On this blog, I have said repeatedly that I keep three examples of the fine-tuning in my back pocket, ready to go, because they are the ones that make the most sense to me, based on my memory of taking physics and chemistry courses. I thought it might make a good post to just write about them, and you can see if you want to memorize them, too. It’s a good argument, and non-theists respect it.

So, first, let me just explain what the argument is. Basically, if you remember in your high school physics textbook, there were lots of numbers for well-known constants and quantities, such as the speed of light and the gravitational constant. What they never told you was that if you change most of those quantities and constants, then the universe would not be able to support life. Not just life as we know it, but any conceivable kind of complex life.

It’s not as though you can change these constants, and you will just have Spock-ears, or green skin, or nose ridges. No. If you change these constants and quantities, terrible horrible things will happen to your universe. Maybe it recollapses into a hot fire ball. Maybe you have no galaxies. Maybe you have no stars. Maybe you have no elements heavier than hydrogen. Or maybe you have no hydrogen. All bad things! All the bad things that wreck the ability of your universe to support life.

So, without further ado, let me tell you THREE of the best evidences for fine-tuning that even a child can understand. Well, maybe not a child, but you can understand them, OK?

Here they are:

Amount of Matter in the Universe:

The universe’s total stuff—stars, galaxies, gas clouds, dark matter—sets its expansion path. Too much stuff, and gravity would’ve crushed the universe into a hot dense fireball after the Big Bang. Too little, and matter in the universe would scatter, never forming galaxies or stars. The universe has the perfect weight to create galaxies and stars. This balance lets stars and planets form stable homes for life.

Strong Nuclear Force:

This force binds protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei, forming elements like hydrogen, helium, and carbon, vital for human bodies. If 2% stronger, protons would stick too tightly, depleting hydrogen, so stars couldn’t burn properly, and water wouldn’t form. If 5% weaker, only hydrogen would exist, like a chemistry class with one element on the chalkboard. The precise setting that we have ensures the a diverse variety of different elements, allowing stars to shine and life’s chemistry to work.

Cosmic Expansion Rate:

The universe expands at a speed set by the cosmological constant’s dark energy, like a balloon being carefully inflated. If slightly faster, matter would scatter too thinly, preventing stars or galaxies. If slower, gravity would clump everything into black holes. The universe grows at the ideal speed to allow galaxies, stars, and planets to form a cosmic stage where life can thrive.

By the way, the first and the third are distinct constants that work together, like ingredients in a recipe.

Conclusion

So, there are the three I have memorized. If you have time for discuss one, use the strong force. And by the way, if you are dealing with an atheist, you can give him the book “Just Six Numbers” by the famous atheist astronomer Martin Rees. Rees talks about several instances of fine-tuning, including the strong force. To escape the evidence for a Designer, he has to invent a multiverse (for which there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE). There’s actually evidence against the multiverse, and we talked about it in our podcast episode on the cosmic fine-tuning (transcript here).

If you want a good introductory book about this topic, I like Dr. Mike Strauss’ “The Creator Revealed”. And he’s a real experimental particle physicist, too. I’ve met him in person! Anyway, I hope you have fun with this list. According to the Bible, the Boss used evidence when appealing to skeptics, and so you must use evidence, too, if you want to follow the Leader.

In 2018, I wrote about a 54-year-old feminist who spent her entire life savings on a dating agency to find a rich husband. Kate spent her entire life writing columns to tell young women to live feminist lifestyles: get easy degrees, work easy jobs, spend money on fun and travel, get cosmetic surgeries, disrespect male leadership, and have lots of casual sex. How is she doing at age 63? Let’s find out.

Let’s first review my post from 2018, in part, and see what this woman was all about.

A couple of years ago, I too joined an expensive matchmaking agency. I had just come out of a seven year relationship, and was on the wrong side of 50.

I soon tired of online dating and receiving messages from over weight baldies who peppered their emails with childish emojis. I hankered to find Mr Right-for-me, a man who was suitably educated and a successful professional.

And so this is how I found myself, throwing money (my entire savings to be precise) to an upmarket matchmaking agency in central London. The agency claimed to filter out the undesirables, the mediocre and give clients the personal touch, so I handed over the hefty sum of £6,000.

So, just a few things about this lady Kate Mulvey. She has made some decisions that I find very unwise.

I documented my findings in my previous post:

• she has no useful degrees – she paid for useless degrees in Italian and French, instead of studying something useful, like computer science or nursing or petroleum engineering. Her “writing” is all about fashion, dating and “lifestyles”
• her opinion on children: “uppity children take your time, emotions and energy” – she sees children as a detriment to her highest priority (her career). She says “I, however, have lived a life of unfettered freedom to take on projects, write books and travel”
• she had loads of entertaining men “beating a path to [her] door” when she was younger
• she spend thousands of pounds on plastic surgery
• she blames her lack of marriage success on her being “brainier” than men
• she turned down men who wanted to marry her, as late as age 33
• her book is called “Accidental Singleton” because her approach to life – anti-marriage hedonism – has accidentally left her single and penniless at age 54

So, this woman, who scorns the leadership of men, made very bad decisions. Her columns are filled with constant bragging about how much smarter she is than men – men who have made far better decisions and achieved much greater prosperity than she has.

Here is the latest article, in which she explains what feminism told her to do with her life, and what that got her.

She writes:

I’m convinced that the reason I’m still booking a table for one at the age of 63 instead of having settled with a significant other is because, like so many women of my generation, feminism has ruined my love life. Instead of empowering us, those ideals of the second-wave feminists made us believe marriage and domesticity were to be avoided like the plague and that men were competition rather than partners.

[…]I had always imagined I would end up married with two wonderful children and living in a house in the countryside. I have paid a hefty price for my so-called liberation.

Act like men – demonize housework and family:

I was 17, and a pupil at Godolphin and Latymer – one of Britain’s most academic institutions – when I was introduced to the Women’s Liberation movement. It offered such hope and excitement, and we spent our lunch breaks soaking up the feminist mantras of Germaine Greer and Betty Friedan: “Act like men,” they cried as they burnt their bras and demonised housework and the family.

Recreational sex with hot pro-abortion bad boys who don’t judge:

Another thing I regret deeply is my tally of one-night stands when I was younger.

[..]My generation of women were encouraged to “have sex like a man” – in other words have casual sex…

The number of partners that a person (man or woman) has had before marriage is related to their likelihood of initiating divorce. So, someone like Kate Mulvey would be a high risk of divorce. Also, smart men don’t sign up for marriage to women who tell them that “my money is my money, and your money is our money“.

So, she spent her life telling young women to follow feminism, like she did. But are Christian leaders telling young women anything different? Many socially conservative Christian leaders believe in “servant leadership”, which means that men serve, and women lead. Instead of confronting lies and evil, men have to take out the trash, and dispense cash on demand for his wife’s handbags and travel.

Many social conservative Christians define masculinity as “men using their strength to benefit women”. In contrast, my wise advisor Dina taught me that masculinity is demonstrated when a man opposes lies and evil, and doesn’t let a woman distract him from those goals with her sex appeal. Dina would say that Christian men should only protect and provide for Christian women who are helpful to men, and led men take the lead to product results for the Boss. So, men should judge women. They should measure them, and choose good ones. And the job of Christian leaders is to produce women that good men want.

As I’ve blogged about before, there are many reasons why good men will be cautious about marrying feminists. Men are realizing that women today are not the same as their mothers and grandmothers. They don’t offer the same value to a marriage-minded man. They don’t respect men as much, and they don’t want to help a man who leads as much. Not only is there the problem of young women being extremely leftist, but there is also the problems of feminized laws, policies and courts being hostile to men. We need Christian leaders who fight against young women’s feminism while they are still young enough to have 4+ children. And we need leaders who fight against laws, policies and courts that are hostile to men.

Tyler O’Neil over at the Daily Signal does a good job of keeping up with the news about the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC web site has been used by domestic terrorists to target Christians and conservatives. Recently, the FBI decided to cut ties with the SPLC. But many big corporations are still using their resources. Which corporations? Tyler has done the research.

Here’s his article from Daily Signal, and then after that, I have some other information that might help you to keep your dollars away from the secular left.

Tyler writes:

Conservative shareholders at eight major corporations have filed resolutions urging those companies to stop using politicized tools like the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map,” which added Turning Point USA a few months before the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

[…]“As someone who lives in Alabama, right in the SPLC’s backyard, I’ve seen its nefariousness up close,” Allen Mendenhall, senior advisor for Heritage’s Capital Markets Initiative, told The Daily Signal. “The assassination of Charlie Kirk has made tragically clear what conservatives have warned for years: When groups like the SPLC equate mainstream conservative beliefs with hatred, they help create a culture of dehumanization with deadly consequences.”

You might remember that SPLC’s resources were used by a convicted domestic terrorist who attacked the Family Research Council headquarters, in an attempted mass shooting. It turns out that big American corporations are using these same resources.

Anyway, here are the companies:

The Heritage Foundation filed resolutions with Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Mastercard, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), PayPal, Salesforce, and Starbucks. Bahnsen filed a resolution with Texas Instruments.

I’ve written about the left-wing extremism of many of these companies before. I’m trying to avoid using their products and services. I closed my account with PayPal. One of my co-workers gave me a Starbucks gift card for Christmas, and I just threw it in the garbage. I’m trying to buy more and more from Publix, which doesn’t get involved in secular leftism as much as Amazon. Even Wal-mart is better than Amazon. I buy my technical stuff from NewEgg or the local Best Buy instead of Amazon. I do my best to stay clear of these 8 corporations as much as I can. Not only are they opposed to my religion and values, but their bias also creeps into their products, making them unreliable. Have you tried search using the Google search engine lately? It just returns a bunch of data from left wing hate groups and far-left corporate news media. I just ask Grok when I need something. Google is useless as a search engine.

The Daily Signal article has details on how each of the 8 companies is linked to the SPLC. I will leave those for you to read.

Let’s look at who the SPLC puts on their hate map:

The Southern Poverty Law Center… publishes a “hate map” that plots mainstream conservative and Christian groups… A terrorist used the “hate map” to target the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., for an attempted mass shooting in 2012…

The SPLC added Turning Point USA to the “hate map” this summer, a few months before the assassination of Kirk, Turning Point’s founder. The SPLC condemned the assassination, but has yet to remove Turning Point from its map.

In recent years, the SPLC has added parental rights groups like Moms for Liberty to the “hate map,” along with groups of doctors who oppose “gender-affirming care,” conservative Christian nonprofits including Focus on the Family, and even the nonprofit PragerU, best known for producing 5-minute educational videos.

Far-left extremism, if you ask me.

Now for something very new. As I mentioned in a previous post, I worked in several tech companies that pushed me to make mandatory donations to the far left United Way. It was so bad that the CEO of one company met with me, and at a different company, someone from the head office met with me. That’s how alarmed they were that I wanted no part of the United Way giving. I don’t give money to United Way, and neither should you.

Well, there’s another company called Benevity, which uses the SPLC “hate map” to discriminate against Christians and conservative charities.

This article from Do No Harm explains:

Benevity is a software company that provides a platform to facilitate companies’ charitable giving efforts to nonprofit organizations.

However, Benevity uses a so-called “Hate List” and “Hate Map” developed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to vet the nonprofits deemed eligible for corporate charitable giving and employee matching programs. The SPLC fully supports radical identity politics, branding efforts to fight back against discriminatory DEI practices and gender ideology as somehow hateful.

And at some point, the SPLC designated Do No Harm as a “hate group.”

Do No Harm, along with 11 other similarly-branded organizations, is signing onto a letter urging Benevity to immediately cease relying on this discredited and harmful list.

“By relying on these partisan designations, Benevity legitimizes a severely biased blacklist that inspires violence, urges discrimination against mainstream organizations, and undermines the spirit of charitable giving,” the letter reads.

The letter then cites examples of groups that have been falsely deemed hateful by the SPLC and subsequently subjected to violence.

I never had to deal with Benevity. But one thing for sure – if you work in one of these companies that wants you to give your money to any charity, say no. Take the money and give it to charities you trust. Me, I like Ratio Christi. Find a chapter, and partner with them. But don’t co-operate with these secular left companies, and don’t give them any of your money.