Why the fine tuning argument is a pile of shit

[Alex K]

I think it is at least one of the more subtle ones compared to others which are mostly manifestly dumb.

[vixene]

Have to say I've never heard this argument for religion before.

It's quite a common fallacy, often said by misty-eyed theists who say it whilst literally standing atop the ground which is full of remains of the millions of species which evolved, lived and died out in such a way that we managd to blag our way to planetary dominance.

Interesting analogy however it didn't make the argument any clearer to me...

[Pyrrho]

There's a book on this very subject titled: "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning". I don't see how people can assume our universe is fine tuned given that we haven't observed any other universes. We don't know if life would be possible in another universe or even which constants change between universes.

But you can look at the constants in our current laws of nature and observe that changing some of them just a little would result in a quite structureless universe.

If there really were a god, it would not have screwed that up and there would only be a structureless universe.

[Pyrrho]

It's quite a common fallacy, often said by misty-eyed theists who say it whilst literally standing atop the ground which is full of remains of the millions of species which evolved, lived and died out in such a way that we managd to blag our way to planetary dominance.

Interesting analogy however it didn't make the argument any clearer to me...

If you want to understand the argument, take a look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

The first part deals with what is meant by "fine-tuning" and then later on down the page is the religious twaddle about it, along with arguments against the twaddle.

[Alex K]

It's quite a common fallacy, often said by misty-eyed theists who say it whilst literally standing atop the ground which is full of remains of the millions of species which evolved, lived and died out in such a way that we managd to blag our way to planetary dominance.

Interesting analogy however it didn't make the argument any clearer to me...

The argument, if you're unfamiliar with it, is basically this: If for example the energies of certain nuclear processes were just a bit heavier, the reactions couldn't take place, there would be no stars and therefore no heavy elements beyond hydrogen or helium. Similar or more severe things can be said for many other constants of nature. So can it really be a coincidence that all these laws of nature line up to allow for complex organisms and thus intelligence? Seems super unlikely, so there must have been a big sky daddy who turned the knobs such that the laws of nature were juuuuuuuust right.

The first big challenge this argument meets is that it is invalid to demand exactly our kind of life to be possible - you have to argue that no conceivable other kind of intelligence can arise if those numbers were different. But if you manage that, it is still questionable if the claimed conclusion even follows.

[Iroscato]

It's quite a common fallacy, often said by misty-eyed theists who say it whilst literally standing atop the ground which is full of remains of the millions of species which evolved, lived and died out in such a way that we managd to blag our way to planetary dominance.

Interesting analogy however it didn't make the argument any clearer to me...

Ok...theists often point to how supposedly 'perfect' the Earth is to support life, and follow that with the statement that such only a creator/designer could have 'fine-tuned' the planet to be so suitable for life. Think of it as Irreducible Complexity's older, fatter, more stupid cousin. They often mention how the planet is at an ideal distance from the sun to be just hot enough, or how fertile the soil is.

Whilst the earth is suitable for life to evolve and sustain itself, it's faaaar from being perfect. And then there's the fact that there are literally sextillions of planets out there in the cosmos. Of all of them, at least one would eventually have everything line up in such a way that life takes hold and evolve. That one (but most likely not only, again taking into account the absurdly huge number of planets) was Earth, and it gave rise to a species that spawned members arrogant enough to say it was all designed for them.

[Minimalist]

I'd call it out of tune.

[Athene]

Even if the universe was 100% habitable, the fine tuning argument also egotistically assumes that life is the purpose behind the physical laws being the way they are.

Imagine that, believers thinking they are special!

Not surprising coming from people who believe that the Almighty helps them find their car keys.

[Iroscato]

There's a book on this very subject titled: "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning". I don't see how people can assume our universe is fine tuned given that we haven't observed any other universes. We don't know if life would be possible in another universe or even which constants change between universes.

But you can look at the constants in our current laws of nature and observe that changing some of them just a little would result in a quite structureless universe.

But are there not meant to be a literally infinite number of universes? Eventually one would have the ideal laws to allow conditions to form.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The universe is about as finely tuned as a Sex Pistols concert.