“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible.” If I had said the above quote or if a Christian apologist made this statement it would not be surprising. But this quote is from Noble Prize winner and physicist William Daniel Phillips. He’s not alone regarding fine-tuning.

One of the world’s leading cosmologists, Dr George Ellis, has stated: “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this complexity possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

The late President of The Queen’s College, Cambridge, and Fellow of the Royal Society, theoretical physicists John Polkinghorne said, “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”

Here are some more relevant quotes regarding fine-tuning:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.” — Fred Hoyle, astronomer.

“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming.” — Paul C. Davies, physicist.

“It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” — Robert Jastrow, astronomer and physicist.

“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” — Edward Robert Harrison, astronomer and cosmologist.

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.” — Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician.

“It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine tuning of the universe.” — Henry F. Schaefer, III, computational and theoretical chemist.

“The remarkable fact is the value of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” — Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist and cosmologist.

“Wherever physicists look they see examples of fine-tuning.” — Martin Rees, cosmologist and astrophysicist.

“If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse!” — Bernard Carr, mathematics and astronomer.

Bernard Carr and Martin Rees have noted “even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained [in terms of some deeper theory], it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life.” Carr and Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World,” Nature 278, (1979): 612.

I apologize for the number of quotes but I wanted to drive home the fact that fine-tuning is widely accepted by leading and well respected scientists (theists and non-theists) in the fields of physics, cosmology astronomy and astrophysics That said, I have three main sections to follow: 1. A syllogism. 2. Meaning and evidence. 3. Addressing objections.

A Syllogism:

(Taken from Dr. Robin Collins paper, THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God – much of the information that follows is drawn from and/or quoted from Collins: https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/collins.htm)

Premise 1. The existence of fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

Premise 2. The existence of fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

Conclusion: From premises (1) and (2) and the prime principle of confirmation, it follows that the fine-tuning data provides strong evidence to favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

Single-universe means our universe is the only universe as opposed to the multiverse. The prime principle of confirmation “is a general principle of reasoning which tells us when some observation counts as evidence in favor of one hypothesis over another.” (Collins). So, for example, if I were hiking and along the path I found twigs on the ground forming the words, “Welcome, enjoy your hike” I have two possible hypothesis: Either the twigs naturally fell and formed a pattern that matches the phrase, or someone used twigs to provide a message for fellow hikers. My observation counts as evidence allowing me to dismiss the first hypothesis in favor of the second. This is inference to the best explanation. One could argue that twigs do fall, and we has humans tend to find patterns when there are none. However, using the principle of confirmation, we would most likely conclude that an intelligence left us a message.

Our syllogism, therefore is saying under naturalistic atheism there is no reason for the universe to be finely tuned for its existence, but under theism there is reason for fine-tuning and is exactly what we would expect given the existence of God. Therefore, the best explanation for fine-tuning is that God exists. In order for the syllogism to fail either or both of the premises must be proven false. If this cannot be proven then we must logically accept the conclusion.

Meaning and Evidence:

When we say the universe is fine-tuned we mean that there are a number of cosmological conditions that exist which make the universe possible. Without these conditions there would not only be no life – there would be no universe at all. While the so-called “Goldilocks Zone” are examples of some aspects of fine-tuning, the meaning takes on a far larger scope. In other words, if conditions were not just the way they are there would be no life, no planets, no stars, no laws of physics, no gravity, no energy, no molecules, no particles – nothing in our universe would exist. There would be no universe. No universe means no life.

Examples of Fine-tuning:

If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10 to the 60th power, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. (See Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 90-91). To illustrate this number, John Jefferson Davis notes that 1 part in 10 to the 60th power is like firing a bullet at a one-inch target and hitting it from one end of the universe to the other (See Davis, “The Design Argument, Cosmic “Fine-tuning and the Anthropic Principle.” The International Journal of Philosophy of Religion, p. 140)

The strong nuclear force, which binds protons and neutrons together, had been stronger or weaker by 5%, life would not exist and it would be impossible for life to exist (See John Leslie, Universes. New York: Routledge,1989, pp. 4, 35; and John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. p. 322.)

If gravity (the weak force) had been any stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, according to Brandon Carter, then life-sustaining stars including our sun could not exist (See Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984, p. 242).

The strong nuclear force constant is fine-tuned to 1 part in 200 (See Csoto, Oberhummer, and Schlattl, “Fine-Tuning the Basic Forces of Nature Through the Triple-Alpha Process in Red Giant Stars,” p. 560).

Dr. Stephen Meyer notes that “the ratio of the weak nuclear force constant to the strong nuclear force constant had to have been set with a precision of 1 part in 10,000. If the weak force had been weaker or stronger by that small fusion, stars powered by hydrogen fusion, required for life, would not have existed.” (Meyer, Return Of The God Hypothesis, p. 222. Also see Martin Rees, “Large Numbers and Ratios in Astrophysics and Cosmology” and Lewis and Barnes, A Fortunate Universe, p. 78).

Collins notes, “If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible.” (Collins, also see Leslie, 1988, pp. 39-40).

If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible (Leslie, “How to Draw Conclusions From a Fine-Tuned Cosmos.” In Robert Russell, et. al., eds., Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Press 1988 p. 299).

For those who would like a more comprehensive list of examples you can read Dr. Jay W. Richards “List of Fine-Tuning Parameters” online at: https://www.discovery.org/…/Fine-Tuning-Parameters-Jay… also the short 18 min video by Meyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7GBZm087Y

Dr. Roger Penrose (mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics who developed the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020 for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity) places the odds of our solar system’s formation by random collisions of particles to be about 1 in 10 to the 10th power to the 60th power. An inconceivable number. And yet smaller than the odds of our universes low entropy conditions obtain by chance alone – which Penrose calculates to be 1 in 10 to the 10th power to the 123rd power (Penros, The Road to Reality, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005, pp. 762-765.

These and other examples of fine-tuning is why Paul Davies wrote, “The really amazing thing is not that life on earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘contrasts’ were off even slightly.”(Davies, “The Anthropic Principle,” May 18, 1987, Episode 17, Season 23, Horizon series, BBC). And, as I already noted, why Stephen Hawking wrote in his book, A Brief History of Time, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” (Hawkin, p. 26).

Objections:

Collins lists several possible objections to fine-tuning which I will briefly summarize. For more see the first link in OP and/or Collins, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Eds Craig and Moreland, Wiley and Sons, Sussex, 2012, pp. 203-281.

More Fundamental Law Objection

This objection argues that as far as we know there could be a more fundamental law of physics of which has yet to be discovered. A science-of-the-gaps type of argument. This is, of course, completely speculative. And worse, only moves the improbability of fine-tuning up one level to a postulated physical law itself. As Collins notes, “Under this hypothesis, what is improbable is that all the conceivable fundamental physical laws there could be, the universe just happens to have the one that constrains the parameters of physics in a life-permitting way.” Thus it would be like saying the twigs forming the message “Welcome, enjoy you hike” fell in such a pattern due to some more unknown fundamental law of physics. This would be considered by most an absurd argument.

Other Forms of Life Objection

Some have suggested that if fine-tuning were different than other forms of life might have arisen. But this simply is not practical science and is more akin to science-fiction. For example, the strong Nuclear force of atoms must be as it is or there would be no atoms and no physical life and all that would exist would be hydrogen. Collins notes that, “Contrary to what one might see on Star Trek, an intelligent life form cannot be composed merely of hydrogen gas: there is simply not enough stable complexity. So, in general the fine-tuning argument merely presupposes that intelligent life requires some degree of stable, reproducible organized complexity. This is certainly a very reasonable assumption.”

Anthropic Principle Objection

Some argue that fine-tuning is not really improbable under atheism and that it exists as a brute fact. That is, we are here because of fine-tuning and if we were not here we would not know it so fine-tuning just is. This is saying that fine-tuning exists and is because that’s the way it is. This, of course, would not be an argument if the converse were true and theists said “God exists because that’s the way it is.” As a rebuttal to this brute fact type of argument, Dr. John Leslie provides the following illustration. Suppose you were in front of a firing-squad of 50 sharp shooters and when they all fired – none of them hit you. You would not say, “if they had not missed me I wouldn’t be here to consider the fact so that’s the way it is.” Instead, you would ask why did they miss me, and given the odds would correctly assume that they did so on purpose – which is the much stronger hypothesis.

The “Who Designed God?” Objection

This objection is popular in some circles but fails when one considers the nature of such a being as God. We ultimately face, when it comes to physical beings, an infinite regress (who created God, and who created that God, and who created that God, etc) which does not account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Or, as Thomas Aquinas noted, we realize there is an uncaused Cause – That First Cause that is uncaused. The Unmoved Mover. And who is, as Leibniz points, necessary and cannot not exist. Who is, as Anselm presents, that Maximally Great Being of Whom there is none greater. Nevertheless, as Collins states, “the atheist objection only works against a version of the design argument that claims that all organized complexity needs an explanation, and that God is the best explanation of the organized complexity found in the world. The version of the argument I presented against the atheistic single-universe hypothesis, however, only required that the fine-tuning be more probable under theism than under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. But this requirement is still met even if God exhibits tremendous internal complexity, far exceeding that of the universe. Thus, even if we were to grant the atheist assumption that the designer of an artifact must be as complex as the artifact, the fine-tuning would still give us strong reasons to prefer theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.” Collins illustrated this point earlier in his paper suggesting that if we found on Mars a domed structured biosphere and that biosphere was set at 70 degrees with 50% humidity, oxygen recycling system, an energy gathering system and a whole system of food production – we would not concluded it was by pure chance or a brute fact. Instead, such a structure would offer evidence of intelligent life once lived on or visited Mars, “even though this alien life would most likely have to be much more complex than the ‘biosphere’ itself.” Collins continues, “The final response theists can give to this objection is to show that a supermind such as God would not require a high degree of unexplained organized complexity to create the universe” although such explanations can be offered as Collins himself presents elsewhere.

The Many-Universes Hypothesis Objection

This is also known as the multiverse, which has become a staple in modern-day science-fiction. It proclaims that outside of our universe there are an infinite number of other universes where everything can and does happen. Thus our universe just happens to be one universe where it exists due to fine-tuning. But again, this just moves the problem up a level. We would still need an explanation for what created the multiverse which itself would need to be fine-tuned. Since there is no evidence for the multiverse (except for some interesting mathematics some have presented) it is itself a leap of faith. Collins responds to this objection in greater detail in his paper referenced at the beginning of my OP.

Conclusion

Philosopher and Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig, writes of this teleological argument for cosmic fine-tuning that:

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

(See Craig, “The Existence of God (2)” Reasonable Faith, Crossway, 2008 edition, pp. 157-204 for greater detail).

Since all of the possible objections to fine-tuning can be easily overcome, and since the two premises of Dr. Collins syllogism stand as does the prime principle of confirmation – the conclusion must follow that under theism fine-tuning can be accounted for and therefore offers strong empirical and metaphysical evidence for the existence of God.

As physicist and 1997 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Dr. William Daniel Phillips stated, “I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.” Therefore, we are on solid scientific ground in offering the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God.