No I wouldn't. Perhaps the numbers have to be what they are.
Consider the physical necessity.
This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.
Do you have any examples of universes where they are different? If so, do tell.
This is the fallacy from possibility. It’s not rational to believe:
1. x is more probable than y
2. y is possible
3. therefore I believe y
What you have is an argument from
ignorance:
1. I don’t know what other universes are like
2. Therefore, we are here by chance
It doesn’t follow.
We IDers have an argument from analogy:
1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence
The only argument the atheists have is a
mere wish:
1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. I wish like causes did not spawn like effects or I wish fine-tuning were the result of chance.
5. therefore, we are here by chance.
Of course is Multiverses are real they would need a Universal Constant that creates Universes.
And even if they could be different, and our universe is a one in a bazillion fluke, it still doesn't prove god. Saying it did is a God of the Gaps fallacy.
Chance
The fine-tuning is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds,
of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!
So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need
not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.
Design
It seems, then, that the fine-tuning is not plausibly due to physical necessity or chance. Therefore, we ought to prefer the hypothesis of design unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be just as implausible as its rivals.
Finally, even if there was a creator, what makes you think it is your god? Maybe the Australian aborigines had it right.
There is a Creator because chance and necessity can't create Universes. Just like a Mind created the screen you are looking at a Mind created the Universe you are in. To prove me wrong you must prove the Design argument wrong. God is one because He is Eternal, you can't have God of Christianity and God of Aborigines, you can only have two names for the same God, to describe the same entity, God is not a person, if i name the electrons with different name and the aborigines name the electron with a different name it doesn't mean that there are 2 different electrons or that the electrons will behave differently in Australia. Consider this example when there were no microscopes.
Now prove me that you are a Cosmic zombie without purpose or free will that Nothingness or a Cosmic slot machine spewed you.
