Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Theists argue that if the universe had not been created with the exact precise properties it has, then life would have never arisen. In other words, the chances that universe is the way it is is incredibly small. A universe that couldn't support life would've been far more likely. They of course conclude that there must of been some infinite and intelligent being (aka God) who purposely created a universe that would give arise to life.

All the questionable science besides, isn't this argument hopelessly ad hoc anyway? It postulates as a solution to a scientific problem something that hasn't been proven to exist nor do we have any reason to assume exists.

It's basically asking us to go "I don't know, therefore God did it."

I'd like to point out that it's remarkably hypocritical for theists to say that any of the proposed naturalistic explanations for the fine tuning of the universe such as the multiverse theory "isn't proven" or "isn't mainstream" when their solution is the ultimate of unscientific possibilities. Occam's razor I think compels one to select any naturalistic explanation other than "God did it" no matter how many problems it might have.

[Anomalocaris]

An ad hoc explanation should least appear to explain. The God "explanation" simply asserts the word "god" is adaquate substitution for a explanation.

It doesn't even rise to the level of ad hoc because it explains nothing.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well, I'd like to point out that the proposed multiverse solution to the Fine-tuning argument is contrary to Occam's Razor, i.e it is multiplying entities beyond necessity, and in this case, potentially to an infinite degree.

I myself am only just beginning to get acquainted with the relevant science on the matter. In my thread on this (over in the philosophy section), Apopgenia said something interesting along the lines of that a major assumption is that the "constants" of our universe are unlikely, shen it isn't even sure how that can be known or assessed in the first place.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Well, I'd like to point out that the proposed multiverse solution to the Fine-tuning argument is contrary to Occam's Razor, i.e it is multiplying entities beyond necessity, and in this case, potentially to an infinite degree.

I meant as in comparison to the God hypothesis. If you had to choose between (a) the multiverse theory or (b) the God hypothesis, which of the two would be the simplest explanation? It would be (a) of course because it's more consistent with reality as we understand it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't know TEG. To me the question is more philosophical. How can there be any order at all, not just this particular example?

[Minimalist]

A universe that couldn't support life would've been far more likely.

Of course, most of the universe cannot support life as we know it - which is the only kind we care about.

The jesus freaks have this desire to be "special." Anything that is not about them...they make about them.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I don't know TEG. To me the question is more philosophical. How can there be any order at all, not just this particular example?

I find order in the universe baffling as well but why postulate the existence of God to explain it?

[max-greece]

Theists argue that if the universe had not been created with the exact precise properties it has, then life would have never arisen. In other words, the chances that universe is the way it is is incredibly small. A universe that couldn't support life would've been far more likely. They of course conclude that there must of been some infinite and intelligent being (aka God) who purposely created a universe that would give arise to life.

All the questionable science besides, isn't this argument hopelessly ad hoc anyway? It postulates as a solution to a scientific problem something that hasn't been proven to exist nor do we have any reason to assume exists.

It's basically asking us to go "I don't know, therefore God did it."

I'd like to point out that it's remarkably hypocritical for theists to say that any of the proposed naturalistic explanations for the fine tuning of the universe such as the multiverse theory "isn't proven" or "isn't mainstream" when their solution is the ultimate of unscientific possibilities. Occam's razor I think compels one to select any naturalistic explanation other than "God did it" no matter how many problems it might have.

Littered with errors if you ask me:

" if the universe had not been created with the exact precise properties it has, then life would have never arisen."

Impossible to prove. Certainly if the universe had different physical properties one might expect that any life that did form would be very different from our own but to state life couldn't form is something of a leap. This ignores the simple fact, in addition that we do not know a universe could form with different physical properties.

"A universe that couldn't support life would've been far more likely."

Assumption based on the second part of my argument above. Also ignores the fact that in massive parts of our universe life (as we know it) can't form either. So much for fine tuning!

That will do for now.

[MindForgedManacle]

I meant as in comparison to the God hypothesis. If you had to choose between (a) the multiverse theory or (b) the God hypothesis, which of the two would be the simplest explanation? It would be (a) of course because it's more consistent with reality as we understand it.

Actually, the simplest explanation would be God in that case. That was the point of my post: if you posit the multiverse hypothesis, then you're going against Occam's Razor to potentially an infinite degree. Occam's Razor just has to do with which hypothesis accounts for the data least redundantly, not which is more consistent with reality as we usually understand it (i.e naturally rather than supernaturally).

[genkaus]

Actually, the simplest explanation would be God in that case. That was the point of my post: if you posit the multiverse hypothesis, then you're going against Occam's Razor to potentially an infinite degree. Occam's Razor just has to do with which hypothesis accounts for the data least redundantly, not which is more consistent with reality as we usually understand it (i.e naturally rather than supernaturally).

Would it go against the Occam's Razor?


For example, suppose you are presented a pack of cards and happen to draw an ace. The question before you is if your draw was an intentional even orchestrated by another entity or it occurred without any intelligence behind it. Here the drawing of an ace is comparable to existence of our universe.

One answer would be that you can draw many cards and that they'd be different all the time and the one you drew this time just happened to be an ace. This would be the multiverse hypothesis.

Another answer would be that the person holding the pack specifically orchestrated things so that you'd end up drawing an ace. This would be the god hypothesis.

Which one seems simpler to you?