Proposition 1 - Fine tuning
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"It is precisely because this point is true, that we know life isn't tuned to the universe."
So you know the universe is fine tuned for life because it occurred on one tiny speck, but conversely know life is not finely tuned for the universe....because it only occurred on one tiny speck?
If you want me to stop disagreeing with your posts stop making such cretinous claims.
Life is no more finely tuned for the universe than the universe is for life. Life matches it's earthly environment because all life that didn't died out, and left the genes that did. They did this by a process science has explained as species evolution through natural selection, and it happened over billions of years. We don't yet know, and may never fully understand how life originated, but since no can demonstrate any evidence for anything supernatural, and we know natural processes happen, it's pretty obvious which is the more likely and why.
So until someone can show that supernatural processes are even possible, let alone real, it's silly to believe they caused life.
Calling the universe "fined tuned" brings to focus a plethora of fallacies. (False Attribution Fallacy)
1. An equivocation fallacy. Your assertion that the universe is tuned to anything equates it with things that are actually fine tuned. There is no tuner. No creator. No designer. To assert that the universe is "Fine Tuned" you must first prove that something is there to fine tune it. You do not get to assert a god into existence. What the Christians do on this one is work backwards by Cherry Picking data. "Because of X, Y, and Z, the universe looks designed, therefore a designer. NO! It's backwards. Extremophiles demonstrate that life can form in nearly any environment and that life tailors itself to the environment and not the other way around.
2. Incomplete comparison: By cherry picking the "designed" data and ignoring the problem of evil, disease, radiation belts pinning us to the earth, the fact that 99.9% of the universe is lethal to us, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, death from above, 99% of all species being extinct, 5 other humanoid species being extinct, and all the rest of the death waiting for us if we make a wrong step, explain how this "universe" was made for us? A 3 year old child with a box of crayons could have designed a better universe for humans to live in. God must be an idiot.
3. argumentum ad nauseam: No matter how many times they say it.... it just ain't so. They do not get to say the universe is designed without proving there is a designer. PERIOD!
4. Special Pleading: "Because the universe is designed, it must have been the Christian God who designed it." Wait a minute? How many creator Gods are there? Here is a list of over 130 and we have not ruled out "Turtles all the way down, magic pixies, or leprechauns." Even if there is a magical creator god - you still have to prove it is your god. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods)
And I am getting bored. Depending on what the Christians say next a host of other fallacies will pop into being. A Christian can not seem to open their mouth without tapping into a fallacy.
You don't get to the point where you believe that god sacrificed himself, to himself, to forgive you because some dude swiped an apple 6k years ago without taking some serious wrong turns.
Life as we know it, that being what we see on our own planet is certainly adapted or 'tuned' to be where we are in the cosmos.
To say the universe is fine tuned for this insignificant spec in the universe is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst just rubbish spouted by people with no grip on reality and facts.
And to even think we are the only place to harbour life is quite puzzling to me,
I think a big problem is certain people only consider life to be another human or an old style comic book alien,
Enceladus, one of the moons of Saturn could very well have simple life, Mars may have before losing its atmosphere, and so on.
Yes, this is what I'm saying. The universe as whole isn't tuned in it's entirety, but the universe does produce bubbles tuned for life. Without the universe creating those bubbles, life can't emerge.
Tuning happens first. Life second.
Edit: Oops, nevermind, I read it wrong.
In that case let me ask you. In the previous thread you described the formation of stars. Is that not a step in the direction of life as we know it?
the universe does not produce 'bubbles' for life in any way shape or form,
it simply is in that of itself.
what we can deduce is that there are stars of a certain type that have earth like planets
within habitable zones that could potentially harbour life as we know it.
from very simple life to more complex things, but that is simply by going by life as we know it.
there is an entire multitude of possibilities! there could be forms of life that survive in intense heat/cold,
using different gases such as helium or hydrogen.
as for your question regarding the formation of stars, life as we know it. i.e. what is observed on earth.
would require a sun, however stars do not form in order to create life. life (again, as we observe on earth only!)
comes to being over a long process of adapting to the various stages of a planets biosphere.
no human could have survived the initial stages of the earths formation, it took incredible simple life that could just survive
and adapt to the changes, with a chain reaction of evolutionary development over a long time.
again I would like to state, we are only discussing life as we know it! it is intellectually dishonest to think what has developed on our planet is all that is possible, the probability would be incalculable.
It most definitely does produce bubbles. Thus why life can't exist on venus, but it can exist on earth. There may be thousands of these bubbles in existence.
"What we can deduce is that there are stars of a certain type that have earth like planets within habitable zones that could potentially harbour life as we know it."
Aka... a bubble.
I do agree with you that we are describing life as we know it, my bubbles are highly "earth-like." But I don't think its intellectually dishonest to say earth is descriptive of all that's possible. It may be arrogant, but not dishonest.
Do we not conclude the laws of physics and chemistry are mostly universal? Do we not analyze the light spectrum of stars, and deduce their elemental components, by first looking at how they occur on earth? The entire field of astrophysics would be dead if we can't apply our knowledge to the cosmos.
We are made out of the same elements as the rest of the universe. If we know carbon chains within our bodies break apart at a given temperature, that's a fact that must apply throughout the cosmos. Perhaps organic chemistry truly is representative of the entire universe, and life cannot emerge anywhere unless its like us.
At the very least our knowledge of chemistry should inform us what life-forms are and are not possible.
sigh, massively wrong yet again.
you are still working on the presumption that only what you observed as life on earth as being the be all and end all,
and as a matter of fact, the venusian atmosphere is actually better conditioned to home microbes then that on earth.
therefore, all manner of possibilities can be imagined to what may be there or any planet, there is still a probable chance of extremely simple life being found on mars.
no, we do not conclude the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, for one example, singularities form large problems for laws of physics, which many conclude in actuality break them down! at the very least they certainly cause major problems for the laws.
for example, general relativity tells us that in the region of high masses the physical laws we have models for and have studied in depth in flat space change and may not conform to the form we know them like conservation of energy,
in this case the flat space approximation does not hold and approaching zero time where the density tends to infinity is even worse, indeterminacy in masses means also indeterminacy in the laws governing space time.
the elements found within the periodic table do occur on earth and the universe natural, which is expected. apart from the obvious case of technetium which does not naturally exist on earth but is found in radioactive decay.
however one could also easily assume there may be far more elements unknown to us that could be created in specific instances such as supernova explosions with extremely high neutron fluxes.
and the correct phrase should be, humans are made from some of the elements found within the universe, nothing more.
no, again we work on the premise of looking for what we know. for example we look for exoplantets that are earth like and we send signals into space that are man made and not universal.
so again, no. we can only say that we can look for life as we know it on earth.
it is a similar argument when people look at the night sky with the naked eye, then look with a good digital camera and then telescopes and so on, more can be found, far more! we are limited by our imagination and arrogance.
to think life can only exist here is ridiculous
"general relativity tells us that in the region of high masses the physical laws we have models for and have studied... may not conform to the form we know them like conservation of energy!"
I said "mostly universal" precisely because I'm aware of such things. But is not general relativity another one of our models? You're still interpreting and predicting the universe through our lens.
"There may be thousands of these bubbles in existence."
There may be unicorns and mermaids somewhere in the universe, since we're indulging wild evidence speculation. What percentage of the universe do thousands of plates like earth represent? How is would this be evidence for fine tuning if you could show any evidence for the claim?
What evidence can you demonstrate for anything supernatural?
"Perhaps organic chemistry truly is representative of the entire universe, and life cannot emerge anywhere unless its like us."
Perhaps it can, see what I did there?
"At the very least our knowledge of chemistry should inform us what life-forms are and are not possible."
Should it? Is our knowledge of chemistry omniscient then? Are you claiming there is nothing we don't know about chemistry? Mightn't what we don't know change our views of what is and is not possible?
Now, what evidence can you demonstrate for anything supernatural?
So the universe isn't fine tuned for life, as in fact the odds are relentlessly stacked against it. The fact that it has occurred on earth suggests a very specific set of circumstances occurred under relentlessly random events occurring through a vast universe over enormous timescales. After that it evolved, and we have evidenced this beyond any reasonable doubt. No deity required, and no evidence demonstrated for one either.
"The fact that it has occurred on earth suggests a very specific set of circumstances occurred..."
Aka a bubble.
"The fact that it has occurred on earth suggests a very specific set of circumstances occurred..."
Breezy....Aka a bubble.
If the analogy makes you happy, but you are showing coloured bubbles here to ignore the facts, namely that the earth produced life under very specific conditions, conditions that are demonstrably absent from the vast majority of the immense universe we see. Now, how is that demonstrative of a universe finely tuned to produce life exactly? As opposed to a universe that is anathema to life, but where it is not impossible for life to emerge on infinitesimally small planets?
Now, what evidence can you demonstrate for anything supernatural?
good name bro..hahahah
put it with breezy it'll come out
"A BUBBLE BREEZY"
sounds like an episode from sponge bob square pants.
just sharing my thoughts..ehehe, ehhemm(clearing throat) sorry,..ok proceed.
@John 61X Breezy: "Fine tuning comes first. Life second"
You might as well say the universe is fine tuned for stars, comets, or black holes. Local conditions (which you call "bubbles") cause local processes that result in local phenomena that represent the state of universe. Life and stars are just examples of that. Do you see a need for a god, either as prime mover or designer, in any of this?
What's really interesting is that at least one of those phenomena, human life, can observe these phenomena and think about them.
You most definitely can say that. I feel like its such a simple and straightforward concept. Unless the conditions are met, the consequences will not occur. That applies to life, stars and comets.
To argue the contrary, that life was tuned for the universe, just doesn't make sense. It requires a creator ironically enough. Something custom making life for the universe, that is not itself part of the universe.
@John Re: "Is it the way I speak? The Christian label that hovers above me? I don't understand why my naturalistic and materialistic statements, are turned spiritual and religious by everyone else."
While I cannot speak for anybody else on here, I pretty much do understand what you are trying to say, even though you may unintentionally make it sound as though the universe (or some entity) is "consciously" doing things to cause life. However, you throw a wrench into the gears when you make the statement, "To argue the contrary, that life was tuned for the universe, just doesn't make sense. It requires a creator ironically enough. Something custom making life for the universe, that is not itself part of the universe." Now, at first glance, I admit that statement made me think, "What the...? He just totally contradicted himself from his "no theology intended" statement." But then I stopped and read it a couple of more times, and I would like to ask for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions.
(I hope I don't make this too confusing...) With that statement, are you saying: A. You believe a creator custom made life for the universe? Or did you mean: B. For one to argue the contrary, it would ironically require a creator? I am thinking you may have meant "B.", but I do not like making assumptions.
If life is tuned for the universe, then the tuning occurred before it became alive, otherwise it couldn't have come alive.
Clearly it can't tune or adapt itself before its alive, so something separate from it must be responsible. Since that something else can't be the universe (my position), then it must a force separate from the universe as well. That sounds an awful lot like a God. Similar to how we see Him bringing dirt to life in Genesis, molding it, "tuning" it, adapting it for the universe.
So it's ironic to see that argument being made by atheists instead of me. Maybe I should switch my position to see way happens lol.
I see a puddle of water on the ground. Was the hole pre-formed just to accommodate a specific volume and shape, or did the water just fill the hole?
And yes, the analogy fits.
Clearly the hole came first, regardless of how you think it formed.
Water could have eroded the hole, but how would that parallel work using life/universe?
"To argue the contrary, that life was tuned for the universe, "
Except no one has claimed this straw man argument you keep rehashing? Life matches it's environment perfectly ONLY here on earth, because evolution has relentlessly removed all life that didn't.
It really is that simple, and of course has the advantage of not invoking superstition or magic as an "explanation", but masses of evidence gathered and scrutinised for over 150 years, The largest most powerful church on the planet can't falsify it, and now knows species evolution is a fact, so it has accepted it, along with the entire scientific world. It is only denied on the basis of religious belief, cling to archaic dogma for which no evidence can be demonstrated.
I agree 100%. But this raises an interesting problem:
There is no difference between hydrogen atoms in the body and the hydrogen atoms in stars (and the same for every other element). That means there is no experiment you can use to tell if a hydrogen atom came from a "living" human being or a gas cloud. This degeneracy makes your statements about life and non-life very problematic.
Well that's always been a problem with a reductionist perspective. The parts can only tell you so much about the whole.
That said I do think we can separate life from nonelife at the hydrogen level, not by what it is, but what it does.
For example, the only place we see hydrogen fusing into helium is in a star, not I'm our bodies. In contrast, the only place we see hydrogen inside glucose (c6-H12-o6) transfer over into water 6x (H2-o) is inside our bodies during cellular respiration, not in a star.
those chemicals are present throughout the universe, and therefore so is that reaction.
I don't think glucose exists independent of a living being, can you give an example?
Well simple sugars have been found in other star systems(not exact what you asked). Of course this is no guarantee of independence.
going by an estimate of the estimated 10 trillion galaxies (most likely far, far more) which each have roughly 100 billion stars,
you could say that at a low end estimate that there are 100 octillion stars in the universe with an even higher number of planets containing various conditions.
I would say it is very likely you could find it independent.
there is no actual evidence at all of fine tuning
if you change the parameters of nature the local conditions we observe would change dramatically, that is true.
but you cannot then claim, 'therefore life cannot exist'.
you would have to then describe what is true 'life' and under what conditions that 'life' can exist.
the possibilities of varieties of forms of life would be astronomical and although many theories describing these
would appear science fiction that would be acceptable as it is the fine tuning proponents that are changing the parameters, so they cannot complain about the multitude of outcomes.
we cannot say at all if life would be different if the parameters of the cosmos had been altered in anyway, because we have only what we observe to go on.
surely a natural order of things makes more sense as it means parameters must be a certain way, if a god was involved why would they need to tune anything? they are god, surely it shouldn't matter.
So an astronomical number of possibilities for life, even if the methods appear science fiction.
I like that, I'm assuming if that's the case then you're not opposed to one of those life forms being a god, right? Nor could you then oppose the idea that such a being could form us, after all, we ourselves form virtual worlds, robots, etc.
"I like that, I'm assuming if that's the case then you're not opposed to one of those life forms being a god, right? Nor could you then oppose the idea that such a being could form us, after all, we ourselves form virtual worlds, robots, etc."
Can you demonstrate any evidence for one?