Somewhere between Toronto and Montreal there is a dime on the side of the road (you are not told which side and you only get to drive the course once). Your mission is to stop the car you are driving so that the right-rear tire completely covers the dime.
There's a great prize: If you win, you get to exist.
Are you feeling lucky?
There's more. In order to "win", the car you drive must be the right model, year, color and style (unknown to you) selected from the entire universe of cars and models. It must have exactly the right number of kilometers on it (to 1/10th of a km.) at the moment it covers the dime. In addition, you must cover the dime with your tire at the exact prescribed moment in time -- year, month, day, hour, minute, second (unknown to you). This moment in time covers all the moments in time of recorded history. Yes, you may not even be born yet, and the car you must drive may not have been developed yet.
If you drive off the road, it's game over. If you get hit by another car, it's game over.
One more thing. You are blind-folded.
What do you think your blind-chance chances are?
Whatever you answered, the odds of you covering the dime are much better than the universe we live in just popping into existence and then creating and sustaining life.
This brings us to the argument from fine-tuning (or, "the anthropic principle") for the existence of God.
In the past 40 years it has been discovered by scientists that several parameters in our physical universe must be "just so" for the universe to exist and to support life.
A few examples, cited by Robin Collins, are:
1. If the initial explosion of the Big Bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10-to-the-60th, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. (An accuracy of one part in 10-to-the-60th can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)
2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible.
3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10-to-the-40th, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )
5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988, p. 299.)
* * *
Recently, scientists have proposed a multiverse to get around the vast improbabilities of our universe popping into place by chance. The idea here is either that reality actually consists of a multitude of coinciding universes, one-in-a-gazillion of which might support life (and we're the lucky ones), or, reality consists of an infinite succession of Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches followed by another Big Bang, and, lucky us, our Big Bang just happens to be the one, or one of the ones, that supports life, and, here we are.
But there's a problem with even this. You will hear it stated, "and thus, the highly improbable becomes highly likely, to the point where it actually becomes inevitable". Except, it doesn't. Probability theorists will tell you that the highly improbable remains highly improbable no matter how many chances you get.
Now, what evidence do scientists offer us, what "physical proof" as some would put it, that multiverses exist?
None. Nada. Zip.
The theory of multiverses was developed not because there is an iota of scientific evidence for them -- there is NONE -- it was developed out of panicked necessity to get around the obvious and more likely inference that, with odds this astronomically huge, the parameters of the universe were deliberately set the way they are by Someone or Something in order to make sustainable life possible.
The one and only reason that the multiverse theory was developed was to keep the door closed to the possibility that this universe, and we ourselves, might be the product of a Creator.
More than this, there's an additional side to the anthropic principle: humans have been given the capacity for observing the universe and discovering its secrets, like these fined-tuned characteristics. By what or by whom?
Those of us on the theist side of the aisle can praise God, while those on the the other side can praise blind chance (which didn't know how to drive, didn't know the dime was there, and wasn't trying to either drive or stop on the dime) that stopped on a dime one sunny day on the road to Montreal.
The only question which remains to be asked is: which viewpoint requires greater faith?
Robin Collins develops the argument much further. A non-technical version may be read at: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetlay.htm
* * *
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge."