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.
Well, we don’t know that. But even if it is that doesn’t necessarily mean every possible iteration of every possible choice exists.

There are an infinite number of integers, but these don’t include all rational numbers. There are an infinite number of rational numbers, but these don’t include all real numbers. There’s an infinite number of real numbers, but those don’t include all complex numbers.
 
Wesrock said:
Well, we don’t know that. But even if it is that doesn’t necessarily mean every possible iteration of every possible choice exists.

There are an infinite number of integers, but these don’t include all rational numbers. There are an infinite number of rational numbers, but these don’t include all real numbers. There’s an infinite number of real numbers, but those don’t include all complex numbers.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know this. If the universe is finite then it is bounded by something. We can include that thing, what bound the universe, to the former universe. The new universe could be finite too. It is obvious that this lead to infinite regress unless we accept that the original universe is infinite.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Thom18:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re not understanding my point. The point isn’t that the rest of the universe is uninhabitable, or doesn’t have life on it. The point is that one planet is habitable and does have life, and it only does because every other planet is lined up just right, our own planet is in the precise place it needs to be to support life, and a plethora of other factors. I’m not too concerned that there isn’t life on other planets, and I don’t think that the fine tuning argument does, either.

And I’m not anymore a fan of the “it gives us something to look at through a telescope” explanation than you.
 
If the universe is bounded, even an expanding boundary, that would just be part of the universe, not something else to be added to it. You’re assuming something physical must be outside to be added to it.
 
Bradskii said:
God is meant to be omnipotent. Having 99.999 etc % of existence unavailable to us makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
In His good time, all will make sense.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
We are evolved to fit the reality that we are apart of, not what you are implying that reality is designed to build us as the result. AKA is the water puddle the shape it is because the hole was dug that way or is the water puddle the shape it is because of the hole that it is in? Well the only evidence we have access to is that there are holes, not a deity making holes. That is what reality actually demonstrates to be the case. Fine tuning is just painting the bulls eye around your deity idea arrow.
 
Wesrock said:
If the universe is bounded, even an expanding boundary, that would just be part of the universe, not something else to be added to it. You’re assuming something physical must be outside to be added to it.
Click to expand...
You cannot have a nothing which has shape. There is a border. Border has shape. Therefore border is something. It embodies something.
 
I didn’t say nothing had a shape, I said the boundary is part of what we refer to as a universe. And if we’re talking about bounded universes we don’t necessarily mean an edge. There are bounded manifolds (and for those who’ve heard about “flat” universes and evidence of “zero curvature”) that exhibit zero curvature. They don’t have an edge, in the sense that our universe is itself a surface and not an enclosed space.
 
Last edited:
Being special doesn’t imply that we are uniquely special. If it did all other forms of life would be valueless - which is nonsensical!

Not being special implies that human rights are merely human conventions that can be safely ignored - which is also nonsensical!

Atheism implies that all life is fundamentally worthless, purposeless and meaningless, a doctrine which doesn’t correspond to the way any reasonable person lives. Both Camus and Sartre rejected the Chance hypothesis because it entails absurdity. They opted for humanism which is illogical because it is based on favouritism for our own species…
 
Atheists use their power of reason to prove that all knowledge has been produced by molecules which don’t know what they are doing! It was an atheist, David Hume, who pointed out the effect must be proportioned to the cause. In other words we can’t get something for nothing…
 
So you believe everything is out of tune (including your dislike)?
 
tonyrey said:
So you believe everything is out of tune (including your dislike)?
Click to expand...
The universe is in tune to produce what it has produced, and if this were the only universe, if this universe is physical reality in it’s entirety, then yes you can argue that it could have been tuned differently. This of course leads to the question of what tuned it that way. Which in turn leads one to infer an intelligent cause.

This could be a strong argument. But we don’t know that this universe is the only universe and if there are other universes, we don’t know what they are like.

Now, if i am missing something, please feel free to enlighten me. But i must say i am not a fan of this argument.
 
Last edited:
As has been mentioned, it quite possibly could not have been tuned in any way. So nontuning was required. so no ‘tuner’.

All the laws of nature are quite possible the only laws that can exist. To take it back to the most simple of examples, if you have one object and then you have another, you then have two.

You can’t ‘fine tune’ maths to get a different answer. What makes us believe that we (or anyone else) can fine tune more complex laws?
 
Anything is theoretically possible but the best test of any theory is whether it corresponds to the way we live. We think and behave as if life is purposeful and not an accident! Otherwise we are getting something for nothing - and nothing is the most inadequate explanation. It is absurd to attribute our power of reason to a fortuitous combination of molecules. In fact it is self-contradictory and self-destructive to reduce it to a mechanistic process. Biological computers couldn’t choose what to think or be responsible for anything…
 
tonyrey said:
We think and behave as if life is purposeful and not an accident!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that this means anything. I can be purposeful, you can be purposeful, but how can life be purposeful?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top