As I said, at the heart of the universe is randomness, and that would include its creation. Have you taken a look at quantum mechanics? It's nothing but randomness. So much so that calculations are only probabilities as the outcome is completely random. If the universe is guided by randomness now, then it was so at the start too. I don't have access to a peer-reviewed database or journal. I'm assuming you don't either. All the links just had 404 error messages. ================ A question for you is, if you believe there is a "fine tuner", who is it, why don't they prove their existence, and if they do exist, why leave to someone like you (no offense) to try to convince people of its own existence. It makes no sense whatsoever, not surprisingly.
are you some sort of expert? the hear of the universe is random.. you seem out of date. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx here is a cut an paste from the first half of the above link... According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event. In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion. Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop. Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all. Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'." According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon. Hoyle sums up his findings as follows: A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely. Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt: The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present. In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation an
So the jist is...The universe is designed because the cosmological constants appear fine-tuned. Here is what I am saying. The appearance of fine-tuning or design is not evidence of such.. Why? Because proving there was a designer is not falsifiable. It's a theological/philosophical argument which cannot be tested or mathematically calculated. It is a categorically unscientific statement to claim the universe is designed simply because it appears so, with zero actual evidence for it. Are sand dunes designed? Or do they self-organize themselves randomly? And you haven't addressed quantum mechanics or chaos theory at all with your fine-tuning hypothesis. If anything, these two branches of physics stipulate the universe is at its heart, completely RANDOM.
Think of a painting....does the painter exist in the painting? No, he exists outside the painting but still his personality and genius is still in the painting. God is like the painter and we are the painting. We exist inside space/time, therefore its a logical conculsion that the creator exists outside of space/time. Anything that does not exist inside time, must be eternal and exist before and after times existence.
It seems very unlikely top scientists, many of them atheists, would be proposing the fine tunings could be explained by almost infinite alternate universes if they still believed the fine tuning of our universe could still be explained by chaos theory. You are basically arguing all the scientists who accept the idea our universe looks fine tuned are idiots being fooled by randomness and do not understand chaos theory. you have to understand the foundation of the argument. We had a big bang... the universe could have formed almost infinite other ways... yet it formed in a way that is virtually impossible to explain away be random chance. That is the gist of the fine tuning argument. So if you accept the universe in which we lived is impossibly fine tuned... by definition you are excluding the argument that randomness is responsible for the way our universe is... absent an appeal to the multiverse conjecture.
Well, if there is a creator god, I hope he shows himself so that we may all believe in it. Otherwise, what I see is a universe indifferent to suffering, good or evil, that is randomly changing, and evolving just as science has observed. Your birth is nothing but random luck that your parents even met, or that any of your ancestral lineage mated, thousands of generations ago. It's one gigantic lucky draw. The most amazing lottery to ever take place over 13.7 billions years, from super nova, to you and me. I find that far more amazing than any creation myth story.
I do not understand how any scientist, in the face of quantum mechanics alone, could postulate a fine-tuned universe. The quantum level is far from fine-tuned. It's impossible to predict anything with 100% certainty. You call that fine-tuned?? It looks to me like the chaotically random quantum reality results in seeming order which we see at our macro level. Order can certainly come from randomness. The creation of this universe cannot be disconnected from this fact. I understood the argument. "The cosmological constants are seemingly set at values which facilitate life as we know it. Any deviation from these values negates life, stars, or planets." That is a very interesting observation, but is not evidence of a designer, because our perception of such seeming design does not prove anything as to whether or not there is a designer or not. Your feelings on the matter mean nothing in regards to the actual truth. Feelings aren't enough. So I'm sorry. This isn't evidence. This designer has to come itself and show itself to us. Otherwise, you have nothing but your feelings and again, feelings mean nothing unless you can prove them.