if you have a creation... logically there could be a Creator.
Logically, there could not be
any kind of a Creator, like a supernatural one for instance.
But then of course Gravity is a Creator. Natural too.
if the only universe you are aware of seems incredibly fine tuned for life... you have to admit to the possibility it was created by a Creator.
Nah.
Were it the case that life altogether should not be possible, then that might suggest something very weird going on.
But it's not the case and that it may require no matter how many certain values to be precise in order for life to occur, simply suggests inevitability. That is, given certain natural conditions, those values will ineluctably come about and life therefore made possible. No need for a Creator.
The Standard Model is regarded as a highly “unnatural” theory. Aside from having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, it is also very precariously balanced. If you change any of the 20+ numbers that have to be put into the theory even a little, you rapidly find yourself living in a universe without atoms. This spooky fine-tuning worries many physicists, leaving the universe looking as though it has been set up in just the right way for life to exist.
And what exactly is an "unnatural" theory? Or don't you even ask yourself that glaringly obvious question.
There cannot actually be anything unnatural (contrary to nature or not in accordance with or determined by nature) in physics. Science is the study of the physical and natural world, not some imaginary ethereal and unnatural one.
If there were anything unnatural then it wouldn't be scientific. End of story.
There is nothing remotely being made unnatural about the Standard Model from it having
a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, or
because it is also very precariously balanced.
Who the hell would say cosmological theory is regarded as unnatural because it has a large number of stars and planets which seem surplus to requirement!
You don't even need to be a scientist to see how those are not reasons to call something unnatural or even "unnatural".
Badly used words do tend to end up in quote marks a lot. Pity "authors" don't take the "time" to "use" the "right" word that might better "convey" what they mean to "say".
ops: