1

The Fine Tuning of the Universe Argument for the Existence of God (based on 'Intelligent Design').

'Cosmological Design' in Ancient Times:

Since ancient times, Mankind has no doubt been drawn towards one of the greatest

questions when beholding the nightly breathtaking panoply of beautifully fixed stars: "is

there a purpose behind the Cosmos?" "a Design?" "how did everything become ordered?"

Plato (424-347 BC) said there are 2 arguments that lead people to God: 1: 'the argument

from the existence of the Soul', & 2: 'the argument from the Order of the Motion of the

Stars, and of All Things Under the Dominion of the Mind Which Ordered the Universe'1

(Laws 12.966e). Plato theorized that there must be some "Best Soul", a "Maker of All"-

Who shaped the pre-existent Primordial Chaos into the ordered Cosmos that we see.

1 "Athenian Stranger: "Are we assured that there are two things which lead men to believe

in the Gods, as we have already stated?" Cleinias: "what are they?" Athenian Stranger:

"One is the argument about the soul, which has been already mentioned- that it is the eldest,

and most divine of all things, to which motion attaining generation gives perpetual existence;

the other was an argument from the order of the motion of the stars, and of all things under

the dominion of the Mind which ordered the Universe. If a man looks upon the world not

lightly or ignorantly, there was never any one so godless who did not experience an effect

opposite to that which the many imagine. For they think that those who handle these matters

by the help of astronomy, and the accompanying arts of demonstration, may become godless,

because they see, as far as they can see, things happening by necessity, and not by an

intelligent Will accomplishing good"- 'Laws Book 12'. (Plato taught Arist.- my underlines).

2

His student, Aristotle (384-322 BC) echoed that view, writing in 'On Philosophy' that the

night-sky, replete with its traveling planets, fixed stars, and cyclical waxing and waning of

the Moon- all testified to the handiwork of an Intelligence. In his 'Metaphysics', Aristotle

argued that there must be an Un-Caused 1st Cause of Everything (an Un-Moved Mover), &

this Un-Caused 1st Cause must be an Intelligent Entity, essentially Immaterial, Eternal,

Timeless, & Good2. These ancient Greek philosophers preceded Christianity by centuries.

The Rebirth of 'Design' via 20th Century 'Fine-Tuning':

Discoveries from the fields of Physics, Astro-Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum

Mechanics have proven that the range of Life-Permitting Values on 1) certain Physical

Quantities put in as Boundary Conditions upon the Initial Conditions of the Big Bang-

and, 2) Nature's Constants- all barely allow for the existence of Intelligent Carbon-

based Life-forms in the Universe. Were any of those Values to be tweaked by even an

atom's breath, the balance would vanish, and Life all throughout the Universe would be

annihilated. All of these Values are Finely-Tuned, but crucially, they are Finely-Tuned in

relation to each other- which utterly multiplies all of the improbabilities into absurdities!

This surely shatters the old notion that our Universe 'evolved'. In fact, there was no

haphazard 'evolution' at all; it did not proceed from disorder to order. Yet some people

still assume that given enough time, the Universe could have evolved the right conditions,

and become hospitable for Life. That is totally impossible, as the Universe must be Fine-

Tuned from the get-go, not 'down the road'. Indeed, if any Universe is to be Life-

Permitting, it must be Fine-Tuned at its very Beginning! That demands an Explanation.

2 From - 'Metaphysics Book 12 Pt. 7': "We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal,

most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God".

3

"Scientists used to think that whatever the very early Universe might have been like, given

sufficient time and luck, intelligent life forms like ourselves would eventually evolve

somewhere. As a result of discoveries over the last 40 years or so, we now know that that

assumption was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Astronomers have been stunned

by the discovery of how complex and delicate a balance of initial conditions must be

present in the Big Bang itself if the Universe is to permit the existence of Intelligent life

anywhere at all in the cosmos. This delicate balance of initial conditions has come to be

known as the "Fine-tuning" of the Universe for life. We've come to discover that the

Universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a complexity and delicacy

that literally defies human comprehension" - William Craig - 'On Guard' (2010) pg. 107.

No Initial "Fine-Tuning" = No Evolution in the Universe:

The question of the 'Fine-Tuning of the Universe' is completely relevant nowadays, and

any atheist or evolutionist must recognize that before biological evolution can even take

place (for Life to emerge anywhere in the Universe) - the Universe first needs to be

astronomically Fine-Tuned in many ways3: the Values of Nature's Constants, and the

Arbitrary Physical Quantities simply given within the Big Bang's Initial Conditions.

Before Life could even appear, before evolution could start the 'Greatest Show on Earth',

the Universe's parameters had to miraculously fall within such a mind-blowing

infinitesimally narrow-range. Only then could Physical Space form, Matter come together,

Chemistry and Elements arise, Galaxies coalesce, Stars ignite into birth, Planets take

shape, Water appear, and then finally, Life emerge, and then somehow, Consciousness, &

then, Intelligent Life. The Fine-Tuning sets the table so evolution can even take place.

3 "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in

several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life. 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". - Paul Davies - "How Bio-Friendly Is the Universe?" - International Journal of

Astrobiology - Vol. 2 - No. 2 (2003) pg. 115 - I'll underline key parts of each quote that I use.

4

'Design' Best Explains the Universe's Fine-Tuning:

Taken together with the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument', the 'Fine-Tuning-of-the-

Universe Argument' points towards an Intelligence as being behind the exquisite Fine-

Tuning of the Cosmos4. Much of this information is new, only coming out within the past

few decades, so when people first hear this Argument, they assume that it is the old

Teleological Argument for Design (when in fact, it is quite different). What we now know

regarding the Universe's Fine-Tuning, and how it breathes new life into the Cosmological

Design Argument- is comparable to how the DNA-Is-Digital-Information Argument

makes Paley's 19th Century Biological Design Argument look totally outdated5. When we

Conclude in the Argument that the Design Inference is the Best Explanation concerning

the Universe's 'Fine-Tuning'- it will only be after first weighing it against the other Chance

and Necessity-based Hypotheses (using the principle of Multiple Competing Hypotheses).

4 Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a

Super-Intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that

there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the

facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question”. - 'The

Universe: Past and Present Reflections' - Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics:

20:16 (1982)

5 “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls

for the divine”. - MIT physicist (Professor Emerti) Vera Kistiakowsky - 'Cosmos, Bios, and

Theos' - H. Margenau & R.A. Varghese, ed. (1992) pg. 52.

5

Defining 'Fine-Tuning':

When we say "Fine-Tuning"- what are we talking about? Obviously, we cannot mean

"Designed"- otherwise, we'd just be arguing in a circle & assuming the very thing that

we're trying to prove. Fine-Tuning is a neutral term, it doesn't say anything about what

'Caused' the Fine-Tuning, or what 'Best Explains' it. The 'Fine-Tuning' refers to 2 things:

1) The Fine-Tuning of the Big Bang's Initial Conditions:

and

2) The Fine-Tuning of Nature's Constants:

1) The Fine-Tuning of certain Physical Quantities simply given within the

Initial Conditions of the Big Bang itself: specifically: the Singularity's Initial

Expansion-Speed, Initial Low-level Entropy, and Matter/Anti-Matter Balance:

The Physical Quantities that were given within the Big Bang Singularity were totally apart

and independent from the Laws of Nature, and were in no way determined by them. The

Laws of Nature did not play any role in fixing the Values of those Initial Physical

Quantities present in the Big Bang, rather, they were just put in at the Big Bang's

Beginning as Boundary Conditions- & then the Laws of Nature kicked in upon them,

determining how the Universe would unfold. If those Initial Physical Quantities had been

different, then the Laws say that we would have ended up with a very different Universe.

2) the Fine-Tuning of Nature's Constants: when the Laws of Nature are expressed

as math equations, we find appearing certain Constants, and the Values of these

Constants were not determined by the Laws of Nature (being independent of them):

Certain symbols are used to represent unchanging quantities that appear when Laws are

translated into Math. We have symbols for the unchanging quantities in forces like Gravity,

the EM force, & the Sub-Atomic "weak" force. But the Values of the various Constants

were/are not fixed by Nature's Laws: if those Constants' Values were to change, very

different Universes would appear, whilst still being governed under the present Laws.

6

"When the Laws of Nature are expressed as mathematical equations, certain constants

feature prominently in them. Consider, for example, Newton's famous Law of Gravity. It

states: F = Gm1m2/r2. According to this equation, the force of Gravity symbolized by F is

equal to the value of the gravitational constant G multiplied by the masses of the two bodies

that are being attracted to each other divided by the distance between them squared. The

masses and the distance may vary depending on what objects you're talking about, but the

value of the G is constant"- William Lane Craig - 'On Guard' - (2010) pg. 108.

To Conclude:

The Values for these Initial Physical Quantities and Constants all fall within such an ultra-

astronomically narrow range, barely allowing for a Life-Permitting Universe to arise, & if

any of them were to be altered, the complex & delicate balance required for the existence of

Life would vanish; the Universe would be Life-Prohibiting: Physical Space would warp,

Matter would collapse, all Life everywhere would be destroyed (crushed or ripped apart).

"Fine-Tuning" is a neutral term, it refers to the established fact that the range of Values

that allow for a Life-Permitting Universe to even be possible are mind-boggling narrow.

7

Fine-Tuning Is An Established Scientific Fact:

Before delving into the actual Argument, and evaluating the Necessity, Chance, and

Design-based Hypotheses, let's list some examples of Fine-Tuning, as some might

claim that the "Fine-Tuning is not really established". But no doubt about it, the

brute reality of the Universe's Fine-Tuning is a mammoth Fact, and one that will

only get even more confirmed as Science advances along in the next few decades.

Examples of Fine-Tuning:

Let us first try and get an appreciation for the scale of delicacy that we're dealing with

here. Since the Big Bang occurred, the number of seconds that have elapsed = 10 to the

17th Power (that's 1 followed by seventeen zeroes – i.e. 100,000,000,000,000,000); the

number of sub-atomic particles in the entire observable Universe = 10 to the 80th Power

(1 followed by eighty zeroes!). These are incomprehensibly massive numbers, but with

those in mind, let us now consider some examples of Fine-Tuning.

'The Universe's Initial Low-Level Entropy State':

- Famous physicist Roger Penrose of Oxford has calculated that the odds of the

Universe's Initial Low-level Entropy6 state arising via Chance is on the order

of 1 out of 10 to the 10th to the 123rd Power7 (attributing that to Chance is

intellectual insanity). Penrose, who in 2010 referred to himself as an atheist- is

one of the greatest physicists alive, and he has been awarded a host of special

honours, like the 'Albert Einstein Medal', & the 'Wolf Foundation Prize For

Physics' (for his analysis of the Big Bang- which we currently use as the basis

for all Big Bang Cosmology). Recently, he surpassed his old partner Hawking.

6

Entropy: it refers to the tendency of a physical system to go from order to disorder. More disorder

in a thermo-dynamic system entails that there is less un-used energy available for transformation

(2nd

Law of Therm.). Our Universe had very low entropy, starting in a highly ordered state. One

day, the Universe will undergo a heat death, & all energy transformation will become impossible:

all particles will be evenly spread out throughout space, & the Universe will be in a state of total

disorder/equilibrium: all of the energy available for conversion will have been used up. Low entr. =

order; high entr. = disorder. Why was the initial entropy so low/highly ordered? what wound it up? 7

Roger Penrose - "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity" - Quantum Gravity 2 (ed. C.J

Isham, R. Penrose, and D.W Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon (1981) pg. 249.

8

'The Cosmological Constant':

- This refers to 2 things: 1) the Universe's Inflation/Expansion8 (Hawking has written in

'A Brief History of Time': "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had

been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe

would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size"9)- and 2) the Energy

Density of Empty Space. Taken together, both parameters encompass the 'Cosmological

Constant'. "If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive

force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping

together in the early Universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and

stars and planets and people. If large and negative, the cosmological constant would act

as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately

reverse the expansion of the Universe and cause it to recollapse" (Steven Weinberg -

Nobel Prize Physics - 'A Designer Universe?' - NY Review of Books (Oct 21st 1999).

The initial Value of our Universe's Cosmological Constant was surprisingly very low:

"astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very

much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles" (S. Weinberg - Ibid)-

and the Value on its initial Fine Tuning "has conservatively been estimated to be at

least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That would be

ten followed by fifty-three zeroes. That's inconceivably precise" (Robin Collins - in 'The

Case for a Creator' - by Lee Strobel - 2004 - pg. 133).

- If the Cosmological Constant, which drives the Universe's mysterious acceleration, was

changed by even 1 part in 10 to the 120th Power weaker or stronger- the Universe

would either contract back inwards into a Singularity, or expand so fast that matter would

not be able to lump together, and thus galaxies couldn't form (and without them, no stars).

8 "It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine-tuned" to

fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern

of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value

by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive

vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power"-

Paul Davies - 'Superforce: the Search For a Grand Unified Theory of Nature' (1985) pg. 184.

9 Stephen Hawking - 'A Brief History of Time' - Bantam Books (1988) pg. 121.

9

'The Weak Nuclear Force':

- If the Weak Nuclear Force which operates within the nucleus of an atom was altered

weaker by even 1 part out of 10 to the 100th Power, our Universe would only allow

elements like Hydrogen and Helium to form, thus becoming totally Life-Prohibiting.

- But if the Weak Nuclear Force had been that same stronger, the Big Bang's burning

would have skipped past Helium to Iron, and that would have made the existence of

Fusion-Powered Stars impossible. Without stars, there are no planets (no Carbon, Iron,

Oxygen), & no planets = no chance of intelligent Life-forms ever arising in the Universe.

'The Strong Nuclear Force':

- Increasing the Strong Nuclear Force by only 1% would cause all Carbon to be burned

into Oxygen; raising it by 2% would preclude Proton-Formation from Quarks,

preventing the existence of Atoms!; and lowering it by 5% would leave the Universe

composed only of Hydrogen. But to put that number into perspective, what would

decreasing it by 50% entail? "Or consider the strong nuclear force. Imagine decreasing

it by fifty percent, which is tiny- one part in ten thousand billion billion billion billion,

compared to the total range of force strengths" (Robin Collins - Ibid - 2004 - pg. 133).

'Gravity':

- If Gravity had been only a tiny bit greater, only Red-Dwarf Stars would have arisen,

which are too cold to support Life-Bearing Planets; and a little weaker, only Blue-Giant

Stars would have appeared in the Universe (and Blue Giants burn too briefly for Life to

be able to develop10

). But to give an idea how delicate Gravity is, if it was altered by only

"one part in ten thousand billion billion billion, animals anywhere near the size of

human beings would be crushed" (Robin Collins - in 'The Case for a Creator' - pg. 132).

10

"The life cycle of a star depends upon its mass. High mass stars are much brighter than

low mass stars, thus they rapidly burn through their supply of hydrogen fuel. A star like the

Sun has enough fuel in its core to burn at its current brightness for approximately 9 billion

years. A star that is twice as massive as the Sun will burn through its fuel supply in only 800

million years. A 10 solar mass star, a star that is 10 times more massive than the Sun, burns

nearly a thousand times brighter and has only a 20 million year fuel supply. Conversely, a star

that is half as massive as the Sun burns slowly enough for its fuel to last more than 20 billion

years" (Edward J. Wollack - 'How Old Is the Universe?: Universe 101: Big Bang Theory' -

NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html) (August 2010-last retr. Jan 2012).

10

'The Interaction Between the Electro-Magnetic &

Gravitational Force':

- If the ratio between the Electro-Magnetic Force and the Gravitational Force was

changed by only 1 Part in 10 to the 40th

Power, either stronger or weaker, it would spell

disaster for stars like our Sun and our Planet. "Life can only develop on Planets that are

the right distance from their Stars, where the Spectral Temperature Variance of Starlight

is in close proximity to the range that allows for Molecular Binding Energy. If the ratio

between the Electro-Magnetic Force and the Gravitational Force was changed only that

much stronger, Life on Earth would be sterilized or destroyed by the Sun's rays, and if it

was altered that much weaker, the photochemical reactions necessary for Life on Earth

would proceed too slowly for Life to exist"- William Craig- 'The Teleological Argument

& the Anthropic Principle - the Logic of Rational Theism Essays' (1990) pg. 127.

- The interaction between the Electro-Magnetic Force and the Gravitational Force also

determines how the Universe will develop over Time. It had/has a bearing on: 1) the life-

time of main-sequence stars 2) the elapsing duration of time until the Universe's

expansion dynamics switched from being determined by Radiation to Matter 3) the

amount of time until the Universe was cool enough to allow for the formation of Atoms

and Molecules 4) the period of time for Protons to decay, and 5) Planck Time.

'The Interaction Between the WNF & the Gravitational Force':

- If this balance was upset in one direction, the Universe in its early phase would have

been 100% Helium.

- If this balance was changed in the other direction, then it would have been impossible

for neutrinos to carry the remnants of Super-Novae into space, and thus, seed the

Universe with the Heavy Elements necessary for Life (i.e. - Carbon, Oxygen, and Iron).

11

'The Ratio Between the Masses of the Neutron and the Proton':

This ratio is crucial to a Life-Permitting Universe, and it prevents Protons from

decaying into Neutrons, which would make Life impossible if it happened. This ratio is

also balanced with the Electron Mass, and if the Neutron Mass did not exceed the

Proton Mass by just a little more than the Electron Mass, Atoms would collapse.

"Increase the mass of the neutron by about one part in seven hundred and nuclear

fusion in stars would stop. There would be no energy source for life" (Robin Collins - in

'The Case for a Creator' - by Lee Strobel - pg. 134)

'The Quantum Realm':

In the Quantum Realm, the 'Pauli Exclusion Principle' guarantees the stability of

Matter & the size of Atomic & Molecular Structures. This Principle dictates that no

more than one particle of a kind & spin is permitted in a single quantum state. Without it,

only super-dense bodies could exist, not complex structures11

, let alone, Life of any sort.

'Dimensionality':

In 1955, G.J Whitrow said that a 3-Dimensional Universe is necessary for the existence

of intelligent Life. Dimensionality crucially determines a) the form of the Laws of

Nature b) the roles of its Constants, and c) Chemistry (without which, there is no Life).

I have listed 10 different parameters that must be incomprehensibly Fine-Tuned, and

Finely-Tuned in relation to each other- to allow for the existence of Intelligent Life-

Forms in our Universe; and according to philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, there

are more than 30 separate physical or cosmological parameters that must be Fine-

Tuned12

. Just take 2 parameters, the Cosm. Constant & Gravity, & just for those 2 to

fall into the right ratio with each other "would be to a precision of one part in a hundred

million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion . That would be the equivalent of

one atom in the entire Universe!" (Robin Collins - in 'The Case for a Creator' - pg. 134)

11

(See Freeman Dyson - 'Disturbing the Universe' - 1979 - pg. 251). 12

See 'The Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology' by Stephen C. Meyer - in 'Science

and Evidence for Design in the Universe' - San Francisco: Ignatius - 2000 - pg. 60.

12

Paul Davies (a world-renowned science writer and agnostic physicist who says 'Design'):

"It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to

minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. The seemingly

miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental

constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design". - - Paul Davies - 'God and the New Physics' - (1984) pg. 189.

Hawking (1988 = wrote as if God perhaps existed, but 2010 = God didn't create the U.):

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers,

like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton

and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have

been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".

- Stephen Hawking - 'A Brief History of Time' - Bantam Books (1988) pg. 125.

Martin Rees (in 2011 he said that he does not believe in God, but isn't allergic to religion):

Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees in his 2000 book 'Just Six Numbers' focused on the

Fine-Tuning of 6 parameters, and he contends that if any one of those were tweaked

"even to the tiniest degree, there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life" (M.

Rees - in Discover Magazine - 2000). His book hones in on these Fine-Tuned Numbers:

1) N = the ratio of the strength of gravity to electro-magnetism (10^36).

2) Epsilon (ε) = the ratio of mass lost to energy when Hydrogen fuses to form Helium.

(0.007).

3) Omega (ω) = the ratio of actual-density to critical-density in the Universe (close to

1.0)- this refers to Dark Matter).

4) Lambda (λ) - the Cosmological Constant = the ratio of gravity to anti-gravity (very

small) which drives the Universe's mysterious acceleration.

5) Q = the ratio of the gravitational-binding-energy of galaxies to their rest-mass energy

(10^-5).

6) D = the number of spatial dimensions in our universe (3).

The odds of each parameter being due to Chance alone is vastly small, but when all taken

together- it becomes "unlikely to an absurd degree" (M. Rees in 'Discover Magazine').

13

2 Typical First Objections to 'Fine-Tuning':

Common Fine-Tuning Criticism #1:

"But the Constants and Quantities could have had different Values, so maybe different

forms of Life could have evolved".

Response:

The problem with this idea is that it underestimates the catastrophic consequences that

would ensue if any of those Values were changed just an atom's breath. Without

Fine-Tuning, Matter and Chemistry would not be able to exist at all in the Universe.

Common Fine-Tuning Criticism #2:

"But maybe in different Universes governed by different Laws of Nature, such

disastrous consequences might not result".

Response:

That is an irrelevant question. How could we ever know about other Laws of Nature?

We can only know about the Laws that we got, so the issue of Fine-Tuning is all

about what would happen if those Laws stayed the same, but the Values of the

Constants & Physical Quantities were different? It would be truly disastrous for Life.

"The expansion speed, the material content of the Universe, and the strengths of the

basic forces, seem to have been a prerequisite for the emergence of the hospitable

cosmic habitat in which we live" (Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees - quoted in 'By

Design: Science & the Search For God' - by Larry Witham - 2003 - pg. 55).

14

3 Explanations of the Universe's Fine-Tuning:

There are 3 possible reasons why our Universe is Finely-Tuned for the existence of

Intelligent Life:

1) By ‘Physical Necessity’ (aka. ‘Law’) =

The Constants of Nature and the Initial Physical Quantities simply given

within the Big Bang must have had the Values that they do, and could not have

been otherwise (being determined by some kind of Law of Nature).

2) By ‘Chance’ =

The Constants and Physical Quantities have their Values solely by accident.

3) By ‘Design’ =

The Constants and Physical Quantities were Designed to have those Values.

15

The 'Fine-Tuning' of the Universe Argument':

Premise 1:

"The Fine-Tuning of the Universe is either due to

Physical Necessity (aka - Law), Chance, or Design".

Premise 2:

"It is not due to Physical Necessity or Chance".

Conclusion:

"Therefore, it was due to Design".

Premise 2 is the crucial premise, which states that it cannot be attributable to either

Necessity or Chance, so let's examine both explanations and see how they hold up.

16

By 'Physical Necessity'? (aka. Law):

'By Necessity' means that the Values had to be that way, and could not have been

otherwise. But on the face of it, that is impossible, as the Values of the Constants and

Physical Quantities were not determined by the Laws of Nature (which is incredible!).

Remember, the fundamental Constants that appear in the Laws of Nature are independent

of the Laws themselves, the Laws did not in any way dictate what the Values of the

Constants should be. In fact, the Laws of Nature allow for a wide range of possible

variations on those Values. The Laws did not make those assumed Values necessary at all.

What about the Initial Physical Quantities just given within the Big Bang itself? its

Expansion-Speed, Initial Low-Level Entropy condition, and Matter/Anti-Matter

Balance? Were those Values and their ratios to each other determined in the slightest by

the Laws of Nature? Again, not at all! those Initial Physical Quantities present at the

Universe's Beginning were not due to the Laws of Nature, they were put in upon that

Event simply as Boundary Conditions, which the Laws instantaneously took hold of- then

determining how the Universe unfolded/developed! The Laws didn't create the Quantities.

2010: About Hawking and the 'Law of Gravity': Let's start by quickly saying “No

Universe = no Law of Gravity”. The Law of Gravity does not precede the Universe,

therefore, it could not have brought it into existence. The Law of G. depends on the

physical Universe for its existence, but of course, many remember Hawking's 2010 claim

that the 'Law of Gravity brought the Universe into Being out of Nothing', and Hawking

could mean 2 things, and no matter which one, still reveals him to be an amateur when it

comes to philosophy. #1) Hawking doesn't use Nothing to mean Non-Being (which he

should be doing), but instead, is referring to the Quantum Vacuum (which is also an

obfuscatory technique used by popular atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss): but if Hawking

uses Nothing to signify the Vacuum, then he is forgetful, for surely he and Penrose proved

in the 1970s (via their Singularity Field Equations) that the Singularity did come from

Nothing, literally. Or, #2) Hawking really means that the Universe came from literally

Nothing through the Law of Gravity, and as the author of the Singularity Theorems, he

should indeed say that it came from Nothing (as he and Penrose proved that the Singularity

forms a Past Space-Time Boundary, before which, Space and Time did not even exist!- the

Singularity cannot be connected to any prior Spatio-Temporal state of affairs)- so if

Hawking in 2010 did mean that the Law of Gravity brought the Singularity into Being out

of Nothing, then that is starkly illogical! For the Law of G. could never exist apart from the

Universe, so to say that the Law of G. made the Universe, is tantamount to claiming that

"before the Universe existed, it existed". That = the Self-Caused Theory, which = False.

So to conclude: nothing seems to make those Constants of Nature and Initial Physical

17

Quantities 'Necessary', as we now have positive evidence which proves that the Values of

Nature's Constants and Initial Physical Quantities were/are independent of the Laws of

Nature (and were not determined by them). Thus, the Necessity explanation is false and

impossible. But despite this slam-dunk case against the Necessity Explanation, some say

that it will be rescued one day, when we finally get a Theory of Everything. Is that true?

What About a 'Theory of Everything'?:

Some might mention the as yet-to-be discovered Theory of Everything (a TOE); the idea

that the 4 Fundamental Forces of Nature will one day be unified into 1 Force, which

could then be expressed through some mathematical equation. But let's think about that for

a second, would a Theory that Explains How All of Reality Operates still answer the Fine-

Tuning question? Some internet warriors might quickly assume, "Yes", but actual top

scientists, people like Roger Penrose (who came up with the Singularity Equations with

Hawking in the 1970s)- say "No". Truthfully, a TOE for how our Universe operates would

still answer nothing. To be fair and grateful though, it would certainly and thankfully

explain the workings of the Universe, but still, the most fundamental question of all would

remain: namely, why is the Universe Fine-Tuned for the existence of intelligent Life?

Thus, a TOE could never refute the Design Explanation, as the Fine-Tuning enigma

would still need to be addressed. So to conclude, a TOE would help Mankind describe our

Universe in its totality via some mathematical equation, but the Fine-Tuning problem

would still be glaring us in the face; and when it comes to what 'Caused' it, one is only left

with either the Chance or Design Hypothesis (as by Necessity is false and impossible).

M-Theory / Super-String Theory- The Upcoming TOE?:

But ironically, if the biggest contender for being a TOE turns out to be correct, M-Theory /

Super-String Theory (which is still just a theory on page though)- then it would

stupendously blow the Necessity explanation out of the water even more! For if Super-

String Theory is true, then our Universe's Fine-Tuning is astronomically improbable, as it

envisions up to 10 to the 500th

Power of different possible kinds of Universes via the

Super-String Reality! (all with the same Laws we have now, but with different Values on

the Constants & Initial Physical Quantities). So, due to the fact that the Values for each

Universe would be different, but the Laws the same, 10 to the 500th Power of possible

kinds of Universes could arise! That number literally defies comprehension, and out of all

those possible Universes (which have different Values on Nature's Constants and the

Initial Physical Quantities of their Singularities)- close to none would be Life-Permitting!

Almost all of them would be Life-Prohibiting! (as without Fine-Tuning, Universes can

never even develop Matter or Chemistry). So, even under Super-String Theory, if it was

true, Finely-Tuned Universes are anything but 'Necessary', and still could never be

attributed to the Laws of Nature. Oxford's Penrose has referred to M-Theory/Super-

String Theory as "pop science, & a theory that's not even worthy of being called a theory".

18

M-Theory Fails: It Would Require a 'Finely-Tuned Beginning':

Another telling criticism of M-Theory/Super-String Theory is that it only functions if there

are 11 Dimensions. But why should 11 Dimensions exist? In fact, the Theory just assumes

it- but indeed, if all of existence was encompassed within 11 Dimensions, then that itself

bespeaks of Fine-Tuning! What presses that home utterly is the 2003 Borde-Guth-

Vilenkin Theorem, which says that even Higher Dimensional Realties or a Multi-Verse

(which are still physical through and through) cannot be extended infinitely into the Past

and must have an Absolute Beginning. They need a Beginning because Higher

Dimensional Cosmologies/Super-Strings are still Physical/Spatio-Temporal Realities,

and Physical/Spatio-Temporal Realties cannot be eternal (in other words, they cannot be

Past Space-Time Complete, which means exist without ever having had a Beginning).

Instead, they must Begin, so, if the Super-String Reality came into existence some time

ago in the finite past, then how did it come into existence as 11 Dimensions? Is that Fine-

Tuning? Without a doubt it is! Many have pointed out that positing M-Theory only pushes

the problem of a Beginning and Fine-Tuning back a bit further and up the ladder of reality.

Listen to what renowned cosmologist Alan Guth, who helped come up with the 2003

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem- say that it is reasonable to believe that there was an

Ultimate Beginning to Everything, and he has called it the"Mother of all Beginnings":

"How Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin Out Of Context":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY&feature=channel_video_title.

By 'Chance'?:

This view maintains that the Values of the Initial Physical Quantities and Nature's

Constants fell into that astronomically narrow Life-Permitting range just by sheer

accident. But the behemoth problem with this explanation is that the chances of it even

happening are so vastly remote that one cannot rationally hold to it13

. It is simply because

the numbers we are talking about here are so mind-boggling high, like the odds of the

Universe's Entropy being set at the right level, or its Expansion being just the right speed.

13

Roger Penrose: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by

chance…some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–

it's a bit like just sort of a computer, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in

this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I

think that there is something much deeper about it" - from 'A Brief History of Time' -

Paramount Pictures Inc. (1991) (quote starts at about 1:12:43 in the video).

19

Let's take a look: Penrose calculated that the odds of the Universe's Initial Low-level

Entropy condition arising via Chance is 1 Chance out of 10 to the 10th to the 123rd

Power. Based on that calculation, Penrose said: "I cannot even recall seeing anything

else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like 1

Part out of 10 to the 10th to the 123rd Power"- Roger Penrose - "Time-Asymmetry and

Quantum Gravity" - Quantum Gravity 2 ed. C.J Isham, R. Penrose, and D.W Sciama -

Oxford: Clarendon (1981) pg. 249. To help put that number into perspective, Penrose has

also said that the odds of our Solar System suddenly forming by the random collision of

particles is 1 out of 10 to the 10th to the 60th Power. Now compare those two numbers.

How high is that number? Well, let's consider how many elementary particles exist in the

entire observable Universe (not considering Dark Matter), which = 10 to the 8oth Power.

That is 10 followed by 80 zeroes! Compare that number with the calculation made by

Penrose concerning our Universe's Entropy, and it becomes apparent how

incomprehensibly high Penrose's number is (which was 10 to the 10th

to the 123rd

Power).

Even hitting the odds of 10 to the 60th

Power would be akin to: "firing a bullet towards

the other side of the observable Universe, twenty billion light-years away, and then

nailing a 1 inch target!" - William Lane Craig - 'On Guard' (2010) pg. 109.

"The Universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If

any one of about 40 physical quantities had more than slightly different values, life as we

know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into

molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the Universe would collapse

before life could develop, and so on.."(Stephen Hawking - 'Austin American-Statesman' -

October 19th

(1997).

But when we finally consider that these Values are not only incomprehensibly Fine-

Tuned, but also Finely-Tuned in relation to each other, then we have just phenomenally

multiplied the improbabilities. Now the numbers we are dealing with are so absurdly high

that to say, "the Chance explanation is a good one", is surely irrational and faithful. Take

those "6 Values" that Sir Martin Rees included in his book, 'Just Six Numbers' (2003). All

taken together, the odds of all 6 Values coming into existence Finely-Tuned in relation to

each other- is light-years beyond Penrose's Entropy calculation. These are insane numbers.

Here's William Lane Craig- who knows Cosmology better than any philosopher today:

20

"And it's not just each Constant or Quantity that must be exquisitely fine-tuned;

their ratios to one another must also be fine-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by

improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible

numbers". - 'The New Atheism and the Five Arguments for God' (2010) pg. 9.

Just like when it comes to the Origin of Life on Earth, nobody takes the Chance

Explanation regarding the Universe's Fine-Tuning seriously anymore- but to make it fly

(the notion that our Life-Permitting Universe could have arisen by Chance)- it must get

conjoined with some kind of 'Infinite World Ensemble’ Hypothesis. And why? It must do

this for 2 reasons: 1) by invoking this kind of explanation, they have solved the

'Probabilistic Resources Problem', as they now have the Infinite Time and Mechanism to

make Life-Permitting Universes possible through Chance alone, but most importantly, 2)

if they do not posit some kind of Infinite World Ensemble as being responsible for giving

rise to our Universe, then they're claiming that "Something can come from Nothing

Finely-Tuned through Chance alone". Why? Because modern science tells us that the

Singularity did indeed come from Nothing, and this was thanks to 'the Hawking and

Penrose Field Equations' from the 1970s, which showed that a Singularity forms a Past

Space-Time Boundary, and cannot be connected to some prior 'physical state'. So, to get

around this 'Something Coming Into Being From Nothing Problem', the Chance Hypothesis

must get paired up with some kind of Infinite World Ensemble. And why specifically?

Because brandishing Chance as an explanation for why Space & Time themselves came

into Being is meaningless because Chance only happens amongst a process that already

exists in Space-Time. It can't be invoked to explain why Space-Time itself 'Began'.

The 'Infinite and Random World-Ensemble':

The World-Ensemble Hypothesis says that our Universe is but one member of a greater

Ensemble of other Universes who are all infinite in number. Thus, because of their

number being infinite, Life-Permitting Universes will sometimes randomly appear in this

greater over-arching World Ensemble. If this is true, then no appeal to Design is needed

to explain the Fine-Tuning, it would be due to Chance within a physical process alone.

21

5 Counters to the Infinite & Random World-Ensemble:

Counter #1:

No Evidence:

This explanation has no empirical evidence whatsoever to back itself up with, and

presumably, there will never be any evidence anyways- as these other Universes would be

in other Space-Time Realities. Politely remind any espouser of the Infinite World

Ensemble view that no independent evidence shows that a World Ensemble/Multi-Verse

even exists, much less one that is Randomly Ordered and Infinite in number. Ockham's Razor says “don't multiply causes unnecessarily”- so what about to infinity?

Counter #2:

The World-Ensemble / Multi-Verse Would Require Initial Fine-Tuning:

According to many scientists and philosophers, the proposed mechanism for generating a

World Ensemble is so vague that the physics governing it would still require Fine-

Tuning. For how else could this Mother Structure shoot off baby Universes and once in

a while give rise to ones that are Life-Permitting? That requires a kind of mechanism, and

that mechanism would itself require Fine-Tuning. What makes the Infinite World

Ensemble view even more incoherent is when people maintain that this Ensemble is

eternal (has always existed). But if this Mother Structure is eternal, and without a

Beginning, then how did it become Finely-Tuned from eternity past? is that coherent?

Counter #3:

The World-Ensemble / Multi-Verse Requires an Absolute Beginning:

Remember though, other Universes or a greater World-Ensemble/Multi-Verse are

physical realities existing in Space and Time, and the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin

Theorem says that any Universe in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be extended

backwards infinitely into the past, and thus be ‘Past Space-Time Complete’. Rather, they

must have a Beginning, and this Theorem also applies to any Multi-Verse or Higher

Dimensional Cosmologies. Therefore, since the World Ensemble/Multi-Verse’s past is

finite, only a finite number of other Universes could have been generated by now, so

there’s no guarantee at all that a Finely-Tuned Universe would have appeared in the

World Ensemble…..Indeed, Everything had a Beginning (the Totality of Space-Time),

or to say it another way: all of Temporal Existence had a Beginning- but, for Time to

arise, that requires a Cause which is itself Un-Caused/Timeless/Beginning-less.

Renowned cosmologist Alan Guth, who helped come up with the 2003 Theorem, has

said that it is rational to believe that there was an “Ultimate Beginning to Everything”.

22

Counter #4:

If Our Universe Derived from an Ensemble, Then It Should Be Smaller:

"If our world is just a random member of an Infinite World Ensemble, then it is vastly

more probable that we should be observing a much smaller region of order. It turns out

that a parallel problem faces the Many-Worlds Hypothesis as an explanation of Cosmic

Fine-Tuning. Roger Penrose has pressed this objection forcefully. He points out that the

odds of our Universe's initial low-level entropy condition existing by chance alone is 1

out of 10 to the 10th to the 123rd Power. By contrast, the odds of our Solar System

suddenly forming by the random collision of particles is 1 out of 10 to the 10th to the

60th Power. This number, says Penrose, is "utter chicken-feed" in comparison with

10 to the 10th to the 123rd Power. What that means is that it is far more likely that we

should be observing an orderly Universe no larger than our Solar System (if the Infinite

Ensemble is true- my insertion), since a world of that size is unfathomably more probable

than a Fine-Tuned Universe like ours". - William Lane Craig - 'On Guard' (2010) - pg.

119 (quoting from Roger Penrose's 'The Road to Reality' - 2005 pg. 762-65).

Counter #5:

If the Ensemble Is True, We Should Be Seeing Extraordinary Events:

If our Universe was a random member of a greater Infinite & Random World Ensemble,

then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses popping in and out

of existence via the random collision of particles- and why? Simply because such things

are vastly more probable than all of the Values falling into the infinitesimal Life-

Permitting range by Chance. Of course, we don't have such observations to suggest that.

In light of those 5 Counters, just postulating a World-Ensemble does not give warrant to

the Chance Hypothesis at all. When atheists flee into that explanation, they have no idea

that they're postulating an eternal & meta-physical Prime Reality (sounds like Theism!). We will delve into the Ensemble again when we get into the Anthropic Principle, and its

meta-physical plausibility will be assessed with Theism's- showing 1 to be more coherent.

"To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the

reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are

an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and

more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme

multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an

infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as

invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in

essence it requires the same leap of faith" Davies -'A Brief History of the Multi-Verse' NY Times

23

By 'Design'?:

The mind-reeling and complex nexus of balanced Physical Quantities given within the Big

Bang's Initial Conditions, as well as the Values that appear in Nature's Constants, are all

Finely-Tuned in relation to each other upon a razor's edge. This has made many conclude

that it is most plausibly due to Design14

, & not to Necessity or Chance-based Causes or

Forces. With new philosophical criteria, the Design Inference has never been stronger.

William Dembski, the young rising star of the Intelligent Design movement (with 2 PhDs

to his name, one in philosophy, and the other, mathematics)- pioneered a book in 1998 that

gave the Intelligent Design movement its philosophical underpinnings. His 'The Design

Inference' also crucially aided other credible and established fields, backing up their

inference to Design by supplying the conceptual tools needed to soundly eliminate Chance

as being the Cause of some Event. What people are fundamentally preoccupied with

seeking to infer Design for some Event? forensic scientists, detectives, insurance fraud

investigators, exposers of scientific data falsification, cryptographers, & SETI scientists.

To sum up Dembski's method: when it comes to detecting Events due to Design, we must

first eliminate Chance as being the causal factor. How can we do that? well, when we have

an Event exhibiting a Pattern, then we know that it could not have been due to Chance.

Dembski's Argument for detecting Design via Chance Elimination can be applied to many

fields, but most of all, it will strengthen and validate the inference to an Intelligent

Designer as being the Cause of the Universe's mind-blowing Fine-Tuning. His 10-Step

Argument can be used to show how the Fine-Tuning exhibits a pattern that Chance-based

Random Events could never have caused to arise- thus backing up the inference to Design.

'The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities' - Cambridge

'Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory' - Cambridge University Press -

(1998): http://www.designinference.com/desinf.htm.

14

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious

design... The universe must have a purpose". - 'Superforce: The Search for a Grand

Unified Theory of Nature' - New York: Simon & Schuster (1984) pg. 243.

24

Chance Elimination Through 'Pattern Recognition':

Chance is ruled out when an Event conforms to a discernible Pattern, and the Pattern

could either be due to Necessity or Design. If it was due to Necessity, it was because of

some repeating physical conditions; the recurring physical conditions of the Event itself

created the Pattern (i.e: sand-crystals forming on a dune). But if it was due to Design,

the Pattern was given independently of the Event itself (i.e: the markings 'S.O.S' is

scrawled on a dune). What does it mean to say that a Pattern could be given independently

of the Event itself? It means that the physical conditions of the Event alone could not have

created the Pattern; instead, the Pattern came from something outside of the Event. If we

encounter a Pattern like that, we can rule out Necessity as being the Cause of that Event.

When it comes to identifying Design from Chance, Dembski's criteria helps theorists get

around the old problem of High Improbability. This was the claim that 'we have

recognized Design because some Event is so Highly Improbable', but in fact, saying that an

Event is due to Design because it is so Highly Improbable is not enough. For truly, any

Event is Highly Improbable. For example, if I randomly type out 5o words that I've never

wrote in that order before, or seen somewhere before, and they match with some text

somewhere in the world- that would indeed be Highly Improbable. But on the other hand,

if I just randomly type out 50 words that do not match a text somewhere in the world right

now- that sequence of 50 words is still nevertheless Highly Improbable too. Both

examples are Highly Improbable, so when it comes to ruling out Chance as a Cause, we

need something more than just High Improbability. One of the great pioneers in this area

was the mathematician Ronald Fisher, who created a method of Statistical Hypothesis

Testing in the 1920s that brought us to greater depths when considering Chance as a factor.

25

"On the one hand Fisher's method acknowledged that some phenomena could be

reasonably explained by, or at least attributed to, random processes or chance events. On

the other hand, Fisher's work established a clear method for deciding when chance alone

could be eliminated from consideration as the best explanation" - 'Signature In the Cell' -

Stephen Meyer - (2009) pg. 179-180.

Enter Dembski, who says something similar, but taking a new leap: under Dembski, one

can justifiably eliminate Chance as being the Cause of some Event if we can discern some

Pattern in the Event. When we find a Pattern, then that automatically nullifies the

Chance Hypothesis, as only Necessity and Design-based Causes can create Patterns.

"Since patterns signal the presence of deeper causal factors or regularities at work, the

presence of patterns negates chance. Patterns negate the chance hypothesis that "there is

nothing going on""- 'Signature In the Cell' - Stephen Meyer - (2009) pg. 188.

Again: how do we differentiate a Pattern made by Necessity from Design? An Event that

exhibits some kind of Pattern due to Necessity will be Repetitive and Highly Probable,

but on the other hand, a Pattern due to Design will be Specified & Highly Improbable.

Above all else, a Designed Pattern could not have been Caused by the physical conditions

of the Event itself, instead, it was created by something outside of the Event, which imbued

it (the Pattern) with some Body of Information. This kind of Info. in a Pattern points

beyond the physical conditions of the Event itself, and it is necessarily Specified, and not

Repetitive. Being Specified is what allows the Body of Information to exist in the Pattern.

"A pattern of events may present itself as interesting because some physical state of

affairs occurs repeatedly. Or a pattern of events may appear interesting because it has some

independent functional significance apart from the physical features of the events"-

'Signature In the Cell' - Stephen Meyer (2009) pg. 185.

The '10-Step Generic Chance Elimination Argument': -via Dembski, but summed up here by way of William Craig, from his review of the book.

1. "One learns that some event has occurred.

2. Examining the circumstances under which the event occurred, one finds that

the event could only have been produced by a certain chance process (or

processes).

26

3. One identifies a pattern which characterizes the event.

4. One calculates the probability of the event given the chance hypothesis.

5. One determines what probabilistic resources were available for producing the

event via the chance hypothesis.

6. On the basis of the probabilistic resources, one calculates the probability of the

event's occurring by chance out of all the available opportunities to occur.

7. One finds that the above probability is sufficiently small.

8. One identifies a body of information which is independent of the event's

occurrence.

9. One determines that one can formulate the pattern referred to in step (3) on the

basis of this body of independent information.

10. One is warranted in inferring that the event did not occur by Chance".

This is a simplification of Dembski's analysis from William Lane Craig, and in

'The Design Inference', Dembski goes into it in extreme and rigorous detail.

Applying 'Chance Elimination' to the 'Fine-Tuning':

Now, when it comes to the Universe's Fine-Tuning, we can see a Specified Pattern in the

Values of the Constants' of Nature & the Arbitrary Initial Physical Quantities of the

Singularity/Big Bang- without which, the Universe would be Life-Prohibiting. So clearly,

they (the Values) perform a kind of Function: they enable the Universe to have Matter,

Chemistry, Life- they make 'existence' itself Function properly! That Specified Pattern is

the Life-Permitting Values' extreme specificity/narrow range, and how they all must be

absurdly interwoven into the right ratios with one another. So how do we apply these 10

Steps to the Fine-Tuning question? Dr. Craig has brilliantly applied the Chance

Elimination Argument to the Fine-Tuning question, and let me stress, not only is he one

of the greatest philosophers in the world today, but he is also arguably the greatest authority

period on Big Bang Cosmology & Astro-physics from the professional philosophical world.

His 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument' (1979) was entirely groundbreaking. From his

review here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5172:

27

But first, to clarify more: are the Values and their specified relation to each other a 'Body of

Information'? Information entails that the Specified Pattern could not have been made by the

physical conditions of the Event alone, and indeed, the reason the Pattern is Specified is

because of some other factor apart from the Event itself. And that is starkly evident when it

comes to the Physical Quantities present at the Beginning of the Universe, as they were not

determined by the Laws of Nature in the slightest, and were simply put in upon that Event as

arbitrary Boundary Conditions (upon which the Laws could then operate upon). Crucially, with

this Event we have the Absolute Beginning of all Space & Time & Matter & Energy-

therefore, the physical conditions of the Event itself cannot explain the Specified Fine-Tuning of

that Event. To say it clearly again: startlingly, and unlike any other field preoccupied with

looking for Specified Patterns (aka 'Design Detection'), Cosmology’s enigma regarding the

Fine-Tuning of the Big Bang’s Initial Conditions lends itself incredibly to the Design Inference.

Why? Because the Specified Pattern in the Values of the Physical Quantities in the Initial

Conditions of the Big Bang were not determined by the physical conditions of that Event. Here,

clearly and remarkably, the physical conditions of the Event itself cannot explain why the 1st

Event/Singularity came into existence Finely-Tuned (aka. with a Specified Pattern)- how

come? Because right at the Beginning of the Universe, when Space & Time came into existence

at the Singularity, the Physical Quantities simply given and present at that 1st Moment were

already Fine-Tuned! and Finely-Tuned in relation to each other! i.e. the Singularity's Expansion

Speed, Initial Low-level Entropy, and Matter-Anti-Matter Balance. Because the Singularity

breathtakingly forms a Past-Space/Time-Boundary that cannot be connected to any ‘prior

physical state’, there were in fact no ‘physical conditions' that determined the Fine-Tuning!

Rather, both came into Being simultaneously: the totality of Space & Time & all the Matter &

Energy sprang into existence Finely-Tuned (aka. as a Specified Pattern). So to close: when it

comes to the Singularity's Fine-Tuning, one cannot say that the physical conditions of the Event

was the reason for the Specified Pattern (the assumed Values that are in the absurdly narrow

Life-Permitting range)- as we can clearly see that both came into existence simultaneously at the

Singularity. Something outside that Event was responsible, and obviously, it was whatever

'Caused' the Singularity to erupt into Being15

. The Finely-Tuned ratios = a Specified Pattern.

The '10-Step Fine-Tuning Chance Elimination Argument':

1. "One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang

possess certain values.

15

John A O'Keefe (NASA astronomer): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered,

cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most

exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these

circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in". - F. Heeren - 'Show Me

God' - Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications (1995) pg. 200.

28

2. Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds

that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically

necessary the values of all the constants and quantities16

(my footnote).

3. One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are

incomprehensibly fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, carbon-based

life.

4. The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by

chance is vanishingly small.

16

By Law is impossible, as we have already seen that Nature's Constants and the Initial Physical

Quantities of the Big Bang were/are independent of the Laws of Nature, and even the new and up-

coming possible TOE, String-Theory- shatters the idea that Law did it: as it envisions up to 10 to the

500th

Power of different possible Universes, with varying Values on their Constants & Quantities,

but the same Laws- issuing from the Super-String Manifold (which is tied to the Multi-Verse idea).

29

5. There is only one Universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply

one's probabilistic resources (i.e. postulate a World Ensemble of Universes)

simply to avert the design inference)17

(my footnote).

6. Given that the Universe has occurred only once, the probability of the

constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains vanishingly

small.

7. This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.

8. One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for

intelligent, carbon-based life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of

certain elements, certain gravitational and electromagnetic forces, etc.).

9. This information about the finely-tuned conditions requisite for a life-

permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).

10. One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given

in the Big Bang are not the result of chance".

17

The only option the Atheist has is to flee into the World Ensemble, the idea that there

exists an infinite amount of Universes- and Dawkins touts this view in his 'God Delusion'.

But at bottom, this is a very Meta-physical (and hypocritical) view. For they are contending

that there exists an eternal Prime Reality, which gave rise to finite Spatio-Temporal Reality,

and that's what Theism has been saying all along! Thanks to the 2003 Borde-Guth-

Vilenkin-Theorem, we know that any over-arching Multi-Verse needs to Begin, and from

other physicists, that it would require Fine-Tuning also- but paradoxically, if a Multi-Verse

has existed for an eternity, and was able to spawn Life-Permitting Universes once in a

while- then that reveals Fine-Tuning at the level of the Multi-Verse itself! But how does an

eternal Multi-Verse get Finely-Tuned anyways? without ever having had a Beginning? To

posit an eternally existing meta-physical Prime Reality that is Finely Tuned itself, and then

condemn those that stand under the banner of Theism, is surely hypocritical. Atheists often

accuse the Theists of being too meta-physical, of going beyond the natural realm, but when

they cling to the World Ensemble view, they are also being metaphysical and going well

beyond the natural world. The theistic philosopher can therefore present without any

trepidation his metaphysical view, and state clearly that it is at least equally plausible if not

superior to the metaphysical atheistic account of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe (i.e - that

there exists an eternal Mother Structure which has been Finely-Tuned since eternity).

30

The Conclusion: 'The Inference to Design':

In Conclusion: it is rational to assume that the Universe's Fine-Tuning was due to

Design18

. The Values of the Physical Quantities simply given within the Big Bang's

initial conditions, and on Nature's unchanging Constants- cannot be due to Necessity or

Chance19

. "One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of the universe are

due to design…Thus, if the initial conditions of the universe are due to "design", as argued

above, then the inference to a Cosmic Designer is warranted"- from William Lane Craig's review of 'The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities'.

If it was due to Design, then we are dealing with an Intelligence behind the Cosmos, and

one with unfathomable knowledge. But what else can we deduce about this Intelligence

behind the Universe's Fine-Tuning? We can unpack what it means to be the intelligent

Cause of the Big Bang Singularity (& that Event signifies the Absolute Beginning of all

Space & Time & Matter & Energy)- so as the Cause of Space, It must be Non-Physical

& Immaterial, & as the Cause of Time, It must be Timeless & Un-Caused. And it also

must be unbelievably powerful, for It brought Matter & Energy into Being out of

Nothing20

, & not out of Itself. Why? If It is Non-Spatial & Timeless, then it cannot be

made out of Matter/Energy, which always undergo physical & temporal change (also,

Matter/Energy cannot exist outside of Space & Time, for then they'd be existing without

existing). Those attributes can allow one to rationally conclude that God exists, a Being that

is Intelligent, Timeless, Immaterial, and which gave rise to all of Temporal Material

Reality. 2300 years ago, Aristotle argued that there must exist an 'Un-Moved Mover'

(Meta-physics 12/7): an Intelligent, Immaterial, Timeless, Un-Caused, & Eternal Mind.

18

Paul Davies: “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind

it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.

....The impression of design is overwhelming”. - 'The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in

Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe' - New York: S. & Schuster (1988) pg. 203.

19 Edward Harrison (astronomer): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God–

the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe

provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires

multitudes of universes, or design that requires only one"- Edward Harrison - 'Masks of the

Universe' - (1985) pg. 252.

20 Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe

which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide

exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say

'supernatural') plan"- Margenau & Varghese - 'Cosmos, Bios, and Theos' - (1992) pg. 83.

31

'The Anthropic- Principle'?:

The elaborate spectrum of Fine-Tuning21

on the Values of Nature's Constants, and the

Initial Physical Quantities given within the Big Bang itself, can no longer be dismissed

as "coincidence". But to avoid the Inference to Design22

, many scientists are seeking an

alternative via the Anthropic Principle- and now a debate has been raging over it

between scientists and philosophers for decades. Early on, this Principle was a threat to

the Teleological Argument for the Design of the Universe (as well as the Design

Argument in biology)- but when it comes to 20th

Century Fine-Tuning, it can no longer

withstand the Design Inference at the level of the Cosmos. Crucially, if the Anthropic

Principle cannot counter the Fine-Tuning Enigma, then biology is also free from its

harassment, as without any initial Fine-Tuning of the Universe, there can be no Life. So,

what will smart critics say nowadays with the Anthropic Principle? In their aim to defer

the Fine-Tuning Enigma, to obviate the notion that we should be surprised that it is

vastly more probable that Life-Prohibiting Universes should exist rather than Life-

Permitting ones- Anthropic Principle Critics will say (phrased by me):

"We can observe only those Values of the fundamental Constants and Quantities that

are compatible with our existence, so therefore, no explanation is needed for why we can

observe a Life-Permitting Universe because that is the only kind of Universe that we

can observe".

Indeed, whilst debating the Fine-Tuning with someone on Facebook that is getting his

PhD in the Philosophy of Science, he dropped the Weak Anthropic Principle as if it was

all he needed to say. He seemed unaware of its death, thanks to his own field (though in

his "4th

Year")- and he predictably & obliviously wrote this to counter the Fine-Tuning:

"If the universe was not hospitable to human life, we wouldn't be here to wonder

why not"- from 'Mr. Philosopher' who said, "watch it, I am getting a PhD". Sure dude.

21 George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make

this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it

very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological

status of the word". - 'The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments' - The Anthropic

Principle - F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press (1993) pg. 30.

22 Alexander Polyakov (Soviet physicist): "We know that nature is described by the best of

all possible mathematics because God created it" - Alexander Polyakov in 'Fortune' - S.

Gannes - October 13th (1986) pg. 57.

32

But this reasoning is fallacious, for the fact that we can observe only a Life-Permitting

Universe/Finely-Tuned one- does not eliminate the need for an Explanation on why it

exists. The Anthropic Principle has been attacked and dispensed with thanks to a

plethora of powerhouses from the fields of philosophy and the philosophy of science, but

nevertheless, let’s look at the Principle in more detail and the criticism brought against it.

Where Did the Anthropic Principle Come From?:

First elucidated by Brandon Carter in 1974, the Anthropic Principle has assumed many

different forms since, generating a lot of confusion on what the Principle means, and

because of this, I'm going to be very clear in this section (and repeat myself a few times).

Brandon Carter - "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle" -

Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data ed. M.S Logair

(Boston: D.Reidal) (1974) pg. 291-298).

The Principle asserts that when we look at the Universe's Constants & Quantities, we

are seeing those Values only because they are compatible with our existence, nothing

more; and since only Finely-Tuned Universes have observers in them, any observers will

naturally observe their Universes to be Finely-Tuned. In other words, the appearance of

Design in the Values of the Constants & Quantities is due to a "self-selection factor"-

whereby our act of observing those Fine-Tuned properties is determined by our existence.

Thus, the Anthropic Principle does not explain the origin of the Fine-Tuning; instead, it

tries to show that no Explanation is needed regarding it. It tries to take away our surprise.

Dr. William Lane Craig on the 'Anthropic Principle':

From his 'Reasonable Faith' Website: 'Question of the Week #14: "Multiverse and the

Design Argument':

"The Anthropic Principle states that our own existence acts as a selection principle

determining which properties of the universe we can observe. That is to say, any observed

properties of the universe which may at first seem to be astonishingly improbable can

only be seen in their true perspective after we realize that other properties couldn’t be

observed by us, since we can only observe properties of the universe which are

compatible with our existence. The Anthropic Principle implies that observers who have

evolved within a universe must observe its constants and quantities to be fine-tuned for

their existence, for otherwise they wouldn’t exist to observe them. The Anthropic

Principle is used by some people to try to show why we shouldn’t be surprised at the

astonishingly improbable fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life".

33

To say it again:

Now, let's be super-clear, the Anthropic Principle does not stipulate that our observation

of the Universe imposes or determines some properties upon the Universe, for that would

be crazy, as humans are vastly younger than the Universe, and we're obviously reliant

upon it, and not vice-versa. Rather, the Anthropic Principle is more subtle and

intellectually engaging: it asserts that we must observe the Universe as having some

properties that are compatible with our existence, so therefore, we should not be surprised

about the Universe having them. But at the mainstream level, many critics present the

Principle in such a sloppy way that they end up implying that we are shapers of reality,

however, sophisticated wielders of it will just say that the Principle demonstrates that we

should not be astonished at the Universe’s Fine-Tuning because of the so-called ‘Self-

Selection Factor’ (where our existence affects our observation)- & fundamentally, that's

supposed to remove our surprise & the need for an explanation on its Fine-Tuning.

The Anthropic Principle via Barrow & Tipler:

This line of thought was first propounded in massive detail in 1986 via John Barrow and

Frank Tipler’s monumental work, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". They

performed a comprehensive analysis of the Principle, and most notably, how it relates to

the Fine-Tuning, and the book concluded by finishing the job of Darwinism: by finally

dismantling the Design Argument for the Cosmos. In the work, the most fundamental

Anthropic Principle is the 'Weak One', & they take it as true and not controversial at all.

They assert that it is predicated on that well-known truth in Science, which says that when

one is measuring something, one has to also take into account one's measuring apparatus.

“For example, if we were calculating the fraction of galaxies that lie within certain

ranges of brightness, our observations would be biased toward the brighter ones, since we

cannot see the dim ones so easily. Or again, a rat-catcher may say that all rats are bigger

than six inches because that is the size of his traps. Similarly, any observed properties of

the universe which may initially appear astonishingly improbable can only be seen in

their true perspective after we have accounted for the fact that certain properties could not

be observed by us, were they to obtain, because we can only observe those compatible

with our own existence” (William Lane Craig - 'The Teleological Argument and the

Anthropic Principle' - The Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays' (1990) pg. 127-153).

34

The Weak Anthropic Principle as formulated by Barrow and Tipler:

"WAP: The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally

probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where

carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for

it to have already done so" ("The Anthropic Principle" - (1986) pg. 15).

What they state up there seems trivially true, but critically, it still doesn't answer what

caused those Physical Quantities & Constants to assume the Values that they did. But

this seemingly non-controversial insight, they take as having "far-reaching implications"

(pg. 2 - the Anthropic Principle)- and what are these "implications"? their main angle is to

then say that we should not be surprised at the Universe having these properties that are

compatible with our existence, for if they were not as it is, then we wouldn’t even be here

to observe them in the first place. Thus, no explanation is needed for the Fine-Tuning.

Barrow and Tipler give concrete examples of this Principle in action, by saying that:

"No one should be surprised to find the universe to be as large as it is"- "The

Anthropic Principle" - (1986) pg. 18).

Why do they say that? simply because the Universe must be of a large size for it to have

allowed for the eventual evolution of observers on some planet (taking into account that it

has been expanding since its very Beginning over 13.7 billion years ago). But that is

trivially true, & still doesn't answer at all what Caused the Fine-Tuning of the Universe.

They also say:

"On Anthropic grounds, we should expect to observe a world possessing precisely three

spatial dimensions" ("The Anthropic Principle" - (1986) pg. 247).

Why? for without 3-Dimensions, there is no Life period, so therefore, one should not be

surprised about observing 3-dimensions (it's to be expected). But this is obvious, and still

doesn't address how a stable 3-dimensional Universe issued forth from the Singularity.

35

"The basic features of the Universe, including such properties as its shape, size, age, and

laws of change must be observed to be of a type that allows the evolution of the observers,

for if intelligent life did not evolve in an otherwise possible universe, it is obvious that no

one would be asking the reason for the observed shape, size, age, and so forth of the

universe"- "The Anthropic Principle" - (1986) pg. 1-2).

So what exactly did they mean there? (to paraphrase them):

We ought not to be surprised at observing the Universe the way that it is,

for if it were not as it is, then we would not be here to observe it.

But that is vacuous, & yes, doesn't answer why its Fine-Tuning made all of that possible.

Barrow & Tipler give a further reason why we should not be surprised at the

Universe's Fine-Tuning. They seem to think that one should not be surprised at some

Highly Improbable Event transpiring, like the evolution of Life on Earth, for this reason:

The Monarch Example:

"We should emphasize once again that the enormous improbability of the evolution of

intelligent life in general and Homo sapiens in particular does not mean we should be

amazed we exist at all. This would make as much sense as Elizabeth II being amazed she

is Queen of England. Even though the probability of a given Briton being monarch is

about 10-8

, someone must be. Only if there is a monarch is it possible for the monarch to

calculate the improbability of her particular existence. Similarly, only if an intelligent

species does evolve is it possible for its members to ask how probable it is for an

intelligent species to evolve. Both are examples of WAP self-selection in action.110

110 F. B. Salisbury, Nature 224, 342 (1969), argued that the enormous improbability of a

given gene, which we computed in the text, means that a gene is too unique to come into

being by natural selection acting on chance mutations. WAP self-selection refutes this

argument, as R. F. Doolittle in Scientists confront creationism, L. R. Godfrey (Norton,

NY, 1983) has also pointed out" ("The Anthropic Principle"- (1986) pg. 566, 575).

That logic up there states that some Events have to still happen no matter how Highly

Improbable- so therefore, we should not be surprised at their occurrence. But should we

really not be surprised at the fact that it is unbelievably more probable that the Universe

should be Life-Prohibiting? rather than Life-Permitting? and is that Monarch Example

sufficient to remove surprise at all Highly Improbable Events? Especially, when it

comes to the Singularity emerging Finely-Tuned? The Example is illustrative of Events

36

within physical conditions, but the Finely-Tuned Singularity heralded the start of all

Physical Processes!: "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally

nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity,

we would truly have a creation ex nihilo. The Singularity is to be regarded as being on the

boundary of space and time" (John Barrow and Frank Tipler - "The Anthropic

Cosmological Principle" - Oxford: Clarendon Press - (1986) pg. 442).

What about Philosopher of Science, John Leslie’s, analogy on the matter? he has said (to

paraphrase him): Imagine you got dragged up in front of a firing squad, and were about to

be executed due to trumped-up drug charges. The command is given, "ready, aim,

fire!"- and the sound is roaring as all the shooters let off their guns in unison- but a

second later, you are still alive! For some reason, all the executors had missed. What

would you conclude? the logic that governs the Anthropic Principle would suggest you

to simply say: "Well, I guess I should not be surprised that they had all missed, after all,

if they had not all missed, then I would not even be here to be surprised about it-

therefore, nothing more to be explained" (John Leslie - "Anthropic Principle, World

Ensemble, Design" - American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (1982) pg. 150. But that is

bunk reasoning, and an Explanation is still needed for why you're still alive! This was an

insane Event, & your existence was hung over the abyss upon a thread of absurd

improbability. Though you shouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you're dead,

it doesn't then follow that you shouldn't be surprised that you do observe that you're alive!

Does the Firing-Squad Example Refute their A.P Logic?:

In the firing-squad example, an Event happens that could of easily ended one's existence,

and against absurd odds, one remained alive, so yes, one should be astonished, if one was

in that situation and stayed alive! for the possibility of it occurring by Chance is ultra-

vanishingly small. What about the fact of the Universe's Fine-Tuning? Here, 13.7 billion

years ago, an Event occurs that could have easily prevented us from ever coming into

existence, period! (as the range of the Universe's Life-Permitting Values, and how they

all must be interwoven into the right ratios with each other, is absurdly narrow). Indeed,

the odds were highly stacked in favour of the Universe being Life-Prohibiting at its

Beginning, but against infinitesimal odds, we eventually come into existence, and utterly

thanks to the Initial Fine-Tuning of that Event. In both cases, one's very existence was

absurdly improbable & hung in the balance: one's present existence, with the firing-squad

example, or even more fundamentally, the sheer possibility of ever having an existence

within the Universe thanks to our Singularity's Fine-Tuned Beginning. If one isn't

surprised at the Fine-Tuning, an absurdly improbable Event necessary for our existence

& the possibility of intelligent Life- then one shouldn't be surprised at the firing-squad ex.

37

"This would make as much sense as Elizabeth II being amazed she is Queen of England.

Even though the probability of a given Briton being monarch is about 10-8

, someone must

be. Only if there is a monarch is it possible for the monarch to calculate the improbability

of her particular existence". "Both are examples of WAP self-selection in action110".

Their line of reasoning in the Monarch Example is glaringly obvious: they seem to be

saying that some Highly Improbable Events have to happen anyways, so therefore, one

should not be surprised about their occurring. But applied to the Universe's Fine-Tuning

question, will that logic work? With the Monarch Example, indeed, someone becoming

Monarch had to happen, as the conditions needed were present (the institution of the

Monarchy was established, and someone must then be Monarch). But does this angle work

with evolution? which they mentioned before and after the example, and acknowledged its

huge Improbability? One can easily answer that by moving the question backwards,

towards the Fine-Tuning, without which no evolution could ever be possible. At the

Singularity, physical conditions came into existence, so one cannot say that the Universe’s

Fine-Tuning ‘had to happen’ by Chance and random physical conditions (like in the

Monarch Example), as the beginning of all Materiality and physical conditions burst into

Being Finely-Tuned at the Singularity. Most certainly, we should be astonished at that!

Now, without appealing to a World Ensemble (which they'll do ahead), they’d be claiming

that the Singularity came into existence by Chance alone, but we’ve already seen how that

cannot work, as Chance only comes alive within a physical process- yet the Finely-Tuned

Singularity started all Material Reality, & can't be connected to any prior physical state23

.

Famous atheist philosopher, Quentin Smith, who makes cosmology his specialty, has said:

"It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the

effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity...entails that it is impossible to

extend the space-time manifold beyond the singularity. ...This rules out the idea that the

singularity is an effect of some prior natural process" (Quentin Smith - "The Uncaused

Beginning of the Universe" - Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology - (Oxford:

Clarendon Press (1993) pg. 120).

Another problem with the Monarch Example is that they seem to be stuck in the old

dilemma of High Improbability & Chance, and we've already discussed this problem in

23

Remarkably, that takes a Non-Physical Cause to get that started (if one wants to concede that there

was a Cause to that 1st Event). Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith prefers to say that it was Un-Caused.

38

the Dembski section, and seen how theorists can get around it by looking for a Pattern24

.

The Monarch Example was illustrative of 1 aspect of Determining/Causal Forces in

reality: specifically, randomness and chance-based ones; but when it comes to the whole

show pertaining to Events and their Causes in reality, for material things as well as

immaterial things, like Information- randomness and Chance-Based Causes are not the

only Forces at work. With the Monarch Example, they fail to distinguish & illuminate the

crucial differences between randomness, order, and complexity. What about a monkey

that spells out with Scrabble letters the sequence (due to randomness) "frxzbipm"? That is

Highly Improbable, & the monkey could spend years coming up with other just as equally

Highly Improbable, random sequences of letters. But what if the monkey started to spell

out "treetreetreetreetree"? that is worthy of an explanation, for now we have detected a

repetitive Pattern, and Chance-based Forces & sheer randomness thus cannot be a causal

factor here at all. But what if the monkey came up with "to be or not to be"?- that would

demonstrate Complexity (a Specified Pattern that contains a Body of Information which

is independent of the physical conditions of the Event). When we encounter Complexity, it

screams out for an explanation, as we know necessarily that Chance and Randomness

could have had no part whatsoever. So, instead of just saying that some Events have to

happen no matter the improbability, we can narrow our search by finding Events that

exhibit a Pattern. Once some kind of Pattern has been detected, straightaway Chance-based

Causes are eliminated from our search of the causal suspects. Then, Necessity-based (Laws

& physical repeating conditions) & Intelligent-based Causes- become the primary suspects.

24 Dembski built on mathematician Ronald Fischer and got around the old problem of High

Improbability by looking for a Pattern in an Event: which allows one to eliminate Chance as

the causal culprit. If we find a Pattern in some Event, then surely it cannot be due to Chance,

and that in itself, is worthy of an Explanation! If the Pattern is very Probable, then it will be

Repetitive, and due to Necessity-Based Forces; but if the Pattern was very Improbable and

Specified (and not Repetitive), then one has encountered Design (due to some factor outside of

the Event itself, bestowing some Body of Information). That demands an Explanation

immediately, as the Physical Conditions of the Event itself could not have imbued that Event

with that Pattern. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe is indeed one of those Events, for its

Pattern, its Finely-Tuned ratios- were coincidental with the very Beginning of all Materiality

and Physical Space and Energy; they both came into existence simultaneously; therefore, one

cannot explain the Pattern of that Event by appealing to some Physical Conditions, for both

began to exist in the Singularity (which burst into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago).

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a

fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory"- from ' Show Me God' - F.

Heeren - Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications (1995) p. 233.

39

The Anthropic Principle Rescued by the 'Infinite &

Random World Ensemble'- But Could It Plausibly Be An

Eternal Prime Reality for Atheism/Materialism?:

Because the Singularity cannot be connected causally to any other prior physical state of

affairs, Chance has no part in explaining the physical Singularity coming into Being from

Nothing, as Chance requires a physical process already existing. So to rescue the

Hypothesis that our Universe's Birth & Fine-Tuning was attributable to Chance alone,

the atheist must flee into the meta-physical and eternal Infinite and Random World

Ensemble (it has the mechanism and numbers to churn out Finely-Tuned/Life-Permitting

Universes if given infinite time- and to have Infinite Time necessarily requires the

existence of an eternal Prime Reality). Anthropic Critics, who find themselves backed

into a corner, will often take up this view (for how else can they explain the Singularity's

coming into Being from Nothing Fine-Tuned?)- and they will brandish it as a reason for

why we should not be surprised at the Universe's absurdly Improbable Origin & Fine-

Tuning (since given infinite time and resources/chances via an eternal Prime Reality-

Life-Permitting Universes will ineluctably arise in the Ensemble). However, some

atheist thinkers, like Quentin Smith, do not make the leap into the Infinite Ensemble on

scientific and philosophical grounds, and he would rather say that the Singularity came

into Being Un-Caused from Nothing. Why Atheists must say that is entirely obvious25

.

The supposed Infinite World Ensemble lies irrevocably beyond our Physical Universe,

therefore, we will presumably never have any physical evidence to support its existence.

Thus it is thoroughly meta-physical in scope, as it would exist eternally beyond our

Spatio-Temporal Reality, and indeed, does that not sound like Theism? Which

maintains that there is a more fundamental and eternal Prime Reality beyond the

physical world? Those that assert that an Infinite Ensemble exists, base that notion on

Faith, not on Reason or Evidence, and we’ve already seen 5 good counters to doubt that

idea: most notably, how it would itself require a Finely-Tuned Beginning. John Leslie,

the philosopher of science, stressed over two decades ago that the Cosmic Designer

Hypothesis is no more obscure or scientific than the Infinite and Random World

25

He must say "Un-Caused from Nothing" for a reason: for admitting that there was a Cause to that 1st

Physical Event, which forms a Boundary on Space & Time, and cannot be connected to any previous

existing physical state- leads one to rationally conclude that the 1st Cause must be Non-Physical/Non-

Spatial, but most importantly, a-Temporal/Timeless, not in Time, but simply Beyond it (as it started

Time). Not being in Time and Non-physical would make this Cause not composed of Matter & Energy,

Changeless, & Immaterial. Add Intelligence, and then we have a composite sketch of the eternal Prime

Reality that gave rise to Material Reality, & it certainly sounds like 'God' (an eternally existing 'Mind').

40

Ensemble, and any evidence for a World Ensemble, is equally evidence for a Cosmic

Designer (John Leslie - "Modern Cosmology and the Creation of Life" - Evolution and

Creation - University of Notre Dame Studies in the Philosophy of Religion (1985) pg. 97-

112)26

. Both views serve as an Explanatory Principle of all Spatio-Temporal Reality,

and strikingly, both acknowledge that for it to have had a Temporal Beginning, then the

Cause of that must be Eternal. Thus, both the Theist, with his God Principle, and the

atheist, with his Ensemble, are treading the same meta-physical & eternal ground. But

when we compare both, one breaks down, & cannot plausibly be an eternal Prime Reality.

First, let's assess what kind of Cause could cause Space & Time to come into existence?

1) Non-Physical/Non-Spatial/Space-less: as this Cause started Physical Space &

Materiality itself; & the Singularity can't be part of any prior existing physical process.

2) Not Made Out of Matter & Energy & Immaterial: a) as this Timeless Cause

created Matter & Energy, it can't be made out of the same: Matter & Energy are not

eternal, & the 2nd

Law of Thermo-dynamics proves it; Matter & Energy are bound

to temporal change & becoming in Time, and in a Timeless & Non-Spatial Reality,

there can be no Change whatsoever- so Matter & Energy could not exist there. b)

Matter & Energy cannot exist outside of Space & Time: that is a contradiction in

terms, if they could exist outside of Space-Time, they'd be existing without existing.

3) Outside Time & Eternal: as the 1st Cause of Time, it would have to be

transcendent/beyond Time, and that would make that Cause a-temporal/Time-less.

Now what about the eternal Prime Reality that atheists flee into? things like an eternal

Infinite World Ensemble/Multi-Verse/Higher Dimensional Cosmologies? With the

Infinite World Ensemble (and others named), the atheist is still positing a Physical Spatio

Temporal Reality. So in fact, they're claiming that our Spatio-Temporal Existence

came from another eternal Spatio-Temporal Existence, & they must say so, to stick to

their Atheism: for if they admit that Material Reality had to begin via another type of

Non-Physical /Super-Natural Reality/Cause- then they have violated their Atheism's

fundamental precept of Materialism, which stipulates that everything that exists is

reducible to Matter & Energy alone. But can Space & Time be eternal? Remember, a

Spatio-Temporal Reality is composed of physical Space/Matter/Energy, & is bound to

Time & change- so could that Prime Reality truly exist without ever having a beginning?

In contrast to the theist Prime Reality, which is Non-Physical & Immaterial, the atheist

Prime Reality of a World Ensemble/Multi-Verse is Physical & Material & composed

of Matter & Energy. So for atheists, their Prime Reality responsible for starting Spatio-

Temporal Existence must be (and in polar opposition with the theist Prime Reality):

1) Physical & Material (if not, then were out of Naturalism & into Super-Naturalism).

2) Made Out of Matter/Energy (for they are the eternal Prime Reality of Materialism).

3) Inside Time & Eternal: not outside of it, for that would make it Timeless, & then it

26

4 years later, John Leslie, in his 1989 'Universes'- states that if ours is indeed the only

Universe, & there is no scientific data showing the existence of others- then the Fine-Tuning

is "genuine evidence......that God is real" (John Leslie - 'Universes' - 1989 - pg. 198).

41

could not be a Material/Physical Reality, & would be an Immaterial/Changeless

Reality. So, for this atheist Prime Reality to be Eternal, yet still Material & Physical,

requires it to have been eternally existing within Time (an infinite duration of Time) &

not apart from it; whereas the theist Prime Reality is Eternal & Non-Physical because it

exists apart from Time, with no duration. One is an eternal Material Prime Reality, the

other, an Immaterial one. But upon analysis, the theist Prime Reality seems more logical.

The atheistic Prime Reality cannot truly be eternal, for it would require an Absolute

Beginning! (see the 2003 'Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem')- and why? 1) The atheist

Prime Reality is just more Space-Time, nothing more, but all successful Space-Time

Manifolds come via Singularities, and they always involve expansions. This would

suggest that successful Space-Time Realties do indeed need to begin- for how else do

they expand? without ever having a Cause? and, 2) Matter & Energy are not eternal

substances that can just exist necessarily without ever beginning (the 2nd

Law of

Thermodynamics confirms this27

). But how come God, the theist's eternal Prime

Reality, does not need a Beginning? and can plausibly be an eternal Prime Reality? 1)

because the theist's Prime Reality is Non-Physical & Immaterial, it can plausibly exist

outside of Time, and thus logically be Timeless and Eternal (& Un-Caused itself). On

the other hand, any Prime Reality that is Physical in nature, & made out of Matter &

Energy & Space- could not be eternal (as anything Physical/Material requires a

Beginning in Time. 2) being eternal requires a Timeless state, and anything physical

must exist in Time; thus, no Physical Reality could exist without Time & in a Timeless

state. 3) A Timeless Prime Reality cannot undergo any physical change, Matter/Energy

could never exist there. To conclude: the 1st Cause/Prime Reality of Spatio-Temporal

Existence fits the Theist Model better than the atheist one (& Time is the key for

deciding). The Un-Caused Cause is Immaterial for Theism, for Atheism, it is Material.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it

takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place,

cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe28

.

There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Alexander

Vilenkin - "Many Worlds In One" - 2007 - pg. 176).

27

"According to the 2nd Law, unless energy is being fed into a system , that system will become

increasingly disorderly. Given enough time, all the energy in the Universe will spread itself out evenly

throughout the Universe. The Universe will become a featureless soup in which no life is possible. In a

state of equilibrium, in which the temperature and the pressure are the same everywhere. Scientists call

this the "heat death" of the Universe" (William Lane Craig - 'On Guard' - 2010 - pg. 93).

28 'Universe' here means Spatio-Temporal Reality, and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem states that

all Spatio-Temporal Universes in a state of expansion cannot be Past Space-Time Complete, and must

have an Absolute Beginning. That requires a Prime Reality which is itself Non-Spatial & Timeless.

42

3 Academic Attempts At Explaining the 'World Ensemble':

But for the Infinite & Random World Ensemble to be more than just an idea, it must

have a proposed mechanism for generating the various Universes, & here are 3 academic

attempts at how our Universe came into Being by Chance through some physical process.

The late John A. Wheeler espoused at one point an Oscillating Model of the

Ensemble: where through each new cycle, a new set of Physical Laws and Constants

would emerge ("Relativity to Mutability" - The Physicist's Conception of Nature, ed. J.

Mehra (Dordrecht: D. Reidel (1973). This idea was loudly taken up by Richard Dawkins

in his 'The God Delusion', to back up his own Infinitely Ordered Multi-Verse hypothesis

(which was used to counter the Fine-Tuning Argument). Dawkins and his 2006 book will

be next, before presenting the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Argument in its full form.

Here's how William Lane Craig (2 PhDs) has answered the Oscillating Universe Model:

"Wheeler's theory, for example, not only succumbs to the problems generic to oscillating

models, but insofar as it posits Singularities at the termini of each cycle, it is not even a

model of an Oscillating Universe at all, but just a series of Unrelated Worlds (iz., (i) there

is no known physics which could cause the universe to oscillate, (ii) the density of the

universe appears to be far below the critical level needed to bring about re-contraction,

and (iii) the thermodynamic properties of oscillating models reveal that while they have

an infinite future, they possess only a finite past. For discussion, see my 'The Kalam

Cosmological Argument' - London: Macmillan (1979) pg. 122-30, 135-36)" (from

William Lane Craig's - "The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle" - The

Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays, pp. 127-153. Edited by Wm. L. Craig and

M. McLeod. Problems in Contemporary Philosophy 24. Edwin Mellen, 1990. pg. 8).

43

Andrei Linde has suggested an Inflationary Model of the Ensemble: whereby all of the

Universes inflate off from the original layer of the Mother Universe (Andrei D. Linde -

"The Inflationary Universe" - Reports on Progress in Physics 47 (1984) pg. 925-986).

"Inflationary models not only face the problems of how to get the inflation started, how

to get it to end without excess turbulence, thus allowing for galaxy formation, but more

importantly, they themselves require an extraordinary amount of Fine-Tuning prior to

inflation, so that the appearance of design is not eluded" (William Craig - Ibid pg. 8). The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem says that if the Mother Universe is also

undergoing cosmic expansion, then it must have an Absolute Beginning. Expanding

Universes are the only kinds of Universes that we know would work, and if the Mother

Structure is 'frozen', and not expanding, then how does the inflation of different Universes

proceed? What force could create & inflate them? Especially here, Fine-Tuning is needed.

The most popular World Ensemble Model at the mainstream level is Hugh Everett's

Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics: in this scenario, all possible states of

a quantum interaction become actualized, and even the observer himself gets split off into

44

each of these different Worlds (Hugh Everett - "Relative State Formulation of Quantum

Mechanics" - Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (1957) pg. 454-462).

The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics is so amazing that philosopher

of science, John Earman, has characterized its postulated splitting of space-time as a

"miracle": "Not only is there no hint as to what causal mechanism would produce such a

splitting, there is not even a characterization of where and when it takes place" (John

Earman - "The SAP Also Rises: A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle" -

American Philosophical Quarterly 24 (1987) pg. 312).

Atheist & Big Bang aficionado, Quentin Smith, castigates the theory as illogical, since the

Many Worlds are supposed to exist in a Timeless Super-space, which is incompatible

with the claim that they branch off serially as quantum interactions occur (Quentin Smith

- "World Ensemble Explanations"- Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67 (1986) pg. 77-78).

Look at the picture below, it showcases a Mother-Verse Structure giving rise to

temporal baby Universes; therefore, that Mother Structure would have to be timeless

& eternal. Similarly, in the Many Worlds Interpretation, the Many Worlds are

supposed to exist in a kind of timeless super-space. But that postulation self-refutes itself:

for in a timeless state, causal (or quantum interactions) could not proceed in a serial

fashion i.e.: with Causes preceding their Effects, & Effects following their Causes. That

cannot work in a timeless reality, thus, this popular 1957 idea is fatalistically incoherent.

Some atheist thinkers often say, “well, what about God then? If He exists in a Timeless

state apart from the temporal Universe/Creation, then how could He Cause Time to

arise?! That does not make sense if causality does not work in a Timeless reality; for

without Time, Causes can't precede their Effects, & Effects can't follow their Causes!".

But that is easily answered: God causing the Universe & Time to begin to exist, and then

their coming into Being- all happened simultaneously (with both the Cause & its Effect

occurring together). Causes don't have to precede their Effects temporally, they can occur

together simultaneously, & yet still have one precede the other causally/logically. Take

Kant's unique 'bowling-ball-resting-on-a-cushion-for-an-eternity' example, it illustrates

how a Cause & its Effect could occur simultaneously, yet still have a logical/causal

hierarchical relationship: though the ball eternally resting, & it generating an eternal

indent upon the cushion- is simultaneous, and though the ball resting doesn't precede the

indent at all (as this has been going on for an eternity, with no beginning) - it still makes

sense to say that the ball resting (Cause) is logically prior to the indent (the Effect).

We'll explore this topic more in the next chapter on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

45

Why Think The Ensemble of Other Universes is Infinite in Number?:

The idea of an actual infinity in reality is self-contradictory. Math produces infinity on

page, but in reality, there can only ever be a potential infinity, not an actual one.

'Hilbert's Hotel', a famous infinity thought-experiment, demonstrates how an actual

infinity in reality is impossible and breaks down into absurdities. Through 'infinite-set

theory', we have been able to understand infinity quite well, and one of the greatest

mathematicians of the 20th

Century, David Hilbert (top right), had this to say about there

being an actual infinity in reality:

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a

legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that

of an idea.."(David Hilbert - "On the Infinite" - Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an

Intro. by Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam - Prentice-Hall (1964) pg. 151).

Why Also Think That They Are Random?:

What could even suggest that each Universe is randomly ordered? that their Laws or

Values on their Constants & Initial Physical Quantities get reset? or come out different

each time one is produced? That is just an assumption, not a deductive attribute of the

postulated Ensemble. But if it was able to generate Universes that were sometimes Life-

Permitting, then that reveals a mechanism of sorts- and it would have to be Fine-Tuned.

Does Using the Infinite Worlds To Justify the Occurrence of Highly

Improbable Events Threaten Rational Behaviour?:

From W. L Craig: "If you are willing to inflate your probabilistic resources, to render

anything improbable, because in an Infinite Ensemble of Worlds anything will happen,

then couldn’t you just explain anything & everything by chance? which would render

rational behavior impossible? For example, imagine the following dialogue taking place

in an old West Texas saloon, between 2 fellas Tex & Slim. "Tex! you're a dirty cheatin

skunk! every time you deal you gets 4 aces!". "Slim, I know every time I deal I gets 4

aces, but you got to understand that in this here Multi-Verse of ours, poker games like this

are going on everywhere, and so given infinite chances, the odds are that in some of them,

I gets 4 aces every time I deal! So put up that shootin' iron, & shut your yap & deal!"".

46

'The God Delusion' & the 'Fine-Tuning'?:

Before moving on to presenting the Fine Tuning of the Universe Argument in its full

form, we have one last stop to make, Richard Dawkins and his popular New Atheist book,

'The God Delusion' (2006). It is safe to say that it has vividly imprinted itself upon the

atheist community, & most combative folk use it as their intellectual manifesto, but in

clear terms, Dawkins does try & grapple with the Fine-Tuning enigma within the book.

Dawkins & the 'Fine-Tuning Argument'?:

1): Dawkins acknowledge that the Universe is Finely-Tuned for the existence of

Intelligent Life, & he cites the work of Sir Martin Rees, who wrote 'Just Six Numbers'.

2): Given that Dawkins recognizes that there is Fine-Tuning, what does he then say

about the Cause of it? thankfully, he seems to be aware of the 3 possible causal

candidates: 1) by Physical Necessity, 2) by Chance, or 3) by Design. Dawkins says that

he does not believe that Physical Necessity could have done it, as he writes that Sir

Martin Rees rejects it, and he chirps, "I think I agree" (pg. 144) Sir Martin Rees of

course says that, as he knows better than anyone else that the assumed Values of

Nature's Constants & the Initial Physical Quantities present in the Big Bang- were/are

all independent of the Laws of Nature. There's no way that Necessity is the causal culprit.

3) Dawkins is left with Chance, which is surely impossible, so to make it fly (as all

atheist theorists must do), he offers the explanation of an Infinite World Ensemble (pg.

145), for only then does the Chance Hypothesis have the resources to aid in the creation

of a Life-Permitting Universe, & thus, refute the Design Hypothesis. But we've seen a lot

of criticism against the Infinite Ensemble already. Most strikingly, it needs a Beginning.

"The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of

those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything

highly improbable” (pg. 147 - 'The God Delusion').

He says that "they are simple in their fundamental laws", but that is an assumption, and

what about our Universe? it does not have simple Laws? (it does). He seems to be

confusing Values with Laws, for he should be saying that his different Universes have the

same simple Laws, but variations on the Values of their Constants of Nature, and on

their Physical Quantities (given in their Singularity's initial conditions)- and then surely

Life-Permitting Universes could arise now and then. But having Universes with different

Physical Laws for each of them would not even create 'Universes': for to make a

Universe unfold properly, its Singularity must pour forth whilst being controlled by the

47

right Laws of Nature. Without those correct Laws to guide the Singularity as it unfolds, a

Universe would not even be a Universe, but a messy rupture of Space-Time: erupting into

Being so devastatingly that not even a dimensionally stable reality would form. Dawkins

asserts that positing a vast array of Universes is not highly improbable- oh really Richard?

To get your meta-physical hypothesis off the ground, you need a mechanism which will

generate your array of randomly ordered Universes- so what do you suggest? 2 models?:

Model 1 for Generating an Infinite Ensemble: the old

school idea of an Oscillating Universe (in the halls of academic cosmology at least): The

Oscillating Universe = the Universe has been expanding and contracting for an eternity.

"Our time and space did indeed begin in our big bang, but this was just the latest in a long

series of big bangs, each one initiated by the big crunch that terminated the previous

universe in the series. Nobody understands what goes on in singularities such as the big

bang, so it is conceivable that the laws and constants are reset to new values, each time. If

bang-expansion-contraction-crunch cycles have been going on forever like a cosmic

accordion, we have a serial, rather than parallel, version of the multiverse" (pg 145).

Dawkins has massive problems here. Funny how he says, "nobody understands what goes

on in Singularities"- is he speaking for himself? Indeed, the Singularity spells doom for his

envisaged scenario (simply because it forms an indelible Boundary on all physical events).

Problems With Dawkins' Oscillating Scenario: #1 - the Singularity

is a Boundary upon Space & Time, so therefore, it cannot Bounce Back:

The 'Hawking and Penrose Theorems' have proven that the Singularity forms a Boundary

upon Space & Time, and cannot be connected to any prior physical set of conditions- has

Dawkins ever heard of these 'Singularity Theorems'? The modern scientific cosmological

community knows what a Singularity is, and that it cannot be physically connected to some

prior existing state, and if so, then Dawkins' notion that the Universe can recontract into a

Singularity, & then bounce back outwards again- is impossible. Thus, the idea of a serial

Multi-Verse fails (where a single chain of Universes has been transpiring eternally, each in

succession after the other). Oh Dawkins. you should have done more research for your

book.

This is what the 'Hawking & Penrose Theorems' did in the 1970s: "they led to the

abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous

contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now

believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang"- (Stephen

Hawking & Roger Penrose - "The Nature of Space and Time" - Isaac Newton Institute

Series of Lectures - Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1996) pg. 20).

48

Atheist Quentin Smith, who has written over 100 academic philosophical articles, has said:

"It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the

effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity...entails that it is impossible to

extend the space-time manifold beyond the singularity. ...This rules out the idea that the

singularity is an effect of some prior natural process" (Quentin Smith - "The Uncaused

Beginning of the Universe" - Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (1993) pg. 120).

#2 - the Oscillating Universe Cannot Be 'Past-Space-Time Complete':

The Oscillating Universe Model, which is clearly expanding and contracting, requires an

Absolute Beginning, and cannot be extended infinitely into the past, as the 2003 Borde-

Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf.

"The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past" (Igor D. Novikov &

Yakov B. Zel’dovich - “Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities” - Annual

Review of Astronomy & Astrophysics 11 (1973) pg. 401–2). From 1973, but in 2003,

thanks to the B-G-V Theorem, it was confirmed. Guth says there was a Mother Beginning.

Astronomer Joseph Silk has estimated that due to our current entropy, the Universe couldn't

have gone through more than 100 prior oscillations. That's a far cry from infinite chances

to generate a Life-Permitting U., & would clearly make our U.'s Fine-Tuning still absurdly

Improbable (Joseph Silk - "The Big Bang" (San Francisco: Freeman) (1989) pg. 311–12).

#3 - Observational Evidence Confirms That the Universe Will Expand

Forever:

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe's expansion is actually

accelerating!- & this evidence shows that it should expand forever29

: According to the

NASA website concerning its Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP): "Recent observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the

universe is actually accelerating or speeding up".

29

"Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which

the Universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the

cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago

completely dispersed……The Big Bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of

exquisitely arranged magnitude" (Paul Davies - 'Superforce: the Search For a Grand

Unified Theory of Nature' (1985) pg. 184).

49

“The results suggest the geometry of the universe is flat and will expand forever30

”

(NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html).

Model 2 for Generating an Infinite Ensemble: The 2nd

model that Dawkins proposes is the 'Baby-Universes-Sprouting-From-Black-Holes

Model': whereby a black hole creates a worm-hole upon Space-Time, allowing energy to

tunnel out a new Space-Time, thus spawning a new Universe (& Hawking used to think

that this was perhaps possible, but not since 2004): "Daughter universes are born of parent

universes, not in a fully fledged big crunch, but more locally in black holes. Smolin adds a

form of heredity: The fundamental constants of a daughter universe are slightly “mutated”

versions of the constants of its parent. ..Those universes which have what it takes to

“survive” and “reproduce” come to predominate in the multiverse. “What it takes” includes

lasting long enough to “reproduce.” Because the act of reproduction takes place in black

holes, successful universes must have what it takes to make black holes. This ability entails

various other properties. For example, the tendency of matter to condense into clouds and

then stars is a prerequisite for making black holes. Stars also . . . are the precursors to the

development of interesting chemistry, and hence life. So, Smolin suggests, there has been a

Darwinian natural selection of universes in the multiverse, directly favouring the evolution

of black hole fecundity and indirectly favouring the production of life" (pg. 146). Uh oh.

Problems With Dawkins' Universe-Evolution-Through Black-

Hole Scenario:

#1 - This Theory Was Forever Put to Rest 2 Years Before Dawkins' Book

Even Appeared!:

Too bad that Dawkins did not hear that the Black-Hole-Baby-Universe Theory was

exposed as false when a bet between Hawking & John Preskill was finally settled in 2004:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171. "Speculations about the universe’s begetting “baby

universes” via black holes have been shown to contradict quantum physics. The conjecture

that black holes may be portals of wormholes through which bubbles of false vacuum

30

Edward J. Wollack - 'What is the Fate of the Universe?: Universe 101: Big Bang Theory'

NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html) (August 2010 - last retr. Jan 2012).

50

energy can tunnel to spawn new expanding baby universes was the subject of a bet between

Stephen Hawking and John Preskill, which Hawking in 2004 finally admitted, in an event

much publicized in the press, that he had lost (for a first-hand account see John Preskill’s

website: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html). The conjecture would

require that information locked up in a black hole could be utterly lost forever by escaping

to another universe. One of the last holdouts, Hawking finally came to agree that quantum

theory requires that information is preserved in black hole formation and evaporation. The

implications? “There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information

remains firmly in our universe. I’m sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if

information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other

universes" (Hawking, “Information Loss in Black Holes” (September 15, 2005): 4.)"

(from Dr. William Lane Craig - 'The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God' (2010).

'The God Delusion's' Central Argument Against

Inferring Design as the Cause of the Fine-Tuning:

Dawkins refers to this argument as the centerpiece of his book, and it contains his

trademark criticism, "Who Designed the Designer?"- which mainstream atheists echo

incessantly. But it can be easily dealt with, and it shows Dawkins never having studied the

Philosophy of Science. Also, Dawkins notion that God would be more complex than the

Universe, so postulating God as the Cause of it is just meaningless- will also be dealt with.

Dawkins' Faulty '6-Premise 'God Delusion' Argument':

This is arguably one of the worst arguments ever put out in recent memory, & it is amazing

how highly-regarded Dawkins is as an intellectual guru & shaker at the popular level today.

"1: One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the

complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2: The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3: The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the

larger problem of who designed the designer.

4: The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural

selection.

5: We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6: We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as

51

powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Conclusion: Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist”.

Premise 3 is false, as one does not need an explanation of an explanation to show that an

explanation is best (especially when making a Design Inference)- and that kind of criteria

would destroy Science: as it would succumb to an infinite regress problem. See the

Intelligent Design Chapter for detailed information on this massive blunder by Dawkins.

Premise 4 is false as Natural Selection cannot happen without already-functioning DNA-

so Dawkins is just Begging the Question regarding the evolution of Life. But the Fine-

Tuning of the Universe is above the evolution question, for without any Fine-Tuning, no

Life could have ever emerged in the Universe. So Dawkins needs to address it, but does he?

No! All he does say is that there is no Explanation in physics yet, but one day there will be.

Premise 5 refers to the Universe's Fine-Tuning, but notice how he cannot explain it?

Premise 6 merely shows the FAITHFUL hope of a Naturalist/Materialist, & he does not

even have an explanation concerning what Caused the Universe's Fine-Tuning, yet he

asserts in his conclusion that "God almost certainly does not exist"!

His Conclusion doesn’t even follow from his 6 Premises, thus, this is an invalid Argument.

Dawkins also says (to paraphrase): "the Designer must be even more

complex than the Universe it created, therefore, it is meaningless to infer

Design; and if one infers so, then no explanatory advance is being made at all

in terms of simplicity".

But with that logic, Dawkins is unmistakably confusing the criteria of 'The Simplicity of a

Hypothesis' with 'The Simplicity of the Entity/Cause Being Described In The Hypothesis'-

as John Lennox pointed out in their debate (up ahead): suppose an archaeologist found

some markings on a cave wall, near the floor, that looked exactly like the complex Chinese

character 'Ren' (for a 'human being'), and wanted to infer that they were the result of

Design (via an intelligence/a human brain) because the markings contain a Specified

Pattern (a Body of Information given independently of the physical conditions that

brought it into Being)- but Dawkins' logic up there concerning God & the complex

Universe would dictate him to say: "a human intelligence/a brain is more complex

than those markings on the cave wall, so therefore, it is meaningless to infer

that they were Designed. No explanatory advance is being made in regards to

simplicity". But that is crazy logic! The criteria that The Simpler Explanation is

Preferred, used for assessing rival hypotheses, is indeed a sound one, but Dawkins has

twisted it up, and demanded that for a hypothesis to be valid and simple, the Cause of some

Presently-Given-Effect must not be as complex as its Effect. But that doesn't work, even

52

though human intelligence is vastly more complex than the physical markings upon the

cave wall, one can still infer that it was Designed- and that is precisely because the Effect

in question is a Specified Pattern. But in terms of The Simplicity of a Hypothesis, the

Design Inference meets it: for example, compared to the rival view that some oxen etched

them by accident whilst trouncing through the cave- the Design Hypothesis is much

simpler- however, simplicity isn't the only factor used for judging the strength of a theory:

"Second, there are many other factors besides simplicity that scientists weigh in

determining which hypothesis is the best, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope,

and so forth. A hypothesis that has, for example, broader explanatory scope may be less

simple than a rival hypothesis but still be preferred because it explains more things.

Simplicity is not the only, or even most important, criterion for assessing theories!"-

William Lane Craig - 'The New Atheism and Five Arguments For God' (2010) pg. 14.

So to sum up: Dawkins is confused about the criteria of 'The Simplicity of a Hypothesis':

he seems to think that for a hypothesis to be simple and valid, it must not invoke a Cause to

some Effect that is more complex than the Effect generated. But if we followed that

criteria, then many scientific disciplines seeking to infer Design would be shut down:

because in fields like Archaeology, Forensics, Cryptography, SETI- they are seeking to

infer Intelligence as the 'Past Cause' of some 'Presently Given Effect', and Intelligence,

will always be more complex than the Physical Effect it produces: whether it be tools and

pottery shards, deliberately arranged objects at a crime scene, encrypted messages in a

document, or deep-space radio signals containing mathematical codes. Feisty Dawkins

proudly thinks that for an explanation to be a simple one, and thus surely valid, the Causal

Entity in the explanation shouldn't be as complex as its Effect, & surely, he has gotten this

logic by assuming that God must be even more complex than the ultra-complex Universe:

"A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual

status of every particle in the Universe cannot be simple"- ('The God Delusion' -

pg. 149).

But God does not have to be as complex as the Universe He created, that's an assumption

on Dawkins part, & actually, if we analyze what kind of Cause it would have taken to kick-

start the Singularity into Being (or all Spatio-Temporal Existence for that matter)- then it

becomes clearly apparent that It could plausibly be a remarkably simple and unique kind of

Entity: the 1st Cause of Space & Time would most plausibly be Intelligent, Space-less,

Timeless & Immaterial- and that would make it an Un-Embodied Mind. Now a Mind is

arguably simple, not composed of any separate parts, nor extended in space, but the Mind

can of course have complex ideas within it! For example, I may be thinking about calculus

in my head, a complex thing, but the Mind thinking about the calculus- is a simple entity.

53

The 'Fine-Tuning' of the Universe Argument':

Premise 1:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe is due to either Physical Necessity, Chance,

or Design.

A) Theist Contention: 'Fine-Tuning' Is A Scientific Fact: examples via the

Constants & Physical Quantities fill whole textbooks now. Definitely, the range of Life-

Permitting Values is absurdly minute. The Fine-Tuning is the most amazing thing, period.

B) Theist Contention: When It Comes To Explaining the Fine-Tuning

Only These 3 Causes Are Available: Physical Necessity = the Fine-Tuning was due

to Law acting upon a physical process; Chance = it was caused by some random physical

process; and Design = an Intelligence designed the Values of the Constants & Quantities.

Premise 2:

It is not due to Physical Necessity or Chance.

C) Theist Contention: By 'Physical Necessity' Is Impossible: the Constants &

Quantities are independent of the Laws of Nature, especially the Initial Physical Quantities

simply given within the Big Bang Singularity: like the Universe's Expansion-Speed, initial

Low-level Entropy, and Matter-Anti-Matter Balance. All of them were just Boundary

Conditions put in upon that Event, and inexplicably so (for no Law of Nature could ever

tell us why they assumed the Values that they did)- but the Laws then took hold of them,

determining how those Physical Quantities would unfold...The Laws took hold of & shaped

those Quantities, but never created them or caused them to assume Life-Permitting Values.

54

D) Atheist Counter: Stephen Hawking's 2010 'Gravity Claim': In 2010,

Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create

itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than

nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light

the blue torch paper and set the universe going" (L. Roberts - 'Stephen Hawking: God

Was Not Needed to Create the Universe' - Telegraph.co.UK - September 2nd

2010).

E) Theist Counter: Stephen Hawking's Claim That "Gravity Did It" Is

Absolutely Impossible: That is utterly impossible, as Gravity cannot exist apart from

the physical Universe, so to say that "Gravity brought the Universe into existence from

Non-Being" is logically incoherent. That would be akin to saying, "the Universe existed

before it existed"- or, "it brought itself into Being out of Nothingness". If Hawking really

means 'Vacuum', when he says "Nothing"- then there's a huge problem with that, as it still

does not avoid a Beginning as the Vacuum is not Nothing, but Something: the vacuum is

not eternal & Past Space-Time Complete, & so needs to come into Being from literally

Nothing. If Hawking is doing that, he's misusing the term, a trick that physicist L. Krauss

does. Some physicists are afraid of Non-Being- & why? there's no physics of Non-Being!

F) Atheist Counter: a Theory of Everything (TOE) Will One Day Explain

the Fine-Tuning: when physics discovers the Grand Unified Theory (the GUT), or a

Theory of Everything- Science will have confirmed the 'Physical Necessity Hypothesis'.

G) Theist Counter: a TOE Will Never Confirm The 'Physical Necessity

Hypothesis': a TOE will explain how everything works, but never what 'Caused' it

(what caused the Universe to come into existence Finely-Tuned). Surprisingly, and much

to the chagrin of the atheist critic, the only TOE candidate on the horizon today is M-

Theory/Super-String Theory, but it predicts that we should see vastly more Life-

Prohibiting Universes than Life-Permitting ones: for it conceives up to 10 to the 500th

Power of different kinds of Universes (all governed by the same Laws, but having different

Values on the Constants & Initial Physical Quantities)- possibly issuing forth from the

Super-String Manifold. But that's on page, but if true, would totally refute 'By Necessity'.

In 2002, Hawking admitted that a TOE will forever elude physicists thanks to Gödel's math.

H) Theist Contention: 'By Chance' Is Impossible: all of the Finely-Tuned

Constants & Initial Physical Quantities assuming the correct ratios with each other to

allow for a Life-Permitting Universe is incomprehensibly & mind-numbingly narrow.

Most importantly, 'By Chance' cannot even be invoked anyways to explain the origin of

55

the Singularity from literally Nothing- unless it is conjoined with an eternal Infinite and

Random World Ensemble/Multi-Verse (then it could plausibly produce, if given infinite

time, Life-Permitting Universes). So to combat Chance, & rule it out completely from the

issue at hand, we can use Dembski's criteria, and look for a Pattern in the Universe's

Finely-Tuned Values. Clearly & dramatically, the Values of the Singularity's Initial

Physical Quantities & Constants of Nature exhibit a Specified Pattern, and since the

totality of all Physicality/Materiality/Physical Conditions came into Being at the Singularity

itself, and because the Singularity cannot be part of any prior physical process in the

slightest- one can't appeal to the Event itself as making the Pattern & imbuing it with a

Body of Info. The Specified Pattern of the Finely-Tuned Values point beyond the Event.

I) Atheist Counter: Yes, The Values Look Designed, But That Is Due to

Our Own Human Existence: The Anthropic Principle Proves That We

Don't Need to Explain The Fine-Tuning, So Thus One Can't Infer Design: We can only observe a Life-Permitting Universe, so therefore, one should not be surprised

at the Universe's Fine-Tuning, for if it was not Finely-Tuned, then we would not even be

here in the first place to eventually observe that it is Finely-Tuned- thus, no explanation is

needed for the Fine-Tuning; the Anthro-Principle nullifies our surprise towards this enigma.

J) Theist Counter: This Truism Does Not Remove The Need For An

Explanation On Why The Universe Emerged Into Existence Fine-Tuned: we should be surprised that we are alive and observing these Values, saying "if the

Universe was not Fine-Tuned, then we would not be here"- is trivially true, and does not

remove the need for why that happened, precisely because the odds were absurdly in favour

of the Universe being Life-Prohibiting. Leslie's Firing-Squad Example refutes the W.A.P.

Without appealing to another eternal Prime Reality, one can't say, "the Singularity popped

into Being Fine-Tuned by Chance alone"- & that, "we shouldn't be surprised about it".

K) Atheist Counter: The Singularity (Spatio-Temporal Existence) Came

From Another Eternal Prime Reality: The Infinite & Random World

Ensemble/Multi-Verse: an infinite array of Universes exist, therefore, Life-Permitting

ones will arise. This is possible because of infinite Time, which means that one layer of

reality is eternal (& we must say this! for why does Anything exist rather than Nothing?!).

56

L) Theist Counter: All Models of This 'Eternal' Sort, Be They Higher

Dimensions/Super-Strings, Mother-Verses Have Insuperable Problems:

#1: There's no evidence for any of them31

, so they are not even at face value superior to

the theist idea that an Un-embodied Mind of sorts is most plausibly the eternal Prime

Reality undergirding all of Spatio-Temporal Material Reality. Both views recognize that

an eternal Prime Reality can explain the origin of Space & Time, and both are seemingly

equivalent- but upon analysis of what the 1st Cause of Space & Time would be like, what

properties it would have- one eternal Prime Reality is the more plausible one.

#2: The Super-String 11 Dimensional Reality would still require initial Fine-Tuning;

and the World-Ensemble must have a mechanism that sometimes produces Life-Permitting

Universes, and that bespeaks of Fine-Tuning. Even having a system where each time a

new and random Universe is generated, with its Laws or Values being reset & scrambled

(allowing for Life-Permitting ones to arise)- reveals that its mechanism was Finely-Tuned.

#3: The World-Ensemble/Super-String Reality/Oscillating Universe/Multi-Verse, or

any Space-Time Reality in a state of cosmic expansion (the only kind that work)- all need

an Absolute Beginning! and what irrefutably demonstrates this is the 2003 Borde-Guth-

Vilenkin Theorem: "Inflationary Space-Times Are Not Past Space-Time Complete":

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf. Cosmologist Guth, who helped

come up with the Theorem, said that there was an “Ultimate Beginning to Everything”.

#4: If our Universe came from an Infinite & Random World Ensemble, then it should

appear to be much smaller: Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our entire Solar

System coming into sudden existence from the random collision of particles is vastly more

probable than the Universe's initial low-level entropy being attributable to Chance alone.

What that means is that Universes the size of our Solar System are absurdly more probable

than Universes the size of ours (it is unbelievably huge, about 20 billion light-years across).

#5: If the Universe derived from an Infinite & Random Ensemble, then we should be

sometimes observing highly extraordinary Events: if our Universe, with its mind-reeling

interwoven ratios (the Fine-Tuned Values between its Constants of Nature & Initial

Physical Quantities) were due to Chance alone within an eternal atheist Prime Reality (an

Ensemble/Multi-Verse)- then we should be observing Events that are vastly more probable.

For example, it is unbelievably more probable that horses should just pop into existence

from the random collision of particles than for our Universe to just appear Finely-Tuned.

31

"The many universes account is sometimes presented as if it were purely scientific, but in

fact a sufficient portfolio of different Universes could only be generated by speculative

processes that go well beyond what sober science can honestly endorse" (John Polkinghorne

- 'Science & Theology' - Fortress Press - 1998 - pg. 38). And Michio Kaku has said when it

comes to 'Super-Strings', "not a shred of experimental evidence" has been found to

confirm them (Michio Kaku - 'Introduction to Super-Strings and M-Theory' 1999 - pg. 17).

57

#6: The atheist eternal Prime Reality breaks down, and cannot be the most plausible kind

of eternal Prime Reality (if one existed): the atheist Prime Reality is nothing more than

another Space-Time Manifold, but Space & Time themselves cannot be eternal, as Space-

Time Realities cannot be "Past Space-Time Complete" if in a state of expansion (and only

expanding Space-Time Manifolds produce stable & working realities). The 1st Space-

Time Manifold, if it began to exist, needs to have been caused by something Non-Spatial

& Timeless, not Material & Temporal (& saying that "its Cause would be Non-Spatial,

because it caused Space itself to exist, & Timeless, because it created Time"- seems more

deductively plausible than claiming that "Space came from more Space, & Time from more

Time"). Functioning Space-Time Continuums can't be eternal & must have a Beginning.

The Prime Reality of Space & Time (of Spatio-Temporal Existence itself) would be

Non-Spatial/Non-Physical and Immaterial, as well as crucially, Timeless/a-Temporal.

From that, it follows that it would also be Begininngless/Un-Caused, & Changeless. In

contrast, the atheist Prime Reality is Physical/Spatial, and Eternally In Time! (existing

within an eternal duration of Time). Most importantly, the atheist Prime Reality is made

out of Matter & Energy, & to be a purely Naturalistic Prime Reality (fundamentally

composed of Matter & Energy & Physical stuff), & not be a Super-Natural Reality- it

must exist Eternally In Time (& not Eternally Outside of Time). For the latter is a

Timeless state, & there, no Materiality/Physicality/Matter/Energy could ever even exist.

Conclusion:

Therefore, it was due to Design.

Now that 'by Necessity' has been irrevocably ruled out as the Cause of the Fine-Tuning, &

also because we've eliminated 'by Chance' as being a causal culprit (as the Fine-Tuning

exhibits a Specified Pattern given independently of the Event itself that brought it forth)-

one can then soundly infer that it was 'by Design'. Attempts to rescue 'by Chance' by

appealing to an eternal atheist Prime Reality have been shown to require a Beginning, and

without an infinite amount of Time at one's disposal, the odds of a Life-Permitting

Universe coming into existence are not favourable at all. Our Finely-Tuned Universe most

plausibly came into existence by an Intelligence32

, and we can then logically deduce that

that Intelligent Cause of our 'Fine-Tuned Space-Time Reality' must itself be Non-

Physical, Timeless, Begininngless, Immaterial, Changeless, and unimaginably Powerful.

32

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently

arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible

that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence

of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for

our benefit?" - 'The Symbiotic Universe' - New York: William Morrow (1988) pg. 27.

58

M) Atheist Counter: "Who Designed The Designer!? (Dawkins' fave): Richard Dawkins has said vociferously that to say "it was designed" is meaningless

because one has just then moved the problem backwards & up a notch: one must then give

an account of the entity/thing being invoked to explain the Effect at hand (the Fine-Tuning).

N) Theist Counter: To Recognize An Explanation As 'Best', You Do Not

Need "An Explanation Of The Explanation"- esp. for a Design Inference:

It seems that Dawkins has no knowledge of the Philosophy of Science, and that he is

oblivious that many disciplines within the Sciences seek to infer Design to explain the

existence of some Presently-Given Effect: fields like Archaeology, Forensics,

Cryptography, and SETI. All of those fields, as well as the field of Cosmology, use

physical/empirical evidence for inferring Design, be they arrow-heads & pottery shards,

objects at a crime-scene, encrypted messages/codes, or information-laden radio-signals

emanating from deep-space. Cosmology's Presently-Given Effect in need of an explanation

is the Fine-Tuned Values of the Constants of Nature & the Initial Physical Quantities

simply given within the Big Bang- & if we say that 'by Design' best explains those Values-

then we do not need to come up with another explanation on the 'Designing Intelligence'.

For example, if we found majestic Pyramids on the dark side of the Moon, made from

stone & clearly showcasing advanced knowledge- what should we conclude? In this

situation, would it be reasonable to infer that they were the products of Design? and not due

to Necessity? (Laws acting upon recurring physical conditions), or Chance? (solely random

materialistic processes giving rise to them). It would be sound to infer that Design 'Best

Explains' their existence, and if Dawkins told us, "well, that is meaningless because you

have not explained the beings that made them, or told us who they are, or where they came

from etc." - we would surely respond, "no, that inference is not meaningless, for it explains

a lot actually, and to infer that those Pyramids were due to Design, we do not then need to

come up with another explanation that tells us about their Designer". To make that clearer,

if you found an ancient tool in the ground, and you wanted to infer that it was due to

design, you would not then need to explain the Designer of that tool first- for that is beyond

the evidence, and all one is merely doing with the Design Inference is inferring Design for

some specific Object or Event. So to say it again: to infer Design as the Best Explanation

of some Object or Event, one doesn't need to then explain the Designer of that designed

Object or Event. That kind of logic would destroy the ability of any anyone to soundly

infer Design within any field of science, and applied to the 1st Cause of Space & Time, it

is impotently vacuous: for we know that the Cause of Space & Time would have to be

Non-Spatial & Timeless- and that would make it necessarily Un-Caused & Begininngless.

Here is what John Lennox said about Richard's "Who Designed the Designer?" argument

59

when debating him in 2007 (there's a rumour going around that Dawkins was so angry with

his performance that he has since refused to debate prominent academic apologists 1-on-1).

"The Anthropic Principle as you state it Richard I think is a complete truism; of course we

have to be on such a such a kind of a planet so that we could appear - but that does not

answer the question how we came to exist on it….And I fear I have to disagree with you on

Darwinism. Darwinism does not explain Life (it may explain certain things when you got

Life), but evolution assumes the existence of a mutating replicator. It does not explain how

that replicator came to exist in the first place, and now that is a major discussion, but I want

to address the "Who Designed the Designer?" question, because it is the old school boy

question of 'Who Created God?'……I am actually very surprised to find it as a central

argument in your book, because it assumes that God is created, so I am not surprised,

therefore, that you call the book, "The God Delusion", because 'created-Gods' are by

definition a delusion. I know, and I ought' to explain, that Richard doesn't like people that

say to him that they don’t believe in the God that he doesn't believe in, but I think this is

possibly touching a sore spot, because you leave yourself wide open to the charge. After all,

you are arguing that God is a delusion, and in order to weigh that argument, I need to know

what you mean by God. And if you say, 'if there is a God, then who created God?' then

that means that you are reduced to thinking about 'created-Gods'. Well, none of us believe

in created-Gods- Jews, Muslims, or Christians, and I think that argument is entirely beside

the point, and perhaps, you should put it on your shelf marked 'celestial teapots' where it

belongs. The God who created the Universe, ladies and gentlemen, was not created, He is

eternal. And this is the fundamental distinction between God and the Universe: it came to

exist, and He did not. And this is precisely the point the Christian apostle John makes at the

beginning of his Gospel, "in the Beginning was the Word"- the Word already was- "all

things were made by Him"- so here, God is un-created, & the Universe, created by Him.

Now, I don’t know if Richard has difficulties with the concept of an un-created God, I

don’t know, & I'd love to know whether he believes, as a Materialist, that Matter & Energy

and the Laws of Nature- were always there. Because if they were, then he does believe in

something eternal. So perhaps, the difficulty lies in believing in an eternal Person".

"How was God created?" = easy to answer. Space-Time cannot be eternal and caused by

any prior physical conditions, therefore, its Cause must be Non-Spatial & Timeless- and

anything Timeless would truly be eternal and Begininngless/Un-Caused. For Anything to

exist rather than Nothing, there needs to be an Un-Caused 1st Cause, an eternal Prime

Reality- and here, atheists & theists agree. With Atheism's Prime Reality, we have more

Space/Time/Matter & Energy being posited, but with Theism's, the opposite (as it claims

that Space/Time/Matter/Energy cannot be eternal, & must themselves begin to exist via

another Cause/Reality that is Non-Spatial & Timeless). Anything Timeless would be

eternal & without a Beginning, and that has always been the traditional concept of 'God': a

Mind that never began to exist, & Who created 'existence' itself. God doesn't rely on

anything for His existence, rather, all things that exist rely on Him for their very Being.

Asking "what Caused God?" is like asking "what caused the Un-Caused 1st Cause?" But

that is an illogical question, akin to "what is the name of the married bachelor's wife?"

60

O) Atheist Counter: The Designer Has To Be More Complex Than The

Finely-Tuned Universe- So It Is Therefore Meaningless To Infer That.

Here's how Lennox answered this question in the debate: "But I want to probe deeper into

this, because he suggested that introducing God would mean an end to science. "God is no

explanation, since by definition, God is more complex than the thing your are explaining".

Now he states this as a central argument of his book, & I would not have expected an

argument like this from a scientist, because explanations in science themselves are usually

in terms of increasing complexity: an apple falling is a simple event, and the explanation in

terms of Newton's Law of Gravitation is already stretching the minds of many people, but

an explanation in terms of a warp in Space-Time, is stretching the minds of the cleverest.

Simplicity isn't the only criterion of truth. Let me give you an example, suppose you're an

archeologist, you see two scratches on the wall, & you say "human intelligence"- and I say,

"pardon? they are just scratches on the wall"- but then you say, "no, those are the Chinese

characters for a human being". But I say, "look Richard that's no explanation at all. You're

postulating something as complex as a human brain to explain two scratches. That means

your explanation is more complex than the thing that you are explaining!". Now that's no

explanation at all, & it seems to me that's exactly what you're saying in your book. The

reason we can deduce something as sophisticated as human intelligence from two scratches

on a cave wall is because they have a semiotic dimension, they carry meaning, and that

fascinates me as a mathematician. Because the reductionist is committed to deducing things

that carry meaning, & I would include the DNA molecule among them, he is committed to

explaining them in terms of the basic materials- but as was pointed out a long time ago by

Nobel Prize Winner Roger Sperry, the meaning of the message is not going to be found

in the physics & chemistry of the paper & ink. And it fascinated me too to see the proof

in your book that physicists are looking for a TOE, a Theory of Everything- but that's a

theory where the buck stops. Incidentally, there's no hope for a TOE, as Stephen Hawking

has said in 2004 on the basis of Gödel's mathematics, & its application to physicists33

- so

I'm interested that you are prepared, as I understand it, to say that a TOE was a good thing

in physics- but perhaps you like a TOE, provided that there is no God attached to it?".

P) Theist Counter: Mind Is Simpler Than the Universe: Being the case that

the 1st Cause of Space-Time is Intelligent, Non-Spatial/Non-Physical, Timeless,

Begininngless/Un-Caused- it would have to be more like an Un-Embodied Mind of sorts.

And an Un-Embodied Mind, compared to the physical Universe it begetted (with its

complex & variegated properties)- is breathtakingly simpler. For if this Un-Embodied

Mind existed in a Timeless state before Creation, it would have had to have been

Changeless & Immaterial. The analogy of a unified, non-extended, and non-spatial Mind

thinking a complex idea helps illustrate how God could be simple yet Creation be complex.

33 Stephen Hawking - 'Gödel and the End of Physics': (2002) Hawking admits that a Theory of

Everything (TOE) is now impossible for physicists on the basis of applications of Gödel's math.

61

Some Facebook 'Fine-Tuning' Criticism from 2011:

#1 - "Based on the Probabilities, Somewhere Else in the

Universe, Life Must Exist (Hockey Players Too)":

Critic:

"In all probability, somewhere else in the Universe, there is a pro-hockey league

contesting their own Stanley Cup".

Me:

"Saying stuff like this 'Begs the Question' in regards to the Universe's Fine-Tuning. Why

is our Universe so Finely-Tuned? Remarkably & incomprehensibly Fine-Tuned to such a

scale that it allowed for Life to eventually appear on planet Earth in the Milky Way? If

there were even infinitesimally-tiny deviations on the Values of 1) the Physical Quantities

simply given in the Big Bang itself (ultra-small changes on its expansion speed, anti-

matter-matter balance, and level of entropy), or on 2) the Constants of Nature (like The

Weak Nuclear Force or Gravity)- the Universe would become 'Life-Prohibiting'. The

range of 'Life-Permitting Values' that the Universe's 1) Initial Physical Quantities & 2)

Constants of Nature took/assumed is mind-bogglingly narrow! What can explain that

solidly-confirmed scientific fact? Don't assume something that you should be trying to

prove. Instead of saying "by probability hockey exists in the Universe", you should be

giving an account of the initial Fine-Tuning- which allowed for Life to ever even emerge.

62

#2 - “Our Universe Could Not Have Been Intelligently

Designed Because It Is Such a Waste of Space?":

Critic:

"Why is our Universe such a waste of space? It is unbelievably vast, with hardly any

life….and why did the 'Designer' have Life appear almost 13 billion years after the

Universe began? That doesn't sound Intelligent".

Me:

"I agree that our Universe is so vast that it reels the mind, and old too (13.7 billion

years)- but on the contrary, that doesn't show that it is therefore false to infer that an

Intelligence was behind the Fine-Tuning of the Values of 1) the Universe's Initial

Physical Quantities, and 2) the Constants of the Laws of Nature. The fact that the

Universe is so vast and anciently old actually lends to the case of Intelligent Design

behind the Cosmos- and why? simply because to get Matter, Elements, Galaxies, Stars,

Planets, & then finally Life- requires huge amounts of time!- but deductively, whatever

'Caused' Time to begin, must necessarily be Outside of It (Beyond It), and thus, any

passage of Time, no matter how long- is absolutely nothing to that 'Cause'. If it took 9

billion years via Natural Laws to make the right ingredients necessary for Life, then

truly what is that to the '1st Cause' that is Beyond Time & Timeless

34?

Let's trace the Universe's development, and all of the necessary steps that it had to go

through for the eventual emergence of Life, but let's be clear, before all of this could ever

even have happened- the Universe had to be Fine-Tuned to an incomprehensible degree:

34

But since creating Time, God has been In Time also (part of his Temporal Creation) as well as

Outside of It. This will be examined more in the next chapter on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

63

After the Big Bang, the Universe was incredibly beyond-belief hot, a churning furnace of

plasma energy, and everywhere throughout it- the same God-blazing temperature (a

hundred thousand million degrees Centigrade). Despite the Universe expanding as a

roaring hell of energy, physical space unfolded in every direction at speeds defying our

comprehension. In its early phase, the Universe had regions that were causally disjointed,

as light-beams could not travel fast enough to connect the rapidly receding regions, and

after it had become vastly stretched for hundreds of thousands of years- it cooled down

enough and allowed for the formation of matter. Then after even longer expanses of time

had elapsed, and after gravity had acted upon huge hot-regions of energy, galaxies began

to form: slowly swirling and coalescing themselves into beautiful existence like bright

lilies on a dark pond. Then, after only 400 million years had passed, when hot dense dust-

clouds within those galaxies had become sufficiently compressed by gravity, stars began

emerging for the first time35

: spectacularly igniting into luminous existence with a

resoundingly thundering boom. All throughout the deep depths of space, it would have

appeared as if candles were being lit up within these galaxies, billions upon billions of

them. Only after 20 million years or so, when the first massive stars had slowly cooked

within their super-hot interiors the elements necessary for Life (like Carbon, Oxygen, &

Iron)- they went super-nova, exploding with catastrophic force. But this cosmic death also

heralded a glorious beginning, as the elements necessary for Planets & Life that were

created within them, now became spread throughout their respective galaxies. Now the

galaxies were seeded with the materials necessary to build worlds & Life; much like a

flower spreading its pollen across a plain. Then Planets were eventually able to form, &

then Water & Life- and without a doubt, this entire process requires long epochs of time,

& a massively-sized Universe (as it would have been expanding at tremendous speeds

meanwhile). All of that does nothing to refute the Design Inference (though some

atheists assume that it does)- and if one is an atheist, one must agree with this narrative of

the Universe's development, but if one thinks that the Fine-Tuning of the Universe was

the result of Design- then one should agree too: for it illuminates the incredible

Intelligence behind our Singularity; more precisely, behind Spatio-Temporal Existence.

So when we look out at the Universe, replete with its trillions of trillions of stars, and

billions of galaxies, we find what one would expect if the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos

was due to Design. If the Designer wanted to bring about Stars & Elements & Life

gradually via Natural Laws, over huge epochs of time, & not just have it all suddenly

'appear'- then that's doable for the Cause of Space-Time: It is Timeless; It created Time.

35

Edward J. Wollack - 'Understanding the Evolution of Life in the Universe: Universe

101: Big Bang Theory' - NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html.

64

So to conclude: yes, our Universe seems ultra ancient, vast and devoid of any Intelligent

Life, and surely Intelligent Life appears to be a rarity in our galaxy now (see the

'Privileged Planet')- but that still nevertheless does not address why our Universe is so

Finely-Tuned (which allowed for the existence of Life). That Fine-Tuning still cries out

for an Explanation, and it is attributable to either Necessity, Chance, or Design. Whether

it is empty & old is irrelevant, and does not damage the Design Inference. The 'Best

Explanation' is 'Design', and that's only concluded after first evaluating it against the

competing Causes of Necessity & Chance (& both break down as clearly implausible)".

#3 - “Why So Many Stars And Black Holes Then?" What's

The Logic?":

Critic:

"Why create so many stars and black holes? More stars than grains of sand on Earth.

Logic? "

Me:

"An irrelevant question- do you know how to build a Life-Permitting-Universe?".

65

'Remember the 'Anthropic Principle'?:

This was the attempt to take away our astonishment at the Fine-Tuning of the Universe by

saying that it was due to our own existence (the Self Selection Factor), and thus mitigate

the inference that it was the result of "Design". It says that no explanation is needed for

the Fine-Tuning, since in a Fine-Tuned Universe, we could only ever exist as observers.

But this line of reasoning doesn't remove the need for an explanation on why the Universe

is Finely-Tuned- and it is incredible how some people feel that it does. Yet still a

physicist, and a "Philosopher of Science" (doing his 4th

year into his PhD), both tried to

brandish it, as if it utterly did away with the Design Inference at the cosmological level.

#4 - A Physicist Critic Brings Up The Anthropic Principle, And

Then Tries to Use That To Explain Away the Fine-Tuning,

Which = Very Illogical:

Critic:

"I have the same sort of feeling about the Anthropic Principle, that the universe is the

way that it is because we exist, and thus the conditions that the universe being observed

must exist".

Me:

"Your logic went like this: 'the Universe is the way that it is because we exist, so thus,

we must observe the Universe as it is'. But worded like that, what you are saying does not

make sense. One cannot say that because we exist, that is therefore why the Universe is

the way that it is, and that is clearly because human existence is not the 'Cause' of the

Universe and its Fine-Tuning, but is entirely dependant on the Universe & its Fine-

Tuning. We appeared 13 billions years after the Fine-Tuning happened, & that demands

an Explanation. The Anthropic Principle cannot & never will erase the need for one".

66

#5 - This Exchange Was With A 4th Year PhD'er in the

Philosophy of Science, Who Invoked the Anthropic Principle

To Do Way With the Inference to Design At The Cosmological

Level; He Also Tried More To Refute The Design Inference:

Critic:

"If the universe was not hospitable to human life we wouldn't be here to wonder why

not".

Me:

"This Anthropic Principle logic has been debunked within academic philosophical

circles. You said, to paraphrase, "if the U. was not Life-Permitting, then we would not be

here to ask about it"- but that is a truism, it is trivially true, and does nothing to take away

the requirement for an Explanation on why our Fine-Tuned Universe even exists. The

Universe's Fine-Tuning is a massive enigma that needs to be accounted for, and since

your A.P fails, you can only seek solace in the World-Ensemble/Multi-Verse etc.".

Critic:

"Consider the following hypotheses:

(1) There is only one universe, its constants have been determined by some random

process, that random process makes it unlikely for life to be possible, but it did in fact

result in a universe hospitable ...to life;

(2) There are many universes, their constants are determined by the same process, but it is

very likely that at least one of those universes will be hospitable to life, and we are in that

universe;

(3) There is one universe, but the process of determining the constants makes it extremely

likely that the universe will be hospitable to life;

67

(4) The universe was designed in such a way as to be hospitable to life.

The observation that our universe is hospitable to life gives us exactly zero ability to

distinguish between these hypotheses. Intelligent designers believe otherwise, due to

either a willful or innocent misunderstanding of logic and evidence. End of story. Sorry.

If you want to argue for a designer, look elsewhere".

Me:

"I am glad that you realize that you need an EXPLANATION now, and that the

Anthropic Principle will not take away the need that an explanation is still required for

the Universe's remarkable Fine-Tuning.

Lets summarize what you said up there:

" (2) There are many universes, their constants are determined by the same process, but

it is very likely that at least one of those universes will be hospitable to life, and we are in

that universe".

That = a Multi-Verse, with a mechanism that produces Universes with various Constants.

But that Ensemble requires a Beginning, & its mechanism requires it to be Finely-Tuned.

" (3) There is one universe, but the process of determining the constants makes it

extremely likely that the universe will be hospitable to life".

You are claiming that "Physical Necessity" did the trick, that the Constants and Initial

Physical Quantities present in the Big Bang were favored to be that way- but that fails

because these 'Constants' and 'Arbitrary Initial Physical Quantities' simply given

within the Singularity event itself- were/are all independent of the Laws of Nature.

Super-String Theory/M-Theory makes it impossible if true (but that is still on page).

" (4) The universe was designed in such a way as to be hospitable to life".

68

"The observation that our universe is hospitable to life gives us exactly zero ability to

distinguish between these hypotheses".

You asserted that even though the Universe is Finely-Tuned, one cannot in the slightest

differentiate which hypothesis provided up there has greater explanatory scope and power

and causal efficacy, but I think you are dreaming. One can definitely distinguish between

those hypotheses, and I will show how.

"Intelligent designers believe otherwise, due to either a willful or innocent

misunderstanding of logic and evidence. End of story. Sorry. If you want to argue for a

designer, look elsewhere".

By Physical Necessity is impossible as the Initial Physical Quantities of the Big Bang

and the Constants of Nature- were/are independent of the Laws of Nature (the Laws

allow for a wide variance on the assumed Values). An even more striking blow against

the Physical Necessity Hypothesis is via the biggest contender these days for a possible

"Theory of Everything" (a TOE)- 'Super-String Theory'. Remarkably, people used to

say that some TOE would perhaps uncover some Law of Physical Necessity behind the

Universe's Fine-Tuning, but Super-String Theory has done the reverse: as it posits a

cosmic landscape of 10 to the 500th

Power of possible different Universes, all governed

by the same Laws of Nature, but having different Values on their Constants & Physical

Quantities. Rather than make Life-Permitting Universes probable, String Theory, if true,

makes Life-Permitting Universes ultra Highly Improbable. Necessity is clearly ruled

out now, so we're left with 'Chance' & 'Design'- & that proves already that we are able to

"Distinguish" between those hypotheses that you proffered (despite you saying that we

have "zero ability" to do so). If we want to further distinguish Chance from Design, we

have sound criteria from Dembski, whereby we look for a Pattern to irrefutably rule out

Chance as being causally responsible for some given Event/Effect. With this method, we

can get around the old problem of High Improbability, which doesn’t do enough to tell us

that more than Chance-based forces are at causal work. The Design Hypothesis beats out

Chance because the Fine-Tuning is unbelievably a 'Specified Pattern': it contains a

Body of Information given independently of the physical Event that brought it forth. This

makes the inference to Design the most powerful explanation of the 3 causal choices".

69

#6 - There Could Be Other Intelligent Life In Our Galaxy That

Cannot Be Classified By Science; Hawking Says This:

Critic:

"There could be intelligent life within our galaxy whose very existence can not be

classified by our science. Hawking has brought this theory forward as well as others".

Me:

"In the documentary 'The Privileged Planet', it is first clearly shown that because the

Laws of Physics & Chemistry are universal throughout the Universe- one can no longer

say, "well, there could be totally different kinds of intelligent life-forms throughout the

Universe". Now top astro-biologists maintain that only Carbon-based life-forms will get

you to 'Intelligent Beings' via a Naturalistic process, and that is the issue here, Intelligent

Beings, not just blobs. Many critics cite NASA's 2010 Moon Lake Experiment as proof

that Life can arise under different circumstances, but that's misguided: they engineered it,

and it was still DNA-based. Watch on You-Tube- 'The Privileged Planet Chapter 1 of 12'.

The documentary goes through the specific factors required for Intelligent Beings to be

able to arise on a planet in the Universe. For example: 1) the planet must be in the outer-

ring of a galaxy, 2) must have a yellow Sun, 3) be the right distance from the Sun, 4) have

larger planetary-brothers in its Solar System to shield it from asteroids, 5) the planet must

have a tilt and Seasons via a crucial Moon, 6) it must have the right crust-thickness to

allow for plate tectonics etc. When all factored together, Intelligent Life is Improbable

in the Universe, & in our Milky Way Galaxy alone- we can now see that other Intelligent

Life-Forms are Highly Improbable. Planets that could contain Life must be in the outer

ring of the Milky Way Galaxy, & that narrows our range of possibilities for candidates36

.

36 Astro-biologists now look for planets within the "goldilocks zone", the only region that could

accommodate intelligent Life-forms on a planet: within the outer arm of a galaxy (within the

interior, it is much too hot and dusty). Earth is definitely a privileged planet, getting so many

factors right, but one amazing thing, & a striking testimony to Design- is the phenomenon of the

moon-cycle & eclipses (a solar eclipse of the Sun shows the handiwork of Design: even though

the Sun is enormously bigger than the Moon, the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun so

that both the Sun & the Moon appear to be exactly the same size in the sky when they cross!).

70

Quotes Regarding the Fine-Tuning:

"Would it not be strange if a Universe without purpose accidentally created humans

who are so obsessed with purpose?" (Sir John Templeton - 'The Humble Approach:

Scientists Discover God' - Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation - 1998 - pg. 19).

"Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is

the simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle" ('anthropic' here

refers to the Fine-Tuning, which made human existence possible) - (Patrick Glynn -

'The Making and Unmaking of an Atheist'' - in 'God the Evidence' (Rocklin, Calif.:

Forum - 1999 - pg. 1-20).

"Is it pure coincidence that the laws of nature are such that life is possible? Might

this not be an important clue to the nature and destiny of humanity?" (Alister

McGrath - 'Glimpsing the Face of God' - Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans - 2002 -

pg. 19).

"Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we

understand our carefully crafted habitat" (Walter Bradley co-author of - 'The

Mystery of Life's Origins' - from 'The Just So Universe' - in William A. Dembski &

James M. Kushiner's - 'Signs of Intelligence' - 2001 - pg. 170).

71

"I cannot believe that our existence in this Universe is a mere quirk of fate, an

accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama" (Paul Davies - 'In

the Mind of God: A Scientific Basis For A Rational World' - 1992 - pg. 232).

"I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw

the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with

regard to the consequences they produce inside stars"(Sir Fred Hoyle - quoted from

'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle' - John Barrow and Frank Tipler - Oxford -

1986 - pg. 22).

"Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense

and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a

superintelligence" (Owen Gingerich - 'Dare a Scientist Believe in Design?' in -

'Evidence of Purpose' edited by John Templeton - New York: Continuum - 1994 -

pg. 25).

"A Universe aiming at the production of man implies a mind directing it. Though

man is not at the physical center of the Universe, he appears to be at the center of its

purpose"(Robert M. Augros & George N. Stanciu - 'The New Story of Science' -

1984 - pg. 70).

"The many universes theory can at best explain only a limited range of features, and

then only if one appends some metaphysical assumptions that seem no less

extravagant than design" (Paul Davies - 'The Mind of God' - 1993 - pg. 220).

"The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they

came from a religious text. The (theory) requires as much suspension of disbelief as

any religion. Join the church that believes in the existence of invisible objects fifty

billion galaxies wide!" (Gregg Easterbrook - 'The Convergence' - Wired Magazine -

December 2002).

72

References for the Fine Tuning Argument

(in order of appearance in the chapter)

1. Plato - 'Laws - Book 12': http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.html.

2. Aristotle - 'Metaphysics' Book 12 Pt. 7 (here, he writes of God, the Good, Un-Moved Mover): http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.12.xii.html.

3. William Lane Craig - 'On Guard' (2010) - see also his website: www.reasonablefaith.org.

4. Paul Davies - 'How Bio-Friendly Is the Universe?' - International Journal of Astro-biology -

Vol. 2, No. 2 (2003)

5. Fred Hoyle - 'The Universe: Past and Present Reflections' - Annual Review of Astronomy and

Astrophysics: 20:16 (1982)

6. Quote from Vera Kistiakowsky in: 'Cosmos, Bios, and Theos' - H. Margenau & R.A. Varghese,

ed. (1992)

7. 'Big Bang Follows Big Bang Follows Big Bang' - Roger Penrose on 'BBC Today' (Sept. 2010)

(where Penrose refers to his 'atheism').

8. 'The 2nd Law of Thermo-dynamics' on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics.

9. Roger Penrose - 'Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity' - Quantum Gravity 2 ed. C.J Isham, R.

Penrose, and D.W Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon (1981)

10. Paul Davies - 'Superforce: the Search For a Grand Unified Theory of Nature' (1985)

11. Stephen Hawking - 'A Brief History of Time' - Bantam Books (1988)

12. Steven Weinberg - 'A Designer Universe?' - NY Review of Books (Oct 21st 1999)

13. Robin Collins - in 'The Case for a Creator' by Lee Strobel - Zondervan Publishing (2004)

14. Edward J. Wollack - August 2010 - 'Cosmology: The Study of the Universe: Universe 101:

Big Bang Theory' - NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/ (last retrieved Jan 2012).

15. Freeman Dyson - 'Disturbing the Universe' - New York: Harper and Row (1979)

16. Stephen C. Meyer - 'The Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology' - in 'Science and

Evidence for Design in the Universe' - San Francisco: Ignatius (2000)

17. William Lane Craig - 'The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle' - The Logic of

Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays (pg.127-153). Edited by Wm. L. Craig and M. McLeod.

Problems in Contemporary Philosophy 24. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen (1990)

18. Paul Davies - 'God and the New Physics' - New York: Simon and Schuster (1984)

73

19. L. Roberts - 'Stephen Hawking: God Was Not Needed to Create the Universe' –

Telegraph.Uk - Sept. 2nd

(2010)

20. "Martin Rees Wins Controversial £1m Templeton Prize" - Guardian.co.uk - April 6th 2011

(where 'astronomer royal' Sir Martin Rees mentions his unbelief in God).

21. Martin Rees - 'Just Six Numbers': New York: Basic (2000)

22. Martin Rees interviewed by Brad Lemley - Discover Magazine - Nov 1st (2000)

23. Martin Rees - quoted in 'By Design: Science & the Search For God' - by Larry Witham -

Encounter Books (2003)

24. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow - 'The Grand Design' (2010)

25. "Hawking Co-scientist Roger Penrose Debunks 'M-Theory' On Christian Radio UK" (2010):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4.

26. The 2003 'Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem': "Inflationary Space-Times Are Not Past Space-

Time Complete": http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf.

27. 'How Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin Out Of Context' (on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY&feature=channel_video_title (Nov 2011)

28. 'A Brief History of Time' - Paramount Pictures (1991) (Penrose quote starts at about 1:12:43)

29. Stephen Hawking - 'Austin American-Statesman' - October 19th (1997)

30. William Lane Craig - 'The New Atheism and the Five Arguments for God' (2010)

31. Roger Penrose - 'The Road to Reality' (2005)

32. Paul Davies - 'A Brief History of the Multi-Verse' - New York Times (April 12th 2003)

74

33. William Dembski - 'The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities'

- Cambridge 'Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory' - Cambridge University Press

(1998): http://www.designinference.com/desinf.htm.

34. Stephen Meyer - 'Signature In the Cell' (2009)

35. William Lane Craig - 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument' - London: Macmillan (1979)

36. William Lane Craig - 'The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small

Probabilities: A Review'

37. Quoting John A O'Keefe - F. Heeren - 'Show Me God' - Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications

(1995)

38. Paul Davies - 'The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order

the Universe' - New York: S. & Schuster (1988)

39. Edward Harrison - 'Masks of the Universe' - New York, Collier Books, Macmillan (1985)

40. George Ellis - 'The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments' - The Anthropic Principle -

F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press

41. Alexander Polyakov in 'Fortune' - S. Gannes - October 13th (1986)

42. Brandon Carter - 'Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle: Confrontation of

Cosmological Theories with Observational Data' ed. M.S Logair (Boston: D.Reidal) (1974)

43. William Lane Craig - 'Question of the Week #14: "Multiverse and the Design Argument".

44. John Barrow and Frank Tipler - 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle' - Oxford (1986)

45. John Leslie - 'Anthropic Principle, World Ensemble, Design' - American Philosophical

Quarterly 19 (1982)

46. Quentin Smith - 'The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe': Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang

Cosmology' - Oxford: Clarendon Press (1993)

75

47. John Leslie - 'Modern Cosmology and the Creation of Life' - Evolution and Creation -

University of Notre Dame Studies in the Philosophy of Religion (1985)

48. John Leslie - 'Universes' - New York: Routledge (1989)

49. Alexander Vilenkin - ‘Many Worlds In One: The Search For Other Universes' (2007)

50. John Wheeler - 'Relativity to Mutability' - The Physicist's Conception of Nature - (1973)

51. Andrei D. Linde - 'The Inflationary Universe' - Reports on Progress in Physics 47 (1984)

52. Hugh Everett - 'Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics' - Reviews of Modern

Physics 29 (1957)

53. John Earman - 'The SAP Also Rises: A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle' -

American Philosophical Quarterly 24 (1987)

54. Quentin Smith - 'World Ensemble Explanations' - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67 (1986)

55. David Hilbert - 'On the Infinite' - Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Intro. by Paul

Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam Prentice-Hall (1964)

56. Richard Dawkins - 'The God Delusion' (2006)

57. Stephen Hawking & Roger Penrose - 'The Nature of Space and Time' - Isaac Newton Institute

Series of Lectures - Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1996)

58. Igor D. Novikov & Yakov B. Zel’dovich - 'Physical Processes Near Cosmological

Singularities' - Annual Review of Astronomy & Astrophysics 11 (1973)

59. Joseph Silk - 'The Big Bang' (2d ed.; San Francisco: Freeman) (1989)

60. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe: http://map.gsfc.n asa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html.

61. Stephen Hawking - “Information Loss in Black Holes” (September 15th 2005): 4.

62. John Preskill’s website: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html).

63. Stephen Hawking - 'Gödel and the End of Physics':

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/hawking/.

64. John Polkinghorne - 'Science & Theology' - Fortress Press (1998)

65. Michio Kaku- 'Introduction to Super-Strings and M-Theory' - Sprimger Verlag - Second

Edition (1999)

66. George Greenstein - 'The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos' - New York:

William Morrow (1988)

67. 'The Privileged Planet Chapter 1 of 12' - (2010) on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw).