Written by Jason Petersen
The Teleological Argument is a classic argument for the existence of God. It was first posited by an Islamic philosopher named Averroes (This is his Latin name) or also known by his Arabic name, Ibn Rushd. Notice that both the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Arguments came from Muslims. Later on it was refined by other philosophers such as William Paley.
The Teleological Argument(or Fine-Tuning Argument) in modern times normally takes this form:
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.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design
Now, it’s important to note that when I say “fine tuned” I don’t mean “fine tuned” as in design. By fine-tuning we mean that the constants of the universe are delicately balanced in a way such that life can exist. I will get more to the design portion of the argument later. First, let’s consider our first alternative:
Physical Necessity:
Physical necessity is the first possibility of how the universe can be fine tuned. Now, I’ve never seen anyone try to defend this position. The reason being is probably due to(like infinite regress in the Kalam Cosmological Argument) the position being untenable. One of the largest problems with this is that the constants of our universe.(such as gravity, the strong nuclear force constant, etc.) Not only that, but the physical constants of our universe are completely independent from the laws of nature, this makes it impossible for the universe to be fine tuned by necessity as the laws of nature permit a wide variety of variables whereas the constants themselves do not.
By chance:
This is the one that atheists are likely to try to defend. The issue with this solution is that the odds are so astronomically low for the universe to be fine tuned for life to develop and flourish that it can’t be reasonably defended:
| Parameter | Max. Deviation |
|---|---|
| Ratio of Electrons:Protons | 1:1037 |
| Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity | 1:1040 |
| Expansion Rate of Universe | 1:1055 |
| Mass Density of Universe1 | 1:1059 |
| Cosmological Constant | 1:10120 |
| These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. | |
They also have some of these constants listed for me, which is better than typing them so I’ll paste it here as well:
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry - weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible - gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form - electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry - ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements - ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above - ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above - expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed - entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form - mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements - velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support - age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed - initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space - average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun’s orbit - density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material - average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life - fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun - decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life - 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life - ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above - decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry - ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes - initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation - polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result - supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form - white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry - ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form - number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result - number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result - mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense - big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form - size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result - uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable - cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type starsResponding Possible Defenses of the proposition that the universe is fine tuned by chance:
The Multi-verse:
Atheists tend to like this one, for whatever reason. I’m not entirely certain why. After all, they are the ones who always complain that there is no evidence for God. There sure isn’t any evidence for a multi-verse either. If they are not going to believe in God because they claim there is no evidence, then accepting the idea without any evidence(there isn’t even scientific evidence) backing it up is just a blatant hypocrisy. Not only that, it’s logically inconsistent.
An infinite number of universes entails an infinite regress. Not only that, but each universe would consist of varying constants. This makes the idea of a multi-verse more improbable than it already was at first hand. Not only that, but there is absolutely no evidence for a multi-verse.
How would an infinite number of universes be able to exist? It can’t. You can’t have an infinite number of past events in the natural world. Now an atheist could argue that the multi-verse may not be natural. Well, if that is the case then I suggest putting away their joke book about people who believe in the supernatural.
Why even posit a multi-verse anyway? If any of you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, he insinuated that God would be more complex than the universe so he would not be a viable explanation. But what of the multi-verse? With its infinite number of universe ensembles with varying constants it would be more complicated than the this universe.
Have any of you seen atheists use “Occam’s Razor?” Well, I’m about to use it on them. It says to not multiply causes beyond necessity. The multi-verse is A LOT to postulate to allow our universe to be fine-tuned by chance. In this instance, their friend just became their foe.
Design:
So now, we are left with our last option. If the universe can’t be fine tuned by necessity, and the universe can’t be fine tuned by chance, then it follows that the only option left is design. If someone accuses you of “God of the gaps” point out that this is a deductive argument that is based on what we know, not what we don’t know.
Here are some recommended videos:
1. William Lane Craig explains the Teleological Argument in 5 minutes.
2. William Lane Craig responds to Richard Dawkins’ Objection to the Teleological Argument.
Answering Objections:
Objection: The universe is like a puddle. The universe just happens to be able to sustain life just as a puddle happens to fit into a section of lower ground.
Answer: The puddle analogy fails to explain specified complexity. The hole does not have multiple, interrelated parts.
Objection: The teleological argument commits the watchmaker fallacy.
Objection: The Flying Spaghetti Monster fine-tuned the universe.
Answer: The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist.
Objection: The teleological argument is just an example of the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy.
Footnotes:
1. https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
Leave a Reply