I will prove to you that God exists

[Alan V]

To be clear, here are a few of the biofriendly properties of our universe mentioned in On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking's Final Theory, written by his associate Thomas Hertog:

* If the expansion of the universe hadn't slowed down early on, galaxies and stars would not have formed.
* If gravity was stronger, stars would have died out more quickly so life wouldn't have had time to evolve.
* If the cosmic microwave background radiation variations were slightly greater, only black holes would have formed, slightly less and no galaxies would have formed at all.
* One extra space dimension would have rendered atoms and planetary orbits unstable, one less would not have allowed the room for complex systems to operate.
* If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio had been reversed, protons would have decayed into neutrons soon after the big bang, with the results of no atoms and no chemistry.
* If the balance between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force was slightly different, it would have compromised the fusion of carbon in stars.
* If the force of dark energy was somewhat larger, again no galaxies would have formed.
* If the Higgs field had been stronger, no life could emerge.
* If antimatter had formed in equal amounts to matter in the big bang, no matter at all would exist because of mutual annihilations. As it was, only one in a billion particles survived.

This quote is from the book: "So the riddle of design in cosmology is that the fundamental laws of physics appear to be specifically engineered to facilitate the emergence of life." Of course, this is not to say that the universe is optimal for life. It is not by a long shot, but it does not prevent life from emerging in certain highly unusual conditions. This is why such apparent design is not likely to have been the result of intelligence promoting life, but will still need an explanation from physics and cosmology.

[Sheldon]

If the any of the multiverse theories are correct, I don’t see how this helps the fine tuning argument for deliberate creation. Couldn’t a Creator who had the goal of intelligent life in mind have done it with just one universe? It seems akin to building an infinite number of cars to make sure one of them will work.
 
Boru

Drew looks askance at multiverse cosmology because he thinks it is an overly-complicated way for naturalists to avoid confronting what look like unaccounted-for biofriendly properties in the only universe we know about.  Stephen Hawking acknowledged the problem, and maintained that such biofriendly properties needed their own explanation, though he attempted to do that through his quantum cosmology.

Both divine creation and anthropic multiverse cosmology share the idea that the laws of physics transcend the natural world.  Hawking thought they evolved within the first split second of the big bang.  What was important to him was not the time which had elapsed but the range of temperatures traversed.  He pointed to such things as the electroweak force breaking into electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, as well as the Higgs field coming into play to cause that transition only at a certain reduced temperature, as examples of what he envisioned.  This is similar to other grand unified theories, but it incorporated elements of holographic cosmology as well, in which one natural constant influences another through quantum entanglement.  It's the hypothesis he was working on when he died in 2018.

At least that is the sense I made of it.  A lot no doubt depended on the math.

"unaccounted-for biofriendly properties in the only universe we know about."

Surely this can only be true if the life we know exists, is the only type possible, what I mean to say, is how is Drew ruling out that other forms of life might have been possible even if those "biofriendly properties" were not how the universe had formed? He's just making assumptions to enable him to cling to theistic belief. 

The inability to treat all ideas the same, without favour or prejudice, especially new ideas that challenge existing ones, is the definition of open minded. Having realised his Christian deity contained claims that can and have been falsified, instead of accepting what this meant, he is trying to set those facts aside, and create a new deity, that he can bend the facts to. The real question is why? 

Despite his accusations, I am not an atheist because I want to be, I am an atheist for the same reason I don't believe in mermaids, unicorns and garden fairies, and for exactly the same reason, there is no objective evidence they are possible.

[Alan V]

"unaccounted-for biofriendly properties in the only universe we know about."

Surely this can only be true if the life we know exists, is the only type possible, what I mean to say, is how is Drew ruling out that other forms of life might have been possible even if those "biofriendly properties" were not how the universe had formed? He's just making assumptions to enable him to cling to theistic belief. 

The inability to treat all ideas the same, without favour or prejudice, especially new ideas that challenge existing ones, is the definition of open minded. Having realised his Christian deity contained claims that can and have been falsified, instead of accepting what this meant, he is trying to set those facts aside, and create a new deity, that he can bend the facts to. The real question is why? 

Despite his accusations, I am not an atheist because I want to be, I am an atheist for the same reason I don't believe in mermaids, unicorns and garden fairies. Exactly the same reason, there is no objective evidence they are possible.

Yes, there is no doubt that Drew has his own agenda. I think he is unnecessarily harsh with naturalists (like most atheists), because he thinks we are ignoring the obvious. But he can see things that way only because he lacks certain other information, including about how scientists and atheists actually think about such questions.

And yes, other kinds of life might have formed in other universes, but not without galaxies, stars, planets, chemistry, and so on -- all of which were covered in the list I typed up.

Hawking was determined to find explanations for the universe we actually see, even if it was only retrospective and historical, like the history of evolution.

[Drew_2013]

My 'bias' is the result of 'the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged'.

You seem awfully fixated on carbon-based life. Or humans. Or life as we know it. It reveals your bias since none of those are necessary. Once you accept the possibility of "life as we don't yet understand it" the odds become much greater. You don't seem to be able to get around your anthropocentric biases here.

I do accept it as a naturalism in the gaps argument for sure. Apparently you do as well.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I do accept it as a naturalism in the gaps argument for sure. Apparently you do as well.

It isn't because no ones saying the explanation must be natural even if we don't understand it . Nor is he saying it is.

[Drew_2013]

I've had plenty claim erroneously that multiverse theory has nothing to do with the fine-tuning of the universe.

It isn't erroneous. They're two entirely different hypotheses. One is one possible explanation for the other but neither one affects the other. The multiverse hypothesis could be entirely disproven without ever affecting fine-tuning and vice versa.

Hypothesis such as multiverse or cosmic inflation are thought of as an explanation for an observed phenomenon. Of course even if the hypothesis is disproven, the observation that led to the hypothesis is still persists...why wouldn't it? I do agree that multiverse is a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps argument.

[Sheldon]

You seem awfully fixated on carbon-based life. Or humans. Or life as we know it. It reveals your bias since none of those are necessary. Once you accept the possibility of "life as we don't yet understand it" the odds become much greater. You don't seem to be able to get around your anthropocentric biases here.

I do accept it as a naturalism in the gaps argument for sure. Apparently you do as well.

Nope, you're projecting, it is you who is trying to insert inexplicable supernatural magic, from a deity you can demonstrate no objective evidence exists or impossible, into gaps in our current knowledge. We already know natural cause are possible, this is an objective fact. 

You cannot demonstrate any objective evidence the supernatural is possible, or a deity....

Nor of course can anyone else, despite millennia of navel gazing. This is why religious apologists, keep resorting to fallacious arguments, just as you keep doing.

[Sheldon]

It isn't erroneous. They're two entirely different hypotheses. One is one possible explanation for the other but neither one affects the other. The multiverse hypothesis could be entirely disproven without ever affecting fine-tuning and vice versa.

Hypothesis such as multiverse or cosmic inflation are thought of as an explanation for an observed phenomenon. Of course even if the hypothesis is disproven, the observation that led to the hypothesis is still persists...why wouldn't it? I do agree that multiverse is a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps argument.

Nope, more projection, it is an objective fact that natural phenomena are possible, it is an objective fact the material universe exists, it is an objective fact that life emerged, and then evolved...

Now we have a gap in those facts of how that life emerged, and along you come to wedge your deity of choice into that gap, tadah - using inexplicable magic, except none of it can be demonstrated to be possible.

You're violating Occam's razor, so much for you being a philosophical theist.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hypothesis such as multiverse or cosmic inflation are thought of as an explanation for an observed phenomenon. Of course even if the hypothesis is disproven, the observation that led to the hypothesis is still persists...why wouldn't it? I do agree that multiverse is a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps argument.

Nope the  multiverse is not a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps. There is no naturalism of the gaps it's valid hypothesis and if it's disproven all that happens is it's disproven and nothing else. This projecting the god of the gaps onto something that's nothing like it

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hypothesis such as multiverse or cosmic inflation are thought of as an explanation for an observed phenomenon. Of course even if the hypothesis is disproven, the observation that led to the hypothesis is still persists...why wouldn't it? I do agree that multiverse is a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps argument.

Nope, more projection, it is an objective fact that natural phenomena are possible, it is an objective fact the material universe exists, it is an objective fact that life emerged, and then evolved...

Now we have a gap in those facts of how that life emerged, and along you come to wedge your deity of choice into that gap, tadah - using inexplicable magic, except none of it can be demonstrated to be possible.

You're violating Occam's razor, so much for you being a philosophical theist.

They love projecting their own failings onto us