Fine-Tuning Argument

The fine tuning argument, to put it simply, is science's way of observing that the initial conditions for our universe had to be set so precisely in order to create a universe that allowed life to grow. Conditions such as as the mass of the proton, neutron, the gravitational force, cosmological constant, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, are very suitable towards sustaining life. If you want to find out more about just how crazy the odds are, there is lots of good information you can read on the internet. Really, what I find important are the objections to the fine-tuning argument. I think the Fine-Tuning Argument is best thought of after consider the implications of the cosmological argument. All in all, the fine-tuning argument shows that we seem to be extremely lucky, and it's not unreasonable to think the universe was 'designed.' If we saw a group of 50 expert marksman lined up in a firing squad fire, and they all missed the target who was several feet from them, we would not conclude that they all just happened to miss, but rather that they all missed on purpose. Such is what the fine-tuning argument implies. Here are some of the responses:

Multiple Universes: I like science. And I have just about the utmost faith that science is not trying to undermine religion. But in the case of the multiverse (as well as science concluding we don't have free will), it seems to me that the conclusion supports the premises, not the other way around. The multiverse should be labeled for what it is: an attempt to explain 'Design' out of the picture. String Theory notwithstanding, the multiverse has absolutely no proof. If you ask how many universes are in the multiverse, it becomes clear that the purpose is to eliminate design. So the number of universes is however many it takes to make the probability that one will support life decent. Now, I don't necessarily think anything wrong about the possibility of multiple universes, but as of now, this theory needs to be labeled for what it is. If you believe in the multiverse, you are using just as much faith as anyone of any religion has ever needed.

Self-Organizing System: I've heard this one thrown around the blogosphere, that systems organize themselves. Two things. First, the constants are typically not related at all, at least up to this point by any scientific theory, and thus, it's unreasonable to think that they are able to interact in a way and organize. More importantly, even if a system was able to organize itself, why would it organize towards being life-permitting? There is no reason to think it would move towards a life-permitting universe over a non-life permitting one. 

Argument from Imperfection: This turns the fine-tuning argument on it's head and states that actually, the universe is mostly rather hostile to life, and thus, could be much better if a designer was involved. First, I would argue how we can know what conditions would make a better universe? It's easy to imagine a universe worse off than ours for permitting life, but it's hard for me to imagine one that is much better. Second, this is to assume that if there is a God, he has no purpose for leaving a majority of the universe uninhabitable. To make this argument is to assume that a designer would create a universe capable of holding as much life as possible, with no other purpose involved, and I don't see why this would be the case.

All in all, the fine-tuning argument is more dangerous than the cosmological argument as far as being something to latch onto. It certainly adds evidence towards God, but it is not without some risk in latching onto. Like the cosmological argument, it uses the fact that we exist to explain our need for God.