The Fine Tuning (and Objections To It)

One of the most compelling evidences of a Creator in addition to The Big Bang is The Fine Tuning of the universe. The fine tuning of the universe are natural forces which are so precisely balanced that if even one of these forces were slightly stronger or slightly weaker, the balance would be destroyed and we would have a life prohibiting universe. All of these physical constants must be at the just the right strength in order for advanced life to exist anywhere in the universe. These initial conditions were put in The Big Bang 14 billion years ago.

The term Fine Tuning derives from the illustration of a radio, where you have a dial and a bunch of different settings that the dial can be set.

The ratio of the number of electrons to the number of protons must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 10^37 (One part in 10 to the 37th power) That’s the number 1 with 37 zeros after it!. If this fundamental constant were to be any larger or smaller than this, the electromagnetism would dominate gravity -- preventing the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Again, life would not be possible.

One part in 10 to the 37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help you understand the odds of this occurring by chance: Hugh Ross writes in his book "The Creator and The Cosmos", "Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles. .... next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10 to the 37th power." AND THAT’S ONLY ONE OF THEM! Not to mention the other numerous parameters that would need to fall into just the right strength for ANY life to exist ANYWHERE in the universe.

If the universe expanded to rapidly one second after The Big Bang, then gravity would not have the opportunity to collect gas and condense it into galaxies stars and planets and in such a universe life would be impossible. The universe would be forever nothing, but disperse gas. But if the universe were to expand to slowly, then gravity would work at such an efficient level that it would pull all matter, energy and space backwards and the universe would have collapsed in on itself. Why? Because in physics, the gravitational pull of 2 massive bodies attract one another, and the larger those bodies are relative to one another and the closer they are together, the more powerfully they will attract. When the universe is young (and hence, small) the bits and pieces of matter will be close together, and therefore, gravity would act as a powerful break to slow down cosmic expansion (and in fact, it did in the very first few seconds of the universe’s age). But as the universe gets older and older, the surface gets bigger and bigger, and therefore all the matter in the universe becomes more widely dispersed, and therefore gravity becomes progressively weaker in its capacity to slow down the cosmic expansion (while dark energy becomes more effective as driving the universe' expansion). If the universe were not expanding at just the right speed, gravity wouldn’t have just slowed down the cosmic expansion, but reversed it entirely, and thus, the universe would have collapsed in on itself.

Stephen Hawking has estimated that the odds of the universe’s expansion rate being at just the right speed was around 1 part in 10 to the 60th power.

Now I’ve showed you just how precise 1 part in 10 to the 37th power! You know, if you had dimes covering 1 billion continents the same size as North America and a height all the way up to the moon, and having a blindfolded person picking a randomly painted dime among such a monstrous pile! Well, 1 part in 10 to the 60th is even MORE unlikely then that.
 

 The Strong Nuclear Force must also be finely tuned. Now, what is the strong nuclear force? The strong nuclear force is that force of physics which binds together protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of atoms. Just knowing that alone shows you how important this force is for life’s existence. After all, everything is made up of atoms! My body, your body, and the body of every living organism are made of atoms. This computer I’m typing on is composed of atoms as is the desk it’s sitting on. Everything is made of atoms. So if the strong nuclear force is off by a little bit, it would have a devastating consequence on life! What exactly would happen if the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker than what it is? If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, then it would not be strong enough to bind protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of atoms. In that case, none of the heavy elements essential for life would come into being. Instead the only element in existence would be hydrogen because the hydrogen atom has only one proton and no neutrons in its nucleus. It also only has one electron orbiting the nucleus. And if the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, that’s the only type of atom that would exist in the universe. The entire universe would be filled with nothing but one-proton one-electron atoms. No other elements would ever be formed. On the other hand, if the strong nuclear force were slightly stronger than what physicists observe, then it would be so efficient at binding protons and neutrons in the center of atoms that not one proton would remain alone. Instead it would find itself attached to many other protons and neutrons. In this case, no hydrogen would exist in the universe, only heavy elements.

Life chemistry is impossible without hydrogen. It is also impossible if hydrogen is the only element. What are the odds that the strong nuclear force should be fine tuned for life? 1 part in 10^30 (a 1 followed by 30 zeroes)! One chance in a nonillion that the strong nuclear force would fall into the life permitting range!

You just added another billion piles for your blindfolded friend to search through in order to find the red dime!

In the case of the Weak Nuclear Force –
it must also be finely tuned for life. The weak nuclear force is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles, and it plays an essential role in nuclear fission (nuclear fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts). If the weak nuclear force were any stronger, the matter in the universe would be too rapidly converted into heavy elements. But if it were any weaker, then the matter in the universe would remain in the form of just the lightest elements. Either way, the elements crucial for life to exist (such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen & phosphorus) wouldn’t exist. That would mean no life chemistry could take place! Moreover, unless the Weak Nuclear Force took a very precise value, those life essential elements that are produced only inside of super giant stars would never escape (i.e supernova explosions wouldn’t occur). How finely tuned is that? 1 part in 10^100th power! That’s 1 followed by 100 zeroes! I showed you how improbable 1 in 10^37 was! Well, this is 1 in 10^100! This is 3 times as improbable as the original dime illustration!

You just added 3 billion more piles of dimes for your blindfolded friend to search through in order to find the red dime!

The force of gravity determines how hot the nuclear furnaces in the cores of stars will burn. If the force of gravity were any stronger then stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life. Additionally, a planet capable of sustaining life must be supported by a star that is both stable and long burning. However, if the Gravitational Force were any weaker then stars would never become hot enough to ignite nuclear fusion. In such a universe, no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium would be produced. How finely tuned is that? 1 part in 10 to the 36th power!

If the force of Electromagnetism were stronger, chemical bonding would be disrupted and no elements bigger than boron would be stable to fission, and if Electromagnetism were just the slightest bit weaker, then chemical bonding would be insufficient for life. The force of electromagnetism is finely tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 40th power!

You just added over a billion more coin piles for your blindfolded friend to search through in order to find the red dime!

Dark Energy (the force of nature that’s causing the universe to expand) is finely tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 120th power (1 in 10^120). If it were stronger in 1 part in 10 to the 120th power, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for galaxies, stars or planets to have formed. If it were slightly weaker, gravity would have overpowered the dark energy and would have cause the universe to collapse in a hot fireball.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has said, regarding the dark energy "The level of fine tuning in dark energy, exceeds the best example of human design achievement by a factor of 10^97 times.... What this is telling us, is that the one who designed the dark energy, to make our existence possible, is 10^97 times more intelligent, and better educated, than those cal-tech MIT Physicists. And at-least that many times better funded than the US government."

The fine tuning of dark energy however, pales in comparison to this next law I’m about to talk about. The next law of physics that must be just right is the Entropy Level Of The Universe. It's finely tuned to 1 part out of 10^10^123! That's 10^123 zeros after the number 1!  If you want to get an even better idea of how huge this number is, consider this. If you set a laptop computer in front of a 2 year old toddler with Microsoft Word open and you told him to put his finger on the 0 key until he had 10^123 zeroes typed after the number 1 which you already entered, how long would it take that child to type in 10^123 zeroes? He would die as an old man before he got finished typing all the zeroes. In fact, if you replaced the old man with another 2 year old toddler and told him to type in zeroes in order to finish the work of his predecessor, he too would die as an old man before he got finished. In fact, you could go through 10 generations of men spending their entire lives typing in zeroes and they still wouldn’t be able to type this number out in full.

Actually, scientists have estimated that the universe is about 10^14 seconds old (1 with 14 zeroes after it). If you typed in a 0 for every second from The Big Bang until today, you would still fall short of typing out the number 10^10^123!!!


THAT'S A REALLY HUUUUUUUUUUGE NUMBER! When I first found this out in a physics textbook, my head exploded! That's not even counting the number of members that the written number is supposed to describe. The number of members in a set is always more than the 0s used to describe it. The number 100 only has 2 zeros but there are far more members in the set than the number of 0s that number is describing! Think of picking 1 marked dime blindfolded out of 10^10^123 dimes. That's the odds the entropy level of the universe could have been just right by chance alone.

If it were slightly stronger, stars would not form within proto-galaxies. If it were slightly weaker, no proto galaxies would form. Stars only form within galaxies and not in intergalactic space. Hence the need for proto-galaxies (i.e. "young" galaxies). No proto-galaxies, no galaxies. No galaxies, no stars. No stars, no life. That is finely tuned to 1 Part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123!

Astrophysicist Rodger Penrose has given an illustration to show just how large this number is. He stated, “It’s so special that the odds against the special initial state coming about by chance are less than one part in 10 to the power, 10 to the power 123. So if you try to write this out 100000… with this number of zeros you’d try to put one zero on every particle of the observable universe you’d be way short, you’d never do it that way. That’s not enough room to put all the zeros in so.”

Roger Penrose said that the odds of our solar system forming out of a random collision of particles is one part in 10^10^60. Penrose calls that utter chicken feed in comparison to 10^10^123!

The ripples in the universe left over from the original ‘Big Bang’ singularity (often referred to as CMB, or cosmic background radiation) are detectable at one part in 10^5 (100,000). If this factor were even slightly smaller, the cosmos would exist exclusively as a collection of gas -- stars, planets and galaxies would not exist. Conversely, if this factor were increased slightly, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Either way, the universe would be uninhabitable.

If the density of the universe in the early history of the universe were larger, then overabundance of deuterium from The Big Bang would cause stars to burn too rapidly for life. If smaller, insufficient helium from The Big Bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements. It's tuned to 1 part out of 10^59.

Once you add up the epistemic improbabilities of ALL of these constants and quantities falling into just the right level of power…so that advanced life could exist, you have the same odds of getting a life permitting as someone who randomly picked a marked dime out of a pile that’s several times larger than our observable universe. Heck, the chances of both the force of gravity and the cosmological constant being just right for life…is the same chance of picking SPECIFIC atom out of the entire known universe! There are 10 to the 240th atoms in the universe.

Now it seems to me we have only 3 options in what could be the cause behind these remarkable settings in which our existence depends on.

My argument can be summed up as follows:

1: The Fine Tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance or design.
2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3: Therefore, it is due to design.


The first explanation we need to examine is physical necessity. People who argue for option state that the universe has to, out of physical necessity, be life permitting. This seems far-fetched to me. This alternative is an assertion that gravity couldn’t have been stronger or weaker than it is, or that the Strong Nuclear Force couldn’t have been more attractive or less attractive, or that the universe couldn’t have expanded any more rapidly or any slower than it actually did. All of these constants and quantities look as if like they could have been different, and any one of them, if they were different, would have disallowed the universe from containing life. Any objector seeking to undermine the inference to design by saying the laws of physics are physically necessary, bares the burden of proof. Unfortunately for our skeptical friend, it’s an extremely heavy burden.
 
As P. C. W. Davies states,

“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.”

Then…could it be….the result of chance? Well, If you scroll up, you’ll see that the combined odds of even the cosmological constant and the force of gravity both falling into the very narrow life permitting range is like getting a blind folded person to find one specific atom out of all of the atoms in our universe, and when you add all the other physical constants, improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

1: The Fine Tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance or design.
2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3: Therefore, it is due to design.

Given the truth of the 2 premises, the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.

-----------------
OBJECTIONS:
1: Well, we really shouldn’t be surprised that the universe is finely tuned. After all, if it weren’t finely tuned. We wouldn’t be here to notice it. Given that we are here, we should expect the universe to be finely tuned.

But I think the fallacy of this argument can be shown by means of a parallel illustration. William Lane Craig gives this illustration in his book “On Guard” and Hugh Ross gives it in his book “The Creator and The Cosmos” 

Dr. William Lane Craig writes "Imagine you're traveling abroad and are arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. You hear the command given: “Ready! Aim! Fire!” and you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 trained marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude? 'Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss.' Of course not! You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose, that the whole thing was a set-up, engineered for some reason by someone. While you wouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead, you'd be very surprised, indeed, that you do observe that you are alive. In the same way, given the incredible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not due to chance, but to design."

2: This is a God-Of-The-Gaps argument!
Actually, it isn’t. You see when it comes to the fine tuning, you only have 3 options that can explain the fine tuning of the universe. Physical Necessity, Chance, Or Design. Physical Necessity and chance have been ruled out as having explanatory power and design is the only explanation left, so you should go with that one. And not only is it the only remaining explanation, this explanation also has the causal power to explain the fine tuning and whereas the other ones do not. Now if you can think of another alternative to explain the fine tuning, then we’ll add that to the list of possible explanations in premise 1 and then we’ll consider that alternative when we come to premise 2. If this alternative that you can come up with has the causal power to produce the fine tuning, then perhaps we can go with that explanation rather than design. But I can only think of 3 possible explanations to explain the fine tuning of the universe and those 3 possible explanations are physical necessity, chance and design. As I’ve demonstrated above, physical necessity and chance do not have the causal power to produce fine tuning, while an Intelligent Designer DOES have the causal power to explain the fine tuning and that’s why we should go with that explanation.

Whatever it is you’re talking about, if you only have 3 possible explanations, and you rule out option 1 & option 2. You’re not using Option-3-Of-The-Gaps Reasoning, you’re making an inference to the best explanation.
As you can see, this isn’t god-of-the-gaps, this is an inference to the best explanation. To further illustrate my point that this is an inference to the best explanation rather than a god-of-the-gaps argument, consider the syllogism below.

1: Either X, Y, or Z.
2: Not X or Y.
3: Therefore, Z.

This how the syllogism for the fine tuning argument is layed out.
Now Imagine the following argument:

1: The Flintstones takes place in either the past, the present or the future.
2: It does not take place in the present or the future.
3: Therefore, it takes place in the past.

Now the first premise seems indisputable. All it does it list the 3 possibilities as to the time period when the cartoon “The Flintstones” is supposed to be taking place. Either it takes place in the past, the present, or the future. Now, the 2nd premise rules out present and future. The conclusion is that it takes place in the past. We can affirm the 2nd premise by doing some thinking. There are dinosaurs around. The theme song describes The Flintstones as “your modern STONEAGE family” (of course MODERN stone age is a contradiction they put in there to make it humorous as the stone age takes place in the ancient past), There’s no technology anywhere to be seen in the show except for animals and dinosaurs that provide the same function as some of the things we have today (i.e the mammoth dish washer). A lot of the animals are animals that have been extinct for millions of years. Therefore, the conclusion follows “3: Therefore, it takes place in the past”

Now would you seriously say that this is Past-Of-The-Gaps reasoning? No, of course not. You made an inference to the best explanation. Given all of the dinosaurs, extinct animals and references to the “Stoneage”, you inferred that the writers of The Flintstones intended for the cartoon to take place in the ancient past, and humorously arranged it to resemble some of the things we have in modern society (e.g feet powered cars and mammoth dishwashers, and tiny pterodactyl powered remote controls).

Or how about this example?
1: Evan is either male, female or genderless.
2: Evan is not female or genderless.
3: Therefore, Evan is male.

Now the first premise seems indisputable. All it does it list the 3 possibilities as to what gender I am. Either I’m male, female, or A-sexual. Now, the 2nd premise rules out female and a-sexual (or genderless). The conclusion is that I am male. We can affirm the 2nd premise by doing some research. Evan is masculine. Evan has a male sounding voice. Evan has male genitalia. Evan has the male chromosomes. So Evan is obviously not genderless and he’s obviously not a female. The 2nd premise is confirmed. Therefore, the conclusion follows “3: Therefore, Evan is a male”

Now would you seriously say that this is Male-Of-The-Gaps reasoning? I hope not. lol

3: What about the Multi-verse? If there are an infinite number of other universes out there, one of them is bound to have the finely tuned constants fall into the just right place so that life could exist. We just happened to be in that one universe where all of the physical constants and quantities DID get right by chance.

The multi-verse is just pathetic attempt to make chance seem more reasonable. There's no evidence for it and purely ad-hoc. It's brought up to explain the most improbable of all improbable events. But why stop at just the fine tuning? The infini-verse could be used to explain away ANY improbable even such that conlcluding purposeful arrangement to ANYTHING becomes IMPOSSIBLE.

 Can you imagine the following conversation at a Poker Table in a west Texas saloon?

 Slim: "Tex! You're a dirty cheatin skunk! Everytime you deal, you get 4 aces!"
 Tex: "Weeeeell slim, I know it looks a mighty bit suspicious, but you gots to remember in this here infinite number of universes, there's an infinite number of poker games goin on. So we just happen to be in that one universe where every time I deals, I gets 4 aces. So...SSSHH put up that shootin’ iron and shut yer yap and deal."

 Now if you were ole Slim would you sit down for another hand of cards? I hope not! Lol
Credit to William Lane Craig for the amusing above example.

So if you’re going to appeal to the infinite number of universes (and there does need to be an indefinite number in order to guarantee that by chance alone, you get a universe that is life permitting), if you’re going to appeal to the infinite universe theory in order to explain away the fine tuning, we could never rationally explain ANY highly improbable event. You could also explain this entire comment by means of the multi-verse. Perhaps a cat and mouse were running back and forth, back and forth across my computer keyboard and just happened by chance to make coherent sentences to make this blog. Yes, the odds of multiple coherent sentences forming by chance from 2 animals running across a keyboard is astronomically high (and that’s an extreme understatement) but we just happen to be in that one universe where it DID happen.

You could also explain the existence of a Boeing 747 by appealing to the multi-verse (of which there is no evidence). Let’s say a tornado struck a junk yard and tossed a bunch of parts around and formed the Boeing 747. Because there are an infinite number of universes, there were an infinite number of attempts to get it right in each one of them. This just happened to be the universe where one of those attempts was successful. Well, there you go no need to invoke a designer.

Really, we could assume that just about every electronic at your local Radio Shack was formed by chance, because in an infinite multi-verse, it’s bound to happen eventually.

And how could we ever use evidence to convict a murderer in a court of law? Those fingerprints on the weapon? You can’t really say that those fingerprints belong to John Doe, because given an infinite number of universes, chance chemical formation was bound to match John Doe’s fingerprints identically eventually. We just happened to be in that one universe where it did happen. So if I were the lawyer defending John Doe, I’d say to the judge “Your honor, given the multi-verse, it’s entirely possible that those fingerprints on the weapons formed by sheer accident. Now I know it defies the odds, but hey, if an infinite number of universes are being spawned, then in one of them we’re bound to wind up in the universe, where, against all the odds, it did happen by chance!”

You could explain away the Egyptian Pyramids by appealing to the multi-verse. I could go on and on with examples of extremely improbable events you could explain by appealing to the multi-verse. But no sane person appeals to the multi-verse for ANY of these things….only when it comes to explaining the fine tuning of the universe to avoid a designer. I find this to be a desperate attempt to keep atheism logically tenable.

Moreover, even if other universes were discovered, there would have to be an indefinite number to guarantee that by chance alone, you get a life permitting universe. If there are only 2 or 3 other universes out there, you can’t use it to explain away the fine tuning. Even if 40 or 50 other universes were to somehow be discovered, that wouldn’t explain away the fine tuning given that there are trillions and trillions and trillions of possible power strengths that these constant and quantities could have fallen into. But currently there’s no evidence for even ONE other universe, much less an indefinite number of other universes.

4: It’s physically possible that it could have been chance. Just because you say it’s improbable doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Therefore, you can’t say “not chance”. 

Although it’s true that conclusions based on improbability/probability can’t be proven ABSOLUTELY. I can’t absolutely prove that the universe wasn’t finely tuned by chance. But even though inductive truths cannot be proven absolutely, with some things, the improbability is so incredibly high that it just can’t happen and if it does happen, we attribute purposeful arrangement.

For example: You can’t absolutely rule out the idea that this entire blog post was due to a cat and mouse running back and forth across my computer keyboard, and just by chance, just happened to have their little paws pound the just right keys in order to make coherent sentences that you can understand. Sure, that’s physically possible. Sure, it’s not a logical contradiction. But the improbability is so high, that no sane person would ever attribute a cat and mouse randomly running back and forth across my computer keyboard that just so happened to hit the just right keys in order to make coherent sentences.

Sure, you can’t TOTALLY rule out chance as it’s a physical possibility that it could be chance, but the point I’m making is that it would be completely irrational to go with chance given the accumulative improbability.

To give an illustration to further demonstrate my point, let’s say that we went up to someone’s shed, where they kept all of their tools, power tools, lawn mower, etc. and on the doors was one of those locks where you have to put in a combination of numbers (like on the lockers at your average high school). I lift up the lock and start turning the dial. On the very first try, I get the lock to unlock….and I am able to open the doors of the shed. What would your immediate conclusion be? That I didn’t know the locker combination and just got the locker combination right by chance on the very first try? Or would you conclude that I knew the locker combination in my head….and was actively using my intelligence to put the correct locker combination in on purpose?

Actually, this happened to me recently with the locker on the gate leading to my backyard. I hadn’t memorized the combination so I starting twisting the dial a bunch of different ways, hoping to maybe get it right by accident. After 10-12 trys, I gave up. Now….do you expect me to believe all of these constants and quantities just happened to fall into the very narrow, life permitting range on each one of them, on the first and only try when I can't figure out the combination on my backyard fence gate when I forgot it? I tried it like 10-12 times and STILL didn't get it. I had to go get the written combination down in my house and purposefully put the correct combination in so that I could enter my backyard. If I can't get a locker combination right by accident, why is it reasonable to think that these physical constants and quantities got right by accident? If I had to use my intelligence for the locker combination, shouldn't the finely tuned constants also need intelligence? I tell ya, a locker combination is FAR, FAR, FAR more probable than things like The Cosmological Constant or the Entropy level of the universe occurring at the just right level. Just grouping the probabilities of the force of gravity and the Cosmological Constant together would be like grabbing (blindfolded) a randomly marked dime out of a pile that fills the entire universe (the universe contains 10 to the 240th atoms, The force of gravity is tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 36th power, the cosmological constant is tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 120th power). Those are just TWO of these constants and quantities which must be at the just-right level for life to exist. I'm sorry, I just find that too hard to believe.

Another illustration could be if YOU won the lottery (and let’s say it’s the recent MegaMilions lottery, where pretty much everyone in the country was playing), let’s say that YOU (out of all the people in the country)….won the MegaMillions lottery 35 times in a row and didn’t lose ONCE. Would you conclude that you won the lottery each of those 35 times….just by sheer luck? Just by chance? A coincidence? I certainly wouldn’t. I would conclude that the lottery was rigged so that YOU and nobody else….won the lottery each of those 35 times. I think this analogy really drives my point home since winning the lottery 35 times in a row is far more probable than each of these 35 physical constants falling into the life permitting range by chance. I just think to go with chance...is very, very irrational. Since most people wouldn't go with chance even for these FAR more probable events.

And that darned Boeing 747. Would anyone conclude that THAT was formed by chance? I don't think so. 

5: The universe isn’t finely tuned for life. Life is finely tuned to the universe. If these constants were different, then different life forms would have arise. ((goes on to describe a person who thinks the puddle of water he woke up in was made for him etc.))

It’s important that we get our definition of “life” straight. When I say that these physical constants quantities had to be just right for life, what do I mean by that? Do I mean bacteria life? No, I mean ADVANCED life. And in order to have advanced life, you need planets, stars, galaxies, and life chemistry (actually you need life chemistry to have ANY sort of life whatsoever).

1. STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE CONSTANT (tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 30)
If larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry.
If smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry.
2. WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE CONSTANT (Tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 100)
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible.
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible.
3. GRAVITATIONAL FORCE CONSTANT (Tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 36)
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry.
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
4. ELECTRO MAGNETIC FORCE CONSTANT (tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 40)
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission.
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.

If the Ratio of electron to proton mass were off by the slightest bit, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.

All of the above constants need to be just right in order for there to be life chemistry. No life chemistry = no life (simple life OR advanced life). If the universe expanded to rapidly one second after The Big Bang, then gravity would not have the opportunity to collect gas and condense it into galaxies stars and planets. What kind of advanced life are you going to have with no planets, stars or galaxies? The ratio of nucleons to anti-nucleons must be just right in order for life to exist as well. If it were any greater, radiation would prohibit planet formation.

Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

The ripples in the universe left over from the original ‘Big Bang’ singularity (often referred to as CMB, or cosmic background radiation) are detectable at one part in 10^5 (100,000). If this factor were even slightly smaller, the cosmos would exist exclusively as a collection of gas -- stars, planets and galaxies would not exist. You need planets for advanced life. Without planets, what kind of life are you going to have? Floating space people? You need stars and galaxies for advanced life to exist. You need life chemistry to have any kind of life...period. Even if this objection held true for SOME of these parameters, we certainly can't say that it's true for ALL of them.

6: "the anthropic calculations are based on a number of assumptions regarding many values. They're speculative."

"Thus the density 1 ns after the Big Bang was set to an accuracy of better than 1 part in 2235 sextillion. Even earlier it was set to an accuracy better than 1 part in 10^59!"

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#FO

^ Is that speculative?


I recently heard Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, president and founder of Reasons To Believe ministries say in a lecture on Youtube 

"Every astronomer I know of regardless of theological or philosophical perspectives, agrees with us at Reason To Believe, that the characteristics of the universe and the laws of physics reveal amazing fine tuning to make human life possible in the universe." 

Now, by "fine tuning" he doesn't mean "design". Not all physicists and astronomers agree that the fine tuning is a result of design. Rather, Ross is saying there's unanimity among astronomers (both Christian and non-Christian) that if you were to tweak the values of the constants of physics, (like gravity) advanced life would be impossible in the cosmos.