The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us by Victor J. Stenger (PDF)

Description

A number of authors have noted that if some physical parameters were slightly changed, the universe could no longer support life, as we know it. This implies that life depends sensitively on the physics of our universe. Does this “fine-tuning” of the universe suggest that a creator god intentionally calibrated the initial conditions of the universe such that life on earth and the evolution of humanity would eventually emerge? In his in-depth and highly accessible discussion of this fascinating and controversial topic, the author looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. He finds that the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God, they provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review Praise for the New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis:”I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book.”-Richard Dawkins, author of the New York Times best-seller The God Delusion”Marshalling converging arguments from physics, astronomy, biology, and philosophy, Stenger has delivered a masterful blow in defense of reason. God: The Failed Hypothesis is a potent, readable, and well-timed assault upon religious delusion. It should be widely read.”-Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation”Extremely tough and impressive…a great book…a huge addition to the arsenal of argument.”-Christopher Hitchens, author of the New York Times bestseller God Is Not Great About the Author Victor J. Stenger (1935 – 2014) was an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado and emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii. He was the author of the New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis, God and the Atom, God and the Folly of Faith, The Comprehensible Cosmos, and many other books.

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Stenger, Victor J. 2011. THE FALLACY OF FINE-TUNING: WHY THE UNIVERSE IS NOT DESIGNED FOR US. Promethius; Amherst NY. 344pp.If you are looking for friends, associates, or colleagues in life’s endeavors; if you are looking for some direction to your life; if you are looking for that spiritual soul-mate of compatible values and spirit; if you’re looking for a place where friends and acquaintances can be a part of your marriage or struggle for survival; if you are looking for a baptism for your child into a congregation of like-minded thinkers; if you are looking for job leads or customers for your business; or if you are looking for some young folks to care for some elderly person; if you are looking for a final resting place for yourself or a place where someone will say a few final words about you; if you are looking to publicly remember some special persons as Servetus, Occam, G. Bruno, Mary Dyer, the Apostle Steven, or other intellectual “heretics” of otherwise godly spirit whom you might think of as saints or Saints; or etc. — then obviously you would be looking in the wrong place if you were to look in this book.If you are looking for a very studied work suitable for both intermediate and advanced learners, you might well find that Dr. Stenger has provided an important work. Unlike many mathematicians who have written for the public, Stenger isn’t embarrassed by mathematics and rather is comfortable providing ample, but not overwhelming, amounts of marvelous and relevant equations. Who knows, perhaps if scientists keep up such a mathematical attitude perhaps eventually mathematics will indeed become the long publicized “language of science.” But the mathematics doesn’t overwhelm the text and you will find some great discussion regards the “constants” and laws of nature and the parameters thereof.Though not stated explicitly or even discussed and unlike many who are engaged in discussions related to science and theology, even well educated persons who ought know better, it is apparent that Dr. Stenger knows the difference between a theist and a deist. How could one not when coming to such cosmic macroscopic and microscopic conclusions? I don’t usually giggle. But one can’t help but do so when contemplating the mathematical basis of Stenger’s thesis. Meanwhile, the somewhat more plausible (in my view) alternative, deism seems to have become an almost forgotten word in the halls of academia and theism has often been used to confusedly encompass both non-fundamentalist (i.e., mainstream) Christian views as well as extreme fundamentalist (biblical literalistic) views. The latter, for example, have no choice (seriously or not) but to insist that Jesus created bacteria flagella made noteworthy by Intelligent Design theorists while other theists such as at the Biologos website presumably would not do so. (Of course, the later theists also have to personally accept a lot of goofy stuff that doesn’t always make sense. After all, they also know where it is that their bread is buttered.)In Stenger’s book you won’t find a neo-Einsteinian formula converting body to spirit or vice versa. Col. 1:15-20 is similarly unhelpful. You also won’t find God’s address so that you might send ten percent of your income to help in the purchase of more Cadillacs, penthouse apartments, or whatever else deemed important — you know, so as to help make it in heaven as it is here on Earth, or something like that. (Hey, Lord, how about some more streets, roads, highways, diverging diamond and stacked highway intersections, round-a-bouts, and other land grabbing, congestion creating, and resource depleting absurdities such as the atheistic left-wing, materialist, communists have in the city of LA county, California? Also, how are you fixed for health insurance, retirement plan, etc.? Not to worry. We won’t discuss the resurrected Martin Luther and his 96th, 97th, etc. theses.)Similarly, if you are in possession of some child’s letter that needs to be mailed, you won’t find the address of Santa Claus. The Claus family isn’t even listed in the book’s index. Stenger does provide a website. But Stenger is a rather abstract fellow. Whether or not you might learn there how to add 3 apples + 5 oranges + 4 bananas so as to arrive at 12 items which is equivalent to a bowl of mixed fruit — I’m not sure Stenger is up to all that reality and possible pre-matrix algebra. After all, Stenger is a rather abstract fellow. He also didn’t provide anything regards Galois’s group theory and the relevancy of reality based mathematical equations to children’s toy blocks. For such inspiration, you might gain a little by checking out Mario Livio’s THE EQUATION THAT COULDN’T BE SOLVED (2005). (Unfortunately, the two books of Livio’s I have, while interesting and informative, are relatively sparse in actual mathematics compared to Stenger’s and rather are more about mathematics than actually doing mathematics.) The reader might also be interested in Benoit Mandelbrot’s fractals of nature. For that check out Mandelbrot’s THE FRACTAL GEOMETRY OF NATURE (1977) which also has a good balance of mathematics and interesting discussion; the recent PBS “NOVA” rebroadcast that featured Mandelbrot; and Baryshev & Teerikorpi’s DISCOVERY OF COSMIC FRACTALS (2002).I could find but brief mention of E = mc2 in Stenger’s book. But most every one knows that anyway. (Just what is light speed squared, anyway? After all, not even light can travel that fast.) You will find some of Einstein’s other thinking and equations such as one for general relativity. You will also find fascinating equations related to thermodynamics, cosmology, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, and so forth. One might read endless numbers of books about quantum physics and thus about Schrodinger’s equation. But Stenger actually provides the equation! But none of this fairly advanced, abstract math gets in the way of the surrounding discussion and rather amplifies the discussion, albeit abstractly.The lack of a glossary is always a detriment in a book of this nature. The reader will just have to do like many important thinkers of the day do and make up your own definitions, especially of the important words. I am facetious. It would be better to teach your elders to use an existing definition from an existing dictionary, preferably a science dictionary with one-to-one correspondence between each word and its unique definition.Despite the lack of a glossary, I give the book 5 stars. Clearly, THE FALLACY OF FINE-TUNING: WHY THE UNIVERSE IS NOT DESIGNED FOR US is one of the best books, if not the best book, that I have in my personal library.A final note: if you are in need of even more advanced, abstract, unreal, math, be sure to check out Kurt Godel’s ON FORMALLY UNDECIDED PROPOSITIONS OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS [1931], 1992. In his IS GOD A MATHEMATICIAN? (2009), Mario Livio very appropriately writes about Godel’s well accepted work: “[….] Godel’s incompleteness theorems mark certain limitations of mathematics even within itself. So mathematics is indeed extraordinarily effective for some descriptions, especially those dealing with fundamental science, but it cannot describe our universe in all its dimensions.” R. Buckminster Fuller adds further to this thought. In his OPERATING MANUAL FOR SPACESHIP EARTH (1969), Fuller writes:”Einstein and others have spoken exclusively about the physical department of universe [….]. Eddington defines science as ‘the earnest attempt to set in order the facts of experience.’ Einstein and many other first-rank scientists noted that science is concerned exclusively with ‘facts of experience.'”Holding to the scientists’ experiments as all important, I define universe, including both the physical and metaphysical, as follows: THE UNIVERSE IS THE AGGREGATE OF ALL OF HUMANITY’S CONSCIOUSLY-APPREHENDED AND COMMUNICATED EXPERIENCE WITH THE NONSIMULATANEOUS, NONIDENTICAL, AND ONLY PARTIALLY OVERLAPPING, ALWAYS COMPLEMENTARY, WEIGHABLE AND UNWEIGHABLE, EVER OMNITRANSFORMING, EVEN SEQUENCES.”A lot of philosophy and theology is held captive to being not resolvable by ambiguous definitions by definitions that are not commonly shared. Don’t you think?——————GENERAL NOTES:1. A common theme regards the heretics versus the non-heretics of ancient times and even more recently seems to have been that words and beliefs are of highest importance. The modern cliche “Actions speak louder than words” thus seems to have been turned on its head. Obviously, corporate (as opposed to individual) repentance, correction, and restitution have long been called for and of continual relevance.2. Manfred Barthel and Mark Howson in their WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS (1980; p.378) indicate that among modern scholars:”The present consensus is that four of the Pauline Letters (including Hebrews) were definitely not written by Paul — a discovery that caused something of a sensation when it was first announced.”Apparently Colossians is also one of these four. Being this is the case, and being that the “Trinity” has been so problematical over the centuries, one wonders why it wouldn’t make sense to decanonize Colossians. Perhaps the essay could be replaced with something from Shakespeare or et. al. Or, how about a work totally devoted to mathematics, the language of science? Euclid’s ELEMENTS (abt. 300 B.C.) seems like one obvious choice.3. Phillip Johnson and John Reynolds in their separate writing in their joint book, AGAINST ALL GODS: WHAT’S RIGHT (AND WRONG) ABOUT THE NEW ATHEISM (2010) discuss what Johnson labels “evangelical atheism” of those such as Dr. Stenger who is discussed therein and also Richard Dawkins. (I have often similarly used the term ‘evangelical Evolutionists’ as being applicable.) But in his discussion of Dawkins and the importance of hermeneutics, “a field dedicated to helping people read books, both old and new”, I believe Reynolds misses the point. While Dawkins’ venom has been fairly broad based when it comes to religion and other non-materialistic thinking, here in the colony Dawkins’ attacks have largely focused attention to literalist interpretations of the Bible (i.e., creationism) and intelligent design theory with its implied supernaturalistic elements. (Of course, Professor Dawkins has had no difficulty in long accepting the myth of unnamed and unidentified common ancestors, the core idea of Evolution.) Thus it would do little good to teach Professor Dawkins how to read the Bible as Reynolds might wish unless these fundamentalists were also willing to accept Reynolds’ view regards “The Word of God.” Even if Southern Baptists or Assembly of God seminaries, as examples, were even aware of such hermeneutically enlightened (what might be labeled transcendent) views as Reynolds (and Johnson) might hold, it seems it would be a tough sell to unseat even the students at these seminaries much less their elders and also the many unschooled fundamentalist preachers from their paradigmical “comfortable pews”. Theologian Peter Enns at the Biologos Foundation website, for instance, has discussed biblical “coherence” as being highly important to these denominations. See also the article “The Search for the Historical Adam” by Richard M. Ostling and the editorial by CT titled “No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel” in the June 2011 issue of “Christianity Today.” Literalists make fundamental assumptions for which the coherence of their beliefs depend: the Adam of Genesis is a literal Adam and the same literal Adam referred to in the New Testament. Such assumptions (truth certainty in their view) are crucial to accepting the Bible as unwavering truth. I do sense, however, that scholars as Robert Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary (see his work at BioLogos and also at his own website) might at least be willing to engage in dialogue with those such as Johnson or Reynolds regards their understanding of the Bible and of history, natural and otherwise.Personally, I have long wondered if it weren’t for the polarization of the issues over the decades since Darwin, scholars such as Dawkins might have long ago come to realize the absurdity of Evolution — i.e., the notion of common descent — and that scholars such as Louis Agassiz (1857) and St. George Mivart (1871) were closer to the truth, their unscientific flirtations with supernaturalism and teology not withstanding. Now about all Evolutionists can do is play the absurd game of redefining words. After all, if one is an “evolutionist” then “evolution” must be true. How much more reasonable it would have been, in my view, if natural historians had merely stated all along that Darwin’s hypothesis, common descent, has been a useful assumption that greatly facilitates data organization but which ought never have been viewed as a truth certainty.4. While we all may enjoy our occasional “Towers of Babel,” metaphors, and other word plays, it seems that such ought to be severely limited or entirely excluded from serious science and perhaps other academics. In terms of words such as “God”, “god”, “theist”, “deist”, “atheist”, “Christian”, “materialist”‘ “evolution”, “homology”, “fact”, “coherence,” “salvation,” and many other English language words, ideally, it seems to me, at least in science if not in American English as a whole, there ought to be a one-to-one correspondence between unique words and their unique definitions. I had been thinking that perhaps the symbols and subscripting of mathematics might be useful in conjunction with existing English root words in terms of distinguishing meanings, at least in the written language. Care would need to be taken so as not to confuse the use of such symbols — Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Mayan (who often used several different symbols for the quite same or similar idea as opposed to our multiple definitions per word), or other — with current mathematical usages. Obviously, computer keyboards and user’s ability to input to content would need to be upgraded to accommodate such a language improvement. A caveat here is that a difficulty arises in using mathematical symbols as adjuncts to English words regards the spoken language as opposed to the written. Thus, perhaps the invention of another English vowel or two and several more consonants might be more productive.It would be helpful if there were a way to distinguish words that are normally capitalized from words that are so merely because they are the first word of a sentence. Perhaps some sort of an accent mark could be used for normal capitalization with the mark removed from first words unless that word also is meant to be normally capitalized.Note that in his IS GOD A MATHEMATICIAN? (2009, p. 239-40), Mario Livio has an interesting short section regards mathematics as a language. See also Robyn Arianhod’s marvelous book, EINSTEIN’S HERO’S: IMANGINING THE WORLD THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS (2005). Like Stenger, Arianhod also isn’t shy of using actual mathematics to enhance the discussion. And as Arianhod states “Maxwell’s equations are particularly beautiful.” Regards other thoughts concerning improvement of the language, consider quantum physicist David Bohm’s WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER (1980). Bohm discusses what he terms the “rheomode” as an experimental investigation into language and thought.UPDATE OF AUGUST 2012: Dr. Stenger’s posit is that the so-called “constants” of nature could have been different than the textbook values that physicists generally use and still allow for life as we know it. I have since been reading that other physicists have gone past even this and posit that some or all of the constants actually have varied over time.Before getting into the variation of constants, I will first mention an interesting idea regards mass (inertial and gravitational) that I have come across for the first time in a book by Bernard Haisch titled THE GOD THEORY: UNIVERSES, ZERO-POINT FIELDS, AND WHAT’S BEHING IT ALL (2006). While I was not able to see Haisch’s connection to any sort of cosmic consciousness (ala Amit Goswami) or naturalistic or supernaturalistic intelligence, i.e., “God”, I did find the notion of ZPFs to be a fascinating, plausible, and apparently an accepted hypothesis accounting for much of the energy of the universe and possibly being highly relevant to inertial mass and gravitational mass. The distinction between ZPFs, the quanturm vacuum energy, dark energy, and Moffat’s phion energy (below) leaves me somewhat bewildered.I find John W. Moffat’s REINVENTING GRAVITY: A PHYSICIST GOES BEYOND EINSTEIN (2008) to be extremely compelling. I will only mention here a statement relevant to the above discussion regards the constants of nature. As part of his Modified Theory of Gravity (MOG), Moffat hypothesizes that milliseconds after the “big bang” the speed of light was 100,000 trillion trillion times its current value. Moffat also mentions that, historically, researchers such Paul Dirac and many others have similarly considered varying values for G, c, h (Planck’s constant), m(e).

⭐Victor John Stenger (born 1935) is an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic; he is also a regular featured science columnist for the Huffington Post. He has written many other books, such as

⭐,

⭐,

⭐,

⭐,

⭐,

⭐,

⭐, etc.He wrote in the Preface of this 2011 book about Robert Jastrow’s famous 1984 quote [from

⭐], “a lot of science has been done since 1984 and if Jastrow were still alive, I wonder if he would still feel this way. I hope that other physicists and astronomers who may have felt this way a generation ago will take a look at the arguments in this book, many of which have not appeared before… I will devote most of this book to showing why the evidence does not require the existence of a creator of the universe who has designed it specifically for humanity. I will show that the parameters of physics and cosmology are not particularly fine-tuned for life, especially human life. I will present detailed new information … that demonstrates why the most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained by the application of well-established laws of physics and cosmology… I will show that the universe looks just like it should if it were not fine-tuned for humanity.”Cosmologists have proposed… that ours is not the only universe but part of a MULTIVERSE containing an unlimited number of individual universes extending an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that’s the case, we just happen to live in that universe which is suited for our kind of life. The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to our particular universe. Now, theists and many nonbelieving scientists object to this solution as being `nonscientific’ because we have no way of observing a universe outside our own… In fact, a multiverse is more scientific and parsimonious than hypothesizing an unobservable creating spirit and a single universe. I would argue that the multiverse is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, since it agrees with our best knowledge.” #Pg. 22-23#But he cautions, “Assuming a theory, such as inflationary cosmology in which universes are constantly generated by natural quantum processes and fall into a random valley, there is bound to be one universe that has parameters such as ours suitable for life. Now, I mention this only for completeness. Although, I believe it is adequate to refute fine-tuning, it remains an untested hypothesis. My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes. I will show that fine-tuning is a fallacy based on our knowledge of this universe alone.” #Pg. 24#He also asserts, “I do not have the burden of disproving that God fine-tuned physics and cosmology so that humans formed in his image would evolve. Anyone making such an awesome claim carries the burden of proof. I regard my task as a devil’s advocate to simply find a plausible explanation within existing knowledge for the parameters having the values that they do… I will avoid speculating… For example, I do not use any arguments based on string theory.” #Pg. 25#In chapter 2, he says, “One possible natural explanation for the anthropic coincidences is that multiple universes exist with different physical constants and laws and our life-form evolved in the one suitable for us. Theists vehemently object that we have no evidence for multiple universes and, furthermore, we are violating Occam’s razor by introducing multiple entities `beyond necessity.’ … Modern cosmological theories do indicate that ours is just one of an unlimited number of universes, and theists can give no reason for ruling them out.” #Pg. 42#He addresses the “everything that begins has a cause” argument of theists: “You can go ahead and call the quantum situation something like `indeterministic cause’ if you want, but whether or not you call it `cause,’ the fact does not change that… certain events cannot be explained as a predictable result of preceding events. What is important is the probabilistic aspect. I don’t think that a god who throws dice is the God that [William Lane] Craig and his fellow monotheistic believers worship… Craig… cannot claim as a fact that everything that begins has a cause. Thus is follows that the Kalâm cosmological argument fails because its first premise fails.” #Pg. 117-118#He argues, “So the well-established equations of physics and cosmology allow for the existence of two mirror universes: ours that expands along the positive time axis and a prior universe that exists at negative times. From our point of view, our universe appears by quantum tunneling from the earlier universe… While I cannot prove that this is actually how our universe came to be, we can say that a complete scenario for the natural origin of the universe that is consistent with all known physics and cosmology can be written out mathematically. While each universe had a beginning, that beginning did not require a creator. These beginnings occurred by uncaused quantum tunneling from nothing. Or… just think of our universe as having tunneled from an earlier one…” #Pg. 143-146#But he adds, “I need to make it clear that neither the biverse nor a multiverse is required to demonstrate the fallacy of fine-tuning. At the same time, I reject the charge that it is not scientific to consider them even if they are not observable.” #Pg. 147# Later, he states, “Remember, to defeat the fine-tuning argument, I do not have to give a reason why each parameter has the value it does, I must only show that life could be plausible under a wide range of parameters.” #Pg. 173#About calculations of the cosmological constant, he observes, “This is still over 50 orders of magnitude higher than the observed limit! Nevertheless, this is no reason to rush out and claim fine-tuning to 50 orders of magnitude, by God or by nature. Any calculation that disagrees with the data by 50 or 120 orders of magnitude is simply wrong and should not be taken seriously. We just have to wait the correct calculation. Let me mention several possibilities… including one … called `holographic cosmology’ that… is not limited by the cosmological constant problem.” #Pg. 219-220#He summarizes, “Modern cosmology strongly suggests, although it does not prove, the existence of multiple universes in a greater system called the multiverse. If they exist, multiple universes provide a no-brainer solution to the fine-tuning problem by way of the weak anthropic principle. There are many universes out there with different parameters, and we just happen to be in the one with those parameters that allowed our kind of life to evolve. Our universe is not fine-tuned for life. Life is fine-tuned to our universe.” #Pg. 227#He contends, “many people, scientists as well as educated laypeople, have objected to even discussing multiple universes in a scientific context because they probably can never be detected. However, science talks all the time about undetected, or even undetectable, objects. According to the standard model, individual quarks and gluons are undetectable. Yet they are part of a model that has worked well for three decades. So nothing stops us from considering undetectable universes, as long as they remain consistent with and are suggested by well-established theories.” #Pg. 228#He also insists, “If scientists can imagine other worlds, why can’t believers? The difference is that the scientific belief… is based on well-established physics and cosmology. The religious belief rests on no comparable scientific ground but just the fantasies of the prescientific age. The scenario of the natural origin of the universe that I described above predicts inflation in its equations. It also allows for what I called a `biverse’: our universe along with a mirror universe expanding in the opposite time direction to ours, but with an arrow of time in that direction. If a process such as this were responsible for our universe, there is no reason it wouldn’t produce many others. In an eternal multiverse with an unlimited number of baby universes, one just like ours is likely to occur… even in the unlikely case that only a single universe exists… fine-tuning is a fallacy from all angles.” #Pg. 230-231)Stenger’s book is perhaps the most sustained attack on the notion of “fine-tuning”; whether one agrees with all of his ideas or not, this book will be “must reading” for anyone concerned with such cosmological and theological arguments and discussion.

⭐The last refuge of natural theology is the deduction called the fine tuning argument based on the observed values of certain physical constants. It is alleged that these constants have so little room for change before life becomes impossible that they must have been set (fine tuned) by God when s/he created the universe in order for life (specifically human life) to come to pass. Those who make this claim and deduction are rarely physicists and are clearly motivated by desire for some evidence to back up their belief. Well it turns out under properly informed scrutiny that there has been no fine tuning. All such physical constants are either not set to a particular value except by convention, are the result of standard physical law or can be varied over two orders of magnitude whilst allowing chemistry and biology to emerge. The majority of randomly selected combinations of the fundamental constants are compatible with life. Farewell fine tuning.

⭐This is not a read for the faint-hearted! You’ve seen those TV shows featuring mathematical geniuses with chalkboards filled with mathematical formulae? – well, be prepared. But having said that, if you can accept as read the maths that you probably (if you’re like me) ill-equipped to follow, Victor does a thorough job of demolishing every variety of the fine tuning argument. That may help reinforce your position if you’re already an unbeliever but will probably not equip you to argue the case with a well-briefed believer unless you are really good at turning sophisticated mathematical expressions into plain language. I could wish that Victor had achieved that, but I don’t think he has.

⭐If you can follow all of the mathematics behind the arguments, you probably know enough not to be blown away by them, but if, like me, it’s a bit of a struggle for you to keep up, there’s a massive temptation to either take the author’s word, or to write it off as misdirection, depending your stance at the beginning of the book. On the other hand, if you bear with it, you just might see the substance behind a very strong case for a universe that need not explain itself.

⭐A brilliant summary of modern physics and Bayesian logic that pretty well proves that fine tuning concepts are immature and in summary: stop believing in silly gods!

⭐Excellent

Keywords

Free Download The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us in PDF format
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us PDF Free Download
Download The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us 2011 PDF Free
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us 2011 PDF Free Download
Download The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us PDF
Free Download Ebook The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us