THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

This argument is an attempt to provide strong evidence for the existance of God using probabilities and logical inferences based on the fine tuning of the universe.

Scientists have found recently that the universe's nature is determined by various constants that appear finely tuned for life.

For example, the Gravitational Constant is finely tuned to a degree of 1060, meaning that if the value of the Gravitational Constant were off by a factor of 1 in 1060 then the universe would have either 1) collapsed and not formed any stars of 2) expanded too quickly and not formed any stars. In any case, the Gravitational Constant seems fine-tuned to allow for life.

To put this in perspective, you have approximately 1015 cells in your body, and the amount of seconds between the Big Bang and now is about 1020 seconds. The fact that the Gravitational Constant is so finely tuned is beyond comprehension.

But it doesn't stop there; there are more finely tuned constants.

For example, the Cosmological Constant is finely tuned to a degree of 10120, and the ratios of matter and energy in the universe is finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree of 1010123.

What could possibly explain this?

THE ARGUMENT

Premise 1: There are three possible explanations for the fine-tuned nature of the universe: Necessity (the universe had to be this way), Random Chance (we just got lucky), or Design (a cosmic designer).

Premise 2: Random Chance and Necessity are less plausible explanations than Design.

Conclusion: Therefore, there a cosmic designer is the most plausible explanation for the fine-tuned nature of the universe.

OBJECTIONS TO THE SECOND PREMISE

When the chances are so astronomically low, it starts looking less like a lucky chance and more like the interference of intelligence.

Imagine you were having a poker game, and one player had been dealt, for the last 20 hands, four Aces. After the 20th hand of four Aces is dealt, you get up to shoot the guy.

Would you take the player seriously if he said, "But wait, it's possible that I just got very, very lucky!"

No, you would accuse the player of cheating. In the same way, we are faced with astronomical odds with regards the the constants of the universe. If the odds are so low, it seems almost impossible that the universe is this way due to mere chance, especially since the chance of getting a life-permitting Cosmological Constant alone is lower than the chance of getting 20 hands of 4 aces in a row. Combined with all of the other constants, we have odds so incomprehensibly slim that to call it a "lucky chance" is plainly absurd.

To say that there is a 1:1 chance of finding ourselves in a universe does not actually provide an explanation for why we are actually here. It is just a statement of fact. The real question we should ask is for what reason we find ourselves in this universe. The answer for this is that the universe has been fine-tuned for life.

If it has been fine-tuned for life, why is it fine-tuned for life?

I can't stress this any more; shrugging and saying, "There is a one in one chance of finding ourselves in a life permitting universe," does not explain why we are alive. It is just a neutral observation that I've obviously already accepted. The question we should ask is, "Given the nigh-impossible improbabilities involved," why is our universe this way?

We can illustrate this with an analogy; imagine you are standing in front of a firing squad, tied to the wall. You hear the word, "Fire!" and gunshots. Silence. You are not dead. All the trained marksmen have missed.

The obvious next step is to ask the question, "Why am I alive rather than dead, given the absurd improbabilities of being alive?" It is completely valid to say, "There is a one in one chance of me finding myself alive." However, this does not answer the actual question: "Why did the marksmen miss?"

First of all, this explanation violates Occam's Razor. Why dream up literally an infinite amount of worlds just to explain our own? To do so would be making lots of unnecessary assumptions, more so than postulating a singular entity like God.

Second of all, this explanation is not verifiable. We have no indication of the multiverse anywhere; at least for God, there are miracles with historical evidence.

Third of all, the multiverse still calls for an explanation. Why does the multiverse consist of every possible world rather than the same world copied over and over? For whatever is creating the multiverse to exist, it would require fine-tuning to create the results we have described, unless you were to suggest that the multiverse-generator were necessary, in which it is essentially analogous to God.

This represents a total disrespect for statistics. The chances of a single person winning the lottery are very slim, yes. But the chance of some random person winning the lottery, which is what this objection is raising as "highly improbable," is in fact a 1:1 chance. It is guaranteed that some random person will win the lottery, because a feature of the lottery is that somebody will always win. But to point at a specific person and say, "That person will win the lottery," is highly improbable.

Similarly, there is a 1:1 chance of pulling a random set of cards out of a deck of cards. What is highly improbable is pulling a random set of cards out and expecting a specific set.