Philosopher Robin Collins gives the illustration of astronauts discovering an enclosed biosphere on the planet Mars. As they approach the control panel, they discover several dials — each with a range of settings — that determine the environment inside the biosphere. The various dials control oxygen, temperature, humidity, air replenishment, food production, and waste disposal among other things. While each of the dials has a possibility of ranges, they are all set precisely where they must be for life to survive.

Now, when the astronauts encountered the biosphere, what do you suppose they concluded? That the biosphere appeared by chance? That all the different dials landed on the correct numbers by means of natural, random processes? Or that intelligent life caused it?

In many ways, our universe is much like that biosphere in that several dials are precisely where they must be for life to exist. Scientists refer to this phenomenon as the “fine-tuning” of the universe. The universe is fine-tuned in the sense that within the realm of physics, we find dozens of seemingly unrelated and arbitrary laws and constants that have one thing in common — they could all be radically different than what they are. Yet, they are precisely what they must be in order for life to exist. 

Allow me to share a few examples.

EXAMPLES OF FINE-TUNING

Consider the gravitational force. This constant is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^40. That’s a 1 with 40 zeros behind it. Thus, if we altered gravity by 1 part in 10^40, life, as we know it, would cease to exist. To demonstrate how unlikely it is that the universe has this precise gravitational force, consider an illustration from astrophysicist Hugh Ross. He asks us to imagine that we had the ability to cover a billion North Americas in dimes and create piles reaching all the way to the moon. Then he says to randomly color one of the dimes red. Next, blindfold a person and have them go out to the billions of piles of dimes and have them select the red dime on the first try. They have the same statistical odds of getting the right dime as we do of having life permitting gravity.

Additionally, the atomic weak force, which operates inside the nucleus of an atom, is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^100. If weakened or strengthened by the smallest amount, stars couldn’t release the elements necessary for the universe to support life. 

Even more precise is the cosmological constant — a constant which impacts the universal expansion rate. If we altered this constant by 1 part in 10^120, the universe would be life prohibiting. If we decreased it by the smallest margin, the universe would have collapsed back on itself. And if we increased it by the same amount, galaxies and stars could never have formed. Atheist Lawrence Krauss suggests that the cosmological constant is the “most extreme fine-tuning problem in physics.”¹

And then there’s the original phase-space volume — which deals with the initial entropy condition of the universe — that Oxford physicist Roger Penrose states must be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^10^123. It’s not even possible to write down that number in full. 

These numbers are absolutely staggering. And physicists have discovered dozens of these constants indicating that the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge to support life. So much so that nobody disputes the fine-tuning. Everyone agrees on that front. People disagree, however, on the best explanation for the fine-tuning. 

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Historically, Christians have interpreted the fine-tuning of the universe to be evidence of a designer. Skeptics, on the other hand, have suggested the cause is either due to physical necessity or chance. With these competing explanations in mind, we can formulate what’s traditionally known as the teleological argument:

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

This is a logically airtight argument. That is, if premise (1) and (2) are true, then the conclusion (3) necessarily follows as true. 

Premise (1) is hardly controversial as it lists the three different possibilities for fine-tuning. Since we have no other plausible explanations, we are justified in accepting premise (1).

The soundness of the teleological argument, therefore, hinges on whether we can demonstrate the truthfulness of premise (2). If we can demonstrate that the fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance, then we can conclude that design is the best explanation for fine-tuning. Let’s consider the competing explanations in turn.

FINE-TUNING BY PHYSICAL NECESSITY?

Can fine-tuning realistically be the result of physical necessity? In other words, did the universe have to come into existence with the precise constants that it has? Did gravity have to be precisely what it is? Or the expansion rate? Or the electromagnet force? Given atheism (lack of a designer), is it really impossible that the universe could have been otherwise?

I see no reason to think this to be the case. If the universe isn’t the result of a cosmic designer but rather the result of blind, random processes, why couldn’t it have expanded a little slower or a little faster? Why couldn’t the speed of light be less than 186,000 miles per second? The person who maintains that it the universe must be life-supporting has no proof for this assertion.

According to physicist Paul Davies, “There is nothing in present ideas about “laws of initial conditions” remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . . It seems, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.“²

Not only could it have been otherwise, given atheism, it’s far more likely that the universe would have been otherwise, especially when you consider the full range of possibilities for the physical constants. Those who maintain that all the different constants must land in the narrow life-permitting range do so without evidence.

FINE-TUNING BY CHANCE?

What about chance? Did the universe just get lucky? Those who maintain this position typically do so by adopting the Many Worlds Hypothesis — more popularly known as the Multiverse Theory. 

The Many Worlds Hypothesis suggests that a preexisting expanding superspace has produced a bunch of smaller universes including ours. Picture soap bubbles in an infinite ocean filled with dish detergent. Each bubble represents a new universe. What this theory seeks to accomplish is to increase the likelihood of getting a fine-tuned universe. After all, if the multiverse generator has produced a near infinite number of universes, we increase our odds of one of them being fine-tuned for life.

In fact, those who hold this position will often use the analogy of winning the lottery. They’ll say something to the effect that, “yes, it’s improbable to win the lottery. But someone’s got to win. And our universe just happens to have the winning ticket.” Consider these words from atheist Jerry Coyne:

In physics, we are starting to see how the universe could arise from nothing, and that our universe might be only one of many universes that differ in their physical laws. Far from making us the special objects of God’s attention, such a cosmology sees us simply as holders of a winning lottery ticket – the inhabitants of the universe that had the right physical laws to allow evolution.³

But this is a false analogy. It’s false because in a real lottery, everyone has the same odds of winning. But on the multiverse, you have trillions upon trillions of white ping pong balls representing life-prohibiting universes, and only one red ping-pong ball representing a life-permitting universe. The probability of getting a white ball is incredibly high while getting the red ping pong ball is infinitesimally small. If the red ball was selected, no one would say “Well, we shouldn’t be surprised. One of the balls had to be selected.” No. We’d be stunned that a white one wasn’t selected.

PROBLEMS WITH THE MULTIVERSE

Moreover, the multiverse hypothesis has additional problems. First, and most significantly, there’s no evidence to suggest that it exists. No one has ever observed it, nor can they. If anything, people who resort to this position implicitly acknowledge the strength of the design argument by suggesting such a far-reaching theory. Imagine if Christians stated that their religious beliefs depended on the multiverse. They’d be laughed out of town.

Second, if the multiverse generator existed, it would require fine-tuning itself. In other words, this theory merely kicks the can down the road. If our universe is fine-tuned, it follows that the generator for our universe must be even more fine-tuned to create trillions of different universes, and thus the skeptic still faces the same dilemma. 

Third, despite its best efforts to get around a cosmic designer, the multiverse theory can’t get around a definite beginning. The famous Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theorem states that any universe which has on average been in a state of expansion over its history cannot be eternal but must have a definite beginning. This theory applies to the inflating multiverse generator as well. Vilenkin remarks, “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”⁴

And fourth, the multiverse generator would have to create an infinite number of universes to have any kind of statistical odds of getting one fine-tuned for life. Thus, the theory is so broad that it not only can explain a fine-tuned universe, it can explain literally anything. The multiverse generator could have universes with purple unicorns, talking trees, and neon green lady bugs ruling over people with six noses. And a theory that can explain away everything, doesn’t end up explaining anything at all.

In the end, it seems that the multiverse theory is a desperate attempt to avoid the implications of design.

FINE-TUNING BY DESIGN

Since fine-tuning is not the result of physical necessity or chance, it follows, therefore, that fine-tuning is due to design. Astronomer and self-declared atheist Fred Hoyle, readily admits, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”⁵

This conclusion is entirely consistent with the Christian worldview which states that God created the universe (Gen. 1:1) and established its governing laws (Jer. 33:25). 

Design is, after all, the most intuitive explanation for our universe. Consider the biosphere on Mars once more. Does anyone really believe that was the result of random, natural processes and blind chance? Of course not. We all intuitively recognize design when we see it, which is why physicist Paul Davies felt led to state, “The impression of design is overwhelming.”⁶ And when you consider all the different fine-tuned constants in nature, it’s hard to disagree.

1. Lawrence Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal 501 (July 10, 1998): 461.
2. Paul Davies, The Mind of God, 169.
3. Jerry Coyne, Faith vs. Fact, 16.
4. Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.
5. Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science (November 1981): 12.
6. Paul Davies, Superforce, 243