In this essay, I will criticize the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God.
It is
based on the assumption that the universe has a narrow range of values that allow for life and
that any deviation from this range will result in a universe unfavorable for life. This
assumption can be put forward as the first premise of the fine-tuning argument as follows:
There is a fine-tuning in the universe. And the rest of the argument goes like this: the fine-
tuning in the universe needs an explanation, and since there is no satisfactory nontheistic
explanation compared to the theistic explanation, fine-tuning is evidence in favor of theism
(Doko, 2019). In the rest of the essay, I will focus on the first premise of the argument, and
try to show that we do not yet know whether there is fine-tuning in the universe.
In the introductory paragraph of the essay, I mentioned that according to the fine-
tuning argument, there is a very narrow range of physical values that would allow life to
emerge in the universe. According to some scientists and philosophers, this range of values is
so low that it is practically improbable. Therefore, according to them, the emergence of life in
the universe – the realization of something that would not have been probable - shows that
there is fine-tuning in the universe. Although it is not possible to list them all, I would like to
give some examples of calculations used by proponents of the fine-tuning argument that I
think might be convincing. I will use Doko’s examples for that.
Doko (2019) says that the fundamental laws of the universe, the physical constants,
and the initial conditions of the universe are fine-tuned for the emergence of life. He gives
some examples. A few of them are rough as follows. On fundamental laws: For example, he
says that if gravity were a repulsive or short-range force, such as the strong nuclear force,
stars would not form and therefore complex elements would not form and life would not be
possible. Here is another example of fundamental physical constants: Gravity is many times
weaker than the strong nuclear force and is therefore extremely weak compared to our other
three fundamental forces. He says that if the strength of gravity were increased by 10^-37
compared to the strength of the strong nuclear force, stars with lifetimes of billions of years,
like our sun, would not exist, making the emergence of life extremely unlikely. The last
example of the fine-tuning of the universe's initial conditions comes from Penrose's
calculations: Roger Penrose showed that the universe has 10^(10^123) different possible
initial states. Doko also says that since only one of them resembles our universe, the
probability of our universe being among them is one in 10^(10^123).
I will explain why these examples, of which I have shared a few, do not provide a
sufficient reason to accept that there is a fine-tuning of the universe. The main reason is that I
think it is too early to make a decision on this issue because there are so many unknowns. But
before I do that, I want to draw attention to something important. You can find many articles
- usually, the example of multiple universes is given - that state why there is a non-theistic
explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. But I think there is a point that needs to be
corrected here. I think many non-theistic explanations actually dispute the first premise of the
argument. That is, there is no fine-tuning of the universe. Let me explain it like this: At the
end of the previous paragraph, I gave the example of Doko using Penrose's calculation of the
initial conditions of the universe to show how many possibilities there are in the universe and
how unlikely it is that we live in a universe that could harbor life. Penrose proposed some
ideas to address the fine-tuning problem, including the idea of cosmic censorship, which
suggests that the singularities that appear in general relativity are always hidden behind event
horizons, and the idea of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), which suggests that the
universe goes through a series of cycles. According to CCC, the laws of physics are always
and everywhere the same within each cycle, but the scales of physical phenomena can vary
from one cycle to the next. Moreover, the universe has no beginning or end and the cycles go
on forever. Now, before we go on talking about it, I need to remind you of this: The fine-
tuning argument says that the probability of there being life in the universe is really low
(almost one in infinity), and the fact that this probability has materialized means that the
universe has been fine-tuned to allow life. But if we accept Penrose's CCC model or a
multiverse model based on a physical theory such as cosmic inflation, infinite inflation, and
string theory, or derived from mathematical models based on quantum physics, we are
actually objecting to the fine-tuning of the universe. Penrose says in his speeches and
writings that there is fine-tuning in the universe and that he has provided an explanation for
this with the model of the universe he has put forward. But he is wrong on one point. I don't
think Penrose is explaining why there might be a fine-tuning in the universe, he is showing
that there seems to be a fine-tuning, but in fact, there is not. What made us think that there
was fine-tuning in the universe was that an impossible event had happened. But in an infinite
loop with no beginning and no end, such a situation does not exist. If every possible universe
exists, it's absurd to look at one universe and say that the possibility of life is almost
impossible because everything possible already exists. Various objections can be raised here,
such as, why are we living in this universe? But the realization of a near-impossible event and
the fact that we are in a particular one of every event that has happened are two different
things. We can make an analogy like this: In one case we draw a single piece of paper from a
box with many papers, and in the other case we draw all the papers in turn. Penrose considers
the universe in the second case and according to that, no improbable event has occurred for
life to exist in the universe because there are already all possible universes. Of course, one
can still question why these universes came into existence, and whether there is a god, but
this is no longer a fine-tuning argument.
I will now explain why I am not sure that the examples given about the fine-tuning of
the universe are correct. When we look at what we have about the formation of the universe,
the best explanation we have according to current observations is the Big Bang Theory. It can
explain, among other things, the observed expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave
background radiation, and the abundance of light elements in the universe and is supported
by many scientists. However, according to this theory, it is not clear what conditions or
events led to the formation of the singularity at the beginning of the universe and the
subsequent expansion of the universe. We don't know the first moment of the universe and
we don't have an agreed theory and modeling of it. I want to give an example before the talk
about the universe again: When a coin is tossed with a fair coin, the mathematical probability
of heads and tails is the same but this probability does not take into account the laws of
physics. When I flip a coin, if I knew the force I was applying to the coin, the center of mass
of the coin, the surface cross-sectional area of the coin, and the air resistance, I could make a
much more accurate prediction of heads or tails. I can even build a system that will come up
with heads or tails most of the time with the laws of physics. Also, I want to give an easier
example, let's say 10 people are running a 200-meter race. The probability of any one of them
winning the race is 1 in 10, right? However, if you know that one of them is Usain Bold
would you still say that every one of them has an equal chance to win the race? At first, we
looked at the outcomes and determined the sample space, and kept the probability of each of
them equal, but then we saw how our probability distribution could change when we consider
the physical world. Now back to the topic: How do we know whether physical constants can
actually take the values they are said to take when they indicate the narrow range within
which life can arise in the universe? We don't know of making changes in the laws or
constants of the universe whether or not violates any natural law. I don't think a physical
possibility calculation yet can be made because of the insufficient knowledge of the initial
condition of the universe.
I think I have made it clear that we cannot yet make a physical possibility estimate
about the fine-tuning topic because of our insufficient knowledge of the initial condition. It is
only logically possible for the universe to be fine-tuned because, with our current knowledge,
we can only logically estimate the range of values that the constants in the universe can take,
confident that we will not fall into a contradiction. After all, we have no empirical
observation or complete modeling. Now considering that, I would like to ask, Is it more likely
that we have a single universe and life emerges, or is it more likely that we have multiple
universes or CCC? If there is only one universe, are we more likely to find more evidence of
fine-tuning in future studies, or is it more likely that the physical constants in the universe
and the initial state of the universe actually have a much smaller range of values than
previously thought?
As a result, although it is logically possible that there is fine-tuning in the universe,
we don't know if it is physically possible because we don't know enough about the initial
conditions. Also In case, it is physically possible, we don't yet know how to make a
probability distribution. Further, it is still not possible to say whether the probability of fine-
tuning in the universe is higher than the probability of not having it. For these reasons, I think
it is too early to judge whether the fine-tuning argument is sound or unsound, so I don't see it
as a strong or convincing argument.
References
Doko, E. (2019). Criticism of the Non-Theistic Explanations of Fine-Tuning. Beytulhikme An
International Journal of Philosophy, 9 (2), 299-317.
https://beytulhikme.org/DergiTamDetay.aspx?ID=1490
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
Friederich, Simon, "Fine-Tuning", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/fine-tuning
