There’s an infinite regress of cats and fleas, too. It’s one reason why children make better philosophers than adults, and maybe their rationality is better, as well.
I think it comes down to semantics. Yes, we can strongly infer from science that the Universe is created, has a beginning as we would understand this. But, when we say ‘fine tuned’, this to me means that the Universe’s beginning needed ‘tuning’, or some such non-sense. As a theist, I prefer to say the Universe, and all science can examine, has been created as such (it does not require twigging or tuning), as God deals with beginnings and endings, and is not prone to create and then fix it along the way.
I do not feel embarrassed, but rather believe that God as Creator is more than science can cope with.
I’m not fully sure what this means but I will offer my thoughts. I never said God made a faulty universe and had to correct his blunder by changing constants. I doubt very many, if any creationists believe this. I never said the universe needed anything. What I did say is the universe have every appearance of being tuned from the start for our existence to a very high degree.
Vinnie
I have tried to point out what some of the terms and phrases mean, particularly within the scientific context. The semantics are important, and my comments are not the result of embracement; for example, it is common to say an instrument needs to be fine-tuned before it is used for a measurement. Furthermore, invoking reasoning derived from the constants negates the notion the creation was somehow random and presumably it settled down at some time (or it has not, or some other nonsense). I would be comfortable with the statement that God created all, He is the creator, and science studies the creation - as a Christian I begin with God is Creator, and everything follows from this. A scientist who does not believe there is God, would base his reasoning on this atheist outlook, and I would suggest to him, that it is his burden to deal with the obvious inference from science re constants and reproducibility that science shows.
I trust this clarifies my comment.
What about a scientist who believes in God by desire and faith, by the Spirit, knowing that there is no burden to deal with the obvious inference from science re constants and reproducibility that science shows (whatever that cognitive bias could possibly mean)? What do you suggest to them?
I am suggesting that such a scientist does not have a burden, as the inference is in harmony with the teachings of the Faith.
What, if they believe in God by the gift of faith they will then automatically, intrinsically, perichoretically believe that He pre-tunes the constants of sempiternal nature with a side order of ‘reproducibility’, whatever that is? No such inference is necessary. It does not arise.
It seems discussions with you become somewhat oblique - the scientist I mention, would study nature from a position that it is all created by God. This discussion has shown we cannot come to know God from such studies. As scientists, we would critically examine our insights, and my view is that we would conclude these are consistent with our beliefs. The constants and related insights are examples of this.
That we are more special than rocks, cockroaches, bacteria or even monkeys, does not mean there are no other living beings in the universe with the same capabilities, while nevertheless being completely different with regards to shape, biology, chemistry, and the things their life depends upon. Let alone meaning it is impossible for beings with those capabilities to have developed in a universe with a different set of physical constants. It just doesn’t follow. Science doesn’t point to any such thing.
1 Like
The obliquity is mutual. It makes no difference to the science, to the study, apart from its subjective effects, what the scientist believes. You say: we cannot come to know God from such studies. I disagree. If we posit Him then science tells us much about Him. Scientists critically examine their insights constantly, that’s their job. The question then is are our beliefs consistent with our insights. There is no critically examined insight about constants that can be affected by God.
While I do not find any “nature, therefore God” argument to be coherent, the puddle response to fine tuning has always struck me as missing the point. A puddle will conform to any landscape. The fit does not matter.
That the universe permits life is not in itself the whole claim. What is remarkable is the combined observation that life requires such a narrow fit of constants to happen, and those are what we find. If life were easy and any lump of rock readily turns into worms, there would be no fine tuning discussion.
Can we have silicone life, energy beings, fog creatures, and life other than how we know it? My guess is no, but your mileage may vary. There is a subjective element to fine tuning. But it seems to me to be much easier to come up with descriptions of alternate inert universes than universes which permit self awareness.
3 Likes
Our beliefs are about something. Our scientific insights are based on the scientific method, which requires, amongst other things, objects for study, theory related to the material. The discussion boils down to the often discussed - science cannot obtain an object called god for study.
So I ask, what beliefs from a scientist regarding God, determine the insights he would derive from the scientific method?
That’s asking whether pigs have wings. Nothing whatsoever about taking the leap of faith can change the absurdity of existence i.e. objectivity, except subjectively. How things feel. They are utterly orthogonal. False faith distorts objectivity especially in making up the subjective fallacy of fine tuning, the penultimate ‘gap’. Faith is not in the music of the spheres in the keys of c, e, G and h. It’s in God through Jesus.
Lord, give me faith in you, please.
A believing scientist could concur with Jeremiah about the stability of the universal physical constants.
This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…
Jeremiah 33:25
The unbeliever has no foundational, principial reason to understand why they are constant and not changing, merely experience… they just are.
Vinnie, you are right on the money. And there is more! How about the dinosaurs and the other extinctions? God did not dictate how the universe evolved, but God certainly guided it. None of these events could be coincidental.
The multiverse is a red herring. It has absolutely to do with our universe.
1 Like
They are constants so… stability is superfluous. My point is that both a believing scientist and a non-believer, would come to the same conclusion re constants are constant. 
They may then diverge in an opinion regarding their subjective beliefs. The theist may quote the bible (as you do), or regard these as strong inference in that we are studying God’s handiwork (as I do), while the atheist may try to ‘fit’ this into an ever changing (evolving) outlook, with considerable dificulties.
No, that’s the point. Why are they at their particular values and stable. Saying that they’re stable is what is superfluous.
Of course they would. backatcha. 
(Unless they were YEC ‘scientists’. 
)
That is what I meant.
I know. You’re missing my point.