

It would be better to describe the life in our universe as being very sensitive to small changes in universal constants. It reminds me of undergrads that make graphs with the independent and dependent values on the wrong axes. From the untrained eye it might look right, but the relationships are acutally all wrong.

Added by edit: To better clarify, it is life that has been fine tuned to survive in our universe, not the other way around. That tuning process occurs naturally through evolution.

Davian · Jun 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Isn't the term "fine tuning" misleading?

It implies that the universe was created discordant, then fine-tuned to perfection.

Indeed. Why would an all-knowing deity not get the values for the cosmological constants it wanted on the first try?

<squirrels this away for future use>

AV1611VET · Jun 5, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Added by edit: To better clarify, it is life that has been fine tuned to survive in our universe, not the other way around. That tuning process occurs naturally through evolution.

And just by coincidence we are in the image & likeness of God?

Loudmouth · Jun 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
And just by coincidence we are in the image & likeness of God?

Other way around. God was created in our image.

AV1611VET · Jun 5, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Other way around. God was created in our image.

I suppose it would appear that way from someone watching a movie from behind the screen.

GoldenBoy89 · Jun 5, 2015

football5680 said:
Atheists try to pride themselves on logic and reason but their position forces them to conclude illogical answers.

Is "I don't know" an illogical answer? Let's take a look at the "logic" you present as alternative..

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.

That's if it is in fact a creation. There is nothing in the universe to suggest that it was in fact, created. It exists, but that alone is not enough to call it "created" or "designed." This is only your belief and I haven't seen evidence for it. It becomes even less tenable when we try to look at the "logic" in an infinite creator that exists eternally outside of time and space.

Another point is that the universe is under no obligation to follow any kind of human logic that will make sense to us. The universe doesn't owe us any explanation as to how it works. We're just lucky to understand as much as we do, and that's taken a lot of really hard work for a very long time.

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.

I hope you understand the difference between "saying" what or how God is and showing, with evidence, that He actually is all of those things. I await your evidence for any eternal anything. Until then, I don't need to accept any of your claims regarding impossible beings.

Saying everything just happened to fall into place so perfectly and lifeless material all of a sudden came to life is not logical.

Saying that an immaterial being with His own thoughts and desires exists eternally outside of the universe and is the source of everything that exists is equally illogical. Where would this being's thoughts come from if it is immaterial and has no brain? I only know of thoughts that come from brains, and particularly, human brains for the higher thought processes.

From a logical standpoint the most logical thing is that a high being brought it into creation.

Again, the universe doesn't have to be logical to us. It really doesn't need to make any sense. We'd like it to... Definitely we would... but it doesn't have to.

Once you conclude that you can begin to think about what personal attributes this being would have with his creation.

So once I accept that this impossible, non-evidenced being exists, I can start to imagine the attributes this being might posses.

Why would he create us and what is our purpose?

What is our purpose according to this being? Has he told us?

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.

What an odd way to initiate a relationship. Usually when I want to meet someone, I go and meet them and introduce myself. When has Jesus introduced himself to us? I've never met him. I've never heard him talk. As far as I can tell, he doesn't seem to exist.

Jesus said the most important thing is to love God.

Which God? And why is that so important to Him?

It makes sense that a being would give us free will to love him.

But not that he would make himself invisible. That doesn't make any sense at all.

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.

Will we have freewill in heaven?

Loudmouth · Jun 5, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I suppose it would appear that way from someone watching a movie from behind the screen.

You mean the film and screen that men built to project their own image?

GoldenBoy89 · Jun 5, 2015

FredVB said:
There are no other universes.

You don't actually know that. In fact, about a hundred years ago, people thought the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire universe. Then, one day Edwin Hubble discovered "another universe" when he turned his telescope to the Andromeda Nebula.

The Cadet · Jun 6, 2015

The argument from design is a phenomenally weak argument. Let's look at the logical syllogism, shall we?

P1: The universe is finely tuned for life
P2: Fine tuning is either due to chance,necessity or design.
P3: Fine tuning is not due to chance or necessity.
C: Fine tuning is due to design.

I have no idea how anyone would even begin to support the premises. Premise 1 essentially depends upon the idea that the universe is finely tuned for life... But how could we ever establish that? We'd need to establish that there are alternative values that constants of the universe could take on, and since we only have access to this universe, we can never possibly justify the premise. Premise 3 is similarly impossible to support; the odds being bad does not making them impossible, and the possibility of necessity is simply hand-waved away by most apologists. And finally, as usual, appealing to "design" to solve a problem we have no other answer to smacks of "god of the gaps" thinking.

Either way, this argument is completely and utterly worthless for Christians, as it says absolutely nothing about the character or will of this god, or even whether it still exists in the first place. The best it gets you to is generic deism. But, and here's the kicker, the bible says that there are no gods other than the Christian god.

...I don't think this argument helps you as much as you think it does. Oh yeah, and then there's also the problem Richard Carrier outlines in his talks:

"Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us. Likewise, a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size and enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. And that’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size and age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one."
Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that. I make a more detailed survey of this kind of evidence in “Neither Life Nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed” in John Loftus’s The End of Christianity. It also does no good to say such a random accidental universe is improbable, because the convenient existence of a marvelously “super-omni” god is just as improbable. Either way you are assuming some amazing luck. Which leaves the evidence. And the evidence is just way more probable if there’s no god. Thus, we’re forced to choose between which lucky accident it was, and the evidence confirms the one and not the other."

True Scotsman · Jun 6, 2015

This atheist isn't willing to consider it because he can prove that there was no designer. The fact that conditions are right for life is not evidence for a designer it is evidence that the conditions are right for life. If they weren't then we wouldn't be here and because we are they are necessarily right. Even if it were possible that the conditions could be different and the odds against them being correct were a trillion bazillion to one we wouldn't see any of those alternative universes because we wouldn't be here. We would only experience the one out of the trillion bazillion chances.

It is not the universe that is fine tuned for life but life that is fine tuned for the conditions that exist. Those conditions are constantly changing and many times they change enough that many life forms go out of existence. The dinosaurs should be atheists because the fine tuning changed and they went out of existence.

Loudmouth · Jun 8, 2015

True Scotsman said:
This atheist isn't willing to consider it because he can prove that there was no designer. The fact that conditions are right for life is not evidence for a designer it is evidence that the conditions are right for life. If they weren't then we wouldn't be here and because we are they are necessarily right. Even if it were possible that the conditions could be different and the odds against them being correct were a trillion bazillion to one we wouldn't see any of those alternative universes because we wouldn't be here. We would only experience the one out of the trillion bazillion chances.

It is not the universe that is fine tuned for life but life that is fine tuned for the conditions that exist. Those conditions are constantly changing and many times they change enough that many life forms go out of existence. The dinosaurs should be atheists because the fine tuning changed and they went out of existence.

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

AV1611VET · Jun 8, 2015

Loudmouth said:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Can the puddle explain how it happens to be made in the image & likeness of God?

Why do Atheists not want to consider FineTuning ?

fallible

Regular Member

Contributor

"God"? What do you mean??

Regular Member

Contributor

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

fallible

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

We're Still Here

Contributor

We're Still Here

SO COOL

Objectivist

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency