Science Implies God's Existance

Thanks Pro. Fine Tuning I really wish Pro would’ve only listed a handful of examples. It simply isn’t necessary to list 33 examples when only a few would prove his point. A handful of examples also means he can focus heavily on a few rather than lightly on a lot. Now, to the problems with the argument. First, the argument concludes God without reason. Why not believe the fine tuning argument is an argument for a multiverse? A multiverse may exist [1], I see no reason we should believe the fine tuning argument is proves God and not a multiverse. Second, Pro’s examples are flawed. When we undergo further investigation into the claims of fine tuning ,we will see that they are bad examples. He includes examples like G (gravitational constant), C (speed of light), the uncertainty magnitude (although I don’t see how that relates to oxygen transport to the cells) and the relativistic dilation factor. All these constants are not dimensionless, meaning they are dependant on units for their value [2]. Relativity and quantum mechanics have no dimensionless constants [2], and therefore they are “arbitrary human conventions. As long as you stick with some choice or other you will do okay.” [3]. There is nothing to tune, since it’s arbitrary. The other forces of the universe don’t seem to be fine tuned either. The universe can exist without weak interaction [4] and Dr. Victor Stenger points out that the electromagnetic force and the strong nuclear force can compensate for each other. “If ε is too small to overcome the electrical repulsion of protons, then we can simply lower the value of α” [5] As you can see, this allows quite a variation. Not as tight as Pro wishes to convey. This shows Pro’s arguments hold the assumption that constants exist in a vacuum, when in reality some constants would be changed to compensate. This assumption is also prevalent in the big bang ripples example, but we’ll get to those later. Furthermore, the values of these forces isn’t constant. The fine structure constant “….only holds for low energies, and α, like the strength parameters of the strong and weak forces, varies with energy.” [6] Strong interaction actually isn’t constant even at lower energies. It possesses asymptotic freedom [6]. Another problem with Pro’s examples, is that they don’t take into account that some parameters are fixed by certain laws of physics. The ratio of various particles to other particles for example is the result of charge conservation [7][8]. The expansion rate of the universe, the mass density of the universe, and the uniformity of radiation must be the way it is by cosmic inflation [9]. By the second law of thermodynamics, the current entropy of the universe was determined by the previous entropy state [10] . The initial entropy state has “...a constraint, WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities and this seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space. [state of low entropy]” [11]. The entropy state, mass density, uniformity, nor the expansion rate of the universe is fine tuned, but merely a result of cosmological physics. Some of the examples can be explained by a cosmological natural selection. The average distance between stars for example seems to be fine tuned because stars which form too close or to far away wouldn’t form any life giving planet. Any planet like Earth which can hold life will have the perfect amount of density and distance. It isn’t an example of fine tuning, but of a cosmic natural selection. Same goes for The supernovae and white dwarf examples. Where life exists, it follows these would be observed. The examples hold the assumption that carbon based life like ours is the only life than can exist. This is shown by the water molecule example, 12C to 16O ratio, 4He ground state, and many of the examples listed in the above paragraph. Nothing prohibits different types of biochemical life that would be compatible to different values[12]. There is also a problem a vagueness. Pro doesn’t almost never gives any sort of definition of “larger” or “smaller”. It is true that if I was smaller, I wouldn’t be able to type this out, and if I was larger I also wouldn’t be able to type this out. This is unimpressive since there is a huge variety on what it means to be smaller or larger. As I will show, some examples the “larger” or “smaller” parameters aren’t very impressive to claim fine tuning. The proton decay, initial nucleons over anti-nucleons, and 4He energy level examples suffer from this problem. Dr. Stenger calculated exactly how much larger or smaller the proton would have to decay for life to be exterminated by radiation. “The decay rate depends on the strength of the unified force α U and the mass of the gauge boson that mediates the force MX. The corrected theory is likely to have the same dependence. ….I have plotted the mean proton decay lifetime, the reciprocal of decay rate, as a function of MX for three values of αU-1. The central line is for αU-1 = 25, the value we expect from the extrapolation to the unification energy i. The upper line is for αU-1 = 2500, two orders of magnitude higher. The lower line is for αU-1 = 0.25, two orders of magnitude lower. We would have to go another ten orders of magnitude down in lifetime from the lowest point on this graph to reach lethality. Without a doubt, proton decay is not fine-tuned to prevent life being destroyed by radiation.” [13] Stenger later talks about baryogenesis (initial nucleons over anti-nucleons). He states “..we have already seen that we can change the parameters for proton decay by orders of magnitude before lethal radiation would be produced. Since the baryon asymmetry comes from basically the same processes, it is unlikely that that conclusion is going to be changed in this case.” [14] 8Be nor 4He seem to present any significant tuning for the carbon in stars to be produced. “....a 0.06 MeV increase in the location of the level to 7.716 MeV would not significantly alter the carbon production in stellar environments. A de­crease by the same amount to 7.596 MeV was needed before the carbon production in­creased significantly above its value in our universe….... Already we can see the excited state is not very fine-tuned. “ [15] The claim that dimensions are fine tuned is a mere assertion. No evidence was given that there cannot exist the laws of physics with other dimensions. In fact, there are many models of the universe that propose other dimensions. They’ve claimed up to as many as 10 dimensions [16][17]. The mass of neutrinos isn’t fine tuned either. The number of neutrinos aren't fixed. Neutrinos form gases of noninteracting particles that have a fixed total energy. If there isn't enough mass, there will be more neutrinos and visa versa. The total energy is the same, therefore the effect of gravity doesn’t depend on the neutrinos [18]. If the value of the Big Bang ripples (Q) were smaller, then gravity would increase clumping. If masses were greater (if gravity was stronger), then Q would vary with the nucleon mass [19]. Lastly, the calculations on the cosmological constant that Deem used are wrong. “I pointed out that this calculation ignored the zero-point energy of fermion (half integer spin) fields, which is negative and therefore subtracts from the boson value. If there were an equal number of boson and fermion degrees of freedom, then the total density would be zero. This would be the case if the symmetry between bosons and fermions, called supersymmetry, were perfect. Unfortunately, it is not perfect at low energies.” [20] Furthermore, Christian Physicist Don Page points out that the current value of the cosmological constant actually makes life difficult to form [21]. If God fine tuned the universe, the constant would have a negative value. None of Pro’s examples of fine tuning are that impressive when they are investigated. They hold assumptions that are either unsubstantiated or outright false. Origin of life There are some serious problems with this calculation. For one, the origin of life isn’t governed by chance but by the laws of chemistry and biochemistry. The calculations also assume one specific form of a protein, when there are many possible protein forms. Furthermore, they only take into account sequential trials, not simultaneous trials. Lastly, we don’t know how simple the earliest amino acid was, any calculation assumes too much. The calculations are heavily flawed and therefore cannot be taken as evidence [22] Conclusion Pro’s examples of fine tuning aren’t very good examples. They all fall apart upon further investigation. Pro’s contention from the origin of life has extremely flawed assumptions. Pro has yet to show either the universe’s existence or the origin of life was fine tuned. Back to Pro Sources [1] http://www.space.com... [2] http://math.ucr.edu... [3] Ibid [4] http://arxiv.org... [5] Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 248 with Calbre reader layout. [6] Ibid, p. 251 [7] Ibid, p. 367 [8] [9] http://www.astronomynotes.com... [10] http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu... [11] http://www.ws5.com... [12] http://books.nap.edu... [13] Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 263, Calbre reader layout. [14] Ibid, p. 266 [15] http://www.csicop.org... [16] http://www.universetoday.com... [17] http://www.infoplease.com... [18] Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 241, Calbre reader layout. [19] Ibid, p. 282 [20] Ibid, p. 377 [21] http://arxiv.org... [22] http://www.talkorigins.org...