Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's the wrong dichotomy. We can't say (IMO) that fine-tuning is evidence for a "Fine-Tuner" who intended a universe that would not only support but inevitably lead to conscious living systems. However, we can say that there is evidence for "design" such that the cosmos seems to be fine-tuned for more than "just meat" in the sense of "just inanimate systems" or "inanimate conglomerations of particles" .
A tiny minority of living systems are conscious. So this isn't remotely accurate.
We both know that these discussions are typically geared to argue in favor of ID. Which is fine, honestly. But, let's not pretend on a religious forum, in the religious debate subforum...that we're merely discussing the parameters of physics.
How would that prevent planets from forming?
They are also good candidates because of their very long lifespans.
What does that have to do with the star and planet formation?
The gravitational constant is incredibly precise, but is far, far, far, less precise than the cosmological constant. Arbitrary deviance from the value of the latter constant means no universe. No universe means no stars, planets, etc.
Why do you think that God only wanted life here and to leave the rest of the COSMOS baron? I don't think this is the case, as I am a believer in extraterrestrial life of some kind, but you seem confident that you know this about God's wishes. What is your evidence to support this view?
And, scientists are in agreement that, currently, there is no plausible way of substantiating the multiverse theory. So, it cannot reach the point of even being a "scientific theory," as it cannot be observed, tested, and shown to be accurate.
1) I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by "the rest of the COSMOS baron"
I find it fascinating that individuals believe as you do with no evidence whatsoever and granted probability theory which ensures that the chances of this are arbitrarily close to 0.
Physics.
It is a scientific theory. It is blatantly, obviously, and clearly so. A vast amount of physics literature supports this or doesn't but accepts it as a scientific theory. To argue otherwise is to ignore entire scientific fields.
The language gets a little confusing. The values in these equations which we're referring to were conceived of as "parameters", basically they are terms in the math that represent parts of the theory that need to be adjusted to match empirical observation, rather than terms whose values are dictated by the theory or by other terms. In that sense, they are variable, and hence parameters.
We call them "constants" because the value set by empirical observation is a single value. They are constant in the actual universe. But if you think of the mathematical model as a model that describes an entire class of metaphysically possible universes, then each hypothetical universe is described by a particular value (or set of values for different parameters in different models; i'm oversimplifying) of the parameter, which would be "constant" in that hypothetical universe, but which is variable from the standpoint of the model.
Edit: obviously everything in a mathematical model of physics is in some way set by observation, but it's like the difference in Newton's law of gravitation:
between G, a parameter in the sense we're talking about, and the main term which is the product of two masses divided by the square of the distance between them. m1m2/r^2 is the real "meat" of the model, G is this little fudge factor dictated by observation that sort of comes after the main insight into the force. All these fine tuning constants are sort of like G.
I do tend to assume that, unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, the vast majority the thousands of physicists whose fields are relevant here aren't just assuming without cause. I can add to that my familiarity with physics and so forth, but as you have no way of evaluating my expertise (nor should you either need nor have to) this is irrelevant. It is sufficient to point to what we can all acknowledge are the experts here.
Absolutely irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. I'm not sure how many other ways I can express this.
Completely wrong. Laughably wrong, I would way, but you are not familiar with this topic and so what appears to be so insanely ludicrous if it isn't a joke might appear to be reasonable. Hence a reason for this thread: the quoted portion of your post is completely wrong.
As everything here revolves around precision, let us be precise. The constants aren't agents; they can't "pick" anything. It is the fact that the constants for life require astronomically specific values for life that can't ve explained via the standard methods that is of interest, not the capacity to "pick different values."