Fine tuning argument assessed

[max-greece]

Objections to the Argument from Fine-Tuning

The argument from fine-tuning is one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of God, not only because it is logically air-tight and finds support in modern science, but because it exposes the unreasonable lengths to which skeptics will go to deny evidence of God’s existence and creative activity. In this post we’ll consider some of the more common objections to the argument and show why they fail as refutations.

...

Objection 3: If the universe weren’t fine-tuned, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised by fine-tuning, and we shouldn’t waste time trying to explain it.

It is true that, given the fact that we’re here and we’re alive, we should expect to observe a life-permitting universe.

Good - that is the case as we have stated it.

This is called the Anthropic Principle. But that expectation, and our observations which confirm it, do nothing to explain why the universe is life-permitting when it didn’t have to be.

Well that's an unfounded assumption. Of all the possible universes (we don't know how many that is - could be 1, could be 10^500) any or all could support life - just not as we know it (bit Star Treky but you know what I mean). A 5 dimensional universe with no mass, different rules of physics and so on could support an intelligent life form capable of asking the question "Why does my universe exist?"

A life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one, so why does a life-permitting universe exist?

As above really. What the question confuses is life like ours with unknown possible intelligences about which we know precisely zip.

What is the best explanation? Is it chance, necessity, or design? Fine-tuning cries out for an explanation, but the anthropic principle is not the answer. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is helpful once more: "While trivially true, [the anthropic] principle has no explanatory power, and does not constitute a substantive alternative explanation."

Here we have the next giant, unsupported, leap of religious thought - although not expressed here. Suppose the universe was deliberately designed to support life, but not ours. We could still be a by-product in a designed universe. You'd have to prove that we are the point (good luck with that).

If the universe were deliberately designed to support life my bet would be on single cellular life as the point. Even if it only exists on this planet any no-where else it is almost 1/3rd of the age of the universe itself.

On the other hand we know for a fact that if we do ever find life on other planets that life will be single cellular although it may also contain multi-cellular.

Against that we have an uppity species that has existed for about 200,000 years (about 1/7,000th of the age of the universe).

Now if its really fine tuning from a creator with us in mind, looking at the structure of the universe, its age, size, future - then looking at the more immediate vicinity (with another galaxy on a collision course with ours) - or more immediate still - going around a sun that will destroy the planet in 1,7 billion years, or the shooting gallery of NEO's we live in - looking at the history of life, the 99.8% of all life forms that have gone extinct - looking at our poor physical design and so on and so forth almost ad infinitum....


Would you employ this designer?