Why is the universe so finely tuned

When an atom binds with another atom to make a molecule, the charged protons and electrons interact to hold them together. The mass of a proton is nearly 2, times the mass of the electron 1, But if this ratio changed by only a small amount, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of many molecules, including DNA, the building blocks of life.

As theologian and scientist Alister McGrath has pointed out, 1. Evidence for fine-tuning is recognized by physicists and astronomers of all religions and worldviews, and has been for decades.

Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. Some agnostics and atheists see fine-tuning simply as a lucky accident. To argue against this line of reasoning, philosopher John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed, 2 summarized here by astronomer and BioLogos President Deborah Haarsma:.

Of course the survivor would look for an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred! In the same way, most people are curious to figure out why the universe is the way it is, both scientifically and theologically.

In recent years, several theories for a multiverse have been put forth. In a multiverse model, there are many other universes in addition to our own. Each of these universes has different properties and different values of the basic constants of physics, such that some of these universes would have gravity set just right to form stars, but many universes would not. If the number of these universes is extremely large, it would be less surprising that one of them would happen to provide the specific conditions for life.

Would a multiverse explain away fine-tuning and point away from God? The different multiverse models arise out of theoretical physics and cosmology and the leading ones have a rich mathematical basis. One version of the multiverse arises from string theory. String theory is the best theory developed so far to unify the four fundamental forces of physics, by picturing each particle as a tiny vibrating string operating in dimensional space.

String theory was not invented to explain fine-tuning or multiple universes; the multiverse prediction arose out of the math of the theory. Another version of the multiverse arises from inflation theory, which was developed to answer questions about the properties of the universe, such as its nearly uniform temperature and the imbalance of matter and antimatter.

In inflation, the universe expands at an incredibly rapid rate in its first moments by a factor of 10 26 in about 10 seconds. In those moments, tiny fluctuations in the early universe expand nearly to the size of galaxies, leading to the structures we see in the universe today. Inflation made specific predictions for properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background , the heat radiation leftover from the early universe, and those predictions have been fully confirmed: inflation theory has been thoroughly tested and confirmed.

Intriguingly, most versions of inflation theory also predict a multiverse. Cosmologists themselves debate whether the multiverse is in the realm of science. Some argue that using the multiverse as an explanation would weaken the very nature of scientific reasoning, since it cannot be tested directly.

Others argue that a physical theory like inflation can be confirmed if some of its predictions are confirmed as they have with the Cosmic Microwave Background even if not all predictions can be tested. Scientists also have found that, even if the multiverse models are right, the multiverse would not eliminate fine-tuning. For example, in order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion, inflation theories require certain parameters to take on particularly precise values.

While inflation explains some properties in our universe that previously appeared fine-tuned, the fine-tuning is not eliminated—it is pushed a step back into the origin of the multiverse itself. The multiverse models are fascinating and address scientific questions in this universe, but at a scientific level the predictions for other universes are virtually impossible to verify.

But even if a multiverse model were well-established on a scientific level, it would not and could not replace God. No scientific theory can. From the perspective of biblical faith, science merely investigates the physical world that God created and sustains.

Join us to receive the latest articles, podcasts, videos, and more, and help us show how science and faith work hand in hand. Many arguments claiming to prove the existence of God have been proposed throughout the centuries. John Leslie. David J. Michael Shermer. Fine-Tuning of the Universe? Breathtaking Universe Alien Intelligences? Far Future of the Universe. TV Episode. What's Fine-Tuning in Physics? Philosophy of Fine-Tuning Part 1. Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed. Philosophy of Fine-Tuning Part 2.

What does a Fine-Tuned Universe Mean? What's Fine-Tuning in Cosmology? This is very different from how we normally think about things, but it is consistent with everything we observe. The Scottish philosopher David Hume long ago noted that all we can really observe is how things behave — the underlying forces that give rise to those behaviours are invisible to us. We standardly assume that the Universe is powered by a number of non-rational causal capacities, but it is also possible that it is powered by the capacity of the Universe to respond to considerations of value.

It is parsimonious to suppose that the Universe has a consciousness-involving nature. How are we to think about the laws of physics on this view?

I suggest that we think of them as constraints on the agency of the Universe. Unlike the God of theism, this is an agent of limited power, which explains the manifest imperfections of the Universe.

The Universe acts to maximise value, but is able to do so only within the constraints of the laws of physics. The beneficence of the Universe does not much reveal itself these days; the agentive cosmopsychist might explain this by holding that the Universe is now more constrained than it was in the unique circumstances of the first split second after the Big Bang, when currently known laws of physics did not apply.

Is it not a great cost in terms of parsimony to ascribe fundamental consciousness to the Universe? Not at all. The physical world must have some nature, and physics leaves us completely in the dark as to what it is. It is no less parsimonious to suppose that the Universe has a consciousness-involving nature than that it has some non-consciousness-involving nature.

If anything, the former proposal is more parsimonious insofar as it is continuous with the only thing we really know about the nature of matter: that brains have consciousness. Having said that, the second and final modification we must make to cosmopsychism in order to explain the fine-tuning does come at some cost.

If the Universe, way back in the Planck epoch, fine-tuned the laws to bring about life billions of years in its future, then the Universe must in some sense be aware of the consequences of its actions. This is the second modification: I suggest that the agentive cosmopsychist postulate a basic disposition of the Universe to represent the complete potential consequences of each of its possible actions.

In a sense, this is a simple postulation, but it cannot be denied that the complexity involved in these mental representations detracts from the parsimony of the view. However, this commitment is arguably less profligate than the postulations of the theist or the multiverse theorist. The theist postulates a supernatural agent while the agentive cosmopsychist postulates a natural agent. The multiverse theorist postulates an enormous number of distinct, unobservable entities: the many universes.

The agentive cosmopsychist merely adds to an entity that we already believe in: the physical Universe. And most importantly, agentive cosmopsychism avoids the false predictions of its two rivals. The idea that the Universe is a conscious mind that responds to value strikes us a ludicrously extravagant cartoon. But we must judge the view not on its cultural associations but on its explanatory power.

Agentive cosmopsychism explains the fine-tuning without making false predictions; and it does so with a simplicity and elegance unmatched by its rivals. It is a view we should take seriously. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Templeton Religion Trust.

Funders to Aeon Magazine are not involved in editorial decision-making, including commissioning or content-approval. Since writing this Essay, Philip Goff has revised his views on fine-tuning. For details see his blogpost. Space exploration. Instead of treating Mars and the Moon as sites of conquest and settlement, we need a radical new ethics of space exploration. Ramin Skibba. Modern biomedicine sees the body as a closed mechanistic system.

But illness shows us to be permeable, ecological beings. Nitin K Ahuja. They are spreading like branching plants across the globe. Should we rein cities in or embrace their biomorphic potential?

Josh Berson. Thinkers and theories. Some see Plato as a pure rationalist, others as a fantastical mythmaker. His deft use of stories tells a more complex tale. Tae-Yeoun Keum.

All the stories we have are flawed. What makes something worth believing? Is the Universe a conscious mind? Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life: The strong nuclear force the force that binds together the elements in the nucleus of an atom has a value of 0.

If that value had been 0.