(September 3, 2022 at 9:45 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:(September 3, 2022 at 6:52 pm)smithd Wrote: For instance, physical constants, like the gravitational constant and constants of the strong nuclear force, must be within a narrow range to allow for things like atom formation, hydrogen bonding, galaxy formation, etc. This looks like design. The alternative is chance, which doesn't seem adequate. In other words, naturalism cannot account for the fine-tuning of the universe, while design can easily account for it. This is not a trivial problem, or one that can be ridiculed away, since many respected scientists have pointed out how remarkably (and inexplicably) fine-tuned the universe appears. Thanks for your polite responses.
There are many flaws with your claims. One of the flaws is that you vary a single parameter while assuming all the others remain fixed. Then you further compound this mistake by proceeding to calculate meaningless probabilities based on the grossly erroneous assumption that all the parameters are independent.
For example, physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which "stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise."
Physicist Craig Hogan has done another independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions.
Thanks for sparing us the multiverse speculations, altough this seems like a variation of it...the problem of why this particular universe exists and not some other remains nevertheless.
<insert profound quote here>