# A Fine Tuned Universe Points to God (Here’s How and Why!)

Cosmic fine-tuning is often considered one of the best arguments for God. In this teaching, from a recent conference, I break down the concept of fine-tuning so it is understandable and interesting. Check it out and consider sharing with a friend.

READ: Evidence that Demands a Verdict (https://amzn.to/2Cj8orh)

SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL (https://bit.ly/3fZ9mIw)

*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)

*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)

*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell

TikTok: @sean_mcdowell

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/

source

Something to think about 🤔

A fine tuned universe is a philosophical fabrication by religious zealots to fool either themselves or others.

First off evolution demonstrates that life fine tunes itself to the environment.

Secondly there's absolutely ZERO evidence a universe CAN be tuned.

There's other problems with this theory as well.

We just got here is not a better argument

There is a general principle in all proofs that a god exists.

First, find a known fact that I can't explain, e.g. lightning.

Then say, Zeus is the explanation.

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why would he be limited to working within such tight constraints?

A metaphorical argument. Unfortunately it just doesn't work because that cabin is all there is. For each of the constants there is only one, therefore an objective probability cannot be calculated. Besides, this argument is just another rendition of the old "miracle" of planetary clockwork or the "miracle" of life. All basically apologetics derived from a gap in our knowledge. Most theologians and old farts sitting in the pews should ignore Paley's watchmaker metaphor and actually try to understand some science. We've come a long way since the time the chirch tried to silence Galileo. Which reminds me that Pope Francis announced he is about to change the celebacy requirement. Figures! The church has an employment problem.

It's interesting that Christians are now turning to science to prove God exists.

Presumably all the other proofs they peddled for centuries don't work.

Turning to science is a slippery slope.

Geology next ?

It seems to me that humans are not fine tuned.

I remember giggling uncontrollably at the school choir rehearsals.

Many of the boys were quite unable to sing in tune.

Great fun.

There is an idea abroad that God fine tuned the universe so that life could develop.

And there was me thinking that life was created by God just a few thousand years ago.

But now we know that life isn't a miracle ! Given the right conditions, life will appear.

Commenting for algorithm

What’s your take on Jonathan Weisberg’s “Argument from Divine Indifference”?

I think it is compelling. In brief, what it says is that the fact that there is life could be surprising, but that the fact that the universe is fine tuned tells against theism. Given life and fine tuning, the probability space for both theism and atheism is equal. In other words, fine tuning has nothing to do with it. To an extent, it partakes of the exotic life argument and the anthropic argument together.

Think of two prison cells. Cell A contain 9 innocent prisoners and 991 guilty while Cell B contain only 1 innocent prisoner and 999 guilty.

There are two ways that a prisoner can be freed, by lottery or by a judge (and a judge will pick only innocent prisoners). The fact that an innocent prisoner is picked is surprising if it was a random generator that picked. But the fact that the prisoner is innocent AND was from Cell B is surprising if the judge chose it. That’s because there are more innocent prisoners in Cell A. (though less surprising for a random generator to choose an innocent prisoner as a whole)

Now change the scenario to show that Cell A has 999 innocent prisoners and 1 guilty and Cell B has 1 innocent and 999 guilty.

Now, the fact that an innocent prisoner is picked is no longer surprising as the chances of picking an innocent prisoner is 50/50. But the fact that the prisoner is picked from Cell B is incredibly surprising given if it was a judge who picked.

The argument, therefore, forces the theist supporter to show that there are only a few life-permitting universes possible as a whole. I don’t think they can do that by simply showing that THIS universe is fine tuned.

God do exist and the proof is in mathematics. Here is that proof. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1.

This equation says a number is a set-in space that change with space.

In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity or fractured space with Quantum mechanics or spatial expansion.

How dose God fit into this equation?

This equation is God's mathematical name.

God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God.

Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity

In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God

Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind.

Plus (+) in math means to combine or add something with something.

There is only one God. In math the number 1 means something or someone is complete and individual from all the rest.

Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1).

Scientific Method

Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4

Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth?

Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics.

Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation

Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set-in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1))

Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise

This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance.

Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space.

a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information

Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number.

Also, George Cantor known as the father of set theory was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity.

Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity.

Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set.

Example. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement.

Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1.

This is Cantor's big mistake!

Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets.

Match 2.1 with say 2. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of 50 divided by the square root of 25. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity

If you had a bucket of 1000 dice and you tip them out onto the floor. The chances that they would fall in that exact way, with those exact numbers in that exact position are incalculably small, yet they did . They did because they had to land somehow and that’s how it happened to be. The only way it would be amazing is if you had planned out ahead of time how you wanted the dice to land. If you have a goal in mind, where every dice has to fall just where you want it to, then achieve that with your. bucket roll, then we can be in awe at the slim chances. It’s the same with the universe. We only know of one universe, we do not know there was a plan or a goal. It’s this way, because it happened to land this way. If the the bucket of dice were rolled again, the result would be different, just like if the universe were different, the universe would be different. Doesn’t tell us anything because we have no evidence that there was any intention for it to be this way. What I find astoundingly egocentric is people that look at the universe and conclude they, as a human, must have been the goal of the universe all along .

Ryan Ahler

Sean, Interesting talk. You make a very common math mistake with the fine tuning argument though. A variable changing by a “factor of 1 in million billion…etc” is not the same as the odds of it happening being 1 in million billion etc. Go back and check – you change the verbiage halfway through your speech!

Example: let’s say a spark plug should have a gap of .030 inches, and the plug will not work if it’s .003 inches or more off (this is made up, but illustrates the point). So if it’s off by a factor of 1 in 10, it will not work. Does that mean that every 10th spark plug won’t work? No. It’s not an odds, it’s a factor. To see the odds you might need to research the quality assurance standards at the spark plug factory. Let’s say 1 spark plug in a thousand will accidentally be .003 inches or more off. So the odds of it happening is 1 in 1000.

Factor isn’t odds. You can’t multiply those together and get ridiculous numbers – like one grain of sand in the universe. We have no idea what the odds are. It’s completely possible that there is 0% chance it could be different.

The fine tuning argument is an interesting one. It really hurts your argument when you so drastically overstate your case with such a mistake though – which I know you avoid doing when it comes to the subject of martyrs.

This fine-tuning argument is dumb. It's like saying: "Isn't it wonderful how this 0,0000000000000000000000000000000001% of matter has evolved for 0,00000000000000000000001% of time. Isn't it great that this 0,0000000000000000000000001% of the Universe is so perfect, that we can exist here, while on 99,9999999999999999999999% of this Universe we can't"

The main problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it assumes that the "constants" could take different values, and that we can actually calculate a probability that they are suitable for life. But we don't know that the constants could take other values, they're "constants" simply because we don't yet have a fundamental theory from which we can derive their values. All in all, fine-tuning is no better than God of the Gaps. I explain more here: https://youtu.be/dGsYR0ubq_k

The fine tuned argument is poor. I’ll explain why: the universe isn’t perfect for us, rather we are perfect for the universe. We as organisms have adapted to the universe, not the other way around. Another way to think of this is the puddle analogy:

Imagine one day that it rains and a puddle forms on the pavement (sidewalk)

Now, imagine this puddle suddenly gains consciousness and observes its surroundings. It looks at its body and realises that it perfectly aligns with the crack in the pavement (which we know happened as a result of other actions and not specifically for the puddle)

Then it says “This is amazing! Think about how many coincidences must have happened for this crack to perfectly fit my body, if it was an inch to the right or to the left it wouldn’t contain me perfectly, there must be a creator that designed this crack just perfectly for me”

Clearly we know this is wrong, but you can apply it to the FT argument. If any other things were different in the beginning of the universe, then life as we know it wouldn’t develop, but there would be other things or other beings that also question how everything is so perfect for them. We don’t know how the universe would have turned out if other things happened at the beginning, but that doesn’t mean the chances of this universe being the way it is is suddenly impossibly small.

The FT argument is very hard to refute.

Close-minded atheists: "Nuh uh"