There was a time when I found the fine-tuning argument alone to be sufficient for belief in god. I still think it’s a pretty good one, though it doesn’t get you anywhere close to the personal god that most religious people believe in. That said, I’ve reached a point where I no longer find it persuasive, not even for a deistic god.
There’s a whole laundry list of details we could rattle off about our universe, any of which, if it had been the slightest bit different, would have prevented life as we know it from existing. That’s staggering to think about, and it’s no wonder that many people find this reason enough to believe in God. But I think the biggest problem with it is that it looks at our situation backwards. It takes the current state of things and projects backwards through time, pointing out all the details that were necessary to get us to this point. But that’s a game we can play with any scenario.
People do it all the time with their personal lives, for instance. They think about their spouse, their children, their job, and they think “how would things have turned out if I had never done X?” Or even consider your own existence. If your parents had married different people, or even if they had just conceived at a slightly different time, you wouldn’t be here. And not just your parents, but their parents, and their parents, and their parents, all the way back through history. If any of them had died young, or made different choices, you would not exist. The odds that you as an individual are here as opposed to all the other people that could have been here but aren’t are astounding. But few people would claim that it took divine intervention to get you here.
When we consider the universe as a whole, if things had been different, then we wouldn’t be here to think about it. Maybe some other species would be wondering at the incredible combination of factors that were needed to them to get here. Or maybe there would be nothing conscious at all.
Our universe was here for 14 billion years before we were able to stand in awe of our existence. Is it reasonable for us to assume that it was all done for us? Just a 14 billion year lead up to feature us as the climax?
Finding Truth 
Hi humblesmith,
I’m afraid I didn’t get much from that post. I do hate that she had a bad impression of Dan Barker. I agree that some atheists seem to spend more time trying to achieve shock value rather than remaining cordial, calm, and on-topic.
But as to her two main points, one on prayer and the other on religious experience, I saw nothing persuasive. Was there something in particular that stood out to you?
Thanks!
LikeLike
Ms Travis who wrote a review of the above mentioned debate goes on to say concerning prayer, “I would argue that what we observe is exactly what we should expect. We have severely limited knowledge of how the events of our lives are interwoven into the tapestry of human existence, and we aren’t aware of what the full future ramifications would be should we receive a certain thing we’ve been praying for. ”
How then does Ms Travis reconcile her above comments with scripture ? John 14:13-14
New International Version (NIV)
13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
I don’t see the caveat in this scripture to support her comments pertaining to prayer. I would call this another case of “unsubstantiated apologetics”.
LikeLike
Technically, kcchief1, I agree with your assessment of “unsubstantiated apologetics”…but it is funnier to just say: God answers prayer all the time…it is simply that the answer is usually NO.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/
LikeLike
Roger that ! eSell
LikeLike
I sometimes wonder what the theist argument would be if in the decade or so, that we find microable life on Mars. the majority of them already believe life (microable vegetation) more than likely existed on Earth, due to the evidence of methane gas on the planet.
but what then would happen to the fine tune argument. Would it be changed to Human Tuned argument? (Meaning god created other planets with life, but only earth has the ability to create humans). or would it be called the Intelligent Tuned Life (meaning God created all life, and life can exist all throughout the universe, but only earth has intelligent life.) What new argument will come from the theist then?
LikeLike
At the risk of spreading a bunch of superstitious nonsense, I have an answer, Rodriguez.
The church I used to attend believed/taught that all the universe used to be nearly like Earth, until the rebellion of Lucifer/Satan. Why? “God hath not created it not in vain, but formed it to be inhabited” (Isa 45 or something), and other scriptures pointing to the Person of God–we thus know that God would not create a universe of decay and desolation like we now see it.
Add to that the scriptures in Isa 14 (IIRC) about the Fall of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels–Universal War.
This all ties in nicely with Gap Theory Creationism, which says that Gen. 1:1 is talking about the original creation of the earth, but Gen. 1:2 is talking about the recreation. “The earth was without form and void” SHOULD be (under this doctrine) “the earth BECAME…”, b/c again, we know that God does not create things in a state of waste and desolation.
SO, if microbial life is found on Mars, for example, it would only prove that not EVERYthing was killed in all the rest of the universe at the rebellion of Lucifer. But for YECers, I can’t imagine what answer they would come up with…
LikeLike
you know, if intelligent life were found on another planet, and they shared the same religion or notion of god and a savior, then i think that may help me return to religion – but i suspect that everyone would agree that would not happen if/when we encounter other life at some point.
I think that if unintelligent life were found, I hope that it will be in our lifetimes, then maybe a few believers will fall away, but i think that the majority of zealots will still find a way to go on believing, inventing even more “possible” scenarios (everything is possible for god, even the absurd) to “explain” it.
LikeLike
I highly doubt that if life is found on another planet, would there be some great falling of the faith. More than likely people would just change their doctrine to a more liberal version of whatever God they are already believe in.
History has shown, people just change their doctrine, not lose faith.
Darwin, The Black Plague, The Galileo affair, enlightment period
LikeLike
The fine-tuning argument is the last refuge for theists that try to reconcile the way the world is with their beliefs. And they should be credited for their brave attempt, but only because this attempt implicitly shows that they value the power of science. They are already half way on the road to redemption.
However they should not get too enthusiastic. The argument fails big time in its support for the almighty sort of god they are seeking to establish. For if god cannot circumvent the laws of nature, he is not almighty but bound by these laws. And if he is restricted by these laws, it is pretty hard to see how he can exist without them. And if he cannot exist without them, how could his existence go before the existence of these laws? This makes no sense at all.
But there is even a more down to earth argument that obliterates the fine-tuning argument and that is a simple fact of medical science: the eradication of smallpox from the planet. This feat of scientific endeavor and human perseverence simply shows that some of the evils can be overcome without the sudden collapse of the universe as a whole. This destroys one of the premises of the fine-tuning hypothesis in favour of a god, the assumption that all evil neccessarily is part of the universe, that it couldn’t be any other way. Why should the proponent of the fine-tuning hypothesis try to find a cure for kid cancer at all? His sorry god can’t fix it.
This also reveals the implicit deceit embedded in the fine-tuning hypothesis. It reveals that it is one thing to say that the laws of nature couldn’t be otherwise but that it is a completely other thing to say that all evil necessarily exists in the universe with these laws. Hell, even people can do better, when they just stop killing off each other for a while. So the hypothesis is like a trojan horse, it smuggless in the neccessity of evil under the skin of (supposed) neccessity of the laws of nature being what they are.
LikeLike
Excellent point, Fujaro! Thanks for your comment 🙂
I’ve recently read someone argue that the argument from design fails even in its premise. If this universe were really designed for life, you’d think there would be many more places within it that we could survive.
LikeLike