MFM,
I apologize for not having the time to address each point, but wanted to quickly comment on something. You seem to be ok with dismissing claims when there is sufficient other reasons to reject them. You also come across as assuming that we don’t have sufficient other reasons to reject apologist arguments without thoroughly addressing each claim.
Let’s take the fine tuning argument (FTA) that you claim is compelling to some extent. I’ll just quickly list some problems I have with the argument in no particular order:
- FTA assumes that the physical constants of our current cosmological model could be different. I have never heard a reasonable explanation of why this is anything more than conjecture.
- Even if they could be different there is no understanding of the mechanism. This means there is no logical limitation on the values that they can hold resulting in an infinite set. This alone makes any probabilistic based argument irrelevant.
- Multiverse arguments are sometimes presented, but I think this hinders the god claim. If I have an infinite number of universes all with different physical properties I don’t need god to have one that supports life as we know it.
- Our special universe has a tremendous amount of empty space. Bad engineering that isn’t necessary. Why wouldn’t a fine tuner just create Earth with one sun if the fine tuning had us in mind?
- The finely tuned process of creating the chemistry that is the basis of our life is woefully inefficient.
- Many make the FTA with our particular species in mind. We can’t inhabit most of our planet. Without very special precautions we die instantly if we leave it.
- The abundance of stars and black holes suggests our universe was finely tuned for them, not us.
- If we consider all the things we don’t yet know about our universe it is somewhat remarkable to me that apologists will hang their hat on the little we do know as an occupation for their god.
- At most the FTA gets us a deity responsible for the Big Bang. There is absolutely no way to get from there to characteristics of anyone’s particular supernatural pet.
The FTA is essentially an argument from ignorance. It’s simply a rationalization; as I said before it’s just an attempt to find a purpose for god. The FTA does nothing to help explain the universe.
I apologize for not having the time to address each point, but wanted to quickly comment on something. You seem to be ok with dismissing claims when there is sufficient other reasons to reject them. You also come across as assuming that we don’t have sufficient other reasons to reject apologist arguments without thoroughly addressing each claim.
Let’s take the fine tuning argument (FTA) that you claim is compelling to some extent. I’ll just quickly list some problems I have with the argument in no particular order:
- FTA assumes that the physical constants of our current cosmological model could be different. I have never heard a reasonable explanation of why this is anything more than conjecture.
- Even if they could be different there is no understanding of the mechanism. This means there is no logical limitation on the values that they can hold resulting in an infinite set. This alone makes any probabilistic based argument irrelevant.
- Multiverse arguments are sometimes presented, but I think this hinders the god claim. If I have an infinite number of universes all with different physical properties I don’t need god to have one that supports life as we know it.
- Our special universe has a tremendous amount of empty space. Bad engineering that isn’t necessary. Why wouldn’t a fine tuner just create Earth with one sun if the fine tuning had us in mind?
- The finely tuned process of creating the chemistry that is the basis of our life is woefully inefficient.
- Many make the FTA with our particular species in mind. We can’t inhabit most of our planet. Without very special precautions we die instantly if we leave it.
- The abundance of stars and black holes suggests our universe was finely tuned for them, not us.
- If we consider all the things we don’t yet know about our universe it is somewhat remarkable to me that apologists will hang their hat on the little we do know as an occupation for their god.
- At most the FTA gets us a deity responsible for the Big Bang. There is absolutely no way to get from there to characteristics of anyone’s particular supernatural pet.
The FTA is essentially an argument from ignorance. It’s simply a rationalization; as I said before it’s just an attempt to find a purpose for god. The FTA does nothing to help explain the universe.
