Creationism Refuted - The 'Fine-Tuned Universe' Fallacy - Or How Creationists Have Been Fooled

Horsehead nebula

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop or tablet

The 'Pillars of Creation'.

The 'fine-tuned Universe' argument appeals particularly to those who understand neither physics nor probability and for whom the argument from ignorant incredulity and the false dichotomy fallacies are compelling, partly due to parochial ignorance in assuming that the locally popular god is the only entity capable of creating a universe, and that nothing else, supernatural or otherwise is capable of it.

The most compelling argument against it is the anthropic principle. This means the fact that we are discussing it means we must exist in a universe in which intelligent life is certain.

There is also the subtle blasphemy that most creationists seem not to have thought of in that the argument assumes their putative creator god could only create life within fine-tuned' parameters, so is itself constrained by the same parameters. This denies it's omnipotence and implies the existence of a higher power which set these constraints.

Incidentally, although it's not strictly speaking an argument against the 'fine-tuned' fallacy, note that one of the fundamental forces is the weak nuclear force which governs the rate of radioactive decay. Creationists try to dismiss geochronology based on radiometric dating, claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that the decay rates used to be much faster, so millions of years can look like 10,000 years or less. This would mean the weak nuclear force was even weaker, by several orders of magnitude.

Probability of dealing a specific bridge hand from a 52-card pack:
\[ P = \frac{1}{\binom{52}{13} \times \binom{39}{13} \times \binom{26}{13} \times \binom{13}{13}} \]
Which can be simplified to:

\( P = \frac{1}{\frac{52!}{(13!)^4}} \) or \( P \approx 1.86 \times 10^{-29} \)

Creationists will look at a tiny probability like this and conclude that dealing four bridge hands from a 52-card pack is so improbable as to be impossible, therefore a god must have dealt the cards, and then wave that 'fact' as 'proof' of the locally popular god.

If that were true, as the following dialogue shows, the formation of anything other than hydrogen would not be possible, so stars (which depend on the nuclear fusion of hydrogen to form helium to prevent them collapsing under their own gravity) could not exist, nor could the heavier elements of which living organisms are composed.

Creationists are, probably because they lack the understanding to realise it, and their 'scientists' aren't going to tell them, arguing two mutually contradictory claims simultaneously. They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.

Of course, given their willingness to try to mislead gullible people into joining their cult, we can never be sure that creationists who try to get away with this fallacy aren't aware they are using a false argument in order to deceive.

The following is a dialogue with ChatGPT4.0, which not only debunks the argument, but shows how it's actually a blasphemy because it argues more strongly against a supreme, omnipotent creator god than for one:

Creationists often refer to a 'fine-tuned' universe as evidence of intelligent creation* What parameters are 'fine-tuned' and what range of values could they theoretically have?

The concept of a "fine-tuned" universe refers to the idea that certain fundamental physical parameters or constants in the universe appear to be precisely set to allow for the existence of life as we know it. If these constants were even slightly different, the argument goes, the universe might not support life—or perhaps not exist in its current form at all.

Here are some of the key parameters often cited in the fine-tuning argument, along with a discussion of their possible ranges:

1. Gravitational Constant (G)
   • Description: Governs the strength of gravity.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: If G were slightly stronger, stars would burn out too quickly for life to develop; if weaker, stars might not form at all.
   • Theoretical Range: There's no specific upper or lower limit for G, but even a small deviation (by orders of magnitude) would lead to a vastly different universe.
2. Electromagnetic Force (α)
   • Description: Governs the strength of electromagnetic interactions, crucial for the chemistry of life.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: A slightly stronger or weaker electromagnetic force would alter the stability of atoms and molecules, making life as we know it impossible.
   • Theoretical Range: Again, any significant deviation from its current value (1/137) would drastically change chemistry.
3. Strong Nuclear Force
   • Description: Holds atomic nuclei together.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: If it were slightly stronger, hydrogen would convert entirely into helium during the Big Bang, leaving no hydrogen for water and thus no life; if weaker, nuclei would be too unstable for life to exist.
   • Theoretical Range: Like the other forces, small deviations could prevent the formation of stable elements essential for life.
4. Weak Nuclear Force
   • Description: Governs radioactive decay and is crucial for the process of nuclear fusion in stars.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: If it were weaker, the conversion of protons into neutrons in the early universe would be inefficient, resulting in a universe with far too much hydrogen and too little helium, affecting star formation and element production.
   • Theoretical Range: As with other forces, small changes could disrupt the formation of essential elements.
5. Cosmological Constant (Λ)
   • Description: Represents the energy density of empty space, driving the acceleration of the universe's expansion.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: A much larger Λ would cause the universe to expand too rapidly for galaxies to form, while a negative or much smaller Λ could lead to a universe that re-collapses or one without enough structure to support life.
   • Theoretical Range: The cosmological constant could, in theory, take on a wide range of values, but it appears to be non-zero and extremely small, balanced between the extremes.
6. Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass
   • Description: The mass of the electron compared to the mass of the proton.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: This ratio affects the chemistry of atoms and molecules. If it were significantly different, the properties of chemical bonds would change, potentially making complex chemistry (and life) impossible.
   • Theoretical Range: Small changes would alter atomic structures and chemistry drastically.
7. Initial Conditions of the Universe (Entropy, Density Fluctuations)
   • Description: The initial entropy and density fluctuations in the early universe determined the formation of galaxies and stars.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: If these conditions were slightly different, the universe might have been either too smooth, leading to no structure, or too clumpy, leading to a rapid collapse into black holes.
   • Theoretical Range: The possible range is enormous, but the observed values seem to fall within a very narrow band that permits the universe we observe.
8. Higgs Boson Mass
   • Description: The Higgs boson gives particles their mass.
   • Fine-tuning Argument: A different mass for the Higgs could lead to a universe where all particles are either too heavy or too light to form the necessary structures for life.
   • Theoretical Range: Varies greatly, but only a small range appears conducive to the current structure of the universe.

Possible Ranges and Theoretical Considerations

In theoretical physics, these constants could, in principle, take a wide range of values. However, the fine-tuning argument suggests that only a narrow range of these values would allow for a universe that can support life, or even for a universe that has stable structures such as stars and planets.

For example, the cosmological constant is extremely small but positive, leading to a universe that expands at just the right rate. A larger cosmological constant could cause such rapid expansion that galaxies never form, while a smaller or negative one might lead to a re-collapsing universe.

Criticisms and Alternative Explanations

While the fine-tuning argument is compelling to some, it's also controversial. Critics argue that:

1. Anthropic Principle: The observed values of these constants are what they are because we exist to observe them. If they were different, we wouldn't be here to notice.
2. Multiverse Hypothesis: There might be a vast number of universes, each with different constants. We happen to live in one where the conditions allow life.
3. Unknown Physics: Our understanding of physics might be incomplete, and there may be deeper principles that determine the values of these constants, which aren't "fine-tuned" in the sense critics claim.

In summary, the fine-tuning argument involves a set of physical constants and initial conditions that appear to be precisely set within a narrow range to allow for the existence of a life-permitting universe. These parameters, while theoretically capable of varying widely, seem to be delicately balanced in our universe.

Without knowing the range of possible values for these parameters, is it possible to calculate the probability of them having the values they have?

No, it is not possible to calculate the probability of these parameters having the values they do without knowing the range of possible values they could take. Probability calculations require a well-defined sample space and a way to assign probabilities to different outcomes within that space. In the case of the fundamental constants of the universe, the following challenges make it impossible to determine their probabilities:

1. Undefined Sample Space
   • Range of Values: We do not have a well-defined range of possible values for most of these constants. For example, while we know the value of the gravitational constant (G), we don't know what other values it could theoretically take or if there is a maximum or minimum value.
   • Distribution: We don't know how these values are distributed—whether they could be uniformly distributed, follow some other distribution, or are determined by some underlying principle that we haven't discovered yet.
2. Unknown Underlying Mechanism
   • If the constants are determined by some underlying physical law or mechanism, their values might not be "random" at all. They could be fixed by necessity, in which case the concept of probability wouldn't apply in the traditional sense.
3. Anthropic Consideration
   • The values of these constants are observed to be what they are because we are here to observe them (Anthropic Principle). This raises a question about the meaningfulness of assigning probabilities to these constants because our observation is conditional on them having the values they do.
4. Multiverse Hypothesis
   • If there is a multiverse where each universe has different constants, the probability of our universe having its particular constants would depend on how many universes exist and how the constants are distributed among them. Since we don't have this information, we can't assign a meaningful probability to the constants in our universe.

Example: A Dice Analogy

Imagine trying to calculate the probability of rolling a particular number on a die, but you don’t know how many sides the die has (it could have 6, 10, or 1,000 sides), and you also don’t know if the sides are weighted differently. Without this information, you can't meaningfully calculate the probability of rolling any specific number.

Conclusion

Without a clear understanding of the possible range of values these fundamental constants could take, how those values are distributed, or the mechanism that determines them, we cannot calculate the probability of the constants having the specific values they do. Any attempt to do so would be speculative and lack a solid scientific foundation.

Doesn't the 'Anthropic Principle' mean the probability of the universe having the parameters values it has is 1, i.e., certainty?

The Anthropic Principle does indeed suggest that, given we exist to observe the universe, the probability of the universe having parameters that allow for our existence is effectively 1, or a certainty. However, this is a nuanced concept and is often interpreted in different ways depending on the context.

Understanding the Anthropic Principle

The Anthropic Principle comes in several forms, but at its core, it states that the universe must have properties that allow life to exist, at least in the region we inhabit, because we are here to observe it. There are two main versions:

1. Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): This version simply states that the physical laws and constants of the universe must be such that they allow for the existence of observers like us. It doesn’t attempt to explain why the universe has these properties—only that they must be compatible with our existence because we are here.
2. Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): This stronger version suggests that the universe must have properties that inevitably lead to the existence of life or observers. Some interpretations of SAP even suggest that the universe is in some way "designed" to support life.

Probability and the Anthropic Principle

From the perspective of the Weak Anthropic Principle:

• Conditional Probability: The principle implies that, given our existence, the probability of observing a universe with the specific parameters that allow life is 1. However, this is a conditional probability—it’s not saying that the universe "had to" have these parameters from the start, but rather that given we are here to observe it, it must have those properties.
• Certainty of Observation: The fact that we observe these particular values is certain, given that they are necessary for our existence. But this doesn’t mean that the parameters themselves were certain before life or observers existed. In other words, we can only observe a universe where life is possible, so the probability of observing such a universe, given that we are observing, is 1.

Limitations of the Anthropic Principle

However, this reasoning doesn’t answer deeper questions like:

• Why the universe has these specific values.
• Whether there could be other universes with different constants.
• How these values were set initially, or if they are determined by some larger physical or metaphysical framework.

Anthropic Principle and Multiverse Hypothesis

In the context of the Multiverse Hypothesis, which posits that many universes with different constants might exist, the Anthropic Principle suggests that we find ourselves in one of the rare universes where the constants allow life, simply because we couldn’t exist in a universe where they didn’t.

In this case:

• The probability of any given universe having life-supporting parameters could be very low.
• But, within the multiverse, the probability that some universes have the right parameters is high, and we find ourselves in one of these universes.

Summary

Yes, according to the Anthropic Principle, the probability of us observing a universe with life-supporting parameters is 1, because if the universe didn’t have these parameters, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. However, this "certainty" is conditional on our existence—it doesn’t imply that the universe *had* to have these values in any absolute sense, nor does it explain why these values are what they are.

So the creationist argument for design is the equivalent of assuming the fact that ten sets of bridge hands result in ten specific hands dealt in that order must have been designed?

Yes, the creationist argument for design, particularly in the context of the fine-tuning argument, is somewhat analogous to the idea that if ten sets of bridge hands are dealt and result in ten specific hands in that order, it must have been designed or arranged intentionally.

Analogy Breakdown:

• Bridge Hand Scenario: In a game of bridge, after shuffling and dealing, each player receives a specific hand of cards. The probability of getting any particular combination of cards is extremely low. However, once the cards are dealt, the specific hands are simply the result of the shuffle and deal. Even though the probability of that exact sequence of hands is small, it's no more surprising than any other specific sequence.
• Creationist Argument: In the fine-tuning argument, the fundamental constants of the universe are like the specific hands dealt in bridge. The claim is that the precise values of these constants are so improbable that they must have been "designed" or "fine-tuned" by an intelligent creator.

Key Points:

1. Probability of Specific Outcomes: In both cases, the probability of a specific outcome (whether a particular set of bridge hands or the specific values of universal constants) is extremely low. But in the bridge example, we don't find the outcome surprising because we understand it as one possible outcome among many, all of which are equally unlikely before the cards are dealt.
2. Post-Hoc Interpretation: Just as we wouldn't assume the bridge hands were intentionally designed simply because a particular low-probability outcome occurred, some argue that we shouldn't necessarily conclude that the universe's constants were designed just because they appear fine-tuned for life. The specific outcome is viewed as remarkable only because we're here to observe it.
3. Anthropic Principle: This principle parallels the bridge scenario by explaining that we observe these specific constants because they allow us to exist—similar to how, after the cards are dealt, we observe the specific hands because that's what happened.

Conclusion:

The creationist argument, when viewed through this analogy, highlights a key philosophical issue: just because a specific outcome is improbable does not mean it was designed. In both the bridge hands and the fine-tuning argument, the observed outcome is just one of many possible outcomes. The inference of design in the universe is based on the improbability of life-permitting constants, but critics argue that this inference might be flawed in the same way that it would be flawed to assume bridge hands were intentionally designed simply because of their specific arrangement.

Even if the 'fined-tuned' argument had any merit, isn't it a false dichotomy to argue that the Universe can only be random, or designed by a particular creative deity?

Yes, arguing that the universe can only be either random or designed by a particular creative deity is indeed a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy occurs when an argument presents only two options as the only possible explanations, when in reality, other alternatives may exist.

Why It’s a False Dichotomy:

1. Other Possible Explanations: The argument suggests that the universe must either be the product of random chance or intentional design by a specific deity. However, there are several other potential explanations that don't fit neatly into either of these categories. Some of these include:
   • Naturalistic Mechanisms: There could be underlying physical laws or principles that necessitate the particular values of the fundamental constants, making them inevitable rather than random or designed. For example, in some theories of quantum gravity or string theory, the values of these constants might be determined by the structure of the theory itself.
   • Multiverse Hypothesis: The idea that our universe is just one of many (possibly infinite) universes, each with different physical constants. In this scenario, it's not surprising that one of these universes has the right conditions for life, as we would naturally find ourselves in such a universe.
   • Emergent Properties: The universe's fine-tuning could be an emergent property of a more complex system. For example, in some cosmological models, the constants might not be fundamental but instead arise from deeper, more fundamental principles.
   • Unknown or Unconsidered Causes: There may be causes, principles, or mechanisms that are currently unknown or unconsidered by modern science that could account for the observed fine-tuning.
2. Range of Theistic Possibilities: Even if one were to consider the possibility of design, the dichotomy between randomness and design by a specific deity (such as the God of a particular religious tradition) is overly narrow. The universe could be designed by:
   • A different deity or deities than the one proposed.
   • A non-theistic intelligent force or entity.
   • A non-anthropomorphic force (like a Platonic form or a principle of order) that doesn't fit into traditional definitions of deity.
3. Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle offers a way to understand the fine-tuning without invoking design or randomness. It suggests that we observe these particular values because only those universes with such values would allow observers like us to exist.
4. Combination of Factors: The universe's constants might be the result of a combination of factors, including some deterministic processes and some random processes, without necessitating the intervention of a deity.

Conclusion:

The argument that the universe is either the product of random chance or the design of a specific creative deity overlooks a wide range of other possibilities. This creates a false dichotomy, limiting the discussion to two options when, in fact, many other explanations—both naturalistic and theistic—could be considered. The fine-tuning argument, even if it had merit, does not necessarily support the conclusion that the universe was designed by any particular deity, nor does it rule out other plausible explanations.

Doesn't the 'fine-tuned' argument also imply that a creative deity can only work within those same parameters, so is subject to constraints on its powers - which implies a higher power?

Yes, the fine-tuning argument can indeed imply that the creative deity is subject to certain constraints, which raises interesting philosophical questions about the nature of such a deity and whether it is truly omnipotent. This line of reasoning leads to several key implications:

1. Constraints on Divine Power
   • Working Within Parameters: If the universe is fine-tuned for life in such a way that specific constants and laws must be exactly what they are, it suggests that even a creative deity must work within these parameters to create a life-permitting universe. This implies that the deity's creative power is constrained by these fundamental laws or constants.
   • Implication of Limitations: If the deity cannot change these parameters without preventing the existence of life, it suggests that the deity is not entirely free to create any possible universe. Instead, the deity must adhere to certain rules or limitations, which raises questions about the extent of the deity's power.
2. Existence of Higher Power or Principle
   • Higher Power or Laws: If a deity is constrained by these parameters, it could imply that there is some higher set of laws, principles, or a higher power that even the deity must follow. This could lead to the notion that the deity is not the ultimate source of everything but is instead operating within a pre-existing framework.
   • Metaphysical Implications: This line of reasoning could lead to the idea that the ultimate explanation for the universe lies not in the deity itself but in the underlying principles or laws that govern both the deity and the universe. This raises questions about the nature of these laws and whether they represent a higher form of power or necessity.
3. Philosophical and Theological Challenges
   • Omnipotence Questioned: If a deity is limited by the need to fine-tune certain constants, then the classical concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity might be challenged. An omnipotent being would presumably have the ability to create any type of universe, without being constrained by particular constants or laws.
   • The Problem of Divine Necessity: Some theologians might argue that the deity's actions are not truly constrained but are instead expressions of its nature. However, this still raises the issue of why the deity's nature necessitates these specific parameters for life, suggesting some form of necessity or limitation.
4. Alternative Theological Interpretations
   • Deity as a Sustainer, Not a Designer: Some theistic perspectives might view the deity not as a designer bound by these parameters but as a sustainer or ground of being that upholds the existence of the universe and its laws. In this view, the deity is not constrained by the fine-tuning but is instead the reason these laws and constants exist at all.
   • Theological Voluntarism: Another perspective could be that the deity freely chose these parameters out of many possible options. However, this still leaves open the question of why these particular parameters were chosen, and whether other combinations could also permit life.

Conclusion

The fine-tuning argument, when examined closely, can imply that a creative deity operates within certain constraints, suggesting limits on the deity's powers. This raises philosophical and theological questions about the nature of the deity and whether there might be a higher power or set of principles that even the deity must follow. These implications challenge traditional notions of divine omnipotence and open up discussions about the ultimate nature of reality and divinity.

In that case, would it be true to say that the 'fine-tuned' argument is a better argument against the existence of an omnipotent deity, than for one and so is a blasphemy in both Christianity and Islam?

The "fine-tuned" argument can indeed be interpreted in a way that challenges the traditional concept of an omnipotent deity, which raises intriguing theological questions. However, whether this interpretation amounts to "blasphemy" in Christianity and Islam depends on how one interprets and reconciles the concept of fine-tuning with the theological doctrines of these religions.

1. Fine-Tuning as a Challenge to Omnipotence
   • Implied Constraints: As we've discussed, if the universe's parameters are fine-tuned in such a way that even a deity must adhere to these specific conditions to create a life-permitting universe, this could suggest that the deity is not truly omnipotent. An omnipotent being should theoretically be able to create life under any conditions, without being constrained by specific laws or constants.
   • Philosophical Tension: This interpretation creates a tension with the classical attributes of God in both Christianity and Islam, where God is typically understood to be all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and not subject to any external constraints.
2. Blasphemy in Christianity and Islam
   • Blasphemy in Christianity: In Christian theology, blasphemy generally refers to showing disrespect or irreverence toward God, or denying God's attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. If the fine-tuning argument is interpreted as suggesting that God is limited or constrained, this could be seen as challenging or denying God's omnipotence, which could be considered blasphemous by some Christian theologians.
   • Blasphemy in Islam: In Islam, blasphemy (kufr) includes denying the attributes of Allah, such as His omnipotence and absolute sovereignty. The Quran describes Allah as the creator of all things and as being above any limitations or constraints. Therefore, suggesting that Allah is bound by external parameters could be viewed as kufr or shirk (associating partners with Allah), which is considered one of the gravest sins in Islam.
3. Theological Responses to Fine-Tuning
   • Divine Sovereignty: Theologians in both Christianity and Islam might argue that the fine-tuning of the universe is a demonstration of divine wisdom rather than a limitation on divine power. They might contend that God chose to create a universe with specific laws and constants as an expression of His will and that these choices are consistent with His omnipotence.
   • Mystery of Divine Action: Another approach is to invoke the mystery of divine action, suggesting that human understanding is limited and that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe reflects God's inscrutable plan, which is beyond human comprehension.
4. Interpretation and Blasphemy
   • Context Matters: Whether the fine-tuning argument is seen as blasphemous depends on how it is framed and interpreted. If one uses the argument to explicitly claim that God is not omnipotent or that He is subject to external constraints, it could be viewed as blasphemous. However, if the argument is used to illustrate the precision and care in God's creation, it might be seen as supporting belief in a wise and purposeful creator.

Conclusion

The fine-tuning argument, when interpreted as implying that a deity is constrained by the parameters of the universe, can challenge the traditional understanding of divine omnipotence, which could be problematic or even blasphemous in both Christianity and Islam. However, theologians might also interpret fine-tuning in a way that reaffirms rather than denies divine attributes. Whether the argument is blasphemous depends on the specific theological context and interpretation.

---

Advertisement

What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You

How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link