The Fine-Tuning Argument: Empirical Evidence for a Supremely Wise, Creator.

Started by Xavier2024, July 25, 2024, 07:33:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Xavier2024

Quotes from Popular Scientists describing the Empirical Fact of Fine-Tuning:
Physicist Paul Davies teaches: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life"  (Cosmic Jackpot, Why our Universe is just right for life), while even
Steven Hawking admits: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (A Brief History of Time).

Sir Martin Rees mentions 6 of these Cosmic Constants in the Book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. https://www.amazon.in/Just-Six-Numbers-Martin-Rees/dp/0465036732 Sir Martin Rees is a leading researcher on Cosmic Evolution and renowned authority/expert in his field.

Fine Tuning Argument stated and proved: Evidence of Design in the Universe
Let's formulate the Fine Tuning Argument in logical steps:
1.      The Life-Permitting Possible Configurations of the Universe are vanishingly small compared to the Life-Precluding ones (as amply admitted/documented by the above Scientists/Researchers).
2.      Thus, on Chance alone, it's reasonable to say no life at all should ever have existed.
3.      Therefore, granted the existence of life, Design is a vastly superior explanation to chance, for the fact of why life exists at all in the first place. Chance just isn't very good at creating life, it turns out, unfortunately for Atheists, because the life-permitting range is mind-bogglingly narrow.

Fine Tuning proving Intelligent Design proved by an analogy: Concluding Thoughts

An analogy: 10 sharp-shooters are shooting at you, while you've been lined up before them in a firing squad for various crimes. Now, on chance alone, it's a vanishingly small likelihood that you will ever survive this, because they're all not going to miss by chance. Nevertheless, if it turns out that you did survive, then given the evidence of your survival, the most Logical Explanation is not only Intelligent Design, but even Benign Design.

[Please note, if some of these constants were even slightly altered, galaxies, planets or stars wouldn't even form in the first place, or the Universe would have re-collapsed long ago into nothingness. Therefore, life would never form because there would be no Planets for it to form on!]

And why do I say that? Because it's most likely they conspired to miss to keep you alive – or were directed to do so by some Higher Intelligence that was favorable to you. Behold the Goodness, the Love and the Power of God, manifest in Creation, in bringing about the fact of life's existence!

Chance is the god of Atheism. But like other false gods beside the True God, this god is demonstrably false. We know it is demonstrably false as we know the above sharp-shooters would almost certainly not have missed on chance alone. Chance is thus an unreasonable explanation, given the Scientific Fact of Fine-Tuning well documented by the above Scientists/Researchers.
 
Now, in this 21st Century (this was unknown till recently), there is no further excuse/good reason to remain in Atheistic Darkness, in light of the above facts, but, recognizing them, we ought to acknowledge the Beautiful Light – even if it may be hard for our Atheistic Friends to accept at first – that a Loving Intelligent Designer exists, extremely Wise, extremely Powerful and extremely Loving.
 
How do we know He is Wise? Because only great Wisdom could have conceived such extremely diverse constants that needed to be finely tuned. And why Power? Only great Power could have actually brought about what was hitherto only conceived in the Designer's Mind.
Thus, the Creator and Designer of the Universe reveals Himself to be not only a (1) Remote First Cause but a (2) Wise and (3) Powerful Being.

Finally, how do we know the Designer is (4) Loving? Simple, because He went through such great efforts to ensure the existence of life; and then ensure, fairly recently (20th century), that we would come to know about it, shortly after Marx et al were lying against the Almighty with their Militant Atheism. A worthy response from the Almighty.

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Xavier2024

Clown car? So Physicists Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees are clowns? Lol, is that all you Atheists got? Insult everyone who disagrees with you. You'll have to do better. If you mean how many Christians, then about 33-35% of the world is Christian, 85% Religious, only 2% Atheistic. Majority is right sometimes, as democracy proves, and it also is right here. Answer the arguments that demonstrate the Truth of Fine Tuning if you can.

Hydra009

PRATT (Points refuted a thousand times): https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

I'm being very generous here when I assume that this is coming from a place of genuine wonder about the fact of the existence of life and consciousness that accidentally lapsed into begging the question by using that obvious fact as evidence that the religious beliefs one already has are therefore unquestionably true. (what a coincidence!)

It is true that many great minds have spilled a lot of ink about the fine-tuning argument.  But they have also considered creationism, space aliens, bigfoot, simulation hypothesis, and - I assume - time shares.  I suppose time isn't wasted if you're having fun, though some of these topics are clearly more entertaining than others.

Xavier2024

Reading the Rational Wiki link now. I don't see where it actually outlines the argument in the form of a syllogism and then refutes it. It also erects strawmen like this: "Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1." This is a strawman. The question is not the probability of life happening (P(L)) once it has happened(1), but rather, the respective probabilities of (P(D/L) [Probability of Design given life] and (P(C/L)) [Probability of chance given life]. These two probabilities are mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive, i.e. they add up to 1 or 100%. Therefore, the lower P(C/L) is, the higher P(D/L) is. It is the same as discerning, once a death has happened, whether that death was accidental or intentional. The lower the probability of one is, i.e. if accidental death is unlikely, the higher is the probability of the other. That is forensic science.

Here is the argument again:
Major Premise: The Life-Permitting Possible Configurations of the Universe are vanishingly small compared to the Life-Precluding ones (as amply admitted/documented by the above Scientists/Researchers).
Minor Premise: Thus, on Chance alone, it's reasonable to say no life at all should ever have existed.
Conclusion: Therefore, granted the existence of life, Design is a vastly superior explanation to chance, for the fact of why life exists at all in the first place. Chance just isn't very good at creating life, it turns out, unfortunately for Atheists, because the life-permitting range is mind-bogglingly narrow.

And can someone answer the analogy of 10 sharp-shooters aiming at you and yet somehow all missing? Wouldn't virtually any person conclude all of them could not have missed just by chance? That's how it is with numerous physical constants being just right in order for life to form, neither too large nor too small. It makes accidental cause of life unlikely, and makes Intentional Design as the Cause of Life very likely. God Bless.

Hydra009

The link should've been perfectly comprehensible, but just this once I'll explain it for you:

Every scenario in which life exists obviously will exist in a universe where life is possible.  To say that life is unlikely or so vanishingly unlikely as to require the intervention of a deity (naturally, the one you already believe in) is begging the question in such a massive way that the whole argument quickly falls apart with even a little skepticism.

the_antithesis


Sargon The Grape

Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

My Youtube Channel

Blackleaf

If you think we haven't heard this argument a million times, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you.

What percentage of the universe would you say is non-hostile to life, if you had to guess? If you were instantly teleported to any random spot in the universe, what are the chances you will not immediately die?
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Gawdzilla Sama

Most of the UNIVERSE is empty space. Your voodoo doll isn't a good engineer.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Cosmotib

Никаких
<a href="https://goo.su/y0QCqz">проститутки тюмени</a>

aitm

God:  I created all these amazing creatures to inhabit this very tiny planet. This planet and your existence is due to my incredible love and devotion to life itself. Now....small issue here..not a deal breaker though, just a minor techie thing. In order for you all to survive you must kill and eat each other......have a nice day.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers