The one fact that ruins the fine-tuning argument (revisited)

[Luke_K]

So I’ve been thinking about the fine-tuning argument some more, and I have a new difficulty with it. Basically, it presupposes that the universe exists for the purpose of life, which implies a Creator and his intents, and therefore the argument is more or less circular. For example, if one presupposes that the purpose of a universe is to produce intelligent flying unicorns, then the fine-tuning argument disproves the existence of God. This is because we would predict that the universe would have the fine-tuning necessary for intelligent flying unicorns, and it doesn’t, therefore it was not designed.

And besides, the universe could be designed to be much more hospitable to life, no? It could easily have been designed from the start to produce countless life-friendly planets (in our solar system), with stars that won’t inevitably burn out, with no asteroids or climate changes causing mass extinctions, with an outer space that doesn’t destroy creatures with a vacuum and deadly-cold temperature, without an inevitable heat-death of the universe, etc. Basically, this universe seems much more likely supposing that life was not its purpose. Life is in a constant struggle to survive and adapt to this unforgiving universe!

The fine-tuning argument presupposes that life is the intent of the universe, and therefore the conditions needed for it are what is focused on. Why not presuppose quarks, black holes, hydrogen, or simply empty space are the things we should consider the “fine-tuning” for? Or even suppose things that don’t exist that could, and therefore a Designer is disproved! (as in the unicorn example).

As is, it seems like the fine-tuning argument is begging the question.

 

[Vico]

So I’ve been thinking about the fine-tuning argument some more, and I have a new difficulty with it. Basically, it presupposes that the universe exists for the purpose of life, which implies a Creator and his intents, and therefore the argument is more or less circular. For example, if one presupposes that the purpose of a universe is to produce intelligent flying unicorns, then the fine-tuning argument disproves the existence of God. This is because we would predict that the universe would have the fine-tuning necessary for intelligent flying unicorns, and it doesn’t, therefore it was not designed.

And besides, the universe could be designed to be much more hospitable to life, no? It could easily have been designed from the start to produce countless life-friendly planets (in our solar system), with stars that won’t inevitably burn out, with no asteroids or climate changes causing mass extinctions, with an outer space that doesn’t destroy creatures with a vacuum and deadly-cold temperature, without an inevitable heat-death of the universe, etc. Basically, this universe seems much more likely supposing that life was not its purpose. Life is in a constant struggle to survive and adapt to this unforgiving universe!

The fine-tuning argument presupposes that life is the intent of the universe, and therefore the conditions needed for it are what is focused on. Why not presuppose quarks, black holes, hydrogen, or simply empty space are the things we should consider the “fine-tuning” for? Or even suppose things that don’t exist that could, and therefore a Designer is disproved! (as in the unicorn example).

As is, it seems like the fine-tuning argument is begging the question.

That “the universe could be designed to be …” also assumes a Creator.

Assuming we can understand why the universe was created, of course.

 

[Gusto]

So I’ve been thinking about the fine-tuning argument some more, and I have a new difficulty with it. Basically, it presupposes that the universe exists for the purpose of life, which implies a Creator and his intents, and therefore the argument is more or less circular. For example, if one presupposes that the purpose of a universe is to produce intelligent flying unicorns, then the fine-tuning argument disproves the existence of God. This is because we would predict that the universe would have the fine-tuning necessary for intelligent flying unicorns, and it doesn’t, therefore it was not designed.

And besides, the universe could be designed to be much more hospitable to life, no? It could easily have been designed from the start to produce countless life-friendly planets (in our solar system), with stars that won’t inevitably burn out, with no asteroids or climate changes causing mass extinctions, with an outer space that doesn’t destroy creatures with a vacuum and deadly-cold temperature, without an inevitable heat-death of the universe, etc. Basically, this universe seems much more likely supposing that life was not its purpose. Life is in a constant struggle to survive and adapt to this unforgiving universe!

The fine-tuning argument presupposes that life is the intent of the universe, and therefore the conditions needed for it are what is focused on. Why not presuppose quarks, black holes, hydrogen, or simply empty space are the things we should consider the “fine-tuning” for? Or even suppose things that don’t exist that could, and therefore a Designer is disproved! (as in the unicorn example).

As is, it seems like the fine-tuning argument is begging the question.

The way I see it is, yes the universe appears to be extremely fine tuned. The mathematical numbers are hard to fathom and comprehend (easy to write in short hand though).

Yes it would appear Earth is fine tuned for life.
What about the other planets, what about fine tuning it differently, what about …
I am not sure how these “what if’s”’ will help us.

It goes the same for us humans.
Why do we appear to be the only species on Earth, in the history of the Earth, that are different?
Why are we wired, not just for mere existence (food, reproduction and shelter) but for love, sacrificial love?
Why do we have desires that don’t quite satisfy?

There are loads of why’s that we can ask and with such philosophical questions we can simply say that our Creator willed it thus.

I love what Fr Robert Barron said regarding good v evil. It gave me a whole new outlook on how to view what is happening and yes there is a bigger picture one must view. (I didn’t quite get it before, until he explained it the way he did)

 

[jbeck43]

In each example you’re giving, you’re presupposing an observer into each hypothetical universe that could or should know the difference between a finely-tuned universe with one that isn’t, which is really begging the question. The reasons that might be pondered as to why certain things may or may not exist is forgetting the fact that because we do exist to ponder such questions in the first place already answers your question frankly. It’s easy to overlook the observer in creating these imaginary arguments. But even to begin to imagine such scenarios at all already greatly insinuates a finely-tuned universe because 1) again, you asked the question, and 2) the question is comprehensible.or reasonable. Why should we be able to understand, in our minds, anything, outside of our minds, at all? Why should the universe make any kind of sense that we can observe and understand? There doesn’t seem to be any good reason, except that God created it and us with that express concern in mind. I think that it what the “popular athiests” forget when they argue against the existence of God. That they think at all is a kind of miracle–even for them.

 

[tonyrey]

In each example you’re giving, you’re presupposing an observer into each hypothetical universe that could or should know the difference between a finely-tuned universe with one that isn’t, which is really begging the question. The reasons that might be pondered as to why certain things may or may not exist is forgetting the fact that because we do exist to ponder such questions in the first place already answers your question frankly. It’s easy to overlook the observer in creating these imaginary arguments. But even to begin to imagine such scenarios at all already greatly insinuates a finely-tuned universe because 1) again, you asked the question, and 2) the question is comprehensible.or reasonable. Why should we be able to understand, in our minds, anything, outside of our minds, at all? Why should the universe make any kind of sense that we can observe and understand? There doesn’t seem to be any good reason, except that God created it and us with that express concern in mind. I think that it what the “popular atheists” forget when they argue against the existence of God. That they think at all is a kind of miracle–even for them.

Irrefutable! Rationality is one of the most powerful arguments for Design in a universe which is not only intelligible but also intellected - a point made by Pascal (who was no fool!) alomost five centuries ago. Taken in conjunction with free will, love, the immense value of existence and the reality of good and evil its superiority to non-Design is overwhelming.

The fine-tuning argument does not presuppose that life** as we know it** is the sole purpose of the universe. One is entitled to create beautiful works of art for their own sake. Kant rightly appreciated the majesty and beauty of the night sky for its own sake. Moreover “there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy…”

The size and age of the universe are also irrelevant, being based on parochial human notions of economy! If it only consisted of the solar system and appeared relatively recently it could be seen as evidence for the limited power of the Designer…

BTW All arguments presuppose a conclusion! No one sets out to explain reality with nothing in mind…

 

[jbeck43]

Just one other thing as a I think about your interesting question. The universe in which all things are can and do exist such as unicorns for example, would not be a finely-tuned universe at all. It would be chaos. It would be a widely-tuned universe where all possibilities actually exist. And things that can exist, do exist. Things that do exist, because all possibilities exist, don’t exist, because it is possible for them not to exist also. See where the logic of your supposition takes us? Now consider our universe, where only some things exist. That’s the definition of finely-tuned. Now we could even think of a universe where men and women were purposely made to image the likeness of God, then it would seem to me that a finely-tuned universe would be the most logical kind of universe for that purpose–one where God imbues men with reason and understanding to come to know, love, serve Him.

 

[tonyrey]

Just one other thing as a I think about your interesting question. The universe in which all things are can and do exist such as unicorns for example, would not be a finely-tuned universe at all. It would be chaos. It would be a widely-tuned universe where all possibilities actually exist. And things that can exist, do exist. Things that do exist, because all possibilities exist, don’t exist. See where the logic of your supposition takes us? Now consider our universe, where only some things exist. That’s the definition finely-tuned. Now we could even think of a universe where men and women were purposely made to image the likeness of God, then it would seem to me that a finely-tuned universe would be the most logical kind of universe for that purpose–one where God imbues men with reason and understanding to come to know, love, serve Him.

I agree but we should make it quite clear that we aren’t the **sole **purpose of the universe. All life on earth - and probably elsewhere - is valuable regardless of whether we exist.

BTW A warm welcome to the forum!

 

[jbeck43]

I agree but we should make it quite clear that we aren’t the **sole **purpose of the universe. All life on earth - and probably elsewhere - is valuable regardless of whether we exist.

BTW A warm welcome to the forum!

Agreed, and thank you for the warm welcome, with great regards to another philisoph!

 

[Luke_K]

In each example you’re giving, you’re presupposing an observer into each hypothetical universe that could or should know the difference between a finely-tuned universe with one that isn’t, which is really begging the question. The reasons that might be pondered as to why certain things may or may not exist is forgetting the fact that because we do exist to ponder such questions in the first place already answers your question frankly. It’s easy to overlook the observer in creating these imaginary arguments. But even to begin to imagine such scenarios at all already greatly insinuates a finely-tuned universe because 1) again, you asked the question, and 2) the question is comprehensible.or reasonable. Why should we be able to understand, in our minds, anything, outside of our minds, at all? Why should the universe make any kind of sense that we can observe and understand? There doesn’t seem to be any good reason, except that God created it and us with that express concern in mind. I think that it what the “popular athiests” forget when they argue against the existence of God. That they think at all is a kind of miracle–even for them.

I’m not quite understanding your point here. The fine-tuning argument is based on the possibility of the universe being different than it is- including universes where we don’t exist.

Regarding your “why” questions, I can simply respond “Why not?” Why shouldn’t it be comprehensible? Or even, why did God make it exactly this way? Why not make us into intelligent flying unicorns instead of homo sapiens? The fact is, God could have created the universe any way he wanted for any teleological purpose he wanted. And in any universe where there were intelligent beings, they would think just like you: “Oh, of course our universe is this way because God designed it for such-and-such purpose!” The problem is that that is circular reasoning and doesn’t explain anything. It’s like explaining that grass is green because the grass-fairies wanted it green. And if grass were blue we’d say it was blue because the grass-fairies wanted it blue.

But I do recognize the necessity of ultimately reaching an explanation that isn’t explained by something else. Perhaps a freely willed caused is what we have to resort to at some point.

jbeck43:

Just one other thing as a I think about your interesting question. The universe in which all things are can and do exist such as unicorns for example, would not be a finely-tuned universe at all. It would be chaos. It would be a widely-tuned universe where all possibilities actually exist. And things that can exist, do exist. Things that do exist, because all possibilities exist, don’t exist, because it is possible for them not to exist also. See where the logic of your supposition takes us? Now consider our universe, where only some things exist. That’s the definition of finely-tuned. Now we could even think of a universe where men and women were purposely made to image the likeness of God, then it would seem to me that a finely-tuned universe would be the most logical kind of universe for that purpose–one where God imbues men with reason and understanding to come to know, love, serve Him.

No, I don’t see how what I’m proposing entails chaos. I didn’t mention all possibilities being actualized.

 

[jbeck43]

Regarding your “why” questions, I can simply respond “Why not?”

You’re using Richard Dawkins argument here why the universe just happens to be the way that it is to support life. He stated his argument this way: Suppose a man had explosives strapped to his chest and was trapped in a room full of explosives. All the explosives went off, but the man was unhurt. Certainly it is improbable, but here he is, and therefore, because we know he is unhurt, the possibility of his being unhurt must have existed, therefore even if the the universe’s existence was improbable, but because we exist, the possibility of it’s existence is obviously possible, because here we are. In other words, why not? --as you have put it.

The problem here is that it still begs the question, how was the man unhurt? Out of the myriad of possibilities of him being blown to smithereens, just how did it happen that despite the very low odds he would even survive, he was actually unhurt? The universe’s existence has odds even lower than this man did coming out unhurt, much lower in fact. It’s actually so much lower that it defies belief. If we just take gravity for instance, and plotted on a ruler with one inch increments, stretched it out across the entire universe–over fourteen billion light years, where gravity was plotted at just one inch on that ruler, life would not exist if we moved gravity just one inch further in either direction. That’s how precise just gravity is. Now if we take the cosmological constant, and marry it with the arbitrary value of gravity (and by the way, physicists are finding that most of the constants, like gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, etc., are indeed arbitrary and not fixed for any necessary reason), we get a number so astronomically remote that it exceeds all the known numbers of the universe, and i’ve checked this, it’s something to the order of one times ten to the negative fifteen power odds against the universe existing and supporting life. The question, why not? then becomes exceedingly unanswerable.

Physicists know this, and that is why the multiverse hypothesis has been gaining traction in recent years, because they know the implications of a single universe so tightly constructed. But this is hypocritical, because it cedes belief in a thousand, million, billion, trillion invisible universes to get around the belief in one invisible God. And for a field mostly populated with atheists, that takes a whole lot of faith.

 

[greylorn]

So I’ve been thinking about the fine-tuning argument some more, and I have a new difficulty with it. Basically, it presupposes that the universe exists for the purpose of life, which implies a Creator and his intents, and therefore the argument is more or less circular. For example, if one presupposes that the purpose of a universe is to produce intelligent flying unicorns, then the fine-tuning argument disproves the existence of God. This is because we would predict that the universe would have the fine-tuning necessary for intelligent flying unicorns, and it doesn’t, therefore it was not designed.

And besides, the universe could be designed to be much more hospitable to life, no? It could easily have been designed from the start to produce countless life-friendly planets (in our solar system), with stars that won’t inevitably burn out, with no asteroids or climate changes causing mass extinctions, with an outer space that doesn’t destroy creatures with a vacuum and deadly-cold temperature, without an inevitable heat-death of the universe, etc. Basically, this universe seems much more likely supposing that life was not its purpose. Life is in a constant struggle to survive and adapt to this unforgiving universe!

The fine-tuning argument presupposes that life is the intent of the universe, and therefore the conditions needed for it are what is focused on. Why not presuppose quarks, black holes, hydrogen, or simply empty space are the things we should consider the “fine-tuning” for? Or even suppose things that don’t exist that could, and therefore a Designer is disproved! (as in the unicorn example).

As is, it seems like the fine-tuning argument is begging the question.

Try adding to the fine-tuning argument the possibility that God is not omnipotent or omniscient, and that the Three Laws of Thermodynamics (generalized) existed before God did. Treat God as a limited entity who engineered the universe from the material available, and things will begin to make more sense to you.

 

[JDaniel]

Just one other thing as a I think about your interesting question. The universe in which all things are can and do exist such as unicorns for example, would not be a finely-tuned universe at all. It would be chaos. It would be a widely-tuned universe where all possibilities actually exist. And things that can exist, do exist. Things that do exist, because all possibilities exist, don’t exist, because it is possible for them not to exist also. See where the logic of your supposition takes us? Now consider our universe, where only some things exist. That’s the definition of finely-tuned. Now we could even think of a universe where men and women were purposely made to image the likeness of God, then it would seem to me that a finely-tuned universe would be the most logical kind of universe for that purpose–one where God imbues men with reason and understanding to come to know, love, serve Him.

Jbeck:

First of all, Welcome! to CAF. I had a question come to mind as I read your above post: "Do you think the definition of “finely tuned universe” means, “where only some things exist?” Or, do you think it means fine tuned for “Life?” If you think the latter than almost anything that could exist could exist. Right? There are certainly creatures like the unicorn. Right? Hippos and narwhals? Not everything that can be imagined by juxtaposition of picture-concepts must become real. Right?

Otherwise, how do you think that “finely tuned universe” means for just some species? I’m not being facetious. I’m trying to figure out if I missed something.

God bless,
jd

 

[jbeck43]

Jbeck:

First of all, Welcome! to CAF. I had a question come to mind as I read your above post: "Do you think the definition of “finely tuned universe” means, “where only some things exist?” Or, do you think it means fine tuned for “Life?” If you think the latter than almost anything that could exist could exist. Right? There are certainly creatures like the unicorn. Right? Hippos and narwhals? Not everything that can be imagined by juxtaposition of picture-concepts must become real. Right?

Otherwise, how do you think that “finely tuned universe” means for just some species? I’m not being facetious. I’m trying to figure out if I missed something.

God bless,
jd

Thanks again for the warm welcome. Seems like a warm community here. Yours is an interesting question. In the above quote, I actually was using the words “fine-tuned” in the context of the ongoing discussion to simply mean that the universe had a cause, and that cause was a focused, purposeful one. It–the beginning of the universe–wasn’t just a shotgun blast up against a wall just to see what stuck, so to speak. There’s a difference between a universe where the odds of anything at all existing being truly beyond imagination, and one where the assumption that universe-making is easy, and observers in that universe almost a given inevitable consequence of that.

But do I think that it is also fine-tuned for life? The answer is yes. If the odds of anything existing at all is only astronomical, then the odds for observers existing in that universe who have the ability to perceive those odds must indeed be nearly inconceivable. So does that mean that anything that can exist like unicorns, should exist necessarily? No, i don’t believe that. Saint Thomas Aquinas called it the difference between actuality and essence. One of the characteristics of a unicorn is that it looks like a horse with a horn. The essence of a horse, instead then would be that it has the attributes of a unicorn without a horn. The difference between the horse that lives across the street in a barnyard and a unicorn, is that the horse possesses actuality by existing, while Bob the Unicorn only ‘exists’ as an idea based on a unicorn’s essence. Horses actually exist, but the essence of horses or unicorns doesn’t mean that they must exist necessarily. The Lone Ranger’s horse from the old classic movies is dead, but it doesn’t mean that because it’s dead now, that it wasn’t a horse then. It must have derived existence from something. To exist means that it must have been given existence from something else that possessed it. But if nothing has existence as part of it’s essence, then no one, except the one who possesses existence as part of it’s essence can freely give it. That one thing who’s essence which possesses existence as a necessary part of it’s essence is what Aquinas called God. And it’s that person that gives existence to a horse and not to a unicorn. It’s a deliberate act, like the universe existing, like me existing, and like you. And it can only come from a benevolent act. Sounds like God to me too.

 

[tonyrey]

There is support for the improbability of intelligent life from an unexpected quarter:

“It is more likely that evolution is a random process with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long term survival value. Bacteria and other single cell organisms will live on if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence was an unlikely development for life on Earth from the chronology of evolution.** It took a very long time: two and a half billion years to go from single cells to multi cell beings who are a necessary precursor to intelligence.** This is a good fraction of the total time available before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis that the probability for life to develop intelligence is low. In this case we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy but **we are unlikely to find intelligent life.” - **Stephen Hawking

brembs.net/SWH.html

If we also consider that there have been several occasions when life nearly became extinct on this planet it demonstrates that** the survival of life on this planet has been** against overwhelming odds for more than three billion years. This certainly requires explanation unless one has great faith in the power of the blind Goddess - Chance.

 

[Prophesy]

So I’ve been thinking about the fine-tuning argument some more, and I have a new difficulty with it. Basically, it presupposes that the universe exists for the purpose of life, which implies a Creator and his intents, and therefore the argument is more or less circular. For example, if one presupposes that the purpose of a universe is to produce intelligent flying unicorns, then the fine-tuning argument disproves the existence of God. This is because we would predict that the universe would have the fine-tuning necessary for intelligent flying unicorns, and it doesn’t, therefore it was not designed.

And besides, the universe could be designed to be much more hospitable to life, no? It could easily have been designed from the start to produce countless life-friendly planets (in our solar system), with stars that won’t inevitably burn out, with no asteroids or climate changes causing mass extinctions, with an outer space that doesn’t destroy creatures with a vacuum and deadly-cold temperature, without an inevitable heat-death of the universe, etc. Basically, this universe seems much more likely supposing that life was not its purpose. Life is in a constant struggle to survive and adapt to this unforgiving universe!

The fine-tuning argument presupposes that life is the intent of the universe, and therefore the conditions needed for it are what is focused on. Why not presuppose quarks, black holes, hydrogen, or simply empty space are the things we should consider the “fine-tuning” for? Or even suppose things that don’t exist that could, and therefore a Designer is disproved! (as in the unicorn example).

As is, it seems like the fine-tuning argument is begging the question.

I think you’re trying a little too hard. The fine tuning argument (as I know it) involves the precision of four primary constants (weak/strong interaction, gravitation and electromagnetism).

Your second point brings forth an excellent criticism of the fine tuning argument (one that C.S. Lewis, in his atheistic past, voiced also).

The problem with the fine-tuning argument is that firstly it is a lessened proof for God, only suggesting (if the argument is given well) the existence of a Deistic God, one that created a Goldilocks planet, but made the universe a terrifying ordeal. But I haven’t heard it say that Earth is the goal, just that if one of those constants was changed by the breadth of a hair, the universe would have never came to be.

-Prophesy

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with the fine-tuning argument is that firstly it is a lessened proof for God, only suggesting (if the argument is given well) the existence of a Deistic God, one that created a Goldilocks planet, but made the universe a terrifying ordeal. But I haven’t heard it say that Earth is the goal, just that if one of those constants was changed by the breadth of a hair, the universe would have never came to be.

The fine-tuning argument is not intended to be a proof of the God of religion but simply evidence for Design. The nature of the Designer does not come into the picture.

 

[tonyrey]

The fact is, God could have created the universe any way he wanted for any teleological purpose he wanted. And in any universe where there were intelligent beings, they would think just like you: “Oh, of course our universe is this way because God designed it for such-and-such purpose!” The problem is that that is circular reasoning and doesn’t explain anything. It’s like explaining that grass is green because the grass-fairies wanted it green. And if grass were blue we’d say it was blue because the grass-fairies wanted it blue.

There’s no reason why God must create only one universe! The fact that there may be others in which there are intelligent beings who think their universe is designed doesn’t mean that we (or they) are mistaken. The more the merrier!

 

[Prophesy]

The fine-tuning argument is not intended to be a proof of the God of religion but simply evidence for Design. The nature of the Designer does not come into the picture.

Still for that I find that there exist better arguments for proof of a God of religion haha

-Prophesy

 

[tonyrey]

Still for that I find that there exist better arguments for proof of a God of religion haha

-Prophesy

I agree but they are not related to the topic.

 

[Prophesy]

I agree but they are not related to the topic.

I agree, another topic for another time.

-Prophesy