That is only valid if there are in fact an infinite number of possible configurations.
It’s very important to differentiate between a configuration that successfully leads to the purpose “A” and other possible configurations that don’t lead to the purpose “B”. “A” would be the only one that will lead to the purpose but the realm of “B” is endless. It can be any thing but it will not successfully lead to the purpose. Little higher gravity= no success. Slightly different dark energy= no success and so on to infinite number of possibilities.
The only configuration that we know is possible is the one that we live in. Again, it might be the case that no other configurations are possible at all.
The question is, if “A” appeared out of the endless realm of “B”, then we have to ask, how is that possible?
If you check Susskind’s video (#381), he actually summarized the whole thing from his scientific point of view. He presented 4 explanations for this fine tuning as follows:
1- God
2- Coincidence (but stated its very unlikely)
3- Multiverse
4- Some other future scientific theory to explain the constants (but also stated its very unlikely)
If 2 & 4 are unlikely, then we are left with 1 & 3. Susskind stated that scientist don’t like 3 because it can’t be measured, verified/falsified. Regardless he is in favor of 3 like many other scientists.
The interesting fact that I want to stress, is the fact that 3 requires infinite number of configurations / universes within B realm and as a result A (our universe) would be a matter of chance. The values of the constants we see in our world, would be an accident as matter of statistics of other infinite imagined universes with all possible configurations/values.
Multiversity assumes the existence of infinite number of imaginary universes that would present all possible different configurations and possibilities (different than our universe), provided that these configurations actually exist, then our universe would be a statistical certainty.
if these imaginary configurations don’t exist or not possible, then option 3 doesn’t work and we would be left with option 1.
I meant, I wouldn’t call our universe a possible design but I would call it an intentional design. Based on the reasons above.
That evidence being what, exactly?
I meant verified evidence of the carbon based life and required specific criteria for live don’t suggest the existence of other types of live. Neither other type of life nor different universe were verified to exist.
If God doesn't fit the definition of a living being, then why call Him alive at all?
What is you definition of living being? You can see that any live in our realm has a start and gradual changes towards an end but God being external to time, neither have start nor end. We can understand his live in the sense that he is self aware and capable of exerting an influence.
Nor does it mean we should inject certainty where there is none.
I agree, people on both ends are doing just that. In my case, when I consider the 4 explanations above, I dismiss 2, 3 & 4. I believe in 1 because both the verified fine tuning plus a creation point at the big bang
How does being eternal make an entity necessarily alive? You already said that He doesn't fit the definition of life as we know it.
A complex fine tuned design would require a self-aware intelligent capable designer, that necessarily means alive (alive in the sense of being self aware, capable of exerting an influence). Being alive beyond time then his live is an eternal life.
This, again, assumes that there are multiple possible ways that the universe could have turned out and that God therefore had to choose one specific design out of many possibilities. If only one configuration was logically possible, then there was no choice to make. It would inevitable that this particular universe would result. You have already agreed with me that there is no evidence that alternative laws of physics are even possible.
The correct configuration would be inevitable only if controlled by intelligence otherwise what would make it inevitable? in absence of intelligent controlling force, Any other infinite number of configurations would be possible.
You have already dismissed the element of chance when you accepted single very specific and complex configurations.
Any identified physical or mental value depends on defining reference. It can’t have a definition in isolation of reference. Without the relativity of a value to a reference it can’t have any meaning. At the base, you would have numerous references and each one depends on another higher refrence till you reach the top of the pyramid, The absolute single reference that gives definition to every thing and doesn’t depend on any other to get its own definition.
Beauty, morals as mental value don’t exist or don’t have a meaning beyond us. We are the defining reference. But why is the beauty “beautiful”? Why/how we perceive it this way? It has to be embedded in our creation. What is the higher reference that gives definition to beauty and embedded the ability to feel it and appreciate it in our souls? I claim it has to be God. The relativity has to continue till you reach an absolute at the end.
If only one configuration is possible at all, then it isn't random but rather inevitable. If this is the only possible world, then there aren't any alternative configurations to choose from at all. What evidence do you have that gravity could have been twice as strong, or that there could have been ten fundamental forces instead of four, or that space-time could have had seventeen dimensions instead of four, and so on? You don't know that such things could be.
Exactly, there is no evidence that gravity or any forces
could have been different. There is in no evidence that infinite different universe exist or could exist. None. The question how the fine tuned universe appeared? Scientists typically provide the same 4 explanations above and they typically favor Multiverse but I don’t share same view.
