The Case for Theism

[Mister Agenda]

Doesn't the "fine tuning" argument also argue for a god who is beholden to those very limits? As I understand it, the argument goes that certain universal constants are tuned precisely as they must in order for the universe to support life. But that implies that god had no other option than to set those constants in exactly those positions. Had the all powerful and all knowing god turned any of the dials just the tiniest fraction to the right or left, the universe fizzles. Therefore, it doesn't stand to reason that god is the creator of the universe; it's more likely that he stumbled upon a "universe tuning machine" that was improperly tuned, figured out the proper settings, and BAM!!! Instant universe!

What's that? Where did the "universe tuning machine" come from? Damn, do you always ask such dumb questions?

That is correct, a 'fine-tuned' universe is the only kind of universe in which a supernatural explanation is NOT required to explain our existence.

---

Would you give an example of something unknowable, or inexplicable in mathematical terms, so we can compare?

Sure the radio hiss generated by the universe is an example of chaos. There's no mathematical formula that can make predictions of what sounds are going to emit or find any pattern.

I didn't ask for an example of something that can't be mathematically predicted, I asked for something that can't be mathematically described. Predictability wasn't part of your claim, the capacity to be described mathematically was.

If I were to take a box of 200 toothpicks and drop them from 50 feet it would create a random pattern that isn't predictable. However, it isn't completely random or completely unpredictable because it still is bound by the laws of physics primarily gravity. If we dropped the box in space the pattern would be even more unpredictable. Barring the laws of physics or someone intentionally doing something this is what happens when we allow unguided forces to interact freely.

I appreciate you trying to provide an example, but the fact that you had to resort to predictability instead of the criteria you outlined illustrates my point that your criteria apply to absolutely anything. The only reason I can think of to bar the laws of physics is to support your argument. Think about that: if you have to imagine the laws of physics not applying in order to bolster your argument, that's where you'll go. You know that the laws of physics are exactly what makes life possible, right?

Which explanation is more magical? The explanation that mindless, lifeless forces minus any plan or intent produced a universe that resulted in something unlike itself sentient life or it was the result of planning and design?

Care to support the notion that something can only produce something like itself? This is what is sad about theistic indoctrination. Smart people can't see their own nose if it's inconvenient to their argument. Given the laws of physics, it's inevitable that if somewhere among the billions of billions of planets in the universe, a molecule able to replicate itself occurs, life will be a predictable result. The 'mindless forces' that will lead to more and more complex life forms over long periods of time are well-understood.

Not sure what your point is.

An omnipotent being need not be restricted by fine-tuning, if it wants humans, it can have them in any conceivable universe. The only kind of universe that doesn't require a supernatural explanation for our existence is one in which it is possible for us to evolve and survive.

A better example from Wikipedia is

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The reason this argument is false is because owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich.

What makes this example better?

I didn't make the argument

If God created the universe then God exists
there is a universe
Therefore God exists and is the creator of the universe.

However this is a different case. If a personal agent caused, designed and created the universe such a person by definition would be God. I'm not making the argument that only God can create a universe with the characteristics observed, such a universe exists, therefore God created it. The argument I am making is more like.

1. There is a universe
2. There is life
3. There is sentient life
4. The universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

I am building a case from facts and inferring the existence of a designer creator as opposed to the other possibility that these facts occured without plan or intent. I'm not denying there could be some other possibility than God.

Then you're going to get nowhere. You're building a case that doesn't support the conclusion you want it to reach. 'Therefore God or something else' is a conclusion we already agree with. You think it was God, we think it was more likely to be something else.

Have you considered holding your positiion on faith instead of logic? If you're determined to believe what you do, why drag logic and science into it? As a famous lawyer once said, 'if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale, I'd believe it'.