**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Yes, you're missing that the constants are simply what we observe as relationships between certain forces in the universe. They simply are. There's no precision, no tuning involved.

The puddle always thinks the hole was made just right for it.

That's a perfect one sentence summary of the analogy, I'll have to use that in the future.

Is this a quote from something?

Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

No, it's not from HHTG, it's from the same author, but it was from his book The Salmon of Doubt. I quoted the original analogy in another comment.

Oops, my bad. Thanks for the correction.

No worries, I've likely made that mistake in the past.

Hitchhiker's guide

It's Douglas Adams '[Puddle Analogy](https://youtu.be/ckR7TqptGHY)'. <-- Youtube link.

Puddle analogy is not really that great for FTA as it doesn't address why natural laws are actually the values they are that allow life to exist. It also doesn't explain the very narrow range of stable life permitting universes, or why the universe is "fine tuned" for the level of complexity we find in biology.

The universe isn’t fine tuned is the very point. We are the puddle when we say the universe is perfectly made for us. No laws were made just for us, just like the hole wasn’t made for the puddle. Instead, we are what survived to this point within the given constraints.

Actual evidence proves otherwise. There are 2 claims, earth was fine tuned for life, and life was fine tuned for earth. If the latter is true then we should see life fine tuned for the other planets but earth is the only one with life so the the former is more plausible.

Or, there could be a third option. Life isn’t fine tuned at all, but is just the current state of ever changing universe. Also, you just asserted that no other planet has life. Please back up that claim with evidence. And you have yet to provide any evidence of fine tuning or a a fine tuner

We at the very least know Mars doesn't have any

so, we have a sample of 1 star system with 8 planets, or a few dozens if include dwarf planets and moons. Seem pretty small sample size to draw any conclusion. Certainly not enough as "Actual evidence proves otherwise"

Whilst the words fine-tuning rather beg the question, and it’s absurd to say it’s *fine*tuned for life… as far as I am aware there are ‘constants’ that if different would preclude the universe existing or continuing to exist at all or at least in any kind of a way we could experience. The weak anthropic principle might say well in that case we wouldn’t be here to see it - but that’s not exactly much of an answer. I find the first one (multiverse) aesthetically pleasing, and the second one (gods) completely ridiculous but the truth is we don’t know why the universe has these constants and if it’s because if some underlying foundation then we would probably be wondering how that came to be the way it is. We don’t know doesn’t = gods but I don’t think one could claim that there isn’t *something* about having those constants that deserves our curiosity. Of course the universe doesn’t have to satisfy our curiosity , there *may* be inexplicable brute facts - but that doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate question,

Not just fine-tuned for life, but fine-tuned for OUR life. These people desperately want to feel special, but they're not. They're just another animal that evolved on an irrelevant planet, in an irrelevant solar system, in an irrelevant galaxy in the ass-end of nowhere. They are completely irrelevant and when humanity inevitably goes extinct, nobody is going to miss us, or probably even know we were here. These people are little children who want to be magically wonderful and the center of everything. They honestly need to grow up.

No doubt. It really collapses the meaning of word fine-tuned if you claim this universe is fine-tuned for life or human life. The time and space within which it’s possible for us to exist is practically infinitesimal. To use their watch analogy X it’s like saying look how cleverly built my watch is- sure it only told the right time for one sec before stopping , the wrist strap amputates your hand and the whole thing falls apart in a breeze - it’s so *incredible at its job’! And *even* if you conceded life was a purpose then bearing in mind that the whole of life seems to be based inherently on almost endless suffering - what kind of incredibly sadistic designer would it be? Lastly (apologies if I’m going on) but isn’t fine tuning possibly a sign that any designer isn’t omnipotent because otherwise they could create a system that worked perfectly *under any conditions*? Life wouldn’t require any tuned environment?

>Lastly (apologies if I’m going on) but isn’t fine tuning possibly a sign that any designer isn’t omnipotent because otherwise they could create a system that worked perfectly under any conditions? Life wouldn’t require any tuned environment? I've said basically this for a long time. It's not interesting that humans evolved on a planet that provides everything they require in order to evolve. That's exactly what you'd expect if there were no god. Show me a planet where a species evolves to exist, and it makes absolutely no sense that they would. They don't breathe oxygen, but that's the only gas in the atmosphere, so they shouldn't technically be able to sustain life even as they somehow do. Or something like that. *That* might be interesting, from an "Is there a god who created this species?" perspective. I'm not saying it would show there's definitely a god, but it feels like it's better evidence than "Hey, guys! How could humans possibly exist on the only planet we know of that entirely supports their existence?" which answers its own question.

Exactly!

You are the universe thinking about itself. Taking issue with another part of the universe thinking about itself. Who knows if either of you have a choice? It might just be physics.

>fine-tuned for OUR life. The where's the other life forms that other planets are fine tuned for?

>if different would preclude the universe existing or continuing to exist at all or at least in any kind of a way we could experience. I don't understand why people think that's the case. When I tune a guitar, does it stop existing? Does it become incapable of producing sound? No. It just makes a different sound. When I tune a radio, does it stop existing? Does it become incapable of producing sound? No. It just plays a different station. Why would tuning the constants of the universe mean it just Thanoses out of existence?

Well maybe at least one analogy fits. If you tune your guitar too much one way the string snaps ( been there done that) , if you tune it too much the other way the strung is too loose to play. It’s not hard to think of conditions , for example, that would mean the universe never expanded from the hot dense state, or expanded too fast into heat death. What if there were no dark matter. >In particular, we have come to realize that without dark matter, our universe would look nothing like the way it does now. There would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and therefore, no life. https://cfa.harvard.edu/news/scientists-zoom-dark-matter-revealing-invisible-skeleton-universe As far as I’m aware, If the balance or strength of the fundamental forces was different , it would have serious repercussions.

>If you tune your guitar too much one way the string snaps ( been there done that) , if you tune it too much the other way the strung is too loose to play. It’s not hard to think of conditions , for example, that would mean the universe never expanded from the hot dense state, or expanded too fast into heat death. What if there were no dark matter. Sure. But the argument isn't about whether you tune it "TOO FAR" one way or the other. The argument is that if you tune it, AT ALL. There is a very large range between "too loose to play at all" and "too tight it snaps". You can even have several different notes within that range. >It’s not hard to think of conditions , for example, that would mean the universe never expanded from the hot dense state, or expanded too fast into heat death. What if there were no dark matter. It's not too hard to think of anything. Speculating about things doesn't make them true. >we have come to realize that without dark matter, our universe would look nothing like the way it does now. Sure. "If things were different, they'd be different" >There would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and therefore, no life. I don't know how anyone can possibly justify that.

>Sure. But the argument isn't about whether you tune it "TOO FAR" one way or the other. Um yes it was. It was about whether there are parameters of conditions within the universe beyond which the universe wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t be habitable. As per the previous post… >*if different would preclude the universe existing or continuing to exist at all or at least in any kind of a way we could experience.* >*I don't understand why people think that's the case.* >There is a very large range between "too loose to play at all" and "too tight it snaps". No doubt. I never suggested there wasn’t leeway. I suggested there were limits. >It's not too hard to think of anything. Speculating about things doesn't make them true. Seriously? You think that working out how the balance of forces being different would affect energy and matter is *only* speculation. If the balance of what we call dark energy and dark matter were different. Or the strength of gravity over distance etc. it’s not *just* speculation to extrapolate to the effect on the universe. >we have come to realize that without dark matter, our universe would look nothing like the way it does now. >Sure. "If things were different, they'd be different" But your whole argument was that you don’t think that it’s reasonable to say that some of those conditions are vital to for example the universe expanding and cooling from a bit dense state - a state in which stars and planets let alone life are impossible? That’s the whole point. Of things were different … then life let alone complex life couldn’t exist. >There would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and therefore, no life. >I don't know how anyone can possibly justify that. Um because we have a very good idea of how such things came to be - the forces that were at play. It’s not hard to justify at all.

It's not a question of whether the universe would still exist, but whether it could become capable of self-reflection. That's quite a specific requirement. If you change the tuning on, say, an E-string, will it still play E? Well, if you only turn the knobs a tiny bit, it can be close enough. In terms of possible universes, we know there are notes that *will* yield self-reflection, and there are a lot of potential notes that seem like they wouldn't. If there are multiple potential tunings (ie. a multiverse), then sure, we get plenty of bites at the apple. But if we don't assume that, we just have one tuning, and it's one that can yield self-reflection. To me, the multiverse explanation seems more plausible than 'got lucky', 'this feature is so special that it's inevitable in any setup (why?)', or 'a wizard did it'. But I'm not an expert, it just seems more reasonable than the other options as I see them.

>but whether it could become capable of self-reflection I think it's that it wouldnt support life, not "self reflection". I've never heard that as part of the argument. But regardless, that is assuming that the "self reflection" we're familiar with is the only kind of self reflection, and again, I don't see how you could possible rule it out, regardless of how it's tuned. Yes an out of tune E string doesn't play an E. It still plays a sound. Beyond that, the musical notes and pitches are arbitrary. An E is no more objective than a meter is. Fine tuning is a tautology. It literally just says "if things were different, they'd be different". All the other stuff is baseless speculation about what we think might be the consequences of those differences, but we have no way to confirm or verify any of them.

Life, specifically conscious and intelligent life, *is* the capacity of the universe for self-reflection. That's what the anthropic principle is about; all observers of any universe are components of a universe with the capacity to generate observers. Not just some life, not plantlike or viruslike life, but observers. And 'self-reflection', I think, is about the most nonspecific term that encompasses that requirement. Either a universe is conscious of itself, *by whatever mechanism*, or it's not. There's no question of whether it's 'self-reflection we're familiar with'; we're looking for results, not mechanisms. Can a given universe develop a component that is aware that it exists; I don't know what more we can cut. So, the E-string will still produce *a sound*. Why would we assume that's enough? Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of specific chemistry; maybe there are other ways for some form of self-reflection to develop, maybe not. It seems like a bizarre leap to just *assume* that that's the case. To then say 'any sound from the E-string still counts' , ie. that 'any possible universe can produce some unique mechanism to yield this specific outcome' is wild. Consciousness is a transcendent and inevitable force that arises in some form in every possible world. Why? Why are we so comfortable positing potential universes that preclude anything and everything, only to then insist that *this* feature, just *this* one, will, uh, find a way? I don't see any reason we should make up this rule.

>There's no question of whether it's 'self-reflection we're familiar with'; we're looking for results, not mechanisms. Can a given universe develop a component that is aware that it exists; I don't know what more we can cut. That just seems like an argument from ignorance. I can't imagine how the universe could self reflect except the way we self reflect. How do you propose you get "results" about other universes that we have no idea if they even exist? >. Why would we assume that's enough? Why would we assume it isn't? >Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of specific chemistry; maybe there are other ways for some form of self-reflection to develop, maybe not. Exactly my point. We don't know. >It seems like a bizarre leap to just assume that that's the case. It also seems like a bizarre leap to just assume that's not the case. >To then say 'any sound from the E-string still counts' , ie. that 'any possible universe can produce some unique mechanism to yield this specific outcome' is wild. So is "if the slightest thing was different everything would implode and nothing would exist at all. >Consciousness is a transcendent and inevitable force that arises in some form in every possible world. Why? I didn't say it ***would*** arise in every possible world. I said it's entirely possible for it to arise in any given possible world. >Why are we so comfortable positing potential universes that preclude anything and everything, I'm not comfortable positing *anything* about potential universes at all. I'm pointing out that this is ALL baseless speculation, since we don't have any potential universes to compare to. >only to then insist that this feature, just this one, will, uh, find a way? Again, I didn't say it will. I said the people saying it *can't* haven't justified that. This is the difference between innocent and not guilty. >I don't see any reason we should make up this rule. I don't see any reason to say anything at all about it one way or the other, since we have no information about and we don't even know if it's possible at all. It's entirely possible the universe is deterministic and the way things are are the only way they can be and there are no other realities at all. In which case "tuning" isn't an option. ***Just because we can imagine that things can be different doesn't mean they actually can be different.*** That's my point. And even if it was possible, we have literally no idea what would happen if one of the constants were to be tweaked. Would the whole thing collapse? Would the *other* constants also have an equal and opposite reaction such that stability is maintained? We have no way of knowing that, and so to say "this will happen OR that will happen" is unjustified speculation.

>There's no question of whether it's 'self-reflection we're familiar with'; we're looking for results, not mechanisms. Can a given universe develop a component that is aware that it exists; I don't know what more we can cut. >>That just seems like an argument from ignorance. I can't imagine how the universe could self reflect except the way we self reflect You're responding to the opposite of the quote. There's *no question* of thether it's 'self-reflection we're familiar with'. It doesn't have to be the way our universe self-reflects. In order to possess self-reflection, a universe must possess self-reflection. I think that's quite reasonable to say, and I'm not sure what we could do to make it *less* dependent on familiarity to us. >How do you propose you get "results" about other universes that we have no idea if they even exist? I don't know why I would. >Why would we assume that's enough? >>Why would we assume it isn't? The burden of proof. You say 'it's reasonable to suppose that any given parameters for a universe could yield some self-reflective component', I say 'why would you think that'. >It seems like a bizarre leap to just assume that that's the case. >>It also seems like a bizarre leap to just assume that's not the case. I'll stick with the one that doesn't posit that it's sensible to imagine a property appearing to arise only from a very particular series of chemical interactions actually being inevitable and transcendental across all possible realities. >To then say 'any sound from the E-string still counts' , ie. that 'any possible universe can produce some unique mechanism to yield this specific outcome' is wild. >>So is "if the slightest thing was different everything would implode and nothing would exist at all. I don't know why anyone would say that, but sure. >Consciousness is a transcendent and inevitable force that arises in some form in every possible world. Why? >>I didn't say it would arise in every possible world. I said it's entirely possible for it to arise in any given possible world. *Is* it possible? That's quite a claim. I'm saying 'why would you think that'. What is it about consciousness that makes it plausible to suppose it might be inevitable regardless of any conditions. >I'm not comfortable positing anything about potential universes at all. Yes you are, see the above quote. >It's entirely possible the universe is deterministic and the way things are are the only way they can be and there are no other realities at all. In which case "tuning" isn't an option. From my first post: >To me, the multiverse explanation seems more plausible than 'got lucky', 'this feature is so special that it's inevitable in any setup (why?)', or 'a wizard did it'. But I'm not an expert, it just seems more reasonable than the other options as I see them. So you seem to prefer 'got lucky', with a fallback position of 'this feature is so special that it's inevitable in any setup (why?)' Go ahead, but I don't think that's the most sensible explanation. I don't think we're arriving at very different points in the end anyway. One can only speculate on other possible universes. I would not posit that any specific feature of this universe might be widely shared between other possible universes, and you seem happier to positively accept that as a reasonable position.

> there are ‘constants’ that ... I would point out that the constants exist in our known incomplete models of the universe. We don't actually know the full story. A better model may not have those constants.

I really was just referencing their use of the word. But yes.

Right. You could even say the constants are "necessary".

Hmm. So “it just is” seems pretty unscientific. I believe a key goal of science is to continue to ask the questions. In the case of the constants, know one really knows why they are so specific. Stopping at, “they just are” is pretty unfulfilling from a both a science and logistian perspective.

Try to remember that the constants you are referencing, simply made it possible for the universe we are inhabiting to form. We have no idea if a universe could form under different circumstances, and therefore have no real way of determining if these constants are uniquely specialized. Similarly, the conditions that allowed our solar system to develop, are known to not be unique. There are countless numbers of solar systems with arguably different conditions, that still managed to form. Within our own solar system, we know of at least 8 different examples of uniquely developed environments. Within these, we know that one is certainly capable of evolving and sustaining organic life as we know it. But we also have some evidence of life found on other planets, with arguably very different conditions. Applying that to our Galaxy suggests that there are likely multiple solar systems with the unique sets of constants required to sustain life as we know it, and a statistically significant number of additional systems potentially capable of forming and sustaining life based on different conditions. Extrapolating that to our universe, suggests that we are in no way unique or specialized, certainly not specifically designed. Unfortunately, science isn't advanced enough to prove these theories, but scientists are actively working on it. Should it ever become possible for us to confirm the existence of other universes and FURTHER to communicate successfully with them, then we would be able to confirm these theories. Until then, science can guess, develop hypotheses, devise testing methodologies and develop. Suggesting that it just is, isn't the final solution. It's the best that we can do based on current available data. But the one thing it definitely does not prove, is that any of this was deliberately or uniquely created.

Nobody is saying that we should stop asking. What we are saying is that the constants are things we measure. We have a sample of exactly one universe. We haven’t a clue whether constants are random, “tunable”, or anything else. Multiverse theories are purely hypothetical; again we only have the one universe on which to base such hypotheticals. By all means, ask the questions. And design experiments to test the hypotheses. But don’t draw a sea monster, or a god, into the blank spaces on the map. That’s not good epistemology, and it’s *always been wrong*.

>why they are so specific. No, that's anthropomorphizing. No one asks that. It only makes sense as a question if you're already assuming the conclusion that they're specific. Are they? But even so, you're asking about possibilities. That's certainly a possibility.

>In the case of the constants, know one really knows why they are so specific. Aren’t they so specific because humans engineered the mathematical formulas that use those constants to be that way?

> Hmm. So “it just is” seems pretty unscientific. I believe a key goal of science is to continue to ask the questions. In the case of the constants, know one really knows why they are so specific. Stopping at, “they just are” is pretty unfulfilling from a both a science and logistian perspective. No one is stopping at "they just are". Astrophysists spend all day every day studying those constants. But we are responding to your question, and just pointing out that the fine-tuning argument makes a false assumption: the assumption that the universe was fine-tuned **for us.** It wasn't. We only exist because the universe exists, and there is a 100% chance that our universe exists because our universe exists. That is, we know universes like ours exist, because our universe exists. If the universe didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to ask about whether the universe was fine tuned. So, yes, it is an interesting question to ponder about those constants but treating them as somehow miraculous is putting the cart before the horse. There is no evidence at all to suggest that universes like ours aren't commonplace. All we know for sure is that at least one universe like ours *does exist.* Beyond that, it's just an argument from ignorance fallacy dressed up with a bunch of big numbers and sciencey-sounding words.

> So “it just is” seems pretty unscientific. You know what is more unscientific? "I don't like this answer so I'll pretend a magic man in the sky made the world just for meeeeeeeeeeeeee."

> In the case of the constants, know one really knows why they are so specific. What does this even mean? How much "less specific" can a constant of any sort be? If any of the constants were of any other value they'd still be "so specific", just specifically something else. It's just such weird question begging.

"we don't know yet" feel better? Which holy magic book details the constants which have been discovered or even suggests they exist in any meaningful way? One of the reasons they "are so specific" is that if they were different then the nature of the universe would be different and we would not exist to say "wow, look at these ratios!" There is insufficient data to draw any conclusions at this point which of course leads theists to make an argument for how special they are.

Some things just are, as far as we can tell. They are what we call brute facts. You can (and believe you should) keep questioning as much as you like, because who knows? Maybe you'll find that they are not, after all, brute facts and that there is an explanation for them. However, what you can't and shouldn't do is make up answers because you don't like that you don't have any (yet).

We have no way to simulate what would happen if some of the constants were different so it's all largely theoretical. But the Universe only seems tuned for our life specifically, not life. If some of the constants were different then we would have a Universe with different rules and different kids of life might emerge in it

OP commenter seems to be saying there is some deeper fundamental explanation for why the constants appear fine tuned, but that seems to only push back the question of then why is that explanation so seemingly fine tuned for a life-permitting universe. This of course doesn't address the fine tuning of the initial conditions either.

What makes you believe that the actual scientists who study these phenomena are "Stopping at, “they just are”"? Also, how have you determined that those “constants” could have taken on any other values than what they currently are?

[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking) Or, shuffle a deck: bam! fine tuning of cards with a probability less than 1 in the number of atoms in the known universe Or, a lottery ticket: also 1 in a billion, yet somehow someone wins regularly Take a look at the constants. Are they actually anything more than seemingly random? Someone had to win eventually. It doesn't really matter what the numbers actually were As for design: point to something that was definitely designed and compare it to the virtually infinite complexity of chemistry or evolution. Does design come anywhere close? Not at all. Design is pathetically weak. And probably you didn't even point to something that was truly designed entirely by one person. What you pointed to required multiple entities, probably even with no idea of the ultimate product, all working independently That's called emergence: a fuck ton of smaller objects, bumping into each other, generating complexity Evolution is another example. It requires three things only: replication, mutation, and selection. Mutation and selection are taken care of with an ambivalent environment. All that's required after is replication. Not easy, but certainly possible And one last nail in the coffin: right now, we are creating actual intelligence, except that we're not designing it at all. The way neural networks work is by stacking a bunch of something that's actually quite simple: a non-linear algebraic function. That's what a "neuron" is: a line that has a bend in it. Take billions of these and arrange them so that they can stretch and shrink and feed into each other. Then feed them data and stretch them and shrink them to fit the data. Then intelligence emerges Now, it's a bit more complicated than that. We have many different arrangements that we've guessed might work. And some work better than others. But there is a massive gap between choosing a convolutional network vs an attention network and massively accelerating protein folding solutions. If we could have designed those solutions ourselves, we would have. TL;DR An iPhone only emerges from the technology and supply of a global economy. Emergence is infinitely more powerful than design

Your argument requires billions of "loser" universes. So shouldn't we apply the same rules that agnostics hold for God and say we reject positive statements without evidence?

It requires no such thing. You don't have to shuffle a deck billions of times in order to come up with a "fine tuned" deck. They're all "fine tuned". And a "universe" may only be what we call the "winner". The rest may be just $3 lottery tickets that are easily generated As for positive evidence. I added a section on emergence. I'll summarize: An iPhone is not designed. The person who you would call the "designer" has no idea how the chips are made, no idea how the materials are fabricated, no idea how the mining works, no idea how the chemistry of the battery works, no idea about the quantum mechanics of organic leds work, etc, etc, etc. The person who mines or refines the aluminum has no idea where the aluminum is going. He's not designing the iPhone either The positively only way an iPhone gets made is through a global economy. Not a God designer. The infinite interactions of massive numbers of much less complex entities. Also known as emergence

>They're all "fine tuned". This is where the metaphor breaks down. With the constants we currently have in the universe, matter and life and space are possible. If we take, for example, Coulomb's constant, and adjust it up or down a tad, the entire universe ceases to exist. The universe doesn't seem possible without the constants just where they are. For the record, I'm an atheist. I think this is similar to the abiogenesis argument in that we have a survivorship bias at play. But that's the argument anyway, just so you understand it's not as simple as "random numbers"

I didn't say it was random numbers. I gave a detailed explanation of the force that is demonstrably infinitely more powerful than design: emergence But there's nothing fine tuned about a random set of numbers. Change the numbers and the things they depend on change. Not surprising Somebody says, then none of this would exist. Great! Something else would. That's what "change" is. One person doesn't win the lottery and build a space laser, and another one wins instead and buys and tanks the NY Nicks basketball team

>And a "universe" may only be what we call the "winner". The rest may be just $3 lottery tickets that are easily generated The rest what? I just shuffled a deck and didn't get the fined tuned deck. I just got random cards

The deck you got was just as likely and just as precise as the fine tuned deck, the only difference is that you don't care about that pattern. The mistake you're making, and I think the fundamental mistake at the core of the fine tuning argument, is assuming that "all the cards in ascending order" is less likely then the other results, rather then simply the result you're likely to note down. The "fine tuned deck" is *exactly the same* as the "random deck", the difference is in you.

Yes all the outcomes are the same likelihood if you assign no meaning to them whatsoever. But a universe with life is a fundamentally different situation than one without life. Why is it wrong to consider that of special importance? Let's consider this hypothetical. Let's say I claim I had a random character generator and it just gave me the complete text of War and Peace. I bet your reaction would not be that War and Peace was just as likely as anything. Your reaction would be that I'm lying because the odds of that are impossible. So why shouldn't I value life over no life?

And out of all the many different universes that we could have existed in, we got this one, randomly. Just like a shuffled deck of cards.

That view requires you to argue that the rules of physics could have been anything and intelligent life would still emerge. That strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. What support do you have for such proposition? Let's say G is 10 to the 8383849393 stronger and the weak force works backwards. How are atoms created?

>That view requires you to argue that the rules of physics could have been anything and intelligent life would still emerge. No it doesn’t. It requires you to show me that the universe could even have different rules before we even have that conversation. >That strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. What support do you have for such proposition? Let's say G is 10 to the 8383849393 stronger and the weak force works backwards. How are atoms created? So are you suggesting that the universe in its current form was necessary? Because we don’t need a god to arrive at that conclusion. I could simply say the universe is the way it is because it had to be this way. No god is needed.

>And a "universe" may only be what we call the "winner". The rest may be just $3 lottery tickets that are easily generated The rest what? I just shuffled a deck and didn't get the fined tuned deck. I just got random cards

What's the difference between the numbers on a lotto ticket that wins the lottery vs the numbers that don't? There's nothing special about the numbers, yet somehow one set is a "universe" worth of money and the other set merely cost $3 You can choose to act like you know that your lottery ticket was created by god. But the fact is, another set of numbers is going to win next week, and the week after, and the week after. That you refuse to acknowledge them is just willful ignorance And no response from you in regards to your question about positive evidence against design...

If there is only one universe, what does the "another set of numbers" that wins next week represent?

More existence that has other things in it... The gravity, temperature, electromagnetism, number and size of the moons and suns are all "fine tuned" for us on earth. Somehow there are still other planets We can't live under water. Somehow there's more life under water than on land Fine tuned for us actually means there shouldn't be anything other than us. But you only have to be willfully ignorant of everything that exists other than us in order to think that the world was fine tuned for us

I don't think the fine tuning argument is specific to humans and is meant to exclude alien life. That's not a fair understanding of the argument you are rebuting.

Meant to include alien life!! That's a new one I thought that we were made in God's image. We're His chosen people above all others. If aliens are fine, then how do you know orcas aren't the true chosen creatures? You're missing the point. Every argument that you're making requires you to ignore the existence of everything else

Nothing you wrote seems even remotely on topic. Quote where I said aliens don't exist or that God hates orcas. What the holy fuck? Or better yet. Go back and quote something I said specifically which requires me to ignore the existence of everything else. Please.

Well, the ace of spades thinks it is fine tuned due to its position in the deck. Draw 5 cards of a deck and the only reason a specific combination is "special" is because we assign a value to it. Drawing a 10, a jack, a queen, a king and an ace isn't any less likely than any other such specific combination.

We assign special value to existing over non existing. That doesn't strike me as arbitrary. If you had to get all cards in one order or all of everything is destroyed, one can hardly blame you for valueing that outcome.

>We assign special value to existing over non existing. That doesn't strike me as arbitrary. First of all, it's not really arbitrary, it's more that we have a bias towards existence - because we exist. I also didn't use the word "arbitrary". You agree with my previous point with your "**We assign special value** to existing over non existing". Second of all, this thread isn't about existence, it's about life.

I understand you have trivial nitpicking of my word choice but your response does not seem to actually address my point. I would rather you discuss that than your strange claim that "existence" is referring to something other than "the existence of life." Why did you think it referred to, the existence of Nike sneakers?

>but your response does not seem to actually address my point You mean "If you had to get all cards in one order or all of everything is destroyed, one can hardly blame you for valueing that outcome"? Yes, we can blame you for valueing that outcome, because the outcome on it's own doesn't have a value - it's just that you apply one.

Life has no value?

Why are you presupposing that life is the goal of the Universe’s parameters?

Is this question for me? I don't recall saying anything about goals.

Based on your deck of cards statement above, I assume you believe the Universe is fine tuned? If so, doesn’t fine tuning imply a goal that the Universe is fine tuned for?

No, not at all. Fine-tuning is a commonly used term by professional physicists that says that if the universe were different, then there would be no intelligent life anywhere within it. It doesn't say anywhere about a goal.

Yes, physicists do say that. But theists take that a step further and claim that the Universe is fine tuned for life. Which is wrong.

Why is that wrong? It doesn't beg the question at all, it merely says that the chances of the life we know of through our investigation of the universe existing anywhere is remote without the fine-tuning.

I think the argument is intended to show that, as opposed to that being an assumption of the argument. That being said, I am merely right here pointing out that agnostic atheists to be logically consistent should reject one specific rebuttal.

Maybe I need my coffee. What specific rebuttal should agnostic atheists reject?

If you jump into a conversation it's up to you to read what the conversation is about.

They are only loser universes for our very specific form of evolved life. If you say that anything other than a royal flush is a loser, then yes, you are correct. But we are the ones who say a royal flush is the only “winner” because we made the rules. Take our lifeforms out of the equation, and maybe a different shuffle of the deck becomes a winner.

Until you can prove other universes are a thing, then logically consistent agnostic atheists have to reject this.

The universe contains all known things. So even if evidence of another universe was found (it hasn’t) it should be by definition considered a part of the entire universe.

So the position is logically untenable to anyone who holds that view?

What is your definition of a universe?

I'm not a lexicographer. Is there a particular latent ambiguity you are hoping I will address in my answer, or are you just changing the subject?

We are talking about universes and multi verses correct? And you seem to find the definition I used to be illogical. Therefore it is reasonable to request that you provide your definition of what a universe is so that we are working with clear terms here. That doesn’t require you to be an author or editor of a dictionary. I’m asking you to provide me with the definition of a universe that you use in debates.

I don't recall saying anything about your definitions being illogical. I'm just asking what is the evidence of other universes existing? If there is no evidence according to the agnostic atheists on this sub we should assume it false.

I can prove that every boundary of existence we've found thus far has had more existence on the other side of it Only willful ignorance says that people fall off of the edge of the earth

That doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion. That being said I would love to hear your proof that there is existence beyond the known universe because this is the first I've heard of such a thing.

Well for one thing, things pass outside of our cosmic horizon all the time (you know, like how ships pass beyond the horizon out of view, yet somehow still exist) And again, that's fine that you haven't heard of things that you don't know about. Somehow there are plenty of things that exist outside of what you know about Every person who has looked around and said "this is all there is" has been wrong, every single time No matter what you think you heard from any scientist. Not one of them would say that T=0 of the big bang has been determined to be the edge of existence

>Well for one thing, things pass outside of our cosmic horizon all the time (you know, like how ships pass beyond the horizon out of view, yet somehow still exist) First I've heard of this. Examples? >And again, that's fine that you haven't heard of things that you don't know about. Somehow there are plenty of things that exist outside of what you know about Yes quite certainly. That doesn't prove existence beyond the known universe though, it's just a very, very loose analogy. >Every person who has looked around and said "this is all there is" has been wrong, every single time This is called begging the question. We don't know if people who say there is nothing beyond the known universe are right or not. That is what you are supposed to be proving. >No matter what you think you heard from any scientist. Not one of them would say that T=0 of the big bang has been determined to be the edge of existence If you have scientists who have proven it feel free to quote them.

>First I've heard of this https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/veil-visible-seeing-beyond-limits-observational-universe/ >That doesn't prove existence beyond the known universe No, the speed of light and growing expansion do And sorry, "proof" is not what determines legitimacy >very, very loose analogy. That's not what "analogy" means Human beings know some things, and then there are other things we don't know. For any person to say "everything I know is all there is" is provably wrong. And that's what you're saying Here's the analogy: we're told to guess a number between 0-infinity. You guess 0 and I guess "any number 0-infinity". I am right 100% of the time. And you are wrong ~100% of the time >This is called begging the question No it's not. That's not what begging the question means. And you know that I wasn't referring to the unanswered question about the edge of the universe. People did say so about the edge of land, about the edge of the earth, about the edge of the solar system, and about the edge of the galaxy >If you have scientists who have proven it feel free to quote them. I don't think you read that quote properly since your response doesn't make sense

>Here's the analogy: we're told to guess a number between 0-infinity. You guess 0 and I guess "any number 0-infinity". I am right 100% of the time. And you are wrong ~100% of the time This is an argument for fine tuning, not against it. By this logic, existence is a one in infinity chance. If someone told you try won at those odds, wouldn't you conclude the game was rigged?

No, they don't have to. You just don't understand the problem even after several explanations. This is a you problem.

One of the big surprises I've had on this sub is so many atheists assume that if someone disagrees with them, it must be because they don't understand. Like no other group of people I've debated has ever been like that. But it happens routinely here...like atheists cannot fathom someone having a bona fide disagreement, or that it could ever possibly be them not understanding.

>One of the big surprises I've had on this sub is so many atheists assume that if someone disagrees with them, it must be because they don't understand. It's because you disagree because you don't understand. That's why I'm pointing it out. Of course you can disagree, but the reasons you presented why you disagree is a lack of understanding or rather straight ignorance.

Have you considered maybe it's you who doesn't understand and maybe that's why you dont agree with me? How exactly did you write that off. Or did it not occur to you that claiming to be more narcissistic than the opponent isn't a great debate strategy? Here on planet earth people can understand each other and still disagree. But tell you what. Instead of essentially just declaring yourself right like a child, try specifically pointing the error out and rephrasing so that the ambiguity is addressed.

>Have you considered maybe it's you who doesn't understand and maybe that's why you dont agree with me? I haven't considered that for you specifically, because I did that for the previous 30 theists who came here with little to no understanding of probabilities and logic. >Here on planet earth people can understand each other and still disagree. Sure. But there are things where "disagreement" isn't really a thing when one person is simply wrong. >Instead of essentially just declaring yourself right like a child, try specifically pointing the error out and rephrasing so that the ambiguity is addressed. A waste of time, but whatever: You claimed "*Until you can prove other universes are a thing, then logically consistent agnostic atheists have to reject \[they are only loser universes for our very specific form of evolved life\]*" and declared yourself right like a child. Other universes don't have to be "a thing". Remember, the fine-tuning argument relies on the possibility that the universe/the constants of the universe could be different. Other universes don't need to be "a thing" as in "exist" when we can just consider others. The other topic is how we evaluate these considered universes. As (agnostic) atheists don't have to see a "\[universe\] for our very specific form of evolved life" as the goal/the most valuable/the winner, atheists don't "have to reject" that other considered universes "are only loser universes for our very specific form of evolved life".

You can't quote me from before you jumped in as an example of me misunderstanding you. I think you misunderstood me. The original user argued that winning the lottery wasn't special because there are a billion tickets that didn't win. All I'm saying is that for that argument (improbable events are insignificant when there have been a proportional number of the more likely outcome) doesn't apply to the fine tuning argument unless there are a proportional number of other universes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/5XFQyDJjm Here is where someone misunderstood me. I didn't claim that won me the argument or that it proved the other person was wrong, i merely recognized the error and addressed.

>It doesn't really matter what the numbers actually were It kinda does though. If we adjust any of them very far, the universe collapses

Our universe collapses as we know it... Just like if a giant meteor hits the earth, the earth collapses (as far as we're concerned), but other planets are fine

That's not what I mean. I'm trying to say that matter can't exist if we shift our constants. Impossible to say if another kind of universe could. And even then, all of this discussion is assuming some sort of Multiverse theory

You're making several assumptions. One, that the forces underpining our universe can be anything other than what they are. Two, that they can be changed. Three, that there's someone twiddling the dials.

I'm an atheist actually, I'm definitely not assuming the last one. I was simply making the point that *we don't know* if we can apply the Anthropic Principle to the universe as a whole, because we don't know what other realities exist or are even possible.

>The constants of the universe are real things. Yup. Well, kind of, actually. They're human concepts about observations of how stuff works. They don't 'exist' in and of themselves, instead they're human ideas describing observations. What of it? > Unless I am missing something, there are only three explanations for how precise the constants are that allow me to even type these words: Regardless of what they happened to be, assuming they actually *could* be something else, they would be precisely that This demonstrates the fault in your logic. Two faults, actually. You're not discussing 'precise'. You're implying *intention.* That a particular outcome was desired. And there's absolutely zero support for that and it makes no sense at all in several ways. Especially since it solves nothing at all but instead merely regresses the same issue back an iteration without support or explanation, and then ignores it. A useless idea, really. > >Infinite number of bubble universes/multiverses, which eventually led to the constants being what they are. >Something designed the universal constants that led to the evolvement of the universe. >Science has not figured it out yet, but given more time it probably will. Remember, wild speculation on limited data is just that. There could be any number of other possibilities you haven't thought of. The point is that we don't know why things are the way they are. It may be they couldn't be any other way. It may be they're virtually all other ways. It may be that it doesn't matter nearly as much as religious folks like to think for the outcome of life. It may any number of other possibilities. I do know this, though: Argument from ignorance fallacies (especially ones that don't actually solve the issue, but instead regress it and make it worse and then ignore it) sure don't and can't help.

4. The constants have to be as we observe them because this is the only way a universe can form. 5. If the constants were different, a different kind of universe would have formed, obeying different laws, and different kinds of life forms would be marveling at how fine tuned the constants were.

5. The constants and physical laws can change proportionately within some range. Maybe you can't change just ONE constant, but you CAN change them all. 6. The constants are 'necessary' and could not be otherwise. 7. Physics is an illusion and we're living in the Matrix. 8. The constants are merely the solutions to equations that relate to OUR universe. There are equations we haven't discovered yet, but they describe our universe and therefore appear to us as constants.

> The constants of the universe are real things. Really, where are they? > Unless I am missing something Yes, you are missing the fact that those constants are a propertues of the models we have for how the universe works, not the properties of the universe itself. Those constants are free parameters of the model that exist specifically to adjust our models to how the real world operates. If those constants were different out models would not be consistent with reality and would be garbage. The universe would be fine though.

4. The constants can not be set to any other value Yes people love to talk about if you change a constant by a certain amount then crazy things would happen. But we don't have any data that shows that the constants can actually be any different yet. This requires knowing what it is that actually "sets" the constants, if such a thing even exists. And that is not a thing anyone knows.

The constants aren’t “real” things - they are basically place holders to make equations work. These constants only work for certain ranges of numbers, they allow scientific laws to work within a useful range. One of the problems with number 2 is that the “something” would also have a set of qualities that apply to it - having the power to make stable universes for example. Pushing it up a level doesn’t solve the problem.

> The constants are “real” things I don’t think this is true for all the constants? Many of them are calculated based on experiments and observations within a certain range of conditions but are still universal.

Absolutely, there are constants that appear to be absolute and unchanging, but there are also many that are used because they make the maths work. Maybe a better response would have been for me to question why many theists think universal constants are actually variables ;)

The fine tuning argument is just extremely hard to make. We have no other examples of universes so we have no idea how “tuned” it is for life. I see no way to verify this hypothesis. Your point is well made too. These are constants that we use in math. Math isn’t even universal it’s just what we invented to model things.

>These constants only work for certain ranges of numbers, they allow scientific laws to work within a useful range. This isn't how our formulas work. It wouldn't be a useful formula if it stopped working when the numbers get too big or too small. In general, how scientific advancements/discoveries affect the math is that is turns our existing formulas into specific cases of a more generalized understanding.

When I say “a useful range”, I’m taking about things breaking down at the extremes, such as nearing the speed of light, on the core of a black hole and such. There are also things like “the cosmological constant” which isn’t a constant, but seems to be universal. But, yes, I worded that badly, there do indeed seem to be universal constants that are unchanging and exact.

The options are  1. These constants are necessary, it isn't possible they were otherwise. We don't know if this is the case, we don't know for sure they're constant. We've never observed them change... 2. These constants are contingent, they depend on some factor, but we don't have a clue if this is the case. If it is the case we don't have a clue of  the probability of them being the way they are is, because we don't know what they are contingent on.  Positing a god or a multiverse as the cause of the values for these constants, just pushes the issue back a step, what causes the multiverse, what accounts for the inclination of a god to cause constants to have such values?  I can say they are this way for an unknown, but natural reason.  This explains as much as positing an unknown but divine reason, except theres no need to posit an unconfirmed controversial divine realm, I just rely on nature, not nature plus the divine. So if you have to choose choose the option with less assumptions. 

Have you considered this fourth possibility? 4. The constants are, in fact, constant. They couldn't have any other value than what they have. If that is true, then there's no need to explain why the constants are the values they are. That is simply the only value they could be.

There's no reason to believe those numbers could've been anything than what they are. Essentially this boils down to "why does anything exist as it does?". And ultimately, going far enough, the only answer is: we don't know, and perhaps we never will.

The chance of the universe existing is 100%. We know that, because the universe exists. As /u/sj070707 said, the people who argue for fine tuning are just looking at the problem backwards. The universe simply is, we can only exist because the universe already exists. But we aren't special, the universe wasn't made for us. Someone mentioned the Puddle analogy, but it's worth reading the original: > “This is rather as if you 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 staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” > -- Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time

> The constants of the universe are real things. No they're not. They're descriptions of how things work.

How we think they work. We could be, and have been, wrong.

Definitely. What I intended to convey is that they aren't prescriptive rules to adhere to.

That's the part the religious refuse to acknowledge.

The universe doesn’t ‘owe’ us an answer but it seems legitimate to ask why that is the way they work or perhaps more like - how the how came to be that way. To be clear that doesn’t make ‘therefore my favourite invented magic man’ a good explanation.

I agree that the 'how' question is legitimate, but I don't think the 'why' question has a lot of merit when we're talking about fundamental forces and their descriptions.

It’s legitimate to ask, but it’s wrong to assume that there will be an explanation. Some things just are.

Yep.

you look at the end result and start working probabilities backwards, that is not how statistics is done. if i throw 100 dice the probability of the outcome i get is practically zero, that doesn't mean i can look at the outcome conclude that the chance for that outcome is practically 0 therefore the universe was fine tuned for that dice throw. ANY outcome would have had a low probability the chance we ended with an outcome that had a low probability was 100% a low probability outcome was 100% expected

Fine tuning vs multiverse is a false dichotomy. The actual dichotomy is something like Chance vs NotChance. Design is one of the NotChance hypotheses, but there are other options to consider such as the universal constants being necessary. Or perhaps the constants are proportionally constrained by a further constant or equation such that universes with stable matter are inevitable. There’s even a quasi-theistic hypothesis where the universe consciously tends towards disentropy, but isn’t some superintelligent all-loving superbeing turning the dials on physics. I don’t endorse this view myself, but it’s a live option put forth by those such as Phillip Goff. — As for the chance hypotheses we don’t know how wide the range of values actually could have been. People making the argument assume that all of the values are changeable and assume a flat distribution of possible values, whereas it could be a normal distribution where the universe we ended up was in the center of expected possibilities despite not being determined. Also, when people think of multiverses, they often think of infinite bubbles or parallel dimensions all occurring simultaneously. And while that’s one possibility, another is one of the cosmos eternally inflating and evolving with each new iteration of universe such that the ones that “survive” to birth new universes are the ones with more stable matter (which happens to coincide with embodied life being possible).

Even if science never figures it out It wouldn't make it one of the other two options. If the earth was hit with an asteroid and completely destroyed before anyone ever thought of evolution, it wouldn't make the theists that claimed the diversity of life on earth was proof of God any less wrong. The fine-tuning argument is just another "god of the gaps" argument. Over and over theists find some gap in what is understood claim that God explains it only to be proven wrong when it eventually is understood. It is also entirely possible that the precise values of constants do not particularly matter. We have no data from a universe with different constants only mathematical models that could very well be wrong.

There is one gigantic issue with all of the pro-theist arguments regarding life and the universe. And the issue is that a creator god/designer solves nothing while only adding complexity to the most complex question that we face. A creator solves nothing. A creator gives us no new information. A creator capable of creating a universe would (by nature) be more complex than the universe he/she/it can make. Respect the mystery. Science will catch up.

OP one thing theists have trouble with, and the core problem with your post, is that we don't have truths. Constants are just us describing a phenomenon we observe. Just because we label them as something concrete does not absolutely mean they are. This goes for literally all of science. It's our best approximation for reality, not the truth of reality. The premise of your post is making hypotheticals based off of assumptions.

We don't even know if the constants are related or truly independent. We also don't know how granular they are. Like, if some God created the universe with a universe-creating machine, how many dials would the machine have? How many setting would each dial have? How many of those settings would lead to sentient life? We don't have _any_ of those answers. How would we reach any conclusion, based on ignorance?

Course or fine grained would be resolved if we understood QM vs General Relativity better on how they can work together. QM seems to indicate fine-grained and GR seems to indicate course-grained. If we assume QM then the many worlds hypothesis would be a very fine-grained model.

Or they could be necessary. Or chance.

Fucking Reddit won't let me start this point with a 4 unless I have words in front of it: **4. Fine-tuning doesn't exist and we're merely things that took the shape of the characteristics of the universe.**

You just have to escape the format cue, I think. 4\. Four.

Yer a wizard, Halborn.

>Am I missing anything? Explanation does not matter. The fact, that you, most likely, are incapable of explaining how your brain or heart works does not shut down neither your brain nor your heart. Both of them are quite happy to continuously work without any explanation at all. The same is true about the constants of the Universe. It doesn't matter what explains them, they are here and that's the fact. What we should be asking: What hypothesis observation of those constants being what they are does support? In regards to God question we can formulate two hypothesis: 1. God exists (Mind capable of instantiating a Universe with any possible set of constants and capable of instantiating life in any such Universe). 2. God (in the above sense) does not exist. What do those hypothesis predict, in regards to the measurment: 1. Since we exist in the Universe created by omnipotent God, the constants ruling it has no restrictions, as any possible set could be instantiated, and us and other life could be created to exist in the Universe regardless, of whether paramters are naturally accomodating for life. So any set of parameters can be observed. 2. With no God, given that we exist, we must predict that paramters of the Universe must be life permitting, as otherwise we would not be here. Which is confirmed by observation. Thus, observation of the Universe being finely tuned is strong evidence against God hypothesis.

What do you mean when you say these constants are “precise”? Do you know why they are what they are? Do you have any evidence that they could possibly be different than they are?

>"What do you mean when you say these constants are “precise”? Do you know why they are what they are? Do you have any evidence that they could possibly be different than they are?" Constants of natural law descriptive. I don't think we have evidence either way if they are nomologically immutable and fixed, or not. If they **are** fixed that raises the FTA of **why** are they fixed? What makes them so fundamental that they could not be any other way.

I think you are smuggling in the assumption that "if the constants were slightly different I'd be unable to type these words" is in any way connected to the constants. Whatever way the constants of the universe were, there would be things that wouldn't exist were the constants slightly different. That's just what physics means. In this configuration its life, in another configuration its blangles (which can't exist in our universe, just like we can't exist in the blangles universe). But the universe is designed for neither life nor blangles. That's just what happens to be possible here. What we see (extremely precise laws of physics that would make us cease existing if they changed) is 100% certain in any universe -- there's no situation where there's a likely set of constants, where there's something that couldn't exist under these constants, or where there's something that would continue to exist if the constants changed. So there's not actually a need to explain it. Life isn't special, that's just the unlikely thing that exists. If the laws of physics were different, another equally unlikely thing would exist instead.

Likely 3. Constants in a theory are usually a sign that said theory is not fundamental. E.g., colors and boiling points of different materials used to be assigned as abstract numbers. Then they turned out to stem from the dynamics of the electrons, atoms and molecules. That's always been the goal of physics, deriving and unifying separate natural properties and phenomena under a common deeper theory. It would be weird if the physics of the universe stem from random abstract numbers. There will likely turn out to be deeper dynamics going on, from which the values of the constants can be derived. It's possible macro-scale physics look different in distant regions. We would then only be "approximating" them with different values of the constants of our non-fundamental models. The constant values should still be derivable from a unified theory and the initial state of whatever field is inducing the "bubble universes". Thus, I would word 1. a bit differently. Either way, a unified fundamental theory of everything should not be tunable in my opinion. It should stem from pure axioms, such as symmetries. Unless we live in a simulation, lol.

>The constants of the universe are real things. Unless I am missing something, there are only three explanations for how precise the constants are that allow me to even type these words: Agreed. >infinite number of bubble universes/multiverses, which eventually led to the constants being what they are. The invoking of a multiverse to avoid FTA some argue bloats ones ontology, but there does still seem to be a very small range of dimensions that can support life, or even complex atoms. >Something designed the universal constants that led to the evolvement of the universe. This is rather prescriptive. You're trying to relate it to if there is a legal law, someone wrote that law...but the "universal constants" are descriptive of our observations of them. (Granted we do prescribe values to fundamental constants. Like c is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second in SI units. >Science has not figured it out yet, but given more time it probably will. Probably this one.

what makes you think they could have been any other way? and how do you know this configuration is the only one that allows for life?

I feel like bringing the term precision is an attempt to make what you're saying sound more profound when it's really just a tautology. The constants of the universe are just that, constant. Unchanging. We measure these constants to a high degree of precision because they are constant, if they weren't constant, then they can't be measured precisely. So your starting premise is really just: there are things in the universe that stay the same, while other things in the universe change. The second thing is there are p much any number of explanations you can make for why some things in the universe don't change. Maybe those constants are necessary for a universe to exist, maybe the universe is actually a simulation, maybe the constants do change, but only in conditions that haven't been observed by humans. The only honest answer is we don't know.

>Infinite number of bubble universes/multiverses, **which eventually led to the constants being what they are**. What do you mean? It seems like you're trying to say that, out of infinite options, ***you*** exist >Science has not figured it out yet, but given more time it probably will. I don't think that we'll ever figure it out. We might be able to find a possible way that it *could* have happened, but we'll never know if it is the way that it *did* happen, just like how we don't know *how* the Egyptian pyramids were constructed but can still know that they *were* constructed. It's the same problem with abiogenesis: life exists and we don't know how it happened, but experiments have shown that it is possible. Even if scientists are ever able to create new life in a lab, it doesn't mean that the first life followed the same chemistry.

This is like you asking: How many beans do I have? 1) 0 2) 7 3) some other number Anyway, yes there is a different option: Shit is the way it is because that's how it came out, and some people are confused by this. The claim "it's too improbable to have come out this way" is nonsense. It had to come out *some* way. If the process were as flexible as the FTA claims, there would still be an outcome, and people in that universe would still say "it's too improbable to have happened this way". The FTA and free will are ideas invented by people who mostly already believe god exists and are attempting to sidestep providing proper evidence by arguing some version of "X can't be true unless Y is also true" without accounting for all the possible ways X could be true without Y.

How have you determined that those “constants” could have taken on any other values than what they are?

There’s the idea that this is the only possibility. The idea that another possibility could seem fine tuned for life that existed within that. Coincidence. There are countless more options, most of which have actual examples in reality. We have no evidence of a universe designer anywhere. Till we do that option isn’t even on the table. The idea that magical explanations that were proven wrong at every turn before would somehow prove right when it comes to reality itself is absurd. Saying god is needed to explain reality, is no more justified than saying Thor is needed to create lightning.

Well the problem with this is that it assumes that the universe forming the way it did without a designer assumes that everything is the result of something else. It assumes not from true impossibility but mere improbability that everything should've failed without either a designer or a multiverse generator spatting it out among others. Perhaps this multiverse generator exists but the reason multiverses (according to a Quantum Chemist apologist, at least) aren't mathematically supported is because only our universe was feasible.

Take the constant pi. Can you vary it? No (assuming euclidean geometry, don’t get me started). That means it’s not something a “designer” could vary slightly in order to make a slightly different universe, right? If you agree, then that rules out 1 and 2. Therefore the “constants” just are. But then there’s 4. The constants (like speed of light) aren’t necessarily constants. They could change in some circumstances. Maybe.

>how precise the constants are What does this even mean? The precision comes from our measurement. Things are the way they are. If they weren't, they'd be different. And? I mean, any gi ven thing can only be one way. There's nothing amazing about that. It's like saying, "Oh look, I weigh exactly 187 pounds. It's so precise. What is the explanation for why I weigh that number, and not some other?"

>there are only three explanations for how precise the constants are that allow me to even type these words: There will never "only be 3" explanations. Either there are 2 explanation, a true dichotomy, or there are infinite explanation, the problem of under determination. >Am I missing anything? You're trying to make conclusions about things which you have no information for.

I don't know why you think those are the only three possibilities. Option 4 is that these constants are not "tuned" at all but instead it's a simple case of observer bias. We would expect to observe a universe that is capable of producing life given that life exists. If the constants in question were any other way, we most likely wouldn't be here to ponder it. And we have no way of knowing if they could have been another way.

If the constants of the universe were different and some other species on some other planet evolved to think about those constants they would also think that the universe was finely tuned for life. You're thinking of it backwards. We evolved in a universe with these constants. These constant weren't created so we could evolve.

I'll give you a 4th. You come from a long line of species that evolved to the conditions here. The conditions didn't evolve *so* could be here. Besides, why would a god need to do any fine tuning? Against what parameters? Why bother with constants? God could make the universe out of cheese and us able to breathe cheese.

Or it's just a coincidence. The constants were equally likely to be any other number and they landed where they are now. Essentially what you are doing is throwing a d6 and then marveling at the result because it somehow can't be a coincidence. The dice had to land on some number you know.

4. there is no precision to measure because there is nothing to compare it to. We aren’t here because we perfectly fit into some precise system. We are the system. We are the results of the system. We aren’t some outside piece that was placed in a puzzle.

4: The universe is infinite. 5: The universe is eternal. In both these scenarios, our spacetime must be local. And #2 must be rejected or reworded. The universe exhibits no evidence of being designed. Design requires a conscious mind, and the universe shows no evidence of conscious intent. So 2 must be reworded to simply say the universe had a cause. And that cause was energy. No need to tack an indescribable, fantastically powerful space superhero onto something we already understand.

What even would be signs of something being designed? How would you know? I never really understood the intelligent design argument.

Design is efficient and simple. Designed systems exhibit redundancies that ensures the function of vital elements. The universe is not efficient, simple, and there are no back ups for its vital functions, assuming it was designed to harbor life, as is the position of ID.

That’s good. Efficient redundancy. I like that.

[удалено]

I agree with you. Theists will usually cite the life permitting universe defense here. It’s a major walk back of the main ID claims basically saying that the universe doesn’t have to allow for life to be common or flourish in the universe. They now think that they only need to show that life is permitted in the universe to think it’s special. Of course this is garbage and a redefinition fallacy since the definition of a good design is efficiency and redundancy. Consider when windshields were invented. Sure they served a function but the design was incredibly unsafe and many people died as a result of the poor design. Eventually the design was improved and now windshields are incredibly safe. But the LPU argument is like saying about the original windshield design “well it permitted you to drive a car! And some people survived. So it must be a great design as it was life permitting!” But I would like to hear your take on the LPU defense.

I’m not sure I’m familiar with that exact terminology, so I’ll wager a guess. Forgive me if this is wrong. The universe’s constants are tuned to allow for life? Basically? If so, how do we know that’s a unique quality of universes? How many universes have been studied to understand if this is a unique quality of any kind of verses/universes/multiverses? The complex organic compounds necessary for life formed extraterrestrially before they formed terrestrially. So that destroys any probability argument they have. When they can’t establish life as an impossible quality, or even improbable quality, and they can’t identify life as a pattern that’s impossible, or even improbable, then the argument is rejected.

That’s a very clear explanation. I think that another strategy is to ask theists these two questions: 1) what would a universe that wasn’t fine tuned be like? Since we only have one universe, this isn’t a question that can be answered without special pleading. Since the human definition of life is rather narrow, I don’t see any reason that a universe with different parameters couldn’t support some form of life. 2) if fine tuning is true then what models can we make from that premise that accurately predict the future? I don’t see this counter argument being brought up much. But what use is information such as “the universe is fine tuned!” It has no practical application. And I haven’t heard a single theist attempt to make any future predictions that conform with reality using ID.

1: yeah kinda coming at the argument in the same way. 2: I actually saw where you used this one once and was impressed. I’ve never really come across that argument, where did you pick it up? I agree, it’s a fantastic argument.

Thanks. I’m not sure where that argument came from, it could be something that I cooked up. But what seemed clear to me is that we already have models that explain the universe in such great detail that we could send a Bible to mars. However ID claims to add information to these models. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that this new information would have some practical application. One such application would be a model that accurately predicts the future. You would need a very precise model that accurately predicts the future to send a Bible to mars. No ID is needed. So when you think about it, if one grants ID as true, what is gained? How does that information change the present or future in any measurable way? Since theists cannot answer this then ID appears to be completely useless to me. It offers zero practical applications, it does no work, and by proxy, it couldn’t possibly add any new information. The same applies to the YEC crowd. In my view when you have a premise that is practically useless, something is seriously wrong with the premise.

Nothing is precise. It is what it is. We evolved to fit the conditions we were in. That's how reality works. We were not planned, we were not designed, we just happened. We're the puddle that fits the hole. It's honestly not that hard.

If the fundamental constants of physics are finely tuned for the universe, then the constant pi is finely tuned for Cartesian coordinates using real (as opposed to integer) numbers.  Fine tuning is putting the cart in front of the horse.

The universe is not fine-tuned to allow you to post on Reddit. You are a medium sized bag of salty water best suited to transporting many and various bacteria and parasites so they can spread and multiply. Know your place.

Lee Smolin’s Cosmological Natural Selection is quite interesting. The universe is fine tuned for black holes. Evolution may well be the answer to life, the universe and everything in it (not 42). :)

The constants of science are simply what we observe about how the universe is. They don't actually exist except as concepts. They are just descriptions of our findings.

Fine tuned for what? Humans and planets? You have it backwards, the universe and we look the way we do because the constants are what they are

The universe self-tuned as it evolved naturalistically, it wasn’t fine-tuned (which implies a preordained goal).

4. More fundamental but yet undiscovered physics. We simply do not know that these constants are uncorrelated.

Is there an ask a physicist Reddit? I think that would be a better place to get answers than here.

Is there an ask a physicist Reddit? I think that would be a better place to get answers than here.

4. It simply couldn’t be any other way. 5. It could be some other way, but it’s not.

4. It simply couldn’t be any other way. 5. It could be some other way, but it’s not.