The FINE-TUNED Evidence
The Evidence is in: Some amazing stuff to know about our universe
So, why a universe so big if it is just for us? Answer: because it had to be JUST PRECISELY that big.
- Choice among a RANGE OF OPTIONS: A dime’s difference
The natural sciences have discovered many, many constants, quantities, and aspects of the universe had to land just where they did, not a hair’s breadth more or less, within a razor thin range, or life would not exist.
Scientists have found if the mass density of the entire universe just happened to be different by more than 1 part in a quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion (1 in 1060), our fishbowl would be empty. Compared to the total mass of the universe, 1 part in 1060 is less than the mass of a dime!
In other words, if by chance the universe had a dime’s worth more or less mass at the beginning, then the balance of the observable universe would be thrown off, and no life would not be possible.
Why? Because, especially at the beginning of the universe, two massive forces acted against each other: GRAVITY, which depends on how much mass is involved, acts to pull everything together, and an EXPANSION force, which acts to push things apart. If the universe had a tiny bit less mass, then the expansion force would have dominated too much, spreading the universe out so fast only hydrogen and helium gas would form – no life. If just a bit more mass, then gravity would have dominated right at the beginning, and the universe would have been pulled back together in a big crunch, resulting in mostly black holes and neutron stars, again – no life.
The mass density difference would also impact the universe in other ways. As noted in The BEGINNING Evidence, the universe started off phenomenally small, dense and hot, and immediately started expanding. As the universe expands, it cools. Between the first 3-4 minutes, the universe’s temperature falls within the temperature range at the core of our sun, 200 to 17 billion °C, which allows nuclear fusion of (H)ydrogen into (He)lium and the radiation of energy as heat and light. If the universe had just the smallest bit less mass, then it would have cooled faster, had less time to fuse H into He, and messed up the ratio of H to He in the universe to the point that the universe would never be able to create the other elements needed for life (C, N, O, P, S, etc.). If just a bit more mass at the beginning, then too much H would be fused into He, and our universe would end up being a heavy metal universe, being composed of only metals of Iron and heavier – again, no life possible.
So how did the universe just happen to begin with the perfect balance of gravity and expansion, and just the right mass to enable the creation of all the elements needed for life, when it could have began with any other amount of mass and have no life? Only two possibilities, either an intelligent agent ensured the precise condition was met, or it happened naturally by chance.
Could some natural explanation be found? What is the trend?
Those whose worldview includes God may be thinking this is “proof that God exists,” but it isn’t, because: 1) God is not trying to “prove” himself (see “Why not make it obvious?” in the Frequently Asked Questions section), 2) an intelligent creator may have still used mostly natural means to arrive at the precise value, or 3) there may be something further involved that we are still ignorant of, which may explain it by nature and chance only. And I chose this case for a reason, it is a good example of a time when those who accept God have to remain open – just as is expected of those who do not accept God. There is something that may have occurred to make sure the universe expanded in a way where mass density is taken care of: a hyper-inflationary moment. There is a theory, with good evidence, that the universe had an extra-rapid expansion, or inflationary period, for a fraction of a second near the beginning of the universe, which may explain how the universe expanded just right, regardless of mass. Can this explain everything naturally, like the right amount of H fusing into He and all the other impacts having the precise mass density accomplishes? Well that is very questionable, but it may be possible.
Does that mean that this fine-tuning example is totally explained naturally? No, because ever since scientists first realized there are quantities, constants and other factors in the universe set precisely within the razor sharp range required for life, these examples have only grown and been found to be more amazing as further discovery goes on – and this is a good example of it – because if this inflation period of expansion takes care of the mass density fine-tuning, why is this expansion just right? The expansion force has recently been found to follow the trend of the constant increase of amazing fine-tuning evidence.
What Makes Our Universe Expand?
The expansion of space comes from what has been called dark energy, it is the space energy density, it is all through the fabric of space, and is stretching out space. If space expands too quick, gas and dust never collect by gravity to form galaxies, stars and planets. If slower, gravity pulls everything together into neutron stars and black holes, which means no molecules and no life. How precise does its value match what is necessary for life? If, by chance, this density differed by 1 part in 10120, no life could exist.
- Hoping to Win the Mega-Millions Jackpot?
Let’s put 10120 into a situation where you can see the significance of this
number. You have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions State Lotto
14 times in a row, than the universe did to land on the precise value it did
in this case. If 1 person won the lottery 14 times in a row, what would you be thinking? How lucky? Or, something is going on, some intelligent agent must be acting. If you are betting against an intelligent agent being behind the creation of the universe, then you are basing your life, and possibly eternity, on a very bad bet.
- The Highest Example of Man-Made Precision
The most sensitive device ever produced by man, the LIGO gravity wave detector, is so sensitive it can detect a change in distance one-hundred-millionth the diameter of a hydrogen atom (10-21). Amazing precision.
The precision required for the universe to just happen to land on the exact space energy density value required for life, displays more than a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times greater precision than LIGO, and correspondingly, that much more knowledge, intelligence and better funding than the Cal Tech & MIT scientists & engineers who designed man’s most precise instrument!
- Combination of Ranges
And it is not just the space energy density that must fit within a specific range to allow life, there are constants, quantities and aspects all throughout nature that must ALL fit within their respective precise ranges, all in combination with each other, to fit the pattern or requirements for our life to exist. Exactly fitting the hallmarks of an intelligent agent discussed in part 2.
Wherever science looks, whether at the four fundamental forces of physics operating throughout the whole universe, initial conditions at the very beginning of the universe, or at the smallest units in our universe, there is displayed fine-tuning of values and systems to fit precisely what is needed for life, our life, to have a window of time to operate here.
For example, while the picture is outdated, it illustrates that the atom has protons and neutrons in its nucleus, and electrons, which are actually in probability “clouds”, around the outside of the atom.
- The proton has 1,836 times more mass than the electron.
If this ratio were much different, then molecules could not form – no life.
- Stephen Hawking recognized this ratio as one of those just right values in
nature: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem
to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
- Regarding the electric charge of the electron, Hawking asserts that if
the charge “had been only slightly different, stars either would have
been unable to burn hydrogen and helium or else they would have exploded
To Have Life on Any Planet, You Need . . .
Not just a precisely expanding universe, and very functional atoms, but a planet with so many just-right features, and a star, a solar system, a galaxy, galaxy clusters, on all scales and throughout the universe factors are discovered to fit in the Goldilocks range required for our life to exist. You can obtain a list of these features from Reasons to Believe, www.reasons.org/links/hugh/research-notes.
Astronomer Hugh Ross, among others, has developed a scientific model concerning the fine-tuning of the universe, which includes a list of the fine-tuned features, predictions that the number of features will increase with more discoveries, and mathematical probabilities of nature accounting for life without intelligent guidance. Dr. Ross is a Christian, yet the data comes from peer-reviewed scientific studies and literature, the references are provided for you to check yourself. The list of fine-tuned features and model has been presented to professors and scientists across the world, especially those who do not share the worldview of Dr. Ross, and they do accept the fine-tuning of the features. The only disagreement is over the mathematic probabilities assigned to some features, however, the disagreement typical only goes up to a couple dozen zeros, which is insignificant when we are talking about probabilities involving a thousand+ zeros.
Predictive
Fine-tuned features are unexpected and should go away, if the universe were only a product of nature and chance alone. If the biblical model is correct, it predicts the list of fine-tuned parameters may grow over time – and that is exactly what we see.
Trending
Trends are important indicators. You see trends in your grades, the economy, your health, and other areas, and trends speak loudly. If the fine-tuning argument is valid, as time goes on, new discoveries and support will increase overall, or the opposite, if not true.
| Date | Features of the Universe that Must be Fine-Tuned to Support Life |
|---|---|
| 1988 | 15 |
| 1991 | 17 |
| 1995 | 26 |
| 1998 | 34 |
| 2001 | 41 |
| 2002 | 47 |
| 2004 | 77 |
| 2005 | 93 |
| 2006 | 140 |
| 2011 | 824 |
Corresponding trend in probabilities
What have we found? You can check the trends in the scientific literature, it has grown to hundreds of examples. In fact, you can test it now, looking in scientific writings. For those who say a natural explanation will be found – that is delusional faith – that hope is against the evidence that has already come in, and this is why trends are so important; the evidence and trends are not impacted by opinions and hopes, but just allow us to follow the evidence where it leads. And the trend is: every month or so a new fine-tuning discovery is added and mathematically increases the evidence by one million times that an intelligent creator is the only reasonable, logical, sufficient, and evidenced-based cause of the universe.
Here is a visual representation of the trend of fine-tuned features of the universe. A query was performed in July 2011 in ScienceDirect (Elsevier) database by physicist Luke Barnes, which counted the articles per year published citing an example of fine-tuning of the universe.
A Look at Probabilities: Chance does not have a chance
When speaking to a group, I usually start the lesson on statistics or probabilities, offering several games of chance to illustrate odds, and the scientific notation needed for the probabilities involved in
| Game of Chance | Odds (Scientific Notation) | Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| Pick THE penny | 1 in 10 (1 in 101) | + 1$ – I make fun of your shirt |
| Pick THE number | 1 in 100 (1 in 102) | + 5$ – Punch in the arm |
| Pick THE wire | 1 in 1000 (1 in 103) | + 1 Million$ – Bomb blows up |
Notice the increase from a 1 in 10 chance, to 1 in 100, is a big difference in likelihood of winning, but only goes from 101 to 102. 1 in 1000 is only 1 in 103 (notice scientific notation just counts the number of zeros). Also notice, even 1 in 103 is a bad bet, if there are serious consequences. For example, what if a bomb was placed in your lap, and if you cut the 1 and only wire, out of 1000 other wires, that disables the bomb, you receive 1 million dollars, if not, the bomb goes off. Even with such a payoff, the odds make it a bad bet to risk.
Now, consider the probability that – by chance – the right wire would get cut, or – by chance – all the just-right values required for life just happen. Compare it to other events that are far more likely.
- It is unfortunate that there is a data set large enough to establish the odds of surviving a fall from an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, but evidently, you have a 1 in 10 million chance
(1 in 10,000,000 or 1 in 10-7).
- For those thinking with such a massive universe, and so much time, anything can happen, the fault of that argument is exposed when looking at the numbers. Even if every single atom in the entire massive universe, all ~1080 of them, was itself another universe with a chance to get it all right the way our universe did, and each of them got a new chance to get it all right every single second since the beginning of time (~ 14 billion years ago, ~ 4 x 1017 seconds), they still would not match the odds of getting just the space energy density right, much less all the hundreds of other parameters that our universe just happened to get right for our advanced life to exist.
What are the scientists saying?
Quotes are not proof, but it is interesting to note that the following well-accepted and peer-reviewed scientists are giving the quotes below – because they have to – based on the evidence.
- The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” (Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe, New York: Harper & Row, 1979, p. 250)
- Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to recognizing that “the laws [of physics] … seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.” (Superforce, p. 243) He states, “[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all … it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe … The impression of design is overwhelming.” (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)
- “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Sir Frederick Hoyle, Engineering and Science)
From the currently most well-known mathematician and scientist, Stephen Hawking: “The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities (he wrote this in 1997) had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” (Stephen Hawking, “Austin American‐Statesman,” October 19, 1997) In the best-selling science book of all-time, Hawking adds: “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 W. Hawking A Brief History of Time—From the Big Bang to Black Holes New York: Bantam Books,
| Surviving a fall from 10,000 feet with no parachute | Number of seconds since the beginning of time | Number of all the atoms in the observable universe | Winning the state lottery 14 times in a row | Universe with Space Energy Density Just Right | Planet Meeting Needs for High-Tech Humans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 in 10-7 | 4.6 x 1017 | 1 x 1080 | 1 in 10-115 | 1 x 10-120 | 1 in 10-1050 |
Is there any alternative to the worldview that stands on God?
Yes. These quotes were chosen because they come from top-level scientists, who know the numbers as well as anyone, and stood on the agnostic or atheist worldview beliefs, at least when making those quotes. So you may wonder, how someone seeing such “overwhelming” evidence for design does not then accept a designer. Well, here is the rest of the context to that last quote from Hawking, after he said the extreme fine-tuning could lead some back to the old idea of “some grand designer”, he adds, “That is not the answer of modern science . . . our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.” He believes every different thing that could possibly happen, does happen, and spins off an entirely new and equally real universe. We just happen to be in the universe that got it all right.
Brian Greene gave a TED talk explaining how multiple universes would be created, and compared the mechanism that produces them to a French horn instrument – notice how he can’t help but to compare it to something made by an intelligent agent.
Problems with the multi-verse model:
- This is an admission that the fine-tuning examples are an example of DESIGN so great that it needs either God, or an infinite number of other universes.
- You would need something to generate all those universes, and does so in a way that tries out every possible fine-tuning value. Such a multiverse generator would also have a BEGINNING, CAUSE, and would be phenomenally FINE-TUNED (like a French Horn)
- What kind of multiple universe does the person believe in? Max Tegmark determined that there are 4 types, and only the 4th type would work to explain the fine-tuning.
- What EVIDENCE does the person give for that type of multiverse? There is none.
- What evidence do they have that even if that multiverse existed, that it already tried enough possible universe to generate one like ours, and if there is an infinite number, why don’t they collide?
- This is an example of an ad futuris fallacy: just wait, there will be evidence someday
- This is about an extreme example of an ad hoc fallacy as possible: it explains way too much
- This also demonstrates blind or delusional faith: standing on no evidence, yet refusing a model that significantly establishes itself in the standards of testing for validity (explanatory power, scope, falsifiability, predictive power, etc.) – the Christian model.
As one of the world’s foremost scientists on multiple universe, Max Tegmark, claims:
Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on. The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. (http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf)
Do observations give evidence of that – no – what he is saying is that observations show there is unfathomable fine-tuning, which he notes leaves the multiple universe as necessary.
So you have to believe that you sitting out there, there is another you, with an identical life so far in every way as you, but decided to wear a different shirt today, and that person is living in an EQUALLY REAL universe in the nearly infinite multi-verse out there. That is literally what you have to believe, if you do not want to accept intelligent agency.
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg understands the situation too, “If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning … I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.”
Another well-known cosmologist, Bernard Carr echoes that realization: “If there is only one universe you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.
Bottom-line: Do you believe all the fine-tuned factors, which go against astronomical statistics to all finely balance on the edge that allows life, are the result of chance plus infinite other universes, where anything possible can and will happen, or do they display the hallmarks of intelligence: purpose, meaning, design, ranges and combinations meeting requirements beyond the capacity of physical laws, etc.? The universe is larger than we can observe, and the existence of some form of “bubble universes” would not surprise me, and makes for great movies. However, the idea of having the level of multiverses needed to explain the fine-tuning without a purposeful God, comes without evidence, with a lot of problems, and also must face the comprehensive case from all fields of study that bring significant and continually growing evidence for the biblical model.
Which brings us to the next logical question: What God exists, and what does this God expect from us?