Scientific Arguments:
Fine-Tuning and the Big Bang
Professor Rob Koons
Philosophy – UT
robkoons@yahoo.com
robkoons.net “Unpublished Papers”
Can Science “Prove” God?
•
•
Science cannot prove anything – it
is always tentative, corrigible.
God clearly lies beyond the bounds
of the ordinary scientific method.
What are “God’s terms”?
•
•
•
Surprisingly, God does not expect
us to reform ourselves or meet
some ethical standard.
However, He has no interest in
satisfying idle curiosity – He wants
to establish a loving,
transformative relationship.
If we’re unwilling, He won’t
intrude.
Evidence that the Universe
(Space, Time and Matter) had a
Supernatural Cause
•
Scientific evidence:
–
–
•
Evidence for the “Big Bang”
Evidence for the fine-tuning of our universe
for life
Philosophical arguments
–
–
The Kalaam argument: time had a beginning.
The Thomistic argument: whatever is
contingent (merely natural) has a causal
explanation.
Robert J. Fitzer, S. J.
New Proofs for the Existence of
God
•
•
•
President of
Gonzaga
University
Trained in
philosophy,
physics and
theology
Eerdmans,
2010
The Big Bang
•
A Belgian priest,
Father Georges
Lemaitre, was
the first to
discover that
Einstein’s theory
of general
relativity entailed
that the universe
had a beginning
(1930’s).
Proof of the Big Bang
•
•
Astronomer Edwin Hubble
observed the ‘red shift’ of distant
galaxies
Universally agreed upon: time,
space and matter began 13.7
billion years ago.
Before the Big Bang?
•
•
In recent years, some physicists
have proposed theories of a preBig-Bang era (infinite inflation or
string/brane theories).
2003 theorem by Borde, Guth and
Vilenkin: every inflationary model
universe (with or without a
multiverse) must have a beginning
in time.
Design Argument
• We can infer that the First Cause is
infinitely wise and personal by
examining the creation.
• The creation is obviously organized for
certain purposes:



it obeys simple, universal laws,
it permits the origin and development of life,
it contains human beings, with the capacity for
universal knowledge.
Evidence of Design: Overview
• Simple, elegant laws of nature.
• Anthropic fine-tuning. The constants of
nature, the ratios of fundamental forces
are adjusted to permit the formation of
carbon, planets.
Evidence of Design
• The design of the
earth, as an ideal
environment for life,
intelligence,
astronomy: Guillermo
Gonzalez, The
Privileged Planet.
Some Anthropic Coincidences
Seven coincidences (of about 40):
#1: Strong nuclear force.
• If 5% weaker, no deuterium formed at Big
Bang. Deuterium needed for initial ignition of
fusion in stars.
• If 50% weaker, all elements would be unstable
(equivalently, if electromagnetic force were
14X stronger)
Anthropic Coincidence #2
• Strong nuclear force: if 0.5% stronger, all
carbon turned to oxygen in supernovas. If 1%
weaker, no carbon formed from beryllium.
• The coordination of several atomic resonance
levels in carbon. If the third resonance had
been 1/2% higher, no carbon would have been
produced.
• “A common sense interpretation of the facts
suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed
with physics…that there are no blind forces in
nature.” Astronomer Fred Hoyle
Anthropic Coincidence #3
Cosmological constant must be close to zero
(less than 10 to the minus 50th power), but
positive.
• If too strong, inflation proceeds too far,
leading to a diffuse cloud.
• If too weak, inflation cannot take place at
all, leading to a lumpy, non-uniform
cosmos, preventing the formation of stable
stars and galaxies.
Anthropic Coincidence #4
• Net electrical neutrality of universe. The
number of protons and electrons (produced
by two independent processes in Big Bang),
must agree to within a factor of 10 to the
37th power.
• Otherwise, electrical repulsion would
overwhelm gravity, preventing the
formation of galaxies, stars, planets.
Anthropic Coincidence #5
Electromagnetic force (compared to gravity).
• If too weak, all stars would be short-lived
blue dwarfs.


Gravity is weaker by a factor of 10 to the 39th power.
If gravity were 3000 times greater, no long-lived stars.
• Fine-tuned within1 part in 10 to the 36th
power.
Anthropic Coincidence #6
Visible light, 0.3 to 1.5 microns, (produced in
abundance by Sun-like stars) has exactly the right
energy levels to interact usefully with chemical
reactions (almost all chemical reactions involve
energy corresponding to the 0.32-0.8 micron range).
•Too little - passes right through matter (like radio
and microwave).
•Too much -- destroys compounds (X-rays, gamma
rays).
Visible light is 1 part in 10 to the 25th power of the
whole spectrum.
Anthropic Coincidence #7
• The universe began in a state of extremely
low entropy.
• Roger Penrose: odds of 1 in 10 to the 10 to
the 123rd power. More zeros than there are
atoms in the universe!
• If the Big Bang were merely a transition
from some earlier state, then there would
be no possible explanation for its lowentropy state.
The Multiverse Response
This… can be answered by the suggestion... that there are
many universes, co-existing like bubbles of foam, in a
'multiverse' (or 'megaverse', as Leonard Susskind prefers to
call it). The laws and constants of any one universe, such
as our observable universe, are by-laws. The multiverse as
a whole has a plethora of alternative sets of by-laws. The
anthropic principle kicks in to explain that we have to be in
one of those universes (presumably a minority) whose bylaws happen to be propitious to our eventual evolution and
hence contemplation of the problem. (Richard Dawkins, The
God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2006, p. 145)
The Multiverse Response
• If there are many parallel universes, with
a wide enough variety, there will exist
(by chance alone) some capable of life.
• Scientific theories: many-worlds QM,
Linde’s super-inflation, string theory
• Philosophical theories: every logically
possible world ‘exists’ out there.
Objections to Scientific Theories
of the Multiverse
• Still unconfirmed by empirical testing.
• Don’t solve all cases of fine-tuning, since all
universes share the same basic laws.
• Can’t produce enough universes.
• Generation of multiverses itself requires finetuning.
• Can’t explain the optimality of the earth as
astronomical observatory (Gonzalez)
• Violates Ockham’s Razor: God is simpler
explanation.
Objections to Philosophical Theories of
Many Worlds
•
•
•
•
No possible scientific evidence.
Huge violation of Ockham’s Razor.
God is a much better explanation.
Undermines the very possibility of
science and induction, since disorderly
worlds (with apparent order) vastly
outnumber truly orderly worlds.
Boltzmann brain.
• See John Leslie, Universes.
Three Forms of the Design Argument
• The argument by analogy. The universe is
“like” a watch.
• Appeal to Bayes’s Theorem
• Dembski’s model of “specified complexity”
as a positive test for design
• Appeal to the direct perception of design,
by a natural faculty (Thomas Reid, Alvin
Plantinga)
The Argument by Analogy
The cosmos resembles a human artifact.
Therefore, the universe was created by
something like a human artisan.
Objections:
There are many dissimilarities.
There are apparent “defects” in the
design.
Gives us an “anthropomorphic” God –
finite and fallible.
Bayes’s Theorem
We need three inputs:
(1) the prior probability of h, P(h),
(2) the likelihood of the evidence, assuming the truth
of the hypothesis, P(e/h),
(3) the prior probability of the evidence.
Using Bayes’s Theorem
Since we want P(e/h) to be high, P(e/~h)
must be very low. That is, the evidence e
must be something that would be very
unlikely (surprising) if the hypothesis were
false.
If P(e/h) > P(e/~h), and P(h) ≠ 0, then we say
that the evidence e confirms hypothesis h.
Dembski’s Design Inference (from The Design Inference and
Intelligent Design)
For William Dembski, the hypothesis h = the claim that the observed
phenomenon is the product of intelligent design. Note: this does not by itself
establish that the designer is God.
According to Dembski, we do not have to estimate P(h), the prior probability of
h, or P(e/h), the likelihood of the evidence on the assumption of intelligent
design.
Instead, we need only two things:
(1) P(e/~h), the probability that the phenomenon was produced by undirected
natural forces, must be astronomically small (something like 1 in 10 to the 50th
power), and
(2) The evidence e must be specified (it must conform to some real,
independently describable pattern).
Perceiving Design
• Dembski’s model could be thought of as an
explication of our natural capacity for
design-recognition, a capacity postulated by
the Scottish epistemologist Thomas Reid
(founder of ‘Scottish common-sense
realism’).
• Defended recently by Alvin Plantinga, Del
Ratzsch, and C. Stephen Evans.
• Parallel: our knowledge of other human
minds.
Some Objections
Who designed God?
...if you explain the order in the natural world by a divine plan, you still
have to explain the order in the divine mind. As Philo says, 'a mental
world or universe of ideas requires a cause as much as does a material
world or universe of objects'. (J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982, p. 142)
There is no reason why mental order as such should be any less in
need of further explanation than material order, and the claim that
mental order in a god is self-explanatory is just the thesis, central in the
cosmological argument...., that God is a necessary being, a being that
could not have failed to exist. (Mackie, p. 144)
God is no explanation of anything
...there is no limit to the explanatory purposes to which God's
infinite power is put. Is science having a little difficulty
explaining X? No problem. Don't give X another glance. God's
infinite power is effortlessly wheeled in to explain X (along with
everything else), and it is always a supremely simple
explanation because, after all, there is only one God. What
could be simpler than that?
Well, actually, almost everything. A God capable of
continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of
every particle in the universe cannot be simple. His existence is
going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right. (Richard
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006, p. 149)
God can’t cause the laws of nature
The evidence we do have indicates that orderly behavior must exist before
minds can impose their purposes on nature. It is therefore incorrect to argue that
orderliness results from a mind imposing its purposes on nature.
(B. C. Johnson, The Atheist Debater’s Handbook, Prometheus Press, NY,
1983, p. 29).
Without the laws of causality, no causes would be operative. The laws of
causality must therefore exist before any cause can operate. Therefore the laws
of causality cannot be the result of any cause. These are laws which cannot be
caused even by God. (B. C. Johnson, p. 31)
Something had to Happen: Everything
Definite is Equally Improbable
Consider a random whirl of dust particles. All the particles composing it must
interact to produce the exact distribution of particles which occurs. If only a
single particle had moved contrary to its course, the exact arrangement of
particles would have been different. We would never have recognized the
change because all dust particles look alike to us, but the result would
nevertheless have been different. Now, according to the theist's reasoning, the
existence of this complex interaction of countless particles producing a specific
result must indicate the presence of some intention. However, the result of a
completely random, totally unplanned whirl of dust particles is exactly what we
mean by an unintentional result. Clearly, reasoning which makes a
demonstrably unintended result appear to be intended is fundamentally
unsound.
B. C. Johnson, The Atheist Debater’s Handbook, 1983, p. 40.
An All-Powerful God Shouldn’t
Need to Design
"....what is meant by design? Contrivance: the adaptation of
means to an end. But the necessity of contrivance -- the
need for employing means -- is a consequence of the
limitation of power... Wisdom and contrivance are shown in
overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a
being for whom no difficulties exist.
John Stuart Mill, Theism, ed. by Richard Taylor (BobbsMerrill, Indianapolis, 1957/1874), pp. 33-4.
We can’t evaluate the likelihood of God’s
preferring life, knowledge
...before we can detect God's purpose, we must
first know his intentions. And before we can know
his intentions we must first know that he exists -for he cannot have intentions unless he does exist.
Therefore the argument from design cannot prove
God's existence because we must first know he
exists before we can know anything is designed by
him.
B. C. Johnson, Atheist Debater’s Handbook, 1983,
p. 44
We can’t say just how unlikely the
anthropic band is
We haven’t observed a large sample of
undesigned universes, so we don’t know
how likely it is for a random universe to be
governed by elegant, anthropic laws.