Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ben Dhyan]

It's less than 5% because we're only considering the observable universe. But the worst kind of pontification is "God did it", which is an out-dated Sunday-school answer to questions which are currently beyond human understanding.

It was a Catholic astronomer George Lemaitre who first proposed the big bang theory. it's a sort of high tech secular version of the God did it creation.....

 

[George-ananda]

It's less than 5% because we're only considering the observable universe. But the worst kind of pontification is "God did it", which is an out-dated Sunday-school answer to questions which are currently beyond human understanding.

I don't ever hear intelligent people like Ben just saying 'God did it'. Where did he say that and I've been following this thread? The 5% idea is said by science and everyone here knows we want to know more but early 21st century science is not there yet. Ben is not a biblical type which is were this 'God did it' accusation arises from atheists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't ever hear intelligent people like Ben just saying 'God did it'.

There are many variations on the "God did it" theme, some more sophisticated than others. What they have in common is a need to believe in something. We simply don't know the answers.

 

[George-ananda]

There are many variations on the "God did it" theme, some more sophisticated than others. What they have in common is a need to believe in something. We simply don't know the answers.

The 'God did it' accusation (made against theists by atheists) implies that we should stop our scientific inquisitiveness at a certain point. That is not what's going on in this thread.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The 'God did it' accusation (made against theists by atheists) implies that we should stop our scientific inquisitiveness at a certain point. That is not what's going on in this thread.

Scientific inquisitiveness is best served by keeping an open mind and admitting we haven't a clue, not clinging to beliefs about God or whatever.

 

[Shad]

It was a Catholic astronomer George Lemaitre who first proposed the big bang theory. it's a sort of high tech secular version of the God did it creation.....

Nope, he put some distance between himself and this claim. He even told the Pope to avoid making this statement. The theory makes no claims to anything external to the scope of the BB and universe. Such claims were made by others after the fact. The only way this view works within science is if "God" means "We have no idea"

 

[George-ananda]

Scientific inquisitiveness is best served by keeping an open mind and admitting we haven't a clue, not clinging to beliefs about God or whatever.

No, sometimes it is about proposing new hypotheses. That's how many scientific ideas started.

Who said we don't have any possible clues when great wisdom traditions present answers that we can at least pose as hypotheses. While claimed direct mystical insight can not be called scientific proof it can be used in the formulation of hypotheses.

 

[Shad]

The 'God did it' accusation (made against theists by atheists) implies that we should stop our scientific inquisitiveness at a certain point. That is not what's going on in this thread.

It did turn in this direction recently. By putting forward religious views as evidence of what is true reality no matter how eloquent it is still a "God did it" argument. There was no new hypothesis, the idea was presented as full out theory which is valid and sound. Hence the use of Ben's "valid religion" which is the majority of his arguments. There was no putting forward an idea, explaining it, providing evidence, etc. It was a flat out claim of how reality is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, he put some distance between himself and this claim. He even told the Pope to avoid making this statement. The theory makes no claims to anything external to the scope of the BB and universe. Such claims were made by others after the fact. The only way this view works within science is if "God" means "We have no idea"

Shad...seems you had better go edit Wiki...

Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shad]

Shad...seems you had better go edit Wiki...

Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read what you link so you do not present yourself as a fool in public.

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[19][20] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[21] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[22] though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.[23]

Your own source You also validated my statement that other people, like yourself, take the theory beyond it's scope.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

George....Shad is a time waster.with no intention of engaging in honest discussion...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

While claimed direct mystical insight can not be called scientific proof it can be used in the formulation of hypotheses.

The problem is that mystical insights are likely to remain as just hypotheses, because they are subjective and personal and very prone to wishful thinking. In terms of understanding the cosmos I think we just have to wait for science to come up with some answers based on observable evidence.

 

[Shad]

George....Shad is a time waster.with no intention of engaging in honest discussion...

Provide reasons for your views rather than stating your views as fact. I asked you to justify your view but you refused to do so. When you fail to support your views each will dismissed as nonsense for this reason. You didn't even provide the name of your view until 5 posts later... You talked about duality, dualism and nondualism without identifying the basis of each. Do you expect people to read your mind or just accept you assertion as present? Substantiate your points without begging the question. At least provide some basic arguments...

 

[Jared Jammer]

The fine-tuning of the cosmos is a scientific fact which is not up for debate.

Premise I: The universe has several physical constraints. Scientific fact.

Premise II: These physical constraints have very precise properties which allow our universe, and human life, to exist. Scientific fact.

Conclusion: The universe is fine-tuned. Scientific fact.​

I repeat: The fine-tuning of the cosmos is a scientific fact which is not up for debate. If you disagree with this statement, you are denying settled science, and should be banned from this forum, and all other science-based forums (both online and off).

Where the debate actually lies (pun intended) is with the question what is the cause of the fine-tuning? This is where the science is not settled, as there are currently two valid competing hypotheses:

Atheist Hypothesis: Multiverse. With so many universes (perhaps an infinite number), each with random properties, it was inevitable that (at least) one would end up with the properties of our current universe. Yes, our universe is fine-tuned, but it's a matter of overwhelming numbers putting luck in our favor, not of design.​

Theist Hypothesis: God. Designs are the result of the intentional manipulation of the universe to achieve a desired goal. For example, I'm intentionally manipulating the pixels on your screen with the desired goal of sharing my thoughts. This is the hallmark of intelligent design; it's what we would expect to discover if the universe were designed for a purpose. Guess what? It's exactly what science has discovered.​

Now, which of these two hypotheses is the most compelling is entirely subjective. I find the God hypothesis to be the far more rational view, and I believe the multiverse to be a highly-contrived, unscientific dodging of an unwanted conclusion (God).

I fully accept that I could be wrong, and the multiverse is true. However, even if the multiverse is true, it would only explain the how of the fine-tuning of our universe; fine-tuning would still be a scientific fact.

More here: Dear Anthropic Principle Deniers: How the Laws of Physics Prove Fine Tuning

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that mystical insights are likely to remain as just hypotheses, because they are subjective and personal and very prone to wishful thinking. In terms of understanding the cosmos I think we just have to wait for science to come up with some answers based on observable evidence.

That's alright with me (that spiritual beliefs are only hypotheses to science), I am just interested in knowing the most reasonable hypothesis when all things are considered; and I believe that to be Advaita. I don't expect 'physical science' to know much on the ultimate questions in my lifetime and I have to live my life while I'm alive. It is my opinion that the great masters of the eastern (Indian) wisdom tradition delved deepest into the nature of reality and were not as you said 'very prone to wishful thinking'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Conclusion: The universe is fine-tuned. Scientific fact.​

Not quite. The universe is fine-tuned in such a way that we are here to make the observation.
The assumption that the whole universe was designed to enable a bunch of intelligent apes to ponder such questions seems rather presumptuous.

 

[George-ananda]

The assumption that the whole universe was designed to enable a bunch of intelligent apes to ponder such questions seems rather presumptuous.

I really don't see theists who are part of modern scientific thought believing this vast incredibly expansive multi-dimensional universe was created for the pondering pleasure of apes on earth. No one I see here is making that claim.

It bothers me to see theists painted so narrowly.

 

[Sapiens]

The fine-tuning of the cosmos is a scientific fact which is not up for debate.

Premise I: The universe has several physical constraints. Scientific fact.

Premise II: These physical constraints have very precise properties which allow our universe, and human life, to exist. Scientific fact.

Conclusion: The universe is fine-tuned. Scientific fact.​

Premise I is correct, Premise II is not.

Life, as we know it, exists because it developed with the constraints of the natural system. Change the constraints and life would not be "as we know it" or might even be impossible, so what?

I repeat: The fine-tuning of the cosmos is a scientific fact which is not up for debate. If you disagree with this statement, you are denying settled science, and should be banned from this forum, and all other science-based forums (both online and off).

Well ... aren't you the little dictator, declaring, "case closed" on a subject that you clearly know little about?

The clearest and most telling criticism of your fallacy should be obvious to all, it is a tautology. The universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for life because life developed in the universe. Clean and simple, life has evolved TO the universe. Life cannot develop according to the rules of some other universe, that is nonsense. Life that starts in any universe, by definition, is a part of that universe and thus every life-permitting universe will appear to be fine-tuned for any life that it evolves.

I am not the only one who holds your views in marked contempt: Try reading Debunking Darwin's God: A Case Against BioLogos and Theistic Evolution by G.M. Jackson.

Where the debate actually lies (pun intended) is with the question what is the cause of the fine-tuning? This is where the science is not settled, as there are currently two valid competing hypotheses:

Atheist Hypothesis: Multiverse. With so many universes (perhaps an infinite number), each with random properties, it was inevitable that (at least) one would end up with the properties of our current universe. Yes, our universe is fine-tuned, but it's a matter of overwhelming numbers putting luck in our favor, not of design.​

Theist Hypothesis: God. Designs are the result of the intentional manipulation of the universe to achieve a desired goal. For example, I'm intentionally manipulating the pixels on your screen with the desired goal of sharing my thoughts. This is the hallmark of intelligent design; it's what we would expect to discover if the universe were designed for a purpose. Guess what? It's exactly what science has discovered.​

It is always enlightening to see what sorts of misunderstanding people who would speak for you labor under. I am an athiest, I do not subscribe to a multiverse model, I only need one universe. The fact that we are here is the only "fact." Once again you are begging the question with a false dichotomy.

Now, which of these two hypotheses is the most compelling is entirely subjective. I find the God hypothesis to be the far more rational view, and I believe the multiverse to be a highly-contrived, unscientific dodging of an unwanted conclusion (God).

I suggest you look to your views on rationality. The supernatural is not rational, it is not based on, or in accordance with, reason or logic. I have no need of a multiverse construct to know that you have no way of rationally demonstrating that there is a God or that the universe is fine tuned, better minds that yours have tried and failed.
I fully accept that I could be wrong, and the multiverse is true. However, even if the multiverse is true, it would only explain the how of the fine-tuning of our universe; fine-tuning would still be a scientific fact.

You are wrong. I do not think the multiverse it true. Fine tuning is not a fact, it is an expected tautology.
More here: Dear Anthropic Principle Deniers: How the Laws of Physics Prove Fine Tuning

So nice of you to cite the your website that you cut and pasted this abject foolishness from.

 

[Unification]

The problem is that mystical insights are likely to remain as just hypotheses, because they are subjective and personal and very prone to wishful thinking. In terms of understanding the cosmos I think we just have to wait for science to come up with some answers based on observable evidence.

The cosmic energy from the cosmos could rise in the human.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I really don't see theists who are part of modern scientific thought believing this vast incredibly expansive multi-dimensional universe was created for the pondering pleasure of apes on earth. No one I see here is making that claim.
It bothers me to see theists painted so narrowly.

That is essentially what theists claim. It's rather like seeing a beautiful sunset and assuming it was just made for you.

It's really just an extension of anthropocentrism.