>>13455937I'm not
>>13452415 but i'll reply to you with my thoughts
The current simple debate seems to be that the universe has one set of constants, and so either those constants came around by a low-probability event or by an intelligent designer.
However, as I write here
>>13455956.
There are models that don't take the constants as being a single value everywhere in the universe.
The gravitational constant may be larger or smaller in different parts of the universe. The electrostatic constant may be larger or smaller in different parts of the universe.
If there is a wide range of values for any constant, then there is a wide range of combinations of constant-values. Perhaps the universe exists in such a way that each combination of constant-values exists in some region of the universe.
In this case, it is guaranteed that the combination we have which appears "fine-tuned" is actually guaranteed, not by chance, and not by intelligent design.
There are 4 combinations, with two choices.
The first choice is intelligent design or no intelligent design
The second is random or not random
The combinations are:
>intelligent random>intelligent non-random>non-int random>non-int non-randomUsually the debate is a false dilemma between non-int random, or int non-random
I made a case for non-int non-random
I can also make the case that an advanced simulator or supernatural being randomly generated our universe, which is an intelligent random combination
---
To state it clearly. It is a false dilemma because it is usually argued that EITHER the universe RANDOMLY can support life (without a designer) OR an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER made it non-randomly.
Whereas there are atleast two other options being ignored
