The Fine-Tuning Argument

SophistiCat

I would like to start a discussion about the so-called Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) for God (or, more generally, Design - but let's not be coy: a sentient being that creates the universe or engineers its basic features qualifies as a god, if not necessarily the God of the Bible).

Personally, I am not aware of any successful FTA. Indeed, the most common problem I see when people casually invoke fine-tuning to support some deistic position is that no argument is actually made after certain scientific premises are stated, other than perhaps an analogy or two. The few more rigorous attempts to formulate an argument as a plausible inference also fail, in my opinion. So instead of presenting an FTA myself, I invite its proponents to do so in this thread. But here is some background to begin with.

First, here is a recent article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fine-Tuning. The article covers the physical background, fine-tuning arguments for design and some responses to them, as well as anthropic and fine-tuning issues in cosmology and particle physics. It also features an extensive bibliography.

Next I'll state the premise of FTA in its most common form (call it the physical premise):

When the constants and boundary values of fundamental physics* are treated as free parameters of the model, only a narrow range of those values results in a universe where life as we know it is possible. In other words, fundamental constants and boundary values appear to be fine-tuned for life.

* such as the Standard Model of particle physics, which is the basis or the point of departure for modern cosmology.

For example, small variations in quark masses can drastically alter the conditions of nucleosynthesis in the early universe, destroying the delicate resonances that are necessary for producing carbon and other elements that form the basis of complex organic chemistry. Variations in the value of the fine-structure constant can imperil the existence of matter itself. Many other examples of fine-tuning can be found in the literature.

There is some controversy over specific claims of fine-tuning. Some apparent coincidences turn out to be much less surprising when more fundamental factors are considered - which points to the possibility that future physics, for which the Standard Model is an effective low-energy theory, may go in the direction of further unification, making previously arbitrary coincidences a necessary consequence of the theory. But the question will still arise: How fine-tuned is the theory itself? Other constraints turn out to be not as restrictive as claimed when alternative possibilities and compensatory factors are considered. Varying multiple parameters at the same time can produce different, but still complex and possibly life-supporting universes. Still, it seems likely that the total volume of the parameter space that allows for a life-supporting universe is small - so small indeed as to give rise to another sort of problem for fine-tuning arguments: course-tuning.

The problem is that seemingly impressive number coincidences don't actually matter for the usual probabilistic formulation of the FTA: the "tuning" could be many orders of magnitude more coarse without making any difference to the argument. Indeed, any finite volume of the life-permitting parameter space is effectively flattened by the infinite size of the total parameter space, and resulting degenerate probabilities "blow up" formal inferences. But I don't think that this problem necessarily kills the FTA; after all, inference schemes based on standard probability calculus are just some of the ways to formalize rational inference. Asymptotic behavior of relevant probabilistic expressions suggests that they are on the right track, singularities notwithstanding, and indeed some proponents of the FTA have already attempted to treat the problem with non-standard probabilistic analyses. Still, this consideration takes the edge off the numerology that makes the FTA so intuitively appealing to some people.

That said, I suggest we set aside most such concerns over the empirical status of the physical premise [varying fundamental physical laws, constants and boundary conditions nearly always results in a universe that is incompatible with life]. There are also interesting controversies over anthropic reasoning and fine-tuning in physics, but they are best left for another forum. Here I am more interested in what an FTA proponent can actually do with the physical premise, which we can take as given for the purpose of the discussion. Is "fine-tuning for life" in need of explanation? (The answer is not as uncontroversial as it might seem.) And are theistic explanations best suited for the job?

tim wood

In the book Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees offers the argument that six numbers have to be what they are in this universe so that we can live in it. But there's more. If those numbers were other than they are, then the universe itself would probably be short-lived. Stepping into very plausible conjecture, he argues that perhaps there have been lots (and lots (and lots...)...) of Universes that weren't quite right for us that came and went, until one came along that would support us.

Conjectural but reasonable physics, or a super natural being that presides over it all. What seems most reasonable to you?

https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732

jorndoe

How would we go about making such an assessment?

These two seems partially at odds:

observation: life as we know it seems somewhat rare, not a hospitable universe
proposal: the universe was designed for (conscious) life, perhaps us specifically

The constants found in physics (and similar sciences) are but part of such an assessment. We'd have to take entirely different ontologies/structures into account as well, or we'd still just be looking at ours. (For that matter, we don't change π, and expect to find circles.) Not a simple assessment to make; how would we come up with such alternate universes...? This would converge on considering modal realism.

Following evidence + current models thereof, life, as we know it, has a window somewhere between formation of solar systems and the beginning of the degenerate era, ever marching towards heat death (cf expansion of the universe). Heat death involves an unfathomable amount of time (even compared to 14 billion years), ruled by the lonely photon in deep cold.

In the meantime, life seems rare, at least from what we currently know. Our present universe is largely indifferent/hostile to life. It's vast, open spaces and lots of radiation, with rocks here and there, gases and stars, and the occasional black hole and supernova blast. Life on Earth requires free energy from the Sun to stay around; energy that temporarily partakes in food chains before dispersing ever on (entropy + expansion).

Isn't it somewhat self-elevating to think of life as a pre-determined purpose of the universe...? Or more specifically, like some seem to think, us? :o Anthropocentric self-importance (even narcissism)? Douglas Adams' puddle comes to mind.

What are the chances of a hypothetical über-designer coming up with our universe?

If we're getting into probability calculations, then let's calculate (or at least assess) the probability on the 2^nd of January in the year 601, that we'd be chatting here, at this moment, under these circumstances, with these words. In order to get an impression of how this works, and to compare, let's also make the calculation for the year -816. We might invoke quantum mechanics and general relativity, just for the heck of it. :)

Texas sharpshooter fallacy (Wikipedia)

Maw

Despite the mathematical rigor that the argument requires (i.e. the Universe needs a specific set of constants, each of which need to "tweaked" to a specific number), the argument rests on the probabilistic absurdity of using a sample size of one.

Rank Amateur

i think this is the best layperson explanation of the argument - for those interested.

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FINETLAY.HTM

Moliere

Here I am more interested in what an FTA proponent can actually do with the physical premise, which we can take as given for the purpose of the discussion. Is "fine-tuning for life" in need of explanation? (The answer is not as uncontroversial as it might seem.) And are theistic explanations best suited for the job? — SophistiCat

I guess I don't see much difference between FTA and other forms of the teleological argument -- is that an unfair characterization, in your view?

Rank Amateur

I guess I don't see much difference between FTA and other forms of the teleological argument -- is that an unfair characterization, in your view? — Moliere

firstly, i am a theist, but not a proponent of FTA as an argument for the existence of God, because it is in conflict with skeptical theism - that said.

The allure of FTA to many theists, is the fractal basis of the conditions are derived from, and therefor consistent with science. This has an obvious advantage for theist who are used to having to argue outside of science

TheMadFool

When the constants and boundary values of fundamental physics* are treated as free parameters of the model, only a narrow range of those values results in a universe where life as we know it is possible. — SophistiCat

In the book Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees offers the argument that six numbers have to be what they are in this universe so that we can live in it. — tim wood

The point is the fine tuning argument assumes life has to be life as we know it and that is where the fine tuning argument goes wrong. Different numbers lead to different types of universes, each with their own carbon-type element that could lead to life. The inhabitants of such universes could be making the same argument like the fine tuning argument without realizing that a different set of numbers led to our universe with carbon-based life-forms.

Rank Amateur

The point is the fine tuning argument assumes life has to be life as we know it and that is where the fine tuning argument goes wrong. Different numbers lead to different types of universes, each with their own carbon-type element that could lead to life. The inhabitants of such universes could be making the same argument like the fine tuning argument without realizing that a different set of numbers led to our universe with carbon-based life-forms. — TheMadFool

The FTA starts with the observations that there exist sentient beings like us, and in order for these beings to exist the constraints on the universe are incredibly precise, and for all these precise criteria to happen becomes incredibly unlikely. And then asks for which hypothesis for these observations have a higher probability.

TheMadFool

The FTA starts with the observations that there exist sentient beings like us, and in order for these beings to exist the constraints on the universe are incredibly precise, and for all these precise criteria to happen becomes incredibly unlikely. And then asks for which hypothesis for these observations have a higher probability. — Rank Amateur

Thanks. All I want to say is that life may not necesarily be carbon-based. In fact there's no contradiction in there being pure energy-based lifr forms.

While our universe is fine-tuned for carbon life forms, other universes may be fine-tuned for silicon or iron or whathaveyou. Our universe may not be the only type that can harbor life.

What we have then is the denizens of each universe making a fine-tuning argument about ''lifr as we know it''. In short our universe isn't special enough as is made out to be by the FTA.

Rank Amateur

While our universe is fine-tuned for carbon life forms, other universes may be fine-tuned for silicon or iron or whathaveyou. Our universe may not be the only type that can harbor life.

What we have then is the denizens of each universe making a fine-tuning argument about ''lifr as we know it''. In short our universe isn't special enough as is made out to be by the FTA. — TheMadFool

That is just a restatement on the randomness or multi universe hypothesis as alternatives for design. And in the FTA the observation is about the sentient beings like us. The evidence for other sentient beings like us existing in some other place in the universe we experience, or in some other theorized other universe has no more basis than a designer. It just comes down to which hypothesis one feels is more probable than another.

For many, on a scale of 0 to 1 the existence of God is near zero, these folks will find any hypothesis other than a designer more likely.

For others the existence of God is near 1 and they will find any hypothesis other than a designer improbable

And both ends of the continuum are reasonable, meaning are not in conflict with fact, and each conclusion is based on faith - one camp a theistic faith, the other a faith in science/man.

FTA is not a proof of the existence of God, and many including me find it in conflict with skeptical theism. What I find most interesting in it however is the extend atheists and hard agnostics will go elevate science to religion in order to to avoid an acknowledgement that given our current actual provable science, design may well be the best hypothesis. And my aside is the same individuals given any similar set of circumstances as FTA that did not involve God would easily rush to design as the best hypothesis.

SophistiCat

In the book Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees offers the argument that six numbers have to be what they are in this universe so that we can live in it. But there's more. If those numbers were other than they are, then the universe itself would probably be short-lived. Stepping into very plausible conjecture, he argues that perhaps there have been lots (and lots (and lots...)...) of Universes that weren't quite right for us that came and went, until one came along that would support us.

Conjectural but reasonable physics, or a super natural being that presides over it all. What seems most reasonable to you? — tim wood

Depending on the level of modeling and level of detail, there may be other "fine-tuned" numbers - some are briefly discussed in the SEP article referenced in the OP, more can be found elsewhere. (There are 20-30 constants in the Standard Model of particle physics, and then there are relativistic constants and cosmological initial conditions.)

But before we go looking for a solution, we need to establish motivation: is there a problem to be solved? Is there something that cries out for an explanation? That is far from obvious. That the universe is suited for life is a truism. That the universe could have been otherwise (at least as a conceivable possibility) is also pretty uncontroversial. The only sticking point is this alleged fine-tuning - sensitive dependence of life-permitting conditions on certain parameters of fundamental physics.

Strictly speaking, they are not parameters - in the theories where these numbers are found they are givens, brute facts that go along with equations and other postulates of those theories. But if we treat them as free parameters, as knobs that we can turn this way and that (and why should we?), then there is a sensitive dependence - although just how sensitive is also not so clear - see above.

In physical cosmology and particle physics (Inflational cosmology, String theories, quantum field theory), where the problem to be solved is theory choice, anthropic reasoning and (no-)fine-tuning considerations appear in the context of typicality and naturalness (see chapters 4.4 and 5 in the SEP article for an overview). These are rather controversial epistemic criteria, but at least here we understand what the stakes are and what the reasoning is. Whereas when the problem of fine-tuning is stated out of such context, it is not even clear why it is a problem in the first place.

Wayfarer

Is there something that cries out for an explanation? — SophistiCat

It undermines the sentiment so eloquently expressed in the opening of Bertrand Russell's famous essay, published right at the beginning of the 20th Century, A Free Man's Worship, which says 'That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms....'

So it implies that the outcomes were not actually accidental but implicit from the beginning, therefore suggestive of 'aims and purposes' which are generally verboten according to post-Galilean science.

TheMadFool

What I find most interesting in it however is the extend atheists and hard agnostics will go elevate science to religion in order to to avoid an acknowledgement that given our current actual provable science, design may well be the best hypothesis. — Rank Amateur

Take a fish and a mammal. The water appears designed for fish AND the air seems designed for mammals but a mammal can't breathe water and fish can't breathe air. The FTA depends on the universe being tuned for life. But we could be like fish in an ocean thinking the universe was designed for us and another life-form could be like mammals thinking the the universe was desgined for them. The FTA depends on this universe having exclusive rights to life but I've just shown you that it works for both fishes and mammals despite the fact that each would die if their universes were swapped.

Michael Ossipoff

1. Matters relating to God have nothing to do with assertion, argument or proof. Assertion, argument and proof have no bearing on such matters. So all the scientific, logical or quasi-logical arguments for or against there being God are without value.

2. The FTA has nothing to do with God, but is explained by blatantly obvious metaphysics.

(I say the above as a Theist)

Michael Ossipoff

SophistiCat

Despite the mathematical rigor that the argument requires (i.e. the Universe needs a specific set of constants, each of which need to "tweaked" to a specific number), the argument rests on the probabilistic absurdity of using a sample size of one. — Maw

Yes, when considering the probability of fine-tuning we clearly cannot appeal either to observed statistics (we just have one sample), nor to theory (theory gives us fixed values, not distributions). Probability in this context is usually understood as epistemic probability. The modal reasoning goes something like this: for all we know, the constants could have been different, and since we have no reason for favoring any one value over another, we end up with a uniform probability distribution (principle of indifference).

I guess I don't see much difference between FTA and other forms of the teleological argument -- is that an unfair characterization, in your view? — Moliere

It's a type of teleological argument, or argument from design. Among other examples probably the best-known are those having to do with biological design (e.g. Paley's watch analogy). And like with other teleological arguments, it seems to have a lot of intuitive appeal with some people, and yet when the argument is viewed skeptically, it turns out surprisingly hard to even give it a rigorous formulation, and few even try.

Antony Latham

Some real examples of fine tuning may help in this discussion. There are very many but here are a couple to start with:
1/ In the very beginning of the universe there was very slight unevenness or presence of non-uniformities in the expanding energy. If the energy had been evenly distributed then there would be no coalescence of matter into galaxies. The amplitude of the non-uniformities is described by the number Q, the energy difference between the peaks and troughs in the density, expressed as a fraction of the total energy of the initial universe. Computer models show that Q had to be very close to 0.00001 in order for any galaxies to form. If it was minutely higher then no structures would form, if minutely lower then all matter would have collapsed into huge black holes.
2/ It was crucial for the expansion of the universe at the first second after the big bang that the expansion energy, or impetus, was finely balanced with the gravitational force, which was pulling it all back together. It has been mathematically calculated that, back at one second, the universe's expansion energy and the opposing gravitational energy must have differed by less than one part in 10 to the power 15 (one part in a million billion). If it was different at all (in either direction) then there would be no galaxies, no stars, and so no planets.

Now this has to be explained. There is no point in suggesting other forms of life if conditions were slightly different - there would be no life unless such exquisite precision was in place. Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal (from whose writings the above figures are derived), realises this and so plumps for a multi-universe theory: we have simply struck lucky from the lottery of trillions upon trillions of possible universes. Occam's razor leads me more to the more parsimonious solution - design.

Rank Amateur

↪Antony Latham

thanks - and that is just the tip of the ice berg.

The probability of all the needed conditions is on the order of 52! That is a very very large number -
this link is a fun way to imagine it.

https://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html

if this question was not about "God as designer" there would be almost no argument is was by design. It is only that many view the possibility of a designer as zero or near zero that makes them support randomness, of the multi universe explanation. In a sentence - it looks like design - except it can't be because there can't be a designer - it has to be something else.

As an example - in the classic thought experiment:

you enter a room and find me at a table with a deck of cards in front of me.
you begin to turn over the cards and see they are i order ace, 2, 3 all the same suit

I give you 3 hypothesis for this:

1. I spent the last 10 minutes putting them in order
2. I just finished shuffling them - and that is how the ended
3. There are a infinite number of me's you's and tables and decks of cards
we are just aware of this one

all honest answers to this question are of course it is 1. And the only real difference between this and FTA is the respondent excepts my existence as a possibility and some unknown God/Designer as un acceptable. It is just an elevation of science to religion.

SophistiCat

Now this has to be explained. — Antony Latham

Why? Can you explain your reasoning? This is one of the things I would like to clear up in this discussion. Is this fine-tuning surprising? Is it unexpected? If so, what are your expectations and what are they based on?

Occam's razor leads me more to the more parsimonious solution - design. — Antony Latham

How do you figure?

The probability of all the needed conditions is on the order of 52! — Rank Amateur

How do you calculate the probability - not of the card deck permutation, of course, but of the universe being life-supporting? Show your work, please.

As an example - in the classic thought experiment: — Rank Amateur

Explain your reasoning in this thought experiment. What if the card order was not the canonical order - would your answer be different? Why?

Wayfarer

Is this fine-tuning surprising? Is it unexpected? — SophistiCat

I am finding it hard to understand why you don’t see the issue here. The customary post-Enlightenment attitude to this matter has always been that as the Universe was not ‘God’s handiwork’ [i.e. the consequence of intentional creation], then the only alternative was that life arose by chance.

One influential book about this idea was Chance and Necessity by French Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod, a biochemist. The Wikipedia abstract is here. In a nutshell, this is exactly what the book argues - that the origin of life is the consequence of the chance permutations of complex molecules that have given rise to all the myriad forms.

It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one. — Jacques Monod

But the fine-tuning argument says - hang on, the antecedents to these so-called ‘chance occurences’ actually seem to have originated at - or was it before? - the beginning of the universe, to have been part of the fabric of the cosmos since the year dot. If life is an accident, it’s an accident waiting to happen, as the saying has it.

It might be an impossible argument to adjudicate or resolve, but one thing I think that can be said with certainty, is that whatever else it is, it’s not a scientific question. Science is after all ‘natural philosophy’ and natural philosophy assumes nature; it takes nature as a given. It’s when it ventures into explaining nature that it assumes the role previously thought to be that of religions’.

Even though I see the logic, I personally can’t draw a line between the fine tuning argument and Christian doctrine in particular. My view is that it should remind us that science doesn’t explain the existence of the Universe. Maybe religion doesn’t either. In which case we really don’t know, which is not a bad place to be. But I think the Jacques Monod kind of arguments that science ‘proves’ or ‘shows’ that the Universe is a chance occurrence can be set aside. Meanwhile it’s an occasion for one of Einstein’s better known quotations.

The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. — Albert Einstein

Rank Amateur

How do you calculate the probability - not of the card deck permutation, of course, but of the universe being life-supporting? Show your work, please. — SophistiCat

http://home.messiah.edu/%7Ercollins/Fine-tuning/Revised%20Version%20of%20Fine-tuning%20for%20anthology.doc

See above

Rank Amateur

Explain your reasoning in this thought experiment. What if the card order was not the canonical order - would your answer be different? Why? — SophistiCat

The reasoning is self evident to me at least. And the entire point is the deck is in order. If the deck was in some random order, it would change my answer to randomness.

fdrake

I have a bubble blowing machine with lots of nobs and dials on it. It's a pretty crap bubble blowing machine because it's hard to find the settings that make bubbles I recognise.

For most combinations of nob and dial settings, no bubbles are produced at all. This is sad.
For some combinations of nob and dial settings, bubbles occur in strange dodecahedral volumes that burst within an instant.
For a tiny range of nob and dial settings, normal bubbles come out.
For an even smaller range of nob and dial settings, extremely long lived bubbles come out.

I took a snapshot of the specifications for each setting and took each set of specifications for the bubble machine to a bubble machine factory. I made it so that 10000 bubble machines were produced, and that the proportion of that 10000 going to each design was the proportion of summed duration of a specific bubble type to the summed duration of all bubbles. I did this many times, following this rule iteratively.

The machines produce the same number of bubbles (except for machine 1). So if there were 2 bubble machines, one produces bubbles that last 1 second, and one produces bubbles that last 2 seconds, the total bubble duration is 3, so the 2 second one gets 2/3 of the new batch and the 1 second one gets 1/3 of the new batch.

After the first line in the factory:

There are no non-productive settings left. This is because there are only bubbles of duration 0 - no bubbles at all.
There are very few dodecahedral bubble machines. This is because dodecahedral bubbles don't last very long at all.
There are some normal bubble machines.
There are rather a lot of extremely long lived bubble machines.

After the second line in the factory:

There are almost none dodecahedral bubble machines.
There are few normal bubble machines.
There's a strong majority of extremely long lived bubble machines.

The trend gets more pronounced from there. Geometrically so. After thousands and thousands of generations, there are only extremely long lived bubble machines.

...Therefore God designed the factory to produce extremely long lived bubble machines.

Antony Latham

Now this has to be explained.
— Antony Latham

SophisitiCat you answered: Why? Can you explain your reasoning? This is one of the things I would like to clear up in this discussion. Is this fine-tuning surprising? Is it unexpected? If so, what are your expectations and what are they based on?

It is very obvious why this needs explanation. We are talking about an accumulation of absolutely essential conditions needed for galaxies, planets and life (of any sort), conditions which

Occam's razor leads me more to the more parsimonious solution - design.
— Antony Latham

How do you figure?

Antony Latham

My internet crashed as I was answering in last post!

Now this has to be explained.
— Antony Latham

SophisitiCat you answered: "Why? Can you explain your reasoning? This is one of the things I would like to clear up in this discussion. Is this fine-tuning surprising? Is it unexpected? If so, what are your expectations and what are they based on?"

It is obvious why this needs explanation. We are talking about an amalgamation of absolutely essential physical conditions needed for galaxies, planets and life (of any sort) to exist. Someone like Martin Rees, who knows the maths, can calculate the odds against such conditions occurring by chance. It turns out that chance, to get this right, would require far more opportunities to come up with these conditions than there are particles in the universe.

William Dembski calls this specified complexity. A pile of scrabble pieces lying randomly on the floor is complex and that arrangement is very unlikely but not specified. A bunch of scrabble pieces which are on the floor spelling out something like "Don't be late home. Dinner is at 7pm and remember we have invited Mrs Bloggs" is specified and needs a design origin. The fine tuning specifies planets and life.

Now if you have an a priori belief that there is nothing beyond the physical (naturalism), then you will baulk at this and have to come up with something like a multiverse theory to deal with the odds. But you will need to admit, while doing this that it is for non-scientific reasons - a particular world view or belief system you have which out-rules any non-physical agent.

Occam's razor leads me more to the more parsimonious solution - design.
— Antony Latham

SophisitCat you answered: "How do you figure?"

The idea that there is some limitless number of universes and we just happen to have struck lucky, is adding a completely new and totally unverified dimension to reality - beyond what we already know. What we already know is that the situation looks very much like design. That is the simplest and most parsimonious solution. That this goes against the prevailing naturalism/physicalism of our times is neither here nor there.

Moliere

↪Rank Amateur

Is it, though? Another version of the teleological argument argued that while evolution is true, there had to be an initial designer to put together the RNA just-so to make evolution happen. There is a "gap" of sorts where the majority of what we observe is explainable by purely physical and mechanical descriptions, except for one moment where something requires divine intervention.

This just seems to push the "gap" back in time. And if we come up with some kind of theory of the constants which explains them in purely physical terms I imagine the "gap" will get pushed further back.

There's always some first-cause which a theist will find satisfactory, and an atheist will not. The plausibility of these arguments comes down to what we already believe.

Rank Amateur

↪Moliere

both the cosmological arguments, and the FTA rest on using some supernatural element as an hypothesis for an unknown. Other than that I do not see much that
is similar. I do not find the FTA to be an argument for the existence of God personally, because it is in conflict with skeptical theism.

What I think it is best for is testing declared agnostics to their openness to the possibility that God is. There is no doubt that designer is the most logical answer to the FTA. The primary reason that there is any debate at all on that point is driven by a predisposition on many that the probability of God/supernatural designer is near zero.

Hence my deck of cards though experiment - remove God from the FTA and the answer becomes obvious - put God back in and it becomes impossible.

Moliere

There is no doubt that designer is the most logical answer to the FTA. The primary reason that there is any debate at all on that point is driven by a predisposition on many that the probability of God/supernatural designer is near zero. — Rank Amateur

This is half of what I believe. I'd just add that the primary reason there is any debate is that the predisposition for different persons is either for or against the proposition -- and the plausibility of these arguments has mostly to do with this belief rather than whatever rational merits the arguments claim to have.

It's the conclusion that matters, not the process of reasoning.

Rank Amateur

This is half of what I believe. I'd just add that the primary reason there is any debate is that the predisposition for different persons is either for or against the proposition -- and the plausibility of these arguments has mostly to do with this belief rather than whatever rational merits the arguments claim to have.

It's the conclusion that matters, not the process of reasoning. — Moliere

I disagree - as per the deck of cards experiment. There is little doubt that design is the most probable answer for the FTA. It is just that theists, or those open to theism easily accept this answer. Others, who's predisposition can not accept theism or its possibility need to find another equally metaphysical answer - this is just an elevation of science to religion.

Moliere

It's a type of teleological argument, or argument from design. Among other examples probably the best-known are those having to do with biological design (e.g. Paley's watch analogy). And like with other teleological arguments, it seems to have a lot of intuitive appeal with some people, and yet when the argument is viewed skeptically, it turns out surprisingly hard to even give it a rigorous formulation, and few even try. — SophistiCat

And even given a rigorous formulation it seems to me that all one would have to do is change or challenge one proposition to obtain the desired conclusion.

The argument bottoms out in what feels right to the person hearing or giving the argument. I would say I agree with you in saying that the constants don't need explanation, per se -- why would they? Does the Ideal Gas Law need to explain its use of a constant?

Adding a constant is a common tactic in making an equation "work" -- even if its not viewed as some kind of fundamental equation, just something that helps to predict a dataset right now.

Maybe because its cosmology there is a feeling that there needs to be some kind of fundamental explanation for why things are just so, and not otherwise. It seems more fundamental than, say, Hook's law.

Moliere

I disagree - as per the deck of cards experiment. There is little doubt that design is the most probable answer for the FTA. — Rank Amateur

There is little doubt for you.

It's worth noting that there's a difference between the arrangement of a deck of cards, and existence. The constants in physics are artifacts of our knowledge. Vary them while keeping everything else constant and what you'd predict would differ from what you'd predict while maintaining the exact same theoretical setup.

That's saying basically the same thing, without the numbers to make it look as if these particular constants are a wonder. The constants are constant, so there's no need to think of them as if they landed precisely where they needed to in order for life to flourish. They didn't land at all. They're just the number they happen to be.

Could they be different? Possibly. But it is also possible that they could not be different. They could after all take after their name, and be. . . constant. The evidence doesn't decide one way or the other -- evidentially both are possible.

A better analogy for the deck of cards and the FTA, on this interpretation, would be: Why are there exactly 52 cards? Couldn't there be 60 cards? Well, the answer to that is because that is what makes a standard deck of cards. You could add in more cards, but this is just the way things are.

The Fine-Tuning Argument

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions