Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[AndromedaRXJ]

How about Leonard Susskind? He is a director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics (also I believe he is an atheist). I think you would be able to trust him. Watch this video if you wish. It summarizes the whole thing. I expect you to agree with it especially with respect to the hypothesis that possibilities are responsible for fine tuning and life. nonetheless, you will get better understanding about the fine tuning itself.

No no no no. I said a peer-reviewed source. Not the opinion of an expert. Susskind would have to publish some work on it, have it experimentally verified and approved for formal teaching. Otherwise it's just an opinion. Even experts can have opinions. But taking them as facts just because an expert says it is an Appealing to Authority fallacy. And you can bet there's plenty of experts in scientific fields that hold views that go directly against your religion, many of which are in fact, experimentally verified.

So worst of all, you pick in chose what some experts believe, and ignore others for the sake of satisfying your religion. You even said he's an atheist, but you obviously won't adopt that worldview just because he's an expert.

Can you trust renowned scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and Paul Davies?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's not about whether I trust them or not. It's whether what they hold to be true has been verified through experimentation or observation. I don't appeal to authority. It's not a valid argument.

Multiverse is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and without experimental verification

Same goes for the fine-tuning notion.

(Check 7:20 of the video. Susskind doesn’t like this option but nonetheless accept it)

Good for him. Where's the experimental evidence?

This is not satisfactory.

You can't always expect to be satisfied in life.

 

[NoorNoor]

Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Correct but the context here is the fact that grey areas, unknowns or the undefined would exist in both religions and science yet people would choose to put trust on it in mere faith regardless of the grey areas.

Faith is not something external imposed on us because of a reality that we are aware of but it's rather a free choice that we impose on our reality.

 

[NoorNoor]

It's always fascinating how far people will go to justify their spiritual preconceptions and resulting delusions. Talk about fine tuning...

I agree. The only difference is that I wouldn't limit preconceptions to be spiritual only. This is true for any ideology spiritual or not. I'll give you an example. It's fascinating that man in his endeavor to eliminate a necessity for a creator, invokes infinite numbers of entire unseen universes and believe in it religiously just to support a preconception. In other words, he makes an unverifiable hypothesis to support a claim then believe in it as a fact.

 

[NoorNoor]

No no no no. I said a peer-reviewed source. Not the opinion of an expert. Susskind would have to publish some work on it, have it experimentally verified and approved for formal teaching. Otherwise it's just an opinion. Even experts can have opinions. But taking them as facts just because an expert says it is an Appealing to Authority fallacy. And you can bet there's plenty of experts in scientific fields that hold views that go directly against your religion, many of which are in fact, experimentally verified.

So worst of all, you pick in chose what some experts believe, and ignore others for the sake of satisfying your religion.

The fine tuning is not just an opinion of an expert, it’s a consensus among scientists. I am not picking up an opinion. A peer review would acknowledge credibility. I gave you an example of some top peers in the field who acknowledge the same view. I know you will say this not what you meant but it’s up to if you want to deny it.

You even said he's an atheist, but you obviously won't adopt that worldview just because he's an expert.

Yes, he is an atheist. That should clarify to you that his opinion wouldn't only be a legitimate scientific reference but also his scientific opinion is free from any religious preconceptions. In this context, I am only referencing his specific scientific opinion about the subject of fine tuning regardless of the fact that he is an atheist with an overall view that I don’t adopt.

It's not about whether I trust them or not. It's whether what they hold to be true has been verified through experimentation or observation. I don't appeal to authority. It's not a valid argument.

I am not appealing to an authority but only clarifying that this issue is already established. again, it’s Ok if you choose to deny it.

Same goes for the fine-tuning notion.

Absolutely not, fine tuning is not a notion but on the contrary it’s a result of lots of verified experimentations. On the other hand, Multiverse is a philosophical hypothesis. If you insist that fine tuning is a notion, then you may believe it this way.

Good for him. Where's the experimental evidence? .

He doesn’t like the last explanation or “Multiverse” because of the implication that it can’t be verified or falsified.

You can't always expect to be satisfied in life.

But you appear to be not only satisfied but also confident regardless of any missing answers that you already acknowledged as missing.

 

[Sapiens]

The fine tuning is not just an opinion of an expert, it’s a consensus among scientists.

I am a scientist. I disagree. Therefore ... NO CONSENSUS! In fact, I'd suggest you'd be hard pressed to get even a significant number to agree except in the most general terms, clearly not in the direction you would want to steer them.

 

[NoorNoor]

That does not really matter. What matters is that alternative Universes with different constants are possible, at least in principle.

I would say possible in theory not in principle. Multiverse assumed that the extremely rapid expansion/inflation after the big bang created Quantum fluctuations and as a result Different bubbles of space with different properties. Our universe would be one of them. In this context, why would these bubbles qualify as separate universes? It would be essentially components of one large universe (of different scale compared to what was imagined) especially that they all shared same origin at the big bang. Then you would go back to same argument that all these components collectively were some how tuned for the existence of our universe and in turn our universe itself was tuned for life. It would be similar argument but on different scale. Even I would claim that the scale didn't make any difference since no infinity is larger than another. In essence, a universe by definition would encompass every thing in existence. The scale would be irrelevant.

The bottom line is, unverifiable hypothesis can take us to unlimited possibilities. Non can be verified. All are equal. All are hypothesis.

And by the way, even if they were only speculative and not falsifiable, they would not be less speculative and falsifiable than God.

So maybe they would be equally speculative? Then why would you favor one vs another? But no. Verified fine tuned universe and creation point at the big bang are evidence for the creator.

Which should suffice to exclude the character of necessity of God or other non naturalistic explanations, if we really insist in looking for explanations of why the constants have the value they have

Unverifiable Hypothesis don't suffice to exclude the character of necessity of God based on verified observations of the fine tuning

To say that a universe collapsing on itself is not a universe is self contradictory. The conclusion falsifies the premise. What was then? You can call it alternative reality if you want, or unstable universe. And your assumption that it is not possible to have (stable) universes with other variables has no evidence whatsoeve

Did you noticed that I said " In fact,even collapse is not really accurate because it wouldn't have a chance to form to begin with."

The bottom line is neither we nor any verifiable sort of live can live in black holes. Whatever imagined alternative reality (with other variables) that you are referring to, it may not support live. In fact, even in our verified reality, life is extremely particular and can't just be any where. You can assume otherwise but it will only be another unverifiable hypothesis.

Well, it is a chicken egg problem. What comes first: universe generating constants, or Universes that are described by some constants? You say they are inseparable, like a circle has a constant ratio between its circumference and its radius, I presume. Fine. But that does not solve you problem. LIke in geometry, you can have perfectly plausible, albeit different, universes with different constants.

life is very particular with respect to its dependency on very specific conditions. These imaginary unverifiable universes would not support live.

Ah. That is what you read in popular science. And no serious physicist can tell you how old the Universe is without first specifying what she really means by that. For instance, time is relative, not absolute, so any talks of age is in the eyes of the beholder. What is absolute is spacetime.

And if you think about it for a moment, it appears meaningless to talk of age, beginings, evolution, expansion, whatever, of spacetime. All these are concepts that make sense within spacetime, and cannot be applied to it as a whole, since they all require a temporal context that trascends spacetime itself. At what time was time born is an absurd question. Is like asking where space started.

This is false. Spacetime is not absolute it has a begining.The steady state model was rejected by vast majority of scientists long time ago. the observational evidence point to finite age of the universe and a beginning at the big bang. If you think about it, you would find that if time is infinite, then there can be no true measure of time. If there is no reference point against which time can be measured, then any point in time should be exactly equal to any other point. change, expansion, inflation would not be possible without a reference point.

The bottom line is, observational evidence point to a finite age universe with a specific beginning at the big bang. This is the mainstream model

Then I suggest that you stick to this sort of "evidence" instead of venturing in relativistic cosmology in order to prove God. If you see God in the beauty of nature and in things like the Ebola virus and parasitic wasps, then well..good for you.

Yes, I see God in all of that and not only that but also in a single tiny chromosome with millions of base pairs.

No. As I said, spacetime intended as a 4-dimensional block, satisfies the same requirements. It is eternal, by definition, and things like cause-effect are unapplicable to it when taken as a whole. And even if we do not invoke relativistic block universes, you still have multiverses, eternal inflation, etc. which can explain things as well, and have, at worst, the same evidence of god, gods, spirits, et

False. Spacetime is not eternal. It has a beginning. Again, this concept was already rejected. All evidence seem to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever but rather had a beginning.

You can't say eternal inflation, a change needs a reference point against which a change can be measured. In fact the expansion of the universe is the main reason that supported a beginning.

 

[NoorNoor]

I am a scientist. I disagree. Therefore ... NO CONSENSUS! In fact, I'd suggest you'd be hard pressed to get even a significant number to agree except in the most general terms, clearly not in the direction you would want to steer them.

The discussion is concerning the specific fields of physics and cosmology. The established consensus is necessarily among "physicists" and "cosmologists"

In any case, its a free argument. I am not steering any one to any direction but only stating an opinion. Every one can decide for himself. Sharing different views in a free discussion helps all to acquire a wider perspective.

 

[Parsimony]

If the physical constants of the Universe were slightly different, then life as we know it would not exist. That is a given. However, it may well be possible that forms of life as we don't know them are possible with other physical constants, composed of different forms of matter and fundamental forces. Another interesting thing of note is that God Himself is a living being yet did not require any kind of fine-tuning by a higher being in order to allow Him to exist, yes? So fine-tuning isn't a necessity for life even from a theistic point of view.

 

[Noitall]

Creationism is just the latest position that some religious groups adopt in order to try to maintain their faith. I can agree that people have a right to believe in something like a God or the Bible or the Koran or the Tooth Fairy. The problem is that they are constantly trying to hold back science because it shows up religion for the fiction that it is. Religions regularly jailed people like Copernicus & Galileo for believing that the earth was not the centre of the universe as was supported by the Church. The 1924 Scopes trial was an attempt to highlight a Tennessee law trying to prevent the teaching of evolution and it still goes on. In spite of the fact that the US and other countries are supposed to separate religion from government there are still laws supported by various religious groups in order to maintain their beliefs.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The fine tuning is not just an opinion of an expert, it’s a consensus among scientists.

You have a source to back this up? Something that shows the percentage of scientists (or at least physicists or cosmologists) in the world who agree with fine-tuning?

Absolutely not, fine tuning is not a notion but on the contrary it’s a result of lots of verified experimentations.

What are those experiments?

He doesn’t like the last explanation or “Multiverse” because of the implication that it can’t be verified or falsified.

That's not an experiment.

But you appear to be not only satisfied but also confident regardless of any missing answers that you already acknowledged as missing.

All you need to do is point to some experimental observation. It's really not hard.

 

[Sapiens]

You have a source to back this up? Something that shows the percentage of scientists (or at least physicists or cosmologists) in the world who agree with fine-tuning?



What are those experiments?



That's not an experiment.



All you need to do is point to some experimental observation. It's really not hard.

Of course none of what you are asking for exists. Even if "it" did, it would be a reach since the question is not really clear. There is little doubt that small changes in the laws of the universe are likely to have big changes in the universe itself ... but that's a far cry from an old man in the sky diddling the dials to find just the right setting that permits life as we know it to flourish.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

There is little doubt that small changes in the laws of the universe are likely to have big changes in the universe itself ... but that's a far cry from an old man in the sky diddling the dials to find just the right setting that permits life as we know it to flourish.

Plus this runs into its own problem, as pointed out many times before in this thread. It requires that the fine-tuner (God or whoever) doesn't require a fine-tuner of their own.

NoorNoor keeps stressing that without the right constants, there wouldn't be a universe at all. There would be nothing. But there would be God. So God exists in a realm of nothing? How can something exist when there's nothing to exist in? The notion becomes even more contradictory. It first asserts that life requires a fine-tuned universe, but then it's also forced to assert that not only is life possible in a non-fine-tuned universe, life (God) is also possible within nothingness.

 

[NoorNoor]

If the physical constants of the Universe were slightly different, then life as we know it would not exist. That is a given.

Acknowledging a fact Against your view is definitely respectful. It sure helps moving forward.

However, it may well be possible that forms of life as we don't know them are possible with other physical constants, composed of different forms of matter and fundamental forces

May or may not would imply equal hypothetical possibilities but in fact this is not the case. I would say the possibilities are not equal at all. We already observed in our own universe/our own planet and verified the fact that life is extremely particular. It requires very specific criteria to exist. In fact, we couldn't verify existence of any life model other than our carbon based model, neither in the universe nor in our own planet.

Another interesting thing of note is that God Himself is a living being yet did not require any kind of fine-tuning by a higher being in order to allow Him to exist, yes? So fine-tuning isn't a necessity for life even from a theistic point of view.

Whatever you try to utilize to understand God, would be something that existed after the creation (after the big bang). Its not logical to assume that the rules that control the creation would apply to the creator himself. He has to be external to it simply because it didn't have any existence before the beginning. space, time, matter, physical laws didn't have any meaning before the beginning. To us, it's only an undefined zone where science itself stops simply because science depends on observations of what happen after the beginning. In other words limits of creation can't be imposed on the creator in a trial to understand him. God being external to space time is necessarily eternal. No time, no start, no end. Being eternal, then his being is unchangeable. Fine tuning as you mentioned, is necessarily a process that exerts an influence through a specific timeframe to create configurations. That doesn't apply to God. He is beyond the limit of time/space with No beginning. He Is a reference that gives definition to spacetime not the opposite.

The question is, if he is beyond our limits how can we know him?

- first we have to agree that we have our own limits that shape our relative reality but we are not the center of existence.
- we have to understand that whats beyond our limits is not subject to same rules that work within these limits.
- the example of God (only example not God himself) is very similar to any force that exist in our universe ( magnetism, gravity, dark energy). We recognize the existence of these invisible force "only" through its influence but the nature of the force is a total mystery. Why it has these power (not only powers but extremely calibrated powers). How it attracts or repels? Why? What give it its specific calibrated values? We don't know.

Similarly, we can recognize the existence of God through his influence. Similar to the example above. This influence can be summarized in two main points.

*An external influence that forced the non existent world to existence.

* An external influence that calibrated all physical forces and gave it it's specific powers and values.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Whatever you try to utilize to understand God, would be something that existed after the creation (after the big bang). Its not logical to assume that the rules that control the creation would apply to the creator himself. He has to be external to it simply because it didn't have any existence before the beginning. space, time, matter, physical laws didn't have any meaning before the beginning. To us, it's only an undefined zone where science itself stops simply because science depends on observations of what happen after the beginning. In other words limits of creation can't be imposed on the creator in a trial to understand him. God being external to space time is necessarily eternal. No time, no start, no end. Being eternal, then his being is unchangeable. Fine tuning as you mentioned, is necessarily a process that exerts an influence through a specific timeframe to create configurations. That doesn't apply to God. He is beyond the limit of time/space with No beginning. He Is a reference that gives definition to spacetime not the opposite.

The question is, if he is beyond our limits how can we know him?

- first we have to agree that we have our own limits that shape our relative reality but we are not the center of existence.
- we have to understand that whats beyond our limits is not subject to same rules that work within these limits.
- the example of God (only example not God himself) is very similar to any force that exist in our universe ( magnetism, gravity, dark energy). We recognize the existence of these invisible force "only" through its influence but the nature of the force is a total mystery. Why it has these power (not only powers but extremely calibrated powers). How it attracts or repels? Why? What give it its specific calibrated values? We don't know.

Similarly, we can recognize the existence of God through his influence. Similar to the example above. This influence can be summarized in two main points.

*An external influence that forced the non existent world to existence.

* An external influence that calibrated all physical forces and gave it it's specific powers and values.

In the end, you'd still have to accept that life requires no fine-tuning. Existence it self, requires no fine-tuning. An existence of infinite possibilities requires no fine-tuning, despite an existence of finite possibilities requiring fine-tuning.

Consequently, that would mean that all God is doing when he's fine-tuning is he's adding in restrictions of possibilities in an, otherwise, realm of existence with infinite possibilities.

It's like taking a supercomputer and making it worse and making it more limited.

There can't be nothingness according to your claims. Because nothingness = the absence of existence of any kind.

 

[Parsimony]

Acknowledging a fact Against your view is definitely respectful. It sure helps moving forward.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily "against" my view. Rather, I think we simply lack sufficient knowledge to know one way or the other.

May or may not would imply equal hypothetical possibilities but in fact this is not the case. I would say the possibilities are not equal at all.

The probabilities are completely unknown. We do not know that the laws of physics could have even been any different. Existing compelling evidence that alternative laws of physics are possible is the same as the compelling evidence of a multiverse: none. If it turns out that the laws which we see are the only possible laws, then there would have been no need for any special design. This would have been the one and only possible design.

We already observed in our own universe/our own planet and verified the fact that life is extremely particular. It requires very specific criteria to exist. In fact, we couldn't verify existence of any life model other than our carbon based model, neither in the universe nor in our own planet.

In our universe and in our laws of physics, that is the case. So far as we know, anyway. There could still be other life forms in our own universe that utilize different substances or forces than those we are familiar with. There might be alternative laws of physics where life can come into existence much more easily than in our own universe. Or maybe, like I said before, this is the only universe and the only set of physics.

Whatever you try to utilize to understand God, would be something that existed after the creation (after the big bang). Its not logical to assume that the rules that control the creation would apply to the creator himself. He has to be external to it simply because it didn't have any existence before the beginning. space, time, matter, physical laws didn't have any meaning before the beginning. To us, it's only an undefined zone where science itself stops simply because science depends on observations of what happen after the beginning. In other words limits of creation can't be imposed on the creator in a trial to understand him. God being external to space time is necessarily eternal. No time, no start, no end. Being eternal, then his being is unchangeable. Fine tuning as you mentioned, is necessarily a process that exerts an influence through a specific timeframe to create configurations. That doesn't apply to God. He is beyond the limit of time/space with No beginning. He Is a reference that gives definition to spacetime not the opposite.

If God is a living being then that still means that life can exist without having been fine-tuned. Otherwise, we would need a different definition of life for God.

The question is, if he is beyond our limits how can we know him?

- first we have to agree that we have our own limits that shape our relative reality but we are not the center of existence.
- we have to understand that whats beyond our limits is not subject to same rules that work within these limits.
- the example of God (only example not God himself) is very similar to any force that exist in our universe ( magnetism, gravity, dark energy). We recognize the existence of these invisible force "only" through its influence but the nature of the force is a total mystery. Why it has these power (not only powers but extremely calibrated powers). How it attracts or repels? Why? What give it its specific calibrated values? We don't know.

Exactly. We don't know.

Similarly, we can recognize the existence of God through his influence. Similar to the example above. This influence can be summarized in two main points.

*An external influence that forced the non existent world to existence.

Which does not automatically imply that the causal agent is alive, intelligent, moral or has any of the other attributes commonly associated with God.

* An external influence that calibrated all physical forces and gave it it's specific powers and values.

Like I said before, we don't now that calibration is necessary because we don't know that alternative forces are even possible.

 

[Noitall]

Guys, c'mon. There's so much evidence to the fact that we have NOT been created by a God and that there is no God that I wonder about these people that split atoms trying to convince others & themselves otherwise. We are here alone, enjoy the planet. It is a thing of beauty that developed for us to live in and enjoy. If you spend more time looking at scientific discoveries and development and less time discussing philosophy you might actually see the truth.....who am I kidding...nobody's going to change their mind.

 

[viole]

I would say possible in theory not in principle. Multiverse assumed that the extremely rapid expansion/inflation after the big bang created Quantum fluctuations and as a result Different bubbles of space with different properties. Our universe would be one of them. In this context, why would these bubbles qualify as separate universes? It would be essentially components of one large universe (of different scale compared to what was imagined) especially that they all shared same origin at the big bang. Then you would go back to same argument that all these components collectively were some how tuned for the existence of our universe and in turn our universe itself was tuned for life. It would be similar argument but on different scale. Even I would claim that the scale didn't make any difference since no infinity is larger than another. In essence, a universe by definition would encompass every thing in existence. The scale would be irrelevant.

If you have many of them, life on one of them is as surprising as life on one planet out of zillions with varying conditions.

The bottom line is, unverifiable hypothesis can take us to unlimited possibilities. Non can be verified. All are equal. All are hypothesis.

Like God. Actually, we have an edge. We know that at least a Universe exists. Therefore it is easy to conceive zillions of them. We never saw a God.

So maybe they would be equally speculative? Then why would you favor one vs another? But no. Verified fine tuned universe and creation point at the big bang are evidence for the creator.

You seem to favor one above the others pretty strongly, for some reason. And you would have a point if so-called fine tuning would show signs of intentionality. It does not. Or at least, you are failing to show it.

Unverifiable Hypothesis don't suffice to exclude the character of necessity of God based on verified observations of the fine tuning

Again, there are no sign of intentionality in the Universe. The fact that our Universe form and shape depends strongly on the values of some constants, does not entail that anyone wanted to do this Universe, unless you are willing to beg the question. It just entails that if the constant would be different we simply would not exist. And?

Did you noticed that I said " In fact,even collapse is not really accurate because it wouldn't have a chance to form to begin with."

The bottom line is neither we nor any verifiable sort of live can live in black holes. Whatever imagined alternative reality (with other variables) that you are referring to, it may not support live. In fact, even in our verified reality, life is extremely particular and can't just be any where. You can assume otherwise but it will only be another unverifiable hypothesis.

You give too much importance to life. There is no real reason to explain life teleologically, unless we assume in advance that life is so important for the fate and purpose of the Universe that it screams for an explanation. But that would beg the question by assuming teleology in the premises.

life is very particular with respect to its dependency on very specific conditions. These imaginary unverifiable universes would not support live.

And? You still assume that lifes cries for a teleological explanation. It does not. Life is reproducing matter which is very effective in burning entropy at a high rate. Anything beyond that is mere speculation.

This is false.

It is not false. It is simply not understood...by you

Spacetime is not absolute it has a begining.The steady state model was rejected by vast majority of scientists long time ago. the observational evidence point to finite age of the universe and a beginning at the big bang. If you think about it, you would find that if time is infinite, then there can be no true measure of time. If there is no reference point against which time can be measured, then any point in time should be exactly equal to any other point. change, expansion, inflation would not be possible without a reference point.

You see? Who is talking of steady state or infinite time? The Universe is eternal, unmoving, unchanging despite having a Big Bang, space expansion and all canonical findings of science. Even my writing this post does not change the Universe at all. Not even the word eternal is applicable, as a matter of fact, if we consider that eternity has temporal connotations.

The bottom line is, observational evidence point to a finite age universe with a specific beginning at the big bang. This is the mainstream model

The bottom line is that you read too much popular science or things like Christian science. I suggest you read real phycisists, like S. Carroll, B. Green or P. Davies. B. Greene analogy of time a a frozen river is excellent. They wrote also for the layman. Check it out.

Yes, I see God in all of that and not only that but also in a single tiny chromosome with millions of base pairs.

I think you see God everywhere. Good for you.

False. Spacetime is not eternal. It has a beginning. Again, this concept was already rejected. All evidence seem to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever but rather had a beginning.

Again, not necessarily false. It just requires more knowledge of relativity for you to understand. May I ask what your knowledge of relativistic cosmology is? I need this information to set my parameters right, for the rest of the discussion.

You seem to still hold to the outdated interpretation of time (the Newtonian one).

You can't say eternal inflation, a change needs a reference point against which a change can be measured. In fact the expansion of the universe is the main reason that supported a beginning.

Nope. For the reasons above.

So, how old is time? And where did space began?

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Like God. Actually, we have an edge. We know that at least a Universe exists. Therefore it is easy to conceive zillions of them. We never saw a God.

Multiverse theory also has the edge of not running into any logical problems. The notion of God runs into the problem of infinite regression (the question of the creator's creator), or flat out contradiction (life needs a creator, but the creator, who is also a lifeform, doesn't need a creator).

So I think that's enough to solidify that multiverse theory is actually more likely than God.

 

[NoorNoor]

I wouldn't say it's necessarily "against" my view. Rather, I think we simply lack sufficient knowledge to know one way or the other.

With respect to the concern of uncertainty/non verifiability, I can definitely see the challenge.

We do not know that the laws of physics could have even been any different. Existing compelling evidence that alternative laws of physics are possible is the same as the compelling evidence of a multiverse: none.

I can’t agree more

If it turns out that the laws which we see are the only possible laws, then there would have been no need for any special design. This would have been the one and only possible design.

If we claim that one configuration only will work out of infinite number of configurations that don’t, then what is the possibility that this specific configuration will appear randomly? It would be 1/infinity=0. Meaning it can not appear randomly. It’s extremely unlikely.

But In fact if one configuration only should work, then we are not talking about possibilities at all. We are talking about design.

If this extremely complex and accurate configuration is the only one that can support physical existence of the universe and life (we do have reasons to support this view), then I wouldn’t call it a possibility. I would call it an intelligent design.

It’s not the only possible design but rather, the only existing (or intentional) design. The element of chance would totally fade away. By definition, (extremely complex) design is not a product of chance. If the possibility is limited to one, then it’s not a possibility. It’s a design

In our universe and in our laws of physics, that is the case. So far as we know, anyway. There could still be other life forms in our own universe that utilize different substances or forces than those we are familiar with. There might be alternative laws of physics where life can come into existence much more easily than in our own universe.

Verified evidence suggest otherwise.

If God is a living being

We can’t impose the limits of a “living being” as we understand it, on God himself. It doesn’t apply. Any living being we observe within the limits of our reality is totally dependent on space, time and all physical laws in effect in our world. God’s existence/life (beyond spacetime) is external to all these limits. These limits control our own reality not his. It doesn’t apply to him. God’s life is nothing like ours. You can’t think of him in light of any life model you are aware of.

then that still means that life can exist without having been fine-tuned

no, it means God can exist without having been fine-tuned not our physical life.the creator is not same as creation. you can't apply same rules on both.

Otherwise, we would need a different definition of life for God.

God is the only eternal independent reference that gave definition to every thing.

Exactly. We don't know.

True, and the fact that we don’t know doesn’t mean that the questions can simply be dismissed.

Which does not automatically imply that the causal agent is alive, intelligent, moral or has any of the other attributes commonly associated with God.

I don’t agree. I’ll tell you why

Alive: being external to time necessarily means he has no start or end. He is alive. He is eternal.

Intelligent: if he is responsible for the creation/calibration of an extremely complex universe, then he is necessarily intelligent beyond imagination.

Moral: don’t you agree that morals are not something physical? What actually makes us consider the morals as morals? What give it its definition? It would need an external reference against which it can be measured. The definition of morals is embedded in our creation. The reference for this definition is God.

Like I said before, we don't now that calibration is necessary because we don't know that alternative forces are even possible.

Like before, if one configuration only should work, then we are not talking about possibilities at all. We are talking about design. The random appearance of this specific configurations out of infinite number of configurations is extremely unlikely.

 

[NoorNoor]

In the end, you'd still have to accept that life requires no fine-tuning. Existence it self, requires no fine-tuning.

Universe/ life has a beginning. Its dependency on fine tuning was already established.

The creator is beyond the beginning. being external to spacetime means he doesn't have a beginning. In other words, his existence didn't depend on any other influence . The fine tuning doesn't apply to him.

An existence of infinite possibilities requires no fine-tuning, despite an existence of finite possibilities requiring fine-tuning.

Neither infinite nor finite possibilities existed before the beginning. The elements of possibility came to existence only after the beginning not before. Before the beginning it was an undefined zone with no time, space, matter or physical laws.

Consequently, that would mean that all God is doing when he's fine-tuning is he's adding in restrictions of possibilities in an, otherwise, realm of existence with infinite possibilities.

That implies that existence already existed before the beginning. This imagined “realm of existence with infinite possibilities” did not exist before the beginning.

It's like taking a supercomputer and making it worse and making it more limited.

No supercomputer or possibilities existed before the beginning

There can't be nothingness according to your claims. Because nothingness = the absence of existence of any kind.

Beyond the beginning is the absence of our physical world but nonetheless the existence of the undefined external influence that forced the non existent physical world to existence at the big bang. you can't say the undefined=the defined. its a different reality. you can't impose the reality of creation to encompass the creator himself.