They start off by defining their terms and their goal:
In the proof, we will use inductive reasoning from the fine tuning of the constants in nature and the initial conditions of the big bang, to infer an Intelligent Designer of the universe. What we mean by 'proof' is that a reasonable person would logically draw the same conclusion after understanding the arguments. We do not mean 'proof' in the sense of a mathematical proof or deductive reasoning, but rather in the sense of a rational argument.
Our main objectives are to show a path in studying the deep wisdom in the creation as revealed by modern science, and also to present a proof of God from the constants and initial conditions. Because of this dual objective, we will be including many interesting ideas from modern science that are related to the proof, even though it is not contingent upon them. We will try to be clear about what is necessary for the proof, and what is only to provide a direction to understanding the great wisdom in the universe, as revealed through modern scientific knowledge.
They then go on to explain what is meant by a "Cosmological Constant." They are the numerical ratios that govern "how heavy an electron is, how fast light moves, how strong gravity is, etc. All these things are finite quantities, which have particular, unchanging values that we only know through measurements and observations. These quantities are called constants."
Scientists have long wondered at the values at which these ratios are set. They seem to be quite random. Where do they come from and why are they so utterly precise that if they were the slightest bit different then the universe as we know it could not have formed and life would not exist? This has given many scientists sleepless nights. Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman emoted about this conundrum, saying:
Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil."
They give some good examples of the mystery of these constants:
Stars produce energy by fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. During that reaction, 0.007 percent of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy. If the percentage were 0.006, the universe would be filled only with hydrogen. If it was 0.008, the universe would have no hydrogen, and therefore no water and no stars like the sun. Bingo!
There are about 25 of these constants and simply put, they refute the notion that life as we know it is random. On the contrary, they demonstrate clearly, scientifically, that the universe is the result of design. Materialist scientists recognized this, and didn't much like it. But instead of owning up to the overwhelming brute fact of design, they did something rather brilliant - they pushed the problem back - so far back, in fact, that it can never be proven or refuted. They posited the existence of the "Multiverse" - a hypothesis that posits that perhaps there are an infinite number of interconnected universes, all with different properties. With that being the case it's not remarkable at all that our particular universe has all of these fine tuned peculiarities - but rather to be expected! Problem solved. Or is it?
There are quite a few issues with the Multiverse theory, such as:
- It's non-scientific. In as much as it is impossible to test, it cannot officially fall within the purview of science. Yet the same folks who insist that theology must provide testable, scientific proof are generally content accepting this un-provable notion.
- It's incoherent. Belief in an infinite number of universes sets up necessary logical contradictions. For instance, in as much as a God is a logical possibility, in one of the universes there must exist an infinite God who actually created the Multiverse itself (and in another there would not be).
- It doesn't follow Occam's Razor - the problem-solving principle created by William of Occam in the 14th Century. Occam encouraged us to select the least complex of competing hypotheses. The preceding two points highlight the unnecessary complexity introduced by the unsubstantiated belief in a multiverse.
So there you have it. As things stand, either there is a Designing Agent (that some of us choose to call God) or there are an infinite number of universes - one of which contains an Infinite God in any event.
Which way do you prefer?