Three Ways to Formulate the Fine-Tuning Argument

Three Ways to Formulate the Fine-Tuning Argument: An Introduction

Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer

The fine-tuning argument is, in our view, the best modern-day design argument. Before discussing its three distinct formulations, we’ll provide a basic explanation of the constants of nature and what it means that they’re fine-tuned.

The difference between the three formulations is how you get from the problem presented by fine-tuning, something largely accepted by leading physicists, to the conclusion that their values were set by an intelligent cause. The first approach to fine-tuning (by William Lane Craig) argues by elimination: after excluding all poor explanations for fine-tuning, the only reasonable explanation that remains is an intelligent cause. The second approach to fine-tuning (by Robin Collins, Luke Barnes, and others) argues from probabilities: it’s far more probable that the fine-tuned values of the constants were set by an intelligent cause than by a naturalistic theory. The third approach to fine-tuning (by Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer) argues that fine-tuning isn’t the problem but is the clue to solving the great mystery of the constants — and this solution points directly to an intelligent cause.

One note about the way we’ll be presenting the fine-tuning argument. Its proponents often say that the constants are fine-tuned for (intelligent) life. While it is true that without atoms, molecules, planets, stars, and galaxies, it would be impossible for life to exist, that doesn’t mean that they’re specifically fine-tuned for life. It’s more accurate to say that modern physics has discovered that our universe is fine-tuned for a complex, ordered, and structured universe of which life is but one part. For that reason, we’ll present all three formulations with the minimalistic supposition that the constants are fine-tuned for a complex universe.

Our next three articles will consider these three approaches in more depth.

Examining the Fine-Tuning Argument by Elimination

Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer

This article is the second in a four-part series about the three distinct ways to formulate the argument for an intelligent cause based on the fine-tuning of the constants of nature. Look here for the first part of the series.

In his article “Has the Multiverse Replaced God?” William Lane Craig presents the fine-tuning argument using the process of elimination. Like every argument by elimination, Craig’s formulation begins by enumerating all possible explanations for the problem of fine-tuning. He writes:

Accordingly, a teleological argument appealing to cosmic fine-tuning might be formulated as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
   
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
   
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
   

...As physical necessity is not a very good theory to begin with (it doesn’t seem plausible that physicists will be able to derive the precise values from a deeper theory) and, more importantly, it doesn’t explain why the constants are fine-tuned (this just remains an immense coincidence), it’s reasonable to discard physical necessity as an explanation of fine-tuning.

...Chance only becomes plausible if there are a tremendous number of alternate universes with different values of the constants — a multiverse. 

However, the multiverse fails to be a good solution for numerous reasons. These include: the Boltzmann brain problem, the measure problem, and the fact that positing an untestable speculative theory of an infinite number of observable universes is a clear deviation from the tried-and-true scientific method...

With the elimination of two of the three possible explanations of fine-tuning, we are left with the only remaining explanation: the values of the constants are the result of intentional design by an intelligent agent.

Craig’s argument by elimination has the distinct advantage of being rather simple to present and understand. However, it is not without its drawbacks...

Considering the Fine-Tuning Argument from Probabilities

Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer

This article is the third in a four-part series about the three distinct ways to formulate the argument for an intelligent cause based on the fine-tuning of the constants of nature. Look here for the first and second parts of the series.

Collins, in his article “God, Design, and Fine-Tuning,” begins by presenting the prime principle of confirmation “that whenever we are considering two competing hypotheses, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability (or is the least improbable).”

The biggest advantage of this formulation is its rigor. Using Bayesian analysis, you can legitimately compare the likelihood of the fine-tuned constants given naturalism with their likelihood given theism. Of course, as with any form of analysis, your results are only as good as the initial inputs. And therein lies the problem.

First, can we really find the probability of getting the values of the constants by chance...

...A second problem with this formulation is, do we really know the probability that God would want to create a complex universe with intelligent, conscious, moral agents?...

...Finally, the probabilistic formulation of the fine-tuning argument is surprisingly subject to the problem of evil....

Fine-Tuning Is the Solution to the Mystery of the Constants

Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer

This article is the fourth and final in a four-part series about the three distinct ways to formulate the argument for an intelligent cause based on the fine-tuning of the constants of nature. Look here for the first, second, and third parts of the series.

Feynman’s great mystery of the constants is: How could 25 seemingly arbitrary numbers truly be fundamental? And if they aren’t fundamental, how could physicists possibly find a deeper theory that would explain the values of the constants?

Notice that the mystery of the constants has absolutely nothing to do with fine-tuning, but is rather an intrinsic mystery that lies at the heart of physicists’ dream of discovering the most fundamental reality of the universe.

Given this conceptual backdrop, we can see how the discovery of fine-tuning is scientific knowledge — it provides a significant clue about the constants. We now know that the constants aren’t truly arbitrary but are fine-tuned in order to bring about a complex, ordered, and structured universe.