Our world as we know appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains(from atoms to stars)was tailor-made just for us. Many are calling this revelation the “Goldilocks Principle,” because the cosmos is not too this or too that but rather “just right for life. Others are invoking the principle of “Intelligent Design,” because they believe it’s no accident the cosmos is so ideally suited for us.

This puts us in the midst of a great debate,there was a recent trial over whether intelligent design can be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school biology classes. Proponents claim Darwin’s theory of evolution is exactly that(a theory) and cannot fully explain the origin of all life, which naturally it never claims to do. Indeed, they believe the universe itself is the product of an intelligent force,which most people would simply call God. On the other side are he vast majority of scientists, who believe that natural selection may have a few gaps, but for all intents and purposes is a scientific fact.

And it will just be marvellous if the debate changed from the contentious one about exchanging evolution for religion, and switched to the more productive tack of asking whether science can explain why the universe appears to be built for life. Of course, the fact that the cosmos seems exactly balanced and designed for life is just an inescapable scientific observation—not an explanation for why

Amazing it is that no matter which logic one adopts, one has to come to terms with the fact that we are living in a very peculiar cosmos. By the late sixties, it had become clear that if the Big Bang had been just one part in a million more powerful, the cosmos would have blown outward too fast to allow stars and worlds to form. Result: no us. Even more coincidentally, the universe’s four forces and all of its constants are just perfectly set up for atomic interactions the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water, and life. Tweak any of them and you never existed

Such life-friendly values of physics are built into the universe like the cotton and linen fibers woven into our currency. The gravitational constant is perhaps the most famous, but the fine structure constant is just as critical for life. Called alpha, if it were just 1.1x or more of its present value, fusion would no longer occur in stars.also, if gravity was a hair stronger or the Big Bang a sliver weaker, and therefore the universe’s lifespan significantly shorter, we couldn’t be here to think about it. Because we’re here, the universe has to be the way it is and therefore isn’t unlikely at all

Electromagnetism is another of the four fundamental forces, that helps facilitate the existence of atoms and allows the entire visible universe to exist. And any small change in its value will mean that none of us will be her here.

So you either have an astonishingly improbable coincidence revolving around the indisputable fact that the cosmos could have any properties but happens by chance to have exactly the right ones for life or else you have exactly what must be seen if indeed the cosmos is the product of consciousness. Either way, the notion of a random billiard-ball cosmos that could have had any forces that boast any range of values, but instead has the weirdly specific ones needed for life, looks impossible enough to seem downright silly.

And if any of this seems too preposterous, just consider the alternative, which is what contemporary science asks us to believe: that the entire universe, exquisitely tailored for our existence, popped into existence out of absolute nothingness. Who would accept such a thing? Has anyone offered any credible explanation for this? what logic can explain this?

Has anyone explained how dumb carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules could have, by combining accidentally, become sentient—aware!—and then utilized this sentience to acquire a taste for pando and egusi? How any possible natural random process could mix those molecules in a blender for a few billion years so that out would pop conscious creatures ? Can anyone conceive of any edges to the cosmos? Infinity? Or how particles still spring out of nothingness? Or conceive of any of the many supposed extra dimensions that must exist everywhere in order for the cosmos to consist fundamentally of interlocking strings and loops? Or explain how ordinary elements can ever rearrange themselves so that they continue to acquire self-awareness and a loathing for jollof rice ? Or, again, how every one of dozens of forces and constants are precisely fine-tuned for the existence of life

So is the very very structure of the universe is explainable only by acknowledging a conscious designer?. As the universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The universe is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.

Or is there a better explanation for why the universe is fined tuned?...your opinions will be respected,,and I'll love a healthy constructive debate, all forms of squabbles should be avoided

cc:johnydon22,ifenes, taurus25, sirwere, cooluseename,kevoh,lordnicklaus,valentinemary.....

Nothing in the universe is "fine-tuned" for life. "Earth is fine tuned for life" as much as it is "life is fine tuned for Earth"..

Life evolved through natural selection to be able to not only survive, but seemingly thrive on avery very small part of this planet.The Universe is fine tuned to be inhospitable for life. The vacuum of space causes almost immediate death.

We occupy a percentage of the Universe so small in scale that you would likely need a trillion decimal places to even get close to a correct percentage.
The tiny earth is a partial exception to the inhospitable universe in the sense that certain regions of it are not too toxic, not too hot, nor too cold. The vast majority of it may harbor some forms of life but is still not suitable for humans.

We live in a relatively small portion of the earths total surface. All over the world are toxic environments (lead, cadnium, arsenic, sulphur dioxide, etc), dangerous animals, and poisonous plants that we must avoid. The majority of the fresh water is placed where we have a hard time even surviving, and the vast amounts of water that is available is completely toxic to us due to its salinity.

Fine tuned you say? For what, certainly not life, but evolution adapts every creature for survival, if it is not killed off too quickly.

Go stay for a night naked at the siberian planes then come back and tell me how fine tuned the universe is..

Commercial Science is not going to answer all questions because it doesn't explain everything. The first question I tend to ask these day is; who are the scientists we trust so much with vital information like the Origin of the Planet? Majority of key information are rendered "Classified" which means they ain't meant for the public.

If the OP is trying to push what he perceives as a fine-tuned Universe to the working of an Intelligent Designer,he may be right. But whom can this be. Everyone experiences the Universe in different,unlimited ways. A disturbed mind will have a distorted reality until a solution is found. From the Psych world the Universe is in the mind. What we think is what we experience... Every individual is an Intelligent Designer.

The Cosmos,Universe,Planet are interpretations of energy fields in our minds. So rather than trying to study the Universe from outside like science is pretending to do,we might want to do it from the inside of our minds.

hmm...you've made a fine argument, but here is the concept of fine tuning of the universe...

all fundamental physical constants that governs the universe appears to be carefully chosen just to suit life this is evident from the fact that if you tweak any of them a little then life will definitely seize to exists.

and I clearly noted that if the big bang was tweaked by one part in million time then there will be no us...this is evidence of fine tuning@ Edenoscar.

my argument is clearly sighted in the op...take time to read please

Fine tuning eh


..... A worm wanders into soil filled with humus.

He glories in its warmth and feels comfortable with its smooth smooth particles.



Suddenly; he declares:

"The soil is too soft; too WELL-DESIGNED............it must have been made for me!!"


......and the next day the farmer comes and clears it and that's the end of that




**********************************

Seriously though; it is fallacious to state that because something is exceedingly improbable; it is impossible.


Take a look at football, EPL to be precise. Had anyone said ten years ago that Leicester would win the league; Chelsea would end tenth and Manchester would struggle against Stoke; we would have referred such a person to the asylum....



The Multiverse universe is vast; wide, full of many mysteries and secrets we have not yet tapped yet. Is it so impossible to believe that there are underlying; simpler principle that explain the supposedly precise values


Most physicists are speculating above alternate universes but I dunno; it takes a lot of assumptions to accept that.






......And as for the biological part; let's not go there. People have this immediate knee jerk response when you suggest? that they are really not that special in the scheme of things.

It is quite improbable for something to arise out of nothing on a cosmic scale. The Big Bang doesn't disprove the existence of an intelligent designer but it rather proposes the idea of a universe arising from gravitational singularity on atomic scale due to an agglomerate of matter and anti-matter. Man was made with the ability to harness nature to his own advantage and we wouldn't say nature was made for man. Energy abounds in the universe, supplementing it with the needed matter to work according to conventional laws of physics and mathematics. The universe works according to several mathematical equations detailed to explain its conventions. We have E=hf, S=ut±1/2gt2, l=(v2-v1)/v1¤, f=r2/gmm.... All these laws suggest a designer who is not subject to these mathematical laws. The universe is fine tuned, even with its gravitational chaos which can be harnessed as a useful tool. Cc butterfly88

SirWere:
Fine tuning eh


..... A worm wanders into soil filled with humus.

He glories in its warmth and feels comfortable with its smooth smooth particles.



Suddenly; he declares:

"The soil is too soft; too WELL-DESIGNED............it must have been made for me!!"


......and the next day the farmer comes and clears it and that's the end of that




**********************************

Seriously though; it is fallacious to state that because something is exceedingly improbable; it is impossible.


Take a look at football, EPL to be precise. Had anyone said ten years ago that Leicester would win the league; Chelsea would end tenth and Manchester would struggle against Stoke; we would have referred such a person to the asylum....



The Multiverse universe is vast; wide, full of many mysteries and secrets we have not yet tapped yet. Is it so impossible to believe that there are underlying; simpler principle that explain the supposedly precise values


Most physicists are speculating above alternate universes but I dunno; it takes a lot of assumptions to accept that.






......And as for the biological part; let's not go there. People have this immediate knee jerk response when you suggest? that they are really not that special in the scheme of things.

wow..physics and science doesn't work that...take this concept imagine going for your project defence and want you were only able to come up with is

" I randomly mixed this with that and guess what I got this masterpiece".....what will you expect from your audience...a round of applause? certainly not "

ifenes:

Commercial Science is not going to answer all questions because it doesn't explain everything. The first question I tend to ask these day is; who are the scientists we trust so much with vital information like the Origin of the Planet? Majority of key information are rendered "Classified" which means they ain't meant for the public.

If the OP is trying to push what he perceives as a fine-tuned Universe to the working of an Intelligent Designer,he may be right. But whom can this be. Everyone experiences the Universe in different,unlimited ways. A disturbed mind will have a distorted reality until a solution is found. From the Psych world the Universe is in the mind. What we think is what we experience... Every individual is an Intelligent Designer.

The Cosmos,Universe,Planet are interpretations of energy fields in our minds. So rather than trying to study the Universe from outside like science is pretending to do,we might want to do it from the inside of our minds.

hmm...interesting....if I get you correctly bro..." our perception of the universe is only a function of our mind?

or to put it otherwise what we perceive as reality and how we visualise the universe is only a function of our consciousness...right?

butterfly88:
wow..physics and science doesn't work that...take this concept imagine going for your project defence and want you were only able to come up with is

" I randomly mixed this with that and guess what I got this masterpiece".....what will you expect from your audience...a round of applause? certainly not "

....C'mon; you're warping my argument.


I'm only saying that; just because something has a very small probability doesn't mean its impossible.

Classic example: The sperm race to the egg.....

SirWere:


....C'mon; you're warping my argument.


I'm only saying that; just because something has a very small probability doesn't mean its impossible.

Classic example: The sperm race to the egg.....

oh...probability when used to explain why all physical constants in the universe are so fine tuned to support life is very wacky sorry to say....isnt it more logical to say that these values were carefully chosen...and not the result of merely tossing millions of dices and still ending up with the correct result all the time

butterfly88:
hmm...interesting....if I get you correctly bro..." our perception of the universe is only a function of our mind?

or to put it otherwise what we perceive as reality and how we visualise the universe is only a function of our consciousness...right?

Right

ifenes:


Right

very correct sire..taking it a step further,without consciousness matter dwells in a undermined state of probability...for instead the nature of the electron cannot be determined except there is a conscious observer..Therefore on a larger scale any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state

hence consciousness should precede the universe.....i totally agree!!

butterfly88:
very correct sire..taking it a step further,without consciousness matter dwells in a undermined state of probability...for instead the nature of the electron cannot be determined except there is a conscious observer..Therefore on a larger scale any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state

hence consciousness should precede the universe.....i totally agree!!

How does consciousness exist without matter? That's more improbable than the Universe popping into existence or always existing in some form.

butterfly88:
very correct sire..taking it a step further,without consciousness matter dwells in a undermined state of probability...for instead the nature of the electron cannot be determined except there is a conscious observer..Therefore on a larger scale any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state

hence consciousness should precede the universe.....i totally agree!!

The closest way we could study Consciousness today is to study the Human Psychology. Once we master the art of fine tuning the Human psychic,we will be able to experience a better sociology,economical and political bliss.

And talking about the conscious observer....We are the ones experiencing realities, our various belief system determines the kind of world we experience. Like the cable channel,we can always switch realities/experience based on what we belief in. The creator is US.

Can you explian in detail what you mean by

butterfly88:

if the big bang was tweaked by one part in million time then there will be no us...this is evidence of fine tuning

Fine tuning ≠ An Intelligent Designer Rather Fine Tuning = We are Fu*king Lucky Our Universe Might just be 1 In A Billion Other Multi verse In Which Millions Of those Universe Are Dead Or Frozen!

butterfly88:
oh...probability when used to explain why all physical constants in the universe are so fine tuned to support life is very wacky sorry to say....isnt it more logical to say that these values were carefully chosen...and not the result of merely tossing millions of dices and still ending up with the correct result all the time

I don't get it when you say the values of physical constants are "carefully chosen", nor am I sure you know what you mean when you say "the universe". Can you give an example of a "carefully chosen" physical constant, and how this constant makes the universe conducive for life?

AgentOfAllah:


I don't get it when you say the values of physical constants are "carefully chosen", nor am I sure you know what you mean when you say "the universe". Can you give an example of a "carefully chosen" physical constant, and how this constant makes the universe conducive for life?

you'll get the info if you go through the op bro

Edenoscar:
Can you explian in detail what you mean by

from the op--- it had become clear that if the Big Bang had been just one part in a million more powerful, the cosmos would have blown outward too fast to allow stars and worlds to form. Result: no us. Even more coincidentally, the universe’s four forces and all of its constants are just perfectly set up for atomic interactions the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water, and life. Tweak any of them and you never existed

ValentineMary:
There is a place in the mariana trench(the deepest part of earth) that if humans go without a submarine, the pressure would immediately kill them. But on getting there, there were some fishes there who the pressure did not kill. In fact the place was well suited for the fish. Was the Mariana Trench designed for those fishes or did they adapt @ Butterfly88??

you are not addressing the o.p, I never disputed or tried to dispute organisms ability to adapt.

my argument revolves around the fundamental forces that governs our universe..and like I said and is correctly known if any of them had other values asides the present,there will be no us...and we wouldn't be here to speak of adaptation in the 1st place....how come all these values appear to be "carefully chosen" to suit life...is this evidence of calculation and planning and hence evidence of an intelligent designer or this correctly chosen values just came up coincidentally as sirwere pointed

butterfly88:
you'll get the info if you go through the op bro

I read your post, and then asked 2 specific questions resulting from my reading. I wouldn't ask those questions if I felt your post answered them. For the sake of clarity, here they are again:

1) Give an example of a "carefully chosen" physical constant.

2) Explain how this constant makes the universe conducive for life.

In a random dirty puddle in the ground an amoeba lives, the puddle has just the right temperature, just the right salinity and texture and so the amoeba thinks

"This puddle must certainly have been made specially for me"

This is the situation here, just like the amoeba the fact that we are means the universe can accomodate us, if this was a universe that cannot accomodate us, we won't be here and we won't ask this question.

In this cosmic causality there are two possibilities.

-either the universe can accomodate life
-or it can't

So do you think one part of the coin is likely without interference from extra-cosmic intelligence and not the other half, the possibility is like a coin tose so both are equally fully possible with or without such external interference

But just like the amoeba - We found ourselves in a universe that can accomodate us therefore we begin to think that the universe was made just to accomodate us.

That is a grand delusion of the amoeba -

99.9% of the universe is hostile to organic molecules [ultimately life] i wonder how such a hostile universe was caused with a purpose of harbouring life in mind cus it seems that is a project gone wrong.

It is absurd to assume that all the universe is was tweeked just for you..

I'm just gonna stroll past this b.s. I can smell dumbness from 50km away.

The idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life is an argument from ignorance.

You dont have a sample of universes for you to claim that this one was designed or fine-tuned.

You obviously dont know what an undesigned universe looks like!, so how can you know what a designed universe is?

The argument is like coming across a single snowflake and because you see its beautifully crystallized structure, you claim that it was designed and that was your proof. We all know that would be a mistake to come to that conclusion, so why do you use the same style of argument with the universe?

You cannot make a definitive claim with a sample size of one, thats just wrong.

AgentOfAllah:


I read your post, and then asked 2 specific questions resulting from my reading. I wouldn't ask those questions if I felt your post answered them. For the sake of clarity, here they are again:

1) Give an example of a "carefully chosen" physical constant.

2) Explain how this constant makes the universe conducive for life.

ok then

1) we have the force of gravity,electromagnetism,weak and the strong nuclear force and many many more like the nuclear efficiency,the cosmological constant,the plank's length....all these forces maintains a short range of values which if exceeded in the slightest will cause the universe to operate in a strange way and even render it hostile to life

take for example the strong nuclear force, if it was say 1.99% stronger it will greatly affect the fusion of stars, i bet you know what this means.if not it simply means there will be no hydrogen in the universe,
you should know what this means

-- if the force of electromagnetism was a bit weaker or stronger the universe will die out in no time(short lived)

--if the cosmological constant was a bit larger the will mean that the universe will expand too quickly,, and the result, the universe will form a solar type star in no time

---also the hiesenbergs uncertainties magnitude if too small, oxygen transport to cells will be reduced, and the effect, it will render some life essential elements unstable

there are more of these constants,but will stop here

as for your 2nd question...I think the above explains them too..to further clarify take the quote below

The laws of science, as we presently know, contain many fundamental numbers(constants), e.g the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron, .. The fascinating thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life--stephen hawking

cc.johnydon22

what is your opinion about this?

@donnffd:do you even understand the concept of fine tuning to begin with?

butterfly88:
ok then

1) we have the force of gravity,electromagnetism,weak and the strong nuclear force and many many more like the nuclear efficiency,the cosmological constant,the plank's length....all these forces maintains a short range of values which if exceeded in the slightest will cause the universe to operate in a strange way and even render it hostile to life

take for example the strong nuclear force, if it was say 1.99% stronger it will greatly affect the fusion of stars, i bet you know what this means.if not it simply means there will be no hydrogen in the universe,
you should know what this means

also if the force of electromagnetism was a bit weaker or stronger the universe will die out in no time(short lived)

as for your 2nd question...I think the above explains them too..to further clarify take the quote below

The laws of science, as we presently know, contain many fundamental numbers(constants), e.g the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron, .. The fascinating thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life--stephen hawking

cc.johnydon22

what is your opinion about this?

My opinion is represented above with the Puddle and amoeba analogy

johnydon22:
In a random dirty puddle in the ground an amoeba lives, the puddle has just the right temperature, just the right salinity and texture and so the amoeba thinks

"This puddle must certainly have been made specially for me"

This is the situation here, just like the amoeba the fact that we are means the universe can accomodate us, if this was a universe that cannot accomodate us, we won't be here and we won't ask this question.

In this cosmic causality there are two possibilities.

-either the universe can accomodate life
-or it can't

So do you think one part of the coin is likely without interference from extra-cosmic intelligence and not the other half, the possibility is like a coin tose so both are equally fully possible with or without such external interference

But just like the amoeba - We found ourselves in a universe that can accomodate us therefore we begin to think that the universe was made just to accomodate us.

That is a grand delusion of the amoeba -

99.9% of the universe is hostile to organic molecules [ultimately life] i wonder how such a hostile universe was caused with a purpose of harbouring life in mind cus it seems that is a project gone wrong.

It is absurd to assume that all the universe is was tweeked just for you..

I wouldn't rush into disputing your opinion...but my take on fine tuning revolves around the fundamental constants that governs the operation of the universe , and there exists hundreds of these constants(as far as I know) and if just one of them was tweaked beyond its acceptable limit things will go out of hand

for instance the speed of light,if it has another value asides the present,it will greatly affect the luminosity of stars which make it impossible for life to thrive here

even the mysterious weak nuclear force, if it had been weaker life will be impossible from the beginning of time(the big bang)

so the question is, are these constants which govern the universe carefully chosen for life, or a mere delusion (like the warm and the puddle)

will you say fine tuning is mere fallacy even when presented with all these fundamental constants that works in-synch to support life, will you call them the result of mere chance?

butterfly88:
@donnffd:do you even understand the concept of fine tuning to begin with?

What are you saying?, if thats an attempt to insult, i would advise to refrain from it and use your intellect instead of your heart in arguing.

We have heard the argument all over and over again, the fundamental constants are just right and if slightly deviated from its current values would result in a universe far different from this.

Now i am asking you, Have you seen another universe for you to deduce that this one was fine-tuned?, Have you compared this one with any other one?, are you basing your judgement on a sample size of one?

butterfly88:
ok then

1) we have the force of gravity,electromagnetism,weak and the strong nuclear force and many many more like the nuclear efficiency,the cosmological constant,the plank's length....

What do you understand by the term "physical constant"? Because you've mentioned a mighty lot of things, and of all these, only Planck length is veritably a "physical constant".

all these forces maintains a short range of values which if exceeded in the slightest will cause the universe to operate in a strange way and even render it hostile to life

Again, do you know what a constant is? And, in the scale of the universe, you live on an inconsequential accretion of matter not even worthy of being called a blemish, yet you seem to think the universe is not hostile to life. How have you arrived at your conclusion?

take for example the strong nuclear force, if it was say 1.99% stronger it will greatly affect the fusion of stars, i bet you know what this means.if not it simply means there will be no hydrogen in the universe,
you should know what this means

also if the force of electromagnetism was a bit weaker or stronger the universe will die out in no time(short lived)

You assume all the other fundamental forces shouldn't scale with a change in the value of the strong nuclear interaction. If these forces are multiple expressions of a grand unified model, there is no reason why one should be independent of the other.

as for your 2nd question...I think the above explains them too..to further clarify take the quote below

You have not shown that the universe is conducive for life. Let's put things in perspective: The density of the universe is 10^-27 kg/m³. This implies that for every cubic meter of space in the universe, there is on average, roughly only one hydrogen atom. Try to process that thought, and you will come to appreciate that much of the observable universe is vacuum; and vacuum, sir, is not conducive for life at all.

The laws of science, as we presently know, contain many fundamental numbers(constants), e.g the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron, .. The fascinating thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life--stephen hawking

It is true that the fundamental constants seem finely adjusted to allow for the development of life, but this is not the same as the claim the the universe is conducive for life. Be careful about making exorbitant claims like that! Finally, that the fundamental constants seem "finely tuned" does not mean they are in fact, "finely tuned". You should read a little on the anthropic principles. The fact is that we don't have a clue why these things appear to be so fine-tuned in this manner, but I encourage you to think about the implication that emerges from your "intelligent design" claim.

To state that the universal constants are so finely tuned that they suggest the input of some purposeful designer invariably suggests that this designer must force their designs to conform to certain constraining rules, outside of which, they are unable to be creative. For example, if god used 0.1C instead of C as the speed of light in its attempt to convert energy into mass, matter would not exist. This means god itself is subject to some objective physical laws. While succumbing to the inexorability of these physical laws may suggest an intelligent designer, it tells an unflattering account of your "all powerful" intelligent designer.