The fine-tuning argument for God with 3-rebuttals for agnostics

Let there be light. The universe--composed of galaxies, stars, and atoms--operates under a basic set of quantities and constants. These values are precisely calibrated to allow life as we know it. Any change in math results in a life-prohibiting universe. The atheist and agnostic will disagree. Their 3 main objections--with rebuttals--appear at the end.  Meanwhile, here are 3-potential explanations that exist for the fine-tuning universe argument. 

1. Physical necessity suggests that these constants and quantities could not be otherwise. This claim has no evidence--because it is "self-evident." 

2. Chance is highly unlikely due to the astronomical odds against a life-permitting universe. The multiverse theory has been suggested as a means to explain the fine-tuning through chance. However, this claim has no evidence--it just is. With chance, the universe generator--itself--would require fine-tuning. Additionally, the most probable observable universe in this case, would be minimal and simplistic--which contradicts our observations and existence.

3. Design supports the overwhelming appearance of nature and its function. Many scientists acknowledge this body of evidence which explains a purposeful force behind the universe.

One Omniscient Juggler. The laws of nature require precise calculations for interactive forces. British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle states, "A common-sense interpretation of facts suggests a superintellect has monkeyed with physics...chemistry and biology." All of the below quantities and constants must be dialed-in tightly if life is to exist. Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin in the Life of the Cosmos calculates the odds as, "1 chance in 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion--that's 19 trillions. Here are some balls that are juggled with precision. 

• Temperature, fresh water, sunlight for growing food, breathable oxygen and other balanced chemicals must be sustainable for life. Humidity and weather, atmospheric pressure for safe lung expansion and DNA-reproducability is necessary for sustainability. 

• Gravity must be balanced against all other forces such as electromagnetic force, to allow stars or planets.

• The ratio between electron and proton mass must be precise to stabilize atoms or life could not exist.

• Dark energy quantities must also balance or the universe would either collapse or expand.

• This mathematical list of quantities and constants is as follows. All of which must work together to support life in our universe.

Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value, Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark. Mass of the electron, neutrinos (sum), 

Electromagnetism coupling constant, Strong nuclear force coupling constant. Scalar fluctuation amplitude Q

Cosmological Constant--Leonard Susskind writes in The Cosmic Landscape: "To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is ...no accident." The vacuum energy relates to the cosmological constant.

Baryon, dark matter mass per photon; Entropy of the Universe, Number of spacetime dimensions, etc.

Debate Points. Here are 3-main agnostic objections against fine-tuning. In our rebuttal, we would ask for evidence, math, formulas and/or scientific notation.  

• Objection 1. "How can we say the universe is fine-tuned for life when most is inhospitable and hostile to life?"

The fine tuning argument is not intended to address why we don't live on the sun or breathe on the moon. Nor does it address why we don't live in the empty space between stars and planets. It explains how energy sources like our sun and stars are precisely calculated to support life.  Nobody argues that the light bulb was invented to enhance modern life. Yet, we don't touch hot bulbs or we get burned. Light bulbs are helpful rather than hostile. This superficial argument distracts from our natural laws and their functions.

• Objection 2. "The fine-tuning for life is nonsense. We adapted to the universe through evolution. The universe did not adapt to us."

In evolution, everything changes. In reality, natural laws don't change. Math and probabilities can be double and triple-checked across generations. What are the odds of evolution when no heavier elements than hydrogen and helium were formed, when time is constrained to preclude evolution because stars burned too fast, when no chemistry existed, and atoms cannot exist due to wrong mass relationships between protons and neutrons or because they are torn apart by too rapid expansion of the universe due to a cosmological constant that is too large? In this argument, the math ain't mathing. Changing physics is not sustainable in our universe.

Moreover, biological evolution is confused with mutations or adaptation. When mutations and random errors occur, they result in lateral-pathology* or degradation but no evidence exists for creation. Look up flu virus mutations across seasons. National Geographic states SARs2-covid viruses mutate differently in each person as often as every 11 days. Cigarette smoke mutates our DNA into blueprints for cancer cell replication. In evolution theory, there is no evidence to support the addition of chromosomes. Pre-assigned chromosomes are finite per species. In humans, babies have 46 chromosomes: 23 from mom and 23 from dad.*  In 1859, Charles Darwin hyperbolized adaption based on bird beak-variations and survival of the fittest-finch in, The Origin of Species. Absent is discussion of bird origin. To be fair, DNA-related chromosomal inheritance did not appear in the literature until c.1943. A finch has 40 chromosomes, where did they get more chromosomes to become higher life forms? And where are transitory fossils?

*Down's syndrome results in 47 human chromosomes--but not because of an added, discreet chromosome. Through a random transcription error of lateral-pathology, one of the pair in chromosome #21 divides or makes a full or partial copy of itself, hence the diagnosis of Trisomy 21. A similar case is Edward's syndrome (Trisomy 18) or Patau's (Trisomy 13). When chromosomal +/- changes exist in organisms, the yield is developmental disorders or incompatibility with life. Still skeptical?--google the word "trisomy" for the full effect. This evidence supports a pre-assigned, finite set of chromosomes per species. If anything, altering these finite sets has not led to higher life forms, but altered states of function and/or death. Are animals subject to trisomy? Yes. 

• Objection 3. "For being finely-tuned, life is incredibly imperfect and filled with suffering."

Cosmological fine-tuning deals with the miracle of existence, not quality of life or Original Sin. Objective math and science is a different argument than subjective perfection and personal opinion. For the agnostic, religion and hope--are a missing link. Everyone is welcome to see life as miraculous despite flaws and difficulties, or terrible through the lens of despair. This is the perfect opportunity and teaching moment to share our faith and hope through our love of neighbor. 

Conclusion. Upon examination, the evidence of universe fine-tuning points to a grand design. The math indicates the existence of a superintellect designer for setting and maintaining precise constants and quantities. While interpretations vary, the delicate integrations within our universe support a purposeful force behind creation. Go God!

Source:

Chimp trisomy 22 | Pubmed

The coronavirus is mutating—but what determines how quickly? | National Geographic

Germ theory idolatry & other sacred cows | Catholic365

Video (7 minutes) The Fine-Tuning of the Universe | Dr William Craig

Video (1 minute) The Fine-Tuning Problem | Thomas Mulligan