Fine-tuned Universe

[Crispy Bacon]

Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. (1)The fundamental numbers, and even the form of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle, meaning they could have taken on different values. (2)However the problem is that small changes in there relative strengths would have had devastating consequences for life. (3)

By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist. (4)

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming" – Paul Davies (Professor at Arizona State University) (5)

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

Watch The Teleological Argument (What is really says)

Watch Refuting Weak Anthropic Principle Arguments

Watch God's Hand Was NOT Forced

1. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/author/lsmolin/

2. The Grand Design page 143

3. http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

4. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning

5. The Cosmic Blueprint p203

.......................

Refuting weak responses.

1) Because things are bad, the universe isn't fine-tuned.

Our claim isn't that this universe contains the most amount of life that you could fit in it. We're saying that if things were slightly different, there wouldn't be any life at all. Saying how horrible things have been and will become doesn't change the precision of the fine-tuning. There are many Bible verses saying bad things will happen before the end. Luke 21:11, Luke 21:25, Matt 24:29, Matt 24:7, Luke 17:29, Mark 13:25, Rev 6:12-13, 2 Peter 3:10-12.

2) Life adapted to conditions

We're not talking about what life can adapt too, that's not the issue here. The issue is what the universe needs to do before any form of life is even possible. You're going to need gluons, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms (stable atoms), molecules, elements (heavy elements), planets, stars (long lived stars), galaxies, ect. The universal constants and initial conditions are finely balanced on a razor's edge, and if they were slightly different you wouldn't have the ingredients for life.

3) A different kind of life could exist.

What I want to say here is if we're to avoid talking nonsense than we need to define what we clearly mean by life. By life scientist mean that property of organisms that take in food, extract energy from it, adapt, grow, and reproduce. And the point is that in order to permit life the constants and initial conditions have to be so finely tuned that it's incomprehensible. Scientist that study fine-tuning are fully aware of alternative proposed forms of life, and the problem is they don't work. Also chemistry itself wouldn't even be around, no heavy elements for life to be built from.

4) How do we know this isn't the only way the universe could have been

Physicist Stephen Hawking says, "It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle.” Also you would have to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logically possible and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Saying the universe had to take a form suitable for life is ridiculous, which is why physical necessity has few, if any supporters.

5) The odds are 1:1 because we're here

Imagine you're being dragged before a firing squad of one hundred trained marksmen to be executed. The command is given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" You hear the deafening roar of the guns. But then you observe that you're still alive, that all the one hundred trained marksmen missed! You're telling me you would say, "The chances of the bullets missing are 1:1 because I'm alive! Let's not even look into why they missed"

A logical approach would be to find out why the bullets missed or in the case of fine-tuning why these constants are so fine-tuned.

6) Because if we weren’t here we wouldn’t notice it

 

What if someone asked "why are quasars so bright" and suppose someone else answered "because otherwise we wouldn't be able to see them". Well that's true, but it doesn’t answer the question. Quasars are massive black holes and as the matter is falling towards the black hole it gets extremely hot and luminous, as a result all the energy is released. So when someone asks “why is the universe so finely-tuned for life?” Should we answer “Because if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here.”

7) Improbabilities happen all the time.

The fine-tuning argument doesn't simply argue high improbability; it argues high improbability with what results from it. We have a extraordinary finely-tuned complex universe coming out of nothing. With your example nothing happens, there is no special potentiality that makes a difference. No complexity, no order, no creation of atoms, no creation of massive stars or galaxies. You’re trying to get people to sit around in ignorance and not look into why our universe is so finely-tuned!

8) M-verse

There is currently no experimental evidence in support of the M-verse "hypothesis". While there is some support in physics for string theory and inflationary cosmology, they are currently provisional and highly speculative. However I actually believe the multiverse exists, but is insufficient in accounting for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. (see links)

http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/do-multiverse-scenarios-solve-the-problem-of-fine-tuning/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0246.pdf

 

 

Inflation takes care of some of the initial conditions

Inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own. In order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion—and to result in the necessary values for our universe's critical density—inflation theories rely upon two or more parameters to take on particularly precise values. These values are so precise that the problem of fine-tuning remains and is only pushed one step back

10) Cosmological natural selection

The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models. Also Planck has given us a lot of evidence that indicates incredibly fast expansion, just after the Big Bang. (Fine-tuned)

11) God-of-the-gaps

A god of the gaps is using a god to fill in missing information in a process. Fine-tuning is pointing to a designer. Atheist physicist Martin Rees said, “Their own discoveries were pointing them to an intelligent designer.” It’s not a god-of-the-gaps, fine-tuning is leading to God.

 

12) Fred Adams

Fred Adams has been criticized for making unjustified assumptions by many physicists. He only let the constants very a limited range and used a limited set of criteria. Luke Barnes says, "Adams' work cannot support these claims". Even if it did (which it doesn't) there are plenty more fine-tuning claims that Adams hasn't addressed.

13) Victor Strenger

Strenger's work has been criticized by other physicists for having several fundamental flaws. He ignores the most significant factors in his calculations. He even admits his "oversimplification" LoL. Also Luke Barnes argues his "solutions" to the fine-tuned universe are fine-tuned themselves!

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

Do not post duplicates of threads that have already been closed. If you wish to discuss fine tuning, there are threads already about that.