Reddit reviews The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

From the submission:

> Several astrophysicists have done independent simulations and found that changing these variables, in some cases drastically, would not actually change a universe’s capacity to develop long-lived stars and eventually life as well. In the words of physicist Victor Stenger, author of The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, “…a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve…”.

If the cosmological constants were different, humanity would almost certainly not have evolved, sure. But other life still could, even if it were non-DNA-based organic life, or silicon-based life, or nanoscopic life on the surface of a neutron star, or gaseous life in the atmosphere of a star...

It's not that the universe happens to fit life perfectly, it's that life has adapted to fit its niche in the universe very well. And that could happen even in a universe with different rules. Self-replicating patterns will always thrive wherever they can form.

I have no reason to believe the universe is designed. Especially not with 99.99% of the universe being so hostile to human life as to kill us instantly. Only a bare fraction of the observed universe so far is conducive to human life, and of that we have to work pretty damned hard to protect ourselves against death by exposure.

So if this is an example of a universe by design, the designer either hates us or is hugely incompetent.

From the OP:

>>> if the physical constants could be other values, what predictions we can make using current scientific models seem to imply that other universes couldn't or are unlikely to be life-permitting, to the extent that it's absurdly unlikely for the universe to be life-permitting.

> We can physically model other universes, just like we do our own. This seems to be enough to draw conclusions.

This of course depends on whom you ask. If you ask theologians then you would undoubtedly get the opinion which you posted in the original post.

If, however, you were to ask an actual physicist, a person who can in fact model other universes, then the conclusion reached is just the opposite. A reasonable percentage of universes that would result if the physical constants of the universe were different could be life-permitting. Not humans, sure, but some kind of life.

See The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us.

Synopsis: A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Does this "fine-tuning" of the universe suggest that a creator god intentionally calibrated the initial conditions of the universe such that life on earth and the evolution of humanity would eventually emerge? In his in-depth and highly accessible discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, the author looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.

See also: The Problem with the Fine-Tuning Argument: An Excerpt from Victor Stenger’s Last Book God and the Multiverse

There is a whole book about this and quite good too.

https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483087646&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=vinge+fine+tuning

About the universe and what happened between t=0 and now? Well, I'd have to say start with Cosmos and you can also go with the documentary Sagan did of the same name. He touches on this subject in both of those.

Lawrence Krauss wrote A Universe from Nothing which goes into how there are explanations on how our universe could come to be without the need of the supernatural.

Victor Stenger has a bunch of books on this topic but I guess I might recommend The Falacy of Fine-Tuning.

There's a whole book written about this by physicist Victor Stenger, criticizing the "fine-tuning" argument.

Followup article here

Vic Stenger wrote an entire book on the subject The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning. No creator necessary.

From The Fallacy of Fine Tuning I presume

>If you know as much about science as I hope, then explain how everything came out so perfect out of (insert atheist way of creation)!

I will refer you to 3 books for that one, but then I will explain why that is not a valid argument and then explain why god does not answer that question either.

First the books: the first two will explain the big bang and inflationary cosmology (this is actually what took over or heavily modified the big bang theory from its original form) they are both by Briane Greene and I highly recommend them if you are interested in physics at all (they are not about god) the fabric of the cosmos and The hidden reality. There are also NOVA specials you can watch from the Fabric of the cosmos and his earlier book the elegant universe though I do not remember if they cover the big bang or inflation. The third book is specifically about the argument you just put forward. It is The fallacy of fine tuning:why the universe is not designed for us by Victor Stenger.

The reason that the argument you made is fallacious involves logical fallacies. Now, I don't want to seem like I'm talking down to you at all (I'm not) but I'm not sure how familiar you are with the intricacies of logic. Basically every argument has a premise, logical steps, and a conclusion. The argument you made (that the universe is perfect) has three flaws.

1: False premise - The universe is not actually perfect, far from it in fact. The reason why we are accustomed to the universe as it is is due to evolution. We evolved to fit the universe, not the other way around. If you mean something specific like how could the constants have got to the exact values we have please read the hidden reality, it answers that question by explaining multiple instances of how the universe can be fractured into slightly variable universes. The god delusion also answers this question but from my experience most theists are not willing to read it.

2: False premise - The burden of proof is not on me to prove or explain anything. I don't know is a completely acceptable answer if I had no evidence to put forward (We do actually have evidence, see the three books). Saying that I don't know how the universe came about does not immediately cede the argument to god. God has to answer to the same standards of logic and evidence that I would require of my own pet hypothesis. Burden of proof was explain in analogy by [Russell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot "This is why our logo is riding in a teapot")

3: Logical fallacy - Argument from ignorance. I already explained this one a little but basically this is the part that says you cannot use what we both do not know as evidence. If we come to a cave, and you ask what is in the cave and I say that I don't know but I bet it's a dragon then I would be using our shared ignorance to try and put forward the idea of a dragon as the inhabitant of the cave (sorry this analogy is bad, I have a flu right now so I'm kind of worn down)

Now, the reason that god fails the logic test (before he fails the evidence test, which he also does) is that if you say that god created the universe then you have put a terminator on the infinite regression that is causality (there are some hypothetical reasons that causality could be violated before the universe but I am skeptical of many of them and it would take me too far off track to get into them). The problem here is why do you give god a break from needing a cause? If we both agreed that there must be a first cause, why the hell should we give it sentience, and intelligence, and supernatural powers? If we also put forward a first cause that did not have those things then we would have an explanation that used fewer assumptions (many fewer assumptions). One of the best logical tools is occam's razor, which says that when we have multiple competing hypothesis we remove the ones with the most assumptions. Now it is only a logical tool and does not guarantee we will be correct but it is still a good probability chooser (remember how I said science is about probabilities).

So anyways, if you read this far I really hope that your takeaway is at least to read the three books i recommended (they are complicated but very interesting). I would also ask that you read the FAQ and probably The God Delusion (as it covers more of the faux science arguments for god than God is Not Great).

Next on my reading list Fallacy of Fine Tuning

The only explanation is not a cosmic designer, please read Victor Stengers refutation of the fine tuning argument. http://amzn.com/1616144432

Long and short of the argument, we don't have another universe with different laws to compare this one too, so we don't know if the laws were different we may have a better universe, it may be worse, but if there are infinite universes then it makes it rather trivial that there would be ones were life evolved. If there aren't infinite, this universe still could have had laws that allowed for life to evolve more easily.

There is another good counter to this, fine tuning implies finite power and ability, you tune a car as you don't have infinite time and space to buy and build the perfect engine, the only way you could define God in this instance is non-omnipotent, non-omniscient.

Yes I would assume the car engine was created in this room, this just shows you failed to read my last point. NON-LIVING material cannot becoming living material instantly. If the engine however showed it was made of self-replicatable cell-like material then it may have actually created itself, just as you were in your mothers womb, and you are far more complex than a simple engine.