Fine tuning of the Universe

[Mr.Badham]

I'm confused, because it seems like the argument could go both ways.

Either the universe is fine tuned for life, and therefore is full of it, or only Earth is fine tuned for life, and the rest of the universe will have none of it.

I want theists to take a stand right here and say;

The universe is fine tuned, and is full of life.

Or

The Earth is fine tuned, the rest of the universe has none of it.

Then I want you to stake your religiosity on it. If you make the claim, one way or the other, and are shown to be wrong, you will then become an atheist.

If you are not willing to do this, I would like you to proclaim that the argument is bogus, and should never be used.

You have 1 of 3 options;
The universe is full of life.
Only earth has life.
The fine tuning argument is bogus and should never be used.

[Jashwell]

Here are the premises of the argument, as presented in Craig's book on reasonable faith.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Premise 2 is a big no-go; without a sample of Universes upon which to experiment, we have no way of establishing the probability of Universal constants.

To my knowledge, Craig does not possess a sample of Universes.

If the physical constants are fine tuned, is physics fine tuned to require fine tuning?

(Personally I think design is a mix of physical necessity and chance anyway (and chance itself could just be an interpretation of necessity), so 2 would invalidate 3 in my view - but others might not share that view)

[sickles]

that is not really Craig's premises and conclusion. That set of arguments that he presents in his book is a red herring. It is only the partial list. If those really are his conclusions, he is begging the question quite impressively. And quite an impressive number of them. His real arguments that lay behind what he is saying in his book is something like this:

P1"The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different." -source wiki from fine-tuned universe

P2"The chances of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) sorting the fundamental constants of physics and the laws of nature to where they are since the big bang required to condense matter and allow said forces to operate are so slim, that it seems quite the miracle it happened at all. No scientific cause or experiment is known to explain or approach this phenomenon.

P3 Any number of universes is theoretically possible.(not actually is happening as in many worlds) I can imagine a world in which the laws of physics are slightly different on only one constant and the same on all the others and this is not repugnant.

P4"The fine tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design"

P5 it is not due to necessity because of p3.

p6 it is not due to chance because of p2

P7 therefore, it is due to design.

What do you think of this?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 72 by sickles]

As Jashwell says, this P2 (and by it also P6) is not substantiatable.

I also find "necessity" hopelessly ill-defined for P3/P5. Logical necessity is not the same as physical necessity.

Also agree with Jashwell that "design" needs to be properly distinguished from chance and necessity, so P4 is no good either, for me.

Furthermore, even if I were to accept this argument for a designer, it'd be really hard to argue that this designer is omnipotent, because the argument implies the designer was working within the confines of restrictions. The theist would have to make an argument that the universe's designer actually had placed the restrictions on his own design- and I haven't a clue how anyone could even try to substantiate such a claim.

[sickles]

[Replying to post 73 by FarWanderer]

yes , thats fine. I do not agree with the premises either. Nor the conclusion. I was trying to help out Instant

[instantc]

I have been through this thread and have failed to find a list of premises. Please present these premises you are talking about and the source.

Here are the premises of the argument, as presented in Craig's book on reasonable faith.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

These are not premises. They are arguments that follow from the assumption that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

It's comments like this that make me not want to read the rest of your post. I'm sorry but they are premises, that's what they are called in the English language.

Could you please be a bit more precise and specify which one of the above-mentioned premises contains the hidden assumption that the universe is fine-tuned with life as a priority.

For the sake of the argument, consider the definition of fine-tuning that I gave you (the constants of the universe are set within a life-permitting range), and explain which premise is flawed and why. That way perhaps I could make some sense of your objection and see whether I agree with it.

[instantc]

Furthermore, even if I were to accept this argument for a designer, it'd be really hard to argue that this designer is omnipotent, because the argument implies the designer was working within the confines of restrictions.

Very good point, I have never thought of this before. Do you know what response is given to this argument in natural theology?

[sickles]

[Replying to post 76 by instantc]

what he says isnt so if you define omnipotence like Thomas Aquinas, just a bone heh.

[Ancient of Years]

I have been through this thread and have failed to find a list of premises. Please present these premises you are talking about and the source.

Here are the premises of the argument, as presented in Craig's book on reasonable faith.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

These are not premises. They are arguments that follow from the assumption that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

It's comments like this that make me not want to read the rest of your post. I'm sorry but they are premises, that's what they are called in the English language.

Could you please be a bit more precise and specify which one of the above-mentioned premises contains the hidden assumption that the universe is fine-tuned with life as a priority.

For the sake of the argument, consider the definition of fine-tuning that I gave you (the constants of the universe are set within a life-permitting range), and explain which premise is flawed and why. That way perhaps I could make some sense of your objection and see whether I agree with it.

Your definition, that the constants of the universe are set within a life-permitting range, has two possible interpretations. One is that the word ‘set’ implies that the parameters were intentionally set, which is begging the question. The other is that the parameters merely happen to permit life, without assuming a reason for it. I will use the second interpretation.

Craig’s #1 already assumes a fine-tuning. As I have addressed previously, the qualifier ‘fine’ is not well justified. If one wants to say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, one must address the issue that the vast majority of the universe is not only lifeless but very hostile to life. Trying to argue that a hypothetical designer could have made the universe just barely able to support life under very rare circumstances but still have life as its priority is simply not reasonable. It could be that you are a brain in a vat with all your experiences being simulated. But it is not sensible to assume that is the case to form conclusions that depend on it. To assume that life is a priority is to assume the conclusion, that there is a designer. Not kosher.

If we look at the phrase ‘fine-tuned’ apart from adding any qualifier on what the universe is fine-tuned for (just as Craig does), it becomes apparent that Craig’s #1 is without meaning. Flip a coin a thousand times and record the results as binary 1’s and 0’s. Do you realize what the odds are of that exact result coming up??? 2 to the power of a thousand!!! That is a 1 followed by a three hundred zeroes!!! It must have been designed that way! Lesson: Unless one specifies what the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for and show that the result is reflected very well in the overall ‘design’ of the universe, any talk of a designer is not justified. In the thousand coin toss scenario it is not surprising to find a dozen heads in a row somewhere in the results. Life in the universe is enormously rarer than that.

If Craig’s #1 is intended to imply fine-tuned for life in the sense of there being a ‘tuner’ it is wrong. That is not a supportable claim. If it is intended to mean that the universe simply happens to allow life under very rare circumstances, it is essentially meaningless in terms of supporting the idea of a ‘tuner’ interested in life. If it means ‘fine-tuned’ with no qualifier (which is what it says), it is again meaningless, this being indistinguishable from randomness just like the thousand coin toss.

Craig’s #1 does not work.

Craig’s #2 is unsupportable. As argued above, ‘fine-tuned’ for life does not work. ‘Fine-tuned’ without a qualifier is meaningless. Without a supportable motive for postulating a design, it could all be by chance. And as I previously argued, a multiverse comprising all possible universes is more reasonable than a non-material entity outside the universe. A multiverse would be physical, which we know to exist. We do not have evidence of non-physical entities existing. If there were a multiverse, some of the universes would support life. Considering the multitude of factors that allow life, over and above the parameters governing the universe, a life-supporting universe selected at random would be expected to exhibit life as a rare event existing only very special conditions. Just like this one. If there were a multiverse comprising all possible universes, every possible universe would necessarily exist. And a living observer that happens to reside in a universe that supports life would not be a matter of chance but a mere tautology. Necessity and chance would be the drivers, not design.

Craig’s #2 does not work.

Craig’s #3 is a conclusion (not a premise) that depends on #1 and #2, neither of which work. #3 does not work either.

[FarWanderer]

Furthermore, even if I were to accept this argument for a designer, it'd be really hard to argue that this designer is omnipotent, because the argument implies the designer was working within the confines of restrictions.

Very good point, I have never thought of this before. Do you know what response is given to this argument in natural theology?

Well, usually the objection I made is framed a bit differently, with a declaration that the existence of restrictions show the creator is not omnipotent. To that objection, the theist will simply point out that the designer could have made up rules to which he voluntarily bound himself. And they'd be right on that account.

As for the objection as I just framed it now, I've never seen it made by anyone before, and I myself have never articulated it before now either, so I don't know how the theist might try to deflect it!

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 76 by instantc]

what he says isnt so if you define omnipotence like Thomas Aquinas, just a bone heh.

How does Thomas Aquinas define omnipotence? I'm not saying omnipotence is logically impossible or anything...