That's why they don't teach Aquinas anymore. Much less Aristotle, Socrates, Plato..
If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) --one part in 1050(.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form.
That doesn't make you go, "Hmmm?" And that is just one of the universal constants necessary for life to exist.
None of that implies a Creator, just that the values are what they are and that's why we are here to talk about it. There may be countless bubble universes where the values are different, where no life is possible, our universe may cycle and each time it does, the values are different. Eternity is a long time. If God exists and is eternal, what has He been doing all this time? Creating an endless series of Universes in the hope of getting it right?
Here is philosophy professor Edward Feser on the logical proofs for the existence of God---all of which has nothing to do with the fact that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an impossibility.
Logic without evidence proves nothing. The logic may be sound but if the propositions are flawed, the conclusion does not relate to the real world. You can apply logic to anything, Comic book Superheros, the strengths and weaknesses of Batman....
''Aquinas dismissed the problem of evil by saying: 'This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.''
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone.''
''This cosmological argument asserts that God must be the cause of all movement in the Universe. Aquinas contends that an infinite regress of movers is impossible, meaning that there must be an unmoved mover that initiated all motion - and that this mover is called God. One could just as easily call the first mover "Charlie", or any other preferred name, since the argument does not establish that the "unmoved mover" has any of the characteristics that are usually associated with the concept of God, such as consciousness, benevolence, omnipotence, or a proclivity to intervene in our universe. Far from proving that the Christian God exists, the most the argument can do is lend some support to a sort of weak deism, but without even necessitating the continued existence of the "first mover" which could just as easily have been the Big Bang as any preferred deity.''
