Why the fine tuning argument is a pile of shit

[Alex K]

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.

It really depends on whether God is more like Rembrandt or more like Rothko...

[Alex K]

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.

That is purely speculative from a physics standpoint, and if you use that against apologists they will therefore likely slap you in the face with it and accuse you of making even more assumptions than they.

I still think that it is a valid argument to shoot them down on yet another level, but one has to be a bit careful how one phrases it.

I would put it like this: several independent lines of thought in modern physics now suggest that there might be a multiverse with different laws of nature in each. They are the conundrum of quantum state collapse (leading to the many worlds scenario under mild assumptiond), eternal inflation and the superstring landscape. These scenarios were nit invented to explain fine tuning, but they provide a perfectly nice framework in which anthropic selection of universes can occur. This provided us with a Godless explanation of apparent fine tuning which, while speculative, is informed and borne out of the best current science, and is therefore more likely to be true than any random hypothesis without such a foundation. In the very least, the God hypothesis is not without alternatives.

And again, this is all assuming for the sake of argument that A. there is real fine tuning and B. fine tuning -> God is even a valid argument.

[Pyrrho]

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.

I guess it is time for this again:

[McDoogins]

I would never have thought about the amount of salt water in the ocean being an argument against theism. Pretty smart man.

[vixene]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, and i'd say I have actually heard this argument before, just a slightly different version.

The worst thing is when they say the earth is created solely for the habitation of man, but then don't believe in the evolution that brought the earth and all its inhabitants to where it currently is at the moment. Also why is man only on earth? Why isn't there any mention of man on any other planets in holy books? None of them can answer that sadly.

[Iroscato]

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.

That is purely speculative from a physics standpoint, and if you use that against apologists they will therefore likely slap you in the face with it and accuse you of making even more assumptions than they.

I still think that it is a valid argument to shoot them down on yet another level, but one has to be a bit careful how one phrases it.

Yeah it's not generally one I keep in the chamber...I'll leave that to the über-nerds such as your good self

[vixene]

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.

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.

Thanks for clearing that up, I've actually heard of this argument and probably used it while I was still a christian XD.

Ah, it feels great not being brainwashed.

[Pyrrho]

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

It really depends on whether God is more like Rembrandt or more like Rothko...

If there were a god like Rembrandt, it would not make this mess.  Rothko would make a bit more sense, but he should have destroyed us when he decided to kill himself.

[Alex K]

Yeah it's not generally one I keep in the chamber...I'll leave that to the über-nerds such as your good self

See my edit for more details

[Alex K]

Thanks for clearing that up, I've actually heard of this argument and probably used it while I was still a christian XD.

Ah, it feels great not being brainwashed.

I'm sure it does! But there are much more embarrassing arguments you would probably have made than this one