Critically

assess the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God

Word Count 2107

There has been a debate raging in the world today between non-theistic 1 scientists and theistic
scientists2 regarding the origin of the universe. The non-theistic scientists claim that a gradual, unguided
process created the universe and life within it. The cosmos came into being through the Big Bang and
then the process of natural selection developed life. While the theistic scientists claim that the universe
is so complex that mere natural, accidental processes could not have created it and so postulate that a
cognitive being must have formed it. This theory is called the fine-tuning argument. Philosopher
William Lane Craig defines fine-tuning as, a neutral expression that has to do with the constants and
quantities being just right for the existence of intelligent life.3 That is, if the constants were any
different, life as it is known today, would not exist. This essay will examine the parameters of physics
that allow life to exist in this universe and what would theoretically happen if conditions were to
change. Also I will be examining the theories by which this universe could have accidentally come into
being.

The four4 fundamental physical properties that allow for life to exist on earth are gravity, the strong
nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism. There would be severe consequences for
life if these four laws had different constants. For example the strong force is what keeps the protons
and neutrons together in an atom. It needs to be strong enough to overcome the electromagnetic
repulsion between the protons in a nucleus, since otherwise the nucleus would split.5 If there were a
50% decrease in its force the stability of all elements essential to carbon-based life would weaken. With
a further decrease it would eliminate all elements except hydrogen.6 Some calculations find that it
would also create primarily deuterium stars which, if they were the equivalent to the suns mass, would
burn for only about 300 million years as compared to the suns 10 billion years. This shorter lifespan
would not allow enough time for life to evolve.7 Conversely, if the strong force were stronger, the
helium nuclei would dominate the universe eliminating hydrogen.8 A similar effect would occur if the
weak force were weaker. In this case the Big Bang would have yielded 100% helium, again eliminating

1

Atheists and others

These are broad generalizations and there might be some overlap between the two positions.
3
Craig 2008:161
4
There are arguably other laws and constants that contribute towards the fine-tuning argument but due to the scope of this
essay I will be focusing mainly on these four.
5
Collins 2003:182
6
Collins 2003:183
7
Collins 2003:192
8
Betty 2007:238
2

hydrogen. With no hydrogen in the universe, the existence of water is impossible thus making life
implausible.9 If gravity were stronger, stars would burn their hydrogen fuel much faster and thus die a
lot sooner.10 The resulting effect is that life would not have the time to evolve into humanoids.

Analyzing all these aforementioned variables as well as others, philosopher and physicist Robin Collins
calculated that the probability of this present universe appearing by chance, with the existing constants
and laws, as 1 in 1053. He equates these odds to being able to precisely hit a dartboard with a target
smaller than one inch11 in diameter on the other end of the known galaxy.12 The possibility of this
happening is so unlikely that it is virtually impossible, hence theistic scientists believe these odds point
towards an intelligent designer.

To overcome these odds and to hold to a naturalistic explanation, scientists have formulated several
hypotheses, one of which is called the multiverse theory. They suggest that multiple universes exist, or
have existed, with a different range of constants and physical laws to this present universe. According to
this theory, since so many other universes have existed the likelihood of one universe having life
permitting parameters was certain to come into existence. According to Robert Collins, there are two
versions of the multiverse theory; a metaphysical version and a physical version.13 The metaphysical one
postulates that universes exist without having been generated while the physical version postulates a
generator for the multiverses.14

Within the metaphysical theory, philosopher David Lewis and astrophysicist Max Tegmark, postulate
that multiple universes exist in parallel to this one. Lewis suggests that if somebody can dream up a
possible scenario it exists in some parallel reality.15 For example there is a reality where I am part of the
Spice Girls and Darth Vader is in fact Luke Skywalkers father. Tegmark has a slightly different version
called the ultimate ensemble hypothesis where he postulates that everything, which exists
mathematically, also exists physically in some reality thus explaining why a universe with life-permitting
physical parameters exists. 16 This theory seems implausible since there is no existing evidence for
multiple parallel realities as they are unobservable.


9

Leslie 1982:142
Betty 2007:238
11
Less than 2.54 cm
12
Collins 2002:4 intro reading
13
Collins 2002:131
14
Collins 2002:131
15
Collins 2002:131
16
Collins 2002:131
10

There are a few hypotheses within the physical multiverse theory, two of these are the oscillating
universe theory and the inflationary many-verse theory. The oscillating theory postulates that the
universe is created through a Big Bang, which causes space to expand and then collapse on itself, this
collapse is called the Big Crunch. Once space has collapsed back to its initial point it will then re-expand
and then re-collapse, thus creating a cycle of universes. Every time it regenerates itself the parameters
of physics are reset randomly thus allowing for an eventual life permitting universe. 17 Peter Van
Inwagen18 proposes a great analogy for this. Imagine a situation where John Smith is presented with 1 x
1053 straws the afore-mentioned probability for the current universe with its life permitting constants.
Suppose he is told to draw the shortest straw from the pack, failing to do this will result in his instant
death. As John selects a straw he is pleasantly surprised that he has indeed drawn the shortest straw
and so will be allowed to live. However, since the probability of this happening was so unlikely, and with
the absence of any other information, John can do nothing but conclude that the draw was in some way
manipulated, thus allowing him to draw the shortest straw. Had he not drawn the shortest straw no
explanation would be needed since the chances of him drawing any other straw was so much greater
than the alternative. Yet the fact that he drew the shortest one demands an explanation. Likewise the
oscillating multiverse theory demands another explanation besides chance since the probability of 1 x
1053 is too great.

The inflationary many-universe scenario is widely considered by scientists to be the most plausible of all
multiverse theories. According to this theory space started in a very small area where a hypothesized
inflation field caused space to expand as well as fuelled it with high bursts of energy. As this space
expanded it cooled down and, much like what gas does when it cools down, created droplets of
universes. Each of these droplets became a universe on its own with its separate set of physical
properties. This theory accounts for a generator of infinite amounts of universes and so increases the
likelihood of producing one that has the parameters needed for life to occur, such as this present
universe possesses.19 This time, returning to the afore-mentioned analogy, there are now millions of
people along with John Smith who are drawing straws at random. They are all getting killed for none of
them draw the right straw. In this scenario, when John does draw the shortest straw, it can only be
viewed as chance since millions of others have unsuccessfully gone before him. Similarly as the droplets
of universes are created with different variables, some will last for only a few seconds as they will not
have the possibilities of atoms within them, others will only contain helium or hydrogen and yet others

17

Collins 2002:131
Analogy taken and adapted from Van Inwagen 2002:190-191
19
Collins 2002:133
18

will have only young stars. Yet, as millions of universes are being created inevitably there will be one
with the necessary variables required for life to exist.

When examining the multiverse theories, one must take under consideration that they are purely
hypothetical. There is no evidence, which I have come across, to prove these theories, since scientists
cannot access these other universes. Logically this theory should be rendered void since there is no
obtainable evidence. However even if the multiverse hypothesis proved to be true this would not
disprove an intelligent designer since the origin of the multiverse generator is left unexplained.
Scientists have, seemingly without realizing, moved the problem from the creation of this universe to
the creation of the multiverse. Similarly one could ask where the laws came from or even where the
atoms, the building blocks of every universe, came from.

Furthermore they credit the creation of the universe to natural laws which, in and of themselves, cannot
create. As Professor John Lennox explains, theories and laws do not bring anything into effect; they
merely describe the natural processes which scientists observe.

20

The law and matter are

interdependent upon each other. Without matter these laws cannot manifest themselves yet matter
cannot come together without these laws being in effect. Professor Lennox uses the analogy of billiard
balls to explain this concept.21 As a player strikes a billiard ball, scientists can use the laws of physics to
predict the motion of the ball. However the laws themselves neither create the ball nor set it in motion,
an agent of some sort22 is needed to do both of these things. So it is with the laws in the universe; they
describe what is happening in the universe but cannot create anything.

Non-theistic scientists often accuse theists of basing their arguments on blind faith rather than on
evidence, logic or scientific fact and holding to a God of the gaps theory. While it might be true that
theists do not have empirical facts for their position neither do the non-theists with their multiverse
theory. Lennox proposes that scientific and religious approaches are similar as they both rest their
beliefs or work on presuppositions. Lennox states that one cannot even do mathematics without faith
in its consistency and it has to be faith because the consistency of mathematics cannot be proved.23
Lennox goes further and quotes J.J. Haldene on this subject, saying that science is faith-like in resting
upon creedal presuppositions, and inasmuch as these relate to the order and intelligibility of the
universe they also resemble the content of a theistic conception of the universe as an ordered creation.

20

Lennox 2007:64
Lennox 2007:63
22
Either a creator or a player
23
Lennox 2007:60
21

Furthermore it seems that the theist carries the scientific impulse further by pressing on with the
question of how perceived order is possible, seeking the most fundamental descriptions-cum-
explanations of the existence and nature of the universe.24 Thus non-theist scientists cannot accuse
theists of not being empirically sound or even positing a God of the gaps theory. Theists do not look at
something they do not understand and posit God as an explanation, on the contrary they see something
they understand better and view God in a different light. I would just like to illustrate that non-theists
also let their personal beliefs in on their science, Peter Van Inwagen quotes Thomas Nagel saying that It
isnt just that I dont believe in God and, naturally, hope that Im right in my belief. Its that I hope there
is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont want the universe to be like that.25 Everybody is
biased. It just depends on how we interpret the evidence that is set before us.

In conclusion I would like to say that considering all the evidence, the different variables needed for life
in this universe to exist and the extremely unlikely odds of these variables happening by chance, that
the fine tuning-argument by intelligent design is still a plausible theory. The non-theistic scientists,
desiring to explain the origin of the universe through purely naturalistic causes, postulate a multiverse
hypothesis with little to no apparent evidence and thus do not sound convincing. Even if sometime in
the future they find evidence and so prove their hypothesis it does not disprove intelligent design but
merely adds another dimension to the designers repertoire.

The hand of a creator still seems to be resting comfortably on the plethora of multiverses.













24
25

Lennox 2007:62
Inwagen 2002:205

Bibliography

Collins, Robin "Design and the Many Worlds Hypothesis," in (ed.) W.L. Craig,
Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guided. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2002.

Collins, Robin (2002), "God, Design, and Fine-Tuning", in Martin, Raymond, and Christopher Bernard.
God Matters: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Longman, 2003. (Updated version
available at http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm)
Collins, Robin, "Evidence for Fine-Tuning." in Manson, Neil A. God and Design: The Teleological
Argument and Modern Science. London: Routledge, 2003.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. 3rd edition. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Lennox, John C. God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford: Lion, 2007.
Leslie, John, Anthropic Principle, World Ensemble, Design, in American
Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.19, no.2, University of Illionois Press, 1982.
Stafford, Betty, The Anthropic Teleological Argument in Peterson, Michael. Philosophy of Religion. 3rd
edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Van, Inwagen Peter. Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Westview, 2002.