Is the existence of God necessary, or more precisely, is there a need for the existence of a necessary being? Theists have presented numerous philosophical and scientific arguments in favor of a positive response to this question. However, atheists employ various evidence and techniques to challenge or rebut these arguments. In a series of posts, I will aim to assess prevalent arguments and the most frequently encountered counterarguments against them. If we discover that a necessary being, which we will treat as synonymous with God, is indispensable to avoid logical inconsistencies when explaining the origin of the universe, we then conclude that this being must be logically necessary. In other words, if there is solid logical reasoning supporting the necessity of a being like God, we assert that God exists. The answer to this question alone will significantly shape our perspective of not only history but all aspects of reality.
Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)
Modern scientific advancements have provided theists with additional arguments supporting the existence of God. One frequently cited argument is the Fine-Tuning Argument, also known as the Teleological Argument. When the laws of nature are formulated as mathematical equations, certain constants become apparent. This argument centers on the idea that the conditions necessary for life in the universe can only exist within an extraordinarily narrow range of certain physical fundamental constants. If any of these numerous constants were slightly off, the universe would be unsuitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life itself. The intricate fine-tuning of these constants suggests the possibility of an intelligent designer ensuring the conditions necessary for life to occur.
There are several examples of these finely tuned fundamental constants. Here are a few I found most interesting:
The Critical Density of the Universe: In the Book, “The Language of God”, Francis Collins, the former Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, explains that if the critical density constant was off by 1:1015, the universe would either collapse or expand too rapidly for stars to form1. To illustrate the remarkable precision involved, envision having a library with 10 trillion books. Now, picture one specific sentence highlighted within one of those books. Task someone with finding that particular sentence while blindfolded. The challenge echoes the intricacy of achieving this level of precision.
Nuclear Force: If the strong nuclear force were to increase by just 2% in magnitude, hydrogen would deviate from its usual fusion process into helium, leading to the formation of stable diprotons. This alteration would result in the absence of stars2. Life would not have been permitted.
The Perceived Weakness of Gravitational Force: Despite its apparent strength, gravity, when compared to other natural forces, is actually extremely weak. According to astrophysicist Martin Rees, gravity is 1036 times weaker than competing forces within atoms. As a 2009 article in New Scientist magazine put it, “The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.”3 Despite the advances in modern science, this anomaly persists in great mystery.
The Cosmological Constant: this constant is one of the greatest and most finely tuned discoveries to this day. While the critical density is finely tuned to 1:1015, the cosmological constant is finely tuned to 1:10120, meaning that if the cosmological constant is off by just one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, the universe would expand too quickly (or not quick enough) but form stars and allow life to exist4.
These four examples represent just a handful of the numerous instances illustrating the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe. No doubt this evidence is persuasive and strongly indicates the involvement of a creator in designing the universe. When analyzing the alignment of all the finely tuned constants, the probability of such an occurrence becomes extremely small—a number so infinitesimally small that it defies comprehension. Nonetheless, various alternative explanations (other than a creator) are proposed to account for the apparent fine-tuning of our universe.
Philosophers and scientist critics alike have advocated for naturalistic explanations of these apparent finely tuned constants, such as the top-down cosmology theory, carbon chauvinism, and even alien design5. However, the most notable is the multiverse theory. According to this theory, there are countless other universes alongside our own, each characterized by its own distinct laws and constants governing physics. Proponents of this theory posit that in the vast array of these diverse universes, every conceivable distribution of values for cosmological constants has been explored and it so happens we find ourselves in the particular universe where these constants are “finely tuned” to permit the development of life.
This theory may indeed offer a plausible explanation for the apparent fine-tuning observed in the universe. However, it relies on numerous assumptions. Firstly, the idea of a multiverse remains theoretical. Moreover, there is no assurance that an infinite number of universes if they exist would randomly configure all these parameters or constants in a manner that encompasses every conceivable possibility. Most importantly, as Michael Jones of InspiringPhilosophy points out, is that suggesting there is an infinite number of universes just to explain our own is contrary to Occam’s Razor—the scientific principle suggesting that among competing hypotheses or explanations, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is often the most preferable6,7. Hence, one can argue for an infinite number of universes, each with unique properties and constants, which undergo a randomizing process that enables every conceivable possibility of constants. Alternatively, one could argue for an intelligent designer who finely tuned these constants to foster life. It’s evident that the latter makes fewer assumptions. Richard Granville Swinburne, the Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, states “… it is the height of irrationality to postulate an infinite number of universes never causally connected, merely to avoid the hypothesis of theism. Given that simplicity makes for prior probability, and a theory is simpler the fewer entities it postulates it is far simpler to postulate one God then an infinite number of universes, each differing from each other in accord with a regular formula, uncaused by anything else.”8
Conclusion
Swinburne’s statement encapsulates a crucial perspective on this argument. On one hand, one could consider the possibility of an infinite number of universes, each randomly configured with constants, and we happen to inhabit the one conducive to life. Recognizing this is an astronomically small probability, it then becomes more plausible that intelligence played a role in establishing specific constant values for life to emerge. The odds, our intuitive reasoning, and the principle of Occam’s Razor all converge towards the conclusion that an intelligent designer.
Revisiting the cosmological constant, one could posit the existence of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion universes and we just happen to be in the exceedingly rare one where conditions are perfect, or conceit to an intelligent designer. As Jones states, while the fine-tuning argument doesn’t definitively ‘prove’ the existence of an intelligent designer, it compellingly suggests that the logical likelihood of God’s existence greatly outweighs the notion that everything occurred by an exceedingly slim random chance6. When considered alongside other arguments that establish the logical necessity of God, the cumulative evidence the teleological argument offers becomes extremely effective.
Notes and Sources
[1] Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Free Press, 2007.
[2] Sloan, David. “Fine-Tuning.” Philosophy of Cosmology, University of Oxford, http://philosophy-of-cosmology.ox.ac.uk/fine-tuning.html.
[3] Rees, Martin. “Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?” New Scientist, 10 June 2009, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227123-000-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-fine-tuned/.
[4] Barrow, John D., and Douglas J. Shaw. “The Value of the Cosmological Constant.” General
Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 43, no. 10, 2011, pp. 2555–60.
[5] “Fine-tuned universe.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#cite_note-20.
[6] Jones, Michael. “The Teleological Argument (What it really says).” YouTube, 2 September 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg.
[7] Duignan, Brian, and Peter van Inwagen. “Occam’s razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts.” Britannica, 2 January 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor.
[8] Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Clarendon Press, 2004, pp. 185