Let’s look at fine-tuning in terms of what “tuning” and “fine” mean:
The fact that the universe is tuned — that is, the fact there is any consistency at all in the laws of physics — demonstrates God’s existence. This is Aquinas’ Fifth Way, which is the proof from design. St. Thomas used the example of arrows. If we were to see arrows flying through the air, one after another, and noted that they consistently tended to land at or near a specific spot, we would correctly infer that they were shot by an archer (rather than, say, blown by the wind). Any consistency in nature implies a Mind that draws consistency out of chaos. A targeted arrow implies an archer. Note that this is not an argument from complexity. The simplest consistency in nature — a pencil falls down and not up, winter is colder than summer — demonstrates God’s existence.
The second thing that fine-tuning tells us is exemplified by fine. Fine refers to the accuracy of the laws of nature, which reveals the Archer’s purposes. By observing the precision of targeting of the shot arrows, we can discern the Archer’s motives. If the arrows are merely flying into an open field, we may infer that the archer is just testing his bow. If the arrows are consistently hitting a bulls-eye target, we may infer that the archer is practicing his accuracy. If the arrows are hitting animals in the forest, we may infer that the archer is hunting. If the arrows are hitting soldiers encircling the area, we may infer that the archer is defending from an invasion.
The tuning of nature points to God, and the fineness of His tuning points to His purpose. The anthropic fine-tuning of our universe tells us that we are God’s purpose in creation.
Michael Egnor, “Multiverse myth frees atheists from real science” at Evolution News and Science Today
See also, from Michael Egnor: We don’t live in a multiverse because the concept makes no sense. Michael Egnor: Neurologist Steven Novella and philosopher Philip Goff, both atheists, agree that there are many universes besides the one we live in. Atheists use the multiverse concept to counter the fact that our universe appears fine-tuned to allow life like ours. But is it a valid concept?
Given that there are many natural dangers to the existence of life on this little planet and that the overwhelming majority of the rest of this Universe appears to be totally hostile to life such as ours, I would say it’s stretching credulity to claim that it was created specifically for us.
The science and evidence point to this being a universe designed for scientific discovery. In that sense it was created just for us observers.
Seversky,
Ok, you’ve made an assertion about stretching credulity. Can you support it with some logic or data?
Why can’t a reasonable person draw the opposite conclusion as yours? Or, for example, why not invoke the anthropic principle to defend your position in this case?
-Q
Something tells me Seversky is a “glass half empty” kinda guy.
The thing is, earth, it’s construction and equipping is an “embarrassment of riches” despite the “hostility” of the universe at large.
Maybe this can help:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260654/qid=1101166057/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-6603785-3908716?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
We know close to nothing about the universe. To say it is hostile is based on very limited data from our speck in the cosmos. Out little speck is hostile, but that is all we can say with any certainty.
For Sev @1:
Isaiah 45:18
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”
Funny that the Bible ‘predicts’ that the earth, (out of all the planets and stars in the universe), was specifically created and intended by God, since the beginning of creation, to be ‘inhabited’
And yet Seversky somehow finds the fact that the earth is, as far as we know, the only planet with the capacity to host life to be “stretching credulity to claim that it (the universe) was created specifically for us.”
So, let me get this straight, if the universe were teaming with life, I imagine that Seversky would rightly say, ‘Hey, life is everywhere in the universe so obviously the universe was not created specifically for us”. And yet since, as far as we know, earth is the only planet capable of supporting life, Seversky’s argument now becomes it is “stretching credulity to claim that it (the universe) was created specifically for us.”
Seversky argument, as usual for his arguments for atheism, simply makes no logical sense. It’s literally a “Heads I win, Tails you lose” type of argument.
Regardless of Seversky’s seemingly endless ability to explain away evidence that contradicts his atheistic worldview, the scientific evidence itself, (evidence that indicates that the earth, and man were indeed purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation), is becoming far stronger than it was just a few short decades ago. And thus the evidence itself is becoming far harder for atheists such as Seversky to try to ‘explain away’ with logically contradictory argumentation.
The most fascinating piece of evidence indicating that the earth was purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation comes from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, (CMBR), itself.
Specifically, there are anomalies found in the CMBR data that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth,
Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, (via the ‘averaging out’ of the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.
Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
These ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR data, and the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, combine in order to give as a proper X, Y, and Z axis in order to reveal that the earth does indeed have a ‘privileged’ position in the universe.
As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,
Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, being a product of random quantum fluctuations, (as atheists presuppose in their inflation model),,,, far from that, both the temperature variations of the CMBR and the large scale structures of the universe reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the creation of the universe itself. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not just some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed in their inflation model.
Moreover, via work done by Robin Collins, we now know that the light coming from the CMBR is specifically tuned so that it might be discovered by intelligent observers such as ourselves.
Another piece of evidence that indicates that man was intended by God since then beginning of creation comes from looking at the ‘geometric mean’ of then universe.
in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
Moreover, Dr. William Demski (and company), in the following graph, give a more precise figure, (than Dr. Turok’s figure), of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
Another piece of evidence that indicates that man was purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation comes from what is termed the ‘anthropic inequality’
Michael Denton’s paper, “Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis” certainly deserves an honorable mention also.
Thus in conclusion, while Seversky is apparently stuck with logically contradictory arguments to try argue, that although the earth appears to be special in its ability to support human life, that God would not create the earth with the specific purpose of being inhabited by life, and being inhabited by human life in particular, the Christian, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the scientific evidence itself to argue that the earth, and humans on it, were indeed specifically, and purposely, intended by God since the beginning of creation. Just as the Bible itself predicted thousands of years ago.
I’m not arguing with Egnor but I was always under the impression that a measurement can be accurate and imprecise or be precise and inaccurate or be both accurate and precise or neither. In other words accuracy and precision are not the same thing.
Comment 1 is just variation of “head I win, tail you lose”
If the universe is friendly for life, then claim:
life is not special after all.
If the universe is not friendly for life, then claim: nah, it is not convincing that the universe is designed specifically for us in it.
Rigby: In other words accuracy and precision are not the same thing.
Correct, at least according to the way the terms are used by engineers.
The reason I bring up the precision thing is that some time ago there was a link here to Hossenfelder arguing against fine tuning because she said, if I understand her, that the constants had a probability of 1. But in my mind, saying the probability is one is like saying the numbers are accurate. To me, it is the precision of the numbers that need explaining—or in other words, their _fine_ tuning.
Rigby,
Great point regarding the implications of accuracy versus precision in fine tuning!
Hmmm. The constants now have a probability of 1. What probabilities they once had in the past, say during the initial inflationary period(s), is anyone’s guess.
Just sayin’.
-Q