Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[leroy]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:

alking about those "arguments", you accused me of never responding to them - which was a very false accusation. I invited you to create a new thread for what you consider to be the BEST argument, so that I could show to you that I have no problem at all dismantling it and showing how it's likely fallacious.

So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

 

[Left Coast]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

Not watching the video or reading links.

Please define "fine-tuning."

Please provide evidence for Premise #2.

 

[Yerda]

It's a valid argument but if it rests on this:

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

then it's not a very good one.

 

[ChristineM]

The fine tuning argument relies on guess. I.e. i dont know so i guess god did it.

Taking the reality of the situation into account shows the fine tuning argument for the uneducated guess that it is.

Lets take this single planet that contains life, in the deadly vacuum of space it speeds around a gigantic fireball. The radiation/energy from that fireball causes cancer. Lumps of rock and metal plummet into this ball of rock at 20,000 miles per hour. There have been at least 5 major extinction events. To say this universe that is always trying to kill us is fines tuned by intelligence is beyond belief.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

While I think fine-tuning argument is valid to an extent, I don't think it's a strong enough argument. It can be explained away that perhaps BECAUSE the universe is tuned the way it is, that is why life came into existence.

Think about it this way, consider a hole in the ground. This hole is perfectly round. Now, it is due to the roundness of this hole that made that it possible to fix a round peg in it, not that the roundness was tailored for the peg to fix perfectly.

 

[PureX]

I do not see how chance, alone (which would be expressed as abject chaos) could produce anything but abject chaos. Nor do I see how "physical necessity" could exist in and of itself. As a singular concept, it's just some kind of weird 'tautological functionality'.

However, the proposition that the two, working together, could possibly have produced the organized complexity that we now experience as 'existential design' might have merit. Though I still cannot see how either could 'exist' in and of themselves, before the physical expression of 'existential design' burst into being.

 

[Heyo]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

What exactly was the question?
You are talking about the Fine Tuning Argument, but what is that argument for?

 

[Michael16548]

I see that I have found my first archenemy.
1)I agreed whit him

While I think fine-tuning argument is valid to an extent, I don't think it's a strong enough argument. It can be explained away that perhaps BECAUSE the universe is tuned the way it is, that is why life came into existence.

Think about it this way, consider a hole in the ground. This hole is perfectly round. Now, it is due to the roundness of this hole that made that it possible to fix a round peg in it, not that the roundness was tailored for the peg to fix perfectly.

2) If fine-tuning were different and life would still exist (no matter what the base would be on) this argument would not change, but we would.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

If that's the best argument you have, it's a rather weak one.

You are like the water sitting in a puddle after a rain storm that concludes because the depression in the ground fits the water PERFECTLY that CLEARLY the depression in the ground was designed by some sentient being in order to accomodate the water.

 

[Valjean]

The fine tuning argument has been logically debunked a thousand times. The universe is tuned to meet our specific physical needs? How are our particular needs evidence of anything but adaptation to existing conditions?

We are fine-tuned to fit the universe, not vice versa.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Fine Tuning argument is refuted by the Argument of the Puddle:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

 

[Altfish]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

 

[Valjean]

The chances for any configuration of physical laws and constants is infinitesimal, considering the conceivable variations.

Consider: Roll a dozen dice, and the chances for twelve sixes is exactly the same as any other configuration. Every combination is equally "unlikely."

 

[ChristineM]

The chances for any configuration of physical laws and constants is infinitesimal, considering the conceivable variations.

Consider: Roll a dozen dice, and the chances for twelve sixes is exactly the same as any other configuration. Every combination is equally "unlikely."

I think the odds of any combination are around 1/2 a billion to 1

 

[leroy]

Not watching the video or reading links.

Please define "fine-tuning."

FT: The claim that some values (force of gravity, expansion of the universe, size of the particles, entropy, electromagnetic force etc.) fall within a narrow rage of life permitting values, such that if the values where a little bit different life would not be possible.

Please provide evidence for Premise #2.

The bolzman brain paradox refutes any “chance” hypothesis that might exist.

The fact that these are multiple independent values, makes physical necessity implausible.

 

[leroy]

The fine tuning argument relies on guess. I.e. i dont know so i guess god did it.

Taking the reality of the situation into account shows the fine tuning argument for the uneducated guess that it is.

Lets take this single planet that contains life, in the deadly vacuum of space it speeds around a gigantic fireball. The radiation/energy from that fireball causes cancer. Lumps of rock and metal plummet into this ball of rock at 20,000 miles per hour. There have been at least 5 major extinction events. To say this universe that is always trying to kill us is fines tuned by intelligence is beyond belief.

That is based on a strawman understanding of what FT means, you can ether read my last post, or reed the references for a better understanding.

 

[ChristineM]

That is based on a strawman understanding of what FT means, you can ether read my last post, or reed the references for a better understanding.

No, it is based of fact, sorry you don't understand that

 

[leroy]

While I think fine-tuning argument is valid to an extent, I don't think it's a strong enough argument. It can be explained away that perhaps BECAUSE the universe is tuned the way it is, that is why life came into existence.

Think about it this way, consider a hole in the ground. This hole is perfectly round. Now, it is due to the roundness of this hole that made that it possible to fix a round peg in it, not that the roundness was tailored for the peg to fix perfectly.

A hole that is perfectly round would indicate design.

 

[leroy]

No, it is based of fact, sorry you don't understand that

Honestly you sound like a YEC who claims, “if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys”………please try to make an honest effort and understand the concept of Fine Tunning…. This is not a “religious thing” you can find information on the fine tuning problem in secular sources.

 

[exchemist]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

I'm never persuaded by the Fine Tuning Argument. I suspect the people who make it do not understand probability properly.

The probability of an event being low does not mean it can't have happened by chance.

To take an example, if there are, say, a thousand outcomes of equal probability, the chance of any one outcome is only 0.1%. So, you might say, very unlikely. But there must be an outcome and there can be only one. So, once it has happened, whatever it was, it was one with a probability of only 0.1%.

So a low probability before the event is not any sort of argument for something that has happened not to have occurred by chance.