See some quotes here.1
[Forthcoming.] In a nutshell:
This argument has been crystalized by philosopher Robin Collins (here)
When scientists investigate and measure how things work in the world, they accumulate “data points,” like these, and they look to discern patterns in nature and thereby discover the natural laws which can be used for future predictions.
We can represent the simplified example pattern by this simple green line which will be described by a simple mathematical function (those equation-like things we all had to learn in physics class).
And if you’ll look at these three new highlighted dots, this simple functional law has allowed us to extrapolate from the past or examined data to make predictions about future or unexamined data.
But here is the problem for naturalism: this whole endeavor requires the all-important assumption that the laws of nature are simple and elegant. For example: deficiencies in our measuring instruments, make it normal for the functional line to not precisely go through every data point, even though those points are our measurements.
Since that’s what we measure, technically, an ugly complex law, like this red function, fits our data better. But naturalists won’t accept the red line, because they go in expecting simplicity and elegance in nature. Like the green law.
In a similar vein, imagine setting the Y-Axis as the value of the gravitational constant, and the X-Axis as time. If the law describing gravity is simple, then the constant will remain. . . constant (as predicted by the green law). But it does not have to be simple. If the strength of the constant changed tomorrow, again, all that would mean is that the law governing gravity is a more like a complex red law.
On theism, humanity was designed in God’s image, to be “knowers with power” as He is--His viceroys and stewards in the universe. We were designed with a proper thirst for knowledge about a user-friendly natural order that this perfectly rational God put in place for us to work with. It's not unlikely on theism that the natural order would be intelligible to man. This is in large part why mathematical-experimental science uniquely formed from Christian soil rather than any other culture. So the intelligibility and discoverability of the universe fits better on theism than on naturalism.
Irregardless of technology, as the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate the distant objects currently observable (carried by light) will start disappearing from view (as we start diverging faster than light). So if we arrived here any later in cosmic history, we would have a sub-optimal view of the universe (obviously if we had arrived earlier the universe would have been smaller with much less to see).
-Most all planets do not allow observation of the Universe. They are contained in spiral arms and are faced with walls of interstellar debri. -We reside between the Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms. ... our location within the Galactic Habitable Zone offers the best overall location to be a successful astronomer and cosmologist. Even though we’re near the mid-plane, there’s very little in the way of dust in our neighborhood to absorb light from nearby stars and distant galaxies. We’re far enough from the Galactic center and the disk is flat enough that it doesn’t excessively obscure our view of the distant universe. We have access to a striking diversity of nearby stars and other Galactic structures, as well as a clear view of distant galaxies and the unique cosmic microwave background radiation, both essential for discovering the astonishing facts that the universe is expanding and finite in age.