Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?

[okie]

So first, that only happens depending upon where on the Earth you are observing the eclipse and identical eclipses happen on other planets for all the reasons I cited.



Blood moons are a result of atmosphere. The probabilities of similar or identical eclipses on other planets in THIS solar system are not small, they are actually common for all the reasons I mentioned. It really is just a matter of perspective of observer combined with mass of an object required for gravitational orbit. Same as on Earth and that is why we commonly experience "partial" lunar eclipses all the time.



So while I don't want to wade into the subject of astrobiology, you are correct that the moon is one of the necessary requirements for life on Earth, but not necessarily required for life elsewhere. For variables in the Drake Equation, you want to read Rare Earth.

The multiverse hasn't been "proven" to exist, you are really throwing out the long shots here. Many theories postulate a multiverse and can produce math to support it, even if the math requires multiple spatial dimensions to work (and honestly if you add enough of this and enough of that you can always make the math work) and some of those theories would explain observable problems like the weak gravitational force we actually observe vs what we should be seeing based upon relativity. And finally "amplitude" is a measurement of vibration in physics and a measurement of distance in astronomy, "high amplitude world" is meaningless.

Understanding the nature of eclipses, both lunar and solar, and why they aren't terribly unique is really basic, basic science. It's like declaring the sunrise to be so majestic, it's "proof of X", when in fact it's something that occurs on almost every body in the solar system despite how special it seems to "us."

While we are at it, the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun (which is hardly perfect and produces variation in things like eclipses) and the Earth isn't even perfectly round but an irregularly shaped ellipsoid (which compounds the variations of it's orbit). But it does give us really neat seasonal changes as it rotates on a titled (non perfect) axis.

Nearly everything you are expressing is just a humancentric perspective.

You keep saying that, but it's not true (as far as we know). Every astronomer knows that earth is special in that regard.

I mention the multiverse only to point out that many worlds doesn't relieve the burden of statistical impossibility from the equation.

Tides are 100% required for evolutionary theory. They're as essential as water itself for the evolution of complex life. Without tides, you have no fish on land. Without fish on land, you have no pressure for individuals to adapt to a waterless environment. I can't remember the details, but tides are also essential for the development of life in general. No tides, no evolution.

And even if you could argue that certain animals could evolve in an ocean without tides, how truly remarkable is it then that the one planet known to have perfect eclipses is also the one planet known to have the intelligent life capable of appreciating them?

[SteyrAUG]

You keep saying that, but it's not true (as far as we know). Every astronomer knows that earth is special in that regard.

It is true, everyone knows. Well almost everyone. Also it's not "me" saying it. Lots and lots of info out there.

[WillBrink]

It is true, everyone knows. Well almost everyone. Also it's not "me" saying it. Lots and lots of info out there.

"Everyone knows" who has any clue about the topic, that there's no reason at all to assume the earth is special and unique, and a whole lot of reasons to think it's not. Not one astronomer, cosmologist, etc I'm aware of makes any claims to the earth likley being special nor unique, and the shear number of our galaxy alone makes that highly improbable. As you rightly point out, there's also no reason to assume life requires identical conditions as our earth to exist.

Finally, everyone knows who studies the topic, that while exoplanets are very common, the tech does not allow us to know for certian their compositions to a high degree of certainty as of yet. Easiest to detect still mega sized planets close their stars, probably not harboring life. Older info, still interesting:

https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/finding-another-earth

Looks like they are getting better and better at detection though:

https://www.republicworld.com/scienc...ticleshow.html

I wonder of the new Webb telescope will improve on that knowledge.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I 100 percent believe in God. God's existence is a certainty to me. That being said, I have never thought much of this argument. This argument seems to boil down to "if things were different they wouldn't be the same."

[georgeib]

I 100 percent believe in God. God's existence is a certainty to me. That being said, I have never thought much of this argument. This argument seems to boil down to "if things were different they wouldn't be the same."

In all seriousness, it's difficult to overstate how much of an oversimplification your last statement is. For example, the cosmological constant is fine tuned to 1 part in 10^120. The gravitational constant is 1 in 10^34. There are also the electromagnetic, strong, and weak force constants that are equally tuned to the finest of fine razor's edges. The numbers are beyond astronomical. If any of these constants are off by 1 part, either the universe itself wouldn't exist, or it could not be life permitting, as matter would never have formed. Crazy cool stuff.

ETA: Physicist Roger Pentrose estimated that the odds of the universe existing in its initial state are somewhere in the 1 in 10^10^123. An impossibly large number. (Based on the the 5 major constants alone)

It's important to keep in mind that there are a pile of additional constants besides the main 5. Ratio of masses for protons and electrons, speed of light, mass of neutron over proton, steady plate tectonics, amount of water in Earth's crust, large moon with the correct planetary rotation period, proper concentration of sulfur, planetary mass, inner edge of habitable zone, etc. The statistical probabilities are so far off the charts, it boggles the mind to even get a grip as there is really nothing to grasp in order to form any sort of rational comparison.

[okie]

It is true, everyone knows. Well almost everyone. Also it's not "me" saying it. Lots and lots of info out there.

Yes, there are other planets that have eclipses. But earth's eclipses are uniquely special. I feel like you're trying very hard to ignore that distinction. Not all eclipses are created equal.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

It's a fun (and very old) argument. Off the top of my head....


1. What evidence do we have that the parameters could be different?

2. Why do we think this universe if especially friendly to life? It appears to be largely an uninhabitable hellscape. Couldn't the universe be more finely tuned for life?

3. If we assume, for arguments sake, that the parameters are variable, we have no idea in how many ways they could vary and still support different types of life. Further, we have no idea how varying different parameters might ultimately interact with other changed parameters.

In all seriousness, it's difficult to overstate how much of an oversimplification your last statement is. For example, the cosmological constant is fine tuned to 1 part in 10^120. The gravitational constant is 1 in 10^34. There are also the electromagnetic, strong, and weak force constants that are equally tuned to the finest of fine razor's edges. The numbers are beyond astronomical. If any of these constants are off by 1 part, either the universe itself wouldn't exist, or it could not be life permitting, as matter would never have formed. Crazy cool stuff.

ETA: Physicist Roger Pentrose estimated that the odds of the universe existing in its initial state are somewhere in the 1 in 10^10^123. An impossibly large number. (Based on the the 5 major constants alone)

It's important to keep in mind that there are a pile of additional constants besides the main 5. Ratio of masses for protons and electrons, speed of light, mass of neutron over proton, steady plate tectonics, amount of water in Earth's crust, large moon with the correct planetary rotation period, proper concentration of sulfur, planetary mass, inner edge of habitable zone, etc. The statistical probabilities are so far off the charts, it boggles the mind to even get a grip as there is really nothing to grasp in order to form any sort of rational comparison.

[SteyrAUG]

Yes, there are other planets that have eclipses. But earth's eclipses are uniquely special. I feel like you're trying very hard to ignore that distinction. Not all eclipses are created equal.

You are unable to have this discussion. Your information is not correct.

[georgeib]

It's a fun (and very old) argument. Off the top of my head....


1. What evidence do we have that the parameters could be different?

2. Why do we think this universe if especially friendly to life? It appears to be largely an uninhabitable hellscape. Couldn't the universe be more finely tuned for life?

3. If we assume, for arguments sake, that the parameters are variable, we have no idea in how many ways they could vary and still support different types of life. Further, we have no idea how varying different parameters might ultimately interact with other changed parameters.

There are essentially (as I recall) 2 sets of parameters, or constants. 1 set governs the ability of the universe to exist is any sort of recognizable way, and the other set has to do with life being able to form on this particular planet. The first set are really pretty fixed as I intimated in my last post. If those constants vary in the most infinitesimally small way, either matter of ANY sort will not form at all, or the universe will collapse or fly apart, or gravity will be too weak or strong to allow the formation of solar systems. The second set have to do with the fine tuning related to the ability of the current forms of life on this planet.

Clearly one set of parameters leave a little more "fudge" room, as Steyr and okie have been debating. The other set, the universal ones, are arguably much more critical, and leave essentially almost zero fudge room. I don't remember exactly who, but I did watch or read something about the 10's of thousands of simulations that were performed where constants were changed by the tiny amounts I quoted earlier, all of which resulted in failure to form. IIRC, that's one of the ways these numbers were verified.

They would change just a single constant at a time to experience the failures, and also tried various combinations. As I recall, the program performed 10's or 100's of thousands of simulations with slightly different combinations with the 4 forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity) plus the cosmological constant, and also with the various other constants such as the speed of light in a perfect vacuum, etc, as well the parameters allowing for life on Earth. Ultimately, the universal constants (the ones that allow matter to form, and subsequently coalesce into the universe we're in) are unfathomably finely tuned. The ones that then allow current life to exist on Earth, though relatively MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely than the universal ones, are still astoundingly narrow.

I will grant, however, that just because (for example) current life on Earth can't exist at -150 degrees, does not necessarily mean that NO life of any kind can exist in those conditions. The presumption that liquid water (the unique polarity of the H2O molecule is another amazing coincidence BTW) is necessary for any life to exist, has yet to be definitely proven on the same level as that of the fine tuning of the universal constants.

Sorry for not attempting your questions in a linear way, but there was quite a bit of overlap in the explanations to them.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Sorry for not attempting your questions in a linear way, but there was quite a bit of overlap in the explanations to them.

Again, I don’t see why this isn’t just “things wouldn’t be this way if they were different.” What evidence is there that any of these parameters could be any other way? If there is no way for these parameters to be different then there was a 100 percent chance the universe would support life.