God Fine-tuning the universe

[HeWhoAsks]

Dear RA fans:

I'm having a discussion over at http://klutz.vgmidi.com/viewforum.php?f=12 and have run into a point that's a bit beyond me (but not completely so), so I wonder if someone could help.

I've acceepted for the sake of argument that *something* created our unvierse that was outside our space-time; my partner wants to assign this creator, which minimally could be just a force, an intelligence and status as a being. He posted the following:

"This Creator was able to create length, width, hight, time matter, energy, the strong nuclear force constant, the weak nuclear force constant, the gravitational force constant, the electromagnetic force constant, the speed of light constant, the fine structure constant, the decay rate of the proton, the ground state energy level for Helium, the decay rate for Beryllium, mass excess of the neutron over the proton, the initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons, the polarity of the water molocule, the ratio of exotic to ordinary matter, the resonance of the carbon 12 nucleus along with about 30 more parameters values that must fall within a narrowly defined range for any kind of life to exist and He can operate in extra dimensions other than the ones we are confined to. From that I infer that this Creator is intelligent. . . ."

"[Fred] Hoyle (an atheist) wrote in the November 1981 issue of Engineering and Science: 'A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest tha a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.' "

Anyone care to help me with the argument against this line of thought? If the assumption of some force outside our space-time is wrong-headed, let me know.

[WITHTEETH]

I disagree with this guys "information" unscientific theory. is he willing to debate it in terms of genetics? because new information can happen due to evolution.

[ocmpoma]

Well, first I would ask what exactly is meant by this "narrow range" of the laws. I am familiar somewhat with cosmology and am aware of the concept that if the laws were different, reality wouldn't be here. I would ask the question more to see what is meant by it on the speaker's part. Also, all the delicate laws in the universe (literally) do not indicate an intelligence of any sort. The speaker's inference remains just that. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that our universe is just one of many (the many-worlds interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)), which would make it like Earth - one of many possible outcomes which just happens to be suitable for life as we know it.

Anyway, this whole argument is just an expansion on the old anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), with greater odds. Just remember that spectacles sit on our noses because they were designed to, not the other way 'round.

Oh, and I would find the source of that Hoyle quote to make sure that it wasn't mined.

[ocmpoma]

After looking around online a bit, I have found the Hoyle quote at a number of apologetics and ID webistes, which, for me, means that it has most likely been mined. I found the article here (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Hoyle,F)), unfortunately, there is a fee ($20) to read it (It's in the 1982 issue of Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, in an article entitled "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections".

[HeWhoAsks]

I disagree with this guys "information" unscientific theory. is he willing to debate it in terms of genetics? because new information can happen due to evolution.
Can you expand on that idea?

[HeWhoAsks]

Well, first I would ask what exactly is meant by this "narrow range" of the laws
I presume that this is not a plain question for information, but is more rhetorical. If I can tease out the rhetoric, do you mean that what is narrow is a contingent, human construct? That objectively there's no narrowness?

[WITHTEETH]

I disagree with this guys "information" unscientific theory. is he willing to debate it in terms of genetics? because new information can happen due to evolution.
Can you expand on that idea?
Well there is a general misconception with theist because of www.talkingorigins.com
They say that a genetic mutation of new information isn't proven, and does not happen. its a kind of trick question that theist have but i did my homework. Bacialy new information is how we evolveld new frontal lobers or other working parts. it doesn't include virus' where they just became stronger. they want added NEW information not added OLD information. Heres one example of a genetic increase in information - http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Nylon Bug, Drosophila sperm axoneme, sodium channel gene SCN11A, Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey, A Transposable Element-Mediated Gene Divergence that Directly Produces a Novel Type Bovine Bcnt Protein Including the Endonuclease Domain of RTE-1, evolution of a hominoid gene that supports high neurotransmitter flux. here are some examples of a genetic increase of information.
Talking origins doesn't even clearly define precisely what they mean by evoluition has no genetic increase of new information, they keep on setting the boundary farther and farther as scientists breakthrough their bullshit.

[ocmpoma]

"I presume that this is not a plain question for information, but is more rhetorical. If I can tease out the rhetoric, do you mean that what is narrow is a contingent, human construct? That objectively there's no narrowness?"

Yup.