The second law is a derived law, not a fundamental law. To have a low entropy at the start only requires having a low number of available quantum stayes initially. And, the false vacuum is typically seen as having exactly one quantum state: the lowest entropy possible!
This fails on different lines: not a fundamental constant, not a fundamental law, and we already have a good explanation.
Yes, yes quantum states.... But the truth is that atleast when the universe was macroscopic there where many possible ways in which matter/energy could have been organized and we know that a high entropy state is much much much more likely than a low entropy state.... So why is the entropy of the universe so low?
And physical laws are proposed ALL the time just to explain observable events. The ID proposal has *never* been a scientific proposal: always a religious one. Why? Because there is no actual evidence specifically pointing to an ID.
Yes but a physical law that would make multiple independent values to change utill they get the precise required values in order to produce a life permitting universe millions of years after such values where determined is completely adhoc
YEC can also invoke a "super law" this law would make everything look as if the earth is 4. 5 billion years old, everything from radioactive decay to distant starlight, sedimentation etc was altered by this law in order to give the apparent age of 4.5By event hough the earth is just 6,000yo
Again, *all* the fundamental constants, from the mass of the electron to the mass of the Higgs are included. They *all* are adjusted to maximize the overall complexity.
The point that I am making is that I dont see how this super law would solve the FT problem, at best it would simply push the problem 1 step backwards.
Imagine that we find a book written in English in an other planet, in an other universe with different laws. (design would still be the best explanation for the origin of that book)
And even if you show that there is a super law, in this universe where ink naturally organizes in patterns that look like English words that form meaningful sentences... Such a law would be suspicious, obviously it would still indicate ID why would nature create a law that forces ink to produce English words.?
In the same way, why would nature create a super law, such that multiple independent constants and initial conditions have the values required to sustain life.
On the other hand, the proposal introduces a wide range of unobserved and unobservable assumptions/ Already that is enough to reject it as a scientific hypothesis. It also has a host of metaphysical assumptions that are unsupported.
But I am sure that you grant that the existance of a designer is atleast possible don't you?.... Or would you claim that it is impossible or extramly unlikelly for such an entity to excist?
Have you read Weinberg's counter to Hoyle's comment
I don't think weinberb made a successful critique, but it helps to illustrate my point, even if you can overcome Hoyles argument, the point is that the existance of carbon depends, on a multitude of different constants and initial conditions, if gravity, nuclear forces, initial entropy, más of the electron, dark energy etc. Would have been different carbon (and therefore life) would have not existed
The point is that even if you solve 1 FT problem, there would be dozens of other plobkems to solve and the number of FT tends to increase as scientific knowledge progresses
Yes, there are known methods for detecting design. I even pointed out some of the methods and requirements. Those have not been met
And guess what? The first step is to understand precisely what can happen without design. We are still in that phase of the investigation.
The point is that every time we find something analogous to the FT of the universe design is always considered the best explanation. You are making an arbitrary exception to the universe.
By your logic one couldn't conclude that the Rosetta Stone was design because we don't have absolute knowledge on what nature can do, but that logic would be flawed.
Not to mention that everybody (Flatt earthers, YEC, anti vaccine people etc.) could hide in unknown natural laws
Well, that would at least be a very good start. Something unambiguous in the cosmic background radiation would be preferred.
Incredible special conditions in multiple locations necessary to explain the observations would be a good start. Multiple items that would be incredible unlikely to form from natural processes showing artistic design would be another. A regularity to the distribution of stars, planets, etc that actually shows a concern about placement.
My point is that your "argument" would still apply even if we see some sort of artistic design or a distribution of stars that show a concern in placement.
Even if we find out that stars are ordered such that they replicate verses in the Bible, you could simply say "hey there is a super law, that determines the position of stars, this law moves stars until they reach a position where they would be part of something that looks like a verse in the Bible. "
Just as an aditional Commet, writing verses with stars would require an insignificant amount of Fine Tuning, compared to the actual FT required for a life permitting universe.... A law that forces stars to form verses in the Bible would sound less ridiculous than a super law, that forces all these constants and initial conditions (gravity, dark matter, initial entropy, mass of the electron, etc) to have the values required to sostain life.
