Saturday, March 24, 2012

Arguments against the Teleological Argument

 We have looked at the teleological argument for the existence of God (if you have not read them, please take a few minutes and familiarize yourself with them).  Of course those who are against the faith have their arguments that try to demolish the argument.  Please find here the most common of them and my answers to them.



1) Some of the defenses of the premises use unprovable assumptions.
    A) For example, we cannot prove that if the earth were closer to the sun that a
         negative effect would transpire and life on earth would not be possible.
    B) Remember what we are trying to do with our arguments.  We can never prove
         anything 100 %. 
        1) You cannot prove 100% that you exist.  There is only one way to do this.
             You must exit your body and observe yourself in a state of existence.  This we
             cannot do.  It is physically impossible.  What is the answer then. Can we
             come to any type of conclusion about our own existence.  Yes we can.
             We need to remember three things, 1) What is the evidence? 2) What
             is the plausibility of you existing? 3) We must use our own reasoning
             and common sense.
            a) Is there any evidence that you exist.  Well, you are reading this.
                You are thinking about the things written.  Have someone punch
                in the arm, go ahead.  Did you feel any pain?  Someone once said,
                “I think, therefore I am.”  These two areas are evidence that you exist.
                1) You are capable of thinking.
                2) You can feel things that are physical in nature.
            b) Based on these two (there are others that can be added, just trying
                to keep it simple) what is more plausible?  That you do in fact exist,
                or that you do not exist.  Based on the evidence, it is more plausible
                that you do exist.  In fact, the plausibility of your existence is so
                overwhelming, it is reasonable to conclude it is a fact.
            c) Besides, common sense tells us that we do.
        2) This is the same with this objection.  No, we can not prove 100% that the
            defenses are fact.  But the plausibility of them being fact is so overwhelming
            that it is reasonable to conclude that they are fact.

2) The Anthropic Principle
    A) The Anthropic principle is this, the universe is tailor-made for habitation, and that
         both the laws of physics and the initial conditions obligingly arranged themselves in
         such a way that living organisms are subsequently assured of existence.
    B) Well, DAH!  Of course they are.  We are here.  The only difference is we know the
         Tailor who made it so. 
    C) This is really not a strong argument.  In fact, realizing the obvious implications of the
         scientific evidence for the Anthropic principle, many evolutionary scientists have
         rebelled at even the mere mention of it in the halls of science.




3) God of the Gaps
    A) It is often stated something like this, “ Just because we do not know how something
         came about does not mean we can or should insert God as the cause.”
    B) This is an argument from ignorance.  The Design argument is based on our everyday
         design inference.  When we see something that looks designed, that is what we infer.
    C) We use the design inference on a daily bases.  Even scientists, whether they want to
         admit it or not, use it on a daily basis in their everyday work.  A doctor and a
         mechanic diagnose the same way.  They each look within the machine to identify
         what has gone wrong.  The mechanic looks at the engine to see if one of the parts
         has malfunctioned or if something has entered in to disrupt the machines inner
         workings.  They make the inference to design since the all the parts have to be
         working properly in order for the machine to function as it should.  The doctor in
         essence does the exact same thing. They look at the inner parts to see what is not
         functioning properly.  They to make the same inference to design since all the
         parts of the system have to be working properly in order for the system to work.
         By identifying the problem, they then can correct it.
    D) All the argument does is show that some intelligent being has designed the
         system.  We do not know what that intelligent being is.  It could have been aliens
         for all we know.  This is a possible explanation.  (Although I personally do not
         believe that aliens exist.)  Do not get caught up in this trap.  They are making
         assumptions that the argument is not asserting.

4) Darwin has shown that variations and natural selection can account for the
     appearance of design.
    A) We will deal with this more readily when we refute the evolutionary theory.
    B) This rebuttal is primarily focused at the biochemical design argument.
    C) If it can be shown that mutations and natural selection can produce the complex
         systems such as the blood clotting cascade, then their argument stands.  Yet, as
         of today, none have been put forward.  Perhaps we can understand why
         detailed models are missing from the evolutionists by asking what a real
         scientific investigation of mousetrap evolution would be like.  They would first
         have to think of a precursor to the modern mousetrap, one that was simpler. 
         Suppose they started with a wooden platform?  No, that will not catch mice.
         Suppose they started with a modern mousetrap that has a shortened holding
         bar?  No, if the bar is too short it would not reach the catch, and the trap would
         spring uselessly while they were holding it.  Suppose they started with a smaller
         trap?  No, that would not explain the complexity.  Suppose the parts developed
         individually for other functions-such as a popsicle stick for the platform, a clock
         spring for the trap spring, and so on- and then accidentally got together?  No, their
         previous functions would leave them unfit for trapping mice, and they still have
         to explain how they gradually developed into a mousetrap.  If they cannot explain
         the mousetrap, which is simple compared to the systems of the body, it is easy
         to see why there are no attempts to give an evolutionary explanation.
   
       
    D) A pertinent question to ask now is, “How do we know things?”  Without getting
         into the discipline of epistemology, there are really only two ways that we know
         things.  1) Through personal experience and 2) By authority.
        1) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the walls in your house
            are green, how exactly do you know that?  It is through personal experience.
            You know the walls in your house are green because you live there and saw
              that they are green.  Similarly you know what a bird is, how gravity works
            (in an everyday sense), And how to get to the nearest shopping mall, all by
            direct experience.
        2) If you make the positive knowledge statement that the earth revolves around
            the sun, how exactly do you know this?  It is by authority.  That is, you rely
            on some source on information, believing it to be reliable, when you have no
            experience of your own.  Anyone who has attended school believes that the
            earth goes around the sun, even though only a few have the knowledge of how
            to detect this. 
    E) Scientists are people too, so we can ask how they know what they know.  They are
         like everyone else, they rely upon personal experience and, or authority.
        1) No one has personal experience in the evolution of complex biochemical
            systems.  It does not happen in the lab.  In fact, there is an ongoing
            experiment that is testing the validity of the mutation, natural selection theory.
            They use a bacteria that the generations come and go at a rapid pace.  They
            have gone through about 40,000 generations.  As of yet, there have been no
            noticeable changes in the bacteria.  Therefore they cannot say that the reason
            that they know it has happened this way is through personal experience.
        2) It is also not based on authority.  There is no publication in scientific
            literature- prestigious journal, specialty journals, or books- that describes
            how evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or
            even might have occurred.  There are assertions that such evolution occurred,
            but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.
        3) Since no one knows biochemical evolution by direct experience, and since
            there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can be said that
            the assertions of biochemical evolution is merely bluster.       

5) Design is not science
    A) This rebuttal goes something like this, “ Since we do not have access to the designer,
         we have no way to falsify the concept.”
    B) This is hypocritical on their part.  A great example of science and design is the SETI
         (stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
         project.  This project was stated in the early 60's, but did not really get started until
         Carl Sagan founded the Planetary Society.  It was a vehicle to advance the SETI
         program.  Simply, the program uses radio telescopes to search the skies for
         intelligent life.  Basically, millions of dollars (some of which were tax payers
         dollars) were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space
         that would indicate intelligence.  Those involved in the project recognized that
         mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other
         “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence
         did exist.  The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that
         Intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligence, natural
         explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code,
         mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.  Such codes have been found in
         biochemical systems.
    C) The two are basically the same.  They are both looking for design in nature.  The
         SETI scientists are looking for things that do not occur naturally.  If they were to
         come across something such as that, then they would immediately infer design.
         It would be on the front page of every newspaper that intelligent life exists
         elsewhere in the universe.  No one would begin to question the statement even
         though we could not test the being that designed the signal or whatever.  The same
         is true for the biochemical design we see in the body.  We see something that looks
         designed.  Just as with the SETI people, we naturally infer design.  No, we cannot
         test the designer, but just as with SETI, we do not have to for it to be science.  We
         are justified to infer the design concept.

5) Just trying to get religion into the schools
    A) This is a bad assumption on their part.
    B) It has nothing to do with religion. 
    C) Who the intelligent designer is, is not what the argument is showing.  Of course
         the next logical step would be to say that it is God.  But that is apart from this
         argument.
    D) This, I believe, is just an attempt to curtail the discussion from what it is about
         in order not to deal with the argument.  It would be kind of like putting a band aid
         on a severed limb.  It just will not help the situation. 

6) Does not prove a creator
    A) This is true, but the argument does have value.
    B) We need to recognize the fact that the teleological argument does not prove
         an infinite, Necessary being who created the universe out of nothing.  The
         Cosmological argument is intended to accomplish this.  However, when combined
         with the cosmological argument the teleological argument does show that the
         infinite cause of all finite being is an intelligent one, which is evidenced by the
         extremely complex design manifested in the universe. 

7) The perfection problem
    A) Stated as such, “It does not prove the existence of God.”
        1) The fact that the world is full of chaos indicates that there was no designer
            and that it is best explained by natural phenomena.
        2) The fact that mankind is plagued with disease, sickness, suffering indicates
             that an intelligent being could not and would not design something so sloppy.
    B) This is usually a rebuttal against the God of the Bible.
    C) This is faulty on their part, since we are not arguing for the God of the Bible using
         this argument.  The only thing that the argument is stating is that there is design
         in the universe that requires an intelligent being. 
    D) It is also faulty since we do not know at this point what the intelligent being had
         in mind at the start.  Could it not have purposely designed it in such a way as to have
         the chaos, disease, and suffering as a part of its original plan?  Possibly.  (We will
         examine this further when we discuss the issue of evil, pain, and suffering.)  Also
         what makes mankind’s definition of perfection the “rule of law”?  Just because
         mankind does not see it as perfection does not of necessity mean it is imperfect.
           There are many buildings that I would say are really not very appealing to the eye.
         Of course the designer of the building would disagree with my view of what he has
         designed.  Who is correct? 

8) Multi universe theory
    A) The multiverse theory is the hypothetical set of multiple universes that together
         comprise all of reality.
            1) It is argued that if this theory is correct then the design argument fails.
        2) With the increase in number of universes, the probability of one having
               the exact chemistry (for lack of a better word) for life to come into existence
            becomes greater and greater. 
        3) Not only does it become more probably, it becomes plausible.
    B) The major problem with this theory is the fact that we have absolutely NO
         Empirical evidence to even suggest such.  This theory laughs in the face of all
         science.  Science is not based on wishes.  It is based on evidence. 
    C) Since this theory has none, it should not even be considered.

Conclusion
    The teleological argument, as such, is a highly plausible but not absolutely certain argument for intelligent design manifested in the world.  Chance is possible though not plausible.  The teleological evidence favors the unity of this cause since this world is really a universe, not a multi universe.  This is especially evident in view of the anthropic principle which reveals that the world, life, and humankind were anticipated from the very moment of the origin of the material universe.
    The teleological argument as such does not demand that this cause be absolutely perfect.  Nor does it explain the presence of evil and disorder in the world.  The teleological argument is dependent on the cosmological and moral argument to establish these other aspects of the theistic God.
    It is really a casual argument from effect to cause, only it argues from the intelligent nature of the effect to an intelligent cause.  This point is important.  For if the principle of causality cannot be supported, the admittedly one cannot insist that there must be a cause or ground of the design in the world.  Design might just be there without a cause.  Only if there is a purpose for everything can it follow that the world must have a purposer.  The teleological argument depends on the cosmological argument in the important sense that it borrows from it the principle of causality.  As can be readily seen from every form of the design argument, the underlying assumption is that there needs to be a cause for the order in the world.  Deny this and the argument fails, for the alleged design would merely be gratuitous.
       

Monday, March 12, 2012

The Teleological argument part 2

The Teleological Argument for God   Part 2
1) The Argument
    A) If the universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
    B) The universe does evince purposeful design.
    C) Thus, the universe must have had a designer.

2) Defense of the Argument
    A) Premise A
        1) This is a logical and reasonable statement. 
        2) It is more plausibly true then its counterpart that if the universe evinces
            purposeful design, there must not have been a designer.
        3) Design implies a designer.
        4) This is usually not the objection to the argument.  Most rational persons
            will conceded this first premise.
    B) Premise B
        1) This is where most of the objections come from.
        2) From Richard Dawkins book “The Blind Watchmaker”:
            “There may be good reasons for belief in God, but the argument
            from design is not one of them...[D]espite all appearances to the
            contrary, there is no watchmaker in nature beyond the blind forces
            of physics...Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet
            essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered, and that we
            now understand to be the explanation for the existence and form
            of all life, has no mind’s eye, It does not plan for the future.  It has
            no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.  If it can be said to play the
            role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”
        3) The disagreement between the theist and atheist is not whether design
            demands a designer.  Rather, the point of contention is whether or not
            there is design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that
            a designer does, in fact, exist.
        4) We can infer design by the universal constants that are observed in nature.
             How did these come about?  These had to be in place before anything could
             begin.  (Look at the bottom of the post, there are 33)
        5) We can infer design from the universe itself.
            a) The universe is tremendously large.  Even though its outer limits
                have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion
                light years in diameter.  There are an estimated 1 billion galaxies in
                the universe, and an estimated 25 sextillion stars.  The Milky Way
                Galaxy consists of over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even
                traveling at the speed of light it would require 100,000 years to cross.
            b) The sun converts 8 million tons of matter into energy every second
                 and has an interior temperature of more than 20 million degrees.  It
                also produces intense radiation, which, in certain amounts, can be
                deadly to living things.
            c) The earth is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to
                receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life.  The
                earth is located 93 million miles from the sun.  This distance is just
                right to help stop the destructive pressure waves given off by the sun
                as it converts matter to energy.  If we were 10% closer, life could
                not survive because of the intense heat and pressure.  If we were 10%
                 farther away, too little heat  would be absorbed.
            d) We receive some protection from the sun’s radiation because in one
                of the layers of the atmosphere, there is a special form of oxygen known
                as ozone, which filters out most of the ultraviolet rays from the sun.  In
                addition, the sun constantly sends out an invisible wind that is
                composed of protons and electrons.  These particles approach the earth
                at extremely high speeds.  Fortunately, most of these particles are
                reflected back into space because the earth acts like a giant magnet
                and pushes these particles away.
            e) The earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator
                and is moving around the sun at 7,000 miles per hour, while the sun
                and solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per
                hour.  This rotation provides period of light and darkness which is
                necessary to life to exist.  If the earth were rotating much faster,
                fierce cyclones would stir over the earth like a kitchen food mixer.
                If the earth turned slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot
                or cold.
            f) The earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle, but is elliptical.  This means that
                sometimes the earth is closer to the sun than at other times.  In January,
                the earth is closest to the sun; in July, it is the farthest away.  When it is
                closer, the earth speeds up to avoid being pulled into the sun, when it is
                farthest away, it slows down so that it remains in position.
            g) The earth moves in its orbit around the sun, it departs from a straight
                line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles.  If it departed by
                one-eight of an inch, we would come so close to the sun that we would
                be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find
                ourselves so far from the sun that we would all freeze to death.
            h) The earth is poised at about 240,000 miles from the moon.  The moon
                helps control the movement of the ocean tides.  This movement is very
                beneficial to life on earth.  Without it the oceans would stagnate, and
                the animals and plants would perish.  The existence of life on the earth
                depends greatly on the tides, which help to balance the delicate food
                chain.  If the moon were moved just 5% closer to the earth, the tides
                would reach about 30-50 feet higher and cover most of the earth.
            i) Water covers about 72% of the earths surface.  This is good because
                the oceans provide a reservoir of moisture that constantly evaporates
                and condenses.  This motion of water causes rain to fall upon the
                earth.  Water also heats and cools at a much slower rate than solid
                land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot
                in the daytime and freezing at night.   Water, however, holds its
                Temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-
                conditioning system for the earth.  Temperature extremes would
                be much more erratic if it were not for the fact that the earth’s
                surface were not covered with 4/5ths water.  Also, humans and
                animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants
               inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. We depend upon the
                of plants for our oxygen, yet we often fail to realize that
                approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants
                in the seas.  If the oceans were any smaller, we would be out of air
                to breath.
            j) The statistical improbability of the universe just happening by blind
                chance is staggering.  The odds of such an event happening has been
                estimated at about 1 in 10 to the 1000th power.  That is a one followed
                by 1000 zeroes.  Mathematicians say that anything at 1 in 10 to the 50th
                power and above is impossible to come to pass.  “Astronomy leads us
                to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one
                with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions
                Required to permit life, and one which has an underlying plan.”
        6) Fine tuning of the universe from the beginning
            a) Due to either law, chance, or design
            b)Not due to law or chance
            c) Therefore it is due to design.
            d) Constants of nature
                1) When the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical
                    equations, you find appearing in them certain constants
                    which are the same across the board. Law of gravity.
                    F=Gx(M1xM2)divided by R squared
                    G will always be the same and is independent from the
                    laws of nature.
                2) They were put in at the creation and are contingent.
                3) It has been estimated that if the constant for gravity
                    were changed by 1 part in 10 to the 100th power, life
                    could not exist in this universe.
            e) Arbitrary quantities
                1) These are the initial conditions that are just put in at
                    the beginning of the universe on which the laws of
                    nature then operate. 
                2) Example is the low amount of entropy that was put in at
                    the beginning of the universe as an initial condition.
                3) The ratio of matter to anti-matter was put into the universe.
            f) Scientists have shown that these initial conditions and constants
                must have been fined tuned to incomprehensible precision in order
                for this universe to exist and also to permit life to exist within it.
            g) Used to think that no matter what the initial conditions were, given
                enough time, they would come into alignment and allow life to exist.
            h) Some estimates indicate that there are over 100 of these initial
                conditions within the universe.
            i) In order for them all to align so that the universe could be life
                permitting could not have been by chance.
            j) Probability
                1) Probability is defined as the chance or likelihood that a
                    certain event will happen.
                2) Again, mathematicians estimate that any thing with odds
                    greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power are not possible.  The
                    odds of all the initial conditions to come into existence by
                    chance at the same time and in the right dimensions are about
                    1 in 10 to the1000th power.
                3) Example: The fine-tuning that we see in the universe is
                    comparable to randomly throwing a dart the entire breath
                    of the universe and hitting a target 1" in diameter.
                4) Example: The range for this to happen is so infinitesimal
                    that if you had a radio dial the breath of the universe, you would
                    have a range of 2 centimeters to dial in the station.
                5) Example: If you had to pull a white ball out of a tank filled
                    with 100,000 black balls in order for you to continue to live,
                    would you even speculate that you could.  How about having
                    to do this, say, 100 times in a row.  How confident would you
                    be in that venture?  Would anyone bet on you?
                5) Is it plausible and reasonable to conclude that it happened by
                    chance?  No, in any other instance this would be impossible
                    and would never be given a second thought.
        7) Self-sustaining earth
            a) Water cycle
                1) We all have studied this fact of nature.
                2) Water, in liquid form, evaporates due to the heat of the sun.
                    As it rises into the air, the higher it gets the cooler it becomes
                    since the air is cooler the higher you get. 
                3) As the water vapor rises it begins to condense on minuet
                    particles in the air and starts to turn back into water.
                4) As the water accumulates on the particle, it begins to
                    increase in weight and eventually falls back to earth in
                    the form of rain.
                5) The rain falls to the ground and accumulates in pools and
                    streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
                6) Then the process starts all over again.
                7) With this, the earth is constantly replenishing and cleaning
                     its water supply.
                8) How has this come about?  What natural mechanism would
                    account for such a principle?  None, the only logical and
                    plausible reason is design.
            b) Breathable air
                1) The earth has a unique way of producing life sustaining
                    air for all living things.
                2) As you know, We all need oxygen in order to survive.
                3) Have you ever wondered why we never run out?
                4) It comes from the plants.  In fact about 90% of it comes
                    from the small plant life in the oceans.
                5) The plants give off the oxygen we need to sustain life,
                    in turn, we give off carbon dioxide which the plants “breath”.
                6) If this process did not occur, life on earth would have ceased
                    to exist long ago.
                7) Was this just by chance?  Again, what would be the mechanism
                    that would put this interaction into place?
            c) The food chain
                1) Plants use the sun and nutrients from the soil as “food”.
                2) Animals (herbivores) eat these plants for their nourishment.
                3) In turn, animals (omnivores and carnivores) eat these herbivores
                    for their nourishment.
                4) Once the herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores excrete their
                    waste, it is now time for the bacteria and things to have their fill.
                    They reduce the waste into nutrients for the plants to consume.
                5) The process starts all over again.
                6) This is a very simple explanation of the food chain, but it shows
                    the self-sufficient nature of the earth.

UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS

1. Strong nuclear force constant:
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry;
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

2. Weak nuclear force constant:
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible;
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3. Gravitational force constant:
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry;
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4. Electromagnetic force constant:
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission;
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant:
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the Sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support;
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the Sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

6. Ratio of electron to proton mass:
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry;
if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons:
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation;
if smaller: same as above

8. Expansion rate of the Universe:
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: Universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the Universe

9. Entropy level of the Universe:
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies;
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10. Mass density of the Universe:
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

11. Velocity of light:
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support;
if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12. Initial uniformity of radiation:
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed;
if less uniform: Universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

13. Average distance between galaxies:
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the Universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the Sun’s orbit

14. Density of galaxy cluster:
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

15. Average distance between stars:
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

16. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines):
if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the Sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the Sun

17. Decay rate of protons:
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient matter for life

18. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: Universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

19. Ground state energy level for 4He:
if larger: Universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

20. Decay rate of 8Be:
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

21. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass:
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

22. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons:
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

23. Polarity of the water molecule:
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

24. Supernovae eruptions:
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

25. White dwarf binaries:
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

26. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass:
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

27. Number of effective dimensions in the early Universe:
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

28 Number of effective dimensions in the present Universe:
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

29. Mass of the neutrino:
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

30. Big bang ripples:
if smaller: galaxies would not form; Universe would expand too rapidly:
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; Universe would collapse before life-site could form

31. Size of the relativistic dilation factor:
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

32. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

33. Cosmological constant:
if larger: Universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars (see: “Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”).