This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Most people who have heard of the fine-tuning argument think they know what it says: the universe is wildly improbable, so God must have designed it.
The basic idea is simple. The laws of physics contain fixed numbers, called the constants of nature, that determine things like the strength of gravity, the mass of the electron, and the expansion of the universe. If some of these numbers were even slightly different, the universe would not have formed atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, or life. That surprising discovery is called fine tuning.
From there, the argument is usually presented in one of two familiar ways. One version tries to eliminate every alternative to design. The other compares the probability of fine tuning with and without an intelligent cause.
These two familiar versions are important. But they can also get bogged down in technical debates about probability and alternate universes and even drift into the problem of evil.
There is a third version of the fine-tuning argument that is simpler, clearer, and stronger. Most people have never heard it.
Before we get to that, we need to look briefly at the two familiar versions.
The first, associated with philosopher William Lane Craig, is the argument by elimination. Fine-tuning must be due to necessity, chance, or design. The constants either had to be what they are, happened by chance to be what they are, or were set that way by an intelligent cause. Since necessity and chance fail as satisfactory explanations, design is what remains.
It is a clean formulation. But it has a vulnerability: an argument by elimination depends on the list being complete and the alternatives being truly eliminated. A critic can always ask whether some unknown explanation has been left out, or whether necessity and chance have really been ruled out.
The second version is the probability argument, featured in Stephen Meyer’s recent documentary film, “The Story of Everything.” Fine-tuning is far more likely if there is an intelligent cause than if there isn’t one. If a purposeful creator wanted a universe with stars, planets, chemistry, and life, then it is no surprise that the constants would have values that allow for exactly that. Without intelligence behind the universe, those constants landing in precisely the right range look extraordinarily improbable.
This version is powerful, but it can get complicated quickly. Critics challenge the probability assumptions. What does “improbable” mean when we have only observed one universe? The argument can also drift into theological debates about the problem of evil and what God would or would not choose to create.
Both versions are valuable. Neither should be dismissed. But there is a third version that avoids many of these complications and cuts closer to the heart of the matter.
It begins with a mystery that physicists already had.
Physicists can measure the constants of nature with extraordinary precision. What they cannot do is explain them. Their values are measured, not derived. No deeper theory tells us why they have the values they do.
Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, pointed directly at this puzzle. Discussing a number related to the strength of electromagnetism, roughly 1/137, Feynman noted that physicists knew its value with remarkable precision but had no idea where it came from. He called it one of the greatest mysteries of physics.
That is where the strongest version of the fine-tuning argument begins, not with probability or eliminating alternatives. It begins with a mystery already sitting at the heart of physics.
Only then does fine-tuning enter the picture.
Fine-tuning reveals something remarkable. The constants that first looked like arbitrary values sitting unexplained at the foundation of physics are not arbitrary in their effects. Their values are suited to a specific result: the emergence of a rich, ordered universe with atoms, stars, planets, galaxies, and life.
That is the crucial shift: fine-tuning is not the problem. Fine-tuning is the clue.
It tells us how to think about the mystery of the constants. They are not merely unexplained numbers. Their effects line up with the emergence of a rich, ordered universe. And that points to intelligence.
Intelligence, at its most basic level, is the ability to select one possibility from among many for the sake of achieving a goal. An author chooses precise words to express an idea. An engineer chooses the right materials and dimensions to build a structure. Intelligence selects the right means for an intended end.
The constants show that same pattern. From among the many values they could have had, they have the values needed for structure, order, and complexity to emerge. That indicates purposeful selection.
This is why the argument is not a “God of the gaps” claim. It is not based on what science has failed to explain. It is based on what science has discovered. Fine-tuning is positive knowledge about the constants. Their values appear to be coordinated toward the emergence of a structured universe.
The mystery of the constants was already sitting at the heart of physics. Fine-tuning did not create a new puzzle. It illuminated the one physicists already had.
The constants of nature appear to be set for a purpose. A cause that selects the right means to achieve a purpose is, by definition, intelligent. That is why the fine-tuning argument, properly understood, remains one of the strongest science-based arguments for God.
***
Rabbi Elie Feder, Ph.D., and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer host the “Physics to God” podcast.
