![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.martinfrost.ws\/htmlfiles\/gazette\/porridge4.jpg\")
<\/a>It\u2019s not unusual to hear the argument from incredulity (\u2018here\u2019s something that\u2019s really weird, therefore god exists\u2019), but it is rare that you hear it coming from a Professor of Philosophy. But that\u2019s exactly what Prof Robin Collins, at the evangelical Messiah College<\/a> in Pennsylvania, is doing over at Science and Religion Today<\/a> (and on the PBS series Closer to Truth: Cosmos, Consciousness, God<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\nHis basic idea is that the universe is finely tuned to be hospitable for life. Since we don\u2019t have a particularly good explanation yet for exactly why the universe turned out the way it did, this counts as evidence for the existence of god!<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s an excerpt:
<\/p>\n
I believe we can say that the fine-tuning of the universe provides significant evidence in support of divine creation over this hypothesis. The reason for this can be articulated in terms of what is often called the \u201clikelihood principle,\u201d but which I call the \u201csurprise principle.\u201d Roughly, this principle states that whenever a body of evidence is much more surprising under one hypothesis than another, it counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which it is least surprising.<\/p>\n
\u2026 it could be argued, given the fine-tuning, that the existence of a life-permitting universe is very surprising under the brute fact hypothesis, but not under theism. Therefore, by the surprise principle, fine-tuning provides significant evidence in favor of theism over the brute fact hypothesis. Nonetheless, it does not prove theism is true, or even show it is the best explanation of the universe. So faith\u2014understood as a special mode of knowing similar to our ethical intuitions\u2014still plays an essential role in belief in God, but the fine-tuning offers significant confirming evidence for this belief. In any case, the fine-tuning evidence offers a significant challenge to those who claim that the findings of science undercut belief in God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Well I have some news for Prof Collins. It isn\u2019t a surprise that the universe we live in is suitable for people to live in \u2013 in fact it\u2019s bleeding obvious<\/span>! If the universe was not habitable, then we wouldn\u2019t be able to live in it, and we wouldn\u2019t be able to sit around pontificating on its origin.<\/p>\n
This, of course, is the \u2018anthropic principle\u2019, and as explanations go it\u2019s almost \u2013 but not quite \u2013 as unsatisfactory as the \u2018god hypothesis\u2019. But it\u2019s perfectly plausible and, no matter how many potential universes there are out there, it\u2019s entirely unsurprising that the one we\u2019re is, like the little bear\u2019s porridge, just right<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n
But here\u2019s another flaw in Prof Collins\u2019 argument. It\u2019s an argument from ignorance \u2013 otherwise known as the \u2018god of the gaps\u2019 approach. It presumes that our current understanding is complete and entire, and that anything we don\u2019t understand counts as evidence for the existence of god.<\/p>\n
In fact, Fred Adams of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor has recently shown that all this talk of the universe being fine-tuned is based on a false, simplistic premise. Here\u2019s how the New Scientist reported it:<\/p>\n
Claims of fine-tuning have generally been based on what happens when you vary a single characteristic of the universe, say the strength of gravity, while holding all others constant. That, says Adams, is too artificial a scenario to tell you anything about whether there are other universes that can support life. \u201cThe right way to do the problem is to start from scratch,\u201d he says. \u201cYou have to turn all the knobs and find out what happens.\u201d<\/p>\n
Adams selected a range of possible values for each of these constants, then put them into a computer model that created a multitude of universes, or a virtual \u201cmultiverse\u201d. Each universe within the multiverse used different values for the three constants and was subject to slightly different laws of physics.<\/p>\n
About a quarter of the resulting universes turned out to be populated by energy-generating stars. \u201cYou can change alpha or the gravitational constant by a factor of 100 and stars still form,\u201d Adams says, suggesting that stars can exist in universes in which at least some fundamental constants are wildly different than in our universe.<\/p>\n
And though some universes were filled with things we might not usually think of as stars \u2013 radiating black holes or bodies formed of dark matter \u2013 they all gave out enough energy to power some form of life, and lasted long enough for life to evolve.<\/p>\n
Adams reckons his results, which will be published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics<\/i>, suggest that the \u201cspecialness\u201d of our universe could well be an illusion. And this is only the very beginning of what can be probed to undermine the idea that our universe is fine-tuned for life. There are plenty more constants and processes that can be tinkered with, he says.<\/p>\n
Adams\u2019s approach is \u201cextremely interesting\u201d, says Michael Murphy of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. \u201cI\u2019ve long had a suspicion that this talk of fine-tuning needs constant questioning and re-examination,\u201d he says. \u201cIt\u2019s sometimes hard to recognise that living somewhere else in a different way might be just as easy.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n