ragnarokx297 said:To me, it seems that your using words like "it seems conservative to say" to hide the fact that you guys don't have actual probabilities and are just pulling them out of your ...
But I could definitely be wrong, so maybe you can actually explain where you get these probabilities from that leads you to eventually claim fine tuning, I'd even accept a link that shows the actual math.
http://academic.udayton.edu/WilliamRichards/Intro%20essays/Collins,%20Fine-tuning.htm
Probably the most widely discussed among physicists and cosmologists,and esoteric,is the fine-tuning of what is known as the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was a term that Einstein included in his central equation of his theory of gravity,that is, general relativity,which today is thought to correspond to the energy density of empty space. A positive cosmological constant acts as a sort of antigravity, a repulsive force causing space itself to expand. If the cosmological constant had a significant positive value, space would expand so rapidly that all matter would quickly disperse, and thus galaxies, stars, and even small aggregates of matter could never form. The upshot is that it must fall exceedingly close to zero for complex life to be possible in our universe.
Now, the fundamental theories of particle physics set a natural range of values for the cosmological constant. This natural range of values, however, is at least 1053 that is, one followed by fifty-three zeros,times the range of life-permitting values. That is, if 0 to L represent the range of life-permitting values, the theoretically possible range of values is at least 0 to 1053 L. 2 To intuitively see what this means, consider a dartboard analogy: suppose that we had a dartboard that extended across the entire visible galaxy, with a bull's eye on the dartboard of less than an inch in diameter. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant could be compared to randomly throwing a dart at the board and landing exactly in the bull's-eye!
Scientists and others call this extraordinary balancing of the fundamental physical structure of the universe for life the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with many articles and books written on the topic. Today, many consider it as providing the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God. For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies claims that with regard to basic structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).
Many examples of this fine-tuning can be given.1 One particularly important category of fine-tuning is that of the constants of physics. The constants of physics are a set of fundamental numbers that, when plugged into the laws of physics, determine the basic structure of the universe. An example of such a constant is the gravitational constant G that is part of Newton's law of gravity, F = GM1M2/r2. G essentially determines the strength of gravity between two masses. If one were to double the value of G, for instance, then the force of gravity between any two masses would double.
So far, physicists have discovered four forces in nature,gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom. Each of these forces has its own coupling constant that determines its strength, in analogy to the gravitational constant C. Using one of the standard dimensionless measures of force strengths (Barrow and Tipler, 1986, pp. 293-295), gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040 -- or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion,times stronger than gravity.
Various calculations show that the strength of each of the forces of nature must fall into a very small life-permitting region for intelligent life to exist. As our first example, consider gravity. If we increased the strength of gravity on earth a billion-fold, for instance, the force of gravity would be so great that any land-based organism anywhere near the size of human beings would be crushed. (The strength of materials depends on the electromagnetic force via the fine structure constant, which would not be affected by a change in gravity.) As astrophysicist Martin Rees notes "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger." (Rees, 2000, p. 30). Now, the above argument assumes that the size of the planet on which life formed would be an earth-sized planet. Could life forms of comparable intelligence to ourselves develop on a much smaller planet in such a strong-gravity world? The answer is no. A planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of earth, which would make the existence of organisms of our size very improbable,would have a diameter of about 40 feet or 12 meters, once again not large enough to sustain the sort of large-scale ecosystem necessary for organisms like us to evolve. Of course, a billion-fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared to the total range of strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 1040 as we saw above), this still amounts to a fine-tuning of one part in 1031.
On the other hand, if the strong force were slightly increased the existence of complex life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible. For instance, using the latest equations and codes for stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis, Heinz Oberhummer, et al., showed that a small increase in the strong force,by as little as 1 percent,would drastically decrease, by thirty to a thousandfold, the total amount of oxygen formed in stars (Oberhummer, et. al, 2000, p. 88). Since the oxygen on planets comes from previous stars that have exploded or blown off their outer layers, this means that very little oxygen would be available for the existence of carbon-based life. At the very least, this would have a life-inhibiting effect given the many important, and seemingly irreplaceable, roles oxygen plays in living processes, such as that of being essential for water (Denton, 1998, pp. 19-47, 117-140). Other arguments can be given for the other two forces,the electromagnetic force and the weak force,being fine-tuned, but we do not have space to provide the evidence here. (See, however, my "Evidence for Fine-Tuning" in God and Design, Neil Manson (ed), Routledge, Forthcoming.)