The Fine Tuning of the Universe as Evidence for the Existence of God

[KiwiChristian]

Yes, this is LONG. No need for you to tell me that, or tell me that no-one will read it.

 

The Fine Tuning of the Universe as Evidence for the Existence of God 

Bible Reading: Psalm 19:1-14; Revelation 4:1-11.

Youtube.com video: “Fine Tuning of the Universe – Reasonable Faith.” 

Memory Verse. Proverbs 3:19 " The LORD by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens. 

Aim: To consider some proofs for the existence of a Creator God Who intervenes in human affairs. 

Introduction: Some people think that science and evolution have disproved God.

This is a very out-dated idea. The more we learn about the universe and the Bible, the more convinced we become of the existence of an infinitely intelligent designer of the universe. 

I. Bible Verses Teaching the Greatness of God as the Designer of the Universe “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Romans 11:33. “Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” Job 38:33. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalm 19:1. “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: & the heavens are the work of thy hands” Psalm 102:25 “To him that by wisdom made the heavens:” Psalm 136:5. “The LORD by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens. Pro 3:19. “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth” Prov 8:27 “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” Isaiah 44:24. “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” Isaiah 48:13. “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” Jeremiah 10:12. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Revelation 4:11. 

II. The Fine Tuning of the Constants of the Universe From galaxies down to subatomic particles, the very structure of the universe is determined by finely tuned values of physical constants, such as: 1. The Speed of Light. C = 299,792,458 m/second. 2. The Gravitational constant. G = 6.673 x 10‾ ˡˡ m3/kg/sec2 3. Planck’s Constant = 1.0547148 x 10‾34 m²kg/ sec² 4. Planck Mass-Energy = 1.2209 x 10²² MeV 5. Electron mass = 0.511 MeV; Proton mass = 938.3 MeV; Neutron mass = 939.6 MeV. 6. Cosmological constant = (2.3 x 10‾³ eV)‾4 7. Hubble constant = 71 km/sec/Mpc Each of these numbers has been carefully dialled to an astonishingly precise value that falls between an exceedingly narrow, life permitting range. If any one of these numbers were altered by a very small amount, no physical life of any kind could exist anywhere. There would be no stars, no planets, no life, no chemical elements. Consider Gravity. The force of gravity is determined by the gravitational constant “G”. F = Gmm/r² . If this constant “G” varied by 1 part in 10 to the power of 60 parts, none of us would exist. This is 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If the Gravitational constant had been out by just 1 of these infinitesimally small increments, the universe would have expanded and thinned out so rapidly that no stars could form and life could not exist, or it would have collapsed back on itself with the same result of no stars, no planets and no life forming. Consider the Expansion rate of the universe. This is driven by the Cosmological constant “lambda” ‘ᴧ’. A change in this constant by 1 part in 10 to the power of 120, would cause the universe to expand too rapidly or too slowly, in either case causing the universe to be life prohibiting. Consider the Mass and Energy of the early universe.

If these were not evenly distributed to a precision of 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 with 122 zeroes, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. 1685 Our universe only permits physical interactive life only because these and many other numbers have been independently and exquisitely balanced on a razor’s edge. “Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning.” Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cambridge University. “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, Theoretical physicist and Cosmologist, Cambridge. “These special features are surprising and unlikely.” David Deutsch, Physicist at Oxford University.

Question: What is the best explanation for this astoundingly precise fine tuning of these constants?

Answer: The Fine Tuning of the universe is due either to a) Necessity, b) Chance, or c) Design.

Which of these is more likely? a) Necessity? These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine tuning is necessary. b) Chance? No! Is fine tuning of the universal constants a matter of luck? The probabilities are so remote as to put fine tuning beyond the realms of chance. Some guess and imagine a universe generator that produces so many universes that a life permitting universe will one day pop out. There is no scientific evidence for this multiverse. It has not been detected, observed, measured or proved. A universe generator would require an enormous amount of fine tuning. c) Design of these constants and the fine tuning of the universe for life is the best explanation. “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics… and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me to be so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle. “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.’ Paul Davies, Physicist, winner of Templeton Prize, Faraday Prize, Kelvin Medal. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork; Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” Psalm 19:1,2. 

III. Other Examples of Fine Tuned Constants that are Exactly Life- Permitting. 
Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible by accident. 

What is the probability of all of these constants being exactly right? 

Evolution had nothing to do with this. 

1. Strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form. 

2. Weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; if smaller: too little helium would be produced from “big bang”. 

3. Gravitational force constant 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. Electromagnetic force constant 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 

5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support. if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements. 

6. Ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above 

7. Polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result 8. Mass of the neutrino. if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form. if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

IV. Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support 

1. Parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2) if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible 

2. Parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1) if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets 

3. Number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2) if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry 

4. Parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001) if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis 

5. Parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05) if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life 

6. Parent star color (9) (p = 0.4) if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life if bluer: same result 

7. H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1) if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life 

8. Parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001) if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop 

9. Surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001) if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life 

10. Distance of earth from parent star (13) (p = 0.001) if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle 

11. Orbital eccentricity (p = 0.3) if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life 

12. Axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3) if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms. if lesser: same result 

13. Rotation period (11) (p = 0.1) if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life 

14. Magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01) if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: planetary surface & ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar & stellar radiation 

15. Thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01) if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life 

16. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop. if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop 

17. Asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements 1687 

18. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1) if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 

19. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis 

20. Water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life 

21. Ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life 

22. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe 

23. Seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1) if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup 

24. Volcanic activity (26) if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for advanced life support if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged 

25. Soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1). if nutrient poorer or if nutrient richer : diversity & complexity of lifeforms would be limited: same result 

26. Gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1) if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation. Size, distance and number of moons are right. 

27. Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions if lesser: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 

28. Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions 

29. Atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1) if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface 

30. Atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support 

31. Chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms 

32. Iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1). if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient. if very small: no life would be possible 

33. Quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1). if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency. if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA

[KiwiChristian]

47 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I've had a hard time taking serious Hugh Ross ever since I saw him in Pasadena (circa 1976) give a talk on the Old Earth theory.

Yes, i think he got owned on the John Ankerberg show by Kent Hovind.

[RockyMidnight]

On 5/8/2018 at 3:07 AM, KiwiChristian said:

Yes, this is LONG. No need for you to tell me that, or tell me that no-one will read it.

 

The Fine Tuning of the Universe as Evidence for the Existence of God 

Bible Reading: Psalm 19:1-14; Revelation 4:1-11.

Youtube.com video: “Fine Tuning of the Universe – Reasonable Faith.” 

Memory Verse. Proverbs 3:19 " The LORD by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens. 

Aim: To consider some proofs for the existence of a Creator God Who intervenes in human affairs. 

Introduction: Some people think that science and evolution have disproved God.

This is a very out-dated idea. The more we learn about the universe and the Bible, the more convinced we become of the existence of an infinitely intelligent designer of the universe. 

I. Bible Verses Teaching the Greatness of God as the Designer of the Universe “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Romans 11:33. “Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” Job 38:33. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalm 19:1. “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: & the heavens are the work of thy hands” Psalm 102:25 “To him that by wisdom made the heavens:” Psalm 136:5. “The LORD by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens. Pro 3:19. “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth” Prov 8:27 “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” Isaiah 44:24. “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” Isaiah 48:13. “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” Jeremiah 10:12. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Revelation 4:11. 

II. The Fine Tuning of the Constants of the Universe From galaxies down to subatomic particles, the very structure of the universe is determined by finely tuned values of physical constants, such as: 1. The Speed of Light. C = 299,792,458 m/second. 2. The Gravitational constant. G = 6.673 x 10‾ ˡˡ m3/kg/sec2 3. Planck’s Constant = 1.0547148 x 10‾34 m²kg/ sec² 4. Planck Mass-Energy = 1.2209 x 10²² MeV 5. Electron mass = 0.511 MeV; Proton mass = 938.3 MeV; Neutron mass = 939.6 MeV. 6. Cosmological constant = (2.3 x 10‾³ eV)‾4 7. Hubble constant = 71 km/sec/Mpc Each of these numbers has been carefully dialled to an astonishingly precise value that falls between an exceedingly narrow, life permitting range. If any one of these numbers were altered by a very small amount, no physical life of any kind could exist anywhere. There would be no stars, no planets, no life, no chemical elements. Consider Gravity. The force of gravity is determined by the gravitational constant “G”. F = Gmm/r² . If this constant “G” varied by 1 part in 10 to the power of 60 parts, none of us would exist. This is 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If the Gravitational constant had been out by just 1 of these infinitesimally small increments, the universe would have expanded and thinned out so rapidly that no stars could form and life could not exist, or it would have collapsed back on itself with the same result of no stars, no planets and no life forming. Consider the Expansion rate of the universe. This is driven by the Cosmological constant “lambda” ‘ᴧ’. A change in this constant by 1 part in 10 to the power of 120, would cause the universe to expand too rapidly or too slowly, in either case causing the universe to be life prohibiting. Consider the Mass and Energy of the early universe.

If these were not evenly distributed to a precision of 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 with 122 zeroes, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. 1685 Our universe only permits physical interactive life only because these and many other numbers have been independently and exquisitely balanced on a razor’s edge. “Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning.” Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cambridge University. “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, Theoretical physicist and Cosmologist, Cambridge. “These special features are surprising and unlikely.” David Deutsch, Physicist at Oxford University.

Question: What is the best explanation for this astoundingly precise fine tuning of these constants?

Answer: The Fine Tuning of the universe is due either to a) Necessity, b) Chance, or c) Design.

Which of these is more likely? a) Necessity? These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine tuning is necessary. b) Chance? No! Is fine tuning of the universal constants a matter of luck? The probabilities are so remote as to put fine tuning beyond the realms of chance. Some guess and imagine a universe generator that produces so many universes that a life permitting universe will one day pop out. There is no scientific evidence for this multiverse. It has not been detected, observed, measured or proved. A universe generator would require an enormous amount of fine tuning. c) Design of these constants and the fine tuning of the universe for life is the best explanation. “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics… and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me to be so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle. “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.’ Paul Davies, Physicist, winner of Templeton Prize, Faraday Prize, Kelvin Medal. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork; Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” Psalm 19:1,2. 

III. Other Examples of Fine Tuned Constants that are Exactly Life- Permitting. 
Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible by accident. 

What is the probability of all of these constants being exactly right? 

Evolution had nothing to do with this. 

1. Strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form. 

2. Weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; if smaller: too little helium would be produced from “big bang”. 

3. Gravitational force constant 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. Electromagnetic force constant 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 

5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support. if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements. 

6. Ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above 

7. Polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result 8. Mass of the neutrino. if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form. if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

IV. Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support 

1. Parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2) if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible 

2. Parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1) if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets 

3. Number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2) if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry 

4. Parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001) if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis 

5. Parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05) if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life 

6. Parent star color (9) (p = 0.4) if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life if bluer: same result 

7. H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1) if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life 

8. Parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001) if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop 

9. Surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001) if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life 

10. Distance of earth from parent star (13) (p = 0.001) if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle 

11. Orbital eccentricity (p = 0.3) if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life 

12. Axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3) if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms. if lesser: same result 

13. Rotation period (11) (p = 0.1) if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life 

14. Magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01) if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: planetary surface & ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar & stellar radiation 

15. Thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01) if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life 

16. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop. if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop 

17. Asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements 1687 

18. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1) if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 

19. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis 

20. Water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life 

21. Ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life 

22. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe 

23. Seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1) if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup 

24. Volcanic activity (26) if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for advanced life support if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged 

25. Soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1). if nutrient poorer or if nutrient richer : diversity & complexity of lifeforms would be limited: same result 

26. Gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1) if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation. Size, distance and number of moons are right. 

27. Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions if lesser: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 

28. Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions 

29. Atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1) if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface 

30. Atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support 

31. Chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms 

32. Iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1). if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient. if very small: no life would be possible 

33. Quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1). if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency. if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA

Too long? No one will read it? Then it is their loss.  I read it and love it. Once again KiwiChristian, you have excelled in matching Scripture to reality. A very special talent indeed!

Thank you for your efforts!

Cheers

BTW-May be of interest:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Edited June 18, 2018 by RockyMidnight

[Mike Mclees]

Yes a lot of effort. I did not read word for word but I scanned through it. Everything points to a creator. Ther is not other answer for all we see. I no Zip about physics. But i don't half to bey sientist to know the everything had to have been created of an intelgence so far more than we can fathom. I watch shows about the universe all the time because I am facinated by the grandeur of it all.

God bless   Mike M

 

[KiwiChristian]

19 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

Yes a lot of effort. I did not read word for word but I scanned through it. Everything points to a creator. Ther is not other answer for all we see. I no Zip about physics. But i don't half to bey sientist to know the everything had to have been created of an intelgence so far more than we can fathom. I watch shows about the universe all the time because I am facinated by the grandeur of it all.

God bless   Mike M

 

Thank you, Mike.

 

Good to get a positive reaction for a change.

 

I did not write the list, i am merely passing it on hoping that it will be of use to others.

 

[bumble_b_tuna]

Quote

Answer: The Fine Tuning of the universe is due either to a) Necessity, b) Chance, or c) Design.

Have you heard of the anthropic principle, which falls under "a"?

"... a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Quote

There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine tuning is necessary

The fact you are here to observe this is reason and evidence. I imagine this wont satisfy any ones thirst to bring meaning to it all (the universe), but this is actaully a very elegant answer.

The reason I mention this is because later on you say:

Quote

c) Design of these constants and the fine tuning of the universe for life is the best explanation. “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics… and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

First off I want to point out that rejecting a and b does not get you to c. This is simply a false dichotomy and you are not taking into account that there could be many other reasons we simply just don't know about yet. Next, a "common sense interpretation of the facts" would not include an appeal to the supernatural. Common sense would be a or b, which explain things within the realms of the natural world. To get to Design, you first have to demonstrate there is in fact a designer. Just because something looks designed does not mean it was designed.

I think the truth is we just don't know why yet, and we may never know, but the journey will be exciting!

Thanks for your time on creating the thread.

[Mike Mclees]

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:14 PM, bumble_b_tuna said:

Have you heard of the anthropic principle, which falls under "a"?

"... a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

The fact you are here to observe this is reason and evidence. I imagine this wont satisfy any ones thirst to bring meaning to it all (the universe), but this is actaully a very elegant answer.

The reason I mention this is because later on you say:

First off I want to point out that rejecting a and b does not get you to c. This is simply a false dichotomy and you are not taking into account that there could be many other reasons we simply just don't know about yet. Next, a "common sense interpretation of the facts" would not include an appeal to the supernatural. Common sense would be a or b, which explain things within the realms of the natural world. To get to Design, you first have to demonstrate there is in fact a designer. Just because something looks designed does not mean it was designed.

I think the truth is we just don't know why yet, and we may never know, but the journey will be exciting!

Thanks for your time on creating the thread.

The fool has said there is no God.   Where does gravity come from and Im not talking about mass. . Everything in the universe works because of it. With out gravity humans would turn to jello  and drift to outer space. Without gravity there could not be a universe. No planets, no water.  no nothing. Yes we are of design and only gravity makes it possible.