My Favorite Theistic Arguments - Part III - The Fine Tuning Argument

In the previous two parts we looked at the Kalam and Contingency arguments.  Those focused on the need for an external cause to create and sustain the universe (or anything at all) in being.

Today we’ll look at an argument of a different type – one which looks for fingerprints on the universe itself.  The most well-known of these is called the “Cosmological Fine Tuning Argument”.

But before we look into that, we first have to review some background.



Necessary Background:

Initial Ingredients:

In the previous two posts we have mentioned the Big Bang.  The name, of course, is an analogy.  But let’s take the analogy a bit further.  Imagine the ingredients of the explosives had been different.  What might happen?

Well, you’d get a very different explosion.

In a similar way, there were various starting conditions present at the Big Bang.  There was the initial symmetry, the low entropy, the ratio of matter to antimatter, and a host of other things.

There’s no apparent explanation for why those things were the way they were.  They just kinda… were.


Physical Constants and Ratios:

If you’ve taken a physics or chemistry class, you no doubt had the unhappy task of memorizing various physical constants.  Take, for instance, the universal gravitation equation:

In this case the ‘G’ is the gravitational constant.  It numerical represents the strength of the fundamental force of gravity, which is 6.673×10−11 N•(m/kg)^2.

This constant joins the speed of light (C), the mass of an electron (me), the electromagnetic constant (α), and many others as the parameters that undergird all of physics.

And to the best of our knowledge these constants are just kinda… there.  Like the parameters of an operating system that the universe booted up on.


The Form of the Argument:

With all that in mind, now we can get into argument itself.  Here’s how it goes.

Premise 1:  The physical constants and ratios, and the initial conditions of the Big Bang, were fine tuned for the possibility of life.

Premise 2: This is either due to chance, necessity, inevitability, or design.

Premise 3: It is not the result of chance, necessity, or inevitability.

Conclusion: The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.


Explaining Premise 1:

So we mentioned the physical constants found in physics and the initial conditions of the Big Bang.  Ask yourself this; what if they had been different?

What if instead of G being 6.673×10−11 N•(m/kg)^2, it had been 7.539×10−11 N•(m/kg)^2?

Modern cosmology had figured out that the result would have been disastrous.  In fact, if the force of gravity had been different by 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either immediately collapsed into a black whole – or been blown apart so fast that no particles would ever interact.  In either case, no life.

A similar thing applies to the electromagnetic force.  If it had been off by 1 part in 10^40, the same disastrous results would have occurred.  If the cosmological constant, which governs the expansion rate of space, had been off by 1 part in 10^120, we’d once again have the black hole or dust cloud situation.

Examples of this sort of fine-tuning have turned up everywhere.  The initial entropy of the universe, the ratio of matter to antimatter, the strong force constant, the interaction of various subatomic molecules, and on and on.  Each one resulting in a situation which is hostile to any kind of life.

The upshot is that the odds of life-permitting universe is the product off all of these probabilities combined.  A number so large that it defies imagination.  From what I understand, if you wanted to write the number out in 10 point font, there isn't enough square footage in the galaxy to write it out.



The “Finely Tuned Hand of Cards” Objection:

Some people will deny the first premise by comparing it to being dealt a hand of 5 playing cards.

Let’s suppose you were dealt the following hand:

What are the odds that you received that hand?  The answer is 1 in 311,875,200.

But when you received that hand, were you shocked to have received a hand which is so incredibly improbable?  No.

And so the counter-argument goes;

Sure, we find ourselves living in a universe with a very improbable set of parameters, but that is like getting an improbable hand of cards.  No matter what you get, it will be improbable. 

So you ought not be surprised by what cosmology and physics has revealed.  If the constants had been different, a completely different set of observers would be observing THEIR unlikely universe.

The Corrective:

Do you get the feeling that the state objection doesn’t quite capture the situation?  If so, you’re correct.

In the deck of cards analogy, it is true that each hand is just as unlikely as any other hand.  But that’s not the whole story.

In this analogy there is no difference between being dealt one hand versus another.  There is nothing special consequence to getting your hand versus another similar one:

This is akin to saying: "If the constants had been different, a completely different set of observers would be observing THEIR unlikely universe."

That that isn't the case.  If the parameters had been different, there would have NO life.  None. There wouldn't have been stars, planets, or even been chemistry.

So now let’s re-imagine this situation:  You will be dealt five cards.  And if your hand is not this:

You will be KILLED.

What are the odds of you leaving this situation alive?  0.0000003%
What are the odds of you being killed?  99.9999997%

This situation asks you to collate them into two grossly imbalanced groups:  Lethal and non-lethal.  Yes, each hand is equally improbable, but they are not all interchangeable.  Getting a lethal hand is almost certain.  Getting the non-lethal hand is nearly impossible.

And THAT’S the analogy that more closely resembles the situation with the fine-tuning of physics.  Yes, every universe is equally improbable.  But the odds of getting a non-life-permitting universe is almost certain.  Meanwhile, getting a life-permitting universe is an unimaginably slim possibility.

With that misunderstanding cleared up, the Fine Tuning Argument retains its force.


Explaining Premise 2:

There isn’t any complex argument here.  It’s just fleshing out some possibilities for explaining the fine-tuning.

Chance: The fine tuning is the result of happenstance.  The values and quantities could have been anything, but we won the cosmological lottery.

Necessity:  There is something in the makeup of physics that demanded these quantities be what they are.  It couldn’t have been any other way.

Inevitability:  There are many, many, many different “universes”.  Almost all of them are barren, but one of these will inevitably be life-permitting.  And here we are inside that one.

Design:  The fine tuning is the result of the intentions of some intelligent agent.


Explaining Premise 3:

The next step is to start ruling things out.

Chance is the first one to go.  The odds involve in this are so extreme that no serious person defends this possibilities.  It would be like watching a person winning the lottery jackpot every day for a decade – and not suspecting some form of cheating or collaboration.

Necessity is the next one to go.  There is no evidence that all the elements of fine tuning couldn’t have been any other way.  And there is no reason to think the gravitation constant, for instance, couldn’t have been 6.674×10−11 N•(m/kg)^2 Instead of 6.673×10−11 N•(m/kg)^2.  So you won’t find many people defending this.

So the bulk of this debate focuses on inevitability versus design. Let’s examine those:


Anthropic Principle + Many Worlds Hypothesis:

After the “Finely Tuned Hand of Cards” objection is dispatched, those seeking to avoid the Theistic implications of the Fine Tuning Argument will propose a new hypothetical.

They will now say:

OK, so the odds of receiving a life-permitting hand of cards is incredibly low.  But let’s suppose you are not the only one playing.  Let’s say you DO receive a winning hand, but when you look to your left and right you see the 311,875,200 dead bodies of the other people who played and lost.

Yes, you may feel fortunate to be have won, but someone was inevitably going to win.  How happy that it was you!

Likewise, what if there were many, many, many, many, many universes.  Each one is born with random values for its constants and quantities.  That vast majority of them are devoid of life, but inevitably there will be one which is life-permitting.   

Needless to say, any observers in that universe will look out and see a finely tuned universe.  They may feel fortune, but their existence was simply inevitable.  That’s us.

Reply 1:

How does one reply to this?  Well, the person has proposed quite a whale of a tale.  So one response is to make this face:

But a more rigorous response can also be given.


Reply 2:

The next reply is to point out that some mechanism would be needed to generate this unfathomable number of universes.  It must have two qualities:

Eternal Endurance: Now, most natural physical systems eventually break down and cease to operate.  But this universe-generating mechanism, whatever it is, cannot ever break down.  It has to be able to produce the required quantity of universes without seizing up or breaking down.

True Randomness: In addition, it will need to produce these universes with a truly random quantities and initial conditions.  If it doesn’t, there is no guarantee that it will inevitably spit out a life-permitting universe.

All of this to point out that the mechanism for producing said universes (and thus avoiding the fine tuning argument) will likely also need to be finely tuned for its operation.  So rather the Many Worlds Hypothesis only kicks the problem down the road.

Reply 3:

The second response is that you don't need a gigantic finely tuned universe to have observers (like us).

All you need is a small pocket of habitable space... no bigger than our solar system.  And then you need for the necessary star and planet to randomly fluctuate into existence out of the quantum vacuum.

(That refers to the same mechanism of creation ex-vacuum that Laurence Krauss suggests could have created the universe)

Now, this is very unlikely, but it is vastly more likely than arriving at the large finely tuned universe by chance.  So if the Many Worlds Hypothesis were true, this situation is what we’d expect to see when we star out into space.  That is to say, we’d expect to see nothing other than ourselves.

But you can actually take this one step further…. because you don’t even need a solar system to have observers.

If the Many Worlds Hypothesis is true, the most common observed universe would actually be one where a single observer fluctuates into existence and hallucinates an external world which really doesn’t exist.

And since this much more likely than a fine-tuned universe filled with interacting observers, the believer in the Many World Hypothesis would actually be compelled to believe that this is the case for his own external observations.

In other words, he is compelled to believe that his own mind is the only thing that exists in the universe.  He must accept the position of Metaphysical Solipsism.


Taking Account:  

Now this doesn’t mean the Many Worlds Hypothesis is false.  It just mean that a consistent believer in it must seriously entertain solipsism.   But if you believer that you are one of many observers in a great big world, you’re stuck with the last option; design.

Those moves us one step forward on this conceptual analysis of the cause of the universe.  Beforehand we figured it had to be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, metaphysically necessary, and immensely powerful source of all existence.

Now, since we have evidence of intention – namely, the intention to create life – we can add one more quality; Consciousness.

[Return]