When evolutionary biologists say the universe SEEMS "fine-tuned" for life, they are not talking about some quality that makes it appear created for that purpose. They're actually saying that life itself is emergent FROM the qualities that make up the universe. I'm sure someone has mentioned this analogy to you, but in case it hasn't been - imagine a hole in the ground, filled by a puddle after it rains. The puddle knows nothing else but this hole in the ground and it says to itself WOW, isn't it amazing how the entire universe is Fine tuned EXACTLY so that I am a puddle in exactly the shape of this hole? What a coincidence that I, as a puddle, perfectly conform to this hole I live in! The puddle doesn't realize that it's not the hole that is conforming to the puddle, but rather the puddle that conforms to the hole. The puddle was shaped by the conditions of its universe, not the other way around. Aside from this, it's actually more arguable that the universe is designed primarily to destroy life, not to create it. The vast majority of the universe would destroy life instantly. Life evolved on Earth the same way the puddle did in the hole. It conformed to the existing world that accommodated it. The qualities of the universe again APPEAR** (keyword Hawking uses which means that it looks that way, but isn't necessarily) to adhere to our needs because those requirements is what life had to work with, so of course life grew to fit the niche it lived within. It's like this. There's a reason why dinosaurs were the largest creatures ever to exist (with the exception of a few whales), because there is an upward limit for life on our own planet before circulatory systems fail to deliver blood to the brain due to mass and gravity, and that the taller something gets, the thicker and wider its legs need to be (like an elephant) and there is a material strength limit for bone where no matter the size, it will break under its own weight. Humans are about as tall as it's possible to get as bipeds too, because we already get back problems of all sorts from doing it at our height because of the weight. No one "fine-tuned" the universe, because the entire premise of the universe being fine-tuned is a fallacy. The keyword was APPEARS as if it's fine tuned, not that it IS. You're using imprecise language on the part of someone speaking 20 years ago as definitive proof that they thought something supernatural occurred, when IF you had asked Hawking if something supernatural was necessary to create life, he would have flatly told you NO. He did not believe that life had to be supernaturally created. Your statements about the fine tuning are also incorrect. You bring up how the thickness of our atmosphere is prohibitive to life if it were any thicker or thinner. This is plainly incorrect. We literally have human civilizations which live at high altitudes where the atmosphere IS thinner and people who normally live at sea level become light-headed and need oxygen bottles, but the people who have lived there for centuries have adapted biologically to their new niche environment and their lungs have enlarged to take advantage of the thinner atmosphere. Aside from that, what exactly do you think fish breathe? The thickness of the atmosphere changing a bit wouldn't effect them at all insofar as they're filtering oxygen through liquid water. Lungs aren't the only way organisms breathe. Simple life like bacteria don't even need an atmosphere to survive. You folks often get statistical analysis completely incorrect. You will point to large, astronomical odds (which often could never hope to be verified, because how do you justify putting odds on how life came into existence since you have exactly one example. But the point is, the odds of the universe coming to exist as it is today and for life to evolve to its current form are actually completely irrelevant. In the same way that for a lottery, it doesn't matter if you're more likely to be hit by lightning 3 times than to win, because someone is going to win. The fact is that the universe DID evolve to become as it is, so the odds of it happening are currently 1:1. It is just as arguable that the universe would inevitably become how it is today, because we don't know how universes form. This could very well be inevitable, or that a universe which formed with different physics than ours simply collapsed and didn't persist over time. Again, we come back to the puddle analogy. You are the puddle saying, isn't it such a huge coincidence that this hole is perfectly shaped for me? Well, no, it's not. The hole was inevitably going to accommodate a puddle under the right conditions without any outside help. The puddle didn't need a human or intelligent designer to create the hole with a shovel and pour water into it. The hole formed through naturalistic processes of erosion on the ground, and the water was an inevitable outcome of the water-cycle and rainfall. The puddle formed completely without any outside interference, even though every part of it looks intelligently designed from the perspective of the puddle.
@danielbroome5690, thank you for your comments. You raise good/interesting points that deserve further consideration and discussion. We're on a break right now, but we'll respond to some of your points in an upcoming podcast, and hope to hear from you again. I look forward to it.
When evolutionary biologists say the universe SEEMS "fine-tuned" for life, they are not talking about some quality that makes it appear created for that purpose. They're actually saying that life itself is emergent FROM the qualities that make up the universe.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this analogy to you, but in case it hasn't been - imagine a hole in the ground, filled by a puddle after it rains. The puddle knows nothing else but this hole in the ground and it says to itself WOW, isn't it amazing how the entire universe is Fine tuned EXACTLY so that I am a puddle in exactly the shape of this hole? What a coincidence that I, as a puddle, perfectly conform to this hole I live in! The puddle doesn't realize that it's not the hole that is conforming to the puddle, but rather the puddle that conforms to the hole. The puddle was shaped by the conditions of its universe, not the other way around.
Aside from this, it's actually more arguable that the universe is designed primarily to destroy life, not to create it. The vast majority of the universe would destroy life instantly. Life evolved on Earth the same way the puddle did in the hole. It conformed to the existing world that accommodated it. The qualities of the universe again APPEAR** (keyword Hawking uses which means that it looks that way, but isn't necessarily) to adhere to our needs because those requirements is what life had to work with, so of course life grew to fit the niche it lived within.
It's like this. There's a reason why dinosaurs were the largest creatures ever to exist (with the exception of a few whales), because there is an upward limit for life on our own planet before circulatory systems fail to deliver blood to the brain due to mass and gravity, and that the taller something gets, the thicker and wider its legs need to be (like an elephant) and there is a material strength limit for bone where no matter the size, it will break under its own weight. Humans are about as tall as it's possible to get as bipeds too, because we already get back problems of all sorts from doing it at our height because of the weight.
No one "fine-tuned" the universe, because the entire premise of the universe being fine-tuned is a fallacy. The keyword was APPEARS as if it's fine tuned, not that it IS. You're using imprecise language on the part of someone speaking 20 years ago as definitive proof that they thought something supernatural occurred, when IF you had asked Hawking if something supernatural was necessary to create life, he would have flatly told you NO. He did not believe that life had to be supernaturally created.
Your statements about the fine tuning are also incorrect. You bring up how the thickness of our atmosphere is prohibitive to life if it were any thicker or thinner. This is plainly incorrect. We literally have human civilizations which live at high altitudes where the atmosphere IS thinner and people who normally live at sea level become light-headed and need oxygen bottles, but the people who have lived there for centuries have adapted biologically to their new niche environment and their lungs have enlarged to take advantage of the thinner atmosphere.
Aside from that, what exactly do you think fish breathe? The thickness of the atmosphere changing a bit wouldn't effect them at all insofar as they're filtering oxygen through liquid water. Lungs aren't the only way organisms breathe. Simple life like bacteria don't even need an atmosphere to survive.
You folks often get statistical analysis completely incorrect. You will point to large, astronomical odds (which often could never hope to be verified, because how do you justify putting odds on how life came into existence since you have exactly one example. But the point is, the odds of the universe coming to exist as it is today and for life to evolve to its current form are actually completely irrelevant. In the same way that for a lottery, it doesn't matter if you're more likely to be hit by lightning 3 times than to win, because someone is going to win. The fact is that the universe DID evolve to become as it is, so the odds of it happening are currently 1:1. It is just as arguable that the universe would inevitably become how it is today, because we don't know how universes form. This could very well be inevitable, or that a universe which formed with different physics than ours simply collapsed and didn't persist over time.
Again, we come back to the puddle analogy. You are the puddle saying, isn't it such a huge coincidence that this hole is perfectly shaped for me? Well, no, it's not. The hole was inevitably going to accommodate a puddle under the right conditions without any outside help. The puddle didn't need a human or intelligent designer to create the hole with a shovel and pour water into it. The hole formed through naturalistic processes of erosion on the ground, and the water was an inevitable outcome of the water-cycle and rainfall. The puddle formed completely without any outside interference, even though every part of it looks intelligently designed from the perspective of the puddle.
@danielbroome5690, thank you for your comments. You raise good/interesting points that deserve further consideration and discussion. We're on a break right now, but we'll respond to some of your points in an upcoming podcast, and hope to hear from you again. I look forward to it.