Paste your essay in here…McKenna Colachis
Professor Nevitt
6 May 2018
Paper Prompt #2
Improbable as Impossible
In the question of “Does God exist, and Why should we believe God exists”, We should analyze Philosophers like Craig, to find out where our own beliefs stand and be able to see objections on either side and then be able to argue those. In Craig’s article, I concentrated on the Teleological Argument. This argument discusses fine-tuning and how Craig believes this is due to an intelligent designer. Fine tuning is characterized by, “The physical laws of nature when given mathematical expression, containing various constants whose values are not determined by the laws themselves; a universe governed by such laws might be characterized by any of a wide range of values for these constants”. This ideally means that everything must be entirely constant with the exact right calculations with no deviations or else the whole universe could be life prohibiting. Craig, in this case, uses fine-tuning as a way to say that there must be an intelligent designer (God) so that these calculations would be seamless so that it is life permitting. In my argument, First, I will be presenting the argument and then critically evaluate it while also bringing in my own criticism.
Craig’s conclusion in his Teleological argument is that the universe was created due to a designer. He comes to this conclusion his own essential premises that goes,
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
He supports the first premise by crediting Stephen Hawking, as he addresses this question at a cosmology conference. Stephen Hawking says that most physicists would rather believe string theory for predicting the universe rather than that an outside force such as God. Hawking considers the alternatives outside of God, which are that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle. He supposes string theory can’t predict what a standard model is, meaning the parameters must work so it can sustain life, “…but within the anthropically allowed range, the parameters can have any value.” (Hawking) Craig then analyzes his response and takes away from it that Hawking’s is saying physical necessity is “a vain hope.” This statement is then drawing out the probability of the universe being due to physical necessity. It is essential to note also that Craig believes that string theory alone couldn’t prove anything in the teleological argument. Craig brings up the Anthropic Principle, the alternative, stating that anything we observe in the universe which at first may look exceedingly improbable can only be seen in actuality after we have considered that as humans, there are certain properties that we can never personally observe. The basis of this principle is that we can’t understand everything since we can only observe as much as our existence allows. In conjunction with the Many World Hypothesis’s, Craig says there has to be a mechanism that created these universes which has to be identified. Craig then moves on to the possibility of a multiverse. He suggests that if this was true, it cannot require fine-tuning whatsoever or the argument is still standing. He analyzes this claim by stating that if it was possible that our universe is one of many, that it is “…overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.” Craig then gives multiple statistics about the probability of our universe suddenly forming from the idea of the Big Bang and how inconceivable the numbers are. He then ends with his conclusion stating that the explanation of chance is to be seen as very implausible.
For the Second premise, Craig states that “It turns out that the string theory allows over 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature so that the theory does not at all render the observed value of the constants and quantities physically necessary.” He then backs up his premise regarding the improbability of chance (2) by making the point that if there is truly a massive number of potential universes within the region of where humans can have life, the region where life could be lived would be incredibly tiny compared to the entire landscape of all the universes. He makes the analogy that if you threw a dart randomly out into the universe that there would be “…no meaningful chance of striking a life-permitting universe.” Craig is ultimately saying that it is highly improbable that the universe is due to chance and that fine-tuning is due to design.
To first critically evaluate this argument, I must consider whether the argument’s conclusion follows its premises. I think the argument stated is valid because if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. That being said, I don’t think these premises can be proved 100% true. Although Craig says throughout his paper that the opposing idea of the universe being due to chance or physical necessity is highly improbable, he is just assuming that because it is highly improbable, that his argument must be true based on higher probability. However, in his paper he never states his argument as a possible reason, but as a strong and true argument. I think the lack of concrete evidence of this argument shows that as humans we feel we need an answer, and accrediting it all to God, who is so poorly defined makes the argument weak because you can give him credit for absolutely everything. I also believe that if the logistics were changed and if life in the universe was hypothetically a guarantee, the logic of our existence being probable or improbable can still be changed to accredit God, which I will discuss more in the next portion of the paper.
Now I am going to consider whether each of the premises is true or if it can be challenged by my own reasoning and questions. My first question being about the whole argument, which is based on chance and physical necessity being improbable. If there are so many parameters that are needed to be perfect to support life, at what point is it fair to admit that it is science itself that suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? I think the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Both sides of the fine-tuning argument cannot be proven or tested in anyway. I think Craig’s argument is really based on begging the question and personal incredulity. Craig ideally is explaining that the universe was not an accident basing it on the statement of “I don’t think the universe was an accident because it is improbable”; which is what I got from his argument. The Personal Incredulity in this is the logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that “X” did not happen because they can’t personally understand how “X” could happen. In this style of argument, it would look like this, “The universe is too amazing; therefore, it is finetuned.” Let’s say a philosopher says the universe being created by chance is like 1 in one trillion. Would if it really isn’t as improbable as it may seem. For example, what if it was 1 in 1,000? At what number is chance a possibility again? Another point that could be made is why in this fine-tuning argument, is Craig presuming that improbable is just as good as impossible? Hitting a full court basketball shot in the last second of a game at the buzzer is pretty much impossible, just like getting hit with lightning twice in a row; but both have happened. Although it is very improbable, it is not impossible. It seems as if Craig claims that divine intervention is necessary for improbable outcomes. His idea to me goes as follows, “God created it. Otherwise, it wouldn’t exist”. This is begging the question.
I am now going to present my potential questions to Craig then answer what my follow-up question would be if Craig answered with either yes or no. If we are to follow the idea that divine intervention is needed for improbable outcomes, I would ask something like, “Is God responsible for every improbable outcome that ever occurred?” and if the answer to that was no, the follow up would be “Then why does God have to be responsible for the universe?”. If the answer was yes, my response would be “Is God also responsible for every probable outcome that has ever happened.” If the answer is no, then I would reply “Why not?”. If the answer was switched to “Yes God is responsible for everything” which is the idea the makes the argument so compelling, then I would follow up with, “Wouldn’t that mean there’s no such thing as probability?”. The entire argument then would be hard to support.
We know that when the odds are low for life in the universe, Craig will make a case for an intelligent designer. But, let’s say hypothetically that the life in the universe was a guarantee. My question would be, would Craig use the same logic to come to a different conclusion or would Craig use different logic to come to the same conclusion.
Example: If Life in the Universe was a guarantee.
Same Logic: if our existence was improbable, there must be divine intervention.
Conclusion: God didn’t need to create it.
Different Logic: The more probable our existence, the more probable divine intervention
Conclusion: This proves that God created it.
The point here is that Craig doesn’t have to use the different logic, but that Craig could in this hypothetical conversation. Which goes back to my point that with God being so poorly defined, we can say he is the cause of everything we don’t understand. I also believe that the argument of the universe being an accident is just as crazy.
I believe that both arguments must be critically thought out and we must have more concrete evidence to prove anything. After all, if the universe didn’t exist, we didn’t exist to observe it. Furthermore, we have no knowledge of what happened before the universe, including potentially failed universes. There is also no concrete evidence of God, so it is impossible to know whether or not he exists or plays a part in the creation of the universe for a fact. However, if you are skeptical and deny the hypothesis of fine-tuning but accept the argument of the Universe being an accident because you “already believed it” it is just Bias. Although Craig backed up his premises and had multiple sources, I cannot deny the fact that the claim is unfalsifiable.