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

[Prodigal_Son]

That there is any life is impressive. The universe certainly isn’t teaming with it.

We lack evidence for the latter claim. The Earth is teeming with ant life, even though the region of the Earth that has ants on it is absolutely tiny compared to the Earth’s atmosphere. We don’t know how common life is in the universe; indeed, we lack evidence for the claim that we are the only inhabited planet/moon in our solar system.

 

[Wesrock]

I agree it really isn’t acceptable as a stand alone argument, as the argument admits that we have now is a possibility without God.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

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).

Your analogy would be better described thus:

In the total time that life has existed on this planet, only one single female of any species has conceived. Now that is still many, many orders of magnitude away from comparing this planet with the totality of existence. But I think we could say without any doubt whatsoever that the female of the species could not then be said to be well suited for procreation.

If you were, despite that, to suggest that life had been fine tuned to enable females to conceive then you would sound foolish.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

I don’t like the fine tuning argument, but I disagree with this objection. A massive universe we’ll never explore is no more difficult for God than creating just the Earth alone. We don’t know what’s out there. Maybe there’s more to God’s plan than just humans. Maybe he sees humanity as one day over the next billions of years exploring the expanse. Or maybe none of that and it all serves to manifest God’s own glory in the natural world and is something we are only to marvel at. The latter would be sufficient justification, for like I said, it’s not as if it’s unnecessary effort for God.

 

[TechieGuy]

Various constant values seem tuned to support life as we know it.

If those values were different, perhaps life as we don’t know it would have evolved

 

[Bradskii]

You might have missed the point. There is an infinity of existence that we will NEVER access.

Space itself expands and that which is further from us moves away from us more quickly than that which is relatively near. As you read this, the very edge of the observable universe is moving away from us quicker than light can travel. It therefore dissapears completely and for ever. And the edge of the observable universe that existed before anyone was around to observe it left long ago. We didn’t even see it before it left.

It is EXACTLY as if the rest of existence is ceasing to be. It’s still there but not for us. Are we not meant to be special in the eyes of God? Wasn’t everything created for us? Aren’t we the end product?

If so, then why create something that essentially doesn’t exist for us?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In the total time that life has existed on this planet, only one single female of any species has conceived.

And your evidence that the world is not full of life in tons of other planets is … what?

 

[anon10271182]

The fine tuning of the universe is one of a number of arguments for the existence of an intelligent creator. The best single work I’ve encountered on this is William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. The atheists’ arguments simply don’t measure up. Not even close.

 

[Wesrock]

And my prior response still addresses this.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

In the total time that life has existed on this planet, only one single female of any species has conceived.

And your evidence that the world is not full of life in tons of other planets is … what?

It may be. But when we discuss whether the totality of existence is fine tuned for OUR life, then it is clearly not.

That there may be other forms of life is irrelevant to the point being made. Nothwithstanding that past a certain point ‘out there’ there is perhaps an infinity of worlds that do not effectively exist.

But you never know. Maybe we’re just one of an infinite number of intelligent species that God created to love Him.

 

[Bradskii]

**

And my prior response still addresses this.

Nobody is suggesting that it took God a little longer to create that which we cannot access. Or that He had to work a little harder. The question is, why is it there in the first place?

There is an answer, but it doesn’t require a deity. If you want an answer that does, then feel free to provide one.

 

[laylow]

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.

Exactly. “We” are the result of the astronomically small percentage of the universe that is conducive to life. That is just talking about the observable. The universe, or multiverse, or what ever term you want to use, could very well be infinitely big. The fact that life sprung “somewhere” then doesn’t seem inconceivable at all.

 

[Wesrock]

I already gave a why. To manifest his glory in the natural world for angels, men, and perhaps even other rational creatures if they’re out there (though whether or not they exist is irrelevant). We can only speculate on other purposes, but insofar as it serves to manifest his glory there can be no doubt. Whether we observe only from Earth or cast ourselves out into the stars across hundreds or millions of galaxies and galactic clusters, the immensity of the universe forever dwarfs us. There is no technologcial Tower of Babel that will make us gods.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But when we discuss whether the totality of existence is fine tuned for OUR life, then it is clearly not.

Who makes that argument? The argument is that the conditions being ripe for life (of any sort) is exceptionally unlikely. That argument becomes STRONGER the more life there is in the universe, and the more intelligent that life is. We have AT LEAST our life as a proof that something needs to be explained. Your claim that this kind of life is vanishingly rare is unfounded, or at least you haven’t argued for it. And the argument isn’t that HUMAN life is the only relevant life to be explained, anyway.

But you never know. Maybe we’re just one of an infinite number of intelligent species that God created to love Him.

Indeed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Bradski,

Your complaint is like saying that, when I find a watch on the beach, “there is only one watch on such a big beach”, so I needn’t consider the hypothesis that it was designed. It’s a non sequitor.

But of course, the more watches, the more an explanation needs to be proposed.

 

[STT]

You mean that God could create infinity?

 

[Wesrock]

Infinity is a rather generic term. A universe of infinite space and matter and energy? Yes.

 

[Bradskii]

But that’s glorying in something about which we know nothing, have never known anything and will never know anything. All we know is that something is there.

This is an example of taking what is consideeed to be there for God’s glory to nonsensical levels.

What are we glorying in?
Existence.
But we can’t see almost all of it.
Doesn’t matter.
But we will never be able to access it.
Doesn’t matter.
To all intents it doesn’t exist.
Doesn’t matter.

It’s like glorying in the character of your great great x 99 grandfather. You know he existed but there is nothing at all you can know about his character.

Glorying in something of which we have no knowledge is a nonsensical proposition.

 

[Wesrock]

But that’s glorying in something about which we know nothing, have never known anything and will never know anything. All we know is that something is there.

This is an example of taking what is consideeed to be there for God’s glory to nonsensical levels.

What are we glorying in?
Existence.
But we can’t see almost all of it.
Doesn’t matter.
But we will never be able to access it.
Doesn’t matter.
To all intents it doesn’t exist.
Doesn’t matter.

It’s like glorying in the character of your great great x 99 grandfather. You know he existed but there is nothing at all you can know about his character.

Glorying in something of which we have no knowledge is a nonsensical proposition.

There’s nothing nonsensical about this. However much more we do know, however much further we ever can reach or see by technological means, we know there’s more out there, that the immensity is beyond our ability to ever really observe. We don’t have no knowledge at all. If we truly had no knowledge neither us nor future generations would even know there was something they didn’t know.

The only thing nonsensical is you sticking by the objection.

 

[STT]

So there were infinite number of Adam and Eve each have done differently?