But when the argument is made professionally, this point is supported and its basis is completely consistent with current scientific knowledge. If you can't accept that, google is your friend. — Rank Amateur

This statement seems to say 'what I said is correct, even though it doesn't sound right, and if you search the internet you will see why it's right'.

I'm sure you'll understand why nobody would take such a proposition seriously. I'm guessing that's not exactly what you meant. Perhaps you can restate it if that's the case, so we can understand what it did mean.

I propose the probability of rolling a 1 on a fair 6 sided dice is one chance in 6 is a true statement. — Rank Amateur

Most people, not being trained in Kolmogorov's formulation of probability theory would agree with you. But the more one learns about the foundation of probability theory, the more one realises that every statement about probabilities is based on a model, and is not truth-apt. Even if one accepted it as truth-apt and true, one would be going a lot further out on a limb to say it was a fact, which implies it is directly observable. How could we ever directly observe that the probability is one in six? We'd have to roll the dice infinitely many times and, even then, we could only make a statement about the probability that the probability was 1 in 6.

What intrigues me about these attempted arguments for God is what a complete deficiency of faith they demonstrate in those that make them. If one truly has faith in one's beliefs, one doesn't need to make arguments for them. One can be convinced of God by direct experience of Her. If one has had such experience, why waste time on petty, questionable arguments that pale into total insignificance in comparison?

Most people, not being trained in Kolmogorov's formulation of probability theory would agree with you. But the more one learns about the foundation of probability theory, the more one realises that every statement about probabilities is based on a model, and is not truth-apt. Even if one accepted it as truth-apt and true, one would be going a lot further out on a limb to say it was a fact, which implies it is directly observable. How could we ever directly observe that the probability is one in six? We'd have to roll the dice infinitely many times and, even then, we could only make a statement about the probability that the probability was 1 in 6. — andrewk

Ok, so what is the chance I roll a 1 on a fair die ?

What intrigues me about these attempted arguments for God is what a complete deficiency of faith they demonstrate in those that make them. If one truly has faith in one's beliefs, one doesn't need to make arguments for them. — andrewk

I completely agree with that. You can never prove the reality or otherwise of God by inductive or deductive reasoning. I recall reading once that the medieval 'proofs of God' were never intended as polemics to convert unbelievers, but as exercises in intellectual edification for the faithful. In any case it is obvious when you see the contempt with which such arguments are dismissed by atheists that they have already decided against the conclusion and that nothing said in their defense will make the least difference.

Nevertheless, I think that the appeal to the notion of multiple universes, so as to avoid the apparent implication of the 'fine tuning' of the Universe, is also completely disingenuous. In a cover story on the multiverse in a copy of Scientific American, one of the standard arguments for the 'multi-verse' is the contention that it provides a 'tidy explanation' for the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the universe - and this is by well-known science educators and commentators like Leonard Susskind and Steven Weinberg.

Likewise, there are instances where Stephen Hawking indicated his distaste for any cosmological theories that implied the idea of an absolute beginning (see Why Physicists can't Avoid a Creation Event). Here again is an attempt to avoid a disliked metaphysical inference by steering research and consideration away from that direction.

There's already a lot of controversy about whether the notion of the multiverse is a scientific theory at all. So appealing to it on philosophical grounds as a defense against the argument from fine tuning, seems to me to be every bit as disingenuous as ID arguments made for God on the same basis.

Would you agree?

I would answer 1 in 6, but that just means that that's what I'd use in calculations about what to bet, in most situations. It's not a truth claim. It's not a fact. It's an assumption I make to help in decision-making.

I wouldn't call the arguments on either side disingenuous as that word has an implication of dishonesty about it and I don't think either side is being dishonest.

Personally I am conflicted about the multiverse notion. I feel that it may well be true, not because of the FTA but rather because I just wonder - if there's one spacetime, why shouldn't there be more? Yet I hate the idea of an infinite collection of spacetimes because that might mean that in some of them, all the worst things imaginable happen and the suffering is indescribable.

My approach is that I think consciousness is primary and that what we think of as matter and energy, physics in general, is derivative from consciousness. This is the opposite from Materialists, who think it's the other way around. But both are hypotheses and I can't imagine either being provable or disprovable.

I'm not keen on the multiverse defence against the FTA, although I suspect I don't view it as negatively as you. My problem with it is that (1) I am afraid of multiverses and (2) it is unnecessary because the real counter to FTA, as Sophisticat has indicated above, is that it cannot be formally stated because there is no basis on which to estimate probabilities.

Likewise, there are instances where Stephen Hawking indicated his distaste for any cosmological theories that implied the idea of an absolute beginning (see Why Physicists can't Avoid a Creation Event). Here again is an attempt to avoid a disliked metaphysical inference by steering research and consideration away from that direction. — Wayfarer

That may have been Hawking's sentiment, but the "edge free" model didn't originate with him.
See XXXI. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe by Einstein for an earlier discussion.
That's the first here:

• the universe is not infinite and did not have a definite earliest time (< 14 billion years)
• the universe is finite in duration and had a definite earliest time (= 14 billion years)
• the universe is infinite in past duration (∞)

The model wasn't concocted in order to defy religious apologists.

But ...

never let the truth stand in the way of a good story — attributed to Mark Twain

The model wasn't concocted in order to defy religious apologists. — jorndoe

I didn't think it was. But the New Scientist article simply notes that Hawking opined that 'A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.' And as Hawkings was a popular intellectual who frequently expressed anti-religious sentiments, I think it's significant that he would deprecate a theory on those specific grounds.

From that abominable start, does it get any better? Are there any pages that are less naive and worth reading? — andrewk

It does, I think. It's been a while since I read his exposition of the argument; the latest, most complete version, according to him (which I haven't read, but intend to do), is his entry in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: The teleological argument: An exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe. I agree, such half-arsed analogies as that do more harm than good to the argument, but Collins does make a brave attempt to justify his conclusion with sound reasoning, and I like that about him. Not being satisfied with faith or unexamined intuitions and prejudices, he plays the philosopher's game, delving into the hows and whys, laying bare his reasoning and making himself vulnerable to criticism. Which is a whole lot better than blandly stating, like @Rank Amateur does, that the design inference is "obvious," and if you don't agree, it's your own damn fault, you closed-minded atheist.

Of course, I agree with @Moliere that, at the end of the day, it still comes down to subjective judgments, whether they are based on epistemic or esthetic or ethical criteria (they are all closely related, anyway). But it seems to me that a teleological argument, especially one as technically specific as the FTA, is amenable to analysis, so we shouldn't be satisfied with gut feelings.

Take @Rank Amateur's favorite card deck analogy, for example. It is just the kind of toy example where Bayesian analyses (which Collins favors) shine. And it is instructive to consider. I won't bore you with formulas (which are elementary, anyway), but the idea here is that the canonical ordering of cards in a deck is far more likely to be the result of a deliberate action (whether because it was just removed from its factory packaging or because someone deliberately arranged it in order) than of a random shuffling. But we know this because we know something about decks of cards, how they are labeled and handled, and about people and their habits and preferences. We have some rational expectations, or priors, in Bayesian lingo, which are based on our experiences of the world.

The case of fundamental laws and constants is disanalogous to this example in a number of ways. One, already mentioned, is more technical, having to do with normalizability. But more importantly, we can have no rational expectations with regards to fundamental laws and constants - that is just what makes them fundamental. (By contrast, we can potentially make some predictions, or even precise calculations for the spring constant in Hooke's law.) There is nothing in our experience that could give us any clue as to why they have the structure and the values that they have.

Of course, we could still hypothesize that some supernatural entity made the laws and constants just so. And of all the ways a supernatural entity could have done it, it made the laws and constants to be compatible with the existence of life in the universe - lucky us! Perhaps then of all conceivable supernatural entities - what are the chances?! - the one that is responsible for the fundamental laws and constants of our universe is a kind of personal, anthropomorphic being that had both the power and intention to make the world suitable for humans. In any case, it seems that, as @jorndoe points out, this supernatural being is exquisitely fine-tuned!

there is no metaphysical reason why we should consider the laws to be fixed — SophistiCat

Isn’t there an empirical reason, namely, that they always are? Could it ever be F=MA(most of the time)? — Wayfarer

Teleological arguments deal with counterfactual possibilities. Empirically, fundamental constants are just what they are (most of the time) - that is why we call them constants. The FTA considers the possibility of them being something other than what is empirically observed. I am just saying (and I am not being particularly original here) that we could, with the same justification, vary fundamental laws as well.

I would answer 1 in 6, but that just means that that's what I'd use in calculations about what to bet, in most situations. It's not a truth claim. It's not a fact. It's an assumption I make to help in decision-making. — andrewk

And it's the right way to think of probabilities, in my opinion - at least in this context. After all, we are interested in beliefs (such as God beliefs), and how new evidence (such as the evidence of fine-tuning) affects them. After you learn this new evidence, and taking into account what you already know, what would be your most rational bet? That is just the kind of probabilistic reasoning that Collins and some others attempt to pursue.

One can be convinced of God by direct experience of Her. If one has had such experience, why waste time on petty, questionable arguments that pale into total insignificance in comparison? — andrewk

Because they might just be in your head, generated by having the beliefs you do in virtue of the religious culture you were raised in.

When I came to understand that my religious experiences where being generated by my brain, I stopped having faith. I understand that not everyone views religious experience and faith the same, but for me if it wasn't real, and thus true, it wasn't worth having.

To quote St. Paul, "If Christ has not risen, your faith is in vain." What's the point of going to church/temple/synagogue/mosque and praying and all that jazz if it's just made up? If you need help getting through life, then just eat, drink and be merry. Or pass time arguing over impractical issues on philosophy forums.

If you want to feel spiritual, go look at the stars on a clear night.

Personally I am conflicted about the multiverse notion. I feel that it's probably true, not because of the FTA but rather because I just wonder - if there's one spacetime, why shouldn't there be more? — andrewk

It should be kept in mind that historically, "multiverses" in cosmology were not proposed as a solution to the fine-tuning problem. For example, the kind of bubble multiverse that results from chaotic or eternal inflation is just a generic prediction of inflationary cosmology, which has its own raison d'etre, not having directly to do with fine-tuning.

Some cosmologists argue that, as an added bonus, such multiverses solve the fine-tuning problem, but there is no settled opinion on this. There is, for example, an ongoing argument over whether such a solution commits the "inverse gambler's fallacy."

If you want to feel spiritual, go look at the stars on a clear night. — Marchesk

If that works for you, good on you. For other people, going to church, temple or synagogue might work better in which case, good on them as well.

To quote St. Paul "If Christ has not risen, your faith is in vain." — Marchesk

That's one of many points on which Paul and I differ radically. I reject that statement utterly.

Personally I'm a fan of St Thomas - the patron saint of scientists and sceptics.

It occurred to me that the fatal flaw in the fine tuning argument is right there buried in its name.

Where does the term 'fine tuning' come from? It comes from high quality old fashioned radio sets, that had both a Tuning and a Fine Tuning knob. Turning the Tuning knob as much as possible - say a range of three complete turns - would cover the whole range of frequencies the radio was capable of tuning. For the Fine Tuning knob, the full range of turns - say three again - would cover a small fraction of the frequency range, say only 5% of the range, thereby allowing more accurate tuning to a frequency than was possible with the Tuning knob.

What makes the Fine Tuning knob fine is the ratio of its range to that of the Tuning knob, 5% in the above example.

To apply this concept to fundamental constants, we need to divide the inner range - the range in which the constant allows life to develop, by the total range. But unlike in a radio receiver, we don't have a finite total range, so there's nothing to divide by. So it's meaningless to say the constant is 'fine tuned' because it must be fine tuned in comparison to something (eg the other knob) and there's nothing to compare it to.

When I came to understand that my religious experiences where being generated by my brain, — Marchesk

So, your ‘religious experiences’ were hallucination. Good you recognised that.

The FTA considers the possibility of them being something other than what is empirically observed. I am just saying (and I am not being particularly original here) that we could, with the same justification, vary fundamental laws as well. — SophistiCat

I don’t read the argument as being that the fundamental constants might be other than they are. What it says is if they were other than they are, by very minute percentages, then nothing could exist. So the constants are fundamental empirical truths, if you like. What I think we loose sight of, is that science doesn’t explain them; they are simply given. So if there is another level of explanation, then, whatever it might be, it isn’t scientific, but can be considered philosophically, as we’re doing here.

That's one of many points on which Paul and I differ radically. I reject that statement utterly. — andrewk

Of course, because you don't think there is any resurrection of the dead into a world where we don't have the incessant meaningless drive of the desires Schop and Augustino are always complaining about.

To put it in more Buddhist terms, if I really believed that following the 8-fold path and spending lots of time mediting would grant me nirvana after death, where some essence of me continued to exist without suffering in a grand sense, then I would probably buy in and make it my life's goal.

But I don't believe that, so I'm like, meh, I'm sure meditating and thinking a certain way is helpful in this life, like exercising and eating well. Kind of like going to church for the social aspect. But it's not something I'm going to base my life on, because it's merely helpful, and it's still just this life, with it's readily apparent imperfections.

Some people might object to having faith for a payoff, but let's put another way Say there was the possibility of a technology that would greatly expand your life in all dimensions. You would end up healthier, stronger, smarter, longer lived, etc than any human. But it would require dedicating your life to achieve. How many people would go after that if they thought it was possible?

That's what St. Paul was talking about, in a non-technological sense. That he would get to share in a god-like existence forever, otherwise, why bother? Also, keep in mind that Paul and many of the early Christians were legitimately persecuted, so it's not like they looked at religion from the relative ease and comfort of a modern western lifestyle, where playing tennis is just as good as going to church on a Sunday morning, because what does it really matter?

What I think we loose sight of, is that science doesn’t explain them; they are simply given. So if there is another level of explanation, then, whatever it might be, it isn’t scientific — Wayfarer

There is currently no scientific explanation, but it is entirely conceivable that there may be one day. A new, falsifiable, more fundamental theory may be developed that, amongst other things, mandates that the value of the constants must be exactly what they are.

Then we can just ask - but why is the universe described by that theory and not some other? But that challenge can be made to any explanation, be it scientific, philosophical, religious or something else. All an explanation does is explain a phenomenon in terms of some other phenomenon - which can be observed or just hypothesised - that is, ideally, easier to believe, or already believed. For any explanation we can always ask 'but why?', and children often do.

That's one of many points on which Paul and I differ radically. I reject that statement utterly. — andrewk

Wanted to add an additional comment on this. There is a sense in which both Christianity and Buddhism are tying to find an out for this life. They're both predicated on life being fundamentally rotten. Christians hope for a utopian existence after death. Buddhists try to fix the problem by quenching desire, and which may result in achieving a final state without suffering, which could transcend this life to a more permanent state.

There are also the techno-optimists who think that science and technology will one day deliver us from the awfulness of being animals who live short lives, feel pain and constant want, and are severely limited in the capacity to experience.

Nick Bostrom has written a couple short stories on that possibility. And then's tons of scifi stories exploring that idea. The thing that all threeshare is agreeing that life generally sucks in lots of ways, and having faith in the possibility of attaining a better mode of existence.

where some essence of me.... — Marchesk

No ‘essence of me’ in Buddhism. Arguably, belief in such a thing is the very problem that has to be overcome.

There is currently no scientific explanation, but it is entirely conceivable that there may be one day — andrewk

A promissory note, eh? The thing is, the religions don’t provide any kind of theory in the terms science would recognise or approve. I know you and I have talked about Karen Armstrong in the past, and her analysis is valuable in this context. She shows, in her Case for God, how early modern science drew upon the tropes of the Christianity of which it was part, but how this became a double-edged sword. That the idea that ‘the heavens shewed the handiwork of the Lord’ could just as easily be deployed to support the opposite, as the heavens were shown to be mostly ‘appalling vastness’ [in Pascal’s phrase]. But what is the essential point of Christianity? I had the idea it was the commandment ‘you shall love one another as I have loved you.’ And that really doesn’t depend on any kind of scientific rationale whatever. As Armstrong says, ‘Religious truth is a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.’ And the religious accounts do indeed appear absurd if you think about the question in scientific terms - unless, of course, they’re interpreted symbolically, or mythologically, as I think they’re supposed to be.

So - where we’re at culturally is that science has supplanted ‘religion’ as the source of how intelligent people ought to think. And there’s a lot of merit in that as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go a long way to being a theory of literally everything about life and mind, and trying to fit everything into that Procrustean bed is invariably reductionist. I think we have to try and interpret the issue charitably, not out of the sense that the Western religious heritage is an outmoded and superstitious view of the world.

No ‘essence of me’ in Buddhism. Arguably, belief in such a thing is the very problem that has to be overcome. — Wayfarer

Okay right, my fault. What I meant was something that continues to be alive, to experience the state of nirvana, not simply ceasing to exist. Because suicide easily accomplishes that without needing to spend a life becoming detached.

I would answer 1 in 6, but that just means that that's what I'd use in calculations about what to bet, in most situations. It's not a truth claim. It's not a fact. It's an assumption I make to help in decision-making. — andrewk

FTA is not making a truth statement about the nature of probability theory . Better said the truth statement would be, using the existing knowledge of probability theory, the probability of the current conditions existing that support life are very very unlikely.

Which is no different than saying, given any situation that mattered to you, you would use the existing knowledge of probability theory to evaluate the alternatives. If forced to play a game of Russian roulette, and it was your option to choose to load one or two bullets in the gun, you would not allow your skepticism on the underlying theory to interfere with your choice of one bullet because it increases the probability you will live.

Also given any such scenario as FTA supplies without the need to accept the possibility of supernatural designer, you would not allow your skeptical view on the validity of probability theory to change your answer.

If given the situation you find 10 flat rocks stacked on top of each other, largest to smallest, on a hike in the mountains. And given the choice of 2 hypothesis of how that came to be as:

1. Someone found those rocks and stacked them that way
2. they randomly fell from the mountain that way

Or if you found me at the table with a deck of cards in front of me, and as you turned them over and found them in order. Given the choice between:

1. I spent the last 10 minutes putting them in order
2. I just finished shuffling them, and that is how they ended

In both cases you would pick 1. And your objection to probability theory would in no way become an issue.

Which is the point. You don’t have an issue with FTA because of the issue of probability, you have an issue with FTA, because you have an issue with any answer that allows for a supernatural designer.

Do you think that a deck of cards is identical to the constants of physical theory?

on the issue of FTA as a proof that God exists, or more broadly any proof of God is my comments are:

IMO FTA fails as a proof that God is. It does so because it is in conflict with skeptical theism. The only value I find in it, is as a test of those who claim to be agnostic. It is a very good test to see what degree someone claiming to be agnostic is actually open to the possibility of God is.

On the broader proof of God question. My view is there are 3 ways one can know something and believe it to be true, and act accordingly.

1. It is a fact, or demonstrably near fact. example. 2 + 2 = 4, Gravity
God is, is not a matter of fact. God is not, is not a matter of fact

2. By reason, given a set of truths one can believe by reason to believe something that is not a fact, to be true, and act accordingly. Anything one believes by reason however can not be in conflict with facts.

example. It is not a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. But it is reasonable to believe unicorns do not exist, because we would know a unicorn if we saw one, we have been looking in a very very large sample of places for a very long time, and we haven't seen one yet.

Both God is, and God is not is reasonable to believe.

And IMO the better conclusion to the traditional proofs of God is " therefor it is reasonable to believe God is"

3. by faith. By faith, one can believe anything, with the only caveat that it can not be in conflict with faith or reason.

For me, the only reason I argue the proofs of God is to support my Theism, which is a matter of faith, is a reasonable belief, against the argument that it is not reasonable. The very regular, Dawkin's "it is a fairy tale, flying spaghetti monster comments" that are so often given.

i think the only thing a deck of cards is identical with is a deck of cards. and the only thing that is identical with the physical constraints are the physical constraints.

I think the deck of cards thought experiment is a very good way of visualizing and appreciating the improbability and randomness the FTA expresses.

If they are not identical, then might they have some relevant features that differ when evaluating their probability?

Take Rank Amateur's favorite card deck analogy, for example. It is just the kind of toy example where Bayesian analyses (which Collins favors) shine. And it is instructive to consider. I won't bore you with formulas (which are elementary, anyway), but the idea here is that the canonical ordering of cards in a deck is far more likely to be the result of a deliberate action (whether because it was just removed from its factory packaging or because someone deliberately arranged it in order) than of a random shuffling. But we know this because we know something about decks of cards, how they are labeled and handled, and about people and their habits and preferences. We have some rational expectations, or priors, in Bayesian lingo, which are based on our experiences of the world. — SophistiCat

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. If one believes in the possibility of a supernatural designer. A true agnostic ( not so sure there are any) or a theist. They view FTA exactly as you view above. If however, one believes the probability of a supernatural designer to be near zero, you have to leave the logic of the answer as above, and develop some challenge of the best existing science that FTA uses as the base observations. Or develop some other option, as equally un-provable as a supernatural designer, that one is more comfortable believing.

Should we do away with all thought experiments as a tools to explain anything since they are not identical ?

Not at all. Nor should we just accept any thought experiment just because someone thinks it sounds good.

Let's take the gravitational constant. 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 -- I'm not certain at all what the units would be analogous to in a deck of cards, but the specific number would be analogous to an individual card. So we happened to draw, in the creation of the universe (assuming the deck metaphor) 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 when we drew our gravity constant card.

But what are the other cards? What is the possible domain over which we're figuring this probability?

If the possible domain for the gravity constant is only one card, then it is a 100 percent probability that we'd draw that card -- it'd just be a constant, as I've been saying, and evaluating its probability wouldn't mean anything at all.

But if it could be otherwise, then what else could it be? If it can't be otherwise, then there is nothing improbable about the gravity constant being what it is.

If the possible domain for the gravity constant is only one card, then it is a 100 percent probability that we'd draw that card -- it'd just be a constant, as I've been saying, and evaluating its probability wouldn't mean anything at all.

But if it could be otherwise, then what else could it be? If it can't be otherwise, then there is nothing improbable about the gravity constant being what it is. — Moliere

The thought experiment using the deck of cards, is firstly about the order of the deck of cards. When one observes something that seems ordered, and given options as to how such order came to happen between design and randomness most would view design more likely. FTA proposes the that the universe is ordered for embodied, sentient beings like us to exist. Even vary minor differences in many different criteria ( all of these are easily looked up) would make it impossible for beings like us to exist.
When facing such an ordered system FTA proposed design and the most probable hypothesis as to why.

I am not sure what the difference is between your point that there may have been no other options for all these varied criteria than there is than, it was designed. Sounds like a round about way of saying the same thing.