How do atheists respond to the fine tuning argument about God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdoroTeDevote
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are so many reasons why the fine tuning argument doesn’t work and most of them covered in that linked web page.

The one that is easiest to grasp I think is the fact that the universe in NOT in fact fine tuned for life. The proportion that can sustain life is so mind boggingly small that is in incomprehensible.

And even the observable universe is almost certainly a tiny fraction of all that exists. But we cannot access it. We can’t even see it. So it serves absolutely no purpose as far as we are concerned.

If this planet were the only thing in existence together with the sun, then somebody may have a point in regard to fine tuning. But it isn’t. So they don’t.
 
I think the fine-tuning argument is a bit short sighted. I think it may be a God of the gaps argument.

One could argue that If we insert a multiverse upon which this universe is dependent for it’s existence and it’s particular finely tuned laws of physics, then there is no reason to think that every other universe in the multiverse is contingent in the same way. The buck has to stop somewhere.

From that point on the Materialist would have to argue that there is a necessarily existing universe upon which all other universes are contingent for their existence and behavior…

The theist can refute this by showing us that the laws physics do not necessarily exist.
 
Last edited:
AdoroTeDevote said:
How would one be able to refute this argument that the fine tuning argument of God isn’t acceptable because " there are so many galaxies and planets " or “the multiverse”.
Thanks and God Bless!!!
Click to expand...
You do not have to refute those answers. You can just ask what evidence they have for, let’s say, “multiverse”.

For the common refrain of the atheists is “There is no evidence for God!!!”. Well, do they have much evidence for that “multiverse”?

Let’s see what evidence they offered there… Actually, not much, to say the least. Things like “I am not claiming to speak for all atheists of course, but my personal belief is that every possible universe ‘exists’, at least in some sense.”, “In terms of solving the fine tuning paradox, the multiverse need only be a thought experiment.”…

The same holds for other answers, like “So as I said, pi cannot be different. This is the same with the other constants, such as the gravitational constant (G), Plank’s constant (h), the Hubble constant (H0), the speed of light in a vacuum (c) and the list goes on and on.”. How exactly does he know that?

Thus in practice much of their “evidence” seems to end up mostly being an argument going like this:
  1. Fine tuning argument demonstrates that either God exists or multiverse exists.
  2. Accepting that God exists would lead to having to acknowledge things like having been wrong, sinfulness, need for repentance etc.
  3. Therefore, multiverse has to exist.
So, fine tuning argument tends to provoke some atheists into showing their inconsistency, their bias.
 
Not only that, but ask an atheist to explain how dark matter and dark energy interact to hold the universe together. Their answer: it is a mystery that cannot be explained. Well then why is it surprising that God is a mystery and cannot be fully explained either?
 
At very least would you say the Big Bang was fine tuned for the universe’s exsistence?
 
It may be that the existence of the ‘fine tuning’ data impelled non-theists to propose a multiverse.
 
AdoroTeDevote said:
At very least would you say the Big Bang was fine tuned for the universe’s exsistence?
Click to expand...
No. Fine tuned means that someone ‘set the dials’ before the event to ensure a particular outcome. It makes no sense that the outcome is 99.999999 etc averse to life in that case. And that we cannot even access 99.9999999 etc of what exists.
 
You don’t need to refute what has only been suggested. All you need to do is ask for evidence of the “multiverse”.
 
Bradskii said:
The one that is easiest to grasp I think is the fact that the universe in NOT in fact fine tuned for life. The proportion that can sustain life is so mind boggingly small that is in incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure the argument is that the entire universe is tuned so that life could be possible on Earth, not every planet.
 
Thom18 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
The one that is easiest to grasp I think is the fact that the universe in NOT in fact fine tuned for life. The proportion that can sustain life is so mind boggingly small that is in incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure the argument is that the entire universe is tuned so that life could be possible on Earth, not every planet.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense to me. It’s as if a deity had to create a whole galaxy just so we could live on a tiny island in the middle of the pacific. God is meant to be omnipotent. Having 99.999 etc % of existence unavailable to us makes no sense whatsoever. I can’t imagine He had to do it and I can’t imagine He did it to keep Himslef amused.

To me, it looks EXACTLY like it happened without any conscious (name removed by moderator)ut. If not, then what’s everything for?

Edit: I did get an answer to this once. Someone said it was to give us something to look at through telescopes. Please try and avoid that line of response if you can.
 
Last edited:
It doesn’t seem fine tuned. As others have pointed out; a huge percent is entirely hostile to life.

But I suppose I also don’t understand the need to prove God.
 
Bradskii said:
what’s everything for ?
Click to expand...
Scientists usually don’t ask this type of question. In many cases though, you can find various uses for things. For example, suppose that there is a nice shady tree in the park and next to it there is a smooth medium size rock. What is that rock for? Well of course it is for people who like to sit down on it and read a book under a shady tree. However, the scientist might be more concerned about the composition and age of the rock and not so much that people are going to sit down on it and read under the shade of the tree.
 
Indeed. It’s not for scientists to explain what purpose something might serve. It’s one for theologians to answer.

If they say that this world is for us, then for whom are all the worlds that we cannot access?

In passing, the term multiverse has different meanings. One of them referencing that which is outside the observable universe (which quite possibly goes on to infinity). This is not a fanciful proposition that has no empirical evidence. It is a fact.

Does it make any sense whatsoever to suggest that it has been designed?

I’ll try to convey our position in the grand scheme of things. Consider our planet to be a ball of rock. A bird sharpens its beak on it. If the amount of material it just wore away is the size of our galaxy then the size of the observable universe is the size of the planet.

If the amount of material is the observable universe, then what is outside that is equivalent to the observable universe.

In short, it is not possible to convey how much is ‘out there’. And to suggest it serves a purpose (why else would God have made it?) is not credible by any stretch of the imagination.
 
The hypothesis that the power of reason is an accident is self-destructive…
 
Bradskii said:
The one that is easiest to grasp I think is the fact that the universe in NOT in fact fine tuned for life. The proportion that can sustain life is so mind boggingly small that is in incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
This is like saying that women are not well-suited to have babies because the number of days that they can conceive in their lifetimes are so few. (I understand that they are not “vanishingly” few, but the point is that you claim that the universe is not well-suited for life is untrue. If it wasn’t well suited for life, there wouldn’t be life).
 
That there is any life is impressive. The universe certainly isn’t teaming with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top