Atheists responses to universe fine-tuning?

I read that if the energy of the Big Bang were different by 1 part in 10^120, then there'd be no life anywhere in the universe. Everything would be dust or collapsed. How do atheists respond to the argument that this is evidence of a divine creator?

26 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    Yeah...you didn't read that in a real scientific journal. It's just made up crap. No one has the slightest idea how far the parameters of life can stretch.

    But if M Theory is right, there are an infinite number of universes. That makes even long odds a sure bet.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    First, I would want to see the math behind that. That seems to be a ridiculous claim.

    Second, there are some constants in the universe (G for example) that, while not as fine tuned as you claim, are in the right ball park for things to happen (For G for stars and planets to form) However, it has been postulated, by the people who study these things, that there could well be good reasons why these constants are at the values they are and in actuality could not be that different.

    Thirdly, if you look at M-theory is suggests that billions of universes are being created. If each has different values for the constants then eventually one will have the right values, and in that universe life will happen and in that universe life will gain intelligence and in that universe that intelligence will wonder at the odds of those constants coming up in the right numbers.

    Fourthly, those constants are for the universe and life as we know it to happen. If the constants were different then the universe could just look differently and life could still occur, just based on the scientific laws of that universe. It would still be life.

    Think about this:

    If I set up a glass in the middle of a football field, and throw a ping-pong ball onto the field the odds of getting the ball into the glass are astronomic.

    However, if I cover the field in glasses and throw the ball it will end up in a glass. The odds that it would have ended up in that one glass is still as astronomic as it was before, but the odds that it would end up in a glass is 1:1

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I probably would understand this question much better after a long session with my old-time black and white TV with rabbit ears and forked UHF connector on the back...it is only suggestive of mass chaos and the ability of a safecracker to find life on the airwaves. I also enjoy doing this with shortwave radio. And if you want to get big with it, SETI is doing this with the universe. Interesting that Man puts his hand in there and automatically understands everything in terms of what his hand (which he can physically see) can do. It is an emotional statement. If you understand that energy systems behave in a certain way, because the thermodynamics of the system make it overwhelmingly favorable, then it becomes less of an awe-inspiring idea and more in line with the now and not the "might have been," which is just a door into illusion.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Either some law of physics outside the know universe made it so that it had to be that exact, in much the same way that the law of conservation says that matter and energy are conserved. It is not a co-incidence.

    But then it is also possible that all the particals that exist have not been accounted for and it means that there is factors that are not considered which make it seem as though everything is tuned in.

    Everything that we expierence is not all balanced, we get extremes of cold and heat to deal with and millions of death caused by natural distasters.

    This world is not so perfect as it seems.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    If the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10^240 though... then there would be no dragons, unicorns, gryphons, manticores, basilisks, chimera nor the Tarrasque anywhere...

    .... Oh.... wait....

    There aren't...

    Guess we're just an irrelevant one of the vast majority of the Universes that don't contain those things..... nor giant living slime-bubbles.... nor lightsabers.... nor angels.... nor Klingons....

    In fact... now I think about it... our Universe is kinda mundane and boring. It could have so much more cool stuff in it... but that would require a 1 in 10^120 tweak, and we didn't get that.

    What a shame.

    Better luck next Universe.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 4 years ago

    The universe has no longer continually existed. It had a commence....what led to that? The religious have not have been given any rationalization for a manner God could probable exist, so how could 'genesis' ensue? isn't is attainable that the great Bang led to the international to be created? in spite of the fact that in case you spot it as incredibly no longer likely, you could no longer deny that it fairly is a danger. in case you do deny it, does no longer you settle which you're close minded? F**king hypocrite. go get a existence. do no longer ask us once you're so f**king usual on your very own opinion. And sorry to break it to you, yet i'm nonetheless atheist.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are right, at the time of the singularity, or big bang there was no life anywhere.

    life on earth started 12.5 billion years after the big bang, and a lot of things happened in between, to make earth a place where life could start and evolve. as they have been doing for the last 100000000 years or so.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'm not sure I can agree with the most basic part of the statement. No life at all? Just dust ? I don't think so. Since I don't believe that to be based on fact but instead on hypothesis the rest of the question is irrelevant.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    "...then there'd be no life anywhere in the universe. "

    --We don't know that to be true. What about life not as we know it?

    There could be a much broader range of viable settings than you think. Or there could be no other way to make the settings. Or there are no settings. Or there could be multiple universes each with their own settings, and of course we find ourself in one that works for us. Or the universe doesn't exist. Expand your mind, man.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    It's called "equilibrium". When you have two opposing forces, they tend to reach a state where they balance each other. That's why the universe appears fine tuned.

    And, yes, if certain constants in the universe were changed a bit, we might not be here. Of course, we only have one universe to draw on. We really don't know what other kinds of life would exist in other universes, if any. We also don't know how many universes there are. So, any argument based on the "odds" of this universe just happening has no basis.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.