New Miscellany: fine-tuning, climate, theodicy (General)

by dhw, Friday, February 28, 2025, 11:31 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

DAVID: The original principal refers only to the factors creating the universe as a life-allowing universe throughout the universe. Climates that allow life are a secondary consideration, areas that are climate friendly. IF you wish to conjoin the two that is fine.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by the “original principle”. Our subject is your statement that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” You also say: “The physical makeup of this universe allows life to appear wherever there is a hospitable climate.” This means that life cannot appear where there is no hospitable climate, in which case quite clearly those parts of the universe that do not have a hospitable climate are not fine-tuned for life!

DAVID: You did not follow the articles/discussions of thirty years ago when the original principals of fine-tuning were strictly limited to physical factors making tis universe fine-tuned for life. Your climate approach is backward. Specifically the universe allows life throughout it, but life will appear only in an hospitable climate, wherever that exists.

When you say “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, why must we restrict ourselves to what people were saying 30 years ago? And what on earth do you mean by a “backward approach”. You are the one looking backward! Look at the statements instead! How can you claim that the entire universe is “fine-tuned” for life to appear if life is only possible where there is a hospitable climate?

dhw: All we actually know is that our own planet must be fine-tuned for life, other “localities” in the universe might possibly be fine-tuned for life, but we can say with absolute certainty that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: Agreed. So far only on Earth.

Thank you for at last agreeing that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.
Thank you also for the various articles which all illustrate the vital role of climate for life and evolution. I’ll select a few quotations from each post:

[…] the Great Oxygenation Event […] was a time of massive environmental upheaval — many organisms died, ocean chemistry shifted dramatically, and life had to adapt to an entirely new atmosphere.

QUOTE: "Distinct rock formations were created during this abrupt climate change, as the chemistry of the oceans responded to the new conditions. The surge of nutrients may have contributed to a cascade of biological changes, possibly setting the stage for the rise of complex life.

QUOTE: "Distinct rock formations were created during this abrupt climate change, as the chemistry of the oceans responded to the new conditions. The surge of nutrients may have contributed to a cascade of biological changes, possibly setting the stage for the rise of complex life.

DAVID: for life to appear using oxygen and nitrogen, the main components of our atmosphere, the geologic and glacial factors had to evolve and make a life-friendly Earth.

And here’s one that emphasizes the need for action now if we are to prevent future disasters:

QUOTE: "On shorter timescales, however, human activities have become the dominant force driving climate change. While Earth itself will endure, the survival of complex human societies depends on our actions today.”

As always, I am grateful to you for your integrity in presenting material which runs counter to some of your own beliefs.

Theodicy

DAVID: What you have ignored is the good God does far outweighs the bad side effects.

dhw: I have not ignored your “proportionality” argument, but have pointed out again and again that proportionality does not make evil disappear, and it is the evil that throws into question the conventional belief in an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Please take your head out of the sand and stop pretending that evil isn’t a problem for theologians.

DAVID: That is why theodicy exists for discussions.

Precisely. The evil is real, and that is why we discuss the problem. Proportionality explains nothing.