Fine Tuning Argument

[libalchris]

Theists will say the laws of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life, therefore a god must exist, then they will try to sell you their god.

I'd like to pitch my own fine-tuning argument. This argument applies to any god that would be intelligent and capable of creating a universe "fine-tuned" for life, but especially to theistic gods; those that believers claim are all-good, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Doesn't such a god appear to be fine-tuned?
In the case of purely deistic gods, (those simply being highly-intelligent and powerful enough to create the universe) they would be fine-tuned to have great intelligence, and fine tuned to have great power.
In the case of the theistic god, particularly the Christian god, the god is fine-tuned to be good, completely powerful, completely knowing, as well as fine-tuned to be compassionate and caring enough to suffer for your sins. Pretty fine-tuned no?

So which seems more probable, that a natural process created the "fine-tuned" universe we see today, or that an infinitely more complex and fine-tuned god created the universe as we see it?

[Welsh cake]

Theists will say the laws of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life, therefore a god must exist, then they will try to sell you their god.

The universe disagrees.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I don't know if this works really. In order to say that God is "fine tuned" one would have to know probabilities data about him. Theists/deists usually think of God as eternal. God then didn't have a cause. He didn't need to fine tuned because there's no possible way in which he could not exist I guess is what I'm trying to say.

If you want to defeat the fine tuning argument, one way that might be good is by Bo Bennett in his book "The Concept." In someways his argument makes sense, but someways it doesn't so I have to think about some more, but keep it in mind.

Theists want you to imagine God creating the universe at a desk (any kind of desk will do), adjusting a whole bunch of dials to the exact correct setting that allows for the universe to exist and life to exist within it. The problem with this image is that this assumes that there are “settings” that God has to follow — that he is subordinate to. If God were to create all the initial conditions of the universe, there would be no “adjustments” necessary — everything would be as it is upon creation.

...

The perfect God of the Bible, or any “first cause” outside the universe, is not subject to any universal laws that do not yet exist. What this ultimately means is that no intelligence is necessary for this creation. Without any pre-existing laws to follow, anything goes. If there is a powerful force that is the first cause of the universe, it could be as dumb as a dodo bird and still result in the world we live in today — life and all.
Intelligence is only needed to make laws in a universe where the laws made are subject to higher fundamental laws.

[Gooders1002]

Well if God has to fine turn the universe, he is powerless as he had to stick to some rules, just like your shopping bill is constrained by money and a architect is constrained by gravity.

[libalchris]

I don't know if this works really. In order to say that God is "fine tuned" one would have to know probabilities data about him. Theists/deists usually think of God as eternal. God then didn't have a cause. He didn't need to fine tuned because there's no possible way in which he could not exist I guess is what I'm trying to say.

If you want to defeat the fine tuning argument, one way that might be good is by Bo Bennett in his book "The Concept." In someways his argument makes sense, but someways it doesn't so I have to think about some more, but keep it in mind.

You can make some rough probabilities by assuming all the different kinds of gods that could exist. Theists can say it all they want, but there's no reason a god had to be all-good. He could have been a sadist who loves to watch people suffer. (and actually, the current state of the world might just suggest this as the case.)

---

Well if God has to fine turn the universe, he is powerless as he had to stick to some rules, just like your shopping bill is constrained by money and a architect is constrained by gravity.

I just saw that video earlier today. It was excellent, although I'm not sure it works completely. Using the round peg round hole analogy, he says that god would merely have had to push a round peg through a round hole. The argument can be defeated using the same analogy, and saying god created the hole round so he could fit a round peg through it.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

I just saw that video earlier today. It was excellent, although I'm not sure it works completely. Using the round peg round hole analogy, he says that god would merely have had to push a round peg through a round hole. The argument can be defeated using the same analogy, and saying god created the hole round so he could fit a round peg through it.

I think you've just reversed the roles of the peg and the hole. The peg then is the limitation since the only thing you could fit in the hole is the peg.

I could be wrong. This stuff makes my head hurt!

[Gooders1002]

Well if God has to fine turn the universe, he is powerless as he had to stick to some rules, just like your shopping bill is constrained by money and a architect is constrained by gravity.

I just saw that video earlier today. It was excellent, although I'm not sure it works completely. Using the round peg round hole analogy, he says that god would merely have had to push a round peg through a round hole. The argument can be defeated using the same analogy, and saying god created the hole round so he could fit a round peg through it.

But still only a round peg can go in a round hole which is a limitation which ever way around it its.

[libalchris]

In other words, the reason that the universe can only support life when fine-tuned, is because god made it that way.

[Darwinian]

So which seems more probable, that a natural process created the "fine-tuned" universe we see today, or that an infinitely more complex and fine-tuned god created the universe as we see it?

A Universe not capable of supporting life will have no-one in it asking why. Therefore, the fact that we are here asking these questions must mean that this particular Universe is capable of supporting life and that life has evolved to fit the Universe and not the other way around.

So, why are things the way they are? Because that's the way they are. If they were different then we would either be asking the same question about a different Universe or not here to ask anything.

[libalchris]

So which seems more probable, that a natural process created the "fine-tuned" universe we see today, or that an infinitely more complex and fine-tuned god created the universe as we see it?

A Universe not capable of supporting life will have no-one in it asking why. Therefore, the fact that we are here asking these questions must mean that this particular Universe is capable of supporting life and that life has evolved to fit the Universe and not the other way around.

So, why are things the way they are? Because that's the way they are. If they were different then we would either be asking the same question about a different Universe or not here to ask anything.

Yes, but this is addressing the reason that we overcame the odds. It's addressing, which is more probable? That we overcame the odds (ie, got lucky), that some natural, non intelligent process is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that a highly-intelligent, all-powerful being fine-tuned the universe. Using Occam's razor, the first two seem far more likely.