Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It happened. Unless we are reading the Feynman diagrams backwards. How ever improbable, it happened. As to the constants and formulas, they are just abstractions of what is. The universe isn’t an elaborate abacus. We use math to describe what is happening- until we crack open the what we perceive as the next layer.

News flash, there is a never ending parade of layers- because what we use to describe what is happening is just a model of what is happening, not what is actually happening. That’s why we keep coming up with another layer. If you could actually get to ‘the’ prima layer, then the universe is a basically an elaborate cuckoo clock wit no degrees or freedom.

Do you really think that since the Big Bang the universe has been gearing up for me to type:

Pelosi has a smelly snatch

And if I hadn’t the end of the universe would be different?

[georgeib]

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.

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.

[WillBrink]

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.

This is where the Anthropic Principle comes in, be it the "weak" version or the "strong":

https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So, on the lottery model, we won the lottery, so there must be a God?

[WillBrink]

So, on the lottery model, we won the lottery, so there must be a God?

Not really sure how one defines that "model" at this point or how we prove it. One of the major criticisms is that the various models such as the multi-verse etc are not testable. The response to that is that various predictions of Einsteins work were not testable at the time, all major predictions were tested when the tech to do so developed, and it did. It would appear testing the modern models that may support/not support the fine tuning aspects in the "lottery" model will be much more challenging, but that's above my pay grade and knowledge base, and there's a very small number of people who can even take a good educated guess on that topic really, so I don't feel bad.

Personally, I think if we don't snuff ourselves out in the next 500-1k years as Hawking's etc predicts, tech will exist we can hardly even imagine now:

https://www.sciencealert.com/humanit...wking-predicts

It must be noted that while we know an astounding amount, the universe is made mostly of matter we know very little about powered by something, we know essentially nothing about. To this day, we don't know what time is, nor gravity. That should keep us humble and if it don't, you/we are doing it wrong...

[georgeib]

So, on the lottery model, we won the lottery, so there must be a God?

More like we won a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion lotteries. At some point, based on the Occam's razor alone, it becomes obviously more likely.

The example I've heard commonly used is if you were overlooking a city of a trillion households at night, and all of a sudden ALL the lights, in every house, turned off at the exact same instant. Is it more likely that a trillion people turned off their lights at the same time, or that there was a power outage? I mean, both are possible, right? But one is almost infinitely more likely.

[georgeib]

Not really sure how one defines that "model" at this point or how we prove it. One of the major criticisms is that the various models such as the multi-verse etc are not testable. The response to that is that various predictions of Einsteins work were not testable at the time, all major predictions were tested when the tech to do so developed, and it did.

In my mind, the single greatest weakness in the multi-verse theory isn't so much that it isn't testable, for some of the reasons you mention. The greatest weakness is that for an "infinite number of universes" to exist where every possibility eventually is realized, there must by necessity still be a cause. That cause is sometimes referred to as the "multi-verse generator." The multi-verse generator must, by necessity be more complicated that the universes it generates. This argument always leads back to the same conclusion of an uncaused first cause. Essentially a net zero argument for the naturalist. This is now leading us away from the fine tuning argument to the cosmological and Kalam cosmological arguments.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

More like we won a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion lotteries. At some point, based on the Occam's razor alone, it becomes obviously more likely.

The example I've heard commonly used is if you were overlooking a city of a trillion households at night, and all of a sudden ALL the lights, in every house, turned off at the exact same instant. Is it more likely that a trillion people turned off their lights at the same time, or that there was a power outage? I mean, both are possible, right? But one is almost infinitely more likely.

So you are saying that there’s a chance….

The deep dark hole that I look into and can’t ponder is “Why’. Why is there even a universe?

I’m for a fairly absent land-lord for God model. I don’t pray for good things to happen, just like I don’t think bad things happen because I don’t follow God’s current ISO documents.

Complexity, to us, is no sign of intelligence.

[WillBrink]

In my mind, the single greatest weakness in the multi-verse theory isn't so much that it isn't testable, for some of the reasons you mention. The greatest weakness is that for an "infinite number of universes" to exist where every possibility eventually is realized, there must by necessity still be a cause. That cause is sometimes referred to as the "multi-verse generator." The multi-verse generator must, by necessity be more complicated that the universes it generates. This argument always leads back to the same conclusion of an uncaused first cause. Essentially a net zero argument for the naturalist. This is now leading us away from the fine tuning argument to the cosmological and Kalam cosmological arguments.

I'm not aware of anything that suggests there must be a cause in the way I gather you're using the term.

[WillBrink]

So you are saying that there’s a chance….

The deep dark hole that I look into and can’t ponder is “Why’. Why is there even a universe?

I’m for a fairly absent land-lord for God model. I don’t pray for good things to happen, just like I don’t think bad things happen because I don’t follow God’s current ISO documents.

Complexity, to us, is no sign of intelligence.

A important Q that is also of much interest and also may offer answers: