Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?

[Dan_B]

Ok, Will, go ahead and give me a single example of something that began to exist without a cause. I'll wait...

You're literally arguing against one of the most basic and widely accepted logical progressions. But okay man, aim high. Nobel prize in your future if you can pull it off.

I think your friend is confusing epistemology and existence wrt laws of nature; it’s not possible to land on a rational answer without understanding those basics. It’s just time to wish well and disengage to avoid wasting precious time.

[WillBrink]

I think your friend is confusing epistemology and existence wrt laws of nature; it’s not possible to coverage on a rational answer without understanding those basics.

If there were no laws of nature (I assume you mean laws of physics...) until they (appeared?) during the formation of the universe as currently understood, again, the very term "cause" may have no utility or value in the discussion and answering anything. So again, I seek the meaning of "cause" and don't lack for knowledge of the basic laws of physics, though I am no physicist to be sure.

Again, I supplied a paper questioning/discussing the topic from the POV I'm looking at:

"...the concept of causality in physics is discussed. Causality is a necessary tool for the understanding of almost all physical phenomena. However, taking it as a fundamental principle may lead us to wrong conclusions, particularly in cosmology. Here, three very well-known problems—the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, the accelerating expansion and the asymmetry of time—are discussed from this perspective. In particular, the implications of causality are compared to those of an alternative approach, where we instead take the probability space of all possible developments as the starting point."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8307540/

[Disciple]

Actually it’s not very precisely known at all, its a physical constant that is very difficult to measure accurately because it’s an extremely weak force compared to other forces. In fact it’s estimation has changed many times throughout history.

Right, so "1 part in 10^34" has to be fantasy, or do I misunderstand?

[WillBrink]

Actually it’s not very precisely known at all, its a physical constant that is very difficult to measure accurately because it’s an extremely weak force compared to other forces. In fact it’s estimation has changed many times throughout history.

Supposedly most accurate measurement yet:

"This value has just been determined with an accuracy of 11 significant digits; improving the precision of the previous measurement by a factor of 3."

https://phys.org/news/2020-12-fundam...-constant.html

[okie]

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

Then enlighten me. What other planet enjoys perfect solar and lunar eclipses? I'm not even aware of another known planet that experiences either one, much less both. And certainly no other known planet capable of bearing life that does.

And again, it's a purely aesthetic feature that only intelligent life is capable of appreciating. So what are the odds of intelligent life evolving on seemingly the one planet out of many that could bear life, that has that feature?

[SteyrAUG]

Then enlighten me. What other planet enjoys perfect solar and lunar eclipses? I'm not even aware of another known planet that experiences either one, much less both. And certainly no other known planet capable of bearing life that does.

And again, it's a purely aesthetic feature that only intelligent life is capable of appreciating. So what are the odds of intelligent life evolving on seemingly the one planet out of many that could bear life, that has that feature?

At least four of them.

More importantly, WE do not enjoy perfect lunar eclipses. Not sure what state you live in, but do you really think people Ushia or Northern Alaska see the same eclipse you do?

Also what is perfect to your eye, is hardly perfect in most events or even consistent. We also get frequent "partial" eclipses all the time because there is no "unique" or "perfect" relationship between the Earth and moon.

And as it's hardly unique, but actually a very common feature due to mass of object and it's ability to be trapped in a gravitational orbit of anther relative object that is almost a constant. So the relevance of this non feature is virtually unrelated to having animal life that can appreciate it.

For millions and millions of years (much longer than humans have existed) dinosaurs were looking at lunar eclipses, does that somehow make the astronomical occurrence more special?

[okie]

At least four of them.

More importantly, WE do not enjoy perfect lunar eclipses. Not sure what state you live in, but do you really think people Ushia or Northern Alaska see the same eclipse you do?

Also what is perfect to your eye, is hardly perfect in most events or even consistent. We also get frequent "partial" eclipses all the time because there is no "unique" or "perfect" relationship between the Earth and moon.

And as it's hardly unique, but actually a very common feature due to mass of object and it's ability to be trapped in a gravitational orbit of anther relative object that is almost a constant. So the relevance of this non feature is virtually unrelated to having animal life that can appreciate it.

For millions and millions of years (much longer than humans have existed) dinosaurs were looking at lunar eclipses, does that somehow make the astronomical occurrence more special?

Maybe my information is outdated, but I'm going to need to see proof of that. I know it's not true for our solar system and last I knew we hadn't directly observed any exomoons. There was exactly one moon in our solar system that maybe possibly had the potential, but it was very slim, and even if it did the totality would only last a fraction of a second. And again, it's not that the chances were high, it's just that they couldn't rule it out.

What you're saying about the same relative size of the moon and sun from the planet being a necessity, or even common, is absolutely false. As of just a few years ago, out of over a hundred known moons selected as candidates, none of them were capable of producing perfect eclipses like we view from earth. Moons don't even need to be round, and many aren't, and there's absolutely no rule stating that a moon is likely to be the same relative size as a planet's star when viewed from that planet. Shoot, in a few hundred million years, our moon won't produce perfect eclipses anymore, and a few hundred million years ago it was too close to. Which brings up another point. Not only does this seemingly unique thing happen on the one planet known to contain intelligent life, it happens at the only time in that planet's history when intelligent life was known to exist, which is a TINY window in astronomical timeframes.

Here's an article from 2017 confirming everything I said and refuting your claims, and I can find zilch saying that anything's changed: https://www.space.com/37817-intervie...-nordgren.html

I'm no mathematician, but I've heard figures from people who are, and even though we haven't observed exomoons, the chances of finding the same type of arrangement we have here on earth is slim. Just the chances of the sizes and distances of the bodies themselves to match up to produce those unique effects is slim to begin with. But for it to be on a planet that can contain life, and to happen during a time in that planet's history when intelligent life is present (i.e. for those two extraordinarily unlikely things to both happen at the same point in time in the history of the universe) is extremely slim. It would be like both you and your wife winning the lottery every day for hundreds of years, in terms of the statistical improbability.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

"Again, I don’t see why this isn’t just “things wouldn’t be this way if they were different.”

So, while this statement is certainly not incorrect, it is very simplistic. Akin to saying that something along the lines of an electron is not as complicated as the entire universe. While true, it just doesn't add any insight to the discussion.

The statement is indeed simplistic because it states your argument correctly and in its entirety. It is as true as any truism.

"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."

This one is based on a logical fallacy, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. "I won the lottery, therefore my chance of winning the lottery was 100%." "Things turned out this way, so the chances of turning out this way were 100%." It's basically akin to shooting at the side of a barn, and then drawing a bullseye around the bullet hole.

It certainly would be the sharpshooter fallacy, if I didn't write the first sentence that you quoted. There simply is no evidence that the fundamental laws and constants of the universe could be any other way. The problem with your analogy is that while all evidence points to the fact that you are unlikely to win the lottery-- there is not only no evidence that our universe is unlikely, there is zero evidence it could be any other way at all.

[SteyrAUG]

Here's an article from 2017 confirming everything I said and refuting your claims, and I can find zilch saying that anything's changed: https://www.space.com/37817-intervie...-nordgren.html

Actually right from YOUR LINK is what I've been saying.

Space.com: Why is the path of totality different for each solar eclipse?

Nordgren: A total solar eclipse happens roughly every 18 months … so the position of the moon, its distance from Earth, when it crosses in front of the sun — these things change every single time [an eclipse occurs] because we don't live in a perfect clockwork universe where the moon takes exactly 30 days to go around the Earth and the Earth takes exactly 365 days to go around the sun. Every time the alignment works out, the Earth is in a slightly different place in its orbit around the sun, [at a] slightly different time of day. So those paths — those dark shadows that the moon casts across the Earth — trace a slightly different path across the planet, which is why we have gone 38 years without seeing a total solar eclipse here in the continental U.S.




And when I say at least FOUR, I mean minimum in OUR solar system. But probably more.

Now I understand he states that eclipses on Jupiter completely block the sun BUT (and rather than argue with you, I'll just give you this):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamieca...h=4ed2e4b372a3

Eclipse-chasers often spend thousands of dollars traveling across the world to stand under the moon’s shadow to experience totality. So what do you do when you’ve seen the dazzling solar corona dozens of times? You go hunting for eclipses on other planets, that’s what.

Last weekend at the Solar Eclipse Conference 2018 in Genk, Belgium, Jamaica-based computer programmer and eclipse-chaser Bill Kramer presented the results of his study into a simple question: is the Earth the only planet in our solar system to enjoy a perfect eclipse alignment?

'If someone says that Earth is the only place to see a total solar eclipse, well, that’s actually not true,' said Kramer.

Kramer, who’s seen 17 total solar eclipses so far, studied 141 moons around Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (the inner planets Mercury and Venus have no moons). 'A good eclipse is a perfect fit, when the size of the sun and moon are roughly equal,' explained Kramer. 'It should be total or annular as viewed from the planet.'

While a total solar eclipse is where the moon completely covers the solar disk, an annular eclipse is a type of partial eclipse, where the moon is too small to cover the solar disk, instead producing a so-called 'ring of fire'. The next annular solar eclipse on Earth will occur on 26 December, 2019, which is most likely to occur in clear skies from southern India.


(Please note the part where he indicates southern India because your eclipse experience isn't global, it depends where you are, you seem to have a large disconnect with this part).

On Earth, the ratio is between 0.940 and 1.104, which explains why we see such fantastic solar eclipses; it's an almost perfect fit. Kramer found that 31 moons in the solar system caused extreme total eclipses, when the Sun is completely covered, and 107 extreme annular eclipses where the Sun is visible around a moon. 'It’s more common to see an annular eclipse than a total eclipse in our solar system,' he said. 'But I found three of them where annular and total solar eclipses are possible.'

(Please note the part where he say's almost perfect, you have a HUGE disconnect with this part).

It's Epimetheus that creates a solar eclipse that most resembles those seen from Earth. The potato-shaped moon, just 72 miles in diameter, takes 17 hours to go around Saturn. That means another super-short eclipse. From when Epimetheus begins to cover the sun to when it departs would last a mere 15 seconds. 'The computation would have to be very precise to be in the right location to see it,' said Kramer.

(And this is your closest "near perfect" but also not perfect event).



And finally, we are getting into philosophy, one could argue that the more total eclipses of other planets are "more perfect" than the large corona events on earth.

[okie]

Actually right from YOUR LINK is what I've been saying.

Space.com: Why is the path of totality different for each solar eclipse?

Nordgren: A total solar eclipse happens roughly every 18 months … so the position of the moon, its distance from Earth, when it crosses in front of the sun — these things change every single time [an eclipse occurs] because we don't live in a perfect clockwork universe where the moon takes exactly 30 days to go around the Earth and the Earth takes exactly 365 days to go around the sun. Every time the alignment works out, the Earth is in a slightly different place in its orbit around the sun, [at a] slightly different time of day. So those paths — those dark shadows that the moon casts across the Earth — trace a slightly different path across the planet, which is why we have gone 38 years without seeing a total solar eclipse here in the continental U.S.




And when I say at least FOUR, I mean minimum in OUR solar system. But probably more.

Now I understand he states that eclipses on Jupiter completely block the sun BUT (and rather than argue with you, I'll just give you this):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamieca...h=4ed2e4b372a3

Eclipse-chasers often spend thousands of dollars traveling across the world to stand under the moon’s shadow to experience totality. So what do you do when you’ve seen the dazzling solar corona dozens of times? You go hunting for eclipses on other planets, that’s what.

Last weekend at the Solar Eclipse Conference 2018 in Genk, Belgium, Jamaica-based computer programmer and eclipse-chaser Bill Kramer presented the results of his study into a simple question: is the Earth the only planet in our solar system to enjoy a perfect eclipse alignment?

'If someone says that Earth is the only place to see a total solar eclipse, well, that’s actually not true,' said Kramer.

Kramer, who’s seen 17 total solar eclipses so far, studied 141 moons around Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune (the inner planets Mercury and Venus have no moons). 'A good eclipse is a perfect fit, when the size of the sun and moon are roughly equal,' explained Kramer. 'It should be total or annular as viewed from the planet.'

While a total solar eclipse is where the moon completely covers the solar disk, an annular eclipse is a type of partial eclipse, where the moon is too small to cover the solar disk, instead producing a so-called 'ring of fire'. The next annular solar eclipse on Earth will occur on 26 December, 2019, which is most likely to occur in clear skies from southern India.


(Please note the part where he indicates southern India because your eclipse experience isn't global, it depends where you are, you seem to have a large disconnect with this part).

On Earth, the ratio is between 0.940 and 1.104, which explains why we see such fantastic solar eclipses; it's an almost perfect fit. Kramer found that 31 moons in the solar system caused extreme total eclipses, when the Sun is completely covered, and 107 extreme annular eclipses where the Sun is visible around a moon. 'It’s more common to see an annular eclipse than a total eclipse in our solar system,' he said. 'But I found three of them where annular and total solar eclipses are possible.'

(Please note the part where he say's almost perfect, you have a HUGE disconnect with this part).

It's Epimetheus that creates a solar eclipse that most resembles those seen from Earth. The potato-shaped moon, just 72 miles in diameter, takes 17 hours to go around Saturn. That means another super-short eclipse. From when Epimetheus begins to cover the sun to when it departs would last a mere 15 seconds. 'The computation would have to be very precise to be in the right location to see it,' said Kramer.

(And this is your closest "near perfect" but also not perfect event).



And finally, we are getting into philosophy, one could argue that the more total eclipses of other planets are "more perfect" than the large corona events on earth.

No, because all that requires is the moon be larger than the star, relative from the planet's perspective. What's unique about earth is that they're almost exactly the same size, allowing you to see only the stellar corona around the perfect black disc of the moon.

And what I said is correct, and what you repeatedly claimed was wrong. There is no other known planet that has eclipses like earth's, and there is no causal relationship between a moon's orbit and its size relative to the nearest star from the planet's perspective.

I also never said anything about the path of the eclipse's totality. You're just throwing that out there hoping it'll stick.

And we've not even talked about the lunar eclipses yet...

That's where the statistical probabilities get really interesting. Because not only is the moon sized to produce perfect solar eclipses, the earth is sized to produce perfect lunar eclipses. Instead of the moon just vanishing, it turns deep orange because of the light passing through our atmosphere.

And again, the moon's perfect position at this time in our universe's history, that allows for these truly unique phenomena to occur, also coincides with the moon being at the perfect distance so as to create just the right amount of tide. And again, there's no causal relationship like you're claiming. The moon could just as easily be a little bigger and a bit further away and still support conditions for life, but then the eclipses would be no more unique than other places in the universe. Or it could be a bit smaller and closer. This relationship between gravitational pull and relative size compared to a star simply doesn't exist. The composition of the moon could even be different. It could be more or less dense and be larger or smaller in its current position, and still have the same gravitational pull on the water.