Bad ideas die slowly, and sometimes they respawn. An example of such bad ideas can serve as the argument of the project, which goes something like this: “Look at the human eye. It is ideally suited to ensure that we saw what we needed to see predators or potential partners. The eye is constructed like a kind of wizard. In fact, it is logical to assume that the eye was designed, and therefore there is a designer, and we can call him God.”
Not always immediately evident what’s wrong with this argument. Before Darwin developed the theory of evolution, we had no scientific explanation for adaptation of species. And in the absence of a better explanation God is quite good.
Fast forward to the 1970-ies. Throughout the century, none of the biological scientists did not take seriously the idea that biological adaptability in need of divine explanation. But then something unexpected happened, and the argument about the project rose from the ashes in the scientific discipline of the twentieth century physical cosmology.
A new argument about fine tuning, and project claims that are approved by the physics and is formulated in precise quantitative terms: in all possible universes, the percentage of those in which life might exist, is so small that the human mind is unable to imagine it. For all parameters, life could not exist. What a miracle that our universe was life, and even intelligent life. It seems that the only explanation for this highly improbable result is reduced to the assumption of the existence of the designer-designer.
But is physics actually point to the existence of God?
Let me lay the cards on the table. I believe that our Universe was created by an Almighty being. And I agree with John Glenn, who said: “Looking at the Earth from such a perspective, looking at all this creation, I can’t not believe in God.” But trying to put that sense of wonder in the basis of the scientific evidence is dangerous. The argument of fine tuning is no exception.
The big problem lies behind the argument about fine tuning, and it is associated with two main factual statements. The first States that the right to life, the universe exists. The second assertion — that the existence of such a universe is incredible (there is disagreement about whether physical cosmology says so, but for our discussion we will assume that claims). The argument about the project has risen because of the second fact, and the proponents of fine-tuning are too focused on using it as a background and forgot that it too needs no explanation. But the question arises, why is some arbitrary universe may not be suitable for life? Unlikely to explain this brute necessity because it does not have to be that way. And it is impossible to open this only through pure reason. The second fact believe, because it serves as a pre-condition to our best physical theories.
But even if we find the much needed explanation, it will be a disaster, as it will deny the existence of God. After all, a benevolent God would want to create such physical laws, in which would prevail all the universes suitable for life.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that you were kidnapped by aliens whose intentions are unclear. They forced you to play Russian roulette and you could win and survive. If you follow the argument about fine tuning, then you will be tempted to believe that the kidnappers wanted you to win.
But then imagine that in six-reel had five rounds, and your trigger shot has hit the only empty chamber. The second fact confirms the kindness of your captors. He refutes her. The most logical conclusion — that the kidnappers hostile, but you just got lucky.
Similarly, the fine-tuning argument relies on an interesting discovery of physical cosmology, according to which all the odds were against the emergence of life. But if God exists, the chances would be distributed differently. These bad odds by themselves can serve as proof of the absence of God.
Personally, I do not believe that the extremely small probability of the existence of life is an argument against faith in God. But I believe that we do not understand God to draw any serious conclusions about what the universe would want to create a God. I raised the issue is problematic only for theists who are confident that they understand quite well of God.
Someone such skepticism can go too far. The so-called argument about fine tuning for sure got something to prove. But the fact that defy explanation in our cosmological theory, says that we still have work to do. If our best scientists predict the existence of a lifeless universe, and their prediction is not justified, then what do we do? We can exclaim, “a miracle Happened!” But it would be intellectual laziness. The essential theory with precise predictions that can be integrated with other successful physical theories. The argument about the exact setting is not appropriate, because it implies that the current cosmological theory is correct only when the unscientific principle — God. I am in favour of more radical and scientific interpretation of information on the exact configuration. It is not a brute fact or a true premise in a theological argument. Rather, it is evidence of the need for a new and revolutionary cosmological theories.
