The fine tuning argument from creationists....?

Question

The most common argument I hear for the existence of God is the argument that the universe is so fine tuned that God must have tuned it that way. In reality, we have no clue if the universe really is fined tuned. We do not even know for sure if universe even follows a set of physical laws. Our understanding of physics is so limited that nothing can possibly be concluded about Gods existence. The fact of the matter is that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved with science. One cannot even reasonably conclude that God does or does not exist based on any evidence what so ever. Arguments for or against the existence of God are pure guess work and any Christian or atheist who argues otherwise is a liar.

Answer 1

There are a lot of scientists who are very concerned with how fine tuned the universe seems to be. More scientists, I think, than creationists are worried by this. I think most think it is finely tuned.

Yes, of course, no one is going to prove or disprove God but still, it has to make one wonder.

The next answerer below me talks about the multiverse, which to me shows how difficult it is to explain away this fine-tuning.

Answer 2

Given that the habitable zone for life in this planetary system is a thin layer on one planet, it can't really be said that the universe is very welcoming to life. Then again, some pretty tiny changes in the fundamental constants would empty the universe completely, or leave it a big ball of plasma.

But then those constants had to have *some* value, and we're not yet privy to possible interactions between them that may have forced some to assume the values they did at the Big Bang.

The Multiverse notion allows for these values to be completely free, and for an infinitude of possible universes which might have different values for the constants. If some are lifeless, so be it.

It may be that some values could differ widely from our and still engender life: all it needs is a Replicator, and the rest happens. Perhaps plasma can do it just as well and carbon chemicals.

But evidence for God? Well, maybe some intelligent agency set them up, 12 billion years ago. Unlikely that he's still around getting cross when people masturbate, though.

CD

Answer 3

Yes, actually there are constants in physics (the constants for gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, etc.) which, if different, would result in a universe in which there were no stars, no galaxies, no life, etc.

However, the anthropic argument as well as the possibility that we are only part of a multiverse which have a variation of constants, argue against any theological implications of whether or not such constants represent "fine-tuning."

Answer 4

A falling snowflake always observes it is inside of a snowstorm. The fact snowflakes always find themselves inside snowstorms is not evidence for snow pixies.

The fact we see order does not imply it is purposeful. This is another fallacy. Does the fact a hole fits a puddle perfectly imply that the hole was designed to fit the puddle? Of course not, yet that is what the creationists would have you believe. They argue the hole fits the puddle too perfectly not to be designed for it. When in reality the puddle fits the hole not the other way around. It is simply man's arrogance that makes him think the universe was designed with him in mind.

Answer 5

An Earth-like planet has just been discovered, in the last couple of weeks I hear. It will turn out that they are very common, given the vastness of space and the trillions of stars available, I am quite sure.

Answer 6

Yep. Not that you asked, you know, a question or anything.

But I still don't believe in god(s), by default.

Answer 7

This is a question and answer forum. Not a rant forum.