Why I am a Christian (2)

The Fine Tuning of the Universe Suggests High Level Engineering, not Complete Randomness

In 2012, I jotted down all the reasons I could think of why I am a Christian. I came up with 26. I then placed them under the categories of cosmological, existential/philosophical, theological, Christological, scriptural and personal/experiential.

The first four reasons (to do with the origins of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the life-favouring properties of the Earth and the improbable appearance of organic matter on Earth) are cosmological in nature and they contribute to my understanding as to why I think that my belief in a creator is credible and not unreasonable. 

So this is the second of 26 reasons I am a Christian; the fine tuning of the universe points to high level engineering, not complete randomness.

What do I mean when I talk about "fine tuning" in the universe? I mean, according to the calculations of people who are clever enough to work these things out, that the cosmic physics from the very earliest moments after the Big Bang to the present day have to be incredibly precise to work at all.

For example, at the dawn of time there had to be a very, very precisely exact balance between the outward thrust of the exploding universe and the gravitational force that pulls it together.

Professor Paul Davies of Arizona State University has stated that the correlation of outward thrust and gravitational pull needed to be "accurate to a staggering one part in 10 to the power of 60. That is to say, had the explosion differed in strength at the outset by only one part in 10, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 [there are sixty zeros after the ten] the universe we now perceive would not exist. To give some meaning to these numbers, suppose you wanted to fire a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. Your aim would have to be accurate to that same one part in 10 to the power of 60."

That's a freakishly good shot, especially blindfolded. 

Furthermore, the density of the infant universe also had to be calibrated to an almost unimaginable exactitude.

Consider this quotation from Professor Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University: "If the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang had been greater by one part in 1, 000, 000, 000, 000 [a thousand billion], the universe would have recollapsed after ten years. On the other hand, if the density of the universe at that time had been less by the same amount, the universe would have been essentially empty since it was about ten years old. How is it that the density of the universe was chosen with such precision? Perhaps there is some reason why the universe has exactly the right density."

But it’s not just at the start of time that the sums absolutely had to add up. They had to be exactly right as time went on as well. Professor Michael Poole, of Kings College London, further underlined the incredible fine tuning needed for a viable universe by stating that gravity has to have the exact force it does have if stars (and therefore complex elements necessary for life) were ever to be created at all.

"Out of the Big Bang there came mostly the lightest gases, hydrogen and helium. These needed to be fused together to cook up the heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen which are the building blocks of life. The high temperature, high pressure conditions found in the interior of stars provide the ovens for doing this. Some stars then blow up when they are old, scattering these heavier elements into space, eventually making up our bodies. But how do stars form in the first place? Through gravity compressing a cloud of gas, heating it in the process and igniting the nuclear fusion fires. Make gravity any weaker, and the stars will not ignite. Make it any stronger, and the stars will be so massive they will burn too fast and long-lived stars like the Sun will not exist."

So the exact force of the outward thrust of the Big Bang, the exact density of matter in the universe and the exact strength of gravitational pull are three examples of some ultra-precise maths that have to be absolutely correct for any universe to (1) come into being and (2) continue to expand and develop.

I do not have the training or expertise to either confirm or challenge these assertions. I am a layman, not a scientist. I read them as an interested amateur - and frankly I am awed by what I read.

For some curious reason, the physics and mathematics of the creation of our universe are very, very exact and without that precision we would have no universe, no stars, no matter, no life, no anything.

In fact, there are at least six fundamental constants in the universe that are essential for carbon based life. Radio astronomer (and Nobel Laureate for Physics 1974) Antony Hewish claims that the required degree of accuracy of just one of these six constants is equivalent to getting the mix of flour and sugar right to within one grain of sugar in a cake ten times the mass of the sun.

And yet, like my first reason for being a Christian, nothing I have said thus far proves anything. But doesn't it make you pause and ask big, big questions? Can we really be products of a randomly ordered universe with no intelligence behind it at all?

All in all, I think Hawking's question "How is it that the density of the universe was so precisely chosen?" needs a better answer than "Well, someone won the rollover lottery three times in a row and amazingly it was us." If a value is "chosen" to quote Professor Hawking, I naturally want to ask "How was it chosen?" and also "Did someone choose it and if so, who?"

I do not read the Bible the same way I read a science textbook - they are two different forms of literature. In the same way, a book of poems, a public information notice, a dictionary, a crime novel, a tabloid newspaper, a tweet and a car maintenance handbook are different means of communication that should be approached and interpreted in different ways.

But it is interesting to me that the Bible does not merely claim that God created the heavens and the earth by commanding that light should appear (Genesis 1.1), it affirms that he progressively developed his work (Genesis 1.2-27) and asserts that he goes on sustaining it, holding it all together for his pleasure and by his will (Colossians 1.16-17). To me, that is a basic working model that makes some sense of the highly improbable maths.

In my view, what scientists have learned about the fine tuning of the universe does not do away with the necessity of creative intelligence that the Bible affirms. On the contrary, it seems to me that without allowing for the possibility of intelligent supervision over our universe the coincidences are much too great. Insisting it all just happened on its own pushes improbability comfortably into the territory of wishful thinking.

How did it all happen without God? Professor Paul Davies again (he is not a Christian incidentally), for all his brilliance, seems out ideas: “It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.”

And finally, in A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (he’s not a Christian either) wrote “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

Ahem... 

I agree. 

Yet, on their own, these awesome discoveries would be insufficient to convince me that Christianity is true. (I would have to be very closed-minded if it didn’t at least set me thinking tough). The fact is I have 26 reasons that taken together lead me to that conclusion. This is just the second of them. I’ll be back in two weeks’ time with something a little more down to earth.