The fine-tuning of the cosmos is a
scientific fact which is not up for debate.
Premise I: The universe has several physical constraints. Scientific fact.
Premise II: These physical constraints have very precise properties which allow our universe, and human life, to exist. Scientific fact.
Conclusion: The universe is fine-tuned. Scientific fact.
I repeat: The fine-tuning of the cosmos is a
scientific fact which is not up for debate. If you disagree with this statement, you are denying settled science, and should be banned from this forum, and all other science-based forums (both online and off).
Where the debate actually lies (pun intended) is with the question
what is the cause of the fine-tuning? This is where the science is not settled, as there are currently two valid competing hypotheses:
Atheist Hypothesis: Multiverse. With so many universes (perhaps an infinite number), each with random properties, it was inevitable that (at least) one would end up with the properties of our current universe. Yes, our universe is fine-tuned, but it's a matter of overwhelming numbers putting luck in our favor, not of design.
Theist Hypothesis: God. Designs are the result of the intentional manipulation of the universe to achieve a desired goal. For example, I'm intentionally manipulating the pixels on your screen with the desired goal of sharing my thoughts. This is the hallmark of intelligent design; it's what we would expect to discover if the universe were designed for a purpose. Guess what? It's exactly what science has discovered.
Now, which of these two hypotheses is the most compelling is entirely subjective. I find the God hypothesis to be the far more rational view, and I believe the multiverse to be a highly-contrived, unscientific dodging of an unwanted conclusion (God).
I fully accept that I could be wrong, and the multiverse is true. However, even if the multiverse is true, it would only explain the
how of the fine-tuning of our universe; fine-tuning would still be a
scientific fact.
More here:
Dear Anthropic Principle Deniers: How the Laws of Physics Prove Fine Tuning
"
There is one scientific conundrum that practically screams out the limitations of both science and religion. And that is the “fine tuning” problem. For the past 50 years or so, physicists have become more and more aware that various fundamental parameters of our universe appear to be fine-tuned to allow the emergence of life — not only life as we know it but life of any kind. For example, if the nuclear force were slightly stronger than it is, then all of the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than it is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
In another, even more striking example, if the cosmic “dark energy” discovered 15 years ago were a little denser than it actually is, our universe would have expanded so rapidly that matter could never have pulled itself together to form stars. And if the dark energy were a little smaller, the universe would have collapsed long before stars had time to form. Atoms are made in stars. Without stars there would be no atoms and no life.
So, the question is: Why? Why do these parameters lie in the narrow range that allows life?
There are three possibilities: First, there might be some as-yet-unknown physics that requires these parameters to be what they are. But this explanation is highly questionable — why should the laws of physics care about the emergence of life? Second possibility: God created the universe, God wanted life (for whatever reasons), so God designed the universe so that it would allow life. Third possibility, and the one favored by many physicists today: Our universe is one of zillions of different universes with a huge range of parameters, including many different values for the strength of the nuclear force and the density of dark energy.
Some universes have stars and planets, some do not. Some harbor life, some do not. In this scenario, our universe is simply an accident. If our particular universe did not have the right parameters to allow the emergence of life, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. In a similar way, Earth happens to be at the right distance from the sun to have liquid water, a nice oxygen atmosphere and so on. We can ask why our planet has all these lovely properties, amenable to life. And the explanation is that there is nothing special or designed about Earth. Other planets exist. But if we lived on Mercury, where the temperature is 800 degrees, or on Neptune, where it is 328 degrees below zero, we could not exist. Unfortunately, it is almost certain that we cannot prove the existence of these other universes. We must accept their existence as a matter of faith.
And here we come to the fascinating irony of the fine-tuning problem. Both the theological explanation and the scientific explanation require faith. To be sure, there are huge differences between science and religion. Religion knows about the transcendent experience. Science knows about the structure of DNA and the orbits of planets. Religion gathers its knowledge largely by personal testament. Science gathers its knowledge by repeated experiments and mathematical calculations, and has been enormously successful in explaining much of the physical universe. But, in the manner I have described, faith enters into both enterprises.
Book review: ‘Why Science Does Not Disprove God’ by Amir D. Aczel - The Washington Post
However,
Life in the Universe
Stephen Hawking's
"What we normally think of as 'life' is based on chains of carbon atoms, with a few other atoms, such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favourable case, because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus.
At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted. One can apply the
Anthropic Principle, in either its Strong, or Weak, versions. For the Strong Anthropic Principle, one supposes that there are many different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. In a small number, the values will allow the existence of objects like carbon atoms, which can act as the building blocks of living systems.
Since we must live in one of these universes, we should not be surprised that the physical constants are finely tuned. If they weren't, we wouldn't be here.
Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking
There is quite likely other life in the universe and maybe some based on silicon life forms. Its a stretch that any God would make the universe so big and put us on this little planet and consider us as we are special in my opinion.
The fine tuning argument also does nothing to tell us anything about a God or any particular religion of humankind at all.
It seems also to be fine tuned to come up with thousands of religions and millions and millions of different Gods.
