FINE-TUNING: A FINE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

I CANNOT IMPROVE ON WHAT GERALD SCHROEDER HAS WRITTEN: (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx). I LIFTED THE FOLLOWING FROM: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe. I JUST SLIGHTLY MODIFIED THE LAYOUT:

“According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

·       If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

·       If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

·       "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon. Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

·       A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning:

Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:

·       The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."

·       The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on:

·       how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

·       One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000, but instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

·       the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:

·       The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,

·       namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Penrose continues,

·       Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.

It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:

·       To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"

ONLY THE MOST COURAGEOUS ACT OF BLIND FAITH CAN AVOID THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION: AN ALL-KNOWING AND ALL-POWERFUL DESIGNED IT ALL!

A RESPONSE TO A SEEKER

I am glad that you are seeking, because a true seeker will find. I am also confident that you will see through Dawkin’s claim that science has made God irrelevant. Why?

For one thing, science has never demonstrated that anything ever happens naturally and without Divine guidance. To do this, science would have to demonstrate that our causal laws/forces of science are of natural derivation and continuation. However, science is ill-equipped for such a task.

More to the point, these laws or causal agents give every indication that they are designed and divinely pieced together (fine-tuned) to promote life. Science cannot disprove the divine origin of these laws but, instead, depends upon them for each of its findings. If these laws were simply a part of this universe, they would be changing as the universe changes, automatically voiding the possibility of any coherent scientific proclamation. Indeed, if it had been possible for our laws to have been created by an explosion (the “Big Bang”), there is no reason to expect them to be immutable and universal, making science possible.

We should not expect these laws to be elegant (simple), enabling scientific discovery and understanding. Instead, we should expect what explosions usually produce – Chaos!

But please continue your exploration. If you want the truth, you will find the truth.

DOES SCIENCE MAKE SPIRITUAL EXPLANATIONS IRRELEVANT?

Textbook author and evolutionist Douglas Futuyma’s has written that Darwinism and the sciences have made “spiritual explanations” irrelevant:

·       “Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

How so? Has Darwin or biology provided an adequate explanation for life, the cell, DNA, or an entire assortment of other questions?

Even more damning to Futuyma’s assertion is the utter inadequacy of science to explain:

·       The fine-tuning of the universe

·       The origin, immutability, knowability, elegance, and universality of the laws of science, which make science possible

·       To provide evidence that anything has ever occurred naturally with Divine intent. (These can only be answered from a pre-science perspective.)

Perhaps our eyes do not deceive and “all their seeming evidence of design and purpose” is actually “evidence of design and purpose.”

HAS SCIENCE BANISHED GOD?

Atheists charge that soon there will no longer be a purpose for God. Why? Because—they claim—we will no longer need God to explain the mysteries of life, since science is now providing those explanations, making God irrelevant. One atheist exults:

·       "As our understanding of the physical world has increased—and as our ability to test theories and claims has improved—the domain of God's miracles and interventions, or other supposed supernatural phenomena, has consistently shrunk...We stopped needing God to explain floods, but we still needed Him to explain sickness and health. Then we didn't need Him to explain sickness and health, but we still needed him to explain consciousness. Now we are beginning to get a grip on consciousness..."

The assumption is that science will soon make God irrelevant. However, this assumption is based upon an unsubstantiated leap of faith—that, in some way, scientific explanation is opposed to God's existence.

Instead of this model, there is another more in keeping with reason—that God is the foundation of science. It is God, therefore, who makes science possible. Looked at this way, science becomes, not the enemy of God but rather His invention, beautifully highlighting His workmanship.

After all, what is it that makes scientific discovery possible? Is it not God's immutable, universal, and elegantly causal laws—laws which are impossible without a Designer and immutable Sustainer?

Only with such a God as this is science and learning possible.

How can we account for the elegant laws of science without an Intelligent Designer? Can an explosion, what some might call the Big Bang, account for these exquisitely-structured laws? Can it explain E=MC2?

Instead, we recognize that such elegance is normally the product of intelligence. Without such simple and elegantly-fashioned laws, scientific discovery would be almost impossible. Think about it…if a law of science required fifty terms to accurately describe it, that very complexity might keep it hidden, preventing scientific understanding.

How do we account for the fact that such laws and/or causes operate uniformly and universally throughout the universe? Ordinarily, forces or causes operate locally. A campfire warms only when we are close to it. The radio station can only transmit its signal within a certain distance. However, the laws of science are not limited to certain locales. If they were, there could be no science, no descriptive formulas, no textbooks, no predictions, and no replication of findings appropriate to various continents and conditions.

What then enables the laws of the universe to operate uniformly and universally, unobstructed by storms, mountains, or distances? And why does nothing affect them, while they affect everything? They contrast with the things of this material world in every respect, suggesting that they come from another realm, a Transcendent realm.

What can account for the immutability of these laws in view of the fact that this entire universe is expanding, moving, and even deteriorating—moment by moment? Must there not be an uncaused Cause who remains immutable? For, if the Cause changed, how could “it” sustain our immutable laws?

Besides this, how can science function in such a changing world? Would not its findings also be in flux? And wouldn't these findings be entirely useless? As soon as we could publish them, the supposed facts would have already changed.

In all their characteristics, the laws of science point to their Creator and Sustainer. Their immutability, uniformity, and elegance demand an Intelligent Designer.

Yet, the atheist encounters other problems, as well. If the many laws of science are not eternal, then they too require a cause and an explanation. Their cause can only be an uncaused Eternal Intelligent Being, who does not require a cause.

If these laws are eternal, they must transcend the beginning of this finite universe. The fact that they would have worked so harmoniously and would have been so fine-tuned to create such an orderly, functional, and life-sustaining universe points to their unity and perhaps eternality within the Mind of God.

Besides, without such a transcendent Being, science would never be able to reasonably explain anything! Why not? Because any explanation would always require its own explanation, ad infinitum.

In conclusion, science does not do away with God. Instead—whether it wants to admit it or not—all the sciences depend upon Him! Therefore, science is not in opposition to God. Rather, science derives its very being and substance from Him! As a result, every scientific finding declares, not only His existence, but also His glory.