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

[Valjean]

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.

Perhaps a different configuration, not permitting life as we know it, would spawn some other form of life. And how many creations have there already been? For all we know this could be the 10^100th iteration. Sooner or later you're bound to chance upon a salubrious combination.
And, of course, there's no-one to report the fails, and we're left with the impression that we're a unique creation, and the only form possible.

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

Hogwash!

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

Who said anything about physical necessity?

 

[Left Coast]

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

How did you reach this conclusion? Walk me through your reasoning.

As far as "physical necessity," that needs to be fleshed out as well. Is it possible that a state of affairs could have come about through physical means, but not be "necessary?"

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

A hole that is perfectly round would indicate design.

How can you be so sure?

And who's to say that the universe, much like our hypothetic round hole, was always like this?

However, I do agree with fine-tuning argument to some extent. But I personally feel like both the atheists against it AND religious people in favor of it are flawed in their reasoning to certain extent.

I want to hear both sides and their argument in detail before commenting on where I disagree with both of them and where I agree.

 

[Valjean]

A hole that is perfectly round would indicate design.

Except when there's a natural explanation for it.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Is it not a guess that "this single planet that contains life" is not fine tuned, please?
Is the above guess a fruit of Atheism and or of Science, please?

Regards
______________

[67:2] تَبٰرَکَ الَّذِیۡ بِیَدِہِ الۡمُلۡکُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرُ ۣۙ﴿۲﴾
Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
[67:3] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ الۡمَوۡتَ وَ الۡحَیٰوۃَ لِیَبۡلُوَکُمۡ اَیُّکُمۡ اَحۡسَنُ عَمَلًا ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡغَفُوۡرُ ۙ﴿۳﴾
Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[67:4] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ سَبۡعَ سَمٰوٰتٍ طِبَاقًا ؕ مَا تَرٰی فِیۡ خَلۡقِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ مِنۡ تَفٰوُتٍ ؕ فَارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ ۙ ہَلۡ تَرٰی مِنۡ فُطُوۡرٍ ﴿۴﴾
Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
[67:5] ثُمَّ ارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ کَرَّتَیۡنِ یَنۡقَلِبۡ اِلَیۡکَ الۡبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَّ ہُوَ حَسِیۡرٌ ﴿۵﴾
Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return unto thee confused and fatigued.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 67: Al-Mulk
FIFTH PROOF: page 22
Appropriate Tuning
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Ten-Proofs-for-The-Existence-of-God.pdf

 

[Zaha Torte]

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 don't think any argument you formulate would convince anyone.

"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matthew 12:39)

 

[Valjean]

Is it not a guess that "this single planet that contains life" is not fine tuned, please?

No, it's the default. Fine tuning can only be logically concluded when there's evidence of it.

Is the above guess a fruit of Atheism and or of Science, please?

Neither.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Facts are facts, get over it

If Christianity is true why are there still Jews? See how silly your evolution jibe is

Anyway we are apes, not monkeys

 

[ChristineM]

Is it not a guess that "this single planet that contains life" is not fine tuned, please?
Is the above guess a fruit of Atheism and or of Science, please?

Regards
______________

[67:2] تَبٰرَکَ الَّذِیۡ بِیَدِہِ الۡمُلۡکُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرُ ۣۙ﴿۲﴾
Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
[67:3] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ الۡمَوۡتَ وَ الۡحَیٰوۃَ لِیَبۡلُوَکُمۡ اَیُّکُمۡ اَحۡسَنُ عَمَلًا ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡغَفُوۡرُ ۙ﴿۳﴾
Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[67:4] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ سَبۡعَ سَمٰوٰتٍ طِبَاقًا ؕ مَا تَرٰی فِیۡ خَلۡقِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ مِنۡ تَفٰوُتٍ ؕ فَارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ ۙ ہَلۡ تَرٰی مِنۡ فُطُوۡرٍ ﴿۴﴾
Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
[67:5] ثُمَّ ارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ کَرَّتَیۡنِ یَنۡقَلِبۡ اِلَیۡکَ الۡبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَّ ہُوَ حَسِیۡرٌ ﴿۵﴾
Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return unto thee confused and fatigued.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 67: Al-Mulk

Read what i wrote then try again

 

[Yerda]

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

Can you explain why?

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

Does it? Why?

 

[leroy]

Perhaps a different configuration, not permitting life as we know it, would spawn some other form of life.

Because a different configuration would make the existence of say atoms impossible. The only “assumption” that I am making is that life (of any kind) can exist without atoms. … seems a reasonable assumption to me.

And how many creations have there already been? For all we know this could be the 10^100th iteration. Sooner or later you're bound to chance upon a salubrious combination.
And, of course, there's no-one to report the fails, and we're left with the impression that we're a unique creation, and the only form possible.

Irrelevant, if there where potentially infinite (or just a big number) of other creations you would be more likely to be a Boltzmann brain under the illusion of being a human than a real human … given that you are presumably not a bolzman brain your “many creations” claim collapses-

 

[leroy]

Can you explain why?

Statistically speaking you are much more likely to in a simple universe than in a complex universe with many stars, planets galaxies etc.

You are much more likely to live in a universe with say just 1 star and 1 planet, and dream/imagine/hallucinate that you live in a complex universe with many stars.

As an analogy would if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row, then you probably are just imagining stuff.

And of course being a bolzman brain (BB) is statistically speaking even more probable, so if you think that all the observations of a complex and FT universe are just a product of chance, then you most conclude that you are a BB hallucinating all that stuff.

So you ether conclude that you are a BB or drop any chance hypothesis that you might have.

]Does it? Why?

Because we are talking about multiple independent values, why would they all conspire to fall in to the life permitting range?

 

[ChristineM]

Because a different configuration would make the existence of say atoms impossible.

Would it? Do you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim ?

The only “assumption” that I am making is that life (of any kind) can exist without atoms. …

Would it? Do you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim ?

Irrelevant, if there where potentially infinite (or just a big number) of other creations you would be more likely to be a Boltzmann brain under the illusion of being a human than a real human … given that you are presumably not a bolzman brain your “many creations” claim collapses-

Would it? Do you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim ?

It seems to me that all you have is assumption

 

[ChristineM]

You are much more likely to live in a universe with say just 1 star and 1 planet, and dream/imagine/hallucinate that you live in a complex universe with many stars.

Would it? Do you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim ?

As an analogy would if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row, then you probably are just imagining stuff.

Irrelevant

 

[Valjean]

Would it? Do you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim ?

Would it? Do you have peer reviewed data to back up your claim ?

Christians already believe life exists without atoms. Spirits, Holy Ghost, God, angels...

 

[blü 2]

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

Were it not fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. In that sense, it's necessary for this particular universe, by which we really mean us, to exist. It's not necessary in any other sense.

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

The correct answer is, we don't know enough about our universe to know if some underlying unity in its nature brings those constants into being already fine-tuned, or not.

'Don't know' is not the same as 'necessity' or 'chance' or 'design'

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

First, "don't know" does not imply that the universe is the result of conscious and rational choices, nor imply the existence of a conscious and rational being making those choices.

Second, it certainly doesn't imply "God", who exists only conceptually / as a thing imagined in individual brains and has no definition appropriate to a being with objective existence.

Third, if we nonetheless hypothesize such a being, it doesn't have to be unitary or intelligent. It could, to take one of a huge range of possibilities, be the result of colonies of super-ants, mindlessly going about their evolved business and leaving a trail of universes in their wake to pollute the metaverse (and perhaps require the intelligent metaversians to call in the exterminators and clean out all those danged cosmoses).

Fourth, if there's a metaverse, where did it come from, and how finely tuned are its constants and how come?

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

1. G-d has claimed it, there is no other claimant.
2. G-d not only created life but he sustains it also.

Right, please?

Regards
_____________
FIFTH PROOF: page 22
Appropriate Tuning
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Ten-Proofs-for-The-Existence-of-God.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

A hole that is perfectly round would indicate design.

Perhaps. Too bad that what we observe is nowhere hear that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Facts are facts, get over it

If Christianity is true why are there still Jews? See how silly your evolution jibe is

Anyway we are apes, not monkeys

That all depends upon how one defines "monkeys". If both Old World and New World monkeys are "monkeys" then by cladistics we are too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. G-d has claimed it, there is no other claimant.
2. G-d not only created life but he sustains it also.

Right, please?

Regards
_____________
FIFTH PROOF: page 22
Appropriate Tuning
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Ten-Proofs-for-The-Existence-of-God.pdf

Where did this "G-d" character make this claim? There does not appear to be any evidence supporting your claims. Why would any rational person believe them?