Teleological+Argument



This argument for God’s existence is an argument affirming that the universe is highly tuned for life and such highly tuned conditions requires an Intelligent Designer – God. In a logical sense, the argument goes like this:


 * 1) // The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design //
 * 2) // It is note due to physical necessity or chance //
 * 3) // Therefore, it is due to design //

Now, if premises 1 and 2 are correct, it follows logically and necessarily that 3 is true. So, the question is, are the premises true? Well, let us dissect each one and see.

__// Premise 1 //__
**// The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design //**

This premise is self explanatory. The only options for the fine-tuning that we see in the universe are due either to physical necessity, chance or design. Now, before going on you may be wondering exactly what is meant by “fine-tuning?” Well, by fine tuning we mean the following:

//“The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expressions, contain various constants or quantities, such as the gravitational constant or the density of the universe, whose values are not mandated by the [the laws of nature] themselves; a universe governed by such laws might be characterized by any of a wide range of values for such variables. By “fine-tuning” one typically means that the actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting.”//[1]

Essentially scientists have discovered that for intelligent life **//to// //even be possible//** there had to be in place, **//at the very beginning of the univers//**e (at the very moment of its conception), what they call //necessary conditions// (they are necessary for life to exist). These necessary conditions are a collection of physical //constants and quantities// (essentially math equations of natural laws) that represent various phenomenon, bodies, or substances that existence in this universe and are independent of the laws of nature, making life possible.[2] Another term used to identify these necessary conditions instead of physcial constants is //anthropic constants// (which is just a fancy word that comes from the Greek word “human” or “man”).[3]

Examples of physcial constants that we usually hear about are the //gravitational constant//, //speed of light constant//, //electromagnetic constant// and so forth. These things are constants in our universe – they are consistently highly fine tuned to ensure that human beings and life in general can even exist in the universe, let alone on the earth.

__// Premise 2 //__
**// It is note due to physical necessity or chance //**

Premise 2 is asserting that the first two options for the existence of the finely tuned universe are not acceptable. So, the question is, how do we know that the finely tuned universe is not due to physical necessity or chance? Well, let us look in detail and then critique each alternative.
 * **//Physical Necessity://** This argument affirms that it is necessary that a fine-tuned life permitting universe exist. Put another way, this argument is saying that it is impossible that non-life permitting universe could exist. The questions to ask are, “Why is it necessary that a life permitting universe exist?” and “Why is it impossible for a life permitting universe to not exist?” The fact of the matter is that it is not necessary that the universe be life permitting. It is not necessary that the physical constants discussed above be the way they are. It is possible that in another universe the constants would be different, that the numerical value of gravity, the speed of light and electricity would be different. There is nothing about the initial conditions for the universe that would make it necessary/required that life come into being (outside of a Designer that is).[4]


 * **//Chance://** This argument asserts that it is just by accident or random chance that all the physical constants and quantities within the universe fell into the life-permitting range. This is however fantastically unreasonable and literally impossible. You see, the anthropic principles are all so precise that just a minor variation in their equations will result in a universe not suitable for life. Furthermore it is important to note that the anthropic principles interrelate with each other – by this I mean, if one variable changes with one principle, then the rest will change, thus denying a life permitting universe. Here are just some examples of what I mean about precision needed for the anthropic principles:[5]
 * 1) <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">//Strong nuclear force constant:// If it was stronger (by just 2%) then no hydrogen would exist and the nuclei for life would be unstable. If it were smaller then no elements by hydrogen would exist.
 * 2) <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">//Gravitational force constant:// If it was larger then stars would be too hot (including our own Sun) and would burn up quickly and unevenly. If it was smaller then stars would be so cold that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production would occur.
 * <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Think of this: specifically to earth, “[i]f the gravitational force were altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we.”[6]
 * 1) <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">//Expansion of the universe:// If it was faster then no galaxies would even form. If it was smaller then the universe would collapse prior to the formation of stars.
 * 2) <span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">//Velocity of light:// if it was faster stars would be too luminous for life support. If it was slower then stars would not be luminous enough for life support.

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Now, this list is not exhaustive (there are at least 122 such precise principles that exist) but it gets the point across. The fact is that all of these precisely fine-tuned constants had to be in place at the very beginning of the universes existence and all of them had to and have to interrelate with one another to ensure the existence and survival of life. Now, the probability that all 122 constants would just by accident or random chance (without design) bring conditions for life is literally impossible. Rather than reword it, I am simply going to quote what Geisler and Turek say about such an impossibility:

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">//“Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants—122 in all—would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e. without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138—that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it! There are only 1070 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all.”//[7]

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">__// Premise 3 //__
<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">**// Therefore, it is due to design //**

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">This premise follows necessarily from establishing premises 1 and 2. We can conclude that the universe is not suitable for life because it is necessary that it be that way, nor is it by chance that we just happen to be in a universe that is suitable for life. No, necessity nor chance sufficient – therefore, we are left with the third and only option: the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. And as we can clearly deduce, any design implies a Designer for its existence. Such a Designer would need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent and also personal – such properties are attributable to the GOD of mono-theists (specifically Christians).

<span style="color: #2d3476; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">As with the Cosmological Argument it is important to understand that the conclusion that has been drawn from the Teleological Argument has not been deduced from a religious text or religious experience, but from scientific arguments and evidences. Upon such evidences we can see that the universe is highly fine-tuned for life and was designed as such.

[1] Moreland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. //__Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview__//. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003) pgs 482-483 [2] [] and Craig, William Lane. //__On Guard: Defending Your Faith With Reason and Precision__//. (Colorado Springs, CO: David Cook. 2010) pg 107-108 [3] Geisler, Norman and Frank Turek. //__I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist__//. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004) pg 96 [4] Information in this paragraph comes from: ibid 112 [5] The list of constants comes directly from: Geisler, Norman and Paul Hoffman. ed. Chapter 8//“Why I Believe in the Miracle of Divine Creation” by Hugh Ross. __Why I am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe__//. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006) pgs 148-151 [6] //__I Don’t Have Enough Faith__//. pg 102 [7] Quoted from: //__I Don’t Have Enough Faith__//. pg 106.