One objection to this argument is that the analogy between a...

One objection to this argument is that the analogy between a watch and the universe is too weak to support the inference to a designer of the universe. Another objection is that arguments from analogy are too limited in the kinds of conclusion that they can support, and so force those who use them into an anthropomorphism that is inconsistent with theism.

The Argument from Fine-Tuning If you and I were each to independently write down a number between one and a thousand, to compare those numbers, and to find that they were identical, then this would stand in need of explanation. If we were to repeat this test ten times, each time finding that the numbers that we had written down were identical, then this would be strong evidence that what was happening was more than a mere coincidence.

This is because the theory that there is some connection between my number and your number explains the succession of agreements between our numbers in a way that the theory that there isn’t doesn’t. If there were some connection between the numbers that each of us is writing down, then we might expect our numbers to be the same. If there were no connection, then the succession of agreements would be vastly improbable.

The succession of agreements therefore confirms the theory that there is some causal connection between our respective selections of our numbers. The argument from fine-tuning, a form of teleological argument for the existence of God, is the argument that the state of the universe, like the succession of agreements in our numbers, stands in need of explanation.

The state of the universe, the argument suggests, confirms the theory that the universe was created by an intelligent being for the purpose of supporting life, just as the succession of agreements between our numbers in the example above confirms the theory that there is some cause of their agreement. What is it about the universe, then, that requires explanation?

The argument from fine-tuning suggests that the fitness of the universe for life either involves a series of staggering coincidences, or is the result of intelligent design. There are many ways that the universe might have been, and the overwhelming majority of these would not have been such as to support the development of life.

The expansion of matter after the Big Bang, for instance, had to occur at the right rate - fast enough to avoid a Big Crunch but slow enough to allow for the formation of planets - in order for life to arise; it did.