Question

Hello Rabbi,
I was always struck by the argument from design. It always seemed very intuitive to me, and one of the “rabbis” of the atheists even defined this argument as “the strongest argument of the other side.” However, to my mind there are several not-so-simple difficulties with it—some of which I’ve heard from others, and some I thought of myself—and I’d be glad to hear your opinion on the matter. I hope this is not too much trouble for the Rabbi.
1. I understood that all that is needed is a match between all the values. That is, perhaps some force needs to be x, but only provided that another force is y. If both changed correspondingly, life would still be possible. For example: force A has to be 2 times stronger than force B in order for life to emerge. Today force B is 100, so A needs to be 200 for life to emerge. And then people say: what are the chances that it would be precisely 200 out of all possible numbers? But really this is a trick: only the fit between the two values is needed (A being twice B), and therefore there are infinitely many such matching possibilities. So the probability may be low, but not all that low.
2. In addition to all this, it could be that there are many more sets of values (that fit one another) that would allow life, and we are simply unaware of them.
3. It could be that with other combinations of values, other complex things could come into being that are not life—something we are incapable of imagining. So maybe life seems wondrous to us, and the probability of its existence is low, but there are lots of other wondrous things that could have existed under other rare conditions.
4. In everyday life, we would not attribute an unlikely event to something supernatural, so why do so here? For example, if I roll a die and get 6 one hundred times in a row, and after strict laboratory testing it turns out to be a completely fair die, would you say that a supernatural factor is involved?
5. Usually this is presented as something binary: either this is a random draw of data, or there is a guiding hand here. Since the random draw is completely implausible, it follows that this is a guiding hand. But maybe there is a third option (even if at the moment we can’t think of anything specific)?
6. Today people talk about the “multiverse” theory, which produces infinitely many universes, each with values that were randomly assigned. So somewhere among the infinite universes there will be a universe with life. In fact, that is to be expected. And if you say, “There is no proof at all for such a universe,” I’ll say, “There is no proof at all for God.” And then we basically have two unproven theories that can explain the rarity of the values of the universe. True, both explain it by means of novel and unfamiliar things, but multiverse theory is far more economical and is therefore preferable. And if you say, “There are other proofs for God,” then what was the value of this proof in the first place? It turns out that this proof is either disqualified or irrelevant.
There are quite a few difficulties here, so I apologize in advance for the trouble. I’d be glad to hear the Rabbi’s opinion. With thanks and appreciation.