Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ouroboros]

Now that is an important question. Let us imagine that we were able to determine these "finely tuned" constants were exactly that: fine-tuned. Let us further suppose that we allow this as evidence for design. We are still left without any explanation for the nature of the designer or the mechanisms of design.

And for a fine-tune designer to exist and not collapse because some constant is off in his/her/its reality, we'd have to say that the designers world must be fine-tuned as well. How else could he/she/it exist?

...

Oh, there's a lot more posts after this one... oh, dear. I think I was late to this party!

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, there is evidence that the universe is fine-tuned by God. The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

The evidence only shows that the constant in the universe are perfect for this universe to be what it is. To claim that God created those constants is begging the question. Put it this way, for existence to exist it must be perfect for existence to exist. Existence must be self-evident. Think about it. If God exists, then existence for God must be self-evident, and God's world and existence must also be "fine tuned." To exist is to be within a fine tuned world for that existence to be. In other words, the term "fine tuned" only means that the world is perfect to be as this world, and it shouldn't suggest that there's someone or something that planned it that way.

When rain falls, it falls perfectly like rain would. Each rain drop falls according to how it exists. There's no one sitting in the clouds designing each rain drop and throwing it in a specific angle down to Earth. It falls naturally.

In the end, God and nature just have to be the same.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The evidence only shows that the constant in the universe are perfect for this universe to be what it is. To claim that God created those constants is begging the question. Put it this way, for existence to exist it must be perfect for existence to exist. Existence must be self-evident. Think about it. If God exists, then existence for God must be self-evident, and God's world and existence must also be "fine tuned." To exist is to be within a fine tuned world for that existence to be. In other words, the term "fine tuned" only means that the world is perfect to be as this world, and it shouldn't suggest that there's someone or something that planned it that way.

When rain falls, it falls perfectly like rain would. Each rain drop falls according to how it exists. There's no one sitting in the clouds designing each rain drop and throwing it in a specific angle down to Earth. It falls naturally.

In the end, God and nature just have to be the same.

That argument does work for rain, or a random pile of rocks washed up on a deserted beach, but what if the rocks spell 'HELP'? both patterns are 'fine tuned' to be themselves, yet the most likely explanation changes from chance to design, why?

Same rationale for the universe I think.

 

[Bunyip]

That argument does work for rain, or a random pile of rocks washed up on a deserted beach, but what if the rocks spell 'HELP'? both patterns are 'fine tuned' to be themselves, yet the most likely explanation changes from chance to design, why?

Same rationale for the universe I think.

Here's the test; Words are human inventions. See if you can think of just one example of something obviously designed - but not of human origin. Bet you can't.

 

[Salvador]

Here's the test; Words are human inventions. See if you can think of just one example of something obviously designed - but not of human origin. Bet you can't.

Bunyip, your mind and soul are proof of intelligent design.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip, your mind and soul are proof of intelligent design.

How so?

 

[Salvador]

How so?

I don't believe your mind and soul just came into existence by accident or blind luck; they came into existence by a creator. The odds of your mind coming into existence by accident or blind luck would be about the same as a functional Boeing 747 Jet being formed by a tornado in a junk yard.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't believe your mind and soul just came into existence by accident or blind luck;

Neither do I. Evolution is not blind luck.

they came into existence by a creator. The odds of your mind coming into existence by accident or blind luck would be about the same as a functional Boeing 747 Jet being formed by a tornado in a junk yard.

So what? Evolution is not blind luck anyway. What is the chances of your god just popping into existence by the way?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The universe is in fact, not friendly to life. Most is devoid of life because of this reason.

I say this universe is absolutely alive, eternally....so living constituents in the form of galaxies, stars, planets, etc., are born, live, and die...but the absolute life is eternally now...

No anthropomorphism is suggested.....we live, move, and have our being in something greater....the universe is holararchical....

 

[Sapiens]

I don't believe your mind and soul just came into existence by accident or blind luck; they came into existence by a creator. The odds of your mind coming into existence by accident or blind luck would be about the same as a functional Boeing 747 Jet being formed by a tornado in a junk yard.

That's the well discredited Fred Hoyle argument. The analogy requires fundamental misunderstandings of the "randomness" involved in natural selection. William Dembski (and other IDers) present calculations showing impossibly low odds for a given protein spontaneously self-assembling from a batch of amino acids, but such calculations ignore important features of evolutionary mechanisms — oddly enough the very features that checkmate such seeming impossibilities.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Bunyip, your mind and soul are proof of intelligent design.

"Mind" and "soul" being culturally mediated constructions attempting to explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

Dualism is one possibility. Emergent materialism is a better one.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Mind" and "soul" being culturally mediated constructions attempting to explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

Dualism is one possibility. Emergent materialism is a better one.

Definitely....

There is a cycle of involution from non-duality to duality as conveyed in the metaphorical story of the fall (knowledge of good and evil) from perfection in Genesis, until the differentiated expression of the indivisible Cosmos begins the cycle of evolution which is an integrative process leading from dualistic consciousness back to non-duality...albeit now as a deity...

 

[outhouse]

I say this universe is absolutely alive

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

That is only opinion.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

What I find most interesting about fine tuning arguments is that you use the physical descriptions of mathematics that are deemed reliable.

The goal is to convince me that an all powerful creator set these things in motion, and can change them at whim.

Then if I accept this creator, who can alter that fine-tuning by doing miracles (like bring people back from the dead) whenever he wants, your essentially saying that anything we observe to be consistent in the universe is trumped by god's omnipotence. Nothing is actually reliable at all.

So. . . To sum up the argument:

See this math, it proves that there is magic. That magic proves that math to be obsolete.

Makes perfect sense. I like have cake and eating it too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

That is only opinion.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric ... ..and typical of ignorant anthropocentrism..

Your opinions are so predictable....try some explanatory reason for your position for a change...

 

[outhouse]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric ... ..and typical of ignorant anthropocentrism..

Your opinions are so predictable....try some explanatory reason for your position for a change...

Unsubstantiated rhetoric ...

Its why you have no credible sources.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric ...

Its why you have no credible sources.

Ahhh...but it's not rhetoric...it is fact...you are my proof...a mere ignorant mortal with limited intelligence who imagines he knows without doubt that the awesome Cosmos is not the absolute source of all life....and thus not alive...

 

[outhouse]

the Cosmos is not the absolute source of all life....and thus not alive...

That is your unsupported fallacy not mine.

I claim it is not alive until it can be shown with certainty. Until then its unsubstantiated rhetoric.

But I also claim all live arises in the cosmos.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is your unsupported fallacy not mine.

I claim it is not alive until it can be shown with certainty. Until then its unsubstantiated rhetoric.

But I also claim all live arises in the cosmos.

Prove to me it is an unsupported fallacy by showing me an example of life arising directly in/from that which is not alive?

 

[outhouse]

Abiogenesis is not up for debate here. Your fallacy is a sign of desperation on your part.

Prove the universe is alive with credible sources. You factually cannot. So you have factual unsubstantiated rhetoric in the absence of evidence to back your claims.