Is Our Universe Fine-Tuned for the Existence of Life?

In the previous articles, we have established the various scientific, philosophical, and mathematical discoveries that confirmed the notion that the universe had a beginning. If we are going to tackle the question of whether a personal God was the cause of that beginning or not, we must look at an area of discoveries in physics called the fine-tuning parameters of the universe. Cosmologists, Physicists, and mathematicians alike have all discovered that various laws in physics exhibit fine-tuned values within their logical structure. Not only are the laws themselves fine-tuned, but their relationships to one another all lie within extremely specific and improbable values, values we would not expect if everything happened randomly. So, let's now dive into some of the history of these discoveries, and their implications reguarding a transcedent intelligence.

The Fine-Tuning Required for Life's Most Essential Element

Since the 1950s, physicists have come upon the brute fact that life in the universe depends on a very improbable set of forces and mass-energy distribution. It was Fred Hoyle who researched theories attempting to describe nuclear reactions inside stars. He was specifically looking for a way that hydrogen would fuse into the elements on our periodic table. He was a stark atheist when he started his research:

“Religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly dreadful situation in which we find ourselves.” (Hoyle, Our Truly Dreadful Situation, 1948, Harper's Magazine)

It was Hoyle who coined the name "Big Bang" to the emerging theory of cosmic expansion and an absolute beginning. He did this to poke fun at the idea of a beginning to the universe, which motivated him to create his Steady-State Theory mentioned in the previous article, Did the Universe Have a Beginning? But Hoyle also played a big role in the discovery that the properties of the universe fall within improbable ranges that are necessary for the development of life. The magnitudes and strengths of various forces, along with the initial distribution of mass-energy at the beginning, seem to be balanced on a knife-edge to allow life to thrive. Each fundamental law or force has just the right strength, and all the energy was perfectly distributed in just the right arrangement to allow stable galaxies and stars to form, heavy elements to be created, and ultimately for Earth to be the outcome with life.

The Fine-Tuning Required to Produce Carbon

Carbon is the most crucial and fundamental element for the existence of life. Its atomic structure makes bonds with other elements the best out of the rest. Carbon dioxide is also a gas, making it easy to dispel as waste, and it plays a key role as the central atomic structure of many biomolecules, out of which all life is created. It can also form long, stable chain-like molecules that can store information (DNA & RNA). Hoyle knew that the universe contained an abundance of carbon (Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Synthesis of the elements in stars. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(4), Pg 547–650). The theory at the time was that protons and neutrons collided inside stars to produce heavier elements, but most models predicted the expected amounts of lighter elements, and not the expected amounts of heavier elements.

Fusing elements inside stars meant they had to pass atomic structures with five protons and neutrons in the nuclei, but these structures are very unstable and would not last long enough for another collision to happen and continue the process. This block was named the "5-nucleon crevasse." 5 nucleon atoms have half-lives of 1/10²⁴th of a second; thus, most theorists were stumped at finding a way for elements to pass through this barrier. George Gamow and Ralph Alpher envisioned three helium atoms (2 protons and neutrons each) colliding to make carbon-12, the most common form of carbon found (6 protons and neutrons), but rejected their model due to the implausibility of this type of collision occurring inside stars. But Hoyle cooked up a method that solved the issue, though a bit trivial at first. Hoyle imagined a helium nucleus colliding with beryllium-8 to form carbon-12; (2p and 2n) + (4p and 4n) = (6p and 6n). He chose beryllium because (1) it had the right amount of nucleons, and (2), despite it also being unstable, it has a half-life just long enough to continue making collisions to produce carbon.

Then he ran into another barrier, the total energy of this carbon exceeded the total energy of the common carbon-12. This means there must be a form of carbon with this energy level for his theory to be correct. He calculated the total energy of the helium and beryllium to be more than the ground energy state of carbon-12. Later on, he would visit the Kellogg Laboratory at Caltech and have a physicist's experiment to see if this form of carbon existed. Though resistant and skeptical at first, Willy Fowler would discover a form of carbon that had the exact energy that Hoyle predicted (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 135). But this had some implications now that it was confirmed; It meant that this form of carbon had to have this exact energy level, or heavier elements would not develop, and neither would life.

“The resonance levels of different elements are a consequence of many factors and can be calculated using equations of quantum chromodynamics, a subdiscipline of quantum mechanics. Thus, the resonance levels of carbon would have been different if different factors had been in play. And if those resonance levels had been different, then beryllium-8 and helium-4 could not have combined to form carbon-12” (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 135)

This means that there are specific physical parameters that, if otherwise, would prevent the heavier elements from being manufactured in stars, along with Earth and life later developing. Fred Hoyle's recognition of this motivated him to do more research on the conditions required to produce his form of carbon. He formed a theory that collapsing stars can make carbon from the lighter elements under particular conditions, once those conditions are met. But creating this theory just created more questions and dug the fine-tuning hole another foot deeper.

The Fine-Tuning Parameters

Hoyle's model for how carbon could be produced by collapsing stars revealed some fine-tuned physical laws and forces that are responsible for the energy levels of helium, carbon, and beryllium. There are four fundamental forces in nature:

1. The Electromagnetic Force: This force causes particles with opposite charges to be attracted to one another and repels those with the same charge.

2. The Weak Nuclear Force (WNF): This force causes nuclear radiation, which is the decay of atoms, releasing energy.

3. The Strong Nuclear Force (SNF): The attractive force that binds quarks into protons and neutrons into the nucleus of the atom.

4. Gravitational Force: This force acts on macro-scale objects to form the larger universe, with planets, stars, and galaxies.

The strength of the electromagnetic force and the SNF must be balanced with each other. Inside the nucleus of an atom, protons are about ten-trillionths of a centimeter apart, and with the electromagnetic force acting, the repulsion between the like-charged protons is about 24,000,000 dynes of force. The average man can punch about 2,400 newtons of force. 24,000,000 dynes, which only comes out to about 250 newtons, is an immense force applied to such small particles. This repulsive force packs enough punch to send both particles in opposing directions near light speed. There is something neutralizing the force of electromagnetism, overcoming it, but it must be incredibly strong to overcome the force, and it must rapidly disperse with distance, being only detectable smaller than that ten-trillionths of a centimeter. The SNF must have a precise strength to balance the electrostatic repulsion.

If the strength or magnitude of the force were changed slightly, the protons wouldn't be able to form stable atomic nuclei; moreover, the mass of the types of quarks (sub-atomic particles that make up protons and neutrons) fit together to produce protons and neutrons with just the right mass and energy. Recent calculations reveal that the SNF and electromagnetic force are specifically fine-tuned within about .5% their current values (Csoto, Oberhummer, and Schlattl, Fine-Tuning the Basic Forces of Nature Through the Triple-Alpha Process in Red Giant Stars).

The Fine-Tuning of the Quark

The charges of up-quarks and down-quarks are heavily fine-tuned to allow stable atomic nuclei to form. There are six types of quarks: Up, Top, Charm, Down, Strange, and Bottom. But the up and down quarks are what make up protons and neutrons, which make up the atomic nucleus. For ease of understanding, I will use the charge of an electron as a comparison to the charge of the quarks. This way makes it easier to see how perfect these charge values are. The Up quark has a charge of +⅔ of an electron, and the Down has -⅓ of an electron. Now, when up and down quarks combine to form a Neutron, one up and two Down quarks combine. This means the charge combination can be written as:

Up(+⅔) + Down(-⅓) + Down(-⅓)

This can be simplified to:

⅔ - ⅔ = 0

And this is why a neutron has a 0 charge; its charge value is 0 compared to that of an electron. Now, let's say we want to make a proton, which takes one down and two up quarks to combine. The combination can be written as:

Up(-⅓) + Down(+⅔) + Down(+⅔) 

Which may be simplified to:

(-⅓) + ⁴⁄₃  = 1

This is why the proton is said to have a positive charge; it has a charge of +1 electron. If these charge values were to change, protons and neutrons could not form, and by and large, neither will atoms. Not only are the charges fine-tuned, but their masses are aswell. The range for these possible mass values extends between zero and the Planck Mass, which equals about .002 miligrams. The mass of the up quark must have a mass between zero and 10^-9 of the Planck Mass, which corresponds to a fine-tuning of 1 part in 10²¹. The mass of the down quark is 3.9 x 10^-22 of the Planck Mass, making its fine-tuning 1 part in 10²². Thus, for Hoyle's form of carbon to be produced, multiple layers of fine-tuning must be met, layers that are individually implausible given their possible values. 10²² is a very large number, one that the human mind cannot even imagine. When scientific notation is used, the exponent represents how many zeros follow or precede the number it's applied to. For example, 10⁶ is the number 1 followed by six zeros, or 6,000,000. So 10²² is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If a number written in scientific notation has a negative exponent, the zeros precede the number, for example, 3 x 10^-3 is .0003. Hopefully, this illuminates the sheer size and implausibility of these numbers.

The Fine-Tuning of Gravity

For helium and beryllium to gain enough kinetic energy (a measure of particle movement) to produce carbon-12, the strength of the gravitational force must be its precise value. The kinetic energy gained enabled helium and beryllium to overcome the sheer electromagnetic repulsion they experience, and this varies with the temperature inside stars. The ability of a star to produce extreme temperatures is heavily dependent on the specific strength of gravity. If the gravitational force were weaker, stars would not burn hot enough to produce the kinetic energy required to produce carbon, and if it were stronger, stars would only be able to produce heavy elements, burning up too fast, resulting in a different ratio of elements in the universe.

Physicists have discovered that the value of the gravitational constant (G) is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10³⁵ in relation to the possible values it could have had. The value of G is 10⁴⁰ times weaker than the SNF, and assuming that the SNF represents a maximum for the possible strengths of G, it could have had a value anywhere between 0 and 10⁴⁰ times its current value. This means if the value were to change in either direction, 1 part in 10³⁵ - 10⁴⁰, its current value, say goodbye to the ordered large-scale universe.

Finely-Tuned Laws and Constants

It is, nowadays, rather undisputed whether the laws of physics are fine-tuned for the allowance of life on Earth. Both the laws of Physics and Chemistry are exquisitely fine-tuned, but what does that mean? The constants in the laws themselves are what are fine-tuned. In A Fortunate Universe, authors Lewis and Barnes list the leading physicists like John Barrow, Bernard Carr, Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, Alan Guth, and more who all affirm the appearance of fine-tuning. Stephen Meyers says that the list was generally split between theists and non-theists, with the theists mainly disagreeing with multiverse models from the non-theists (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis).

Variable Quantity: A quantity that can change its value depending on the situation's context.

The laws of physics are used to relate a variable quantity to another. For example, a variable (Force) begins to increase in a car as I press the gas pedal; another variable( like velocity and acceleration) will also increase or change proportionally by some factor. In this case, applying more force to the car caused its acceleration to increase proportionally to the applied force. These relationships can be proportional (as one increases, the other increases) or inversely proportional (as one increases, the other decreases). Within these equations that describe forces and fields, resides a constant, or a physical quantity that is unchanging and discoverable through measurement and experimentation, and always remains the same in every context. For example, if the gravitational constant (G) were increased, your mass on Earth would remain the same, but the strength of gravitation would increase, and you may struggle to walk, and any large increase would make it difficult to stay alive.

These constants have values that are very unlikely given the vast range of possible values they could have. “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 chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly” (The Anthropic Principle, May 18, 1987, episode 17, season 23, quoted in Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis)).

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Pg 26)

Not only are the constants fine-tuned, but their ratios to each other exhibit extreme fine-tuning. The electromagnetic force constant experiences fine-tuning to 1 part in 10¹²⁰ with some sources offering slightly different numbers, and some completely different, but still fine-tuned nonetheless. The ratio between the WNF and SNF constants cannot exceed 1 part in 10,000. If it were to deviate from its current value by that much, stars fueled by hydrogen fusion would never have the possibility to exist. The ratio between the electromagnetic force constant (K) and the gravitational force constant (G) is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10⁴⁰_.

_{If G or K were stronger or weaker by 1/10⁴⁰th, gravitation would be too strong in comparison, overpowering the electromagnetic force, causing stars to burn too fast from rapid particle collisions, and not producing heavier elements necessary on Earth. If it were too weak, stars or any large-scale objects would not form, and the universe would be a giant soup of charged particles, as gravity would be overpowered by sheer electromagnetic repulsive forces. It is very obvious that the constants of the laws of physics and chemistry experience an unimaginable fine-tuning in and of themselves, aswell as between each other}

More Fine-Tuning

The fine-tuning of the constants is but one aspect of the fine-tuning parameters of the universe. There are at least two other general aspects of fine-tuning in relation to the universe and its features: The initial conditions of mass-energy at the beginning (entropy), and the fine-tuning of some other contingent features.

1. The Fine-Tuned Initial Entropy

If you read the previous article, you may recall the mention of Einstein's field equations that allow a physicist to determine different spatial configurations of the universe derived from possible distributions of mass-energy. This initial distribution needed to exhibit small fluctuations, apart from being completely uniform and homogenous. You may also notice that I will sometimes refer to matter at this stage as mass-energy. Einstein's equations gave us the famous equation E=MC^2, which describes how energy and matter are different forms of the same substance. At the beginning of the universe, the energy within it was at such a dense and compact point that practically no matter was formed yet; it was all a dense ball of hot energy with mass, hence "mass-energy." So the initial distribution of mass-energy heavily affects how the large-scale universe will structure itself given time. The specific distribution of this mass-energy at the beginning accounts for the formation of stars, galaxies, clusters, etc. Physicists have unearthed the fact that if this initial distribution of mass-energy were different even by the smallest amount, the universe would result in either a clumping of all the matter, leading to a universe of only black holes, or a distribution of matter that is far too sparse and spacious for gravity to accumulate large-scale structures. Both of these alternatives prevent the formation of elements, stars, planetary systems, and galaxies.

Entropy: A measure of the amount of disorder within a system being observed.

Remember how I talked about General Relativity in the previous article, too. Einstein's theory of gravitation posited that any object with mass will bend the fabric of spacetime around it, changing the spatial trajectory of objects influenced by this warp, falling into the curvature that we call gravity. Since all objects with mass bend spacetime and exert gravitational effects, the initial distribution of energy (that would cool into matter as the universe expands) at the beginning of the universe would determine the structure in the future, as all mass would exert gravity, driving physical change over time. This initial distribution is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10⁵⁵ of its current value, meaning if it were to change by 1/10⁵⁵th, the above-mentioned circumstances would result. Physicists refer to this distribution of mass-energy as the universe's initial entropy.

A universe with high initial entropy would result in black holes, and one with low entropy would result in ordered large-scale structures. The universe, with ordered structures in its later development, exhibited a low initial entropy (highly specific) of the distribution of mass-energy. To evaluate the amount of entropy required, the number of alternative configurations that align with a specifc circumstance must be determined first; in this case, our circumstance is a life-permitting universe. So if we were to calculate the total entropy of the universe, we must know how many alternate configurations there are that result in a life-permitting universe. This, in turn, will offer us an assessment of whether this entropy experiences unexplained fine-tuning.

A black hole represents the highest possible entropy a system can have, as the extreme gravitational force ensures that the matter and energy within its event horizon exhibit many chaotic forms and configurations while not really affecting the black hole's structure in toto. A galaxy, on the other hand, represents a low-entropy system, as there are few ways to arrange the matter within to result in the ordered spiral structure. So when we examine our universe and find very few black holes in comparison to stars and galaxies, we can confidently say it exhibits a low-entropy state in its present form. This implies that the universe had to have a lower entropy in the past, as entropy increases in a system as time moves in the forward direction.

Finding Entropy

Baryon: Protons and Neutrons

The mathematical giant, Roger Penrose, was the one who tackled the task of determining the number of different initial mass-energy configurations that would cause a life-permitting universe. He started by assuming that no possible universe could have more entropy than that of a black hole. This meant he needed to find the total entropy of the universe if it were a single blackhole. To do this, he used an equation known as the Bekenstein-Hawking equation, based upon General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which would calculate a reasonable maximum entropy for the universe. Using the Bekenstein-Hawking equation, he calculated the value for every possible entropy per baryon to be about 10⁴³/baryon. He then multiplied this (the number of configurations per proton and neutron) by the number of total baryons in the observable universe (10⁸⁰), which came out to a total entropy value of 10¹²³. This entropy value represented the maximum for any universe, that of a black hole universe.

Penrose then calculated the total entropy of the present universe. To do this, he assumed that every galaxy had a black hole at its center with an average mass of one million solar masses, which yielded an entropy of 10²¹/galaxy. He then took this number multiplied by the total baryons, which came to a total entropy for our universe of 10¹⁰¹. The universe at the beginning of its existence would exhibit an entropy no greater than this value. He concluded that our universe has an entropy value that is very improbable compared to the possible configurations of mass-energy it could have had. This is because 10¹⁰¹ is a small fraction of 10¹²³; subtracting 10¹²³ by 10¹⁰¹ just results in 10¹²³. Also, 10¹²³ is more than the total observable baryons in the universe at 10⁸⁰. We can confidently conclude that our universe has an extremely improbable initial entropy that resulted in a life-permitting universe as opposed to the common possible values it could have had.

2. Universe Expansion

A life-permitting universe does not solely rely on its initial distribution; it also relies on many other features that could have been otherwise, and if they were, would not result in intelligent life thriving on Earth. For starters, the expansion rate of the universe is highly determinative of whether a universe would be life-friendly or not. Stephen Hawking calculated the expansion rate of the universe to be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10¹⁷. This implies that if the expansion rate were smaller by 1/10¹⁷th of its current value, gravity would have overcome expansion, causing the universe to collapse under its own curvature. But the rate of expansion is dependent on other factors that are individually fine-tuned. The density of mass-energy would have been about 10²⁴ kg, and if it were to change by a single kilogram per meter^³, galaxies would never have formed. This means the expansion rate is fine-tuned itself to 1 part in 10¹⁷, but also has underlying fine-tuning of 1 part in 10²⁴ in its mass-energy density per meter^³.

But there is more, the cosmological constant (Λ), which represents the mass-energy density in the equations for the expansion rate, exhibits fine-tuning to 1 part in 10⁹⁰. This means that the expansion rate exhibits fine-tuning on multiple layers.

3. The Size, Shape, and Position of the Milky Way Galaxy

If our home spiral galaxy, the Milky Way, were not the structure it is, such as an elliptical or irregular galaxy, its center would emit radiation that is harmful to the existence of life. If it were a dwarf galaxy, it would exhibit a low amount of heavy metals.

Moreover, if our galaxy were not separated from other galaxies, we wouldn't have such a stable gravitational field, thus being influenced by other galaxies, further preventing the thriving of life. Our galaxy is also large enough not to have common solar collisions, giving life enough of a time window to develop.

4. Our Planet's Location

The last piece of fine-tuning I will mention in this article is what astronomers call the "Goldilocks Zone," a location for a planet that ensures the conditions are perfect for the thriving of life. Our Planet is just far enough from our sun as not to be bombarded with more or less radiation and heat. Our Planet has:

A. Liquid Water: Earth has an abundance of liquid water on its surface, a crucial condition for life to thrive, and chemical reactions necessary for life to occur. This relies on the distance the Earth is from the sun, as well as the shape of its orbit. But this relies on physical factors such as the strength of gravity.

B. Stellar Energy: The Earth's location prevents it from receiving too much radiation, so the water does not boil.

C. The Stage of Our Star: Our star is at the perfect stage in its lifespan to allow life. If it were larger, its habitat zone would be moved further away from where it is now, too small, and it moves closer. If it were older, in its red giant phase, our orbital distance would actually be inside of the star.

D. Perfect Atmosphere: Our atmosphere is not thick enough to rapidly trap greenhouse gases, which would result in uninhabitable temperatures. And if we have a thinner atmosphere, we wouldn't be able to trap enough greenhouse gases to keep the temperature right.

To our current knowledge, there have been no exoplanets found that exist in the Goldilocks zone, with all the correct features for the thriving of life. For more information on why this does not mean life can originate, follow this link to my Abiogenesis Series: https://www.ptequestionstoeden.com/services-9.

Can Chance Explain Fine-Tuning?

The claim to chance is far beyond an adequate explanation at this point, as there are simply not enough particles in the observable universe to account for some of the fine-tuning features. This explanation also discourages any further discovery and research. If it all happened by chance, then there's no real rhyme or reason to think there's a law that caused it, since laws operate in regularity, and chance by definition is not regular. Going along with this explanation just ignores the improbabilities mentioned above, and it is grasping at thin air at this point.

Is Fine-Tuning the Result of Necessity?

As our discussion about Roger Penrose calculating the total entropy of the universe compared to the possible entropy already dismantles this explanation, because there is no reason to assume they are not contingent values. "The universe is life-permitting specifically because the laws of physics are fixed, and this must have happened." This explanation lacks empirical support, as the fact that other universe models with different mass-energy configurations are logically possible, there is no reason to think it must have happened that way. This also ignores the mass-energy distribution fine-tuning, as the laws of physics can not explain why it is as it is, either.

Could the Laws of Physics be Responsible?

The Physical constants are the variables that determine, for example, the strength of the electromagnetic force attraction of oppositely charged particles, or the strength of gravity upon an object. But these constants cannot be explained by the laws of physics because they are a foundational part of the laws themselves. No law has been discovered that can be responsible for the initial distribution of mass-energy at the beginning of the universe; the laws describe how forces and fields interact and govern the behaviour of material states, once specific material conditions are met. In other words, the laws presuppose the initial conditions; they do not explain them.

What About the Hostility of Our Universe?

Some say that the universe cannot be fine-tuned for life because 99.99% of the rest of the universe seems unsuitable for it. This ignores the fact that the universe itself must have a total size, mass, and density that it currently has to achieve the single goal of a planet suitable for life. It also ignores the possibility that God may have had more than one reason for making the universe as it is. Like making the heavens diverse and beautiful, driven and governed by laws describable in a simplistic, comprehensible, linguistic, and mathematical fashion with symbols. This would enable His creation to observe the heavens and conclude that a God had made it solely for them (Psalm 33:6; Colossians 1:16; Nehemiah 9:6; Isaiah 40:26). God also warned us not to worship the heavens, or mistake them for living beings (Deuteronomy 4:19), unlike some people nowadays who see the stars as having magical powers to determine their futures, or that the universe itself is somehow alive and a divine mind (whatever that means, because matter is not mind) that solely exists to serve their pleasures.

The Hostility of other locations of the universe is actually not surprising to the Christian, who doesn't necessarily expect there to be anywhere else exactly like Earth, since God has His special attention on it. The atheists, on the other hand, believing in some form of chance or necessity originations, would expect at least some habitable zones for life to originate.

Naturalistic Interpretations: WAP and SAP

In 1974, Australian-born theoretical physicist Brandon Carter introduced a naturalistic interpretation of the fine-tuning evidence. He tried to offer an explanation that dwarfed the need to explain the fine-tuning. He stated,

“What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers” (Carter, Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology)

The Weak Anthropic Principle

This interpretation was called the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), and proponents of it argue that we shouldn't be surprised to observe a fine-tuned universe because if the universe were not fine-tuned for life, we wouldn't be here to observe it. They argued that because observers would have the potential to exist in an observer-friendly universe, there is no need to explain why there is fine-tuning. This is faulty logic; it is confusing Observation for Explanation. Imagine you were blindfolded and had a bunch of marksmen ready to execute you. Once the shots are fired, you take off your blindfold and observe that all the shots didn't hit you; they missed. The fact that the marksman missed does not explain why they missed. So the fact that we can observe the universe in an observer-friendly universe only explains the fact that we can observe the universe that is consistent with the thriving of life. It does not in any way explain why we live in such a universe with the incomprehensibly improbable conditions necessary for life to thrive.

The Strong Anthropic Principle

This interpretation, also proposed by Carter, says that  “the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history” (John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Pg 21). Proponents of this interpretation never explained what causes the fine-tuning parameters to exist. They posit that any universe must, at some point, form life to observe it. But this is simply arbitrarily assuming that, and ignoring the plethora of evidence against it.

SAP 2.0

There is another version of the Strong Anthropic Principle that claims:

“The need for observers to confer reality upon the universe means that the universe had to be fine-tuned to produce human observers to observe it” (Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 155)

This version was created analogous to the collapse of the wave function in Quantum Physics.  In Quantum physics, there exists something called the wave function, which can be derived from a previous equation, whose solutions represent different positions that a particle may manifest within a wave of energy. For example, I have a wave of light approaching a photographic plate. Whenever I do my calculations, I come to many different locations for a photon of light to be detected across that wave of light. Until I make a measurement, I will not know what possible location the particle is in. Only once I make an observation, will I know which possibility the particle is located at. Electrons and photons exist in multiple possible positions along a wave of energy. When an observer measures the wave of energy, a particle is detected.

Depiction of the collapse of the wave function. Under the Copenhagen Interpretation, an observer causes the collapse to occur and a particle to be measured.

An interpretation of Quantum Physics, called the Copenhagen Interpretation, claims that the observation causes the particles to manifest along the wave, thus they claim that the universe itself may depend on a observer to observe it for its very existence. So the universe is fine-tuned for life because life observes it. But this has a major issue. Our concept of time and cause implies that an event that produces an effect precedes the effect in chronological sequence. Thus, the observers in this case, who cause fine-tuning, make their observations well after the effect they caused happens. Even in Quantum Physics, the collapse of the wave function happens after the observation has occurred. Thus, this interpretation was so bad that Scientific American writer Martin Gardner called it the CRAP, "the Completely Rediculous Anthropic Principle" (Gardner, "WAP, SAP, FAP & PAP").

Conclusion

Was the universe fine-tuned from the get-go? Absolutely. The sheer impossible chances of these features finding the values they do, the initial distribution of the mass-energy, the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of the four forces, the features of the Milky Way, the location of our Planet, and many more contingent features all point straight in the direction that the universe was fine-tuned for the thriving of life.

If the universe were fine-tuned, with extremely interdependent laws and features, and it also had a termination point of time in the past, then what are we to think of the cause? We can confidently list the characteristics of the nature of the first cause from what we have examined thus far. the cause of the universe must be space-less, as before the effect, space was non existent; time-less, as time arose with space; immaterial, being transcedent to matter because non existed beforehand; all-powerful, to causally adequate to produce the vast amount of total energy in the cosmos; all-knowing to be able to create everything we know to exist; omnipresent, because if it is immaterial, then it is not confined to a physical body or space; personal, to be able to choose to create from a state of non-creation; intelligent, to know to create the initial conditions so finely tuned to produce a life-permitting universe, and to obviously have a goal of observers in mind; to some degree loving (even all-loving, being, as of now, the cause of lthe love we experience), as it put so much into just creating a single planet with human beings equipped with mids able to make sense of it; and it must exhibit a mind, because only minds make decicions, and only minds comprehend thinsg as complex as physical laws and the universe.

All of these characteristics align with the nature of God as revealed in the Bible. But so far in our investigation, we cannot really say which God it could be. We also haven't gone over alternative models or a deep dive into the total implications. Stay tuned in, because all of this is coming soon. May Jesus Christ bless you with an awesome respect and reverence for the majesty and glory He displays in the creation He has left us with.

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him". (Colossians 1:16)

"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made". (John 1:3)