Have you ever had one of those moments when you looked out over the night sky and just absorbed the magnificence of a full Moon? Sometimes, the moon looks as if it is so close you could reach out and grab a piece off the surface! The sun, the moon, the stars & sky all seem to be telling us there is something far greater than what we know. It makes us feel so miniscule and insignificant. For centuries, men have been on a quest looking to the heavens to see the connection between our lives and the existence of the universe. Every major civilization has recorded their fixation with the stars, solar systems and cosmic events. Over time they realized that the precision of the stars and planets provided a means for direction for travel on the high seas and land. They have even constructed large monuments of worship searching for meaning by looking to the heavens.
When we look at the night sky and see the amazing aesthetic beauty, it can be overwhelming from a human perspective. We are quickly reminded that within this beauty is our solar system – a finely tuned body of planets all which are bound together via gravitation around our sun. Our solar system is in a small portion of our Milky Way Galaxy and settled in a “quiet” location of the Orion Arm which is about 28,000 light years from the center of the Galaxy. The precision within our own solar system is remarkable. It contains eight planets all of which orbit around the sun on what is called the ecliptic plane. Each planet having its own unique characteristics and properties is simply staggering. Time and again, nature forces us to confront certain realities. Questions automatically surface. Is the universe and all of its contents simply a product of random chance? When we look out into the universe it is difficult to believe that all of this simply happened by random chance. What are the odds of all of the factors falling into place if random chance is the answer? If one could come to a identifiable number, is it statistically probable? There are only two realistic possibilities – either the universe was designed or it is a product of random chance.
If we are products of randomness i.e., time + mater + chance = existence then the resulting reality is that man is insignificant. Ultimately, nothing would have any meaning, value, or purpose. Life would not be any more important than death. Human beings would not be any more important than any other form of life other than the fact that they have higher rational capacities. Are we to adopt the view of Quinton Smith who says “The most rational thing to believe is that the universe came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing!”?
In contrast, perhaps the uniqueness of the universe is a never-ending billboard for humanity, a means of communicating to humanity that ‘The Designer” seeks to be known. Man possesses the ability to see nature but we also have the rational capacity to discover, learn and understand the processes from an intellectual standpoint. It is a fine-tuned system that allows for humans to exist in a habitat that is uniquely perfect for life. Modifying any major aspect of the universe changes those unique paramaters where life is possible on earth. Altering these unique properties of the solar system in the Milky Way Galaxy or modifying earths unique location within the solar system would make it similar to any of the other planets that are uninhabited. Further, we have the emotional capacity to value the beauty of nature from an esthetic perspective.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Perhaps, the most plausible view is that the universe was specifically designed by a Creator. A designer who created the universe AND created a finely tuned environment for life and human beings to exist. Moreover – the designer has personality because “He” seeks to be known and for us to know Him. Chances are the reason why you value nature is because you were wired to appreciate messages that God is sending you a message via nature. “I am here and I want to know you.” So the next time you see a full moon against the clear night sky - stop and ponder. Maybe it is the next time you are near a beach listening to the pounding waves or near a babbling brook appreciating the relaxing nature of the stream, remember He is there ….. sending each of us a message. In all reality – one does not have to go far to see a billboard from the Creator. Messages are sent each and every day.
For more information – contact Quest Ministries.
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
- strong nuclear force constantif 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
- weak nuclear force constantif 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
- gravitational force constantif 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
- electromagnetic force constantif 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
- ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constantif 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
- ratio of electron to proton massif larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above
- ratio of number of protons to number of electronsif larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above
- expansion rate of the universeif larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
- entropy level of the universeif larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
- mass density of the universeif 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
- velocity of lightif faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
- age of the universeif older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
- initial uniformity of radiationif 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
- average distance between galaxiesif 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
- density of galaxy clusterif 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
- average distance between starsif larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
- 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
- decay rate of protonsif greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
- 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratioif larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
- ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above
- decay rate of 8Beif 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
- ratio of neutron mass to proton massif 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
- initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleonsif greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
- polarity of the water moleculeif 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
- 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
- white dwarf binariesif 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
- ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter massif larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form
- number of effective dimensions in the early universeif larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result
- number of effective dimensions in the present universeif smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result
- mass of the neutrinoif smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
- big bang ripplesif 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
- size of the relativistic dilation factorif smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result
- 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
- cosmological constantif larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
This list was originally published in a book by Dr. Hugh Ross. Creator and the Cosmos. How the latest scientific discoveries of the century reveal God. NavPress & Reasons to Believe, 2001. The link below is a separate list that provides evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for life support.