By chance or by design?
The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.
It is known that the Universe would be very different, if these constants took values significantly different from those we observe. For example, a few percent change in the value of the fine-structure constant would be enough to eliminate stars like our Sun.
There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. ... The conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires.
The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
A slight change in the magnitude of the electric force, the speed of light, Planck's constant, or Boltzmann's constant would have dire consequences: the universe would not be able to produce life. A slight change in the mass of the electron would also be disastrous.
Funny evolutionist Carl Sagan once said thatin order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. But how do inventions take place in our world? An invention requires an inventor and a creation requires a creator. Then did everything come from nothing and by nothing or does it make more sense to think of an intelligent cause?
The symbiotic universe
George Greenstein ... describes the "coincidences" scientists have observed in recent years in the bizarre world of subatomic particles, quantum mechanics itself and the Big Bang theory of cosmic origin and destiny. Among these are the two separate "resonances" between nuclei found in "red giant" stars, allowing the synthesis of heavy elements necessary for "life"; the precisely equal charges of the electron and the proton; the symmetry of matter and anti-matter, etc. These conditions of physical nature lead him to extrapolate the Anthropic Principle, today largely rejected, and argue his view of the universe as "symbiotic," as evidenced by the fact that we exist, and that the cosmos has been "delicately and precisely attuned" from the moment of the Big Bang.
Symbiosis is close and often long-term interaction between two different biological species. ... Symbiosis can be obligatory, which means that one or both of the symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival, or facultative (optional) when they can generally live independently.
An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (things like air, water and mineral soil), interacting as a system. These biotic and abiotic components are regarded as linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows.
Peter Kropotkin wrote...
In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense — not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species ... in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits ... and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development ... are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.
People certainly compete, but they collaborate, too. They also have compassion for the fallen and frequently try to help them, rather than treading on them. For this sort of behaviour, "On the Origin of Species" had no explanation.
Symbiosis is part of the irreducibly complex ecosystem. The whole ecosystem is an irreducibly complex part of the fine-tuned universe. Everything is interdependent. And if life forms are completely dependent on each other for their survival, then how did all these lifeforms evolve at exactly the same time in the long history of life on earth? This rhetorical question becomes all the more compelling when we know that evolution is supposed to be a very slow process and the evolutionary timeline supposedly spans millions or even billions of years. Evolution is an absurd belief which is of course the logical consequence of the blind acceptance of the unprovable philosophy naturalism as the only answer to everything. Albert Einstein once said...
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.
Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean the universe - which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.
The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universe, or design that requires only one... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline towards the teleological or design argument.
Max Planck once said...
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. ... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
An atom is like a miniature Solar System, with a tight nucleus playing the role of a Sun orbited by electrons like planets. Rutherford's atomic model resembles the planetary motion in solar system. Therefore, Rutherford's model of an atom is called planetary model. From atoms to the solar system we see incredible design. Evolutionists try to talk their way out of this reality by means of incredible just-so stories and wishful thinking. Their latest attempt is a multiverse...
The multiverse religion
The multiverse is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.
With the multiverse hypothesis the evolutionist hopes to find a reason for maintaining the belief in the idea that mindless naturalistic processes can be used as an explanation for the existence of this fine-tuned universe.
The multiverse hypothesis is a source of disagreement within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry. Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, and Alex Vilenkin. In contrast, critics such as David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific. ... Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy.
The popular mainstream science magazines are of course replete with fantastic science fiction stories. Such stories sell. Obviously the multiverse theory is pseudoscience. All we know is this fine-tuned universe. Victor J. Stenger is a so-called new atheist who writes popular science books. He wrote an article about the fine-tuning argument and of course attacks people who propose the logical idea of intelligent design. Of course he does so in the typical atheist style...
The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon.
Like many evolutionists and atheist he starts with a misleading misrepresentation, namely that the fine-tuning argument is used as an explanation for that which science has not explained yet. But of course the fine-tuning argument is not about that which science has NOT explained yet, but about everything that science has explained already. With the advancement of science we simply see more and more complexity in design. The universe is fine-tuned for life because without such fine-tuning life would not be possible. This is not science fiction, it is scientific fact.
When humans lived in caves they imagined spirits behind earthquakes, storms, and illness. Today we have scientific explanations for those events and much more. Similarly, science may someday have a theory from which the values of existing physical constants can be derived or at otherwise explained.
This typical atheist blames other people of using the so-called god-of-the-gaps argument, but he then goes on and makes a science-of-the-gaps argument himself in the sense that what science hasn't explained yet, it will explain in the future. But in reality science is limited and can't explain everything. Explaining the natural world is one thing, but explaining it's origin is obviously beyond naturalism. Origins belong to philosophy naturally. The typical examples mentioned by this atheist are of course no comparison to mysteries like for example the beginning of the universe, first life, or the human mind. For these science based on naturalism has failed miserably as an explanation. This atheist is attacking so-called straw men arguments.
So those who desire explicit signs of God in science now look deeper, to highly sophisticated puzzles like the cosmological constant problem. But, once again, science continues to progress, and we now have a plausible explanation that does not require fine-tuning.
He then criticizes others for desiring explicit signs of God, but atheists desire explicit signs of "no God". Hence their advocacy of the unprovable philosophy naturalism. This is not only foolish, it is also hypocritical. And then he says something about a plausible explanation based on science which of course talks about the so-called 'multiverse' theory. But as anybody with at least a few working braincells knows, anything that extends beyond this observable universe is science fiction, certainly not a scientific explanation. Scientists don't even know whether this universe has borders or not. It's wild speculation. This atheist wrote a book called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which carries the subtitle "How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist". Of course science can never prove or disprove God. Already the title shows the utter stupidity contained in this book. Another one of his books called "God and the Folly of Faith" carries the subtitle "The Incompatibility of Science and Religion" which is simply another atheist lie proven false long time ago. See Defamation. Another waste of paper. This man is a pathetic loser. But of course he is hailed by his many fellow atheists around the world, these books are "New York Times best-sellers".
If many universes beside our own exist, then the anthropic coincidences are a no-brainer.
But even IF a multiverse would be true then it would not explain THIS fine-tuned universe. THAT's of course a NO-BRAINER. Multiple universes, next to our own universe, can never be observed. The unfalsifiable multiverse hypothesis clearly violates Occam's razor. No matter how impossible for mindless naturalistic processes to have caused an incredibly fine-tuned universe with incredibly complex life in it, the hardnosed evolutionist comes up with the most unscientific of theories that seemingly makes the impossible possible somehow. This is why for example Richard Swinburne said that "multiple universe theory represents the height of irrationality". The multiverse is of course wishful thinking and poses no challenge whatsoever to intelligence. It is a gross insult of intelligence perpetrated by many incredibly stupid and dishonest atheists around the world. See following video with atheists Lawrence Krauss and David Gross about their unscientific Multiverse Religion...
John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler - The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
Alister E. McGrath - A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology
Paul Davies - The Mind of God, The Scientific Basis for a Rational World
Mariano Artigas - Mind Of The Universe: Understanding Science & Religion
Richard Swinburne - The Existence of God
C. Leshan - Thought Experiment to the Border of Universe
William Lane Craig - The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle
University of New Mexico - Cosmic fine-tuning: the "anthropic coincidences"
Bradley Monton - God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence
Space - Cosmic 'DNA': Double Helix Spotted in Space
Evolution News - The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life Just Got Finer
William Bialek - More Perfect Than We Imagined, A Physicist's View
William Lane Craig - Confusion About the Multiverse
William Lane Craig - Why Do People Believe In the Multiverse?
William Lane Craig - 10 Really Bad Youtube Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument