What do you think of this meme? An atheist showed me this, didn't know how to respond?
They are not accurately representing the argument for fine tuning.
A puddle is not specific, it can be any depth or shape. Water is homogeneous, the arrangement of the water molecules in the puddle is arbitrary. The fine turning of the universe to support life is very specific, only certain values for the forces of nature permit life to exist, only very specific arrangements of molecules constituent life.
.
Those planets could not exist if it were not for incredibly precise fine tuning irrespective of whether there is life on them or not.
If it is as simple as those quotes imply, then how come many great scientists believed the evidence that the universe was designed? These scientists include
Nobel prize winners such as Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, Arthur Schawlow, and other scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, and Louis Pasteur.
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers
It is a huge topic, I have many articles on the subject on my blog:
This give a sense of how improbable our universe is:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-fine-tuning-of-universe-to-one-part.html
...
To visualize how improbable that value is, consider this explanation from godandscience.org
One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37.
...
Expansion rate of the universe: fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^60 (1:10^60) (See refrence 1)
If larger: the heat and energy of the universe would dissipate too quickly stable galaxies would not form
If smaller: the matter in the universe would have collapsed back on itself
Gravitational force constant: 1:10^40 (ref. 1)
If larger: stars would be too hot, they would burn up too quickly, and too unevenly
If smaller: stars would remain too cool so that nuclear fusion would never ignite and hence we would have no element production
Initial Entropy of the Universe: 1:10^10^123 (one in ten to the tenth to the 123rd) (ref. 3)
If larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
If smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
Initial entropy before inflation: Greater than 1:10^10^123 (ref. 5)
If larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
If smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
Mass Density of Universe: 1:10^59
If larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
Strong nuclear force: 1:50 (ref. 4)
If larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable
If smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form
Cosmological constant: 1:10^120
If larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Ratio of number of electrons to number of protons: 1:10^37
If larger or smaller, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
Ratio of Electromagnetic force constant : Gravitational force constant: 1:10^40
If larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support life
If smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
Flatness: 1:10^15 (ref. 5)
Inflation shut-off energy: Between 1:10^53 and 1:10^123 (ref. 5)
Cosmic microwave background radiation: 1:100,000 (ref. 5)
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_id
This explains why it is so unlikely that natural laws were not designed - there are so many, many, many factors needed for life to exist how could they all fall out of undesigned natural laws just by chance?
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/naturalism-is-extraordinary-claim.html
Naturalism is an extraordinary claim. The laws of nature seem to be relatively simple mathematical relationships. How is it that just by chance simple natural laws working alone would include or produce all the factors necessary for life: the 20 or 30 cosmological fine tuning factors, at least 15 factors needed to produce habitable planets, at least 20 chemical factors needed for complex life? How is it possible that simple undesigned natural laws could produce the complex machinery of cells and the information needed for simple life and macroevolution? How could such finely-tuned complexity arise at every scale from the atomic to the cosmic from simple undesigned unguided natural laws? If you wanted to design such a complicated system from simple mathematical relationships, it would require a huge amount of intellectual effort. How could it happen just by chance? (A multiverse, for which there is no evidence, couldn't explain it.)
According to naturalism, undesigned natural laws caused stars and galaxies to form after the Big Bang. Inside stars, undesigned natural laws allowed the nuclei of hydrogen atoms and helium atoms to be fused into stable heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, iron, and all the rest. Then undesigned natural laws caused these stars to form supernovae and explode distributing chemical elements throughout the galaxy. These undesigned natural laws ensured that there are not too many supernovae which would be dangerous to life or too few which would not provide enough elements to form planets or life. But the right amount of elements are distributed and planets form that can support life. The chemical elements, due to undesigned natural laws have just the right properties to form bonds that can be broken and reformed according to the chemical needs of biological life.
The cosmological fine-tuning parameters include: the expansion rate of the universe, the gravitational force constant, electromagnetic force constant, the initial entropy of the universe, the mass density of the universe, the strong nuclear force and many others. All these parameters have to have exactly the right values or life could not exist in the universe.
The factors needed for a planet to be habitable include: a location in the habitable zone around its star, its star's location in the galactic habitable zone, a main sequence G2 dwarf star, gas giant planets to protect inner habitable planets from comet impacts, a nearly circular orbit, an oxygen rich atmosphere, the right amount of water, a correct mass, a large moon, plate tectonics, a hot liquid iron interior, a moderate rate of rotation, and other factors.
...
The chemical factors needed for complex life include: Carbon's unique ability to form many different biological compounds. Water's properties as a solvent, its viscosity is just right, it has a high heat capacity which keeps temperatures on the planet and in organisms stable, it is extremely effective for evaporative cooling, it expands when it freezes so it floats providing insulation which keeps large bodies of water, oceans and lakes, from freezing solid which would make life impossible. Oxygen is used in energy metabolism in living organisms, it's produced by photosynthesis in plants, O2 is not a greenhouse gas.
The complex machinery in cells includes: DNA, RNA, enzymes to replicate DNA, enzymes to create mRNA from a DNA template, ribosomes to produce proteins from mRNA, a tRNA for each codon in the genetic code and as many enzymes to connect each tRNA with its amino acid, nuclear membranes, cell membranes, proteins in the membranes that control what goes in and out through the membrane, enzymes used in cellular metabolism, proteins that help other proteins fold, microtubules, etc, etc
...
Yet, according to naturalism, all the conditions needed for life and life itself are supposed to self-organize through the action of undesigned natural laws working by themselves? To paraphrase Fred Hoyle it seems more likely that a superintellect has monkeyed with the laws of chemistry and physics.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-...-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_cosmology
Intelligent Design: Cosmology
The Cosmological Argument for a Transcendent Designer of the Universe. The discovery that the universe is expanding, the discovery that the universe came from nothing, and the discovery that natural laws are finely tuned to make life possible, all demonstrate that the universe was created and designed by an intelligence outside the universe. The evidence for intelligent design in the origin and evolution of life shows that the designer continued to play a role in the universe long after its creation.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html
Video: Doug Ell Discusses the Evidence for Intelligent Design
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/07/doug-ell-video-discusses-evidence-for.html
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe to one part in 10^10^123 is best explained by an intelligent designer and creator, aka. God.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-fine-tuning-of-universe-to-one-part.html
Multiverse Theories Fail to Explain Our Finely Tuned Universe. Intelligent Design is a Better Explanation.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/multiverse-theories-fail-to-explain-our.html
Guillermo Gonzalez on the Fine-tuning of the Universe to Support Life
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/video-guillermo-gonzalez-on-fine-tuning.html
Opposing the multiverse by George Ellis. "Martin Gardner (2003) puts it this way: 'There is not the slightest shred of reliable evidence that there is any universe other than the one we are in. No multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be tested. As far as we can tell, universes are not as plentiful as even two blackberries.'"
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/2/2.33.full
The multiverse argument for the existence of paranormal phenomena. Proposing a multiverse does not help the materialist cause, it hurts it. If there are enough universes to explain the existence of our "improbable" universe as the result of chance, then there should be enough universes for one to exist with a God, spirits, Sasquatch, intelligent designer(s), UFOs, alien abductions, psi, etc, etc.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-multiverse-argument-for-existence.html
The Privileged Planet: The rare confluence of conditions that allow Earth to support complex life also make the Earth the best location from which to make scientific discoveries. Those scientific discoveries reveal that the universe is understandable to humankind. All this indicates a purpose to the universe: to support intelligent life and to allow intelligent life to discover that the universe was created.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-privileged-planet-rare-confluence.html
Privileged Species: How the Cosmos is Designed for Human Life: "The documentary investigates the special properties of carbon, water, and oxygen that make human life and the life of other organisms possible, and it explores some of the unique features of humans that make us a truly privileged species."
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-privileged-species-how-cosmos-is.html
Atheists: "Science shows there is no good reason to believe in God". Nobel Prize Winning Scientists: "The scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of God".
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/atheists-science-shows-there-is-no-good.html