The Teleological Proof
(II)
• The “Fine-Tuning” Argument
1.) The physical universe has been
“fine-tuned” so that it may produce
and sustain life. (Premise)
2.) Either this “fine tuning” is the result
of purely naturalistic, non-intelligent
forces or it is the work of an
intelligent, supernatural creator.
(from 1. and PSR)
3.) Purely naturalistic, non-intelligent
forces are incapable of producing the
“fine-tuning” of the physical universe.
(Premise)
4.) Thus, an intelligent, supernatural
creator exists. (from 3. & 4.)
• Evaluation of the Argument
– Evidence for Step (1.)
• “[T]he gravitational constant, the
strong [nuclear] force, the weak
[nuclear] force . . . Planck’s
constant,
• “[and over fifty other fundamental
physical constants] . . . which, in
most cases, are causally quite
unrelated to each other, must have
values that fall within a very narrow
range if life is to be possible. If
anyone of them were changed,
even slightly, life (at least as we
know it) would not have emerged.
Stephen T. Davis, “Fine Tuning: The New
Design Argument”
• Examples
– The Rate of Expansion of the
“Big Bang”
» Too rapid a rate of expansion
relative to total mass and
galaxies and stars never
would have formed.
» Too slow a rate of expansion
relative to total mass and the
universe would have collapsed
back into itself billions of years
ago.
» “A reduction by one part in a
million million would have led
to collapse before the
temperature could fall below
ten thousand degrees. An
early increase by one part in a
million would have prevented
the growth of galaxies, stars,
and planets.”
J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular
City
– The Strong Nuclear Force
» The force that binds together
the quarks in neutrons and
protons, and the neutrons and
protons themselves, in an
atom’s nucleus.
» Lower or increase this force
by one percent, and carbon
never would have formed.
» All life, at least as we know it,
is carbon based.
– The Weak Nuclear Force
» The force responsible for
radioactive decay and nuclear
fission and fusion.
» Had this force been slightly
stronger fusion powered stars,
e.g. the sun, would not have
formed.
» Had this force been slightly
weaker, the universe would be
comprised of nothing but
helium.
– Isotropy
» The fact that the background
temperature of the universe is
essentially the same, with only
slight variations, throughout
the entire universe.
» Also, the fact that matter is
essentially distributed evenly
throughout the universe.
» If the universe were slightly
more anisotropic (uneven) in
either temperature or
» matter distribution, then the
universe would be comprised
of nothing but black holes.
» If the universe were totally
isotropic, it would literally burn
up as result the heat produced
by such a total “smoothing
out” process.
» Physicist Paul Davies
estimates that the odds
against there being the
precise balance there actually
» is between isotropy and
anisotropy as being one out of
the number 1 followed by a
thousand billion billion zeros.
• Physicist Michael Penrose
estimates that the odds against
getting precisely the right mix of the
over fifty independent physical
constants necessary for a life
producing and sustaining universe
is one out of ten raised to the
power of 10123, a number so large
• that it cannot be written out, nonexponentially, on a piece of paper
as big as the entire visible universe.
– Criticism of Step (3.)
• The Weak Anthropic Principle
– “[G]iven [human] presence in
the universe . . . it necessarily
follows that the requisite
conditions for intelligent life are
met. We should accordingly
expect only to observe [physical
– “constants] compatible with
[human] existence; [human]
existence is a selection effect in
accessing the various [physical]
laws and constants.”
Stephen T. Davis, “Fine Tuning: The
New Design Argument”
– This criticism misses the point.
» While it is not surprising we
do not observe a universe
inconsistent with our
existence, it is surprising,
» given its astronomical
improbability, that we do
observe a universe consistent
with our existence.
» An Analogy: “Suppose a
madman kidnaps a victim and
shuts him in a room with a
card-shuffling machine. The
machine shuffles ten packs of
cards simultaneously and then
draws a card from each pack
» “and exhibits . . . the ten
[randomly drawn] cards. The
kidnapper tells the victim that . . .
unless the draw consists of an ace
of hearts from each pack, the
machine will . . . set off an
explosion which will kill the victim,
in consequence of which [the
victim] will not see which cards the
machine drew . . . [Much] to the
amazement and relief of the victim
the machine exhibits an ace of
hearts draw from each pack.”
Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God
» While it is true the victim would
not have survived to see the
draw had it not been the one
needed for his survival, it’s also
true that the necessary draw did
not occur because the victim
survived.
» In other words, the victim’s
surviving to see it does not
explain why the incredibly
improbable (a probability of only
0.0000000000000000002048)
draw occurred in the first place.
» Similarly, the fact that humans
are here to observe it does not
explain why the astronomically
improbable physical universe
happened in the first place.
– The Oscillation Hypothesis
» There have been (and will be)
many “Big Bangs,” each of
which has been followed by a
“Big Crunch” in which the
universes resulting from each
“Big Ban” collapsed back on
themselves.
» Each time a “Big Bang”
happens a universe with an
entirely new combination of
laws and constants emerges.
» Eventually, given enough “Big
Bangs and Crunches,” all
possible universes have their
“day in the sun.”
» It’s not clear that the present
universe will “crunch.”
» If our present universe did
“crunch,” there’s no guaranty it
would be followed by another
“Big Bang.”
» Even if there are multiple,
successive “Big Bangs,”
there’s no guaranty that the
basic physical laws and
constants will reshuffle each
time.
– The Many Worlds of Quantum
Physics Hypothesis
» Given Quantum Physics, with
its theoretically infinite number
of physical dimensions, every
possible universe exists in its
» own dimension at the same
time and in the same place as
every other possible universe.
» The inhabitants of each
universe observe only that
universe and are oblivious to
the events in the other
universes.
» Given the quantum barriers
between them, travel from one
universe to another is not
possible.
» “[The Many Worlds Hypothesis]
seems fanciful and speculative to
many, especially since there is no
know causal mechanism [to
account for it] . . . . Moreover, the
theory also seems to violate
respected . . . principles like
parsimony (if two theories are
equal in explanatory power, accept
the simpler of the two) and
Ockham’s Razor (do not posit the
existence of more entities than are
strictly necessary.)”
Stephen T. Davis, “Fine Tuning: The New
Design Argument”
– The Lottery Analogy
» If a person buys only one ticket in
a lottery in which a billion tickets
are sold and then wins the lottery,
we do not say that his winning,
despite its incredible improbability,
is the result of anything other than
chance.
» Similarly, even though the a life
producing and sustaining universe
is astronomically improbable, we
should not posit that its occurring
is the result of anything more than
chance.
» The life producing and
sustaining universe in which we
exist is, thus, just an
astronomically improbable
happenstance of good fortune.
» The analogy is weak because
it assumes that the chance of a
life producing and sustaining
universe’s emerging from the
“Big Bang” is the same as a
non-life producing and
sustaining universe’s emerging.
» Given that, of the possible
universes that could have
emerged from the “Big Bang,”
all most all are non-life
producing and sustaining, the
following is a more apt
analogy.
» In a billion ticket lottery,
Person A buys 999,999,999
tickets, and Person B buys
only one ticket but still wins.
» In this case, we would be less
willing to attribute Person B’s
winning to mere chance. For
example, we might suspect
the lottery is rigged.
» Also, consider this case: A
person buys only one ticket in
a billion ticket lottery and wins
the exact amount of money he
needs to pay for the operation
his son must have to live.
» Even if all the participants in the
lottery have an equal chance of
winning, the fact that the person
who “needs” to win the most does
so, might incline us to attribute his
winning to more than mere chance.
» Similarly, while it is astronomically
improbable, a life producing and
sustaining universe is qualitatively
superior to the alternative
» Thus, we might be inclined to
attribute the emergence such a
universe from the “Big Bang” to
more than mere chance.
• Final Points
– The conclusion of the Fine Tuning
Argument cannot be established with
perfect certainty because the truth of
its second premise cannot be so
established.
– Defenders of the Argument maintain
its conclusion is a more reasonable
explanation of the known data than
any of its competitors
– As with the first version of the
Teleological Proof we examined, the
Fine Tuning Argument does not prove
the God of Classical Theism in His
totality.
– Still, again as with the first
Teleological Proof, assuming it is
sound, the Fine Tuning Argument
does provide support for Classical
Theism because it is a proof for a
Being very much like the God of
Classical Theism.