The Problem with Fine Tuning

When looking at William Lane Craig’s argument in Design and the Anthropic Fine Tuning of the Universe, there is one basic flaw that undermines his entire thesis. This paper aims to discuss that flaw, which has to do with how Craig perceives carbon-based life. Craig argues for the existence of fine tuning because of how life would not be possible if any of the values of the cosmological constants were altered even to the slightest degree. There is no possible way for that statement to be proven, which Craig does admit. In an attempt to evade that issue, he tweaks the argument so that it accounts for only carbon-based life. This is only addressed by Craig for the first time roughly half way through his text. He makes an effort to persuade the reader that other forms of life are not relevant, but the flaw is much more significant then he makes it out to be. If the cosmological constants were to be changed in the ways he describes, all characteristics of the Universe would change. All laws, forms of life, and cosmological structures could be vastly different in ways we cannot comprehend. We cannot make any assumptions about Universes we are not in, we can only observe the one in which we reside. 

Directly after admitting the flaw, Craig cites John Leslie’s hypothetical of a fly resting on a wall to rationalize his defense. “A shot is fired, and the bullet strikes the fly. Now even if the rest of the wall outside the blank area is covered with flies, such that a randomly fired bullet would probably hit one, nevertheless it remains highly improbable that a single, randomly fired bullet would strike the solitary fly within the large, blank area” (Leslie 1989:17). Craig goes onto relate the fly to the universe in which we reside and the rest of the wall to all the rest of the possible universes in which carbon-based life is impossible to flourish. He does this to symbolize how improbable it is for the cosmological constants to line up the way they do. 

The image is not wrong, but it is not necessarily relevant. We can look at a real life example of how improbable carbon based life is. The earth is the only place in the Universe we are aware of that hosts life. The volume of earth is a miniscule fraction of the volume of the observable Universe, which spans 93 billion light-years in diameter and contains roughly 10^23 planetary systems. The space that surrounds earth is almost unquantifiable to human minds as we can only account for a small percentage of those planets in terms of their detailed composition. Of the space that we can fully account for, which mainly includes all space in the solar system, the earth represents a pinpoint dot on a wall if the rest of that wall represents all of that space. In comparison to Leslie’s fly visual and its purpose, based on the fact that earth is the only location we know of that contains carbon-based life, we should conclude that the properties of earth are fine tuned rather than the Universe. We come to this conclusion through the reasoning that those life permitting properties are not present in any of the surrounding space that we can account for. 

Now, that conclusion would be logically flawed because we cannot conclude that earth is the only place in the Universe that contains life. We can only conclude that earth is the only place in the space we can account for that hosts life. We cannot make claims about how much life is in the Universe based on our comprehension of such a small portion of it. Not enough space is accounted for. We can propose laws that apply to the entire Universe based what we know, but we cannot propose a valid estimation regarding the quantities of life because we have no information on too many of the planetary systems. 

The flaw to the fine tuning of earth theory is connected to the flaw of Craig’s argument in an indirect way. The potential Universes in which the values of the cosmological constants are altered cannot be accounted for. Considering the idea that the Universe in which we reside cannot be fully accounted for, this should not come as a surprise. Craig explains what would happen to the Universe if the values of the fine structure constant, proton to electron mass ratio, gravitation, the weak force and the strong force were to be different than they are now. In all cases, life as we know it would undoubtedly perish. Craig’s explanation, however, suffers in that it does not include life we cannot account for, which he admits. “Perhaps universes are possible that have wholly different physical variables and are life-permitting. Perhaps these would contain forms of life vastly different from life as we know it” (Fine Tuning of the Universe, pg. 230). It seems as though Craig, by admitting the flaw, does not believe the flaw to be relevant in refuting his claim. Yet, it seems peculiar that he gives no explanation as to how it cannot refute his theory. All he does is introduce the fly on a wall visual, which presents no valid rationalization as seen through the fine tuning of earth flaw, and then moves onto the next point. Essentially, the flaw is that we cannot account for life forms we cannot comprehend in alternate Universes (or our Universe for that matter). Craig acknowledges the flaw but denies its relevance with no explanation. How can one make these specific claims involving alternate Universes when we know nothing about the possible life forms that exist in the Universe which we live in? In what way does this flaw not completely undermine his entire argument? 

His argument is that we can conclude that the Universe has a designer solely based on the fact that carbon-based life exists. If the cosmological constants were altered to create an alternate Universe, life forms that are not carbon based could potentially arise. There is not enough information in the present day to prove that statement or refute it. Because there is no way to refute it, Craig’s argument loses all credibility. If life forms could exist in Universes where cosmological constants are altered than we cannot infer that our Universe has a contriver solely based on the fact that carbon-based life exists. For all we know, carbon based life is just one example of the countless life forms that exist or could exist. Therefore, the fine tuning argument is inconclusive. There is not enough information on life we cannot account for to claim that the cosmos are fine tuned through looking at the cosmological constants and nothing else. 

William Lane Craig is one of many who argues for the existence of a designer through the fine tuning argument. Any philosopher who pursues a similar theory will inevitably run into the same problem. There is no way to avoid it. Because we cannot account for all life, there is no way for us to make definitive claims involving all life. If, hypothetically, carbon based life were the only form of life, then the fine tuning argument would have merit. All life would be accounted for, and it would appear to be too much of a coincidence for the cosmological constants to align the way they do. However, there is no scientific evidence that suggests carbon based life is the only form of life. As long as that information is limited, the fine tuning philosophy will continue to be futile.