Jack the Bodiless

Douglas:

"Fine-tuning" arguments based on the configuration of the Solar System are easily refuted by pointing out the gazillions of stars in the Universe (and, therefore, the likelihood of gazillions of planets): we should not be surprised to find ourselves on one that is "just right".

Universal constants, such as the speed of light, are a separate issue. These apparently have only one set of values throughout the Universe. However, if there are many Universes, the same principle applies.

Even if this is the only Universe, we have little idea how they might be inter-related: no idea what sort of range they might vary over. What's halfway between zero and infinity?

It is clear that most of the Universe is inimical to life, as it consists of huge amounts of empty space, and most of the non-empty space is filled with blazing fireballs. We don't know what better arrangements of matter and energy might be possible with a different set of rules and constants.

Too often, apologists tweak just one variable until stars don't form or blow up, but don't investigate any more possible combinations. Nor can they say whether or not the chosen parameter IS tweakable, nor can they rule out the possibility that other connected parameters might shift if one is tweaked.

As an argument, "fine-tuning" is a mess.

Shadowy Man

Douglas J. Bender:

This, to me, is the biggest coincidence that I've ever seen in the universe!! What are the odds of that!

Douglas J. Bender

Jamie,

Big, yes. Unfounded, no, since it's perfectly reasonable to make this assumption, given our current so-called knowledge of the state of things at the supposed "Big Bang".


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Shadowy-Man,

It actually IS a "big coincidence". But I have no idea what the odds of it being the "biggest coincidence" you've "ever seen in the universe" would be. I've seen "bigger" coincidences, myself.

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Jack,

No, that doesn't do so. From what I've read, the probability of certain "fine-tuned" constants would, even considering the "gazillions of stars in the Universe", still be so low as to effectively be impossible strictly by chance.

The point, though, is that those "universal constants" (or at least some of them, if I remember correctly) need not (assuming all values were equally likely prior to the supposed "Big Bang") have been within the very small range of possibilities for life to exist in this universe.

Infinity.

Well, based on what we do know about life in this Universe, Earth, the Earth/Moon relationship, and the Earth/Moon relationship, as well as a number of physical "universals", are about the perfect "arrangement" of all things for life.

I can't really comment, as I'm not that familiar with the various modeling experiments that have been done.

I don't know about this, but I do know that a number of highly intelligent, otherwise respected, PhDs in Physics have found the "fine-tuning" of the Universe to be significant.

It's not necessarily the strongest argument, but I believe it is significant and unrefuted.


In Christ,

Douglas

TerryTryon

Oh, come on! This whole thing teeters on the phrase "the probability of certain "fine-tuned" constants would. . . still be so low as to effectively be impossible strictly by chance," which the skeptics keep showing by flawless logic to be meaningless. There are too many weasel words: "certain," "so," "effectively." A certain house cat is so ferocious as to be effectively fatal to any opponent who faces it. A certain siren sings so beautifully as to be effectively irresistable to any sailor who hears her. The assertion is pure nonsense put forth by persons so desperate to retain their puerile worldview that they resort to the most transparent sophistry to defend it. And if PhD's and men of knowledge buy into this folderol, it only proves once again that knowledge does not guarantee wisdom.

Sheep in the big city

First of all if you assume multiple universes (and why not since there obviously is at least one) the probability one supporting life is close to one.
If you don't assume that you are assuming you know more about the universe than the best scientists when you say that the probability for life being supported is small. It's just impossible to say at this point.
Most importantly in any possible scenario the probabilty for a universe supporting life has to be higher than the probability for the existence of the self-contradicting christian deity.
Christians arguing with probabilities is just plain ridiculous.

HRG

... for life as we know it.

Which should come as no surprise, since this "life as we know it" developed in this very universe and on this very Earth, under this very moon.

The mud puddle wonders why the hole in the ground exactly fits its shape ....

Regards,
HRG.

Douglas J. Bender

TerryTryon,


They do? By gosh, I wonder why several eminent PhDs in Physics overlooked this when they concluded that these same "fine-tuned constants" were significant. Of course, they wouldn't measure up to the brilliance exhibited here in this forum, would they? The point being, it's rather unlikely that those physicists' logic would have been any less "flawless" than the logic of the skeptics here.

Not at all. They were just my handy-dandy shorthand for other, more precise, terms. "Certain" refers to particular constants which I could look up and post here, but I'm too lazy; "so" refers to a predefined level of probability, one which most or perhaps all physicists would agree would indicate a non-chance event (I think in the case of the fine-tuning constants, it's something like 10^(-38), or something like this [or is it 10^(-50)?]); "effectively" means "for all practical purposes" (in contrast to "mathematically").

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

And the garden wonders why it seems to exactly accommodate two human beings (and it particularly puzzles at the wood bench in its center).


In Christ,

Douglas