There are so many problems with this argument, but we’ll just have to take them one by one.
Problem 1 – How fine tuned is the universe?
Fine tuning assumes that the universe is so incredibly fine tuned that if anything was changed that life would not be possible. That’s simply not true. According to models run by Victor Stenger and described in an essay you can download here many of the constants and values cited in fine tuning can be changed by several orders of magnitude and still produce a universe that would allow life, this isn’t to say that they would all allow life on the order of complexity as we see here, but life would still be possible.
In Stenger’s interview on Freethought Radio, he talks about his new book that debunks the fine tuning argument
Problem 2 – Is the logic consistent?
The logic for the argument from fine tuning is backwards. It begins with the fact that humanity has graced the universe with our presence. Assuming that it can’t be mere chance (although there’s no reason it couldn’t be), then this universe must have been custom tailored just for us. But who would do such a thing? Obviously something kind of like us. Then once you’ve worked backwards to an anthropomorphic creator, its obvious that the whole point of everything in the universe was to allow for humanity.
That’s just not how evolution works. What is best adapted to survive and reproduce is what will continue on, with no goal in mind. Our kind of DNA based life started in the universe with the set of physical laws that we have, therefore the kind of life that has evolved on Earth has evolved to be well suited for this universe. Stenger puts it well in his essay when he says:
The fine-tuning argument would tell us that the Sun radiates light so that we can see
where we are going. In fact, the human eye evolved to be sensitive to light from the sun. The
universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe.
Problem 3 – Does the argument support their goal?
Strobel is a Christian apologist. So it’s pretty obvious that his use of the fine tuning argument has the aim of leading heathens (like me) to Christ. Does fine tuning do that?
Our “fine tuned” universe is set up pretty well to allow for evolution. This works for those Christians who accept evolution, but it would seem to negate Genesis 1 and 2. So it wouldn’t work for conservative Christians. God wouldn’t need a finely tuned universe to speak life into existence. In fact, a universe that is finely tuned for life, would be one where life would commonly and easily arise and when God started his work of creation on Earth there would have been a lot of living things here in the way of his perfect creation. God likely would have had to wipe away all preexisting microbes to make room for his creation or we would expect several distinct forms of life on this planet, not all life coming from a single common ancestor.
Even if you discount conservative Creationistic Christianity, there is absolutely nothing in the fine tuning argument that would suggest an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or loving god. Fine tuning also doesn’t suggest that humanity was the goal, merely life. The kind of god who would create a universe like this with such laws that no further intervention is required would sound more like an impersonal deistic god. The type that wants a universe that requires no meddling so that he can go play golf with…uh…okay, just so he never has to lift a finger again.
If fine tuning is being used as an argument for Christianity, then it fails. It gets you no where near the kind of God described by the Bible and actually contradicts parts of the Bible. It certainly gets you nowhere near sin, salvation, grace, or damnation.
Problem 4 – It’s just a god of the gaps.
Need I say more?
(Thanks to Paul for the Link)