Offering commentary on current developments and controversies in politics, religion, philosophy, science, education and anything else which attracts our interest.
Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer have a four-part series of short columns at Evolution News in which they lay out their reasons for thinking that the Fine-Tuning of the cosmos is the strongest argument for the existence of God. They base their argument on the seemingly arbitrary nature of the 25 constants that govern everything from the gravitional pull of the sun to the formation of atoms. They write:
For example, we can quantify the strength of the attraction caused by gravity or the strength of the repulsion caused by electromagnetism. These strengths, together with other quantities built into the laws of nature, are expressed by 25 or so fixed numbers called the fundamental constants of nature.
For example, physicists have made many measurements and determined that the electromagnetic force between any two electrons is about 1042 times stronger than the gravitational force between them; or, that every electron has a mass of 9.109×10−31 kg.
What determines these fixed values? No one knows. That’s why they’re called fundamental constants. Physicists can’t derive them from anything else — they simply measure them.
Would it matter if the values of the constants were different? That’s where fine-tuning comes in.
Scientists have discovered that for many of these constants, if they were changed even a small amount (sometimes a few percent bigger or smaller), the complex universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. In other words, without the constants being precisely fine-tuned, there would only be fundamental particles — they wouldn’t come together to form atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, or life.
In the first installment Feder and Zimmer summarize three ways the fine-tuning argument has been formulated:
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.
Over the next couple of days we'll look at what Feder and Zimmer have to say about each of these versions of the fine-tuning argument. Meanwhile, you can get an idea of what they mean by William Lane Craig's elimination version by watching this short video:
