[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” hundred_percent_height=”no” hundred_percent_height_scroll=”no” hundred_percent_height_center_content=”yes” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” status=”published” publish_date=”” class=”” id=”” link_color=”” link_hover_color=”” border_size=”3″ border_color=”#000000″ border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”3%” padding_right=”3%” padding_bottom=”3%” padding_left=”3%” gradient_start_color=”” gradient_end_color=”” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”#fafafa” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ background_blend_mode=”none” video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” box_shadow=”no” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” background_type=”single” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_blend_mode=”none” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” filter_type=”regular” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″ first=”true” last=”true”][fusion_title title_type=”text” rotation_effect=”bounceIn” display_time=”1200″ highlight_effect=”circle” loop_animation=”off” highlight_width=”9″ highlight_top_margin=”0″ before_text=”” rotation_text=”” highlight_text=”” after_text=”” content_align=”left” size=”1″ font_size=”” animated_font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_color=”” animated_text_color=”” highlight_color=”” style_type=”default” sep_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]
Part 3. The Evidence Is In & Involves Some Amazing Stuff
[/fusion_title][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]
Remember the 5 properties, which make the involvement of an intelligent agent detectable?
(1) CHOICE among a RANGE OF OPTIONS
The natural sciences have discovered many, many constants, quantities, initial conditions, balances and aspects of the Universe, which had to land precisely within a RAZOR-THIN RANGE for life, especially our life, to exist – we have found we live in a Goldilocks universe – where everything is just right.
(2) Many examples in specific COMBINATION
Amazing examples could be given on every size scale, from the expansion throughout the entire Universe, to specific features of our galaxy, of our solar system, of our planet, of our moon, of our ecosystem, all the way down to subatomic forces and particles. ALL of these examples are required in COMBINATION or you wouldn’t be here reading this.
(3) The combination works to fit EXTERNALLY ESTABLISHED PATTERNS, needed to reach (4) a SPECIFIED PURPOSE
Advanced life, capable of rational thought and choice-making, if such life is your goal or SPECIFIC PURPOSE, then it requires a combination of conditions to all match the EXTERNAL PATTERNS or requirements for physical, advanced life. Consider all the things that had to be just right to survive in space as displayed in the Apollo 13 movie. The purpose of life to exist within the space capsule was the goal of the designers and engineers, who ensured external patterns or requirements for life were met – and that was phenomenally challenging for our best minds.
(5) The result often displays COMPLEXITY not easily repeatable by chance
No one coming across the Apollo 13 space capsule would even consider chance as a possible explanation for the capsule, and the capsule we call “Earth” is vastly more sophisticated and robust in meeting and sustaining all the requirements for life over vast periods of time (when Apollo 13 couldn’t even handle it, without serious intervention, for even a week).
People often flippantly claim chance as an explanation, failing to understand they place their claim within the microscope of mathematics – and the math is clear – chance has no chance in explaining why our Universe just happened to land on all the unimaginably precise values required for life. Let’s look at the example we started with.
Question: So, why is our Universe so big, if it is just for us?
Answer: Because it had to be JUST PRECISELY that big.
- Here is an example of a quantity in our Universe that had to be just right:
The mass (amount of stuff) of the entire Universe impacted whether we would have the chemistry necessary for life, and whether the early Universe would expand safely, or collapse, or blow itself so far apart no planets would form.
As noted in The BEGINNING Evidence, the Universe started off phenomenally small, dense, hot, and immediately started expanding. As the universe expands, it cools. Between the first 3-4 minutes, the universe’s temperature passed through the same temperature range as the core of our sun, which leads to nuclear fusion of Hydrogen (H) into Helium (He) and radiates energy as heat and light. Scientists have found that if the Universe had less mass or mass density (mass is a measure of how much matter is in something) then it would have cooled faster, had less time to fuse H into He, and the Universe would never be capable or producing elements heavier than He, such as Carbon (C), Nitrogen (N), and other elements necessary for life – we would have a hot air balloon universe – no life.
If, on the other hand, the Universe just happened to have a bit more mass at the beginning, then too much H would be fused into He, and our universe would end up being a heavy metal universe, being composed of only metals heavier than Iron (Fe) – Metallica fans would be happy – but again, no life possible, so actually there would be no Metallica fans, or anyone else.
And for enough of those essential chemicals to get produced, in order to form the matter needed for planets and life by the universal chemical-producing factories, stars, the Universe would have to be the age, and the vast size it was when our solar system formed.
Furthermore, the amount of matter in the Universe had to be almost exactly what it was. How exact? If the quantity of mass changed by 1 part in a quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, then no life (P.C.W. Davies, The Accidental Universe. Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 88-90 ).
In other words, if, by chance, there was less than a dime’s worth more or less mass in this vast cosmos, the Universe would have either collapsed back on itself into immense black holes, or would have expanded too fast to form anything, respectively. The Universe is EXACTLY as massive as it needed to be.
So how did the Universe just happen to begin with the perfect balance of gravity and expansion, and just the right mass to enable the creation of all the elements needed for life, when it could have began with any other amount of mass and have no life? Only 2 possibilities, either an intelligent agent ensured the precise conditions were met, or it happened naturally by chance.
Could some natural explanation be found? What is the trend?
Those whose worldview includes God may be thinking this is “proof that God exists,” but it isn’t, because:
- God is not trying to “prove” himself (see “Why doesn’t God make it obvious?” in the Frequently Asked Questions section),
- an intelligent creator may have used mostly natural means to arrive at the precise value, or
- there may be something further involved we are still ignorant of, which may explain it by nature and chance only. And I chose this case for a reason, it is a good example of a time when those who accept God have to remain open – just as is expected of those who do not accept God.
There is something, which may have occurred, to make sure the Universe expanded in a way where mass density is taken care of: a hyper-inflationary moment. There is a theory, with reasonable evidence, the universe had an extra-rapid expansion, or inflationary period, for a fraction of a second near the beginning of the universe, which may explain how the universe expanded just right, regardless of mass.
Does this mean if this theory is accurate, then this fine-tuning example is totally explained naturally? No, because ever since scientists first realized there are quantities, constants, balances and other factors in the universe set precisely within the razor sharp range required for life, these examples have only grown and been found to be more amazing as further discovery goes on – and this is a good example of it – because if this inflation period of expansion takes care of the mass density fine-tuning, then why is this hyper-expansion just right? We are still left with a fine-tuned Universe for life, as inflation would have to force the curvature of the Universe almost identically to zero, which recent discoveries have been confirming.
Furthermore, the expansion force has recently been found to be one of the most incredible examples of the consistently increasing fine-tuning evidence, and we will look at that next.
- Here is an example of balance & initial conditions that had to be just right
Our Universe relies on perfect balances. One of those, which has operated from the beginning of the universe, involves two massive forces acting against each other: GRAVITY, which acts to pull everything together, and an EXPANSION force, which acts to push things apart.
The expansion of space comes from what has been called dark energy, it is the space energy density, it is all through the fabric of space, and is stretching out space. If space had expanded too quickly, gas and dust could not collect by gravity to form galaxies, stars and planets. If slower, gravity pulls everything together into neutron stars and black holes, which means no molecules and no life.
The problem is, when one adds up all the things in the Universe that contribute to the dark energy and the expansion of space, it adds up to 10120 times more than the life-permitting observed value we have. So how did we end up with a life-permitting value? Somehow, all the contributors to the expansion of space, canceled each other out so we end up with the exact value we needed. How precise does the space energy density value match for life? If, by chance, this density differed by 1 part in 10120 then no life could exist!
There are a number of excellent reviews of the cosmological constant in the scientific literature (Weinberg, 1989; Carroll, 2001; Vilenkin, 2003; Polchinski, 2006; Durrer & Maartens, 2007; Padmanabhan, 2007; Bousso, 2008)
There is a few scientists arguing the expansion of space may only be fine-tuned to the level of 1053. Let’s put 1053 into a situation where you can see the significance of this number. For those who don’t want to let God into the door of their thinking, time and chance has to step up, yet mathematics seems to make time and chance take a seat.
Hoping to Win the Mega-Millions Jackpot?
Recognize, if you are living your life as though there is no intelligent agency purposefully behind the Universe, then you are betting against odds. What are your odds of surviving a fall from an airplane without a parachute? When reading a report it troubled me to find there was enough data to claim you have a 1 in 10,000,000 (in scientific notation 107) chance of surviving. What are your odds of winning the Mega Millions Lotto 6 times in a row having bought just one ticket each time? 1 in 1048. What is the likelihood the Universe landed on just the precise value noted above and required for life to exist? 1 chance in 10120. And that is just one value, of the many and growing number of initial conditions, constants, quantities, balances, etc., which had to be just right. To get the final value, you would have to multiply all the probabilities together, which has been done. It is so remotely less likely the Universe, by chance, would have got even this one value right for life, then it would be for you to survive the fall from the airplane, without a parachute, and then go on to win 6 straight lotteries. Literallly, you can do the math. If you are betting against a purposeful God behind the Universe, you may be making a very bad bet.
Even if you bought as many lottery tickets as there are atoms in the entire Universe, and you bought those same number of tickets every second since the beginning of the Universe, you would still only have a 1 in an septillion chance of winning (very bad bet). The Universe faced those same odds, within the phase space of all possible outcomes, and won. Even if chance were given limitless opportunities, you still have to decide if the extremely remote possibilities are likely to be true. It is easy to say that given enough time and opportunities chance can make anything happen, but is that reality? After the third plane hit the Pentagon on September eleventh, did you also believe those occurrences resulted by chance? Emil Borel in his book Probability and Certainty noted: “When it is shown mathematically that a certain event is improbable, as the chance for that event becomes more remote, reality takes over and extremely remote possibilities become impossibilities.”
In other words, two unimaginably massive forces, gravity and the expansion of space, both of which would destroy any hope of life in the Universe if not at the exact values necessary through time, somehow met the precise requirements for life to emerge. And be honest with yourself, if 1 person won the lottery 6 times in a row, what would you be thinking? (a) How lucky, or (b) there is something going on behind the scenes, some intelligent agent must be acting? What are you thinking, A or B, and why?
If you are betting against an intelligent agent being behind the creation of the universe, then you are basing your life, and possibly eternity, on a very bad bet. And there better not be more, but there is much more.
- Here is an example of a constant that had to be exactly right:
Precise balances had to be right from the very beginning. The force of gravity (G), which is relatively weak compared to other forces in nature (1036 times weaker than the strong nuclear force within atoms), needed to be almost exactly as it was (M. Rees. Just Six Numbers, 33-34). Just 1 second after the beginning of the Universe, as the New Scientist article stated: “Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within one part in 1015 (or one part in a quadrillion; 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000) at one second after the big bang, allows life to form.” (“Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?” New Scientist Magazine, No. 2712, June 10, 2009)
The pie graph above shows a quadrillion possible values, with only 1 in a quadrillion colored green indicating a safe zone. You may notice you don’t see the safe green zone, that is because the odds are so unlikely you would land precisely on 1 out of a quadrillion, my computer didn’t have pixels small enough to even show the safe area. Do you believe the Universe landed on the exact safe area, by chance.
And it isn’t just the universal forces like expansion and gravity that must fit within a phenomenally precise range to allow life. All throughout the Universe on every size scale, we see what the scientists involved called “Fine-tuning”.
Consider Stephen Hawking’s quote regarding the ability to form molecules, or physicist Mike Strauss’ work on the subatomic level. He found if the strong nuclear force between quarks were even 5% weaker, then only the element Hydrogen would be stable, and it would make memorizing the periodic table in chemistry class so much easier, as the table of elements would then only include H. But, of course, there would be no chemistry class.
From the Universe itself, to galaxies, to our solar system, our planet, our moon, our ecosystem, our bodies, even down to subatomic particles, discoveries indicate aspects that must ALL fit within their respective precise ranges, all in combination with each other, to fit the pattern or requirements for our life to exist. Exactly fitting the hallmarks of an intelligent agent discussed in part 2 above.
Predictive
Fine-tuned features were unexpected and should go away, if the universe were only a product of nature + chance alone. If the biblical model is correct, then it predicts the list of fine-tuned parameters will grow over time – which is exactly what we see. Fine-tuning is well-established in science, and is even used to direct scientists to new findings all the time – that is science at its best as far as verifying a model or theory!
Trending
Trends are also important indicators. You see trends in your grades, the economy, your health, and other areas, and trends speak loudly. If the fine-tuning argument is valid, as time goes on, new discoveries and support will increase overall, or the opposite, if not true.
What have we found? You can check the trends in the scientific literature, it has grown to hundreds of examples. In fact, you can test it now, looking in scientific writings. For those who say a natural explanation will be found – that is delusional faith – that hope is against the evidence, and this is why trends are so important.
The evidence and trends are not impacted by opinions and hopes, but just allow us to follow the evidence where it leads.
And the trend is: every month or so a new fine-tuning discovery is added and mathematically increases the evidence by literally a million times that an intelligent creator is the only reasonable, logical, sufficient, and evidenced-based cause of the universe.
To see other interesting examples: very good articles from astronomer Hugh Ross, biologist Fuz Rana, astronmer and UCLA professor Jeff Zweerink and others can be found at rtb.org. Dr. Ross has developed a scientific model concerning the fine-tuning of the universe, which includes a list of the fine-tuned features, predictions, and mathematical probabilities of nature accounting for life without intelligent guidance. Dr. Ross is a Christian, yet the data comes from peer-reviewed scientific studies and literature, the references are provided for you to check yourself.
The list of fine-tuned features and model have been presented to professors and scientists at top universities and organizations across the world, especially those who do not share the worldview of Dr. Ross, and they do accept the fine-tuning of the features. The only disagreement is over the mathematic probabilities assigned to some features, however, the disagreement typical only goes up to several dozen zeros, which is insignificant when we are talking about probabilities involving numbers raised to the power of a thousand zeros.
My recommendation only comes after several hours of questioning and discussions with Dr. Ross, following a couple speaking events, through which I found him to have world-class understanding of the topics, and genuineness, as he generously sacrificed his personal time for his passion to present what he understands to be essential information.
The endless examples of amazing scientific discoveries about our Universe, can be matched just by your own personal wonder at the world around you. If a purposeful God does exist, no one will be standing before such a creator claiming they never knew, the Universe provides answers everywhere and every day.
We will consider one example now, then provide a list of other amazing examples of design to consider in nature.
Comparing a Known Intelligently Designed Object to Another Object (Your Brain)
There is a continuous flow of articles and interesting, thought-provoking examples of design all around us. For example, German & Japanese scientists & engineers, through massive funding, intelligence, and effort have used the world’s 4th largest, combined 83,000 supercomputers, known as “K-array”, to simulate 1 second of brain activity, which took those 83,000 supercomputers 40 minutes to do. Not simulating consciousness, emotion or any of the good stuff, just the activity. Amazing scientific and engineering accomplishment!
You can do a napkin calculation comparing just the efficiency of the K-array versus the human brain. Assuming the super-computer-array can operate without failure for 70 years, and very generously also assuming the space containing the array is only 83,000 times larger than the brain, you discover that whatever cause led to the brain (either a personal agent + nature, or purely nature following simple natural laws), the cause is 440 quadrillion times more intelligent & better funded than the German and Japanese scientists and engineers who created the K-supercomputer array.
And then there is reverse engineering. Why is it that there is an endless list of inventions copied directly from the engineering we discover in nature? If you want to cheat on an exam, you don’t look to copy off a rock, or an Ohio State University football player, you copy from one more intelligent than you.
Other excellent engineering in nature examples were provided by Dr. John Clayton, a list of these examples will be provided for you to click on and explore in the page labeled Dandy Designs, and a wonderful video was produced by Harvard, which speaks for itself. The video, which can be seen by clicking here, is thoroughly accurate to what occurs within every cell of your body, the only alteration was the video designers had to make the components, within the cell, more spread out then they actually are, otherwise we would be unable to see all the intricate activities going on in the incredibly condensed space.
What are the scientists saying?
Quotes are not proof, but it is interesting to note the following well-accepted and peer-reviewed scientists are giving the quotes below – because they have to – based on the evidence.
- Physicist Freeman Dyson: “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”1
- Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to recognizing that “the laws [of physics] . . . seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.”2 He states, “[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe . . . The impression of design is overwhelming.”3
- Sir Frederick Hoyle: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”4
- Alan Lightman of MIT: “if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings that would not exist but no life of any kind would exist.”5
- Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health: “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability . . . [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”6
- From the currently most well-known mathematician and scientist, Stephen Hawking: “The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities (he wrote this in 1997) had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on . . .”7 In the best-selling science book of all-time, Hawking adds: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”8
- And in his most recent book, notes: “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way . . . The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer . . .”9
-
And the Bible adds: “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”10
Is there any alternative to the worldview that stands on God?
Yes. These quotes were chosen because they come from top-level scientists, who know the numbers as well as anyone, and almost all stood on the agnostic or atheist worldview beliefs, at least when making those quotes. So you may wonder, how someone seeing such “overwhelming” evidence for design does not then accept a designer.
Well, I need to add the rest of the context to that last quote from Hawking, after he said the extreme fine-tuning could lead some back to the idea of “some grand designer”, he adds, “That is not the answer of modern science . . . our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.” He believes every different thing that could possibly happen, does happen, in an entirely new and equally real universe, with the vast, vast, vast majority of those universes being lifeless because those didn’t get all the values right, and we just happen to be in a universe that got it all right.
Max Tegmark has researched and written on a number of fine-tuned features of our Universe, and he concluded the fine-tuning is so remarkable only a nearly infinite multiverse can be the answer. Tegmark provided four levels of multiverse, and while the Universe is likely much larger than we can observe (level 1), and the existence of some form of “bubble universes” (level 2) would not surprise me, and makes for great movies, accepting Tegmark’s level four multiverse needed to explain the fine-tuning without a purposeful God, comes without evidence, with critical problems, and also must face the comprehensive case from all fields of study, including the CAUSED EVIDENCE pointing to a cause of the Universe having properties precisely described of the biblical personal creator, all of which must be considered before deciding to place this idea either on the shelf of supportable theory, or wishful thinking.
Brian Greene gave a TED talk explaining how multiple universes would be created, and compared the mechanism that produces them to a French horn instrument – notice how he can’t help but to compare it to something made by an intelligent agent – and with good reason.
Once people began to realize that there was not the limitless time and matter in our universe, which was required by the chance idea to be plausible, many of these people funneled into the multiple universe idea expecting it to save the chance belief. However, there would be limits on any universe, including chemical and physical laws, a minimum age before life could begin and a maximum age set by proton lifetimes or entropy, which leads to heat death of the universe.
Problems with the multiverse model:
- This is an admission that the fine-tuning examples are an example of DESIGN so great it needs either God, or an almost infinite number of other universes.
- You would need something to generate all those universes, and must do so in a way able to try out every possible fine-tuning value. Such a multiverse generator would also have a BEGINNING, CAUSE, and would be phenomenally FINE-TUNED itself (like a French Horn).
- What kind of multiple universe does the person believe in? Max Tegmark determined that there are 4 types, and only the most extreme 3rd or 4th type would work to explain the fine-tuning.
- What EVIDENCE does the person give for that type of multiverse? There is none.
- What evidence do they have that even if that multiverse existed, it already tried enough possible universes to generate one like ours, and if there is an infinite number of other universes, why don’t they collide?
- This is an example of an ad futuris fallacy, an error in logic where a person basically falls to saying, “There is no good evidence now, but just wait, there will be evidence someday to validate my belief!”
- This is as an extreme example of an ad hoc logical fallacy as possible: it explains way too much.
- This also demonstrates blind or delusional faith: standing on no evidence, yet refusing a model that significantly establishes itself in the standards of testing for validity (explanatory power, scope, falsifiability, predictive power, etc.) – the biblical model. There is some evidence for a type 1, or even type 2 multiverse, but none for the type required to eliminate the need for intelligent fine-tuning of the Universe. And there are other very problematic things one must also believe if they want to believe in the type of multiverse required to avoid the need for God.
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg understands the situation too, “If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning … I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.”11
Another well-known cosmologist, Bernard Carr echoes that realization: “If there is only one universe you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”12
As one of the world’s foremost scientists on multiple universe, Max Tegmark, claims:
Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on. The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations.13
Do observations give evidence of that – NO– what he is saying is that observations show there is unfathomable fine-tuning, which compels him to believe in the multiple universes, because God is not even an option for him.
Anything not violating laws of logic, will happen, somewhere out there. So someone will win the Mega Millions Lotto 20 times in a row, by chance. There is a professional football team, with all the same rules, uniforms, etc., except in this world, the Detroit Lions won a dynasty of World Series (because on that world they never heard the term “Super Bowl”). Speaking with an atheist, who had claimed scientists think the multiverse can explain away the fine-tuning, I noted there are some who believe that. But asked what evidence those scientists have of that infinite-type multiverse? there is none. And I asked if he knew the problems with his belief. He didn’t, but should have considered there is an equally real world out there where a person, with the exact same life as his in every way, except in that world, and an infinite number of worlds like it, that version of him is a Christian trying to convince me how irrational it is to hold your hopes on an infinite multiverse.
That is LITERALLY WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE, no joke, if you do not want to accept intelligent agency causes the fine-tuning! Fine-tuning discoveries have excluded all options except either a purposeful creator, or nearly infinite type multiverse.
This is no strawman argument, I am not trying to make an opposing viewpoint sound less than it is, it is really this ad hoc. Read for yourself in The Grand Design what Stephen Hawking says regarding what you would have to believe if the type of multiverse needed actually exists. Basically, anything not logically fallacious, not only will happen, but will happen a nearly infinite number of times. Do you believe this?
Or do you think Brian Greene’s mistaken choice of a French Horn is actually a fitting analogy? As both the musical instrument and the Universe (or Multiverse) require purposeful tuning by a master designer with all the fine-tuned factors, which go against astronomical statistics to all finely balance on the edge leading to life, display the hallmarks of intelligence: purpose, meaning, design, ranges and combinations meeting requirements beyond the capacity of physical laws.
References & Citations
1 Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe , New York: Harper & Row, 1979, p. 250)
2 Paul Davies, Superforce , p. 243
3 Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint , p. 203
4 Sir Frederick Hoyle, Engineering and Science
5 Alan Lightman, “The Accidental Universe: Science’s Crisis of Faith,” Harper’s Magazine, January, 2018
6 Francis Collins, as cited in Lightman
7 Stephen Hawking, “Austin American Statesman,” October 19, 1997
8 Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time—From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 125
9 Stephen W. Hawking, The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books, 2012, pp. 162, 164.
10 Paul, Romans 1:19:20
11 Amanda, Gefter, “Why it’s not as simple as God vs the multiverse, New Scientist , Dec 2008
12 Folger, T. Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse
9 http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf.
Here are just a few of the hundredsof sources to look into regarding fine-tuning:
References: Fine-Tuning Factors for Life in the Universe:
- John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 123-457.
- Fred Hoyle, Galaxies, Nuclei, and Quasars, (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), pp. 147-150.
- Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflection,” Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982), p. 1-16.
- Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe, second edition, (Okford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1952), p. 109-111.
- Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), pp. 684-685.
- James S, Trefil, The Moment of Creation, (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan, 1983), pp. 127-134.
- John P. Cox and Thomas R. Giuli, Principles of Stellar Structure, Volume II: Applications to Stars, (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1968), pp. 944-1028.
- Bernard J. Carr and Martin J. Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World,” Nature, 278 (1979), pp. 605-612.
- John M. Templeton “God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pp. 194-200.
- Jim W. Neidhardt, “The Anthropic Principle: A Religious Response,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pp. 201-207.
- Brandon Carter, “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,” in Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data. edited by M. S. Longair. (Boston: D. Reidel, 1974), pp. 291-298.
- John D. Barrow, “The Lore of Large Numbers: Some Historical Background to the Anthropic Principle,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22 (1981), pp. 404-420.
- Alan Lightman, “To the Dizzy Edge,” Science 82, October (1982), pp. 24-25.
- Thomas O’Toole, “Will the Universe Die by Fire or Ice?” Science 81, April (1981), pp. 71-72.
- Bernard J. Carr, “On the Origin, Evolution, and Purpose of the Physical Universe,” in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, edited by John Leslie (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 134-153.
- Richard Swinburne, “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, edited by John Leslie (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 154-173.
- E. Davies and R, H. Koch, “All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 334 (1991), pp. 391-403.
- Paul Davies, God and the New Physics. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), pp. viii, 3-42, 142-143.
- Paul Davies, Superforce. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
- Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), pp. 3-203.
- Paul Davies, “The Anthropic Principle,” Science Digest, volume 191, number 10, October 1983, pp. 22-25.
- George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe. (New York: William Morrow, 1988), p. 13-148.
- Tony Rothman, “A ‘What You See Is What You Beget’ Theory,” Discover, May 1987, p. 99.
- Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions, (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), p. 298.
- Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, editors, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1992), p. 52- 83.
- Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, Creation of the Universe, translated by T. Kiang, (Singapore: World Scientific, 1989), p. 161-174.
- Edward Harrison, Masks of the Universe, (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan, 1985), pp. 239-263.
- John Noble Wilford, “Sizing Up the Cosmos: An Astronomer’s Quest,” New York Times, March 12, 1991, p. B9.
- Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 2nd edition (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1991): 119-138.
- Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001): 145-167.
- Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), pp. 89-124.
- Richard Swinburne, “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy. edited by John Leslie, (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 154-173.
- George F. R. Ellis, “The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments,” in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 27-32.
- William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, The Blackwell COmpanion to Natural Theology. (New York: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 2012), pp. 202-281.
Your Choice
Regarding the question, did the Universe result from intelligent purpose, or pure chance, what do you believe? One of the two options in this question has been shown to have vast and robust evidence, which trends up through time and is predictive of future discoveries. While there are objections to the fine-tuned evidence, and possibilities including multiple universes or the Anthropic Principle, all of which will be covered in the “Objections to fine-tuning” article, if you believe there is no intelligent agency behind the Universe, then what peer-reviewed, vast and ubiquitously growing evidence supports your nature + chance belief to explain the discovered facts of our Universe?
You can use the same known properties used in CSI and other fields of study, in detecting intelligent agency, and apply them to what has been found in the Universe.
Or, you can use a logical argument:
A solid & short summary of this argument from a Reasonable Faith video you can see by clicking: video. This is a deductive argument, and if premises one & two are correct, then the conclusion is inescapable, or as likely as the premises are accurate, your conclusion has the same likelihood to be accurate.
Premise one just provides all the possible options. It is therefore valid, unless you come up with another option to add, then add it in.
Premise two is supported by findings in modern science. Scientists have long accepted the fine-tuning observed in nature is not due to (a) physical necessity. The constants, quantities, and initial conditions found in the Universe are not physically necessary (just had to be) what they are.
“Constants” are values that stay the same in nature, anywhere and anytime, and you see a list of these in any physics textbook. Examples include: Gravitational constant, electromagnetic constant, or the mass of a proton. “Quantities” in nature refer to the amount of certain things, such as the amount of mass in the Universe. “Initial conditions” are things that were in place at the beginning of the universe, for example, slight excess matter over anti-matter, the expansion rate, or the amount of entropy. There are even balances between different constants, quantities or initial conditions, such as the ratio proton to electron mass, or the balance between the force of gravity and the radiative force in stars.
The constants, quantities and initial conditions are not dependent on the laws of nature, so they could have taken on any of a range of different values. Laws of nature are “descriptive” not “proscriptive,” which means they describe how things behave, but are unable to actually make anything happen. All these constants, quantities, balances and initial conditions could have, by chance, naturally been other values, therefore, option (a) physical necessity, is not the cause.
As far as the other option, mathematically we can show (b) chance has no chance, unless you want to believe in an infinite-type multiverse, and all the logical problems and seemingly irrational beliefs it entails, and without any evidence (if you have evidence for infinite-type multiverses, what is it?). It is therefore valid, or at least most reasonable to accept physical necessity and chance are not the causes of the fine-tuning we observe.
Therefore, the conclusion of purposeful design logically follows, or at least is the most rational, has the best reasons, to believe in. Just like the slow-witted child who wouldn’t accept the Alphabet cereal message was from an intelligent agent – mom, there are consequences for our choice regarding the message the Universe provides us. There is a bottom-line.
Bottom-Line
- That the Universe is fine-tuned for life is the common understanding in science.
- The fine-tuning found is not due to (a) some natural cause making all those necessary aspects of nature exactly as they needed to be, and (b) chance has no chance. The trend is every month, or so, a new example of fine-tuning is discovered and published in peer-reviewed literature, making it literally a million times less likely unguided chance is a sufficient cause. Therefore, it is the result of (c) purposeful design, or (d) some combination, but including a purposeful designer.
- Betting your life and potential afterlife on the hope that fine-tuning isn’t by an intelligent personal agent, with a serious purpose behind it all, is a very bad bet.
- And, if there is a purposeful creator, then we are not “dust in the wind,” but literally have a Purpose greater than all the Universe, which was evidently created with us in mind.
What is the best, supportable, sufficient explanation of the evidence? What are you betting on?
And, what does this mean for my purpose/meaning in life, and me? This is covered in the next section.
[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container][fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” hundred_percent_height=”no” hundred_percent_height_scroll=”no” hundred_percent_height_center_content=”yes” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” status=”published” publish_date=”” class=”” id=”” link_color=”” link_hover_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” gradient_start_color=”” gradient_end_color=”” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ background_blend_mode=”none” video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ type=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” box_shadow=”no” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” background_type=”single” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_blend_mode=”none” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” filter_type=”regular” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″ first=”true” last=”true”][fusion_title title_type=”text” rotation_effect=”bounceIn” display_time=”1200″ highlight_effect=”circle” loop_animation=”off” highlight_width=”9″ highlight_top_margin=”0″ before_text=”” rotation_text=”” highlight_text=”” after_text=”” content_align=”left” size=”1″ font_size=”” animated_font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_color=”” animated_text_color=”” highlight_color=”” style_type=”default” sep_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” fusion_font_variant_title_font=”” margin_top=”2%” margin_bottom=”2%” margin_top_mobile=”2%” margin_bottom_mobile=”2%”]
RESOURCES FOR THIS SECTION
[/fusion_title][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container][fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” hundred_percent_height=”no” hundred_percent_height_scroll=”no” hundred_percent_height_center_content=”yes” equal_height_columns=”yes” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” status=”published” publish_date=”” class=”” id=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”2%” padding_right=”3%” padding_bottom=”2%” padding_left=”3%” gradient_start_color=”” gradient_end_color=”” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ background_blend_mode=”none” video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-1-a-big-universe-a-bigger-question/” target=”_blank” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” hover_type=”zoomin” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” box_shadow=”no” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” background_type=”single” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”” background_image=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Milky-Way-300×225.png” background_image_id=”” background_position=”center top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_blend_mode=”none” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” filter_type=”regular” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″ first=”true” last=”false” margin_bottom=”0%” padding_bottom=”0px” element_content=”” padding_top=”258px” margin_top=”0px”][fusion_button link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-1-a-big-universe-a-bigger-question/” target=”_blank” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” color=”default” stretch=”yes” icon=”fa-chevron-right fas” icon_position=”right” icon_divider=”no” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″]Part 1. A Big Universe, A Bigger Question[/fusion_button][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-2-how-do-we-know-when-an-intelligent-agent-is-involved-or-if-it-is-pure-chance/” target=”_blank” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” hover_type=”zoomin” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” box_shadow=”no” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” background_type=”single” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”” background_image=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Picture1-3-300×127.png” background_image_id=”” background_position=”center bottom” background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_blend_mode=”none” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” filter_type=”regular” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″ first=”false” last=”false” margin_bottom=”0%” element_content=”” margin_top=”0″ padding_top=”200″ padding_bottom=””][fusion_button link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-2-how-do-we-know-when-an-intelligent-agent-is-involved-or-if-it-is-pure-chance/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_self” link_attributes=”” alignment=”left” modal=”” color=”default” button_gradient_top_color=”” button_gradient_bottom_color=”” button_gradient_top_color_hover=”” button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”” accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” border_radius=”” border_color=”” border_hover_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]Part 2: How do we know when an intelligent agent is involved, or if it is pure chance?[/fusion_button][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-4-what-is-the-purpose-of-life/” target=”_blank” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” hover_type=”zoomin” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” box_shadow=”no” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” background_type=”single” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”#232323″ background_image=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/door-knocker-e1595955372861-300×225.jpg” background_image_id=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_blend_mode=”none” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” filter_type=”regular” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″ first=”false” last=”false” margin_bottom=”0%” element_content=”” padding_top=”262px”][fusion_button link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-4-what-is-the-purpose-of-life/” target=”_self” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” color=”default” stretch=”yes” icon=”fa-chevron-right fas” icon_position=”right” icon_divider=”no” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″]Part 4. What is the Purpose of Life?[/fusion_button][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-5-creating-me-graphing-me/” target=”_blank” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” hover_type=”zoomin” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” box_shadow=”no” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” background_type=”single” gradient_start_position=”0″ gradient_end_position=”100″ gradient_type=”linear” radial_direction=”center center” linear_angle=”180″ background_color=”#161616″ background_image=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/graph-me-300×139.jpg” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_blend_mode=”none” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” filter_type=”regular” filter_hue=”0″ filter_saturation=”100″ filter_brightness=”100″ filter_contrast=”100″ filter_invert=”0″ filter_sepia=”0″ filter_opacity=”100″ filter_blur=”0″ filter_hue_hover=”0″ filter_saturation_hover=”100″ filter_brightness_hover=”100″ filter_contrast_hover=”100″ filter_invert_hover=”0″ filter_sepia_hover=”0″ filter_opacity_hover=”100″ filter_blur_hover=”0″ first=”false” last=”true” margin_bottom=”0%” element_content=”” padding_top=”261px” padding_bottom=”0px”][fusion_button link=”http://thoughtfulbeliefs.org/2020/08/06/part-5-creating-me-graphing-me/” target=”_blank” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” color=”default” stretch=”yes” icon=”fa-chevron-right fas” icon_position=”right” icon_divider=”no” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″]Part 5. Creating Me & Graphing Me[/fusion_button][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]