2. If the universe could not have existed, then God could have failed to achieve His purposes — Jjnan1

There are other reasons, reasons that are compatible with omnipotence, for the possibility that the universe couldn't have existed: Tiger Spares Deer's Life

1. According to the FTA, if some property x was not present at the conception of the universe, then the universe would not have existed. — Jjnan1

As a minor note, the argument is not that the universe could not have existed if it lacked some feature, but that it would have been lifeless if its fundamental parameters were not confined within a narrow range. I suppose this correction doesn't affect the logic of the argument, which, I confess, escapes me.

God is usually said to be both all-powerful and free. Freedom is only meaningful if there are alternative possibilities. If the world could not have been otherwise than it is, as a matter of metaphysical law, that would have robbed God of freedom and of power to choose and bring about one state of the world over another. Indeed, God would have been superfluous in such a world. For God to be free and omnipotent, it ought to be metaphysically possible for the world to have been different.

both all-powerful and free. — SophistiCat

:up:

Maybe "god" is an infinite computer. Positing a person out there explains nothing. Only a fool says there is a god

While I agree that at best the fine-tuning argument only shows that a powerful mind created the universe, and not an omniscient mind, your four step argument is based on an equivocation, and so has an undistributed middle. In your argument "could" means both "has the power to" and "may will to."

Here is where the equivocation occurs:

2. If the universe could not have existed, then God could have failed to achieve His purposes. — Jjnan1

In the first "could" the possibility might be due to lack of will rather than lack of power. In the second, you assume that God has willed a purpose, which might not be true based on the premise.

Hi Jjnan1,

I think that my primary concern with this argument is premise 1, and that the FTA makes claims about the existence of life in the universe rather than about the existence of the universe itself. I think that some defendants of FTA mention the necessary states for the beginning of the universe according to Big Bang theory, but my understanding is that FTA focuses on the states/parameters in which life exists in the universe, and then infers that these parameters are not just the result of chance but of a “mind” that designed it to be so. I do think that you make a great point to question whether the FTA truly leads to the existence of a God that theists typically believe in, or just a super-being with a super-mind. This is where I think Theists get in trouble for jumping to the conclusion of a personal God, rather than examining if the FTA conclusion supposes that.

Against P1, the FTA asserts that the properties present at the conception of the universe (particularly the strength of gravity) have allowed for the universe to continue existing after its beginning without immediately collapsing in on itself or expanding at too rapid a rate. This “property x” is not the reason that the universe came to exist, but a parameter in which the universe can continue to exist and life (like us) can exist and observe such a parameter. Another issue with the argument could arise from Premises 2 & 3 if we don’t do something about P1. I am trying to think of a way in which the two “coulds” in P2 make sense. P2 says that because there is a chance that the universe could of not existed, then God could have failed to bring it about. Is it true that “if the universe could not have existed, then God could have failed to achieve his purposes?” I don’t think it follows that God’s ability (success or failure) follows the potential existence of the universe. I’d suggest rather that God’s ability/decision to create or not create is the deciding factor in the possibility of the universe. If God is the necessary being that God is described to be, and the universe is contingent, wouldn’t the universe’s existence or nonexistence be a result of God’s purposes either way?

I also do not agree further that God is not omnipotent or omniscient because God could have failed to achieve his purposes (P3). This seems like a kind of omnipotence or omniscience that is too rigid to be appropriately defended, and I can see how God could have the potential to fail, but does not because of his maximal goodness/knowledge, and thus still possesses these omni-traits.

Based on what I have read, it seems like you are trying to explain how the Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) is inconsistent with the Christian god (although I could be incorrect about which god you are referring to above). I have a few concerns about your argument. First, regarding premise 1, I don’t believe the FTA claims that the universe would not exist if “x” was not present. I believe that it claims that we would not exist if “x” was not present. Second, regarding premise 2, how does the possibility of our universe not existing lead to a failure on God’s part? Couldn’t it just be that God decided not to create this universe and that is why it could have not existed? For example, if a woman and man didn’t have sex and therefore didn’t get pregnant with a child, does that mean they failed to have a child? Surely not, it simply means they didn’t try to. Something not existing doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it isn’t possible for that thing to exist nor does it entail that it was supposed to exist. Third, regarding premises 2 and 3, I don’t see how God has a purpose if we are referring to the Christian god. The Christian god simply is, there is no reason to His existence nor does He have any sort of goals to reach, so I don’t understand where your idea of purpose for an omnipotent being is coming from. Last, regarding premises 2 and 3 (again), even if (though I do not believe it to be the case) the Christian god had a “purpose,” why would it be to create this universe? Or even to create life in general? It doesn’t seem like creating such insignificant and powerless beings and places would have anything to do with an all-powerful being’s purpose.

I know you said premise 3 was the most contentious, but premise 2 seems like the most contentious to me because it assumes that God has to achieve certain “purposes.” In your argument you mention the God that most theists believe in. I’m not sure if most theists actually believe in the same God, but I’ll refer to the Christian God since that is a very popular one and one that I know the most about. For at least the Christian God and most likely other gods or God that some other theists might believe in, I don’t think God would be said to have a purpose. I’m not sure what you meant by purpose, but I thought of purpose like the Google definition of purpose, which is “the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.” The God that at least I am thinking of would not have been created and exists necessarily. In this case, it would be possible for the world not to exist, but only if God did not want it to.

Your first premise says, “According to the FTA, if some property x was not present at the conception of the universe, then the universe would not have existed.” This doesn’t seem to affect your argument as much as the objection to premise 2; however, if I remember correctly, the FTA was saying that the universe required a very precise combination of factors to exist and be inhabitable. This precise combination of factors actually happening is supposedly extremely unlikely without God. There wasn’t just one property that had to be present for the universe to exist. The Christian God seems almost like the x in the premise, except I suppose without Him, the universe could have existed, albeit it would have been extremely unlikely. To summarize, the FTA just seems to be saying that our universe seems more likely under a being like God rather than by chance. This being can be any universe creator, including the Christian God.

Going back to objecting premise 2, maybe you meant that God could have failed to achieve something that He wanted to do. However, like I have said earlier, it can be said that the universe could not have existed, but under the FTA, that refers to an existence by chance where God does not exist. It seems to me that the FTA would allow that if God exists, He created the universe and is omnipotent, but the FTA was just trying to show whether an omnipotent God creating the universe or a universe created by chance is more probable. Since the FTA says that the universe could have not existed if it was created by chance, then I don’t think that itself entails that God could have failed because in that scenario God does not exist.