The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Plotinus]

...some of us (me at least) are trying to understand if anyone can extend the Fine Tuning argument to justify religion, and more specifically any particular religion, and even more specifically, Christianity. Otherwise, what is the point of "proving" the existence of God?

I would have thought that if we could establish that there exists an immaterial, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect Creator of the universe, then that would be a pretty interesting result irrespective of whether it conforms to any particular religion. It would surely be more interesting and important, and tell us more about the nature of the universe, than discovering the Higgs boson.

If God can design a system externally that functions perfectly, then there is no need for God to "enter" the system to act directly on it. Once God does that, perfection is undermined. Why was intervention necessary in a "perfect" system? Now if we say something along the lines of "Man screwed things with his imperfect decisions" thus necessitating the flood, plagues, etc., OK fine, maybe, but shouldn't a "perfect" system be able to recover from these tamperings on its own? Didn't God "foresee" the "human error" factor and design the system to compensate automatically? If not, then we aren't really talking about a "perfect" system are we? It's more like God is the Landlord of a Money Pit.

This assumes that the only purpose God might have for intervening is to correct some error. But why should that be? Perhaps a situation in which the Creator interacts with his creation is intrinsically preferable to one in which he doesn't. Perhaps, for example, interaction of this kind is an essential element in any loving relationship, in which case if God loves his creation perfectly he will need to interact with it - not to put it right but simply as part of his love.

You first talk about Origen's God to be finite in no uncertain terms, then with the same vigor you assert finitude of knowledge like this is a well known thing. I personally hold Origen in very high regard, but formally Church does not count him as fully Orthodox, again it is misleading to push it on layman CFCers that finitude of Origen's God is well established fact. At least another scholar disagrees with you.

Well, you're right that virtually any point of Origen's thought is disputable, given the tattered state of his writings. Crouzel even doubted whether Origen was a universalist, supposedly the most well-known element of his theology. I think Origen was probably inconsistent on this matter, partly because he was writing before anyone had really considered it explicitly. But it's not really germane to our discussion here. (Also, please don't copy and paste from other sources without acknowledging them!)

 

[Berzerker]

a morally perfect god created sin?

 

[Flying Pig]

To me, a bit flaw in the fine-tuning argument is that the world isn't actually fine-tuned all that well. If God was trying to make a world for humans to live in, he didn't do a very good job.

 

[Plotinus]

It might be that this is as good as it can be, at least with other constraints in place. E.g. perhaps it is better to have a universe that operates consistently in accordance with as few physical laws, and the simplest physical laws, as possible. In choosing which world to actualise, God might need to take that criterion into account and balance it against his desire to create a world that permits life. Perhaps he could have created a universe much more friendly to life, but it would have needed complex and weird physical laws. And perhaps he could have created one with simpler laws that wouldn't have permitted life at all. The actual universe might be a sort of balancing of these different criteria.

And indeed God might have other intentions altogether with the universe. Perhaps there are other (actual) phenomena he values, not just life. Perhaps there's an intrinsic value, that we don't understand, to giant nebulae.

All the fine-tuning argument requires is that God values life and wished to create a universe that permitted life. It doesn't require that God values only life and that this was his sole motive in creating and designing the universe.

 

[Arakhor]

... again it is misleading to push it on layman CFCers that finitude of Origen's God is well established fact. At least another scholar disagrees with you.

By that argument, the theory of evolution should be regarded as "controversial", given that you can find several scholars who disagree with it.

 

[El_Machinae]

And indeed God might have other intentions altogether with the universe. Perhaps there are other (actual) phenomena he values, not just life. Perhaps there's an intrinsic value, that we don't understand, to giant nebulae.

All the fine-tuning argument requires is that God values life and wished to create a universe that permitted life. It doesn't require that God values only life and that this was his sole motive in creating and designing the universe.

Does it require that God values life? As I like to point out, the Universe seems designed to destroy Hydrogen. When we look at the multi-trillion year outcome, that's what I notice.

Even assuming the Universe was created intentionally, it's still an enormous leap to assume that we're a goal.

 

[warpus]

If God made it all 47 years ago then the Bible is wrong. Adam and Eve remember?

If you assume that the Bible is correct, well then.. of course.

However, I was under the impression you were only assuming that God exists. If you only assume that, there are a lot more possibilities.

 

[Tigranes]

By that argument, the theory of evolution should be regarded as "controversial", given that you can find several scholars who disagree with it.

The humanities use methods that are primarily critical, or speculative, and have a significant historical element—as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural sciences. In addition we are talking about minor fact in humanities -- not the entire Theology, which is more comparable to the entire Theory of Evolution . Therefore your analogy falls flat on many counts.

But even within Natural sciences certain theories are "less" controversial than others. Compare Standard model and Evolution. Evolution has been described as "fact and theory," "fact not theory," "only a theory, not a fact," "multiple theories, not fact," and "neither fact, nor theory." The disagreements among these statements, however, have more to do with the meaning of words than the substantial issues.

Not a year goes by with a new skull being discovered and words "controversial" and "redesign textbook" used in media. Here is example, a 2013 article in Guardian.

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus.

The spectacular fossilised skull of an ancient human ancestor that died nearly two million years ago has forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution.

Anthropologists unearthed the skull at a site in Dmanisi, a small town in southern Georgia, where other remains of human ancestors, simple stone tools and long-extinct animals have been dated to 1.8m years old.

Experts believe the skull is one of the most important fossil finds to date, but it has proved as controversial as it is stunning. Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.

 

[Plotinus]

Does it require that God values life? As I like to point out, the Universe seems designed to destroy Hydrogen. When we look at the multi-trillion year outcome, that's what I notice.

Even assuming the Universe was created intentionally, it's still an enormous leap to assume that we're a goal.

The point of the argument, and its source of rhetorical (if not logical) power, is that if the various constants of the universe had been ever so slightly different, it would be unable to support life. So it looks like it was intended to support life and carefully designed to do so. But this presumably doesn't apply to destroying hydrogen - this would still have taken place if the various constants of the universe had been different. E.g. if gravity had been stronger then hydrogen would still have fused into helium, but more quickly. But there couldn't have been any planets capable of supporting life.

What I mean is, proponents of the argument think that the universe appears designed for life not on the basis that supporting life seems to be the main thing the universe does, but on the basis that supporting life would have been impossible if the universe had been ever so slightly different. That is what supposedly makes the actual values of the various constants so remarkable and in need of explanation.

 

[Unicorny]

What I mean is, proponents of the argument think that the universe appears designed for life not on the basis that supporting life seems to be the main thing the universe does, but on the basis that supporting life would have been impossible if the universe had been ever so slightly different. That is what supposedly makes the actual values of the various constants so remarkable and in need of explanation.

Correct

 

[Plotinus]

Not a year goes by with a new skull being discovered and words "controversial" and "redesign textbook" used in media. Here is example, a 2013 article in Guardian.

That's because the media sensationalise everything. Reclassifying various species as variants of Homo erectus is a step forward but it hardly involves rethinking the very foundations of human evolution. If you want a clearer picture of what's "controversial" and why, you should see what the professional journals have to say about it, not newspapers.

 

[Tigranes]

To me, a bit flaw in the fine-tuning argument is that the world isn't actually fine-tuned all that well. If God was trying to make a world for humans to live in, he didn't do a very good job.

I have seen this reproach many times, which simply reasserts a simple Biblical fact -- paradise has been lost as a garden and has to be reclaimed as a new city. We are born into the world which God gave to humans and humans gave to their spiritual enemy. That's why stakes are so high. That's why even this debate is not a waste of time. That's why we pray -- may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Your father gave you a shiny new car, but you gave the keys to your whacked enemy, who is posing like your buddy, and you both crashed the good car into a good tree. Now you open your eyes -- car has gone bad, tree has gone bad, your jerk buddy still got the keys, you are dying with every second bringing you closer to death. You don't even remember who gave you this car, both because of trauma and because of denial that you did something wrong, so you don't want even to think about your father and ask for help. But no matter how wracked your car is you still can't help but notice it was designed by love and care, amazingly fine tuned, there is a lunch in a brown bag, you even find a manual, Basic Instruction Before Leaving the Earth. Which tells you how to claim keys back and drive to the nearest hospital with a red cross and get blood transfusion from your father. You just have to trust it and act by your own free will.

We are born to this reality which we see with our physical eyes: ground is cursed, men are cursed, women are cursed, snakes are cursed, both physical and metaphysical. Brother murders brother. Death is reigning over the earth. But there is another greater reality which you need to see with your spiritual eyes. But God did His part, by killing the death by Resurrection and lifting the curse by His blood. And now we are in the middle of accepting that grace. You are called to join guerilla anti-death spiritual fight under the banner of the Cross, weapon of curse and painful death, which became symbol of everlasting life. If there is faith -- there will be real hope and real love which you can feel right here, in the midst of the battle, like billions of you older comrades who have joined the fight before you and lived purpose driven life, making this earth so much a better place. Behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Claim it, before it is too late. For all we know we might not get tomorrow.

 

[Perfection]

Geological record shows Earth was no paradise before man came on the scene. From the apocalyptic disasters, to everyday brutality of animals on each other we clearly see that the suffering was not brought about by man but inherent in the fundamental structure of the Earth.

I can't see how given that you believe it was our fault.

 

[Tigranes]

That's because the media sensationalise everything. Reclassifying various species as variants of Homo erectus is a step forward but it hardly involves rethinking the very foundations of human evolution. If you want a clearer picture of what's "controversial" and why, you should see what the professional journals have to say about it, not newspapers.

Science is always a work in progress, nobody even talked about stuff like dark energy or dark matter before 1932, for instance. Different branches of science are currently at different stages of progress, that was the core of my observation. The tone of the article and eye grabbing headlines might be excessive, but reported facts do not suffer from it. This was just an example obtained by 1.3 second search. Guardian is not The Sun, but if you prefer random example from let's say, Nature, here (2011): Human evolution: Sweep model is swept away.

 

[Tigranes]

Geological record shows Earth was no paradise before man came on the scene. From the apocalyptic disasters, to everyday brutality of animals on each other we clearly see that the suffering was not brought about by man but inherent in the fundamental structure of the Earth.

I can't see how given that you believe it was our fault.

Apocalyptic disasters are planet formations, the house you are living at had to see a lot of welding and sparks, and nail driving, and ground breaking, and fine tuning to be suitable for you to live there. Animals do not have free will and morals to be brutal. They act as they should. Predator-prey cycle takes care of the things, but poachers don't.

Wipe off the human race -- there will be no good or evil in physical form.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Geological record shows Earth was no paradise before man came on the scene. From the apocalyptic disasters, to everyday brutality of animals on each other we clearly see that the suffering was not brought about by man but inherent in the fundamental structure of the Earth.

I can't see how given that you believe it was our fault.

I have to second this. I think what Bible is talking about isnt some physical place but psychological state of mind but given the state in which psychology as a field of knowledge was couple thousands of years ago it was writen as a metaphore.

 

[Perfection]

Apocalyptic disasters are planet formations, the house you are living at had to see a lot of welding and sparks, and nail driving, and ground breaking, and fine tuning to be suitable for you to live there. Animals do not have free will and morals to be brutal. They act as they should. Predator-prey cycle takes care of the things, but poachers don't.

Wipe off the human race -- there will be no good or evil in physical form.

Frankly I don't buy it. God coulda shazamed the world into existence and not subject it to the relentless death and destruction. Why make dinosaurs just to wipe them out?

 

[Borachio]

We are born to this reality which we see with our physical eyes: ground is cursed, men are cursed, women are cursed, snakes are cursed, both physical and metaphysical. Brother murders brother. Death is reigning over the earth. But there is another greater reality which you need to see with your spiritual eyes. But God did His part, by killing the death by Resurrection and lifting the curse by His blood. And now we are in the middle of accepting that grace. You are called to join guerilla anti-death spiritual fight under the banner of the Cross, weapon of curse and painful death, which became symbol of everlasting life. If there is faith -- there will be real hope and real love which you can feel right here, in the midst of the battle, like billions of you older comrades who have joined the fight before you and lived purpose driven life, making this earth so much a better place. Behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Claim it, before it is too late. For all we know we might not get tomorrow.

Do you really believe this? I mean, really?

It's pretty standard evangelical stuff, but does anyone in their soberest moments actually believe it?

Snakes are cursed? They simply are not. Snakes are elegant and delightful creatures.

Spoiler :

As for brothers killing brothers, eventually - and possibly very soon - they'll realize there's no reason to.

And the ground isn't cursed either. The ecology of soil, for example, is magnificiently complex. The only time it could possibly be described as cursed is if you pour some chemical on it. And even then the "ground" recovers its equilibrium in an amazingly short time.

And women are cursed, too? I wouldn't know. Why don't we find some women and ask them if they feel cursed? Maybe they do feel cursed under the burden of patriarchal monotheism?

I honestly don't think that thinking people and the world are cursed is a healthy attitude.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Frankly I don't buy it. God coulda shazamed the world into existence and not subject it to the relentless death and destruction. Why make dinosaurs just to wipe them out?

Its becouse nature isnt God. Nature is magnificent power but itsnt perfect it relies on experimantation and at times is overruled by the higher force.

 

[Plotinus]

And the ground isn't cursed either. The ecology of soil, for example, is magnificiently complex. The only time it could possibly be described as cursed is if you pour some chemical on it. And even then the "ground" recovers its equilibrium in an amazingly short time.

And women are cursed, too? I wouldn't know. Why don't we find some women and ask them if they feel cursed? Maybe they do feel cursed under the burden of patriarchal monotheism?

I honestly don't think that thinking people and the world are cursed is a healthy attitude.

You're quite right, and the notion that the curses of Genesis 3 are meant to be permanent even according to the text itself is pretty shaky anyway. They are probably meant to be a temporary curse, which lasts until the time of Abraham, with whom God makes a new covenant that revokes the old curse and replaces it with a blessing (Genesis 12:2-3).