The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

In his book 'Just Six Numbers' the deep forces that shape the universe, highly respected astrophysicist (and atheist) Martin Rees explains each constant in depth and the consequences if any of these constants were slightly different. So mind numbingly narrow is the degree of precision needed that as a result he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes all with different characteristics and as a result we live in the universe with the right 'numbers'. A simpler explanation that doesn't needlessly multiply entities (to infinity in this case) is that the constants were intentionally designed to fall within a range that allows planets, stars and galaxies to exist.

Since you seem so enamored with them, let's take a good long look at Martin Rees' "six numbers." (And I'll note as an aside that it's rather telling that this is the only author whom you cite, but more on that below; it turns out we're in for a big surprise from Lord Rees.) Text in blue and green adapted from the article quoted following the material (a review of Rees' book).

---

1. N = Relative strength of electrical force over gravitational force (e.g., electrical force between 2 protons/gravitational force between 2 protons) = (approximately) 1036, i.e., the gravitational force is extremely weak compared with the electrical force.

We can conclude that instead of having 36 zeros after 1 in the value of N, if there were only 30 zeros after 1, then the universe would be very much different from the current universe, and life as we know it would not be able to exist. Note: On the other hand, if the gravitational force were even weaker, i.e., if N is even larger (having more than 36 zeros after 1), then it would take longer to form galactic structure, and galactic structures would be less densely populated, and larger and perhaps more complex life organisms, different from current life organisms, could exist.

Conclusion: Not fine tuned.


2. € = nuclear efficiency, defined as the % of the mass of the nuclear constituents that is converted to heat when the nuclear constituents react via nuclear fusion to form a heavier nuclei = 0.007.

If € = 0.006 or smaller, the strong force is not strong enough to fuse a proton and a neutron into a stable deuterium. Without stable deuterium, helium cannot be formed. ... If € = 0.008 or greater, then the strong force is strong enough to overcome the electrical repulsion of two protons, and two protons can fuse together. This would have happened early in the life of the universe, so that all the hydrogen (i.e., protons) would have been used up very early on, and there is no hydrogen remaining to continue to provide the fuel to produce light in ordinary stars as in our sun. Furthermore, water, H2O, could never have existed, and therefore no life as we know it.

Therefore, any universe with complex chemistry and life would require € to be in the range of 0.006 – 0.008.

Conclusion: Not fine tuned.


3. Ω and dark matter; Ω ≈ 0.3: the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the universe to eventually collapse under its gravity.

In an expanding universe, galactic matters are moving apart from each other. Will this expansion continue forever, or will these motions eventually reverse, so that the universe will eventually re-collapse to a “Big Crunch”? Since we know the expansion speed of our expanding universe, the answer to the above question depends on whether there is enough matter in the universe so that gravity from all these matters is strong enough to slow down the expansion and then cause the collapse to a “Big Crunch”. The matter density in the universe that is necessary to cause this reversal is called the galactic “critical density”. Knowing the expansion speed, we can calculate and determine this critical density to be approximately five atoms [4] per cubic meter.

Even with generous account of the possibility of such dark matter, based on current information the value of Ω can at most be raised to approximately 0.3, not quite the critical value of 1, but not extremely far from it. At first sight, such large abundance of dark matter may seem strange, but why most of the matter in the universe must emit radiation so that they can be seen or directly detectable? There are various theories for what constitutes dark matter, but it remains as one of the most important unsolved questions in astrophysics and cosmology.

What is the significance of the value of Ω with respect to the existence of our universe and life as we know it? If Ω were significantly smaller than 1, then not only that the universe would expand forever, the gravitational pull would be so small that expansion would occur so rapidly that galactic matters would be so far apart and galaxies would not be able to be formed, with a corollary that planets and life as we know it would not be able to exist. On the other hand, if Ω were significantly larger than 1, then the universe would quickly collapse before there was time for any interesting evolution of galaxies, planets, and life as we know it.

Conclusion: Not fine tuned as its value and reason for its value is currently unknown. Moreover, it's expected value is predicted from some specific natural hypotheses as to the origins of the universe.


4. λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe.

λ: When Einstein first formulated his field equation in general relativity in 1916 to describe the universe, he found that the solutions of his field equation would lead to a non-static universe, i.e., the universe would either contract or expand. Since the general thinking at that time (in the latter part of the 1910 decade or the early part of the 1920 decade) was that the universe should be static (remember that this period was before Hubble’s observations that the universe was expanding), Einstein introduced an extra term in his equation, called the cosmological constant term containing the cosmological constant λ. By adding this term and with the proper choice of the value of λ, his equation could lead to a static universe.

When in 1929 Hubble discovered Hubble’s Law that the universe is expanding, Einstein regretted that he ever introduced the cosmological constant term and called that action the “biggest blunder” of his life.

From other astronomical observations, the current estimated value for λ is around 0.7, which is also consistent with the supernova observations of an accelerating expanding universe. A much larger value for λ would mean that the universe would have expanded rapidly even in its early stages. Therefore, there would not be sufficient time for stars, galaxies, planets to form, and therefore would have precluded life as we know it. On the other hand, a much smaller value for λ would not lead to catastrophic consequences in terms of the formation of stars, galaxies, planets, and life; it only means that the expansion of the universe will slow down.

Conclusion: Not fine tuned, as explicitly demonstrated by Einstein's early prediction. Moreover, the actual value, and what it is dependent upon is not currently known.

(This may not even be an independent variable; see #3.) Claiming that an unknown is fine tuned demonstrates great chutzpah, but little else.


5. Q: The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy equivalent to the rest mass m of that structure.

After the Big Bang as the universe expanded, matter was randomly distributed in space, which means that there were areas which were more densely populated and areas which were less densely populated. In the more densely populated areas, there would be stronger gravitational attractions between various matters. So over time, these clusterings of matter would become bigger and bigger and would eventually form stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, all are held together by gravity.
...
The measure of the strength of these bonds among galactic matter to form clusters (stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies) is called Q = the amount of energy, as a proportion to their rest mass energy, needed to break up and disperse the clusters. For our universe, Q is estimated to be 10-5. As explained in the two previous paragraphs, if Q were much larger or smaller than 10-5, then life as we know it would not exist.

Conclusion: Possibly fine tuned.


6. D = the number of dimensions in our universe = the number of physical dimensions plus the dimension of time.

Conclusion: Not fine tuned.

We do not actually know the number of such dimensions which exist in our universe, it can't be determined solely by observation, nor do we have any idea whether life would or would not be possible in a universe with more or less dimensions than that which exists. As with #3, it takes great balls to claim that an unknown quantity is "finely tuned," but the tendency of fine-tuning theorists to find gold everywhere they look when the rest of science finds only straw is perhaps the least mysterious thing here.

---

So out of Martin Rees' "six numbers" only one looks like a valid candidate for fine tuning, and even that is only "possibly fine tuned," not definitely fine tuned. Moreover, it's worth noting that Martin Rees himself is led not to the hypothesis of an intelligent creator, but instead favors the multiverse hypothesis, which you have gone to great lengths to disarm with incessant whining about how we don't believe it ourselves. In hindsight, it's obvious why you took such great pains to disarm the multiverse hypothesis, as if it were known that the man whose numbers were undergirding your argument believes in it, it would shatter the illusion that you are making an impartial case based on the evidence presented by him.

Material adapted from:

---

Note that in all the examples of fine-tuning given in the theist literature, such as the lists of Ross and Deem, the authors only vary one parameter while holding all the rest constant. This is both dubious and scientifically shoddy. As we will see in several specific cases, changing one or more other parameters can often compensate for the one that is changed. There usually is a significant region of parameter space around which the point representing a given universe can be moved and still have some form of life possible.

— Victor Stenger,

(I will also note for the benefit of our viewing audience that this was pointed out to you in your earlier attempt at this argument in another thread, and far from denying it, you acknowledged this to be the case. This makes your continued insistence on the supposed fine-tuning of these parameters not only incorrect, it shows that your continued insistence on it is an example of gross dishonesty on your part. [apo])

As a physicist, I cannot go wherever I want to but wherever the data take me. If they take me to God, so be it. I have examined the data closely over many years and have come to the opposite conclusion: the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God but also provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a God that plays such an important, everyday role in the universe such as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God does not exist.

I will devote most of this book to showing why the evidence does not require the existence of a creator of the universe who has designed it specifically for humanity. I will show that the parameters of physics and cosmology are not particularly fine-tuned for life, especially human life.

---

Now, I mention this only for completeness .... My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes. I will show that fine-tuning is a fallacy based on our knowledge of this universe alone.

— Victor Stenger,

---

And, if necessary, I will return to the point that I raised earlier that even if the exact parameters of this universe represent a cosmically unlikely scenario, that in itself does not argue design for many of the reasons explored in the literature. That you both ignore the technical arguments against design and continue to depend on a loose argument from analogy is, perhaps tactically wise, but suggests that you couldn't define explicitly what you mean if you tried. (One of the main problems being how your criteria separates out invalid conclusions of design for phenomena that are not designed [false positives]; the opposite case, not detecting design when design is present is of no interest here. Of note here, a simple example is the lattice structure of a crystal such as a diamond. The observed variation of such a structure may well fall into an extraordinarily narrow range, but this in itself does not indicate that some designer "placed each individual atom there to satisfy that narrow range." Even if I grant that the parameters exist within an exceedingly narrow range, that still does not warrant an inference to design. I'd wish you luck, but it's obvious that someone with your talents would require an absolute miracle to solve this problem.)

---