Why do Atheists not want to consider FineTuning ?

[Loudmouth]

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

Can AV understand a metaphor?

 

[Paulos23]

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

It made God in an image it knows, itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

It made God in an image it knows, itself.

Isn't that drawing the target around the arrow?

 

[Davian]

Isn't that drawing the target around the arrow?

That would be an apt metaphor for religious apologetics.

 

[Paulos23]

Isn't that drawing the target around the arrow?

Would not be the first time religion has done that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would not be the first time religion has done that.

Perhaps someone could tell me where the bullseye is then?

Instead of telling me where it isn't all the time?

 

[Paulos23]

Perhaps someone could tell me where the bullseye is then?

Instead of telling me where it isn't all the time?

I don't know where the bulls eye is exactly, just the general direction.

Try following the evidence without expectation instead of having a desired goal. Or if you do have a desired goal, don't be to attached to it in case the evidence goes away from it.

 

[Davian]

Perhaps someone could tell me where the bullseye is then?

Instead of telling me where it isn't all the time?

There is no bullseye. Science observes where the arrow is; "fine tuning" claims that is where it was aimed.

texas

• Davian
• Mar 25, 2015

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know where the bulls eye is exactly, just the general direction.

Then I hope you'll excuse me if I take your antireligious stance with a grain of salt?

If you're just shotgunning into the dark, I'm not going to give you brownie points for accuracy.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no bullseye.

Unless one magically appears when someone claims religion is like drawing the bullseye around the target, right?

Then "hunters" will suddenly appear and agree with them, won't they?

 

[Davian]

Unless one magically appears when someone claims religion is like drawing the bullseye around the target, right?

I do not know. I am not the purveyor of magic in these forums.

Then "hunters" will suddenly appear and agree with them, won't they?

How is the analogy not apt?

 

[Paulos23]

Then I hope you'll excuse me if I take your antireligious stance with a grain of salt?

If you're just shotgunning into the dark, I'm not going to give you brownie points for accuracy.

Not shotgunning, following evidence. I haven't even claimed to hit a bulls eye. That is what religion does without looking at where the other arrows went.

 

[variant]

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

First we would need to know there is a God and what it looks like.

 

[AV1611VET]

First we would need to know there is a God and what it looks like.

Until you do, you don't mind if I take that puddle analogy with a grain of salt, do you?

 

[variant]

Until you do, you don't mind if I take that puddle analogy with a grain of salt, do you?

The puddle analogy works fine, your question begging is what we should be taking with a grain of salt.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Until you do, you don't mind if I take that puddle analogy with a grain of salt, do you?

Your challenge is not to accept it but to understand it.

 

[Gracchus]

In physics, some numbers just keep cropping up. Pi (π), for instance turns up in everything from cosmology to quantum mechanics. It is embedded in the speed of light because light is periodic, and in orbital mechanics and gravitation; so in most laws of physics, it is possible to re-arrange the equations in a way that π is on one side and a whole bunch of physical constants are on the other. Epsilon (ε) is another such number.

And ε^(ιθ) = cos θ + ι X sin θ, where ι (iota) is the square root of minus one. And of course if θ = π radians then ε^(ι π) -1 = 0, so none of those numbers can be anything but what they are. Thus physical constants are NOT independent, because they must be related to numerical constants that cannot, by definition, be changed. In short, it would seem that you cannot “fine tune” the physical constants because to change them, would introduce destabilizing factors into everything from cosmology to quantum mechanics, and the universe, as we know it, could not exist. (It might, I suppose, be possible to introduce harmonic values, but the math is a little complicated, and I will leave it to the religious folks to make those calculations.)

You can change many things, but there is no evidence that you can change the physical constants of the universe, because they are based on mathematical relationships that are necessarily true.

I find it amusing that Calvinists who think that souls are predestined to hell because of their god's “immutable nature”, often seem to think that the constants of the universe could be other than they are.

The “fine tuning” argument boils down to: Some things are as they have to be.

 

[Occams Barber]

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

Let’s break the Fine Tuning argument down to its basic components:

1. If certain physical constants/laws were different, life would not exist
   
   
2. Life exists
   
   
3. Therefore there is a god
   

There are, at least, two reasons why this argument makes no sense.

(3) is a bald statement that the existence of life (2) is sufficient proof of gods’ existence. There is no reason (within this argument) to assume this is true. The existence of life does not axiomatically prove the existence of god. The argument fails.

There is however a bait and switch element in the argument. (1) implies that the odds of life existing are so astronomically huge that they are in the realm of impossibility. This argument is only interesting if you accept that the existence of life is proof of god. Whether the existence of life depends on a range of constants does not negate the need to prove that life itself is proof of god. Life does not prove god.

Secondly: argument (1) assumes that certain physical laws/constants could have a different value implying a situation where life may not exist. Multiverses aside - science is not aware of any other possible values for these constants. We have only one set of examples – the existing universe. Since we are not aware of any alternative values then the odds of any alternative values are zero. Logically the odds of life coming into existence are 1 or 100% or absolute. With no other known values for physical laws/constants, it is inevitable that life must exist because - it exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your challenge is not to accept it but to understand it.

I believe the puddle analogy is used to explain that Mother Nature chiseled mankind out of the gene pool, and that mankind will eventually go extinct thinking he was made in the image & likeness of God.

Correct?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe the puddle analogy is used to explain that Mother Nature chiseled mankind out of the gene pool, and that mankind will eventually go extinct thinking he was made in the image & likeness of God.

Correct?

Try again.