Thus far I have submitted 4 lines of evidence in favor of theism along with argumentation why those facts support theistic belief as opposed to the non-theistic model.
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists.
4. That the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
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 numblingly 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.
If atheists were actually looking for evidence that supports the belief that a personal agent caused and designed the universe to support life this would be such evidence. It is an earmark of design when personal agents such as humans create contrivances such as a computer or a car or a nuclear plant, that in order for the contrivance to work properly, it must fall in a narrow range of characteristics for the contrivance to work as designed.
The primary objection raised to this line of evidence is the possibility that in order for a universe to exist in the first place it must fall within the narrow range we observe and therefore they claim there is no narrow range unless we know a range is possible.
I'll point out first that this objection is pure speculation, there is no evidence that if a universe exists, it has to be like this universe. That would be akin to saying if there are other solar systems its possible they have to be like the one we observe. We know this isn't true, other solar systems are much different from our own. I could point out that even though atheists raise this point as an objection, it doesn't mean they actually think such is the case. Atheists reserve the right to raise objections they don't actually subscribe to. I say the objection is meaningless, even if the universe had to be as it is it leaves the question why would it have to be in the narrow range that supports planets, stars, solar systems and ultimately life? If as most atheists claim that mindless forces that caused the universe didn't care or plan for planets, stars or life why would it turn out that in order for a universe to come into existence it must have the characteristics that allow planets stars and life? Since they don't actually believe this objection to be the case, the question doesn't matter.
Martin Rees's Six Numbers
Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:
N≈1036: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;[3]
ε≈0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;[4]
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. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever;[3]
λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by \Omega_{\Lambda};[5]
Q ≈ 10– 5: 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, namely mc2;[6]
D = 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions.
N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3.
Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists.
4. That the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
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 numblingly 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.
If atheists were actually looking for evidence that supports the belief that a personal agent caused and designed the universe to support life this would be such evidence. It is an earmark of design when personal agents such as humans create contrivances such as a computer or a car or a nuclear plant, that in order for the contrivance to work properly, it must fall in a narrow range of characteristics for the contrivance to work as designed.
The primary objection raised to this line of evidence is the possibility that in order for a universe to exist in the first place it must fall within the narrow range we observe and therefore they claim there is no narrow range unless we know a range is possible.
I'll point out first that this objection is pure speculation, there is no evidence that if a universe exists, it has to be like this universe. That would be akin to saying if there are other solar systems its possible they have to be like the one we observe. We know this isn't true, other solar systems are much different from our own. I could point out that even though atheists raise this point as an objection, it doesn't mean they actually think such is the case. Atheists reserve the right to raise objections they don't actually subscribe to. I say the objection is meaningless, even if the universe had to be as it is it leaves the question why would it have to be in the narrow range that supports planets, stars, solar systems and ultimately life? If as most atheists claim that mindless forces that caused the universe didn't care or plan for planets, stars or life why would it turn out that in order for a universe to come into existence it must have the characteristics that allow planets stars and life? Since they don't actually believe this objection to be the case, the question doesn't matter.
Martin Rees's Six Numbers
Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:
N≈1036: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;[3]
ε≈0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;[4]
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. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever;[3]
λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by \Omega_{\Lambda};[5]
Q ≈ 10– 5: 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, namely mc2;[6]
D = 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions.
N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3.
Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.
