The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

[thenexttodie]

The late Victor Stenger wrote about this common misunderstanding of the fine-tuning argument. Apart from his book on the subject, his last book also covered this - Hemant Mehta gives an excerpt on his site relevant to this.

Kindest regards,

James

The link to Hemant Mehta's site is worth fuck all.

It begins with notion that we should suppose there are an infinite amount of universes that exist and the reason why we should suppose this is because it would refute the fine tuning argument, I guess.

Then it goes on to explain that the most important points of fine tuning exist because they are either "natural" (meaning that no universe could exist otherwise) or because...wait for it............they fit with a current theory model of our universe. Really? No shit!

Dragon Glas, I would like to know how you would have perceived any part of the fucking bullshit in this link to be informative. Were you born in a fucking cheesecake factory or what? What is your problem?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The late Victor Stenger wrote about this common misunderstanding of the fine-tuning argument. Apart from his book on the subject, his last book also covered this - Hemant Mehta gives an excerpt on his site relevant to this.

Kindest regards,

James

The link to Hemant Mehta's site is worth fuck all.

It begins with notion that we should suppose there are an infinite amount of universes that exist and the reason why we should suppose this is because it would refute the fine tuning argument, I guess.

You "guess" wrong.

M-theory is a plausible explanation which is in keeping with cosmologists' observations.

That's the important point to understand.

The "fine-tuning" argument isn't.

Then it goes on to explain that the most important points of fine tuning exist because they are either "natural" (meaning that no universe could exist otherwise) or because...wait for it............they fit with a current theory model of our universe. Really? No shit!

The universe doesn't exist because of us - ie, it doesn't exist for us - we exist because of it, we are the natural result of the laws of Nature.

Life is inevitable in our space-time continuum - biochemistry is just a sub-set of chemistry.

Which came first - the universe or humans? This should tell you that humans are the result of the universe - not that humans are the reason for the universe's existence.

Dragon Glas, I would like to know how you would have perceived any part of the fucking bullshit in this link to be informative. Were you born in a fucking cheesecake factory or what? What is your problem?

This derogatory comment of yours contributes nothing to this discussion.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This derogatory comment of yours contributes nothing to this discussion.

It is cute how hard this troll is fishing for a ban.

 

[thenexttodie]

M-theory is a plausible explanation which is in keeping with cosmologists' observations.

That's the important point to understand.

A plausible explanation of what exactly?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

M-theory is a plausible explanation which is in keeping with cosmologists' observations.

That's the important point to understand.

A plausible explanation of what exactly?

Of the universe.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Dragan Glas, So you believe there are an infinite amount of universes that exist and that , just to say, in one of these universes I might be the "King of all Gypsies Everywhere". Is this what you believe?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragan Glas, So you believe there are an infinite amount of universes that exist and that , just to say, in one of these universes I might be the "King of all Gypsies Everywhere". Is this what you believe?

Yes to multiple - not necessarily infinite - universes, no to another you existing elsewhere.

The multi-verse and parallel universes are not necessarily the same thing.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,

Yes to multiple - not necessarily infinite - universes, no to another you existing elsewhere.

The multi-verse and parallel universes are not necessarily the same thing.

Kindest regards,

James

Well an infinite amount of universes would imply that there would be at least be someone just like me living in one of these universes as King of All Gypsies Everywhere. I guess whether or not this person is me is bit philisophical. Anyway I guess its a bit off topic.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Yes to multiple - not necessarily infinite - universes, no to another you existing elsewhere.

The multi-verse and parallel universes are not necessarily the same thing.

Kindest regards,

James

Well an infinite amount of universes would imply that there would be at least be someone just like me living in one of these universes as King of All Gypsies Everywhere. I guess whether or not this person is me is bit philisophical. Anyway I guess its a bit off topic.

M-theory posits possibly 10[sup]500[/sup] universes - hence not an infinite number of universes.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

M-theory posits possibly 10[sup]500[/sup] universes - hence not an infinite number of universes.

Kindest regards,

James

Almost everything that has ever been written about string theory and multiverse posits an infinite amount of universes. Some physicists deny the multiverse altogether. Others might not like the idea of arguing for an infinite amount as this would allow logical absurdities to be unfalsifiable so they put a cap on it. In fact all multiverse theories are unfalsifiable and are basically only ever useful as a counter-argument against the fine tuning of the universe.

The fine tuned aspects of the universe are an observable fact.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

M-theory posits possibly 10[sup]500[/sup] universes - hence not an infinite number of universes.

Kindest regards,

James

Almost everything that has ever been written about string theory and multiverse posits an infinite amount of universes. Some physicists deny the multiverse altogether. Others might not like the idea of arguing for an infinite amount as this would allow logical absurdities to be unfalsifiable so they put a cap on it. In fact all multiverse theories are unfalsifiable and are basically only ever useful as a counter-argument against the fine tuning of the universe.

The fine tuned aspects of the universe are an observable fact.

No, it isn't because it's based on the assumption that because life exists that the universe must have been designed for life to exist - hence a creator-entity.

There is no evidence that this is the case.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Dragon Glas, I would like to know how you would have perceived any part of the fucking bullshit in this link to be informative. Were you born in a fucking cheesecake factory or what? What is your problem?

You just insulted the nicest, most reasonable person you're probably ever going to find yourself up against in this debate, where you are CLEARLY the one on the stupid, ideology-driven and un-scientific end.
I don't know where the hell you get off with your attitude when you're up against the entire scientific establishment, where any given scientist on a bad day will still be twice as smart and knowledgable on this topic than you.

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,


M-theory posits possibly 10[sup]500[/sup] universes - hence not an infinite number of universes.

Kindest regards,

James

Almost everything that has ever been written about string theory and multiverse posits an infinite amount of universes. Some physicists deny the multiverse altogether. Others might not like the idea of arguing for an infinite amount as this would allow logical absurdities to be unfalsifiable so they put a cap on it. In fact all multiverse theories are unfalsifiable and are basically only ever useful as a counter-argument against the fine tuning of the universe.

The fine tuned aspects of the universe are an observable fact.

No, it isn't because it's based on the assumption that because life exists that the universe must have been designed for life to exist - hence a creator-entity.

I never said that is was, did I? There is no way to falsify any multiverse, so any basis for the theory could be just as meaningful as another. But that's not the point.

The main idea of everything I have posted here so far (other than you 2 don't even know what you are talking about) is that both you and HWIN allude to the existence of multiple, or an infinity of universes, in exactly the manner as I describe: As a counter argument against the fine tuning aspects of the universe.

Dragan Glas , Where does the number of 10[sup]500[/sup] come from? From memory this sounds to me like the number of possible arrangements of the existing particles in our universe. Am I correct or do you not know?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

M-theory posits possibly 10[sup]500[/sup] universes - hence not an infinite number of universes.

Kindest regards,

James

Almost everything that has ever been written about string theory and multiverse posits an infinite amount of universes. Some physicists deny the multiverse altogether. Others might not like the idea of arguing for an infinite amount as this would allow logical absurdities to be unfalsifiable so they put a cap on it. In fact all multiverse theories are unfalsifiable and are basically only ever useful as a counter-argument against the fine tuning of the universe.

The fine tuned aspects of the universe are an observable fact.

No, it isn't because it's based on the assumption that because life exists that the universe must have been designed for life to exist - hence a creator-entity.

I never said that is was, did I? There is no way to falsify any multiverse, so any basis for the theory could be just as meaningful as another. But that's not the point.

It's an obviously valid inference.

Your above claim that the universe is fine-tuned implies that there must be a "Fine-Tuner" - in other words, a creator-entity.

The main idea of everything I have posted here so far (other than you 2 don't even know what you are talking about) is that both you and HWIN allude to the existence of multiple, or an infinity of universes, in exactly the manner as I describe: As a counter argument against the fine tuning aspects of the universe.

It's not in answer to the fine-tuning or any other creationist explanation. It's simply consistent with observations.

Dragan Glas , Where does the number of 10[sup]500[/sup] come from? From memory this sounds to me like the number of possible arrangements of the existing particles in our universe. Am I correct or do you not know?

I believe it has to do with super-symmetry - this number is the result of imposing certain limitations on string theory to give a reasonable number of possible universes: string theory without this limitation posits far more.

Perhaps Hackenslash could shed some light on this...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The main idea of everything I have posted here so far (other than you 2 don't even know what you are talking about) is that both you and HWIN allude to the existence of multiple, or an infinity of universes, in exactly the manner as I describe: As a counter argument against the fine tuning aspects of the universe.

It's not in answer to the fine-tuning or any other creationist explanation. It's simply consistent with observations.

:lol:

I brought up multiple universes as something the Fine-Tuning Argument needs in order to justify its case. Without verification of life only being possible in our universe, the Fine-tuning Argument is holding an empty bag. My argument deals with the universe as we know it now.

Glad to see thenexttodie still has not read anything I wrote.

 

[Nesslig20]

My criticism of the fine tuning argument, when someone (Almost Atheist) put this forward.

Watch the video on youtube. Title of video is
"Atheist physicists proves God. Anthropic Principle fails

"

So basically the fine tuning argument.
It's funny since I send you a video "Intelligent Design: Crash course philosophy"

that addresses this argument before you presented it to me.
You could say that the argument was addressed before it was presented, however the video I send you talked about the
teleological argument in general aka argument from design.
Which includes "Paley's watchmaker analogy" and the argument from fine tuning, which goes like this:

The universe and it's properties (i.e. physical constants) are the only way that allows life to exists. If any these properties would be slightly different then the universe would be unable to support life. The odds of these properties occurring by random change is so remote that the most reasonable explanation is that the universe was finely tuned by God with the purpose of sustaining life.

There are many objections to the fine tuning argument I will list some important ones that make this argument one of the worst argument you could use to justify your belief in a deity.

1. Assuming the argument is valid, what does it really tell us?
Even if you assume the validity of the argument, the conclusion that God finely tuned the universe doesn't follow, because the argument could work equally well if you replaced "God" with any other god or multiple gods as
- Allah / Yahweh (same abrahamic god with different conflicting versions)
- Brahma (hindu)
- Waheguru (Sikhism)
- Atum, Ptah, Neith (Egyptian gods)
etc
It doesn't even exclude something you can make up in the spot like a magic dragon or the Genie from Aladdin who finely tuned the universe with his

It even cannot exclude anything that is inanimate like the the Cosmic Egg that "finely tuned" the Chinese god Pangu to finely tune the world. Or something else inanimate that finely tuned the universe, thus the argument doesn't even have to point towards a conscious being let alone which answers prayers.
So don't say that this argument proves your particular belief in your god, because other people who believe in something completely different can (and they do) use the same argument and still be equally valid.

2. What does it say about God if there is one or more?
It is especially embracing for someone who believes in an omnipotent God to use this argument to justify their belief, because if the universe and its physical constants (as the argument says) MUST be finely tuned in order to sustain life then this put limits on the fine tuner, thus the fine tuner isn't omnipotent. An omnipotent god (by definition) can do anything including creating an infinite amount of universes, each being drastically different, yet each capable with sustaining life. The argument defeats the conclusion often made by those who use it.
If an omnipotent God exists then the universe doesn't have to be finely tuned to sustain life, thus the fine tuning argument is wrong OR if the fine tuning argument is right then there can be no omnipotent god who created the universe.

3. Can God or a fine tuner explain the fine tuning or the apparent fine tuning of the universe?
No, well unless you can explain how the fine tuner fine tuned the universe and show the accuracy of your explanation just like any scientist demands of someone who is proposing an explanation of phenomenon X.
Did the fine tuner first made a machine with turning nobs that determine the constants of the universe? Or did the fine tuner just use magic? What material did he use, what was his method and how can you tell?
In science you cannot just say phenomenon X is explained by explanation Y, you've to explain the model so anyone can objectively understand it and you've to demonstrate the accuracy of your model.
To illustrate this:

This when those who believe in the supernatural (i.e. magic) get very uncomfortable because the supernatural is by definition outside our perceptible reality, beyond investigation. Supernatural "explanations" cannot be understood nor objectively confirmed in anyway thus they don't qualify as an explanation and this is why science operates on methodological naturalism aka the scientific method.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Science needs something to work with and until someone proposes a mechanism to test the supernatural, the material world is all what science has to work with.
This doesn't mean that you cannot believe in the supernatural, you are free to believe in any unsupported nonsense you like, nor does it mean there is no supernatural, it just means we cannot tell anything about it other then subjective faith based assertions that cannot be verified to be true. There are many scientists who believe in various types of gods, but most of them like my favorite one (Kenneth Miller, catholic and fierce critic of ID/creationism) recognize the importance of the scientific method and why their beliefs in the supernatural are a matter of personal subjective conviction on faith and don't qualify as science for that reason.

4. What are the odds?
The argument asserts that the odds of these physical constants being as they are came about by change is so low that it couldn't have happened by chance. However there is no way to conclude this since we only have one universe and you cannot calculate any probability by a sample size of 1.
To understand why, lets say you are allowed to play in a lottery and you are thus the only one that plays in the lottery.
The number you got was: 1234567890
Wow, what are the chances? But not only that it turns out that you won the lottery! What are the chances now? Well, what is it? Seriously, how can you tell? You need more information.
For example could it be that you could've gotten a ticket with a number other then 1234567890 or was this the only ticket that they had?
And how did you win? Could it be that the winning number could only be the number 123457890 or could the number vary within 0000000000 and 999999999 or where there other limits that increases the likely hood like if the limit was between 1234567889 and 1234567891 in which case the chance of the number 1234567890 being the winning number is one in three?
Without knowing all this, you cannot tell what the chance was of you winning the lottery. By all we know, the chance could've been 1 in 1.
Now what would you say about someone who comes up to you and say that the odds were astronomically low and puts up a number even though he has the exact same amount of information you have? I say he is talking out of his ass, which proponents of the fine tuning argument also do.
They assert for the sake of their argument the notion of "altering the constants" by saying if you alter slightly the constants the chances are yadayada. And they will pull out some big number like 1 in 10 to the power of something out of their asses and make absurd analogies like "this event is so improbably it is like winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life" just to impress the weak mined, but they don't have the calculations to demonstrate any of that.

5. Is this the only way a universe can support life?
One of the assertions that is relevant to the probability claim is the one that the constants as we know them cannot be any different otherwise there would be no universe that could sustain life, however this assertion needs to be addressed separately. Often the person making the fine tuning argument makes no case for this claim. Ignoring that the proposed fine tuner is omnipotent and thus could have created a life sustaining universe with different constants, how can we tell wether a different universe could've sustained life or not?
Well there is. Let's take a life form like a human being and place it in a similar environment without gravity or Zero G (one of the four fundamental forces is thus removed). It is perfectly fine because biology doesn't particularly rely on gravity. People can survive their entire life in zero G. The only predominantly negative effects are getting weaker bones and muscles and heart which is noticeable after a person lands back on earth and experience gravity once again, but in a universe without gravity that wouldn't be a problem. Well you could say that gravity is necessary for stars, planets, etc and those are needed to sustain lives, however there is no indication that the fine tuner (omnipotent or not) cannot fine tune the universe in a different way that where there would be no need for stars of planets. However we could let everything stay the same and only remove the weak nuclear force and that universe would be almost identical to ours.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11795.pdf
appart form a minor differences like we would need more deuterium at the start of the universe to have the necessary material for stars but if the fine tuner did that then stars would burn much longer then in our universe. And also in some other respect it would be better since weak nuclear force is the cause of spontaneous nuclear decay and therefore radioactivity which can cause cancer. Thus there is no indication given by proponents of this argument that this is the only possible way a universe could sustain life and there are plenty indications to the contrary.

6. Is the universe really finely tuned for life?
The immediate problem I had with the fine tuning argument when I first heard is is by asking the question to myself, is the universe really finely tuned for me or life in general?
I knew enough about the state of the universe (looking at the big picture) that this was definitely not the case.

“Most places in the universe will kill life instantly—instantly! People say “Oh, the forces of nature are just right for life.” Excuse me. Just look at the volume of the universe where you can’t live. You will die instantly.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


The universe is hostile to life as we know it. Most, and I mean most to the extreme 99,999999999999999 etc %, of the universe is a lethal radiation filled vacuum at near absolute zero kelvin, you won't survive a few minutes and if you managed to survive after losing consciousness by asphyxiation and then being pulled back into a space ship, you would face the likely hood of getting cancer or getting acute radiation sickness from being exposed to lethal radiation (and acute radiation sickness isn't a good way to go, you wished they would have left you behind in the vacuum of space to die quickly and painless). Well that depends on wether you where inside a magnetic field of a planet, but of course most of the universe isn't inside a magnetic field that shields off radiation.
One of the few things about the universe that might be considered beneficial to us is the fact that the material needed for life is fairly common, well not really, of the total of the mass and energy that the universe contains only a fraction is the type of stuff (atoms) we are made off.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Elemental_abundance_and_nuclear_binding_energy
But of those atoms, Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen are the most abundant in order. Hydrogen, Oxygen for water are the most common elements in the universe with the exception of helium. Also Carbon and Nitrogen are also common.
However those elements with the exception of hydrogen, needed to be produced by nuclear fusion in stars and that is highly inefficient. The universe started out with mostly hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%) by mass and it remains largely the same today, which is one of the pieces of evidence for the big bang theory. Full explanation here http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/ Most of the atomic matter in the universe are stellar clouds and most won't ever become part of a star and when a star dies not all of it becomes heavier elements and those stars must first go super nova to spread those elements, which is needed for life, throughout the universe, again inefficient. And it is also not a good idea to have a process like supernova which is needed for life but can be harmful to life if you get to close to one. And supernova are more efficient into producing black holes rather then life, and black holes are also things you don't want to get close to, which is why some say with justification that if the universe was finely tuned it is much easier to say it was tuned to create black holes rather then life. Most of the atomic matter that isn't gas clouds are stars with a few rocky and gas objects orbiting around them (after enough nuclear fusion and supernova), but of course most stars don't harbor planets with life.
To make the analogy, imagine a green house the size of a whole city but the condition inside greenhouse gas only allows one tiny plant to grow, who would argue that this green house is finely tuned for the plant?
If the universe was finely tuned then the fine tuner had the idea of being very lazy and very wasteful. He tuned the universe to start out as a dense contracted vacuum balloon with mostly hydrogen helium gas that expands into infinity and he hoped that some of those hydrogen helium would condense in stars and that enough stars would form to produce the elements needed for life and also hoped that some of those material produced after fusion and supernova would coalesce in solar systems and hoped that some of those solar system would have planets capable of supporting life after billions of years and that very fraction of the fraction of the fraction of the universe is the end goal of literally everything. And this end products shrinks down to nothingness when zoomed out to the respect of even the single galaxy it is in and that galaxy shrinks down to nothingness compared to the scale of the cosmos making it hardly significant when looking at the big picture. It becomes rather silly to suggest that this insignificant piece of star dust that we and our planet are, is somehow the reason why the universe exists and that anything else which his almost everything is just irrelevant leftovers.
And the earth itself is also not finely tuned for life, well unless you are something like a tardigrade but not us certainly. We need dry land on and most of earth is covered with water (salt water) and we need fresh water in order to survive and most water is again salt water and most fresh water is frozen solid and most liquid fresh water is infested with pathogens thus you need to boil it first. Also I've heard that the atmosphere contains oxygen and without it we are going to die which is true but oxygen is also (counter intuitively) toxic to us. Aerobic metabolism creates free radicals that causes cancer.
Also we need food and extracting food from the environment is not that convenient. We need to kill life for us to exists and that include killing the plants we eat and most things we eat right now are genetically engineered through artificial selection by us, but before the days of big, sweet, juicy, seedless fruit we had small often tasteless fruit full of though indigestible fibers and seeds.
What makes the world comfortable to you right now was finely tuned by those who came before us or those who are maintaining it right now like building comfortable climate controlled houses with fresh water coming out of tubes and cold places to store food and places to get more food. And before that, people had a though time surviving often dying of things we now avoid by going to the doctor or going to the supermarket or the dentist (wisdom teeth!).
The universe doesn't seem to be finely tuned for life at all, rather by looking at the 4 billion year history of life on earth, it is the environment that finely tunes life to adapt and those that couldn't (the majority of life) went extinct. Thus the fine tuner not only hoped that some of the star dust would be able to sustain life but he also hoped that some of the life would survive the 4 billion year long history riddled with extinctions.
To suggest that the universe is finely tuned for life, one must first ignore the true state of the universe and its history. 

 

[thenexttodie]

Almost everything that has ever been written about string theory and multiverse posits an infinite amount of universes. Some physicists deny the multiverse altogether. Others might not like the idea of arguing for an infinite amount as this would allow logical absurdities to be unfalsifiable so they put a cap on it. In fact all multiverse theories are unfalsifiable and are basically only ever useful as a counter-argument against the fine tuning of the universe.

The fine tuned aspects of the universe are an observable fact.

No, it isn't because it's based on the assumption that because life exists that the universe must have been designed for life to exist - hence a creator-entity.

I never said that is was, did I? There is no way to falsify any multiverse, so any basis for the theory could be just as meaningful as another. But that's not the point.

It's an obviously valid inference.

Your above claim that the universe is fine-tuned implies that there must be a "Fine-Tuner" - in other words, a creator-entity.

You're missing the point. Dragan Glas, all physicists acknowledge the fine tuned properties of the universe, regardless if they believe in a creator or not. The electromagnetic force constant factually exists as well as the gravitatiional force constant, the mass ratio of sub-atomic particles and so on. They are the properties which allow for the existence of elements and sustenance of matter. They can be measured and proven.

The main idea of everything I have posted here so far (other than you 2 don't even know what you are talking about) is that both you and HWIN allude to the existence of multiple, or an infinity of universes, in exactly the manner as I describe: As a counter argument against the fine tuning aspects of the universe.

It's not in answer to the fine-tuning or any other creationist explanation. It's simply consistent with observations.

There have been countless articles published in secular journals by physicists who do not subscribe to a multiverse theory. 1 reason often given is because they cannot be falsified. So to say that they are consistent with observation is like saying that a sock eating monster living under my bed is consistent with my observation of missing socks. Multiverse theories are based on extrapolations from ideas on certain inflationary models which is not possible to verify.

I would like to now reply to something HWIN posted. I think you also might find it relevant to what you and I have been talking about.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You're missing the point. Dragan Glas, all physicists acknowledge the fine tuned properties of the universe, regardless if they believe in a creator or not. The electromagnetic force constant factually exists as well as the gravitatiional force constant, the mass ratio of sub-atomic particles and so on. They are the properties which allow for the existence of elements and sustenance of matter. They can be measured and proven.

As you are missing - or ignoring - the point.

"Fine-tuning" implies that there was/is a active process to ensure that life exists.

This is simply not the case.

The properties of the universe have not been "fine-tuned" - life is just the result of the properties of our universe.

No intent required.

There have been countless articles published in secular journals by physicists who do not subscribe to a multiverse theory. 1 reason often given is because they cannot be falsified. So to say that they are consistent with observation is like saying that a sock eating monster living under my bed is consistent with my observation of missing socks. Multiverse theories are based on extrapolations from ideas on certain inflationary models which is not possible to verify.

Being consistent with observation(s) does not require being falsifiable - one can still come up with an explanation that's consistent with observations. String theory is a case in point - it's called a theory, not an hypothesis, even though we can't prove it's true. Other explanations may or may not be falsifiable - we may end up, having falsified the falsifiable explanations, with a unfalsifiable explanation for the universe: it may be right, we just can't know one way or the other.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

I brought up multiple universes as something the Fine-Tuning Argument needs in order to justify its case. Without verification of life only being possible in our universe, the Fine-tuning Argument is holding an empty bag. My argument deals with the universe as we know it now.

Glad to see thenexttodie still has not read anything I wrote.

There are several properties in the universe which must be allowed to precisely sustained in order for almost anything to exist. This is a fact.

To me, this seems to fit more with the idea that the universe was created for a specific purpose than it does with the secular idea of the universe being the result of "random chance" and "dumb luck".

 

[thenexttodie]

Being consistent with observation(s) does not require being falsifiable - one can still come up with an explanation that's consistent with observations. String theory is a case in point - it's called a theory, not an hypothesis, even though we can't prove it's true. Other explanations may or may noThis is simply not the case.

The properties of the universe have not been "fine-tuned" - life is just the result of the properties of our universe.

Dragan Glas, I appreciate your ability to argue.

Did the terms "fine tuned" or fine tuning" originate from a creationist or was it from a secular scientist? It seems to me it was the latter.