Robin Collins' Argument from Fine-Tuning

Collin’s argument goes as follows. The Existence of the fine-tuning in question is not improbable given theism. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. So the fine-tuning provides strong evidence to favor the theists design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. Underlying this argument is the Prime Principle of Confirmation, which states that whenever we consider two competing hypotheses, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under consideration if the observation has the higher probability. So Collins thinks fine tuning is evidence of there being a God rather than there not being a God. Fine tuning is the idea that the basic structure of the universe such as the fundamental laws of nature, distribution of matter, the initial conditions of the big bang, etc. is balanced on a razors edge for life to occur. The atheistic single universe hypothesis states that there is only one universe and the fine-tuning is just a brute fact. The atheistic many universe hypothesis states that there is a very large, if not infinite, number of universes, and each has a random set of initial conditions and parameters, such that eventually, one such universe will have parameters that are fine tuned.

Collins' support for the first premise is the argument which states that since God is an all good and powerful being, and that it is good for intelligent beings to exist, it would stand to reason that it is not surprising, or improbable, that God would create a world that can support intelligent life.

The OBB Hypothesis states that the universe expands and then contracts, and when the contraction stops for another expansion, that is a new big bang, the initial conditions and parameters are reset. It raises a challenge for Collins’ argument because since the OBB has been going on for eternity, eventually the universe will come to be a fine tuned universe, and that would explain fine tuning. Collins’ objections are manifold. First, as a general rule, we have a preference for natural extrapolations or that which we have independent evidence for. We know that fine tuning is produced by minds, such as watches. So positing God as a super mind for the fine tuning of the universe is a natural extrapolation. In contrast, postulating a OBB is not a natural explanation from what we observe. It has to be invented to explain away the fine tuning of the universe. So theism is just a better hypothesis. Second, whatever it is that is generating the initial conditions of a new big bang would itself need a designer since in all proposals of the generator, that generator is governed by a complex set of physical laws. So if any of these laws of the generator were any different, it wouldn’t be able to produce universes that can sustain life. So this only pushes the problem back one step. Third, the OBB needs to select parameters and laws, but what physical mechanism can randomly select these things? It is implausible that there is such a physical mechanism.