In the same way that the Problem of Evil is the one argument against God’s existence that believers admit can sometimes give them cold sweats – especially in times of suffering – the argument for God’s existence from the incredibly Fine-Tuned nature of the universe is the one that gives many atheists pause.
What are Scientific Laws?
The various patterns that scientists observe in our universe are colloquially called “laws” because they seem to repeat everywhere, and can be said to govern all phenomena in this giant space-time soup we call the universe.
These “laws” have been worked out in great detail in the past 60+ years, to the point that models using them now accurately predict and describe the behavior both supra-maximal phenomena like stars and galaxies as well as sub-minimal matter like atoms, protons, quarks, etc.
The crazy odd thing about these laws is how exactly, exactly exact they need to be – and needed to have been since the beginning of time – for this complex universe to have emerged, and for the utter complexity that is simple life forms to be even possible, much less the unimaginably complex higher life forms like us – at least on this Blue Planet.
The improbability of a universe as complex and multi-faceted as ours is – and one with complex life – strongly suggests that it was designed for life. So the “Fine Tuning” argument goes.
Below are some of the fine-tuned values.
But before I list them, let me first list some baseline reference numbers to ground your sense of wonder as you examine the near-impossible “accidents” of the universe below. In ascending order…
- Number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy: 250,000,000,000 (a puny number)
- Number of stars in the whole universe: 1020 or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000
- Number of atoms on Planet Earth: 1049 or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
- Number of atoms in the whole universe: 1080 or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000
Now consider these figures compared to the margins of error for some key values of the universe’s forces and phenomena. These are the margins of error that would still allow a universe anything like ours. Any one of these numbers go off by more than one of these margins, and the universe would never have evolved has it has. Instead it would have quickly become a sterile, dark wasteland of free-floating protons, and maybe some helium.
- Ratio of Electrons to Protons: 1 in 1037 or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000
- Ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity: 1 in 1040 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000
- Expansion Rate of Universe: 1 in 1055 or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
- Mass Density of Universe: 1 in 1059 or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
- Energy Density of the Universe (the “Cosmological Constant”): 1 in 10120 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
These are only the most frequently cited fine-tuned parameters. There are upwards of 20 others, depending on who’s counting.
One Atom out of Place and…Poof!
To pick just one of these fine-tuned parameters and spell it out in English…
There are “only” 1046 atoms in the entire universe.
Had all the matter in the early, infant universe been slightly more or less massive than it was – to the tune of less than one in a sea of atoms as large as the entire mature universe – then the universe itself would’ve dissipated into a diffuse proton soup, or collapsed back on itself immediately. Certainly galaxy or star formation would never have occurred, main sequence stars like the Sun – with all the heavy elements they provide critical for life’s building blocks – the entire periodic table of elements itself – and finally life itself…all these things would never have existed.
Previously stubborn, atheistic scientists – like nobel-winning physicist Roger Penrose (Stephen Hawking’s research partner) – have stared at these improbabilities and been forced to accept that someone/something must have designed this universe.
The Universe is a setup job
And what’s even worse – all these improbabilities compound. That is – each improbable circumstance (gravitation, mass & energy density, etc) all conspire to create a universe that is exponentially more improbable than each individual category of improbability listed above.
Scientists Are Awakening to God
As reported in a 1997 survey from the premier Science journal, Nature – “about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey’s strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ‘in expectation of receiving an answer.’ “
What seemed like the death of faith at the end of the 19th century, with the advance of scientific explanations of the world, has reversed course into a revival of faith in practitioners of the hard sciences precisely because of the mounting evidence of supernatural intervention in the universe’s creation and sustaining such as the fine tuned nature of physical laws:
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.“
Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.“
Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.“
Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
Robert Jastrow (astronomer & self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
Many other scientists still persist in denying the implications of these discoveries, and are eagerly pursuing far-fetched theories of a multi-verse, or universe generator – none of which do anything to ameliorate the problem of fine-tuning. In fact these theories exacerbate it. But the animus behind these theories is more stubborn atheism and dedication to a purely material view of existence, more than it is sound scientific wonder.
Now there are still some earnest philosophical debates around the margins of this argument:
- Why so little detectable life in the universe if everything is supposedly fine-tuned for it?
- Why such spectacular “waste” of space in the universe to produce only one or a few planets (assuming we ever confirm that)?
I won’t get into answers to these objections now, aside from saying that they actually make the case even better for a theistic view of creation.
Leave a Reply