In recent years, scientists have been stunned to discover how life in the universe is astoundingly balanced on a razor's edge. The Big Bang was actually a highly ordered event that required an enormous amount of information, and from the moment of inception the universe was finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of life.
Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. If any of these parameters were to change even slightly, the consequences for life would be devastating.
Fine-tuning is extremely evident in the initial conditions of the universe. Some of the initial conditions would include the expansion energy of the Big Bang, the overall amount of matter that was present, the ratio of matter to antimatter, the initial rate of the universe’s expansion and the degree of its entropy. If any of these initial conditions were to change even slightly, we would end up with a sterile universe.
The basic principle of fine-tuning is that the universe displays properties that, if they were only slightly different, would mean that the universe would be a vastly different place, or could not exist in a form anything like we observe. It does not follow from this that the universe need to have the exact properties that it has. Rather, the point is that the number of combinations of properties that would "work" is vastly exceed by the number that would not work. Nearly all scenarios lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Therefore one may conclude that the universe was designed for life by an intelligent designer.
Watch The Teleological Argument (What is really says)
Watch Refuting Weak Anthropic Principle Arguments
Watch God's Hand Was NOT Forced
Audio references
http://ia700304.us.archive.org/26/items/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot040-LukeBarnes/040-LukeBarnes.mp3
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-anthropic-universe/3302686
Online referenceshttp://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647
http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/
Book references"Just Six Numbers." Martin Rees .
"Cosmic Coincidences." John Gribbin & Martin Rees
"The Cosmic Landscape". Leonard Susskind
"The Universe: a biography". John Gribbin
"The Accidental Universe". Paul Davies
"The Mind of God". Paul Davies
"The Emperor's New Mind". Roger Penrose
Refuting "objections"
1) Because things are bad, the universe isn't fine-tuned. Our claim isn't that this universe contains the most amount of life that you could fit in it. We're saying that if things were slightly different, there wouldn't be any life at all. Saying how horrible things have been and will become doesn't change the precision of the fine-tuning. There are many Bible verses saying bad things will happen before the end. 2) Life adapted to conditions We're not talking about what life can adapt too, that's not the issue here. The issue is what the universe needs to do before any form of life is even possible. You're going to need gluons, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms (stable atoms), molecules, elements (heavy elements), planets, stars (long lived stars), galaxies, ect. The universal constants and initial conditions are finely balanced on a razor's edge, and if they were slightly different you wouldn't have the ingredients for life. 3) A different kind of life could exist. What I want to say here is if we're to avoid talking nonsense than we need to define what we clearly mean by life. By life scientist mean that property of organisms that take in food, extract energy from it, adapt, grow, and reproduce. And the point is that in order to permit life the constants and initial conditions have to be so finely tuned that it's incomprehensible. Scientist that study fine-tuning are fully aware of alternative proposed forms of life, and the problem is they don't work. Also chemistry itself wouldn't even be around, no heavy elements for life to be built from. 4) How do we know this isn't the only way the universe could have been Physicist Stephen Hawking says, "It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle.” Also you would have to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logically possible and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Saying the universe had to take a form suitable for life is ridiculous, which is why physical necessity has few, if any supporters.
5) The odds are 1:1 because we're here Imagine you're being dragged before a firing squad of one hundred trained marksmen to be executed. The command is given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" You hear the deafening roar of the guns. But then you observe that you're still alive, that all the one hundred trained marksmen missed! You're telling me you would say, "The chances of the bullets missing are 1:1 because I'm alive! Let's not even look into why they missed" A logical approach would be to find out why the bullets missed or in the case of fine-tuning why these constants are so fine-tuned.
6) Because if we weren’t here we wouldn’t notice it
What if someone asked "why are quasars so bright" and suppose someone else answered "because otherwise we wouldn't be able to see them". Well that's true, but it doesn’t answer the question. Quasars are massive black holes and as the matter is falling towards the black hole it gets extremely hot and luminous, as a result all the energy is released. So when someone asks “why is the universe so finely-tuned for life?” Should we answer “Because if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here.”
7) Improbabilities happen all the time. The fine-tuning argument doesn't simply argue high improbability; it argues high improbability with what results from it. We have a extraordinary finely-tuned complex universe coming out of nothing. With your example nothing happens, there is no special potentiality that makes a difference. No complexity, no order, no creation of atoms, no creation of massive stars or galaxies. You’re trying to get people to sit around in ignorance and not look into why our universe is so finely-tuned! 8) M-verse Well, I actually believe the multiverse exists and it is filled with life, just like our universe is probably filled with life. But the existence of a multiverse (if string theory is true) is not a problem for the teleological argument. I look forward to advances in string theory. The holographic principle is fascinating and only aids in debunking reductionist materialism.
http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/do-multiverse-scenarios-solve-the-problem-of-fine-tuning/
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0246.pdf
9) Inflation takes care of some of the initial conditions Inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own. In order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion—and to result in the necessary values for our universe's critical density—inflation theories rely upon two or more parameters to take on particularly precise values. These values are so precise that the problem of fine-tuning remains and is only pushed one step back 10) Cosmological natural selection The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models. Also Planck has given us a lot of evidence that indicates incredibly fast expansion, just after the Big Bang. (Fine-tuned) 11) God-of-the-gaps A god of the gaps is using a god to fill in missing information in a process. Fine-tuning is pointing to a designer. Atheist physicist Martin Rees said, “Their own discoveries were pointing them to an intelligent designer.” It’s not a god-of-the-gaps, fine-tuning is leading to God.
12) Fred Adams Fred Adams has been criticized for making unjustified assumptions by many physicists. He only let the constants very a limited range and used a limited set of criteria. Luke Barnes says, "Adams' work cannot support these claims". Even if it did (which it doesn't) there are plenty more fine-tuning claims that Adams hasn't addressed. 13) Victor Strenger Strenger's work has been criticized by other physicists for having several fundamental flaws. He ignores the most significant factors in his calculations. He even admits his "oversimplification" LoL. Also Luke Barnes argues his "solutions" to the fine-tuned universe are fine-tuned themselves!
Paul Davies, Luke Barnes, Martin Rees, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, Don N. Page, John A. Wheeler, Roger Penrose, David Jonathan, Luboš Motl, Peter Woit, Arno Penzias, Dr Dennis Scania, Francis Collins, Karl W. Giberson, Peter Harrison, Andrei Linde, Hugh Ross, Frank A. Wilczek, Dr. David Deutsch, Michael Turner, Lee Smolin, George Ellis, Alan Sandage, George Greenstein, Robin Collins, Tony Rothman, Vera Kistiakowsky, Ed Harrison, John Gribbin all say the universe is fine-tuned. (many more)
