The reasoning is quite simple, as far as I'm concerned: First, postulating a Creator doesn't answer anything - it merely adds another layer and a mystical one at that. Second, if the argument is that the Universe required a creator but that the creator didn't, then it's reasonable to ask what's the difference between the Universe and the Creator, and, if the Creator didn't require a Creator himself, why should the Universe? Alternatively, if the Creator required a Creator, then we're in a loop of ever mightier creators, which is clearly fallacious. Do note that it doesn't help to claim "well, 666 Creators are enough... that one didn't require a Creator" because that brings us back to the previous case.
You could also ask the question: Why should the Universe and the Creator both require a Creator? Asking the question: "If the Creator didn't require a Creator himself, why should the Universe?" does not mean therefore the Universe did not require a Creator. You're making the assumption they are on equal footing. Sure you can ask the question. But you cannot come to the conclusion that therefore there can't be a Creator of the Universe.
We can observe and measure the Universe as any other object. But the Theist Model proposes a Creator that cannot be seen or measured and is consequently not on the same level as the Universe. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
That may be your interpretation, but it's by no means accurate to say that "it is more likely than there is a Designer / Creator." If you think it is, then clearly you've calculate the odds, and I'd be very interested in hearing the numbers you came up with and what kind of Type I and Type II errors you expect.
Cosmic coincidences
The main drivers here are some truly perplexing developments in physics and cosmology. In recent years physicists and cosmologists have uncovered numerous eye-popping "cosmic coincidences," remarkable instances of apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe.
Here are just three out of many that could be listed:
Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.
The proton-to-electron mass ratio. A neutron's mass is slightly more than the combined mass of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. If the neutron were very slightly less massive, then it could not decay without energy input. If its mass were lower by 1%, then isolated protons would decay instead of neutrons, and very few atoms heavier than lithium could form.
The cosmological constant. Perhaps the most startling instance of fine-tuning is the cosmological constant paradox. This derives from the fact that when one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory.
Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html#jCpBut you aren't open to being convinced. Everything, to you, is evidence of design. As I said in a previous post:
I need to be convinced scientifically.
As for providing evidence that the Universe began on its own, allow me to show you why it would be pointless. Let's pretend that I have such evidence and I present it here. Everyone is stunned and I get fame, women, money and a fancy gold Nobel prize medal to use as a drink coaster.
You'll simply respond with "ahh, but even this is evidence of design, for you see there is still this deeper layer, full of fine-tuned variables that would make life impossible if they had any other values, but they don't and we are here! What you are observing is merely the Designer's plan in motion!"
At which point the Nobel committee would confiscate my drink coaster, my money, my women and my prized collection of 17th century beef jerky, while you were created Space Pope.
If you could create random Universes (with their own fundamental laws and properties) yourself via some machinery or other unknown method it would constitute proof to me. Then you would yourself become a Creator of Universes. I for one would not say that's "the Designer's plan in motion!" It would of course result in an endless loop of Designers. But we are not yet at that point are we
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
