In 2014, when given the opportunity to reaseach a topic, I delved into the intriguing realm of the fine-tuning debate, pouring my thoughts and insights into a paper that would later receive commendation from my professor. Despite the praise for its exceptional content, the paper found itself trapped in the clutches of grammatical intricacies, particularly the notorious overuse of commas. My professor’s advice lingered in my mind – a call to polish and refine the work for publication. Unfortunately, the constraints of that time prevented me from securing a copy editor, consigning the paper to the shadows of unpublished brilliance. Today, with a nod to nostalgia and a hint of self-awareness, I present the unaltered manuscript, commas and all, inviting you to explore a piece of my past intellectual journey.

Embracing my inner nerd from a young age, my fascination with astronomy and astrophysics has been a constant thread weaving through the fabric of my life. As a child, the dream of becoming an astronomer fueled my anticipation for each new edition of Astronomy magazine. Among my cherished possessions was “Our Universe” by National Geographic, a book that transported me to the cosmic wonders beyond. In a time before the digital era, I eagerly awaited NASA’s information reports, arriving by mail to satisfy my thirst for celestial knowledge. It was during these explorations that the concept of the anthropic principle captivated my imagination, a fascination that persists to this day. What was once a childhood interest has evolved into a profound engagement with the fine-tuning argument in astrophysics, a topic now firmly embedded in the cultural zeitgeist. Even popular shows like “The Big Bang Theory” have woven the fine-tuning debate into their narrative tapestry, illustrating the resonance of cosmic inquiries in our everyday lives. 

• Sheldon: Leonard, where do you stand on the anthropic principle?
• Leonard: Interesting question. On the one hand, I always thought…
• Sheldon: You don’t even know what it is, do you? The anthropic principle states that if we wish to explain why our universe exists the way it does, the answer is that it must have qualities that allow intelligent creatures to arise who are capable of asking the question. As I am doing so eloquently right now.
• Leonard: I know what the anthropic principle is.
• Sheldon: Of course. I just explained it to you. Now, where do you stand on it?
• Leonard: Where do you stand on it?
• Sheldon: Strongly pro.
• Leonard: Then I believe that God created the world in six days, and on the seventh he made you to annoy me.

Research Paper

The Fine Tuning Debate

“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.” – Paul Davies, Astrophysicist

Introduction

We are blessed to find ourselves on a planet in the perfect location and situation that we can gaze up into the stars and ponder the deeper questions of life and wonder at the beauty of it all.   As far as we know, this ability, to ask deeper questions, seems to be limited to just one creature, humankind.  No other creature on this planet can ponder neither the vastness of the cosmos nor our smallness in that cosmos.  As we exercise this ability to wonder and question our surroundings, we wonder if we are the only ones or if there are other life forms on distant planets with the same ability to wonder about their place in the cosmos. 

As scientists investigated the requirements and parameters for a habitable cosmos, galaxy, stellar system, and planet, they found a number of discoveries seem to indicate that, in general, the vast majority of the cosmos to be hostile to life and the parameters for life are very narrow.  For example, the weak and strong nuclear forces have such narrow allowable ranges that minor changes in either parameter would make chemistry, as we know it impossible.  Thus, life, which is dependent on chemistry, would also be impossible.  Sir Frederick Hoyle once noted that it appears as if the values of these forces have been finely-tuned, almost as if someone has monkeyed around with the laws of physics to get it just right, for life.[1]

History of the Debate

Starting in 1919, Hermann Weyl puzzled over the coincidences of some of the numbers related to some of these finely-tuned parameters.[2]  In the 1960’s, Princeton physicist Robert Dicke invoked arguments from a number of finely-tuned parameters of the universe to explain the age of the universe.  Later, theoretical physicist Brandon Carter began to look into counterfactuals to these parameters, such as, whether or not gravity was a bit stronger or a bit weaker.  He found that the life permitting parameters lay in a very narrow range.[3]  In 1973, Carter, at a lecture celebrating the 500^th birthday of Copernicus, coined the phrase Anthropic Principle as a name for these finely-tuned parameters.[4]

The main debate in cosmology, at that time, was between a beginning to the universe, a finite time in the past or if the universe was infinitely old.  Some viewed the big bang theory as evidence for a finite universe and the existence of God.  Many physicists resisted the big bang theory because of the obvious theological implications.   The use of the big bang as evidence for a Creator God, no doubt, helped fuel the fires of the debate and lead to the slow demise of the steady state model as some scientists would not abandon the steady state model.  Thomas Negel’s quote comes to mind:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”[5]

What the steady state model of the Universe gave scientists was an infinite amount of time and space.  This, essentially, means that some of finely-tuned parameters could, effectively be ignored.  The improbability of the discovered parameters becomes meaningless because an infinite universe is bound to have the perfect conditions somewhere for life.  Any infinity is a deal stopper for any probabilities or chance because, with any infinite, the probability that event X does not matter because it is a given that event X would, eventually, happen somewhere.  This view also meant there was nothing special or unique about our place in the cosmos.  The idea that we don’t hold a special place in the Cosmos is called the Principle of Mediocrity or, more often, the Copernican Principle.  Bertrand Russel once quipped that we were nothing more than a “curious accident in a backwater.”[6]  Carl Sagan describes our world as a pale blue dot and that we, humans, are inconsequential and don’t hold a special place in the cosmos.  As for finely-tuned parameters, he holds our understanding of fine-tuning is nothing more than imagined self-importance and a delusion.[7] 

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 gave new confirming evidence for the big bang theory which started the demise of the steady state universe theory.  Later, in the 1990’s NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) reaffirmed early evidence for the Big Bang theory.  For the most part, the idea of an infinitely old universe, in the steady state model, was dead.  It, however, was replaced with other versions of an infinite universe or universes.  These alternate theories were needed to escape the logical conclusions of the big bang theory, for, without them, a Creator or transcendent intelligence is inescapable. 

In the intervening years, John Barrow and Frank Tipler’s 1986 tome, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, laid out a comprehensive and exhaustive survey covering the history, science, and philosophy of the finely-tuned conditions and parameters necessary for intelligent life.  The debate started, almost, immediately with Martin Gardner’s review in the New York Review of Books when he used CRAP (Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle) as a pun for their theories.[8]

The Anthropic Principle

Barrow and Tipler’s work remains the seminal work for the anthropic principle.  They describe four different versions of the anthropic principle.  The weak anthropic principle (WAP), the theory that, if the properties of the universe were not so, no one would be around to notice.[9]   The strong anthropic principle (SAP), the theory that the universe must have the properties which allow for life at some point in time.[10] Some see SAP as a teleological position that the universe was designed with the goal of creating observers and this seems to imply a Creator.  John Wheeler had proposed a version of the SAP he called the participatory anthropic principle (PAP) which proposes the notion that observers are the necessary in a many-words cosmology.  Finally, the final anthropic principle (FAP), the theory that takes the SAP a step further and posits observers, once in the universe, will always be there.[11]

Since Barrow and Tipler’s book, other scientists have expanded the coverage for other finely-tuned parameters.  In 1999, science writer and astronomer Martin Rees documented what he considered to be the six of the most significant parameters.[12] Hugh Ross also listed a number of examples of fine-tuning in his 1993 book the Creator and the Cosmos.  Two later editions came out to update the list of finely-tuned parameters as scientists discovered more examples.  Now, the list is on the Internet so that it can keep current with the latest findings.  Currently, Hugh Ross, boasts of lists 140 features of the cosmos, as a whole, that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of life as we know it and 402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life.[13]

In 2004 Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards went a step beyond the claim that the parameters of the universe were finely-tuned for advanced life to conclude that the parameters are also necessary for advanced life to make scientific discoveries.  For example our moon is just the right size and distance from Earth to cover the disc of the Sun, during a total eclipse, without covering the Sun’s chromosphere.  Using a spectroscope, Joseph Von Frauhofer first discovered lines in the solar spectra during a solar eclipse.  Later scientists determined these spectral lines, called Frauhofer lines in his honor, allowed scientists to determine the chemical composition of stars.  Not only is the moon key in the habitability of Earth for plate tectonics, axil stability, tides and other needed parameters but it is also positioned in a way that aids in the discovery of the laws of physics.[14]

Although much debate comes from the implications of the finely-tuned parameters, today the weak anthropic principle is not widely disputed in the scientific world.  As Physicist Paul Davies puts it, “If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would be very probably be impossible.”[15]  Fred Hoyle once said, “The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”[16]  However, theists have used these finely-tuned parameters to argue for the existence of God.  The argument typically goes like this:

P1 The narrow parameters are due either to chance, necessity, or design.

P2 It is not due to chance or necessity.

C1 Therefore, it is due to design.

The clear implications of a Creator flow logically from the evidence of fine-tuning the universe. This, however, is the reason for this very contentious debate in science that rages today. 

Chance, Necessity, or Design

Interestingly the anthropic principle has been used by scientists to predict certain unknown parameters.  In 1952 Fred Hoyle used the atrophic principle to predict the energy of an excited carbon nucleus ₆C¹² to be around 7.7 MeV.  It was later discovered to be inexplicably close to Hoyle’s predicted number.  Physicist Victor J. Stenger remarked that, “Hoyle’s prediction provided scientific legitimacy for anthropic reasoning.”[17] Most notably, the anthropic principle was used by Steven Weinberg in 1990. Using only the anthropic principle, Weinberg and colleagues predicted what the value of the cosmological constant would have to be.[18]  Again, positive predictive results from the use of the anthropic principle.  Scientist and mathematician Amir Aczel sums it up, “…physics is unable to escape the conundrum of the incredibly fine-tuned nature of many of its parameters.”[19] In spite of positive predictive results of the anthropic principle Weinberg says he is not impressed with the instances of fine-tuning.[20] John Leslie once quipped, “…clues heaped upon clues can constitute weighty evidence despite doubts about each element in the pile.”^[21]

It seems that fine-tuning is a brute fact backed by successfully use in predicting positive scientific results.  The question naturally arises, what then is the cause of these finely-tuned parameters?  Is this a result of chance, necessity, or design?  Richard Dawkins notes that explaining how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises, is one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect.[22] For a scientist is to posit design or non-design is to make a teleological statement about the universe based upon available scientific discoveries.

Some scientists and philosophers believe the question of chance or design is outside the bounds of science.  They point out this is a question of teleology and not in the realm of science.  Aczel puts it this way, “If you want to test which hypothesis is true, a universe created to specific requirements [design], or a universe that just happens to satisfy the requirements because we observe them [chance], you would find that there is not scientific way to determine the answer.”[23]  This, of course, is determined by your definition of the bounds and limits of science.  Let us assume, for argument sake, that teleological answers are outside of science.  Even if it is outside the realm of science the coincidences of these finely-tuned parameters demand an explanation.  Glynn Patrick explains, “Whether the Anthropic Principle meets the technical qualifications of a formal scientific theory is irrelevant to what it suggests about the nature of the universe.”[24]

How do we deal with overwhelming data that seems to posit an explanation that we cannot conceivably test empirically?  We naturally infer from any given set of evidence, what would best explain said evidence?  This rational engagement, with a given set of data, is called inference to the best explanation.  Philosopher Peter Lipton, in his seminal work, Inference to the Best Explanation, says, “…our explanatory considerations guide or inferences.  Beginning with the evidence available to us, we infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence.”[25]  Scientists use inference to the best explanation all the time.  As Lipton noted is was used by taking data of irregularities in Uranus orbit and posited the best explanation would be a planet like Neptune.  As it turned out the inference was correct.  However, there are weakness in using the inference to the best explanation related to the quality of the data available to us and our own biases. 

Concerning the risk that our biases will taint our judgment, Lipton notes, “We cannot appeal simply to the psychological force of an argument, since people often reject perfectly good arguments and are often persuaded by circular arguments.”[26]  However, successful predictions, such as those using anthropic principle, tend to give more credit to our inferences and can increase the justification of a given theory.  And yet some scientists willingly engage in a double standard here.  They will outright reject the use of inference to the best explanation when it posits a designer, but they have no problem using it to argue for evolution or Atheism.  You simply can’t have it both ways.

The question before us then is design or chance the best explanation for the given data?

Let’s look at one of these parameters to see if chance or design is the best explanation for the data.  Mathematician and colleague of Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, calculated the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang.  According to Penrose, the odds of this occurrence are 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power (3 levels).  Now this number may look deceptively small.  Carl Sagan once explains that you could not write this number in standard form even if you used atoms for the number of zeros.  (The estimated number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is between 10⁷⁹ and 10⁸¹.)  Let my write this another way so that you can get the full impact:

10^{1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000}

Anything with a probability beyond 1 in 10⁵⁰ is considered statistically impossible.[27]  Even using William Dembski’s more generous universal probability bound, 1 in 10¹⁵⁰ you still don’t get even close.  Even if you were to posit 10⁵⁰⁰ different possible universes as posited by string theory,[28] the probability of this one parameter arising by chance is still astronomically improbable.   Roger Penrose explains it this way, “This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10¹²³.”  (Note Roger Penrose is an Atheist[29] and his use of the term Creator is not an admission of belief.)  Stephen J. Williams put it his way, “it takes far more “faith” to believe that this happened by chance than to believe that it was instigated by an incredibly powerful mind.  The latter inference does not require blind faith!”[30]  It is important to keep in mind this is only one of the numerous parameters cataloged by Ross, Rees, Barrow, Tipler and others. Adding additional parameters would simply make the chances of a life permitting universe arising by chance diminish exponentially.

One reason many scientists still hold to chance is philosophical commitment to materialistic naturalism.  Richard Lewontin said, in a rare and candid admission, that scientists will, “accept scientific claims that are against common sense…in spite of the patent absurdity… because we have a prior commitment… to materialism.”[31]  Precisely because inference to the best explanation implies a transcendent intelligent designer (i.e. God) some scientists feel it should be rejected.  But their rejection is based on philosophical and not scientific grounds.  Paul Davies notes the motivation for many scientists is simply an attempt to finally get rid of the “delusion” of God.[32]

Another concern raised is the concern that the use of the anthropic principle will stifle scientific advancement.  However, I don’t think this concern is warranted.  As we have seen, the anthropic principle has been used to successfully predict previously unknown parameters.  In addition, the number of finely-tuned parameters has been steadily growing over the years giving a greater impression that our Earth and life exist on a razor thin edge.  Leonard Suskind puts it this way, “We cannot allow the fear of our findings guide our scientific research.  The fear that the anthropic principle will seduce us and stop future discoveries.”[33]  

One alternative offered by a number of scientists, including Leonard Suskind and Brain Greene, is the theory of the multiverse.   With the existence of an infinite number of universes, all with different set of potential parameters, we are bound to have one universe (our universe) that has the required parameters for advanced life.  The benefit again of an infinite number of universes is no matter the how improbably the chances are there will have to be one with life permitting parameters.[34]  However, once again we find ourselves in the realm of philosophy.  First, there is no empirical evidence for a multiverse nor is it likely that if there was a multiverse, that we would ever be able to find empirical evidence for it.  Second, internally constant mathematical models are not proof of the existence of anything.  Finally, a multiverse has to have a mechanism for creating universes.  This then simply pushes the chance/design question to another level and begs the question as to who or what designed or created the multiverse or universe making mechanism.  

Conclusion

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and I think the study of finely-tuned parameters is an important part of gaining knowledge about the cosmos and our place in the cosmos.  By researching finely-tuned parameters, we can have better justification for our conclusion of chance or design.  As Richard Swinburne says, “We can learn also to improve the quality and quantity of our justified beliefs.”[35] Many scientists have studied the finely-tuned parameters have moved away from Atheism to some form of Theism.  What you don’t typically find is Theists becoming Atheists after researching this topic.  However, other outspoken opponents continue to mock fine-tuning or offer philosophical speculation in rebuttal. 

On the popular level, the layperson simply hears an authoritative sounding statements and takes them for science, or they hear mockery coming from some of the more outspoken opponents to fine-tuning. For example, recently I was watching an episode of the Big Bang Theory when the topic of the anthropic principle came up.  By the end of the dialogue, mocking comments were made about Young Earth Creationists.  (See Appendix A for a partial transcript.)  For the general public, it appears the details of this debate are lost and replaced with a caricature of science and religion locking horns in battle.

Paul Davies, former Atheist asks a pertinent question, “Ultimately there may be no reason at all for why things are the way they are.  But that would make the universe a fiendishly clever bit of trickery.  Can a truly absurd universe so convincingly mimic a meaningful one?”[36]

“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion.  I am sure many physicists want to.  I only wish they would admit it.” – Dr. Tony Rothman, former editor Scientific American

Bibliography

• Aczel, Amir D. Why Science Does Not Disprove God. William Morrow, 2014.
• Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxfor University Press, 1986.
• Collins, Robin. “Evidence for Fine-Tuning.” God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Sceince. Ed. Neil A. Manson. London: Routledge, 2003. 178-199.
• Craig, William Lane. Fine Tuning and Physical Necessity. 15 APR 2013. 1 DEC 2014. <http://www.reasonablefaith.org/fine-tuning-and-physical-necessity&gt;.
• Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma, Why is the Universe just right for life? New York: A Mariner Book, 2008.
• —. The Mind of God, The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperback, 1992.
• Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: A Mariner Book Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
• Gardner, Martin. “WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP.” New York Review of Books 23.8 (1986): 22-25.
• Glynn, Patrick. “Beyond the Death of God.” National Review 1996 May 1996: 28-32. <http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/beyond-the-death-of-god.html&gt;.
• Gonzalez, Guillermo and Jay W. Richard. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. Washington D. C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004.
• Greene, Brain. TED Talk: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? . New York: TED, 2012. Video. 5 November 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw&gt;.
• Hawkings, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books, 2010.
• Hawkings, Stephen. The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, Updated and Expanded Edition. New York: Bantam Books, 1996.
• —. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam Books, 1996.
• Jastrow, Robert. God and The Astronomers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1978.
• Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Sceintific Revolutions 50th Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
• Lennox, John C. God’s Undertaker: Has Sceince Buried God? Second edition. Oxford: A Lion Book, 2009.
• Lipton, Peter. Inference to the Best Explination. Second edition. London: Routledge, International Library of Philosophy, 2004.
• Moreland, J. P., ed. The Creation Hypothesis, Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994.
• O’Leary, Danyse. By Design ot by Chance. Canada: Castle Quay Books, 2004.
• Rees, Martin. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, 2000.
• Ross, Hugh. More Than A Theory. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
• —. RTB Design Compendium (2009). 17 NOV 2009. <http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009&gt;.
• —. The Creator and The Cosmos. Third Expanded Edition. Colorado Spring: NavPress, 2001.
• Rowan-Robinson, Michael. Cosmology. 3rd. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
• Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. Kindle edition. New York: Ballantine Books, Random House LLC, 1994.
• Schoeder, Gerald L. The Hidden Face of God, Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. New York: Touchstone Books, 2001.
• Schroeder, Gerald L. Genesis and the Big Bang. New York: Bantam Books, 1990.
• Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed For Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.
• Susskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2006.
• Swinburne, Richard. “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe.” Modren Cosmology and Philosophy. Ed. John Leslie. Amherst: Prometheus, 1998. 160-179.
• “The Date Night Variable – Episode 6.01.” CBS Entertainment. The Big Bang Theory. 2012.
• Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove: IVP, 2010.
• Williams, Stephen J. What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t Know (But Should). Kindle edition. RFH, 2012.

Footnotes

---

[1] Williams, Stephen J. What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t Know (But Should). Kindle edition. RFH, 2012. Pg 130

[2] Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed For Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.Pg 37

[3] Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma, Why is the Universe just right for life? New York: A Mariner Book, 2008. Kindle location 42

[4] Aczel, Amir D. Why Science Does Not Disprove God. William Morrow, 2014. Pg 185

[5] Thomas Negel.  The Last Word. Oxford University Press 1997

[6] Russel, Bertrand. Religion and Science. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1935. Pg 222

[7] Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. Kindle edition. New York: Ballantine Books, Random House LLC, 1994.  Kindle location 320

[8] Gardner, Martin. “WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP.” New York Review of Books 23.8 (1986): 22-25.

[9] Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.  Pg 16

[10] Ibid.  Pg 21

[11] Ibid.  Pg 23

[12] Rees, Martin. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, 2000.  Pg 2

[13] Hugh Ross. RTB Design Compendium (2009). 17 NOV 2009. <http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009&gt;.

[14] Gonzalez, Guillermo and Jay W. Richard. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. Washington D. C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004.Pg 19

[15] Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma, Why is the Universe just right for life? New York: A Mariner Book, 2008.  Kindle location 160

[16] Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science. November 1981. Pg 12

[17] Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed For Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011. Pg 40

[18] Aczel, Amir D. Why Science Does Not Disprove God. William Morrow, 2014.  Pg 186

[19] Ibid.  Pg 188

[20] Weinberg, S. “A Designer Universe?” The New York Review of Books 46 (14) 21 OCT 1999 pg 46-48 quoted by Collins, Robin. “Evidence for Fine-Tuning.” God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Ed. Neil A. Manson. London: Routledge, 2003. 178-199. 

[21] Leslie, J. “How to draw conclusions from a fine-tuned cosmos,” in Robert Russel, William Stoeger, S. J. and George Coyne (ed) Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding. Vatican City, Vatican Observatory Press pp 297-312 quoted by Collins, Robin. “Evidence for Fine-Tuning.” God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Ed. Neil A. Manson. London: Routledge, 2003. 178-199

[22] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: A Mariner Book Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.  Pg 188

[23] Aczel, Amir D. Why Science Does Not Disprove God. William Morrow, 2014.  Pg 188

[24] Glynn, Patrick. “Beyond the Death of God.” National Review 1996 May 1996: 28-32. <http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/beyond-the-death-of-god.html&gt;.

[25] Lipton, Peter. Inference to the Best Explanation. Second edition. London: Routledge, International Library of Philosophy, 2004.  Pg 1

[26] Ibid.  Pg 187

[27] Williams, Stephen J. What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t Know (But Should). Kindle edition. RFH, 2012.  Pg 123

[28] Greene, Brain. TED Talk: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? New York: TED, 2012. Video. 5 November 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw&gt;.

[29] “Big Bang follows Big Bang follows Big Bang”. BBC News. 25 September 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2010.

[30] Williams, Stephen J. What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t Know (But Should). Kindle edition. RFH, 2012.  Pg 124

[31] Richard Lewontin. “Billions and Billions of Demons.” The New York Review of Books January 9, 1997

[32] Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma, Why is the Universe just right for life? New York: A Mariner Book, 2008. Kindle location 369

[33] Susskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2006.  Kindle location 5385

[34] Technically if you had an infinite number of universe you would have an infinite number of every type of universe including an infinite number of life permitting universes and an infinite number of non-life permitting universes. 

[35] Swinburne, Richard. “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe.” Modern Cosmology and Philosophy. Ed. John Leslie. Amherst: Prometheus, 1998. 160-179.  Page 162

[36] Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma, Why is the Universe just right for life? New York: A Mariner Book, 2008. Kindle location 399