Hindu Proof of God: Best Arguments

[Vinayaka]

But I don't agree that 'God' is beyond the intellect, because if 'God' was beyond the grasp of the intellect, how would we be to have the concept of God in the first place? It is similar to Kant's 'Noumena' he said the Noumena was unknowable. But if it unknowable then how does he have the concept of it in the first place? It is similarly said in the Upanishads that Brahman(God/Noumena) either totally unknowable or totally knowable. Rather, you cannot know it "well" This means some parts of my intellect can grasp God and some parts cannot.

A mystic views debate differently. They see people who set up arguments as actually only trying to convince themselves. Generally there is no noticeable outcome, as both sides aren't swayed anyway. The mystic has no such psychological need so can sit back and watch the debate from a neutral stance, and may or may not enjoy the movie.

But at the same time, it's fine if others want to enter such forays. That isn't the mystics business.

(I only entered this thread so that readers see a diversity in Hindu ideas, and don't get the wrong idea that we all want to convince people of stuff. But most likely most people would know this. Perhaps not.)

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am not big of 'faith' myself either. For evidence, I look to the existence of paranormal phenomena that disqualifies current materialism as the ultimate understanding of the universe. From there, the inquiry into what is this 'more' to the universe will lead the seeker to the spiritual teachers. And of those I have judged the teachers of Advaita to have the deepest understanding of the nature of reality.

So maybe we kind of agree, but I would place the evidence from the paranormal as a better starting point than thee advanced scientific arguments you present. The paranormal starts with things any average person can understand. All that scientific stuff, not so much.

I agree and I will create a thread soon exactly on the subject. Parapsychology is the biggest proof against materialism.
However, Parapsychology cannot prove or disprove God. In can prove materialism wrong, for example by showing the soul exists or that mind extends beyond matter.

Hence, why God requires different kinds of proof. One of these is logical arguments to prove God exists.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

A mystic views debate differently. They see people who set up arguments as actually only trying to convince themselves. Generally there is no noticeable outcome, as both sides aren't swayed anyway. The mystic has no such psychological need so can sit back and watch the debate from a neutral stance, and may or may not enjoy the movie.

This is assuming the superiority of the attitude of the mystic. Besides you are not a mystic anyway, as far as I know you believe in God and daily worship God.

(I only entered this thread so that readers see a diversity in Hindu ideas, and don't get the wrong idea that we all want to convince people of stuff. But most likely most people would know this. Perhaps not.)

Yeah I see this as a common tendency among Hindus to sort of play the other Hindu down so that Hindu's don't look bad. It is far rarer among Christians and Muslims, because they have have a stronger sense of community. Hindus just love arguing with each other over everything and everything, even when the differences between one Hindu and another are small and the difference between a Hindu and non-Hindu are big. I have just come to accept that this is one of the psychological defects of the Modern Hindu mind. I say 'Modern' because our pre-modern Hindus did not have this attitude. Debating the other school of thought was the great Hindu/Indian tradition and still goes on to this very day, like in Tibet:

Debate is a wonderful thing that leads to a dialectic progression of ideas. Ideas clashing with ideas, to lead to new ideas. Although I must say I do find the so-called mystics, spiritual people that jump in every debate to tell their kind not to debate, debate is beneath then, patronising. Jesus, why have a debate forum in the first place? Is it just a farce? Are we not allowed to communicate our ideas and positions and try to defeat those of others? Am I missing something about this forum?

 

[ratiocinator]

About 95% Dark energy and matter

I didn't realize they were outside the universe....

At the quantum level all the physical laws you are talking about disappear. The quantum level is uncertain, not coherent, not predictable, the non-quantum level it is coherent, predictable and certain. Hence, if at the foundation level there is nothing but random flux, why should it maintain any coherence at the upper levels? Why should it remain stable and for whom it is remaining stable? Why doesn't your body just fall apart the next moment? Why doesn't the spin of atoms change by an infinitesimal amount and all the matter in the universes collapses on itself?

If I had a penny for every time I'd read 'quantum' being used in some lame attempt to justify, well you name it: gods, ghosts, quack medicine, the paranormal and so on and so on - I'd be rich by now.

Quantum mechanics is a well established theory in science - it has equations an' al' that can be used to make predictions. The predictability of quantum mechanics was used to design the semiconductors in all your electronic devices. So, no your statement that "the quantum level is uncertain, not coherent, not predictable" is not correct.

Now have a bite at this, lets just take the very first stage of life at the unicellular level. Why is it already a perfect functioning system?

Do you mean the start of life on Earth? If so, I don't think anybody is suggesting it started with a whole cell. Not that it really matters - the existence of unknowns does not support your "supervisory intelligence" (or any other) story - they are just unknown.

Have you decided why the universe needs all this explanation but a mind capable of imagining it, making it and maintaining it - something even more complex and well ordered, can just happen to exist without any questions needing to be asked...?

 

[viole]

This is a repost from a thread of mine in the Hindu DIR thread. It has taken me a long time to accept that God exists, as I am an ex-atheist and still have strong atheistic tendencies. I have looked at all the main arguments for why God exists cosmological, design and ontological, but it is this argument that convinces me the most.

Argument: The laws of cause and effect require a maintainer that enforces it.

If a law exists, it does not necessarily mean that everybody will follow the law. If there is no maintainer/enforcer/supervisor to enforce that law, then some will deliberately not follow that law, some will forget to follow that law and if the laws are very complex, then may partly follow that law while breaking another law.

Objection: This is an invalid argument, because it makes the mistake of applying how humans laws work to natural laws

Reply: The above is only an analogy to illustrate that laws require a supervising intelligence. Consider how complex natural laws are, the laws of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, sound, nuclear laws, mechanical laws and all these laws operate in tandem perfectly to maintain this universe. If the laws were just blind, why would they do that? Why would they continue to persist, why doesn't gravity just stop working the next moment and all planets fall out of their orbit? Why doesn't some random reaction take place in the sun and the sun explode? Why don't the spin of atoms change by a minuscule amount and all matter just collapses? Why are the physical laws so precisely fine tuned that the universe can exist and humans are around to see it(anthropic principle)

We know that at the quantum level of the uncertainty, how atoms just appear and disappear seemingly randomly every moment, and despite this material flux, still at the non-quantum or manifest level of reality everything coheres. This fact when discovered by Max Plank even compelled him to say in his Nobel prize speech that it can only be explained by a supervising cosmic intelligence

Scientists have now started to acknowledge that the universe is indeed a perfectly fined tuned system for life to exist:

"For more than 400 years, physicists treated the universe like a machine, taking it apart to see how it ticks. The surprise is it turns out to have remarkably few parts: just leptons and quarks and four fundamental forces to glue them together.​

But those few parts are exquisitely machined. If we tinker with their settings, even slightly, the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Science now faces the question of why the universe appears to have been “fine-tuned” to allow the appearance of complex life, a question that has some potentially uncomfortable answers.​

So now, I invite you to join me in imagining a universe, a universe slightly different to our own. Let’s just play with one number and see what happens: the mass of the down-quark. Currently, it is set to be slightly heavier than the up-quark.​

(snip)​

This situation is devastating for the possibility of complex life, as in a heavy down-quark universe, the simplest atoms will not join and form molecules. Such a universe is destined to be inert and sterile over its entire history. And how much would we need to increase the down-quark mass to realise such a catastrophe? More than 70 times heavier and there would be no life. While this may not seem too finely tuned, physics suggests that the down-quark could have been many trillions of times heavier. So we are actually left with the question: why does the down-quark appear so light?​

Examining the huge number of potential universes, each with their own unique laws of physics, leads to a startling conclusion: most of the universes that result from fiddling with the fundamental constants would lack physical properties needed to support complex life.​

Things get worse when we fiddle with forces. Make the strength of gravity stronger or weaker by a factor of 100 or so, and you get universes where stars refuse to shine, or they burn so fast they exhaust their nuclear fuel in a moment. Messing with the strong or weak forces delivers elements that fall apart in the blink of an eye, or are too robust to transmute through radioactive decay into other elements,​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.​

And there is another structural issue to consider – our universe is flying apart. Two things affect the rate of expansion: the amount of matter which acts as a brake, and dark energy which acts as an accelerator. Dark energy is winning so our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.​

What this means is that in the early days of the universe, the rate of expansion was slower, slow enough to allow matter to condense into stars, planets and people. But if the universe had been born with only a touch less matter, it would have rapidly expanded, thinning out to less than one hydrogen atom per universe.​

On the other hand, if the universe had been born with only a touch more matter, that would have caused it to re-collapse before the first stars could form. In short, the early universe was on a knife-edge, poised between these possible outcomes. What emerged was the Goldilocks expansion rate: not too fast, not too slow.​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.​

Symmetry

Next, we come to a consideration of the symmetry displayed in our universe. In everyday life the word symmetry describes how something stays the same when you change your viewpoint; think of the appearance of a perfect vase as you circumnavigate the table it’s sitting on. It demonstrates rotational symmetry.​

In physics, we find other types of symmetries hidden in mathematics. For instance, there is a symmetry that ensures the conservation of electric charge: in every experiment we perform, equal amounts of positive and negative charges are produced. Other symmetries dictate the conservation of momentum, and there are others for a whole host of quantum properties. Some symmetries are perfect, others contain slight imperfections. And we would not be here without them.​

In a perfectly symmetric universe, the hot fires of the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This means protons and antiprotons would have completely annihilated each other as the universe cooled leaving a universe empty of its atomic hydrogen building block.
Somewhere hidden in the physics of protons there must be a slight asymmetry that resulted in protons outnumbering antiprotons by one in a billion.​

But why does our universe possess a perfect symmetry with respect to charge but a slight asymmetry with respect to matter and antimatter? Nobody knows! If the situation was reversed and our universe was born with zero protons, but with a net excess of charge, the immense repulsive action of the electromagnetic force would prevent matter present from collapsing into anything resembling stars and galaxies.​

No matter which way we turn, the properties of our universe have finely tuned values that allow us to be here. Deviate ever so slightly from them and the universe would be sterile – or it may never have existed at all. What explanation can there be for this fine-tuning?​

A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life​

What is now known to science in the latest research from empirical facts we declared purely using reasoning more than a thousand years ago. We argue similarly, the laws of nature function because there is a supervising intelligence. In fact we can also provide you empirical proof of this. Take the body for example. As long as the intelligence that is regulating the body exists, the body functions and remains coherent, but as soon as that intelligence leaves, the body stop functioning and falls apart. Thus, extending this argument to the body of the universe, its functioning and coherence can only be possible if there is a supervising intelligence.

Assuming you are right. Do you have evidence that this maintainer is the Hindu God?

If you have it, how does it look like? Miracles, visions and stuff? Amazing, otherwise unexplainable facts that can only come from the Hindu God?

Well, if you could prove that, you would not need any other complicated argument that goes beyond that.

I think the following rule is true in general: any theist who needs to look for arguments, like design, cosmological or whatever, that are not clear about what God is really responsible for all that, automatically acknowledges that any other evidence for their particular brand of God is insufficient, when taken alone, to infer that God exists and that He is that particular God.

Ergo, any Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Apolloist, Jujuist, etc. who looks for evidence external to the evidence that would suffice to justify her faith, cannot justify her particular brand of faith.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I didn't realize they were outside the universe....


If I had a penny for every time I'd read 'quantum' being used in some lame attempt to justify, well you name it: gods, ghosts, quack medicine, the paranormal and so on and so on - I'd be rich by now.

Sure, but that does that mean that everybody is using the word "quantum' improperly. In fact I am using it the same way the father of quantum theory Max Plank used it.

Quantum mechanics is a well established theory in science - it has equations an' al' that can be used to make predictions. The predictability of quantum mechanics was used to design the semiconductors in all your electronic devices. So, no your statement that "the quantum level is uncertain, not coherent, not predictable" is not correct.

If you look a few posts back even I said that QM can be used to predict the behaviour of particles to the trillion of a part. Unpredictability is regarding the uncertainty principle, a particle's position and momentum cannot be known at the same time i.e., meaning we cannot know the path an atom will take from moment to moment, because every moment it disappears and appears somewhere else. So we need to calculate the statistical probability of where it will appear.

Do you mean the start of life on Earth? If so, I don't think anybody is suggesting it started with a whole cell. Not that it really matters - the existence of unknowns does not support your "supervisory intelligence" (or any other) story - they are just unknown.

Nice dodge. In other words you cannot explain why even at the most basic unit of life of a single cell why it should already be as complex as a nanofactory. It defeats your reductionist paradigm. It proves that already from the very get set go the universe is a perfectly functioning system. At every level you look at it it already a whole. This recalls an old Hindu mantra:

That is whole
This is whole
From whole arises the whole
If the whole is taken from the whole
The whole alone remains

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Assuming you are right. Do you have evidence that this maintainer is the Hindu God?

If you have it, how does it look like? Miracles, visions and stuff? Amazing, otherwise unexplainable facts that can only come from the Hindu God?

That was not my argument. Hence I used the generic term "intelligence" I am not assigning any attributes to that intelligence like what it looks like, what it wears, who are its chosen people.

 

[viole]

That was not my argument. Hence I used the generic term "intelligence" I am not assigning any attributes to that intelligence like what it looks like, what it wears, who are its chosen people.

But why do you need to be so generic, if the existence of your particular brand of God could be justified to start with?

It would be like to trying to prove that the laws of physics must entail the existence of living beings looking like cats, ergo felines must exist, when you can simply show your cat to prove that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

But why do you need to be so generic, if the existence of your particular brand of God could be justified to start with?

That is because I am not arguing for my particular God

I have not even used the word "God" in the OP. It is interesting to note, that my critics, have all tried to strawman my argument. Read the OP again and respond to the actual arguments, and not strawmans of it.

 

[viole]

That is because I am not arguing for my particular God

I have not even used the word "God" in the OP. It is interesting to note, that my critics, have all tried to strawman my argument. Read the OP again and respond to the actual arguments, and not strawmans of it.

So, why do you believe in your God?

Is evidence thereof not sufficient to prove that a God exists?

And I already addressed your OP. There is no law of cause and effect.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Vinayaka]

This is assuming the superiority of the attitude of the mystic. Besides you are not a mystic anyway, as far as I know you believe in God and daily worship God.

The Nataraja at Cern looked nice anyway. But then I'm biased. Best wishes with your debate here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The universe is an open system, eh? What's it interacting with?

It is an interplay, play with itself. It does not require the presence of a second entity. I move the mouse. I am made of atoms, the mouse is made of atoms. Actually we are one. Yet, we are interacting. Everything in the universe plays this game - Maya, perception.

Kabir said: "Maya, bari thagini hum jani" (I know, Maya is a great deceiver).
* Kabir, one of the most beloved of philosophers among Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of India. An orphan raised by a Muslim weaver and unlettered.

Besides you are not a mystic anyway, as far as I know you believe in God and daily worship God.

Do you know Vinayaka's God?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

So, why do you believe in your God?

Is evidence thereof not sufficient to prove that a God exists?

Ciao

- viole

I don't claim ownership of God.

All I have argued in the OP that a supervising intelligence necessarily exists, to maintain the universe so life can exist and thrive within it. That, is because the complexity of all natural processes so that life can exist is fine-tuned for just that. It is a consistent inference, if I find a complex functional system I always infer there is an intelligence behind it.
If I see a clock, a radio, a television, a computer I always infer an intelligence behind it. Likewise, I am forced to infer the same about so-called natural things like living cells, it is a complex functional system, therefore there must be an intelligence behind it.

I think materialists believe in fantasies. How can they explain to me that a single cell already started of as a piece of perfect functioning nanomachinary? How can you explain this as a process of natural selection? Materialists refuse to admit that their paradigm has been reduced to absurdity.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nice dodge.

It wasn't a dodge - I could have completely ignored the point in exactly the same way as you ignored this point of mine:

Have you decided why the universe needs all this explanation but a mind capable of imagining it, making it and maintaining it - something even more complex and well ordered, can just happen to exist without any questions needing to be asked...?

Have you?

In other words you cannot explain why even at the most basic unit of life of a single cell why it should already be as as complex as a nanofactory.

I already gave my thoughts but I am the first to admit that I cannot explain everything - neither can anybody else - and neither does your story of a supervising intelligence.

It defeats your reductionist paradigm.

No, it does not.

It proves that already from the very get set go the universe is a perfectly functioning system. At every level you look at it it already a whole.

An unknown doesn't prove anything at all (except that there is an unknown) and connecting a cell to the 'get go' of the universe is rather bizarre.

As I said way back in my first reply, this a rework of "the universe is hard to explain - therefore god".

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

As I said way back in my first reply, this a rework of "the universe is hard to explain - therefore god".

Nope, as I already argued, this is a strawman.

As I have always said materialists do not have a consistent standard of truth. The argument is consistent. If you saw a piece of nanomachinary you would infer an intelligence; but here you are seeing the most complex and sophisticated piece of nanomachinary in a cell, but you refuse to infer an intelligence behind it. You are not consistent.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But why do you need to be so generic, if the existence of your particular brand of God could be justified to start with?

It would be like to trying to prove that the laws of physics must entail the existence of living beings looking like cats, ergo felines must exist, when you can simply show your cat to prove that.

Fish, Tortoise, Boar, Man-lion, the form is not important. Spririt_Warrior's God is present everywhere in the whole world in trillions of forms. What is it that is not a form of Spririt_Warrior's God? (am I putting things correctly, Spririt_Warrior?). "lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh" - There is but one God (for some Hindus). Do the Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in more than one God? There cannot be a brand of God. (Of course, I am a strong atheist Hindu. I am only trying to explain Spririt_Warrior's view)

What Spirit_Warrior mentioned in his post #46 is one of the most famous (holographic sort of) statements of Hinduism:
That is whole, this is whole, from whole arises the whole;
if the whole is taken out from the whole, what remains is still the whole. (my translation)

Pūrnamadah, pūrnamidam, pūrnāt pūrnamudachyate;
pūrnasya pūrnamādāya, pūrnamevāvasishyte.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nope, as I already argued, this is a strawman.

No, you have said that - not argued it. All your responses suggest that I was right.

As I have always said materialists do not have a consistent standard of truth. The argument is consistent. If you saw a piece of nanomachinary you would infer an intelligence; but here you are seeing the most complex and sophisticated piece of nanomachinary in a cell, but you refuse to infer an intelligence behind it. You are not consistent.

Wow - not consistent? Says the guy who thinks the universe needs all this explanation in the form an intelligence but that an intelligence capable of imagining, creating and maintaining it needs no explanation at all.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Wow - not consistent? Says the guy who thinks the universe needs all this explanation in the form an intelligence but that an intelligence capable of imagining, creating and maintaining it needs no explanation at all.

I never said the universe needs explanation. So there is another strawman there.

I have argued that if we find a complex functional system we necessarily infer an intelligence. That is because it points to an intelligence. There is an older watchmaker argument which argues similarly, if I were to to chance upon an alien desert and find in the desert a functioning watch, it would immediately force the inference there is a watchmaker. The watch is the sign that points to the watchmaker. Similarly, alien city is the sign that points to the alien city builders. Likewise, the fine-tuned universe for life is a the sign that points to the fine-tuner that created it for life to exist and thrive.

Your argument is not consistent because you admit that if you found a watch you would infer an intelligence, if you found a city on an alien planet you would infer intelligence, but here you have in your midst a single cell which is such a complex system of nanocomputing, that it makes our best supercomputers look like primitive junk, and you do not make the inference of intelligence. You are not consistent.

 

[Milton Platt]

This is a repost from a thread of mine in the Hindu DIR thread. It has taken me a long time to accept that God exists, as I am an ex-atheist and still have strong atheistic tendencies. I have looked at all the main arguments for why God exists cosmological, design and ontological, but it is this argument that convinces me the most.

Argument: The laws of cause and effect require a maintainer that enforces it.

If a law exists, it does not necessarily mean that everybody will follow the law. If there is no maintainer/enforcer/supervisor to enforce that law, then some will deliberately not follow that law, some will forget to follow that law and if the laws are very complex, then may partly follow that law while breaking another law.

Objection: This is an invalid argument, because it makes the mistake of applying how humans laws work to natural laws

Reply: The above is only an analogy to illustrate that laws require a supervising intelligence. Consider how complex natural laws are, the laws of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, sound, nuclear laws, mechanical laws and all these laws operate in tandem perfectly to maintain this universe. If the laws were just blind, why would they do that? Why would they continue to persist, why doesn't gravity just stop working the next moment and all planets fall out of their orbit? Why doesn't some random reaction take place in the sun and the sun explode? Why don't the spin of atoms change by a minuscule amount and all matter just collapses? Why are the physical laws so precisely fine tuned that the universe can exist and humans are around to see it(anthropic principle)

Human laws may require that humans enforce those laws. Legal laws have nothing in common with with natural laws except that they were written by humans. Natural laws are simply descriptions (man-made) of how nature works. They are not the agency which causes the behavior.

We know that at the quantum level of the uncertainty, how atoms just appear and disappear seemingly randomly every moment, and despite this material flux, still at the non-quantum or manifest level of reality everything coheres. This fact when discovered by Max Plank even compelled him to say in his Nobel prize speech that it can only be explained by a supervising cosmic intelligence

That was just personal commentary. Can you provide supporting scientific papers? I don't think so.

Scientists have now started to acknowledge that the universe is indeed a perfectly fined tuned system for life to exist:

Not true. Very little of the universe is inhabitable for life as we know it. The life that exists that we are aware of evolved to fit the universe it is in.

"For more than 400 years, physicists treated the universe like a machine, taking it apart to see how it ticks. The surprise is it turns out to have remarkably few parts: just leptons and quarks and four fundamental forces to glue them together.​

But those few parts are exquisitely machined. If we tinker with their settings, even slightly, the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Science now faces the question of why the universe appears to have been “fine-tuned” to allow the appearance of complex life, a question that has some potentially uncomfortable answers.

Please provide an example of a part of the universe that has been "machined". If this is the only universe we have to examine, what yardstick are you using to decide this one is "fine tuned"?​

So now, I invite you to join me in imagining a universe, a universe slightly different to our own. Let’s just play with one number and see what happens: the mass of the down-quark. Currently, it is set to be slightly heavier than the up-quark.​

(snip)​

This situation is devastating for the possibility of complex life, as in a heavy down-quark universe, the simplest atoms will not join and form molecules. Such a universe is destined to be inert and sterile over its entire history. And how much would we need to increase the down-quark mass to realise such a catastrophe? More than 70 times heavier and there would be no life. While this may not seem too finely tuned, physics suggests that the down-quark could have been many trillions of times heavier. So we are actually left with the question: why does the down-quark appear so light?​

Examining the huge number of potential universes, each with their own unique laws of physics, leads to a startling conclusion: most of the universes that result from fiddling with the fundamental constants would lack physical properties needed to support complex life.​

Things get worse when we fiddle with forces. Make the strength of gravity stronger or weaker by a factor of 100 or so, and you get universes where stars refuse to shine, or they burn so fast they exhaust their nuclear fuel in a moment. Messing with the strong or weak forces delivers elements that fall apart in the blink of an eye, or are too robust to transmute through radioactive decay into other elements,​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.​

And there is another structural issue to consider – our universe is flying apart. Two things affect the rate of expansion: the amount of matter which acts as a brake, and dark energy which acts as an accelerator. Dark energy is winning so our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.​

What this means is that in the early days of the universe, the rate of expansion was slower, slow enough to allow matter to condense into stars, planets and people. But if the universe had been born with only a touch less matter, it would have rapidly expanded, thinning out to less than one hydrogen atom per universe.​

On the other hand, if the universe had been born with only a touch more matter, that would have caused it to re-collapse before the first stars could form. In short, the early universe was on a knife-edge, poised between these possible outcomes. What emerged was the Goldilocks expansion rate: not too fast, not too slow.​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.

While it may be true that changing the way matter and/or energy behave would change how a universe develops (or does not develop), it does not follow that this means it would be a sterile universe. How do you come by the knowledge that the way we understand life is the only way life could possibly exist and the kind of universe we live in can be the only possible kind of universe?​

Symmetry

Next, we come to a consideration of the symmetry displayed in our universe. In everyday life the word symmetry describes how something stays the same when you change your viewpoint; think of the appearance of a perfect vase as you circumnavigate the table it’s sitting on. It demonstrates rotational symmetry.​

In physics, we find other types of symmetries hidden in mathematics. For instance, there is a symmetry that ensures the conservation of electric charge: in every experiment we perform, equal amounts of positive and negative charges are produced. Other symmetries dictate the conservation of momentum, and there are others for a whole host of quantum properties. Some symmetries are perfect, others contain slight imperfections. And we would not be here without them.

Even if we were to grant you this, so what???​

In a perfectly symmetric universe, the hot fires of the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. (Source for this knowledge?) This means protons and antiprotons would have completely annihilated each other as the universe cooled leaving a universe empty of its atomic hydrogen building block.
Somewhere hidden in the physics of protons there must be a slight asymmetry that resulted in protons outnumbering antiprotons by one in a billion.

Provide the scientific paper upon which you rest this assertion. I doubt that there are many cosmologists or physicists on this forum, and I am certainly not one. If you are not just making this up, that's fine, but support your assertion.​

But why does our universe possess a perfect symmetry with respect to charge but a slight asymmetry with respect to matter and antimatter? Nobody knows! If the situation was reversed and our universe was born with zero protons, but with a net excess of charge, the immense repulsive action of the electromagnetic force would prevent matter present from collapsing into anything resembling stars and galaxies.​

No matter which way we turn, the properties of our universe have finely tuned values that allow us to be here. Deviate ever so slightly from them and the universe would be sterile – or it may never have existed at all. What explanation can there be for this fine-tuning?​

A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life​

What is now known to science in the latest research from empirical facts we declared purely using reasoning more than a thousand years ago. We argue similarly, the laws of nature function because there is a supervising intelligence. In fact we can also provide you empirical proof of this. Take the body for example. As long as the intelligence that is regulating the body exists, the body functions and remains coherent, but as soon as that intelligence leaves, the body stop functioning and falls apart. Thus, extending this argument to the body of the universe, its functioning and coherence can only be possible if there is a supervising intelligence.

The laws of nature are descriptive, not proscriptive. The laws are not what make the universe behave in the manner that it does. They merely describe how it works.

If you were ever an atheist, I wonder how you arrived at that point. It does not appear to have been via critical thinking.

 

[psychoslice]

I thought this was one of the best information on gods existence.

IS THERE ANY PROOF FOR GOD?

I AM. You are. Everybody is. God is nothing but the totality. The trees are, the rivers are, the mountains are. These are the proofs. The sun rises in the morning and the moon is in the night, and the stars. These are the proofs. The flowers and the butterflies and the grass, these are the proofs.

God is not a syllogism. God is not a conclusion. God is an experience of beauty, of truth, of good, of consciousness. Where are you looking for the proofs? Your very being is the only proof. The seeker is the sought. God resides in you as you. God is a tree in a tree and a dog in a dog and a man in a man. God is all these things. God is this whole.

But you want an intellectual conclusion; you will go on missing God. There is no proof — in that sense there is no proof. There has never been a proof in that sense. And the people who have been supplying proofs for God simply don’t know what they are doing. The people who have tried to argue for God are the people who don’t know God. Otherwise they wouldn’t argue. It is better to sing if you know God, it is better to dance if you know God, it is better to laugh if you know God. It is better to weep, cry, if you know God, rather than to argue.

Philosophers have been arguing about God, for and against, both. And philosophers are the farthest from God. Because the more you become entangled inwards, the more you become obsessed with theories, systems of thought, the farther away you are from life itself. And God is life.

– OSHO