If the universe was fine tuned for our life...

[Lucanus]

...wouldn't it be much like a Minecraft world? Flat, infinite, with (potentially) infinite resources and without many of the dangers and complexities of the real world? Especially considering that the creator God is proposed (at least by the major monotheistic religions) as an omnipotent being, why would he create a universe where most of the space is empty and/or unsuitable for human life?

If he wanted a huge sandbox to make us humans live and to test us, why not make the whole of the universe like that? After all, he can pop things into existence, pretty much like a computer does when it generates a Minecraft world.

So, the question is: is Notch more intelligent a designer than Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah?

What if we weren't to live an eternity as human?

Even in a Minecraft world you *are* mortal so your point doesn't apply. There would only be an infinite potential for human life, as you have an ENTIRE universe where it can flourish, instead of a small insignificant planet in a universe where most of the space is simply unsuitable for it. And don't tell me that you wouldn't have bad people in a world like that, Minecraft servers are full of dicks.

If the point of being here is for god to test if we're worthy of his realm, wouldn't it be better for the test to have a potentially infinite number of test subjects?
Many constraints and hardships from our world would surely have to be there for the test to be possible, but still you would have an entire universe which is fine-tuned for human life.

[Heywood]

Moving the reason for fine tuning from life to emergent complexities is an amateurish maneuver to avoid addressing anthropic principle rebuttals. This is just kicking the can down the road. Either way, this isn't your biggest concern.

Other than me, how many other theists have you seen claiming that the universe is fine tuned for emergent complexity? Google "fine tuned for emergent complexity" (make sure you include the quotes). As far as I know I am the only theist who contributes to the internet who looks at the universe this way. You know why they do not? Because it means the universe is what is a special creation of God....not life. Life is just byproduct or artifact.

Maybe it is a curse or maybe it is a blessing but I have come to realize that this universe is something special. Only a multi-verse or God can credibly explain it(I have rejected all other explanations I have heard). I lean toward God for reasons stated in this thread and others.

---

Define reality, subreality and intellect. As for now we're dealing with undefined or heavily under-defined notions.

In order to define "sub reality" I have to use words. When I do...someone will surely ask me to then define the words I used to define "sub reality". Playing dictionary games is not high on my priorities. Maybe if I were writing a book I would give a lot of thought to what a sub reality is in order to give it a proper definition but this is an informal conversation. For my self I consider a sub reality to be like porn. I just know porn is porn and not art when I see it. I know a sub reality is a sub reality and not something else when I see.

That being said, some of you guys have some far out conceptions of sub realities so maybe I need to provide at least some crude definition so you know what I am talking about.

A sub reality is a space continuum that is governed by rules. The space continuum of a subreality is not the space continuum of its parent reality.

[TubbyTubby]

In order to define "sub reality" I have to use words.

Let me help, there's a simple reason you are struggling to describe it - it (sub reality) only exists in your head.

A sub reality is a space continuum that is governed by rules. The space continuum of a subreality is not the space continuum of its parent reality.

Case in point, this sort of mumbling is the result of trying to describe something that doesn't exist (except in your mind). Just accept it, forget about sub-realities and move on. You'll make some room in your brain for some other delusions to move into.

[robvalue]

It seems like you're only defining "rules" in an abstract way here. If I make a mine craft level or something, no rules of the universe are changing in that. A computer and screen follow your regular rules. Only if you abstractly view the new "world" in its own right can you describe new rules, but that is not descriptive of the reality of the situation.

I really don't get what a sub reality is supposed to be. The only definition I could think of that makes any sense is an entirely closed system within a reality, so that it occupies physical space in the reality but is cut off at some sort of boundary through which nothing can pass.

But even then, if you could make such a thing (I don't know if it will ever be possible) you are extrapolating to try and deduce something about our universe. We don't know if our universe is open or closed, infinite or finite, is within another universe or parallel to others or whatever. You can't just observe internal rules and assume they apply to the universe itself. Well you can, but you'd almost certainly be wrong.

"The outsides of all the objects in my house are blue" does not imply "The outside of my house is blue".

[Cato]

Other than me, how many other theists have you seen claiming that the universe is fine tuned for emergent complexity? Google "fine tuned for emergent complexity" (make sure you include the quotes). As far as I know I am the only theist who contributes to the internet who looks at the universe this way. You know why they do not? Because it means the universe is what is a special creation of God....not life.

As I said before, this is just kicking the can down the road. The uniqueness of your reason for fine tuning doesn't magically make fine tuning in and of itself a reality. You have yet to provide an example of any physical constant having a different value or describe a mechanism by which the constants could vary. Conjuring a god or a multiverse as something that could change universal physical constants and then pointing to fine tuning as evidence/proof of a god or a multiverse is circular reasoning.

Maybe it is a curse or maybe it is a blessing but I have come to realize that this universe is something special. Only a multi-verse or God can credibly explain it(I have rejected all other explanations I have heard). I lean toward God for reasons stated in this thread and others.

I too consider the universe as something special; it's home. I marvel at its scale, beauty, and wonders. I am continually fascinated by what we have collectively come to understand, the history of the discoveries and the enigmas that remain.

I believe you arrived at the god or multiverse conclusion through good intentions, but the reasoning is still circular. Both suffer from a lack of explanatory power and invoke more questions than they resolve. I'm okay with the wild speculations that come with asking 'what if the constants were different?'. Speculation has often been a nursery for lines of scientific discovery, but prematurely drawing conclusions based on this speculation is unscientific and intellectually reckless.

I thought I would also explain my insistence on using lowercase 'g' god rather than God in this discussion; I am not doing it in a belittling fashion. Assuming for a moment that fine tuning had any merit, the most you would get is a deistic watchmaker god. There is no way to get from there to the God of the Bible; there are simply no dots to connect. In fact fine tuning presents significant problems for God's customary attributes. Fine tuning suggests that God would be limited to choosing between physical constraints. Not only does this shatter the omnipotent bit, but begs the question 'what is the source of the constraints?'.

[robvalue]

And who made God, where does he live, and who made that.

And why is he so shit at his one and only job.

[Heywood]

In order to define "sub reality" I have to use words.

Let me help, there's a simple reason you are struggling to describe it - it (sub reality) only exists in your head.

You're taking a quote of mine out of context. Awesome job at underhandedness.

A sub reality is a space continuum that is governed by rules. The space continuum of a subreality is not the space continuum of its parent reality.

Case in point, this sort of mumbling is the result of trying to describe something that doesn't exist (except in your mind). Just accept it, forget about sub-realities and move on. You'll make some room in your brain for some other delusions to move into.

There is no mumbling here. Our reality is a spacetime continuum governed by certain rules. This is a fact and it is not in dispute. Our Space time is a stage which allows things to happen. A sub-reality of our reality is going to be self similar. A sub reality is a stage set upon an stage.

---

As I said before, this is just kicking the can down the road. The uniqueness of your reason for fine tuning doesn't magically make fine tuning in and of itself a reality. You have yet to provide an example of any physical constant having a different value or describe a mechanism by which the constants could vary. Conjuring a god or a multiverse as something that could change universal physical constants and then pointing to fine tuning as evidence/proof of a god or a multiverse is circular reasoning.

We can make many different completely coherent mathematical models of the universe where the rules are different. There is no reason to believe the rules of the universe could be different. In fact in order to believe the rules of this universe are some brute fact of nature and absolutely had to be this way......one has to invent a means which require our specific rules to be a brute fact of nature.

I see no reason to invent things simply to justify a world view that our universe is the way it is because it simply could be no other way. This brute fact explanation is one of the ones I have rejected. Its certainly possible...but there is no reason to believe it is true other than it is possible.

[robvalue]

The best any argument like this can do is, "some entity created what we think of as the universe."

So what? Do you have another point in mind? I couldn't care less if something made this trash heap or not. If you have his email, I've some choice words for him, but apart from that.

People say these arguments only get you to deism, I say they don't even get that far. What makes the dweeb who made this crap hole a God? Cos gods design universes?

I certainly feel no need to kiss his arse. Spotty teenage super being on work experience making shit universes.

[Jenny A]

I think you're on to something. Think about it like Plato's cave, as Heywood's spider suggests. The world we perceive is limited to our senses, sight, hearing, touch, taste. But a bat's perception includes radar (playtypus' too BTW) and in many bats its radar perception out-stripes its sight and the nighttime world it perceives is quite different from ours. If discrete perception is all that's necessary to create a sub-reality than evolution has created many, many different sub-realities.

---

Bats and paltypi are not the only animals which use echo location. This boy uses it too.

---

Now I disagree with your claim that discrete perception creates a sub realities. That being said, even if your claim is true, discrete perception requires the existence of intelligence.

No, I'm not arguing that discrete perception creates sub-realities, only that if that's how we define them, then there are many, many, sub-realities which are not designed by an intelligence. You see while sentience of some minimal kind is necessary for discrete perception, descrete perception isn't designed by the perceiver, only experienced by it. The perceiver and thus his perception is "designed" by natural selection.

So, if you are going to base an argument for a designed universe based upon designed sub-realities, you need a definition for sub-reality that requires more than discrete perception. Designed sub-realities mean a designed universe is your argument not mine, so I'll leave the attempt at definition to you. But until you define reality and sub-reality as you intend to use them in your argument, the argument is meaningless.

One question you should ask when attempting that definition is, if a reality, or sub-reality requires a perceiver at all. If you decide it does, you'll have to deal with question of whether the universe could be considered a reality pre-life.

[robvalue]

I just found my purpose in life. Choking religion until it taps out. Who's with me? I need tag partners so I can eat and sleep. Fucking God making me need food and sleep.

---

Hey spotty dweeb! Turn off your practice universes when you're done with them! You're killing us here.