A poet might say that the universe is exquisitely tuned, almost as if to accommodate us

We are all puddles of a sort, temporarily contained in fragile bags. :slight_smile:

(It does get old though. ; - )

Exactly. Therefore science cannot “point to God.”

Yep. It is the box of the sort of God I will believe in. Outside that box includes the god of the Aztecs demanding human sacrifices and many many more, even some notions of God believed by some of the people calling themselves Christian. Sorry, but just because Satan calls Himself god of this world doesn’t mean I will follow him.

I have no objection to you believing this. But this is not something science can tell you. It doesn’t follow in science that these constants were tuned. And just because the our life depends on such things, doesn’t mean science shows that no kind of life is possible with different constants. You can point out all kinds of things which our life depends on, but it doesn’t make life impossible without them.

No it doesn’t. It only teaches that God created things. It does not explain how. The word design is not in the text. It says nothing about how science has shown us the universe is structured and developed. And I certainly don’t believe “created in God’s own image” means God has to look like you or some other such nonsense.

Regardless, the content of Genesis certainly doesn’t mean that science says any of these things either.

Yeah… and I think God was involved in all of that. But it doesn’t mean that all these things could not have been any different with someone like you in that different world making the same kind of argument with everything completely different. Science only tells us how things are and cannot calculate probabilities for other possibilities.

1 Like

I will just quote @Klax

When I say science points to God that is what I mean. Fine tuning is a part of that. Not part of sci-fi. I find it amazing how we sheepishly and all too readily give extra-dimensions, multiverses, string theory and inflation-- all completely untestable and unfalsifiable ideas–the moniker “science” but we are too afraid to point out the obvious when it comes to the big bang, the fine-tuned constants, and coincidences with earth’s history. Its like all the “theistic evolutionists” are blinded by Stockholm syndrome on this forum. Are we so afraid of being accused of “gaps” and being embarrassed by our peers that we go to the extreme in the other direction?

We literally have all the evidence screaming a “creation” type event at us. The steady-state universe died and all the evidence points to our universe having a beginning 13.8 byo. And all the constants appear precisely tuned to allow us to form to the point that the slightest deviation in them leads to universes with no matter and life. So many other things also have to line up perfectly for advanced life–life capable of discussing science and making moral decisions, even when those constants are tuned.

Yes, implicit in this discussion is that humans are special. More special than rocks, puddles, cockroaches or bacteria. If we weren’t, I wonder why this website even exists or why any one of us even cares what anyone else thinks or believes. I assume this yes. The alternative is nihilism and I won’t engage in that philosophy because any action other than suicide in that framework is absurd.

Vinnie

1 Like

Science points to what is knowable. That doesn’t include looking down the wrong end of the telescope and seeing fine tuning. Seeing that this puddle hole fits perfectly as if it were made with us in mind. Who’s the sheepish we? And why do you insist in calling rationality beyond science science? And denigrating perfectly rational thinking beyond science because it isn’t testable or falsifiable? Extra dimensions, the multiverse (how many do you need?), string theory and inflation are all perfectly rational and theogonically neutral. Your hostility to rationality does God no favours.

And is the sheepish we the same afraid we?

Not my counter mate.

What is obvious about the BB? And there you go looking in the top of that telescope again. Can you see any coincidences in Earth’s story going forward? I do agree that theistic evolution is an oxymoron. What is all the evidence of a “creation” type event, whatever that is?

There is no beginning of beginnings. God not only doesn’t change that but is fully compatible with that. Why do you insist on this Homo paleas? And what are all the constants? And what aren’t their relationships?

Absolute meaninglessness doesn’t necessitate living meaninglessly. Doesn’t mean I have to kill myself. That’s what you fear for yourself. Don’t worry, you have people who let you love them.

There’s an infinite regress of cats and fleas, too. It’s one reason why children make better philosophers than adults, and maybe their rationality is better, as well.

I think it comes down to semantics. Yes, we can strongly infer from science that the Universe is created, has a beginning as we would understand this. But, when we say ‘fine tuned’, this to me means that the Universe’s beginning needed ‘tuning’, or some such non-sense. As a theist, I prefer to say the Universe, and all science can examine, has been created as such (it does not require twigging or tuning), as God deals with beginnings and endings, and is not prone to create and then fix it along the way.

I do not feel embarrassed, but rather believe that God as Creator is more than science can cope with.

I’m not fully sure what this means but I will offer my thoughts. I never said God made a faulty universe and had to correct his blunder by changing constants. I doubt very many, if any creationists believe this. I never said the universe needed anything. What I did say is the universe have every appearance of being tuned from the start for our existence to a very high degree.

Vinnie

I have tried to point out what some of the terms and phrases mean, particularly within the scientific context. The semantics are important, and my comments are not the result of embracement; for example, it is common to say an instrument needs to be fine-tuned before it is used for a measurement. Furthermore, invoking reasoning derived from the constants negates the notion the creation was somehow random and presumably it settled down at some time (or it has not, or some other nonsense). I would be comfortable with the statement that God created all, He is the creator, and science studies the creation - as a Christian I begin with God is Creator, and everything follows from this. A scientist who does not believe there is God, would base his reasoning on this atheist outlook, and I would suggest to him, that it is his burden to deal with the obvious inference from science re constants and reproducibility that science shows.

I trust this clarifies my comment.

What about a scientist who believes in God by desire and faith, by the Spirit, knowing that there is no burden to deal with the obvious inference from science re constants and reproducibility that science shows (whatever that cognitive bias could possibly mean)? What do you suggest to them?

I am suggesting that such a scientist does not have a burden, as the inference is in harmony with the teachings of the Faith.

What, if they believe in God by the gift of faith they will then automatically, intrinsically, perichoretically believe that He pre-tunes the constants of sempiternal nature with a side order of ‘reproducibility’, whatever that is? No such inference is necessary. It does not arise.

It seems discussions with you become somewhat oblique - the scientist I mention, would study nature from a position that it is all created by God. This discussion has shown we cannot come to know God from such studies. As scientists, we would critically examine our insights, and my view is that we would conclude these are consistent with our beliefs. The constants and related insights are examples of this.

That we are more special than rocks, cockroaches, bacteria or even monkeys, does not mean there are no other living beings in the universe with the same capabilities, while nevertheless being completely different with regards to shape, biology, chemistry, and the things their life depends upon. Let alone meaning it is impossible for beings with those capabilities to have developed in a universe with a different set of physical constants. It just doesn’t follow. Science doesn’t point to any such thing.

1 Like

The obliquity is mutual. It makes no difference to the science, to the study, apart from its subjective effects, what the scientist believes. You say: we cannot come to know God from such studies. I disagree. If we posit Him then science tells us much about Him. Scientists critically examine their insights constantly, that’s their job. The question then is are our beliefs consistent with our insights. There is no critically examined insight about constants that can be affected by God.

While I do not find any “nature, therefore God” argument to be coherent, the puddle response to fine tuning has always struck me as missing the point. A puddle will conform to any landscape. The fit does not matter.

That the universe permits life is not in itself the whole claim. What is remarkable is the combined observation that life requires such a narrow fit of constants to happen, and those are what we find. If life were easy and any lump of rock readily turns into worms, there would be no fine tuning discussion.

Can we have silicone life, energy beings, fog creatures, and life other than how we know it? My guess is no, but your mileage may vary. There is a subjective element to fine tuning. But it seems to me to be much easier to come up with descriptions of alternate inert universes than universes which permit self awareness.

3 Likes

Sempiternal nature, cats and fleas correlate.

Our beliefs are about something. Our scientific insights are based on the scientific method, which requires, amongst other things, objects for study, theory related to the material. The discussion boils down to the often discussed - science cannot obtain an object called god for study.

So I ask, what beliefs from a scientist regarding God, determine the insights he would derive from the scientific method?

That’s asking whether pigs have wings. Nothing whatsoever about taking the leap of faith can change the absurdity of existence i.e. objectivity, except subjectively. How things feel. They are utterly orthogonal. False faith distorts objectivity especially in making up the subjective fallacy of fine tuning, the penultimate ‘gap’. Faith is not in the music of the spheres in the keys of c, e, G and h. It’s in God through Jesus.

Lord, give me faith in you, please.

A believing scientist could concur with Jeremiah about the stability of the universal physical constants.

This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…
Jeremiah 33:25

The unbeliever has no foundational, principial reason to understand why they are constant and not changing, merely experience… they just are.