Just wondering about God and the size of the Universe

[barts]

We're told by some that the Universe is fine tuned for intelligent life, particularly intelligent human life is the implication.

This fine tuning is evidence of God, so the theory goes.

So, the story goes, God created the Universe in a way that would foster intelligent life.

We're not sure how big the Universe actually is, but we do know that it may be at least bigger than 156 billion light years across.

And, it may even be getting bigger.

So, here's the question? Why did God make the Universe so big? Clearly, there's no--and never will be--interaction between intelligent life on Earth and what's happening on the far side of the Universe. From our intelligent life standpoint, who needs all the space and stuff 100 billion light years away?

So, to those who embrace the fine tuning argument for the existence of God, was it really necessary to the fine tuning in order to create intelligent life that the Universe be so big? Is intelligence so difficult to fine tune for that something perhaps of infinite size and infinite energy and infinite time was required? Surely, God could have achieved all that was needed to fine tune for intelligent life in something not much bigger than our solar system, or maybe the Milky Way Galaxy. But these are tiny things compared to the whole Universe.

So from a religious / Genesis / fine tuning view, why is the Universe so large?

[Dodds]

I have an answer for you. Lets look at Genesis chapter1 verse 1 thru 3.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Therefore god created the heavens and the earth in the dark, so he didn't know how big it was till he turned the light on.

[Angry Citizen]

The theists might simply retort that there is no current method for interaction across universal distances. Hell, even I might retort that. Science does not deal in absolutes, barts. You do it a disservice by speaking so boldly and matter-of-factly about a universe that is not completely known yet.

[Meleagar]

So, here's the question? Why did God make the Universe so big? Clearly, there's no--and never will be--interaction between intelligent life on Earth and what's happening on the far side of the Universe. From our intelligent life standpoint, who needs all the space and stuff 100 billion light years away?

The universe has to be this size because of the characteristics of the big bang necessary to produce the right elements in the right mixture - not too heavy, not too light. Too heavy and the universe immediately collapses, too light and nothing interesting happens - energy remains diffuse and incoherent. If the big bang lasts too long or is too short - same or other problems that produce short-lived or uninteresting universes.

The way the big bang occurred, and the sequences of element generation and redistribution that happened afterward as first generation stars produced 2nd generation elements - and how long it took - defines how large the universe must be in order for a planet in a habitable zone of a galaxy to produce life because of how long the universe had to be expanding, and how quickly, from those necessary initial conditions.

[Dodds]

Melegar, do you know what the elemental composite of the universe was just after the big bang? (And by just after I mean a tiny fraction of a second) Also do you know how stars form?

[barts]

The universe has to be this size because of the characteristics of the big bang necessary to produce the right elements in the right mixture - not too heavy, not too light.

I don't see anything in the Wikipedia reference that deals with the current scale of the size of the Universe being necessary to result in "Big Bang nucleosynthesis". There's nothing that I noted in the article that precludes a smaller Big Bang producing a Universe 1/10th of its current size and still being amenable to intelligent life of some sort. A smaller Big Bang, it seems, could have produced the same chemical results.

The fine tuning argument suggests an exactness on the part of the Creator. Without the exactness, proof of the existence of a Creator becomes suspect.

So, I wonder, why was the Universe made far larger than it would need to be to allow for intelligent life to arise? Of course, one answer would be that the Creator didn't "fine tune" but rather just created a Universe that was far, far bigger than necessary. Like any recipe, it's not the amount of the ingredients that matters but rather the ratio between them.

I'm sure you'll agree, however, that to make the "fine tuning" argument work, you can't work backwards from the current Universe and say, "See, intelligent life arose therefore the Universe was fine tuned by a Creator". You have to consider what are the range of the sizes of the Universe and the possible natures of the Big Bang that would produce conditions that would lead to the arise of intelligent life.

It seems that it's not true that the creation, composition, and scale of this Universe is the only cosmic recipe that would produce conditions necessary for intelligent life. That our Universe did produce intelligent life is not evidence that it is the only means that would give rise to intelligent life, in my view.

[Meleagar]

So, I wonder, why was the Universe made far larger than it would need to be to allow for intelligent life to arise?

Okay, let's look at it this way: you have made the assertion that the universe is larger than it needs to be to house intelligent, human-like life.

Can you support that assertion? Can you tell me what initial conditions could have been tweaked, and how they could have been tweaked, in order to generate a substantially smaller universe, yet still provide the necessary components, laws, and processes wherein which intelligent life could exist? Can you tell me how each tweak would cascade through the system, and what unintended consequences would occur as a result?

No? So your claim that the universe is larger than it need be is based on what? That there are parts of it that are inaccessible to human interaction? So? That doesn't mean that those parts are unnecessary; if they are the results of necessary initial big bang conditions and sequences, then the universe is as big as it needs to be to support intelligent life.

My original link to the fine-tuning argument (O.P.) showed with references how very slight variations in the cosmological constants would produce universes that would be incapable of supporting life of any kind; since the particular settings of our particular universe generated a universe of this size as a result of those setting, and also allowed for the development of intelligent life, we can conclude that we know for a fact that those settings produced both this size of a universe and a hospitable environment for intelligent life.

So, we know that a universe of this size can and does support intelligent life. Do you know of any smaller universes that can and do support intelligent life?

As far as we know, since any minor tweaking of the initial conditions would create uninhabitable universes (which is a largely agreed consensus, and is why many scientists like Hawking resort to the "mutliverse" idea in order to generate a near-infinite number of universes), and the tuning of our universe created an intelligently inhabited one, the onus is on you to show that such a habitable universe could be smaller.

Otherwise, you're making an unsupported assertion.

[barts]

Okay, let's look at it this way: you have made the assertion that the universe is larger than it needs to be to house intelligent, human-like life.

And I apologize for that. I should have been more precise and exact in my statement in order to avoid any confusion. I have questions, not answers. Apparently, however, those who make the fine tuning argument do have answers.

The Universe is very, very large; I'm sure you'll agree. That it does support intelligent life in at least one infinitesimally small part is agreed.

But the question remains, does the Universe need to be as big as it is to create the conditions for intelligent life? Any intelligent life. I suspect that primates like us are not the only means to achieve intelligent life. And, when one speculates what a fully intelligent life form might be capable of, we are really not very intelligent at all. In fact, we are really quite stupid. Most human beings, for example, have memories that are entirely unreliable. Most human beings find that it takes years to learn anything remotely complex. Surely, these are not the attributes of a being that is as intelligent as most human beings could imagine.

Indeed, if I was creating an intelligent life form I'd invest individuals with the capacity to genetically pass on to their young whatever the individual had learned during its lifetime. That would avoid successive generations having to relearn lessons previously learned by parents. But that's me and I'm neither a god nor a creator with the power to fine tune a universe.

There's nothing on offer, it seems to me, to suggest that the current configuration of the Universe is the only recipe for a Universe from which intelligent life could evolve. And, I'm also not aware of any evidence to support the notion that only the present size of the Universe was necessary to create all the elements and conditions necessary for intelligent life to evolve.

I wonder is their some evidence to suggest that if the Big Bang was, say, 20% smaller and 20% more violent than it actually was (assuming there was a Big Bang) that the present, intelligent life creating conditions would not have been produced somewhere in the Universe so created?

You have to appreciate that it's difficult to reconcile the fine tuning argument with a black hole 100 billion light years away from this planet where intelligent life arose. Is intelligent life so difficult for a creator to design and produce that something as large and "messy" as the present Universe is required? I mean human beings are creating computers that have a degree of intelligent-like behavior and that are becoming ever more intelligent, and they're using nothing as exotic or energies remotely approaching what the Creator is supposed to have used to create what amounts to a biochemical computer, the human being.

I'm sure that those who argue for the fine tuning rationale for the existence of God could develop a mathematical model that would account for the conditions deemed necessary for intelligent life to emerge. With that model the variables could be tweeked to determine Universe sizes necessary.

Surely you were being merely rhetorical when you asked if I knew of smaller universes than the present one. There's not a human being alive today who is even sure of the whole nature of the Universe we do live in, let alone if there are other universes with intelligent life thriving of whatever size.

You say, "as far as we know, since any minor tweaking of the initial conditions would create uninhabitable universe." "As far as we know" is the difficulty. We know so little that to draw any conclusions about fine tuning by a creator seems premature, at best. Even on our own planet, we are regularly surprised by where we find life. Indeed, bacteria has been discovered thriving inside nuclear reactors. And, given that we know that life evolves, it's difficult for us assert with any confidence, it seems, that conditions other than what are extant now are the only ones from which intelligent life would evolve.

That intelligent life did evolve from current conditions does not entail that those are the only conditions under which intelligent life would evolve. Do you not agree?

[Meleagar]

Indeed, if I was creating an intelligent life form I'd invest individuals with the capacity to genetically pass on to their young whatever the individual had learned during its lifetime. That would avoid successive generations having to relearn lessons previously learned by parents. But that's me and I'm neither a god nor a creator with the power to fine tune a universe.

How you would do it different is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

You say, "as far as we know, since any minor tweaking of the initial conditions would create uninhabitable universe." "As far as we know" is the difficulty. We know so little that to draw any conclusions about fine tuning by a creator seems premature, at best.

We infer to best explanation regardless of how little or much we know. If something appears to be finely tuned, then one must account for that fine tuning in their theories. If the universe didn't appear, by the scientific evdence, to be finely tuned for intelligent life,, and if the evidence wasn't valid, why do theorists try to explain it via the multiverse theory? That the universe appears to be finely-tuned is not a controversial position even in mainstream science.

Even on our own planet, we are regularly surprised by where we find life. Indeed, bacteria has been discovered thriving inside nuclear reactors. And, given that we know that life evolves, it's difficult for us assert with any confidence, it seems, that conditions other than what are extant now are the only ones from which intelligent life would evolve.

Nobody has made such an extreme claim. What science does is infer to best explanation. What is the best explanation for the non-controversial view that the universe appears to be finely-tuned for intelligent life? Proposing that an infinite number of universes exist or have existed, along with a universe-spitting machine which still must answer to an infinite regress of causality about why it should exist in a way that produces any universes at all, much less any habitable ones?

Or proposing that one acausal cause finely-tuned and created our universe for intelligent life?

Unless one is an anti-theistic idealogue, the more efficient and logically necessary answer is the best one.

[barts]

... the more efficient and logically necessary answer is the best one.

Too bad, the "best" answer is not necessarily always the right answer.

[barts]

How you would do it different is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

It may be relevant. After all the notion of an intelligence fine tuning the Universe is the result of an analogy to human beings designing things. I'm a human being and I wouldn't design intelligent life as it is now manifested on this planet.

[barts]

We infer to best explanation regardless of how little or much we know.

Which all but guarantees that the "best explanation" will likely be wrong in some degree or wholly. "Best explanations" are not necessarily the right explanation. Or do you not agree?