The Existence of God is More Probable than Not

Fine-tuned?PRO: "I think that both my opponent and I will have to agree that the Universe is so finely tuned."No, I do not agree that the universe is fine-tuned. If we would change some of nature's constant (which we cannot), then the universe might become logically inconsistent. This means, that such a universe could not possibly exist. There may be lots of relations between natures constants which HAVE to be satisfied because of purely mathematical reasons. Take for example the mathematical constantspi=3.1415..., e=2.8182..., and i, the imaginary number. Euler found the following relation among these constants:e^(pi*i)+1=0. This relation is not completely obvious, but can be proven with some basic mathematics. So it might look like a coincidence that pi is equal to 3.1415... and not 3.1414..., but if pi were equal to 3.1414...., Euler's equation would not be satisfied.So it is actually not a coincidence at all. PRO:"The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron. Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life."As in the example of Euler's equation [1], it may be not a coincidence at all the the mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526times the mass of an electron. There may be some complicated math behind it, which we do not completely understand yet.PRO:"Physical necessity is extremely implausible, for it doesn’t have the explanatory scope to explain how the constants and values are independent of nature."We do not know whether these constants are independent of nature. One could imagine that the gravitation constant is slightly different, but that does not mean that it is actually possible and consistent. In my dreams I can defy gravity and fly, but in real life this contradicts nature's laws. But one needs to know enough physics to understand that it is not physically possible for humans to fly like birds. In the same way, it may seem that we could vary some of the constants, but this appearance may just be because of our lack of understanding of physics. parallel universes/multiversesRichard Dawkins suggested a multi-verse theory to counter the fine-tuning argument. Another argument against the fine-tuning are the parallel universes. Suppose for a moment, that some of the constants are independent of nature as my opponent claims. So, we assume that if we vary one of the constants, we get a different, but still logically consistent universe. Then, the fine-tuning argument asks why the constant is exactly right for life to exist. First of all, if we change the value of the constant, we may get a different universe that does not support life as we know it. However, it might still support life in a very different way. Organic chemistry may not be the only way to support life. But let us assume, again for the sake of the argument, that only one possible value of the constant supports life. Now, for every value of the constant we get a universe. So we get parallel universes. The probability that a given universe supports life is close to 0, but the probability that there is life in one of the parallel universes is 1. Now you may say that it is a coincidence that there is life in our parallel universe. But that is of course not a coincidence at life. Any universe that we can life in, is a universe that supports life, because we are life. One also may argue that all those other parallel universes are not real, only our universe is real. But what is real? It means that it can be observed by us. But if is observed by us, then it must support us, and therefore, that universe must support life. The conclusion is, that every universe that is real, must support life.probability The bottom line is, that the probabilistic reasoning in the fine-tuning argument is nonsense. Probability makes only sense if one has experiments that one can repeat. The question, what is the probability the the universe supports life does not make too much sense. 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. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_identity[2] Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion