What are your objections to the fine tuning argument for the existence of god
8
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
47 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Is the universe 'fine tuned'?
Who decided on three options?
Could 'fine tuning' just be equilibrium of forces over time?
Why, if fine tuning was done, could it not be done by chance?
Who cares enough to argue about existence of a fiction character?
ShadowAmicus
Level 8
Dec 7, 2019
2
“Out of chaos, comes order... You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"
Rahm Emanuel mayor of Chicago
@LenHazell53ny experience has usually been 'out of chaos comes greater chaos' and a whole lot of struggle to stabilise events
Sean Carroll's response to William Lane Craig's fine tuning argument is the best counter-argument (and argument) I have ever heard, in any context, about anything. Ever. It's a tour de force.
greyeyed123
Level 7
Dec 7, 2019
7
" No matter how much you try to paint a Turd, it IS still a Turd" and a Turd is precisely what the Creationist Story is in my opinion.
IF the Universe was so 'fine tuned' as per the Creationist Ideologies, then the 'mechanic' involved in the 'fine tuning' would make an absolutely fantastic Greasy Spoon, Short Order Cook.
- The universe is not fine tuned.
Deb57
Level 8
Dec 7, 2019
7
...and your rationale to support that hypothesis is?
@Geoffrey51 If the universe is fine tuned for life, why can't I breathe under water, or swim in lava? Why would it be fine tuned just enough for life to exist, but not exist very well in most contexts in which it actually exists, and literally can't exist in most existing contexts within the aforesaid "universe" it was supposedly fine tuned to exist in (indeed, many specific life forms can't even exist in every context on Earth)? Why all the empty, useless, DEADLY space?
@greyeyed123 I never said it was. What are you saying to me?
If you are referring to my comment to Deb57 it was a statementthat was made. I neither agree nor disagree. I am asking what rationale is being used to make a definitive statement.
It’s like me saying “The Universe is fine tuned” or “Carrots are crap vegetables” with nothing to support an opinion.
Always useful to have supporting arguments for a statement!
@Geoffrey51 Deb57 said the universe was not fine tuned. You asked for the rationale for that. I gave a couple. (I understand you are not advocating a fine tuned universe. I was just adding a couple of arguments against fine tuning.)
@Geoffrey51 The Universe is most definitely NOT fine tuned since IF it were then there would be no 'left-over' bits and pieces such as Asteroids, Meteors, Comets, etc, whizzing around in it would there?
There would be NO vast vacuous space literally everywhere between planets and Galaxies, etc, there WOULD be life of some kind or other on EVERY planet in every Solar System in EVERY Galaxy as well.
There wouldn't be Super Nova occurring, Suns burning up all their Hydrogen and then expanding to swallow up the planets nearest to them, No Black Holes swallowing everything and anything around them, No Galaxies swallowing their neighbors, etc, etc.
Fine tuning means, literally, everything running as smooth as clock-work, no 'hiccups,' no errors, no mistakes, etc, etc.
The Universe is very random, often very unpredictable and even chaotic at times, ergo 'fine tuning' does NOT exist in the Universe.
@Geoffrey51 there's at least as much evidence pointing to a chaotic universe as there is indicating any fine tuning. Perhaps more. I'll support my claim after you have supported yours.
@Deb57 I don’t have a claim. I just ask that when a claim is made by a statement it is supported otherwise it is no more than opinion and has no foundation for a discussion.
You still haven’t said what your argument rests on.
@Geoffrey51 I know you didn't ask me, but another problem with the fine tuning hypothesis is that presumes a "natural" universe by every appearance while presuming all the different natural variables A) actually are variables, B) had to be "just so" for life as we know it (and in particular, humans) to exist, and C) the fine tuner apparently has certain restrictions on him/herself in that he/she could fine tune a natural universe to allow for the possibility of life, but is impotent to simply make life without reference to any natural processes at all. There is a compounding of assumptions that strain credulity to get to a wanted conclusion when, if that conclusion were actually correct, there would be no need for such convoluted fine tuning. Such a "fine tuner" could have just as easily created Earth alone (flat or otherwise), made all life from supernatural ectoplasm not found anywhere in the environment and, thus, not dependent upon air, water, nutrients, heat, light, gravity, etc. If I were made of such ectoplasm in such a context, the "fine tuning" wouldn't matter and a creator would be a fairly simple, reasonable hypothesis. But as reality stands, the fine tuning hypothesis is very complex and unreasonable given the state of our knowledge (we don't even know if the things we are saying are "variables" could be any other way).
@Triphid I totally agree and in this very random often unpredictable and chaotic universe we have evolved in a very tiny tiny portion that is capable of sustaining life. I get goose bumps just thinking about it. In chaos we happen to exist where there is some order. It's almost as if we won the cosmic lottery
@Geoffrey51 It rests on the evidence everywhere that we are that we are surrounded by chaos and there is no evidence of fine tuning anywhere. I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about the universe, but there is no evidence that there is a tuner, thus no evidence of tuning.
@Deb57 That’s a fair argument
@Deb57, @greyeyed123 Quire agree. A ‘fine tuner’ seems a less likely scenario than the existence of such an independent variable.
These are typical false choices that theists tend to present. Very similar to "Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the son of god" -- which forgets that he's a product of fabulist mythos, so ... "none of the above".
The universe's parameters are what they happen to be, and we are suited to those settings because of natural selection. The only possible way we could be here to ponder the question is if this were the case. Gods are not needed to explain this.
mordant
Level 8
Dec 7, 2019
8
It is idiotic nonsense.
Have been an atheist since age 13. I don't believe in an invisible being that resides somewhere beyond the clouds.
I chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.
LiterateHiker
Level 9
Dec 7, 2019
5
I agree but you haven't refuted the argument. You only say it's idiotic nonsense
I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or invisible gods.
When I was 13, I realized the Bible is a book of stories or fables written by men. Like Grimm's Fairy Tales.
Join a religious website if you want to discuss religion.
@LiterateHiker I don't believe in tooth fairy, Santa clause or invisible gods either. I left religion about 2 years ago. I posted this to know the objections people had for it. Thought this site was for meaningful interactions ect
That argument is a joke. First, it pre-supposes that fine tuning is a fact. Then it dismisses two possibilities for this unproven position with no evidence or argument to arrive at the conclusion it had already reached before it even proposed the question.
The arguments for religion are always so easy to disprove.
Sgt_Spanky
Level 8
Dec 8, 2019
7
We do not fit 99.9999999999... % of the universe, and we fit this small bit because evolution by natural selection molded us to fit IT, not the other way round, the fine tuning argument simply puts the cart before the horse. Look up the puddle drying in the sun metaphor, by D. Adams.
Fernapple
Level 9
Dec 7, 2019
6
Ohferpetessake, just NO!
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Dec 7, 2019
5
One of your favorite phrases. 
@Shawno1972 freakin' handy sometimes
It is not a proven fact that the universe exists in a state of "fine tuning". Even if it does, it is not a proven fact that this is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Fit50something
Level 7
Dec 7, 2019
4
Such workmanship! Such engineering! Except for knees, tsunamis, drought/famine, genocide, aaaaaannd etc.......
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Dec 8, 2019
6
And don’t forget purposefully designing the breathing and food intake to be through the same channel.
#unintelligentdesign
Where to start? Premise #1 & #2 have not been demonstrated to be true or even knowable. This is not a valid syllogism because Premise #1 & #2 are opposite statements. Besides all that the conclusion is a non sequitur or at best the result of a false dichotomy.
F-
Student has failed and must be held back one year.
indirect76
Level 7
Dec 8, 2019
6
This concerns the strong and weak anthropic principles, as well as survivor bias.
That is, of course the earth appears finely tuned, because we are here observing it.
But what theologians do not wish to consider, is the 99.999999999.....% of the universe which does not support life, which also exist.
In fact, even most of the earth is not finely tuned for humans. We cannot live in the sea, which is 70% of the earth's surface. We cannot live in the poles, as it's too cold. We cannot live in the equator for long without artificial systems, such as air conditioning, as it's too hot.
What is happening, us that the fittest life is just about surviving where it can, and that that does not, does not get considered.
There is no fine tuning.
Vpatel
Level 5
Dec 7, 2019
6
best response.
- I see nothing wrong with the Chance explanation. The "fine tuning" is actual so clearly it must have been possible all along, and given enough time every possibility will happen by chance--like given enough shuffles every possible card hand will occur..
- Also it seems there could be an internal principle of design--as natural as the law of gravity--built into the nature of things. So even if if it were designed (in this sense) it wouldn't mean it had a supernatural designer.
Wallace
Level 7
Dec 7, 2019
4
There is no evidence of tuning, fine or otherwise. Therefore there is no evidence of a tuner, fine or otherwise.
g
genessa
Level 8
Dec 7, 2019
4
rewording for "(Fill in the blank) says you must believe in magic, or else" lol
regarding the responses to "Tools"....women being told by christian male that what the woman says "doesn't make sense" to a man "speaking as a man" is the risk that arises when a woman comes forward as an atheist. She will be labeled as....wait, I must loosen my girdle...."hysterical". Just what we need, more christian counselors on the website. whatever.
KittensandSage
Level 6
Dec 7, 2019
5
The "Fine Tuning" argument, which has been hashed over quite enough at this point, has it completely backwards. Briefly: things worked out the way they did all by themselves through the application of time. At any point along the scale things could have gone a different way. They just didn't. How it ended up is incidental, not planned.
Shawno1972
Level 7
Dec 7, 2019
4
Erm it's bollocks?
Yes I think that would be my primary objection.
But to put it in terms you may understand
1 the fine tuning of the argument presented is due to it being bollocks, an egg Whisk and a tortoise
2 The fine tuning is not due to an egg whisk or a tortoise
3 therefore it is bollocks!
LenHazell53
Level 9
Dec 7, 2019
4
excellent sir, your logic is impeccable as are your non-sequiturs!
If a designer exists, and is omniscient, then thats amazing. But the evidence then also shows they must then either be crazy or an a-hole!
Observer-Effect
Level 7
Dec 7, 2019
5
I agree but a crazy designer is still a designer
@Ramone Hmmmm, those points there don't actually define "fine tuning", just that the universe is the result of it and requires it somehow? If you take all basic elements, put them in a box and shook and heated and cooled them long enough? Over infinite time, every possible configuration of the atoms would occur. Including life, its inevitable!
Finally: that argument sort of implies that it was "designED" - past tense. But evolution is occurring at the same rate it always has, give it 10-20 million years, and if humanity is around in any form - it will be as different from us as we are from apes.
@Observer-Effect Douglas Adams analogy is perfect
I do not argue either for nor against God. I assume that God, if she exists, has her own attorneys.
There are some marvelous, even miraculous things all around us. Anyone who thinks they understand nature is wearing a blindfold IMO.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Dec 7, 2019
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.