The Strongest Design Argument

 The Strongest Design Argument!

The watch makers was probably the most used and misused argument by the theists through the centuries. It was first proposed by philosopher William Paley and has been used even by the common non philosophically oriented theist down the ages.

But in my opinion the evolutionary theory of origin and subsequent modifications that are possible through this mechanism may possibility explain away this famous argument, maybe not fully, but atleast make it much weaker than it used to be!

So what I want to discuss today is a advancement of this argument called the Fine tuning argument which, even today many Academic Skeptics and Atheists consider as one of the strongest argument for the existence of God! Ofcourse they aren’t convinced by it, but accept that it is a logically sound and should be taken seriously.

The format (syllogism) of the argument is legitimate.

Its claims are modest and demonstrable

and its Conclusion doesn’t force you to any specific position but shows the plausibility of a Designer.

Rather than trying to bear the entire burden it proposes to give a Bayesian probability for the existence of God, or rather the existence of a Moral Designer ...

the argument goes somewhat as follows..

1) The universe has life permitting range of constants which shows that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life! not just any life, but the possibility of a moral being like human beings

2) This Fine Tuning is either by Chance, or Brute fact or Physical Necessity or by a Moral Designer Agent

3) The designer is the most probable answer for the fine tuning of the universe.

therefore its more probably that God, the moral designer exists!

We will analyse each of the premise and see how it works out

Fine tuning of the universe

Without going into too much details in physics, let me cheat my way through by first quoting that almost all academic atheists and physicists including the secular ones, accept that the universe has certain basic parameters that are very narrow for permitting life forms to arise and that we happen to be in such an universe.

Even the Famous Prof. Richard Dawkins in his book clearly accepts this premise and tries to counter the argument in other ways (which we shall be addressing in the next article)!

What are some of the parameters that appear to be fine tuned

Some quote 40 or more parameters some quote as low as less than 10 parameters. Lets be on the conservative side and consider only a few of those conditions that supposedly permit life within its narrow range.

The gravitational constant is one such parameter that appears to be finely tuned. If this parameter is changed by just 1 in 1060 part (1 followed by 60 zeros!) , none of us would even exist to begin with, not just human, but no life forms and most of the elements in the periodic table wouldn’t exist! (including carbon and subsequently carbon based life forms)

Another important and widely accepted parameter is the ‘cosmological constant’. Which is the constant that determines the rate of expansion of the universe. A mere change in this constant by 1 in 10120 parts. It would lead to a different rate of expansion of the universe which again doesn’t allow any interactive moral agents like humans, planets or elements of the periodic table. Even evolution is impossible without these prerequisites.

There are other constants like that of electromagnetic forces, weak and strong forces and so on!

As I said already these are a bit technical, so in such a situation I see no issues in accepting what the experts in the field need to say about it,

Namely, that the universe we live in, in extremely fine tuned within a very narrow life permitting range, which is required to even allow the possibility of moral agents and advanced conscious life forms like human beings!

This fine tuning is not by chance or by physical necessity!

One of the common objections put out to counter the “designer” option is to suggest that we simply got here by chance, and we simply happen to be in such an universe as this, with all its finely tuned parameters which has allowed our existence to materialize.

Let me give an example to illustrate how counterintuitive this position is and possibly dishonest on the part of the objector!

Lets imagine that I go to some game show in an amusement park and am offered a bet in a game of dice in which if I manage to get ten “six”es in a row, I would be paid Rs.1000!

And lets imagine I play that game and I get “six”es .. not one or two but a 1000 “six”es consequitively in a row! and earn Rs. 1000000 in a single attempt!

As a gamekeeper what would your response be?

Would you say, “ well such an event can happen in 1 in 10120 by chance, and this so happens to be that event of chance!, let me shell out the 1 million and move on”

Or would you check me up, check the dice I am using, check if there is any way I am cheating and assume that there is “something” going on behind the scenes?

I hope the example was not too tedious to grasp, we recognize probabilities in our everyday life, we run our lives based on probabilities!, we assess situations based on probability, we don’t take the least likely possibility as more plausible than the more likely possibility!

We conclude that there is some fraudulent trick going on when we see such an extremely unlikely situation such as getting “six” in rolling the dice for 1000 consecutive attempts. Yet when the same scenario is presented in the fine tuning of the universe, the skeptic specifically choose the less likely and improbable option to avoid the more obvious and plausible option that a “designer” was behind the design!.. this doesn’t follow logic, nor does it make the questioner credible (at least in some unintentional way!)

Could it be a physical necessity:

There is nothing in nature to prefer humans!, this has been the human experience all through the ages, nature doesn’t favour human life forms over nature or even other life forms. No laws of physics or chemistry has any predilection for allow human life forms to arise. And unless we do have some theory that could explain why the fine tuning exists, this option is not viable!

We are only left with the designer!

If as the Bible suggest, that God wanted specifically to create freewilled moral agents like ourselves, he would have made sure that the universe would be fine tuned for life and that is what we observe!.. not merely advanced life forms, but moral agents who are not only capable of thinking and formulating these arguments and analysing science and making logical conclusions, but also with the ability to emphasize, to love and to be loved. This unique creation is possible and more plausible if a Intelligent Designer is behind the universe

In the next article we will see more details of this argument and the common objections to this. Brace yourself

Reference and Further reading:

1) Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2) Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith

3) Objections to the Argument from Fine-Tuning - The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network