Dear Resident Theists

[Kingpin]

Sure, here's a quote from the article:

"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way."

He then goes on to explain his multiverse theory.

You're misunderstanding the point being made and taking out of context what Hawking actually has to say about fine-tuning and design. The very reason the phrase "fine-tuning" is being used this way is because of the fact people like you like to suggest that the universe appears fine tuned. This whole article is an argument against that notion.

You realise this is adapted from Hawking's book "the Grand Design"? Do you think that because he uses this term, it lends credence to the theory of design? Or does the irony fly over your head much like the point being made throughout the entire article?

If you actually read the article and understand the points, it's that the universe appears to be fine-tuned, but Hawking's point, in both this article, and his book, is that there is in fact no fine-tuning at all, and no need for a creator.

It's convenient you can read one sentence that uses the term 'fine-tuned' in a rhetorical sense, and use it to implicate that the universe must be designed, but not the very next paragraph, that utterly destroys that notion:

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science.

So yeah, take it out of context and misrepresent all you like. Hawking is clearly not suggesting the universe is fine-tuned, he's offering an explanation of why it appears to be so.

I am not taking it out of context.  Hawking is indeed saying this universe is fine tuned.  He explains in detail why.  However, he comes to a conclusion to explain it away:

"Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

So he has a theory that this universe is one of many infinite possible universes and because of that, the fine-tuning is irrelevant.  But its a theory.  It is not fact.  Also I agree with him that IF the multiverse theory were true then yes it would reduce the fine-tuning for life to be a simple matter of chance/inevitability.  But multiverse theory is far from proven.  Let's stick to just this universe.  It is fine tuned for the existence of our lives.  If there are multiverses then we simply hit the lottery of all of the perfect properties for us to be here. If you want to believe in infinite parallel/alternate universes, that is your prerogative, I do not.