The Teleological Proof (II)

• The “Fine-Tuning” Argument1.) 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, non-exponentially, 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.