The Existence of God is More Probable than Not

Rebuttal to Fine-tuning: My opponent says that the Universe is not fine-tuned. However, he can believe that, but the consensus amongst majority of Physicists is quite different. Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires.[1] I would agree with my opponent who also says that this is no coincidence at all. There must be a reason for why the Universe is so finely-tuned. Rebuttal to: “We do not know whether these constants are independent of nature.” My opponent couldn’t be farther from the truth. That’s arguing from ignorance and is quite frankly nonsense. It’s a mathematical fact that the constants are independent of nature. According to the current standard model of particle physics, there are over 25 freely adjustable parameters with an additional parameter. In fact, Martin Rees, a British cosmologist and astrophysicist, has calculated 6 main important constants that would be considered the “Secret ingredient” for our Universe to come into existence. I will now list the formula down below. *Note, these constants are “Dimensionless”. N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism; Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei; Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe; Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant; Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass; D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime. I don’t think I’ll have enough room to go in and explain all 6 of these constants, but I will explain the purpose and how they affect our universe. As I said before, these six fundamental constants are so vital to for the existence of our universe, that if any 1 of these constants were changed there would be no life on earth or our current Universe would be so dramatically impossible to exist the way that it does now.[2] Rebuttal to parallel universes/multiverses: Richard Dawkins suggested a multi-verse theory to counter the fine-tuning argument. There are several problems with Dawkins argument from fine-tuning. I will go ahead and list some down below. 1. Each universe in the ensemble is not simple but is characterized by a multiplicity of independent constants and quantities. Plus, if the Universe were “simple”, then why would Dawkins need to come up with a Multiverse/World-Ensemble argument? 2. Dawkins assumes that the simplicity of the whole is a function of the simplicity of the parts. This is a huge error, for this is somewhat of a non-sequitur. If you have a group of simple universes, their values would still be complex and their constants would vary one another, so each universe in a multi-verse would not share the same values and constants since they would be fundamentally and necessarily different in order for each universe to exist. 3. Ockham’s Razor tells us not to multiply entities beyond necessity. Positing a multiverse beyond what is necessary is a clear error that Dawkins has made. Rebuttal to probability: “The only sensible answer I can give to that is, that the probability is 1. Because there is only 1 universe we know of, and that one does support life. But really, the notion of probability does not make sense. There is no random experiment that spits out a random universe.” The Weak Anthropic Principle Now what my opponent is affirming here is actually the Weak anthropic principle. Basically it’s saying “Well high improbabilities happen all the time, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the high improbability of finely-tuned constants.”[5] ; A good analogy to this sort- of reasoning is given by Philosopher John Leslie[4] “In this parable, an individual faces a firing squad, and fifty expert marksmen aim their tifles to carry out the deed. The order is given, the shots ring out, and yet somehow all the bullets miss and the condemned individual walks away unscathed." "How could such a remarkable event be explained? Leslie suggests that there are two possible alternatives ... In the first place, there may have been thousands of executions being carried out in that same day, and even the best marksman will occasionally miss. So the odds just happen to be in favor of this one individual, and all fifty of the marksmen fail to hit the target. The other option is that something more directed is going on, and the apparent poor aim of the fifty experts was actually intentional. Which seems more plausible?" Basically, we want to know why the marksmen missed the individual at the firing squad. The problem with Dawkins reasoning is that 1. Fails to explain the Fine-tuning of our universe. 2. Wants us to sit around in ignorance until an answer is given. 3. Not seek out the most rational inference or conclusion Sources: [1] George F. R. Ellis, "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?" Scientific American [2] http://www.dontow.com... [3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [5]