You've given the remarkable fact that it's very precise, but not the odds of it reaching that level of precision. As with Plotinus' theology essays, there's no reason to imagine that every possible value - or every possible mark - is equally possible or even possible at all. Even if it were very unlikely, though, you still have to contend with the observation that if it weren't we simply wouldn't be here to notice - not to mention that it's finely tuned specifically for the types of life that exist. One can imagine life-forms on Mars who have to be below freezing in order to survive remarking on how lucky it is that they were born on a perfect planet, rather than the totally inhospitable one next door.
Incidentally, given enough time and enough monkeys, you will eventually be able to churn out a Shakespearean sonnet by random chance. Or, in fact,
his complete works.
Precision and odds go hand-in-hand. I'll give you an example: what are the odds of you guessing a 9 decimal number to it's least significant digit on the first try?
1/999,999,999
What are the odds of the cosmological constant being in its
10^-122 range, knowing that had it been an order higher or a lower, the universe wouldn't permit the existence of life itself? 1/10^122 ~=
0. The precision being so highly remarkable also means that the odds are almost nonexistent.
In fact, the relevant initial conditions had to be fine tuned to a precision of one part in 10 followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes at least for our universe to sustain life. Meaning, the odds are in the order of 1 over 10 followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes.
Monkeys analogy: yes, given enough time (i.e. an infinite number of chances) then the monkeys will be able to re-produce Shakespearean sonnet by random chance. However, you're falling back on the multiverse hypothesis which is unprovable, undetectable, and unobservable, and therefore, unscientific - and it raises more questions and dilemmas than it answers. It's a debacle in short.
As such, and unless otherwise proven, the universe is one as we know it. So the question arises: what are the odds of monkeys hammering away at a type-writer churning a Shakespearean sonnet on the first try?
~0. It's beyond rational reason.
"The hypothesis of God on the other hand holds no such problems, as God is the answer is to everything. From our purpose in life, death, the universe, and everything else that science cannot and fails to answer."
I disagree! It has the very same problems. It does not tell us why God produced this universe and not a different one. Even if we agree that God would want to produce a universe with life, there are many other possibilities. For example, a universe with life and without horrible diseases that kill millions. Why did God produce a Universe with malaria?
Why do pain and sufferings exist in the world. We find sickness, old age and death. We see things that are ugly, people who are insane and foolish. There are storms, earthquakes, floods, drought and famine. We also see people commit sins, show disloyalty, unfaithfulness, greed and insincerity. We see people commit rapes, murders; they fight and make wars. We know all these and many more problems. There are evils caused by human beings and there are natural disasters. There are suffering for individuals and there are those that involve a large number of people.
But we also know that this is not the whole story. Besides all these negative things, we also see beauty, health, prosperity, life, birth, wisdom, intelligence, growth and progress. We also see goodness among people, faith, sincerity, charity, love and the spirit of sacrifice. We also see a lot of virtue and piety. It is wrong to see one side of the coin and not to see the other side. Any philosophy that concentrates on one aspect of the creation and denies or ignores the other side is partially true and partial truths are no truth at all.
It is also the fact that the element of good is more in the creation than the element of evil. We all see that there are more people who are healthy than those who are sick. There are more that eat well than those who starve.
There are more that lead decent life than those who commit crimes. Goodness is the rule and evil is the exception. Virtue is the norm and sin is the aberration. Generally trees bear fruits, the flowers bloom, the winds move smoothly.
But then the question is why does God allow these exceptions to the rules?
1. First of all, God did not make this world a permanent world. This is a temporary world and everything here has a time limit. The universe as we know it will come to an end, the stars, the sun, the earth, and everything else. Nothing lasts forever in this world.
2. God has placed a physical law and a moral law in this universe. God allows suffering to occur when one or more of these laws are broken. The physical law is based on cause and effect. Sickness comes if one does not take care of one’s health or is exposed to infections. A car accident occurs when one is not alert, or drives in a careless manner, or if the cars are not checked, roads and freeways are not made and kept in right shape, or the traffic laws are not right or not properly enforced. Study of causes and effects is very important to facilitate safeguards. Even here we should keep in mind that God often saves us and He does not let us suffer from every negligence. How many times it happens that we are not careful and still we reach safely to our destinations. The way people drive in some cities, it is a miracle that more accidents do not happen and more people do not suffer.
The way we exceed the measures set by God and violate His laws of cause and effect is incredible. It is really the mercy of God that we are saved. Strictly speaking, the question should not be why does God allow suffering, but how much God protects us and saves us all the time in spite of our violations and negligence.
But sometimes God does punish people because of their violations of His laws whether they are physical or moral.
3. Suffering is the
ultimate test of your resolve and character. God allows some people to suffer in order to test their patience and steadfastness. Even God's prophets and messengers were made to suffer. Good people sometimes suffer but their sufferings heal others and bring goodness to their communities. People learn lessons from their good examples.
4. God sometimes allows some people to suffer to test others, how they react to them. When you see a person who is sick, poor and needy, then you are tested by God.
So to summarize, we can say that sufferings occur to teach us that we must adhere to God's natural and moral laws. It is sometimes to punish those who violate God's natural or moral laws. But most importantly, it is to test our faith in God and to test our commitment to human values and charity.
After all, this world is not permanent and what awaits you after death is an infinite world and it's totally up to you to decide how you want it to be - based on what you actions and deed you commit in this world.
Ugh, no, Unicorny. You're missing something really basic. You're in desperate need of a 'Eureka!' moment, because it's made you improperly certain. This isn't theological, it's merely about probability.
You can only say this if you have a mechanism by which physical universes come in existence. We don't have that. We don't have a scientific model of universal creation. You cannot make probabilistic arguments.
It's a really simple thing! But you're totally digging your heels in!
I have no idea of what you're referring to, I've already stated that even the most prominent physicists of our time find the fine-tuning of the universe to be a highly remarkable fact, as there is absolutely no reason for the universe to be the way it is, it could have - and should have really - not been able to support any life. And yet it does with the smallest infinitesimal odds of doing so thanks to it's highly fine-tuning cosmic constants. Dumb luck or intelligent design? The answer is clear.
I like Thomas Aquinas five arguments for God's existence by the way. Have a read:
1) The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.
2) Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
3) The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.
4) Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.
5) The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.
Logical, coherent, and they all make sense.
Actually it will provided you try long enough. If you roll two dice over and over you will get snake eyes. You deal poker hands over and over you will get a royal flush. If you make enough universes life will happen. You say the number of universes needed is too big be possible, but you have no basis in saying that the number of universes couldn't be that big. Why can't there be 10^200 universes or 10^1000 or 10^10^1000?
A lesson modern science has taught us is the universe is so much huger then we could ever have imagined, what is so unreasonable about the idea that the universe itself might also be part of some mind-boggling immensity? Mere disgust at the number of zeros strikes me as petty and small-minded.
Yet another one bringing up the multiverse theory. It's unscientific and therefore, holds no more merit than fiction. There's no proof that multi-universe exist, only 1 as far as we know and it's
not infinite. Otherwise, time would be at infinite now since the universe began with the singularity known as the Big Bang. I'll let you ponder over this concept for a few days.
.
