My Case Against the Fine-Tuning Argument
The fine-tuning argument for God is still popular in philosophical discussions about theism. As an atheist, I personally still think it’s the best philosophical argument for theism. The reason why I think the fine-tuning argument is the best argument for theism is that it relies on our understanding of how improbable the existence of a life-supporting universe is.
Although I still think the argument has its own flaws and problems that are worth discussing, let’s talk about them.
What is the Fine-Tuning Argument
Before we talk about the fine-tuning argument, I want to ask you something: have you ever thought about how improbable your life story is? And how lucky or unlucky you need to be to be able to experience it?
Well the fine tuning argument is kinda related to this existential question but in a much larger cosmic scale.
The fine tuning argument argues that the constants of this life sustaining universe has to be so precise and balanced in order for it to be life sustaining and small changes in those constants would result in a universe that cannot sustain life, or maybe no universe at all. And to explain this precisely balanced constants we need an entity to fine tune them, and this is where God comes in as the “fine tuner” of the constants of the universe.
You might be familiar with the claims about how sensitive the universe is to changes in its fundamental constants. For example, it is often argued that if certain constants were slightly different, the universe might not be able to form galaxies, stars, atoms, or other structures necessary for life to exist, or maybe the universe wouldn’t exist at all. But i’m not gonna talk about whether that claim is factually correct or not, because i’m not a physicist, and i don’t think that i have enough knowledge to evaluate them properly.
Get Ilhamptr’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
So, for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the claims are factually correct and that it is highly improbable for our universe to exist the way it does, with its particular set of constants. Even then, I still think there are still philosophical problems with this argument.
Expect the Unexpected
The first problem with the fine-tuning argument is that we already know why life exists in this universe: the fundamental constants happen to have values that allow life to exist. But here’s the interesting part: this is exactly what we should expect if there is no God.
In an atheistic universe, we would only be able to observe a universe where the conditions are compatible with our existence. If the constants of the universe did not allow life to exist, there would be no living beings around to observe or question those constants in the first place. But if you believe in a God who wants to show their existence, wouldn’t it be more reasonable for God to create life in a universe where the constants do not allow life to form in the first place, and yet somehow life still exists anyway?
And if you believe in an afterlife, isn’t that essentially what an afterlife is supposed to be? An afterlife is a state where some form of life or consciousness continues to exist despite the physical laws that govern our universe no longer applying in the same way. So if the existence of life despite apparently unsuitable conditions would be evidence of God, then a universe whose conditions naturally allow life to exist seems like a rather strange choice of evidence.
Let’s consider some alternatives, such as the idea that the universe is somehow eternal and that our Big Bang was not the only formation of a universe, or perhaps even the multiverse hypothesis. I think explanations like these are more expected when compared with the God hypothesis, because they provide a way for a life-permitting universe to exist without requiring us to assume that the constants were intentionally set by a God.
What Do We Expect From a Theistic Universe?
The second problem that i want to talk about is that, in an universe under theism i would argue that we would not necessarily expect the characteristics of our current universe. Instead, we might expect a much simpler and more obviously designed universe.
The fact that our planet is surrounded by countless uninhabitable planets, or that the vast majority part of this universe is not designed to sustain life at all, seems more expected in an atheistic universe rather than in a theistic one.
We could also consider the fact that it took billions of years for human being to come into existence. Once again, these things are more expected in an atheistic universe and can be explained without appealing to God. It seems to me that we are the ones trying to fit into this universe, rather than the universe being fine-tuned specifically for us.
Disclaimer
Of course, the problems with the fine-tuning argument do not entirely disprove the existence of God, and I still think that belief in God is not irrational or something that can be changed merely by pointing out the problems with this argument. For me personally, these problems are just a small part of a larger considerations that make me think that the God hypothesis is not necessarily better than the alternatives.
