Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Argument from fine tuning

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Scholarly analysis[edit]

The Fine-Tuning Argument: Exploring the Improbability of Our Existence. FuzzyCatPotato of the Free Flans (talk/stalk) 19:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting thing about the "Goldilocks zone"[edit]

YECs claim that the Goldilocks zone is "proof" that the Earth was intelligently designed. But an intelligent designer could modify a planet outside of the Goldilocks zone so that life could live there. For example, if Mars had sufficient greenhouse gases, it would be warmer. If Venus had very little CO2 and reasonably short days, it would be cool enough for liquid water. A tidally locked planet, or planets with unreasonably long solar days (such as Venus), can have a solar sunshade completely blocking light on the starward side, while a mirror in a sun-synchronous polar orbit gives the planet a proper day/night cycle that it wouldn't have naturally. Combine these three basic concepts, and you could have a planet with life on it around the majority of stars in the universe.

TL;DR: The Earth being inside the Goldilocks zone, while not disproving intelligent design outright, makes intelligent design far less compelling than it would be if the Earth wasn't inside the Goldilocks zone, as climate engineering should be well within the power of a supposedly omnipotent god. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 05:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Very true. Of course, the anthropic principle already slays all arguments from fine-tuning (as it reminds us that the "fine-tuned" universe is the only one in which we'd exist to be able to say "Wow, this is so fine-tuned!"). The big bang might've looped with different variables for eternity, resulting in utter mash 99.999999999999% of the times, and just now, in the latest big bang, the dice happened to roll well enough for us to even form, and we're sitting here going "CAN YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE GOT THINGS SO RIGHT ON THE FIRST TRY??". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
You'd think God could design a universe where 99.9999999999% of it won't kill you. But maybe God is lazy. And since you mentioned Mars, it's fairly well-accepted now that in the past Mars did have a strong greenhouse effect and was very Earth-like, complete with oceans. God apparently forgot to give it a magnetosphere though, so the solar wind blasted the atmosphere away. Or, Wikipedia tells me it might have been shut off by massive asteroid impacts, so maybe God went on a drunken bender. That would admittedly dovetail pretty well with the Old Testament. --Ymir (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha. Once more, we're reminded how infinitely much better maltheism actually fits the evidence compared to theism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)