A fined tuned argument.....Heywood style.

[Alex K]

So, we can "prove" neither God nor the muliverse, but the latter is a simple, and mathematically well defined consequence of a comparably very simple theoretical model which was invented for an entirely different purpose. Whether you are willing to believe either one or not, the point is that the god hypothesis loses.

[Tonus]

When most people think of an intelligent designer they mean god, but what I dont get is why does god need to fine tune the universe and have it work in a way which is indistinguishable from naturalistic means? Surely god could have made life exist in any kind of universe he wanted? Otherwise why call him god and what is the point in a god that has to play by the rules of nature?

The argument seems self defeating to me .

This is what I wonder as well. If the universe requires that its settings be within precise ranges in order to support life, then it seems that god is limited by something outside of his control. But if god could design any universe that it would support life, then there is no fine tuning necessary because any configuration would result in a life-producing universe.

[Simon Moon]

When most people think of an intelligent designer they mean god, but what I dont get is why does god need to fine tune the universe and have it work in a way which is indistinguishable from naturalistic means? Surely god could have made life exist in any kind of universe he wanted? Otherwise why call him god and what is the point in a god that has to play by the rules of nature?

The argument seems self defeating to me .

Exactly.

The question theists have to answer is, could an omnipotent god create a universe of any description he wanted, even one that should not be able to support life, and yet have life thrive in it?

If he wanted for us to see signs of his existence, why a universe that continues to have mounting evidence for a natural origin?

Every time I see the fine tuning argument, I can't help but think of Douglas Adams parable:

"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!”

In other words, we are only here having this discussion because the universe is such that it is able to produce and support life. Not because the universe was designed to support life.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Thank you, it figures Douglas Adams would be able to phrase it so concisely.

Every argument from fine tuning and design assumes the necessity of design, seemingly because anthropomorphizing and assigning motives seems to be an unavoidable human shortcoming.

It's easy to think in terms of a bigger, more powerful consciousness being the driving force behind what we observe, than it is to realize how often we project our own consciousness onto the world to interpret it.

Children think their parents are getting a divorce as a result of something they've done. Primitive people think hurricanes are a result of bad thoughts and actions that upset some force.

Just because one's own consciousness fools one into thinking they're the center of the universe doesn't make it so.

[Simon Moon]

Fine tuning argument = argument from ignorance

Nothing more.

[Im_Ryan]

Fine-tuning you say?

I just had a debate on this over this article. I'm sure my reply for that will fit in here:

My thoughts on the article:
I have to admit, the Christians jumped on the science bandwagon faster than I thought, but I knew this would happen eventually. The article you sent me is not news, it's an opinionated blog. First statement is:
"Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN"

This argument is nothing new. It's called the "Anthropic Principle". This is the original argument I mentioned that the "Fine-tuning" argument comes from. My rebuttles are the same.
There is literally a list of things wrong in that article, but I'll just mention the highlights:
1. Let's look at the logic that is used here:
"The universe has a beginning" ->
"Everything that began has to have a cause" ->
"Since the universe began, it must have a cause" ->
"therefore, god created the universe"
See the problem? Besides the "Watchmaker fallacy" and "Begging the question", let's just say it's right (it's not for facetious logic I just stated). How do you come to the conclusion that YOUR god created the universe? Every religion claims that their god created the universe. So, who's to say it wasn't Onyame? Allah? Zues? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
2. No one knows who wrote genesis. Apologetics claim it's just poetry, while fundamentalists claim it as truth. Well, it is FACT that it CANNOT be true. It goes against science (besides also contradicting itself [Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2]), so if you take it as poetry, then you can not, in all honesty, cherry pick scriptures and present them as proof. Doesn't work that way.
3. If God created the universe for us, then why is (literally) over 99% of it deadly to humans? If he created it just for us, why did he make it so big? It's unnecessary. One must draw the conclusion that God is trolling us or is just not very good at what he does.
Now, if you replace god with chance, then everything makes sense. Since we are an infinitely small piece of the universe, it makes perfect sense that everything was NOT made for us, rather, we were "made" for it [only earth at that, which over 90% is still uninhabitable by humans].
4. Confirmation bias. You start with the solution and work backwards to the question. For example: "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since all planets are shaped like meatballs, he must exist. Also, since you can't disprove he didn't create the universe, he must have. Therefore, he is the only true religion."
Same thing applies here, but with Jesus and the new scientific discovery. It essentially boils down to "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right." Try pulling that in court...
----
If you'd like more examples, I'd have no problem to keep going.

[Angrboda]

The argument from fine-tuning is basically just an argument from design in cosmological dress. The article in the IEP linked below on the argument for arguments for God based on design includes many objections based on biological design which apply equally to the fine tuning argument.

Basically, there are two ways to conceive of the fine tuning argument. The first, is as an argument from ignorance. "Not X, therefore Y." An argument from ignorance is fallacious and its conclusion is therefore not justified, so you can't get to God via this route. The other way to conceive of the fine tuning argument is that it is a Bayesian argument of which of the given alternatives is most probable. For this type of argument to succeed, the probabilities of each alternative must be estimated. Perhaps a random universe is improbable, but that means nothing if the probability of a universe designed by God is even lower. However, since nobody can provide any justification for assigning a probability to the alternative of "design by God," this argument can't be completed either. So neither approach to the design / fine tuning argument leads to a successful, justified conclusion that it was designed by God.

There's an additional difficulty, being that, even if we accept that the facts "cry out" for explanation, they only cry out for an explanation of the fine tuning. That God satisfies this need may be one answer, but there may be many others, answers that are unknown, which may satisfy this cry. You need to prove not only that fine tuning demands an answer (it doesn't), but also that the answer which satisfies that cry is what we would call a god. People who argue fine tuning tend not to realize that showing fine tuning is one of the baby steps of the argument. Without the other major steps, you have nothing.

For what it's worth, I've never heard a fact utter a cry yet. Biased observers, yes, facts, no.

The following article from the IEP points out how all design arguments, including fine tuning, fall short.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

The following article on William Dembski's work on intelligent design, while lengthy, demonstrates how big the gap which exists between arguments that claim the need for design "cries out" and what the facts actually do is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

If Heywood was Heywood Jablome my answer right now would be: YES YES OMG FUCKING YES CAN I BLOW YOU RIGHT NOW?

[Im_Ryan]

If Heywood was Heywood Jablome my answer right now would be: YES YES OMG FUCKING YES CAN I BLOW YOU RIGHT NOW?

I thought the same thing... except that he should blow me... whatever *shrugs*

[Angrboda]

Gigantic fail.
Here cosmologist Sean Carroll OBLITERATES argument of fine tuning.

While I would agree, I think the length of the video is intimidating, so I'll provide my own, biased view summarizing the contents.

Overall it is an excellent debate. The first 24 minutes of the video are taken up by a screen saver (10 minutes), followed by 14 minutes of introduction. Once the debate begins, things go relatively briskly, with each giving a 20 minute opening followed by a 12 minute rebuttal, then 5 minutes of intermission, then closing statements, then Q&A.

Craig opens with a discussion of Kalam's cosmological argument, followed by a discussion of the argument from fine tuning.

Craig does especially well in his presentation of Kalam; I felt his presentation of the fine tuning argument to be rather weak. I've seen much better.

Carroll starts by suggesting that framing the argument in terms of Kalam and Design are the wrong approaches, that cosmology has abandoned such things in favor of predictive, naturalistic models. He does a fair job at this. Where he really shines is in his arguments against the fine tuning argument.

Craig's rebuttal didn't accomplish a great deal other than to repeat his original complaints, yet his presentation of Kalam remains strong.

Carroll's rebuttal dealing with Kalam was very good, and it is an excellent rebuttal.

Craig's closing statement is good, but again, repetitive.

Carroll's closing was sort of a curve ball, feel good "hope" for a renewed basis for spirituality. Meh.

So in summation, if you're interested in a good theist representation of fine tuning, it isn't here; if you're looking for a good naturalist rebuttal to fine tuning, Carroll's 20 minute opening statement is excellent.

I will not comment on the Q & A.