Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Ringtone]

Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer

Uh . . . sorry, but you don't understand the fine-tuning problem at all. We already know that our universe can support life. You need to reread the OP and get laced up.

 

[Ringtone]

Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.

Again, what's with the attitude? The OP regards the fine-tuning problem and the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle. The universe's physical constants and initial conditions are not contingent on the laws of physics. The odds of them being what they are for the first and only universe to have ever existed by sheer chance are astronomically improbable! The issue of the universe's physical constants and initial conditions have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or adaptation of life to the conditions of the extant universe as GMS, an atheist, stupidly thinks. He doesn't grasp the scientific issue at all, let alone the theological issue. Once again, from the OP:

[T]he finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!
​

Presumably, you're a theist! What problem could you possibly have with that observation? In any event, you're the one who brought up the issue of knowing God's mind, and all I told you in that wise is that we can know those contents of his mind that he has shared with us. To which you hysterically respond: "YOU flippin arrogant bastard! you are saying you ARE God if you know God's mind."

LOL

As I told Breezewood, this is what I'm talking about:

[T]he fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, the law of the excluded middle—as well as the principle of sufficient reason, which is sometimes referred to as the fourth fundamental law of logic—because of x, y; symbolically, x —> y—are, collectively, the eternal, uncreated logic of God bestowed on us. Behold the logical imperatives of God's mind! And the first principles of ontology and epistemology immediately extrapolated by those who bring them to bear on the problems of being, morality and truth? These are also the contents of God's mind!​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Genetically Modified Skeptic Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument

By Ringtone


Note the silly conviction of intellectual superiority on Simpleton's face as he
confounds the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle with the
teleological argument from Design.


While the entirety of GMS' video is a train wreck of factual and logical errors, the arguably most mangled debris among the wreckage is his treatment of the scientific principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument for God's existence is predicated, namely, the strong anthropic principle, which has absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or adaptation of life to the conditions of the extant universe.

GMS stupidly invokes the philosophically obtuse and scientifically naive reasoning of Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy (YPSPA), which Adams initially presented in a live forum from his unpublished musings. A few years later it was published in a posthumous collection of his previously published and unpublished material in The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time (2002):

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me so staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!' —Douglas Adams​

The analogy has been panned for years by both theist and atheist philosophers of science alike who grasp the prevailing scientific data and the ramifications thereof. While Adams' Analogy is arguably applicable to Paley's teleological argument from design/complexity, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle. Only philosophically incompetent and/or scientifically illiterate atheists invoke Adams' analogy against the alternate cosmological models of the weak or the strong anthropic principle.

Listen carefully to this portion of GMS' video: (1:27 — 4:31).

GMS unwittingly conflates the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle and the teleological argument from design/complexity. He thinks they're the same thing in terms of logic, and refers to his delusion as the fine-tuned argument or the teleological argument interchangeably relative to the YPSPA.

Douglas Adams, who was not a trained scientist, by the way, made the same mistake two decades ago, and, blindly following his lead, new atheist laymen have been foolishly repeating this error over and over again ever since. GMS stupidly avers that the fine-tuned argument "is no problem for the [Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy]" because "[t]he analogy just shifts perspectives, presenting the possibility that the universe existed first and that we in our evolution came to exist as a creature that fits its preexisting environment. . . . It entertains the thought that we are the result of adaptation to our environment, rather than our environment was built to specifically accommodate the capabilities and limitations of humans."

But contrary to what GMS claims, the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle isn't drawn from the observation that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist." Straw man! GMS thinks his observation is profoundly obvious, when it's only mundanely obvious and irrelevant.

The prevailing scientific data evinces that the range of habitable cosmologies is very narrow (finely tuned), such that the statistical odds of our universe coming up heads for any form of life at all (whether it be terrestrial life or not, intelligent life or not) from a single, unguided roll of the dice, as it were, are staggeringly unlikely! In other words, Adams and his lemmings have never understood what finely tuned means in this instance relative to the prevailing scientific data. The theological inference of the strong anthropic principle is not drawn from our extant perspective after the fact of an apparently wonderous complexity of life that must necessarily be a product of design at all! It is not drawn from the notion that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist", as GMS claims. Turek, who understands the matter just fine, doesn't say anything about "life as we know it" relative to the finely tuned range of habitable cosmologies.

Why?

Because the finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!

To all:

This is nothing but a verbose, meamdering rant that boils down to insisting on the truth of magical claims. That is not a debunk. It is a tantrum.

 

[Ringtone]

tl; dr

Video triggered OP. This thread is therapeutic reaffirmation...

Thank you for underscoring the other point of the OP, namely, the rank ignorance of the typical new atheist rube of the state schools and popular culture regarding the pertinent science.

In order to objectively evaluate the matter, one should have a competent grasp of the following:

1. The elemental and structural chemistry of stellar nucleosynthesis.
2. The significance of the stellar nucleosynthesis of carbon-12 via the triple-alpha-process.
3. The basics of baryogenesis, including baryonic asymmetry.
4. The four fundamental interactions (or forces) of nature: gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear, and the weak nuclear. They do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. The gravitational and electromagnetic interactions produce significant, long-range forces, the effects of which can be directly observed at the classic level. The strong and weak interactions produce forces of miniscule distances at the subatomic level and govern nuclear interactions. The fundamental interactions can be described mathematically as a field. The gravitational force is attributed to the curvature of spacetime, and the other three are discrete quantum fields mediated by elementary particles.

Though not immediately relevant, awareness of the distinction between fermions (mass carries/composite particles) and bosons (force carries/wave particles) and the key constituents of their taxon are helpful:

Fermions
1. Quarks
2. Hadrons: mesons and baryons.

Mesons: the hadronic, subatomic particles intermediate in mass between electrons and nucleons composed of one quark and one antiquark, and participate in the weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions.

The Components of Atomic Structure
1. The hadronic, three-quark baryons (or nucleons): protons and neutrons.
2. Leptons: electrons (electron-neutrinos, muons, muon-neutrinos, tau and tau-neutrinos) and positrons (five corresponding antimatter electrons).

Bosons
1. Photons: the force carriers (exchange particles) of the the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field is comprised of the electric and magnetic forces. Fundamentally, the electric and magnetic forces are manifestations of an exchange force effectuated by the exchange of photons. Hence, the electromagnetic force (electromagnetism) manifests through the electromagnetic field, and holds atoms and molecules together.
2. W bosons and Z bosons: the force carriers (exchange particles) of the weak nuclear force which act on atomic nuclei, mediating radioactive decay.
3. Gluons: the force carriers (exchange particles) that mediate the underlying strong force (or interaction) between quarks (the "glue" that holds the hadronic particles protons and neutrons together).
4. Gravitons: the hypothetical quantum of gravity (or the elementary particles that mediate the force of gravity).

Note that the smallest, fundamental particles of matter are quarks and leptons (or electrons), while bosons are the fundamental particles that carry forces between fundamental particles of matter. Bear in mind, as described by general relativity, gravity is not a force as such, but a consequence of the curvature of spacetime affected by varying distributions of mass. Also note that the strong force (or interaction) transpires at two scales and is mediated by two force carriers. At the larger scale, it is the force that binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together to form the nucleus of an atom, and the force is primarily carried by virtual pions, a type of meson. At the smaller scale, it is the force that holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons (nucleons), and the forced is carried by gluons. Hence, the strong force holds most ordinary matter at the subatomic level together. In the context of atomic nuclei, the strong interaction is also called the strong nuclear force proper (or residual strong force), as the residuum from the strong interaction within protons and neutrons also binds atomic nuclei together per their respective force carriers (exchange particles).

Any competent review of the scientifically fine-tuned argument would necessarily entail the following:

1. The necessity of astronomical structures, systems and elemental diversity.
2. The significance of the fundamental laws of nature, the constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe.
3. The essence of the Fine-Tuning Problem (FTP).
4. The essence of the anthropic principle in general.
5. The essence of the weak anthropic principle (WAP) and that of the strong anthropic principle (SAP).
6. The WAP and the SAP's interpretations of the FTP.
7. The essence of the multiverse cosmological model.
8. The actual essence and application of the Fine-Tuning Argument for God's Existence, which is not to be confused with the FTP!
9. The essence of the logic and the potentially falsifying methodology of the counterview regarding the verity of the FTP and the anthropic principle.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't recall GMS discussing any of the above in his video, much less mention anything about the immediately pertinent chemistry.

 

[Ringtone]

the exploration of the Almighty's mind at best is a superfluous, nefarious pursuit that only someone out of their mind would pursue ... however to accomplish the religion of antiquity, the triumph of good vs evil, as prescribed may encompass your above (whatever) however in the simplest of terms the religion requires the being to become sinless through triumph, a permanent state for their admission to the Everlasting to be granted -

"I know this is difficult for you to get your head around " - the religion of antiquity is all there is - in freeing one's spirit to be eligible for judgement.

So who or what informed you about this religion of antiquity of yours?

 

[Hollie]

Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer

Uh . . . sorry, but you don't understand the fine-tuning problem at all. We already know that our universe can support life. You need to reread the OP and get laced up.

The only "fine tuning" problem we have is the claim of "fine-tuning" coming from the religious zealot with events in the natural world contradicting the zealot's claim.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.

That is why He gave us the Bible, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Speak for yourself. God reveals plenty about the contents of his mind via the first principles of ontology and logic. It's the atheist who incessantly dabbles in the reading of tea leaves sans these imperatives and imagines that he knows how God would necessarily do things.

YOU flippin arrogant bastard! you are saying you ARE God if you know God's mind. You better rethink that. And no, people don't read tea leaves-not the sane ones.

That isnot what he is saying, dude.

Calm down and read it again.

I dont know where you get your reaction from. Ringtone is addressing an entirely different point, so he may be a bit general about the Teleological Argument vrs the Strong Anthropic PRinciple, but he is not talking about Fideism or how we are to know anything about God.

Romans 1:18- 20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



That is what Ringtone is talking about, and I think you agree, do you not?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer

Uh . . . sorry, but you don't understand the fine-tuning problem at all. We already know that our universe can support life. You need to reread the OP and get laced up.

Another way to look at this is the multiple things that are not keyed to the existence of life in our universe or the evolution of mankind, that are helpful for life here in different ways.

But, yeah, that isn't the topic, lol.

 

[Ringtone]

Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer

Uh . . . sorry, but you don't understand the fine-tuning problem at all. We already know that our universe can support life. You need to reread the OP and get laced up.

The only "fine tuning" problem we have is the claim of "fine-tuning" coming from the religious zealot with events in the natural world contradicting the zealot's claim.

Au contraire, silly Hollie. Thank you for once again underscoring the scientific ignorance of the typical new atheist rube of slogan speak! The fine-tuned problem and the anthropic principle is widely recognised and discussed in the literature by dozens of atheist scientists. Here's just a small taste of the reality:

Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design

There may be a cosmological constant in the field equations whose value just cancels the effects of the vacuum mass density produced by quantum fluctuations. But to avoid conflict with astronomical observation, this cancellation would have to be accurate to at least 120 decimal places. Why in the world should the cosmological constant be so precisely fine-tuned? —Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe

These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life. —Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

Hoyle realized that this remarkable chain of coincidences—the unusual longevity of beryllium, the existence of an advantageous resonance level in C12 and the nonexistence of a disadvantageous level in O16— were necessary, and remarkably fine-tuned, conditions for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the universe. These coincidences could, in principle, be traced back to their roots where they would reveal a meticulous fine-tuning between the strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic interactions along with the relative masses of electrons and nucleons. —John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
​

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
​

Dr. David D. Deutch:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

[. . .]

If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
​

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.​

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.​

 

[Ringtone]

That isnot what he is saying, dude.

Calm down and read it again.

I dont know where you get your reaction from. Ringtone is addressing an entirely different point, so he may be a bit general about the Teleological Argument vrs the Strong Anthropic PRinciple, but he is not talking about Fideism or how we are to know anything about God.

Romans 1:18- 20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



That is what Ringtone is talking about, and I think you agree, do you not?

With regard to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition (the Imago Dei, i.e., the Image of God), which includes God's logic, endowed on us: Paul and I are talking precisely about that and about the first principles of ontology and epistemology that are immediately evident via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition.

Make no mistake about it. Folks are not going to be hiding behind any pretenses . . . like pretending not to understand what the universally objective idea of God is on judgement day. They will be without excuse.

 

[Hollie]

Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer

Uh . . . sorry, but you don't understand the fine-tuning problem at all. We already know that our universe can support life. You need to reread the OP and get laced up.

The only "fine tuning" problem we have is the claim of "fine-tuning" coming from the religious zealot with events in the natural world contradicting the zealot's claim.

Au contraire, silly Hollie. Thank you for once again underscoring the scientific ignorance of the typical new atheist rube of slogan speak! The fine-tuned problem and the anthropic principle is widely recognised and discussed in the literature by dozens of atheist scientists. Here's just a small taste of the reality:

Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design

There may be a cosmological constant in the field equations whose value just cancels the effects of the vacuum mass density produced by quantum fluctuations. But to avoid conflict with astronomical observation, this cancellation would have to be accurate to at least 120 decimal places. Why in the world should the cosmological constant be so precisely fine-tuned? —Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe

These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life. —Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

Hoyle realized that this remarkable chain of coincidences—the unusual longevity of beryllium, the existence of an advantageous resonance level in C12 and the nonexistence of a disadvantageous level in O16— were necessary, and remarkably fine-tuned, conditions for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the universe. These coincidences could, in principle, be traced back to their roots where they would reveal a meticulous fine-tuning between the strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic interactions along with the relative masses of electrons and nucleons. —John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
​

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
​

Dr. David D. Deutch:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

[. . .]

If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
​

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.​

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.​

On the other hand Mr. Angry Bible Beater, thank you once again for showing us the dangers of religious extremism and for identifying the hopelessness of fear and superstition.

The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible. (This claim is also known as the weak anthropic principle.)

Source:
Ross, Hugh. 1994. Astronomical evidences for a personal, transcendent God. In: The Creation Hypothesis, J. P. Moreland, ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, pp. 141-172.
Response:

1. The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
   
   We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.
   
   Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.
   
   
2. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
   
   
3. Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).
   
   How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.
   
   
4. The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.
   
   
5. If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.
   
   
6. Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).
   
   
7. In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

CI301: The Anthropic Principle

 

[Hollie]

That isnot what he is saying, dude.

Calm down and read it again.

I dont know where you get your reaction from. Ringtone is addressing an entirely different point, so he may be a bit general about the Teleological Argument vrs the Strong Anthropic PRinciple, but he is not talking about Fideism or how we are to know anything about God.

Romans 1:18- 20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



That is what Ringtone is talking about, and I think you agree, do you not?

With regard to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition (the Imago Dei, i.e., the Image of God), which includes God's logic, endowed on us: Paul and I are talking precisely about that and about the first principles of ontology and epistemology that are immediately evident via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition.

Make no mistake about it. Folks are not going to be hiding behind any pretenses . . . like pretending not to understand what the universally objective idea of God is on judgement day. They will be without excuse.

When you reference “the image of god”, are you referencing the western created image of the Jeebus as a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned Caucasian?

How interesting that westerners have invented the gods in their own image.

Oh, and have you been authorized by the gods to issue threats on their behalf?

 

[Third Party]

Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.

Again, what's with the attitude? The OP regards the fine-tuning problem and the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle. The universe's physical constants and initial conditions are not contingent on the laws of physics. The odds of them being what they are for the first and only universe to have ever existed by sheer chance are astronomically improbable! The issue of the universe's physical constants and initial conditions have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or adaptation of life to the conditions of the extant universe as GMS, an atheist, stupidly thinks. He doesn't grasp the scientific issue at all, let alone the theological issue. Once again, from the OP:

[T]he finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!
​

Presumably, you're a theist! What problem could you possibly have with that observation? In any event, you're the one who brought up the issue of knowing God's mind, and all I told you in that wise is that we can know those contents of his mind that he has shared with us. To which you hysterically respond: "YOU flippin arrogant bastard! you are saying you ARE God if you know God's mind."

LOL

As I told Breezewood, this is what I'm talking about:

[T]he fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, the law of the excluded middle—as well as the principle of sufficient reason, which is sometimes referred to as the fourth fundamental law of logic—because of x, y; symbolically, x —> y—are, collectively, the eternal, uncreated logic of God bestowed on us. Behold the logical imperatives of God's mind! And the first principles of ontology and epistemology immediately extrapolated by those who bring them to bear on the problems of being, morality and truth? These are also the contents of God's mind!​

The way you word things is unclear-it sounded like YOU KNOW GOD's MIND. If that is true, I disagree. Strongly!

 

[Third Party]

Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.

That is why He gave us the Bible, right?

Among other spiritual texts.

 

[Third Party]

Speak for yourself. God reveals plenty about the contents of his mind via the first principles of ontology and logic. It's the atheist who incessantly dabbles in the reading of tea leaves sans these imperatives and imagines that he knows how God would necessarily do things.

YOU flippin arrogant bastard! you are saying you ARE God if you know God's mind. You better rethink that. And no, people don't read tea leaves-not the sane ones.

That isnot what he is saying, dude.

Calm down and read it again.

I dont know where you get your reaction from. Ringtone is addressing an entirely different point, so he may be a bit general about the Teleological Argument vrs the Strong Anthropic PRinciple, but he is not talking about Fideism or how we are to know anything about God.

Romans 1:18- 20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



That is what Ringtone is talking about, and I think you agree, do you not?

I have a problem with people who say they know what God wants.

 

[Third Party]

That isnot what he is saying, dude.

Calm down and read it again.

I dont know where you get your reaction from. Ringtone is addressing an entirely different point, so he may be a bit general about the Teleological Argument vrs the Strong Anthropic PRinciple, but he is not talking about Fideism or how we are to know anything about God.

Romans 1:18- 20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



That is what Ringtone is talking about, and I think you agree, do you not?

With regard to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition (the Imago Dei, i.e., the Image of God), which includes God's logic, endowed on us: Paul and I are talking precisely about that and about the first principles of ontology and epistemology that are immediately evident via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition.

Make no mistake about it. Folks are not going to be hiding behind any pretenses . . . like pretending not to understand what the universally objective idea of God is on judgement day. They will be without excuse.

I don't believe in Judgement day

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Speak for yourself. God reveals plenty about the contents of his mind via the first principles of ontology and logic. It's the atheist who incessantly dabbles in the reading of tea leaves sans these imperatives and imagines that he knows how God would necessarily do things.

YOU flippin arrogant bastard! you are saying you ARE God if you know God's mind. You better rethink that. And no, people don't read tea leaves-not the sane ones.

That isnot what he is saying, dude.

Calm down and read it again.

I dont know where you get your reaction from. Ringtone is addressing an entirely different point, so he may be a bit general about the Teleological Argument vrs the Strong Anthropic PRinciple, but he is not talking about Fideism or how we are to know anything about God.

Romans 1:18- 20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



That is what Ringtone is talking about, and I think you agree, do you not?

And if he believes any of that, he is nuts.

 

[Ringtone]

Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer

Uh . . . sorry, but you don't understand the fine-tuning problem at all. We already know that our universe can support life. You need to reread the OP and get laced up.

The only "fine tuning" problem we have is the claim of "fine-tuning" coming from the religious zealot with events in the natural world contradicting the zealot's claim.

Au contraire, silly Hollie. Thank you for once again underscoring the scientific ignorance of the typical new atheist rube of slogan speak! The fine-tuned problem and the anthropic principle is widely recognised and discussed in the literature by dozens of atheist scientists. Here's just a small taste of the reality:

Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design

There may be a cosmological constant in the field equations whose value just cancels the effects of the vacuum mass density produced by quantum fluctuations. But to avoid conflict with astronomical observation, this cancellation would have to be accurate to at least 120 decimal places. Why in the world should the cosmological constant be so precisely fine-tuned? —Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe

These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life. —Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

Hoyle realized that this remarkable chain of coincidences—the unusual longevity of beryllium, the existence of an advantageous resonance level in C12 and the nonexistence of a disadvantageous level in O16— were necessary, and remarkably fine-tuned, conditions for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the universe. These coincidences could, in principle, be traced back to their roots where they would reveal a meticulous fine-tuning between the strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic interactions along with the relative masses of electrons and nucleons. —John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
​

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
​

Dr. David D. Deutch:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

[. . .]

If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
​

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.​

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.​

On the other hand Mr. Angry Bible Beater, thank you once again for showing us the dangers of religious extremism and for identifying the hopelessness of fear and superstition.

The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible. (This claim is also known as the weak anthropic principle.)

Source:
Ross, Hugh. 1994. Astronomical evidences for a personal, transcendent God. In: The Creation Hypothesis, J. P. Moreland, ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, pp. 141-172.
Response:

1. The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
   
   We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.
   
   Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.
   
   
2. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
   
   
3. Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).
   
   How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.
   
   
4. The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.
   
   
5. If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.
   
   
6. Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).
   
   
7. In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

CI301: The Anthropic Principle

You silly twit, you're still prattling the imbecilic misconception of the fine-tuned problem and the anthropic principle littering the Internet, mindlessly spouted by new atheist rubes!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or evolution of life as we know it!

They have to do with the apparent fact that NO ADEQUATE STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, HENCE, NO PLANETS, NO ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES, NO ELEMENTAL CHEMISTRY WOULD EXIST FOR LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE THE INITIAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTANTS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE, YOU SILLY ASS OF AN OBTUSE PILE OF BRICKS.

They have to do with the apparent fact that NO ADEQUATE STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, HENCE, NO PLANETS, NO ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES, NO ELEMENTAL CHEMISTRY WOULD EXIST FOR LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE THE INITIAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTANTS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE, YOU SILLY ASS OF AN OBTUSE PILE OF BRICKS.

They have to do with the apparent fact that NO ADEQUATE STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, HENCE, NO PLANETS, NO ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES, NO ELEMENTAL CHEMISTRY WOULD EXIST FOR LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE THE INITIAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTANTS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE, YOU SILLY ASS OF AN OBTUSE PILE OF BRICKS.

They have to do with the apparent fact that NO ADEQUATE STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, HENCE, NO PLANETS, NO ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES, NO ELEMENTAL CHEMISTRY WOULD EXIST FOR LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE THE INITIAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTANTS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE, YOU SILLY ASS OF AN OBTUSE PILE OF BRICKS.

They have to do with the apparent fact that NO ADEQUATE STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, HENCE, NO PLANETS, NO ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES, NO ELEMENTAL CHEMISTRY WOULD EXIST FOR LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE THE INITIAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTANTS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE, YOU SILLY ASS OF AN OBTUSE PILE OF BRICKS.

It has to do with the apparent fact that NO ADEQUATE STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, HENCE, NO PLANETS, NO ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES, NO ELEMENTAL CHEMISTRY WOULD EXIST FOR LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE THE INITIAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTANTS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE, YOU SILLY ASS OF AN OBTUSE PILE OF BRICKS.

They have to do with the apparent fact that NO ADEQUATE STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS, HENCE, NO PLANETS, NO ASTRONOMICAL STRUCTURES, NO ELEMENTAL CHEMISTRY WOULD EXIST FOR LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE THE INITIAL CONDITIONS AND CONSTANTS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE, YOU SILLY ASS OF AN OBTUSE PILE OF BRICKS.

 

[Ringtone]

Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.

That is why He gave us the Bible, right?

Among other spiritual texts.

Relativism?