Cosmology Fine tuning Intelligent Design

Christian philosopher Robin Collins vs. atheist philosopher Peter Millican on the fine-tuning of the universe for life

Spread the love

Yes (Robin Collins) or no ( Peter Millican)? Wintery Knight recalls the 2016 debate and offers a summary:

Science has revealed that the fundamental constants and forces of the cosmos appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned to allow a universe in which life can develop. Is God the best explanation of the incredibly improbable odds of the universe we live in being a life-permitting one?

From ‘Unbelievable?’ on ‘Premier Christian Radio’, Saturday 19th March 2016.

From Wintery Knight:

Brierley [host]: What is the fine-tuning argument?

Collins: the fine-tuning is structure of the universe is extremely precisely set to allow the existing of conscious, embodied agents who are capable of moral behavior. There are 3 kinds of fine-tuning: 1) the laws of nature (mathematical formulas), 2) the constants of physics (numbers that are plugged into the equations), 3) the initial conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning exists not just because there are lots of possibilities, but there is something special about the actual state of affairs that we see. Every set of laws, parameters and initial conditions is equally improbable, but the vast majority of permutations do not permit life. The possible explanations: theism or the multiverse.

Brierley: How improbable are the numbers?

Collins: Once case is the cosmological constant (dark energy density), with is 1 part in (10 raised to 120th power). If larger, the universe expands too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form after the Big Bang. If smaller, the universe collapses in on itself before life could form. Another case is the initial distribution of mass energy to give us the low entropy we have that is necessary for life. The fine-tuning there is 1 part in (10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power).

Brierley: What do you think of the argument?

Millican: The argument is worth taking very seriously. I am a fan of the argument. The other arguments for God’s existence such as the ontological and cosmological arguments are very weak. But the fine-tuning argument has the right structure to deliver the conclusion that theists want. And it is different from the traditional design argument tended to focus on biological nature, which is not a strong argument. But the fine-tuning argument is strong because it precedes any sort of biological evolution. Although the design is present at the beginning of the universe, it is not visible until much later. The argument points to at least deism, and possibly theism. The argument is not based on ignorance, it is rooted in “the latest results from the frontiers of science” (his phrase). More.

See also: Where did the laws of nature come from?: Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross vs atheist chemist Peter Atkins


What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

One Reply to “Christian philosopher Robin Collins vs. atheist philosopher Peter Millican on the fine-tuning of the universe for life

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    interesting exchange. I find it significant to see the weak argument dismissal for other forms of evidence and argument to God, esp. on a cumulative basis multiplied by what you cumulatively are forced to commit yourself to to hold something like evolutionary materialistic scientism or the like. That to me points to selective hyperskepticism as a key challenge. KF

Leave a Reply