AiGbusted is dedicated to exposing creationist hoaxes, especially the leading organization, Answers in Genesis.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Novel Objections to the Fine-Tuning Argument
Philosopher Stephen Law recently blogged on his objections to the so-called 'Fine-Tuning' Argument for the Existence of God. It's worth a read: At least one of his objections I had not heard before.
In truth I don't know the specifics of the fine-tuning argument. I am somewhat familiar withit at the high level. I fail to see the validity of the argument.
Assuming God is all powerful and that such a being exists. Is it not this being that defines what the laws of nature: physics, chemistry, biology, et al are? This being may be constricted by the laws of logic but so long as the universe operates within the laws of logic then the universe could be whatever God wants. And I would think there are N possible universes.
If God is the creator of the laws that govern the universe. God also defines the requirements for the sustainability for life. I assume that if God is all powerful then life does not necessarily need to be carbon based. It can be based on whatever God wills it to be. At least I don't see why it should have any restrictions
To cut the post short - does this not make the fine-tuning argument moot?
Perhaps my objections have been refuted. I would like to know if that is the case.
The best argument I've heard against the fine-tuning argument is actually a question:
If God doesn't exist, is the universe fine-tuned?
If the believer says no, then his argument is circular for he needs to assume God's existence in order to come to the conclusion that the universe is fine-tuned;
If the believer says yes, then he has no point, for he has admitted that the universe can be fine-tuned by something else than God, making his argument a non-sequitur (i.e. it does not follow that if the universe is fine-tuned, God must exist).
3 comments:
In truth I don't know the specifics of the fine-tuning argument. I am somewhat familiar withit at the high level. I fail to see the validity of the argument.
Assuming God is all powerful and that such a being exists. Is it not this being that defines what the laws of nature: physics, chemistry, biology, et al are? This being may be constricted by the laws of logic but so long as the universe operates within the laws of logic then the universe could be whatever God wants. And I would think there are N possible universes.
If God is the creator of the laws that govern the universe. God also defines the requirements for the sustainability for life. I assume that if God is all powerful then life does not necessarily need to be carbon based. It can be based on whatever God wills it to be. At least I don't see why it should have any restrictions
To cut the post short - does this not make the fine-tuning argument moot?
Perhaps my objections have been refuted. I would like to know if that is the case.
Regards
The best argument I've heard against the fine-tuning argument is actually a question:
If God doesn't exist, is the universe fine-tuned?
If the believer says no, then his argument is circular for he needs to assume God's existence in order to come to the conclusion that the universe is fine-tuned;
If the believer says yes, then he has no point, for he has admitted that the universe can be fine-tuned by something else than God, making his argument a non-sequitur (i.e. it does not follow that if the universe is fine-tuned, God must exist).
Hi Robert,
What if a theist simply claimed that a habitable universe was more probable on the hypothesis that God exists?
Post a Comment