One of the Best Arguments for God?

[POI]

we should focus the fine-tuning.

Both theists and skeptics will state this is one of the best arguments a believer has. But, is it sound reasoning? Below are some points to consider before continuing:

The fine-tuning argument for God is often considered to fail because it relies on the assumption that the extreme improbability of our universe's life-permitting conditions points to a designer, but this can be countered by the concept of a multiverse, where our observable universe could simply be one of many with vastly different conditions, making our seemingly fine-tuned universe less surprising statistically; additionally, critics argue that even if fine-tuning is real, it doesn't necessarily point to a God with the characteristics typically described in religions, and the argument can be seen as a "God of the gaps" fallacy, where unexplained phenomena are attributed to divine intervention.

Below are some key points against the fine-tuning argument:

The Multiverse Hypothesis: If there are an infinite or very large number of universes with different physical constants, then it becomes less improbable that we would happen to be in one where life is possible, even if the odds of that specific set of constants are very low in any single universe.

Anthropic Principle:This principle states that we can only observe a universe capable of supporting life because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it, which can partially explain the fine-tuning observation without invoking a deity.

Lack of Specificity: Even if fine-tuning is real, it doesn't necessarily point to a specific God with the characteristics described in religions, as the "designer" could be a very different entity.

The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy: Critics argue that invoking God to explain unexplained phenomena like fine-tuning is a form of this fallacy, where God is used to fill in gaps in our scientific understanding that may be explained by future discoveries.

Notable... "irreducible complexity" focuses on the structure of a system, while "fine-tuning" focuses on the specific values within a system that make it functional. But I feel it is still worth adding:

Irreducible complexity: Theists will argue for it. It is a system that is made up of multiple parts that work together, and where removing any one part causes the system to stop working. However, the Dover trial of the mid 2000's dispelled this assumption.

*************************

For Debate: Above provides some point(s) which would be a (cause for pause) in theists continuing to push for this argument. Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for a God or god(s) existence?

[POI]

If you're familiar with your own subject here, you already have those details.

Then those details, in option a), do not necessarily point to a god or god(s).

[POI]

First, there is no difference between 'finely tuned' and 'what we observe'. If the universe just randomly popped into existence somehow and some life managed to emerge, that does not mean it was 'finely tuned'. It just means the conditions allow life.

Yes.

I have not done the equation(s) myself, nor could I, because I'm no mathematician. But math is an axiom. Therefore, for a physicist to go on public record, to state "if you go into the equations of general relativity, there is a correct rigorous derivation of the probability and when you ask the correct questions and use the correct equations, we find the probability is actually a 1 or 1 chance.

On the other hand, pastors. preachers, and priests can go on record and say virtually anything without much question or much scrutiny. There exists no formal 'peer review'. I can go to church A and be given one set of 'facts'. I can then go to church B and given alternative facts, as it relates to the same topic. This does not happen in biology, unless you were to attend someone like Kent Hovind's teachings.

Should the puddle in a pothole claim the pothole was finely tuned for it because it fits inside perfectly?

Should it? No. But if that puddle of water somehow had a consciousness, it still might But if you were a weed growing in one of the concrete cracks, that weed sure could logically claim "fine-tuning"

Given the vastness of our universe and what we have observed so far, it seems most of it is 'tuned' for death/non-life. It just so happens that on at least one tiny speck life managed to emerge.

Yes, if we look through a strong telescope, and see vast amounts of space and galaxies, we are to tell ourselves... "I know why all this was created, so that I can be here.". Never mind that 99.9999999999% of the environment is unsuitable for human life. And further, also never mind that a larger majority of the planet we live on is not suitable for human life than is suitable.

I think the best argument theists currently have is "I am convinced, therefore I believe." Now, granted this is fairly useless in convincing anyone else, but they are showing that it is possible to become convinced. Exploring how they became convinced is where we find out if the process was "good".

Yes, 'personal experience' seems to be a big one. When I used to attend church, and listen to conversion stories, they never cited the reason for believing to be any of these mumbo-jumbo arguments, such as the teleological or the cosmological argument. When we peel back the onion layers, I think one of the main reasons many believe relates to this topic (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41274). These apologetic topics are more-so to re-enforce the believers, some of whom may otherwise start slipping away, to bring them back in. Conformation bias plays a role here when one wants to hold to an existing belief.

So far, none of the methods/reasons I've seen for believers becoming convinced (myself included when I became a believer) are good and usually fall apart on closer inspection.

Hence, "Christian apologetics" was born to fight back...

If we had solid evidence for a god, there would be no need of all these apologetic arguments. We don't have special apologetics for gravity, the existence of water, the effectiveness of fire, or the myriad of everything else we can all verify for ourselves.

Except for the rogue groups still out there, like the "flat earth society" and the like

In short, we don't need apologetics, we need convincing evidence. If there were some convincing evidence, it would be slammed on the table in every one of these debates.

Yea, well, some on here may claim it is in our face, and we skeptics just deny it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to POI in post #21]

Then those details, in option a), do not necessarily point to a god or god(s).

Still, they apparently constitute more evidence of a god or gods than we have of a multiverse.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #20]

If the universe just randomly popped into existence somehow and some life managed to emerge, that does not mean it was 'finely tuned'.

The fine-tuning argument aside, can you go into detail on how the universe would pop into existence randomly?

[POI]

Still, they apparently constitute more evidence of a god or gods.

Please give one or some example(s) of this specific assumption.

[POI]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #20]

If the universe just randomly popped into existence somehow and some life managed to emerge, that does not mean it was 'finely tuned'.

The fine-tuning argument aside, can you go into detail on how the universe would pop into existence randomly?

Was there ever a 'time' when absolute nothingness existed?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to POI in post #25]

Please give one or some example(s) of this specific assumption.

You yourself have given an example.

The fine-tuning argument for God is often considered to fail because it relies on the assumption that the extreme improbability of our universe's life-permitting conditions points to a designer, but this can be countered by the concept of a multiverse, where our observable universe could simply be one of many with vastly different conditions, making our seemingly fine-tuned universe less surprising statistically......

......We cannot assert something in which we cannot first demonstrate. And I cannot demonstrate the "multiverse."

So if it weren't for the numerical values of the fine-tuning argument, you'd have nothing to bring up here.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Was there ever a 'time' when absolute nothingness existed?

If there had ever been nothing, there would still be nothing.

But remember that in a sense, there is always absolute nothingness----underneath everything which is something.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #25]

Please give one or some example(s) of this specific assumption.

You yourself have given an example.

The fine-tuning argument for God is often considered to fail because it relies on the assumption that the extreme improbability of our universe's life-permitting conditions points to a designer, but this can be countered by the concept of a multiverse, where our observable universe could simply be one of many with vastly different conditions, making our seemingly fine-tuned universe less surprising statistically......

......We cannot assert something in which we cannot first demonstrate. And I cannot demonstrate the "multiverse."

So if it weren't for the numerical values of the fine-tuning argument, you'd have nothing to bring up here.

I'm asking you for (your) example(s). What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Was there ever a 'time' when absolute nothingness existed?

If there had ever been nothing, there would still be nothing.

But remember that in a sense, there is always absolute nothingness----underneath everything which is something.

If "something", which is to mean anything-at-all, has always existed, then it is not absurd when the general concept of 'popping into existence' is proposed. In other words, what is the true meaning when someone uses the term 'nothing.'