Arguments from design or fine-tuning have long been among the most popular and convincing arguments for God’s existence. It is said to be wildly improbable, that the constants of the universe are at the precise levels they are, which just so happens to allow our existence. However, not only do such arguments fail, the evidence of fine-tuning actually is better explained by God’s non-existence. For the purposes of this discussion, we shall be examining William Lane Craig’s teleological argument. According to Craig, the fine-tuning that is evident in the universe is not caused by chance or necessity. It is due to design.

Apologists like to claim that the probability that our universe appeared by chance is so low, it is virtually zero. The evidence for such claims? Zero. The simple fact is we have no idea how improbable the existence of this universe is. Furthermore, even if this universe is improbable (arguably any universe could be just as ‘improbable’), it can exist, it does exist, and we shouldn’t be so surprised to see that it exists – if it didn’t, we wouldn’t (the anthropic principle). And of course, if the universe or multiverse is infinitely old, which has never been conclusively ruled out, an incredibly implausible state of affairs will occur, eventually. Note that there is no need to appeal to a multiverse theory.

We also don’t know that this universe is contingent, or unnecessary. That it is, is merely an apologetic presupposition. It could be, for example, that the only viable universes are ones that happen to allow human life. Another issue is why we should assume that the purpose of the universe concerns human life (anthropocentrism). Reasonable non-believers would happily reject this notion, accepting the fact that we are the unpleasant side-effects of truly epic celestial shenanigans. Not only do Craig and his fellow theistic philosophers of religion provide no evidence that chance and necessity are not viable, they provide no evidence that some form of supernatural design obtained. That’s kind of a big deal. We could leave it at that, but far more exciting is the claim that the evidence of fine-tuning should lead us towards ‘strong atheism’ or naturalism.

Comparing ‘God did it’ and ‘nature did it’ hypotheses, we can confer equal prior probabilities. This is too generous to a world-view that assumes the completely evidentially unjustified creatio ex nihilo and substance dualism. Charitably, then, we must decide which view is preferable solely by how well the theory fits the evidence. Does the naturalistic theory fit the evidence extremely poorly as the theist suggests? No, it fits it 100%! If God doesn’t exist, the observed fine-tuning must have happened naturally. What of the theistic theory? Does it fit the evidence 100%? Well, if it did, we are left with a 50-50 scenario (at best for the theist, as there are other supernatural possibilities). But despite apologists’ claims, it is not 100%; it must be less. To say that God would need to fine-tune our universe to allow us to live is to blaspheme God’s power and is ‘disproven’ by Biblical tales such as Daniel in the lions’ den and Jonah in the belly of the whale. And if it fits less than 100%, which it must, the naturalistic theory is more probable, even if only slightly. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe constitutes good evidence for God’s non-existence. —Raphael Lataster