# Fine-tuned universe: How do atheists explain these astronomically unlikely odds?

Penrose calculates the odds of the BB's low entropy conditions existing by chance are 1/10^10^(123), without which hygrogen burning stars wouldn't even exist. Hawking estimates that if the universe' rate of expansion were smaller by 1 part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed on itself. Yeah--no fine-tuning there!

Relevance
• Not an atheist. We will take an assumption that time is like set of real numbers (not quantified), there exist every universe that is likely to happened (i.e. there exist 2 universes after we drop a coin) and in every moment one coin is dropped.

Now lets say we begin with only one universe. So question here is how many universe we have after 1 unit of time? Hence there are 2 outcomes and we have continuum (cardinality of real numbers) coin flips the answer is 2^continuum (cardinality of all functions from real to {0,1} or real numbers). If we indeed have that many universes (or experiments) we can safely say that fine tuning is bound to happened (to be more precise any normed measure (probability) which is invariant by translation (like uniform probability) or at least is similar (prob of set is 0 iff measure is 0) (that is kind of annoying, I get it "normal probability", not some perverted probability) measures our set of all fined tuned universe as 1=100%. Not bound to happened but it's called almost certainly)

Since we are here we can ask: "if this multiverse theory isn't true and we follow only one path how can we ask "what if?"?" and "how can we remember only one universe and have ability to choose our path in this multiverse mess?". My guess is that this is our freedom.

How many different version of human being? 2^C. Any sane mathematician (if that person even exist) would say that what is describable is definable by finite amount of axioms. Hence set of all axioms are countable we can use diagonal technique to prove that there is only countable definable objects. But if we allow any sub-set of set of all axioms (including those who have countable cardinality) to be description we would only reach C. So here lies greatness in our potential diversity and undescribability (I call last one soul).

In that chaos or darkness of unknown lies something always new and fresh (now you know what religion am I).

But of course if we agree that number of universes made from one in one second is 2^C and we want half second to differ we would say that there are sqrt(2^C) universes implying uses of surreal numbers.

Source(s): Math, thoughts on Schrodinger cat and multiverse
• Just because scientists don't know the answer to something doesn't mean goddidit, that's just applying the god of the gaps idea. One day when scientists do figure out why the universe is the way it is God has to find another gap to hide in.

Btw, Penrose and Hawking are atheists, so its not enough to convince them of a deity

• Anonymous
8 years ago

Because we don't know of other universes with different constants, attempting to list the constants that can somehow vary is little more than speculation. There is no reason to assume that any "constant" can be changed. Furthermore, assuming it is somehow a knob that can be turned by a god effectively makes the anthropic principle assume its conclusion.

The underlying principles of the universe are not known. Without knowing these principles, applying odds to the settings of the Universal constants is disingenuous. A probability analysis with a sample size of one is meaningless. Since we do not know how many 'settings' are possible for each constant, we cannot assign valid odds for different 'settings'.

• Anonymous
8 years ago

You know it's statistically impossible for this universe to exist, right?

It is statistically impossible for one universe to exist. But if there is a multiverse, which is the only way this world exists, then all that fine-tuning goes away.

So, no. The universe is not fine-tuned.

• Anonymous
8 years ago

This only accounts for a single expansion. If the theory of big crunch holds true, this means that an infinite amount of big bangs happened, making it more likely then not, that something would arise.

• Yes, selective quotes taken out of context to misrepresent the conclusions of these two atheists.

• We could only exist to ask that question in a successful universe.

You are using the "puddle argument".

Sourced section - bullet point #6.

• What if it re-collapsed billions of times, expanding slightly more every time?

It's not necessarily chance.

• If things were different, then things would be different.

I really don't see why this is so difficult for Christians to grasp.

• Well, since you admit there's a chance and we are here, I don't see what the problem is.