The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Borachio]

That's easy. They've got different names.

This could be really important. Supposing you want a plumber called Steve, but instead you call an electrician called Bob?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

This thread was actually pretty fun until Plotinus came in and just started outclassing everyone. I don't know why anyone is even discussing it anymore, Plotinus is the smartest guy in the room, just read his posts and consider the argument over.

 

[Arakhor]

How different is this from the claim that the guy responsible for it is the Christian God?

Because: God. Haven't you been paying attention?

I was raised to believe in God from as early as I can remember and I'm more than willing to accept that God was the cause behind the Big Bang (or however the universe came into existence). Hell, it doesn't even matter to me if the unvierse was indeed 'fine-tuned', such that it came into existence in the current fashion. In that, I'm probably Unicorny's closest ally in this thread.

Unfortunately, nothing he has said has in way indicated that the prime mover was God, and, worse still, nothing ever can, beyond personal experience, of course. In effect, Unicorny is completely wasting his time.

 

[uppi]

The value of the cosmological constant is often expressed as 10^−35 s^−2, 10^−47 GeV^4, 10^−29 g/cm^3.

However, a change of 1 part in 10^120 of it value would render the universe as we know it inhabitable for life. In other words, its value is fined tuned down to 1 part in 10^120. What is the probability of conjuring up a number accurate down to its 10^120 significant digit after the decimal marker?

You have no idea what you are talking about, have you? We know the cosmological constant with a precision of maybe 2%. That is 10^-2 not 10^-120. Claiming that the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to 10^-120 of its value, when we don't even know the last 118 digits required for that is so absurd that it boggles the mind.

Instead of parroting sources you clearly do not understand you should try to understand the very basics, first. The concept of probability distributions might be a good start.

 

[warpus]

I'm more than willing to accept that God was the cause behind the Big Bang (or however the universe came into existence).

I leave the possibility for some sort of a God being responsible as well. I mean, it is possible, it would be hypocritical for me to claim that it isn't - technically speaking no data refutes such a hypothesis, implying potential possibility. I mean, we know a big fat 0 about what happened before the big bang and how it started.. I think. So why not supreme beings who rule the universe and know everything? Like who the hell knows, right?

Supreme beings of sorts being responsible for things in the universe being true I can accept. There just isn't any data or reason now to think that it's true - so for now I discount it as a viable explanation - but. yeah.. it is possible. And if data comes out that this is in fact the way things are - and there is a big "whoa" moment in the world community at large - then I will accept it as well. I'm a sensible person - I will accept the truth. I am not an atheist out of spite. I bend to the truth.

 

[Unicorny]

As far as I see there really isn't any reason why a planet somewhat like Earth couldn't support life if gravity was a tad bit stronger or weaker.

Imagine yourself weighing 10 more Newtons. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

There's also nothing that says there are infinetely many types of universes. What if the physical constants only can be like this? or what if there only are say 17?

A bit of a side note: I actually heared about a version of multiverse theiry that supped oly a handful types ofuniverses can exist, and that there are several copies of one kind. So that in some other universe at some point in time exact clons of us is having this exact argument.

Sorry if this has been brought up. I've meant to read the thread, but it's a bit overwhelming.

Exactly. The value of G could have been anything.

Those that have been either denying or dismissing the fine-tuning evidence as anything but extra ordinary have their heads buried in the sand - so to speak proverbially.

Here's a renowned professor of physics at Standford university shedding more light on the fine-tuning of the universe.


Link to video.

He confirms that the value G could have been anything, and yet, it's fine-tuned in 1 part of 10^60 to permit the existence of life in the universe. I wonder if the ostriches dare to watch it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This thread was actually pretty fun until Plotinus came in and just started outclassing everyone. I don't know why anyone is even discussing it anymore, Plotinus is the smartest guy in the room, just read his posts and consider the argument over.

Well, it was, after all, broken off from his Ask a Theologian thread. But the core arguments don't depend so much on theology as on logic and probability, and I think several posters won't consider the argument over until they can help Unicorny see the flaw in his handling of probabilities.

Let's try it this way. Unicorny, where are the universes where G has some value other than the one it has in this universe?

 

[Unicorny]

Does it? What if that is the only possible actual value for G, the only value G can be and be G?

That's nonsense. Leonard Susskind, professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University easily refutes it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

G could have been anything.

 

[Arakhor]

So, Unicorny, now that you have apparently conclusively proved the universe is fine-tuned beyond all possible contradiction, where are you going with this? How does this prove God's existence, as you said it does? I really, really hope your next comment is not something to the effect of: "fine-tuned = God".

 

[Gori the Grey]

G could have been anything.

In the only observed or observable universe, it has a particular value. That tells me it has a 100% likelihood of having that value for all universes that you acknowledge as existing, no?

 

[Unicorny]

So, Unicorny, now that you have apparently conclusively proved the universe is fine-tuned beyond all possible contradiction, where are you going with this? How does this prove God's existence, as you said it does? I really, really hope your next comment is not something to the effect of: "fine-tuned = God".

There's no denying the fact that the universe is fine-tuned to permit the existent of the building blocks for life. All if not most theoretical physicists acknowledge this fact and have as such developed multiple theories to come up with an explanation.

As for your question, what does a fine-tuned universe imply? This 6 minute video answers it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

In the only observed or observable universe, it has a particular value. That tells me it has a 100% likelihood of having that value for all universes that you acknowledge as existing, no?

Did you watch the video? The value of G is independent of the laws of nature and physics and therefore, has no relevance as to which universe(s) it chooses to exist in.

Hint: the reason that it's constant - independent of the laws of nature/physics.

Therefore, the value of G is not bound by anything - and in fact, it could have been anything. But, what we have is a value of G that's balanced on a knife's edge to permit the existence of life in the universe. A happy dumb coincidence? Or hand-picked by God? The answer is obvious.

 

[Arakhor]

TAs for your question, what does a fine-tuned universe imply? This 6 minute video answers it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

So, yeah - "fine-tuned = God". Congratulations, you've utterly failed to convince me with that wonderful non-logic. After all, it's not just a matter of faith, right? My pre-existing belief in God should have no relevance before your argument, of course.

 

[Old Hippy]

A happy dumb coincidence? Or hand-picked by God? The answer is obvious.

I would say most likely a happy coincedence from my point of view because we have no way of knowing what caused our Universe to begin or how it happened or even if it could have be any different
you have just gone for the obvious god of thunder and lighting solution, long ago two cave men were watching a thunder storm and one says "I don't have a clue what causes that" the other says "its obviously the god of thunder and lightning, who is called Thor by the way"

did this happen?, Who knows, but we do know that for a long time people thought Thor was a god
it was just so obvious to them that that was the way the universe worked and could not just be coincidence when stuff happen

 

[warpus]

Hold on, maybe the answer is Steve after all. I haven't watched the videos, but I have faith.

 

[Perfection]

I never condoned the multiverse nonsense; it's unprovable, unobservable, and unscientific, with no possible evidence for it now or in the future as it lies outside of the scope of physics itself.

So what if we can't see it or prove it? Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can't see heaven either am I right to dismiss it as nonsense? Why should we assume that we can see everything? Seems arrogant to me.

One thing to note is the importance of mathematical simplicity and beauty in physics. Correct rules of the universe seem to have great symmetries. One reason many physicists believe that other universes exist is because it makes the rules simpler. We cannot tell what lies beyond our [wiki]Hubble sphere[/wiki], but the presumption of more space complete with galaxies and stars makes more sense than the complete absence of anything. For the latter we need to assume that the Hubble Sphere has some special property whereas the former does not. That one sort of evidence that makes the case for multiverses compelling. When the question is between mathematical simplicity versus less stuff existing, always bet on math.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The value of G is independent of the laws of nature and physics and therefore, has no relevance as to which universe(s) it chooses to exist in.

Hint: the reason that it's constant - independent of the laws of nature/physics.

Therefore, the value of G is not bound by anything - and in fact, it could have been anything. But, what we have is a value of G that's balanced on a knife's edge to permit the existence of life in the universe. A happy dumb coincidence? Or hand-picked by God? The answer is obvious.

Maybe we just use language differently. For me, something that could be anything isn't very constant.

Also it's interesting to learn that G chooses to exist in one universe or another.

 

[Tigranes]

So what if we can't see it or prove it? Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can't see heaven either am I right to dismiss it as nonsense? Why should we assume that we can see everything? Seems arrogant to me.

So what if we can't see God or prove God? Doesn't mean He doesn't exist. I can't see heaven either am I right to dismiss it as nonsense? Why should we assume that we can see everything? Seems arrogant to me.

always bet on math.

You've asked for it...

Most people have heard of “evolutionary biology.” But the term “evolution” is often applied in a broader sense (gradual, naturalistic changes over long ages) to other fields of study. Some people study geology or astronomy from an evolutionary perspective. But has anyone ever studied “evolutionary mathematics”? What would an evolutionist mathematician study? Can the existence of numbers and mathematical laws be explained by a time-and-chance naturalistic origin?

Let’s consider first the naturalistic, or evolutionary, view. In this way of thinking, people attempt to explain the characteristics of a modern object by considering how it gradually evolved over millions or billions of years from something less complex. If we applied this concept to mathematics, we would ask, “From what did numbers evolve? What were numbers before they were numbers? When did the physical universe begin obeying mathematical laws?”

Just take one number as a token case. From what simpler number did the number 7 evolve? Was 7 once 3? Did 3 have to transition through 4, 5, and 6 before it became 7? When did the negative numbers evolve? Or how about the irrational numbers? When did these numbers begin obeying mathematical laws? Did laws of mathematics evolve first, and then numbers later? Or was it the reverse?

If these sorts of questions sound silly, it is because they are. The evolution of numbers makes no sense whatsoever. 7 has always been 7, just as 3 has always been 3. Likewise, the expression 2+3=5 was as true at the beginning of time as it is today. Mathematical laws and the numbers they govern are invariant—they do not change with time and, therefore, cannot have evolved from anything!

The secularist is truly stuck when it comes to mathematics. He knows that mathematical truths existed before human beings discovered them. For example, the orbits of the planets around the sun were described by the mathematical formulae expressed in Kepler’s laws before human beings existed. And yet laws of mathematics are conceptual in nature. Concepts exist in a mind; they are objects of thought. So how can a conceptual entity like math exist before any mind is around to think it?

You tell me.

 

[Perfection]

Mathematics is so profound that to call it the same name as some mythological dude who pushed around some middle eastern tribes is an immense injustice.

 

[warpus]

So how can a conceptual entity like math exist before any mind is around to think it?

Math as a framework exists only as one created by minds.

Math as a concept can exist anywhere; no minds required. This mainly happens because patterns; they will occur whether you'd like them to or not. Order out of chaos.

And where there's patterns, there's mathematical constructs that will mirror them. That's just the nature of math, nothing magical about it. That's why pi can in a way exist independently of human thought, or any thought at all - it's just one type of measurement divided by another type of measurement. The pattern is there whether there are minds there to see it or not - and math just provides an easy way to capture that pattern.

The mind builds a framework around the concept. You need a mind for the former, but not the latter.

 

[Tigranes]

Multiverse is the very basis of your own argument! Your opening move is to ask people to imagine universes with different values for some of the basic physical constants, and then gauge the probability of this universe on a scale created by the existence of those others.

Why are you so unfair, Gori? The very basis of his argument was that universe is fine tuned. And design is the most simple explanation for that fact, if you don't have atheistic prejudice. In his intellectual honesty OP discussed the other explanations, including chance, which includes the most hand twisting "explanation", such as Multiverse doctrine. Nothing short of the miracle can possibly convince skeptics, you see. They rather believe in crazy chances than intelligent design. People here keep repeating that infinitesimally small probabilities do not prove impossibility, one dude even stated -- everything can happen if you give it enough time. You place parts of Lamborghini Veneno together, come back gizzilion years later and you have yourself there a shining car!

Thankfully there is no enough time, time had its beginning, therefore it must have its end. There are no gizzilion years, it is only 13.7 billion so far. Some people have more dollars than that. If the thing can change it had it's beginning. But some things never change. Like math. Like God. Like Logos. Somebody had to input the finite energy into this universe during the Big Bang, yes? Since then energy don't get created and does not get destroyed. But 13.7 billion years tell you there was a beginning, definitive event with IPO of this finite energy that constantly changes hands but remains the same in its totality. I say, the same Father that gave birth to your unique spiritual self, was the one that issued IPO of energy, initiated the Big Bang, fine tuned the Universe for you to get born and live on Earth with the right amount of oxygen, radiation protecting magnetic field and just enough sunshine, so that you don't freeze and don't get baked. You say, nah, implausible, I rather believe in blind chance, so what if I cannot prove Multiverses, they could exist and therefore I can explain things without needing God.