A question for the Fine-tuning argument

I want to note that I’m not actually proposing a Fine-Tuning Creator argument.

I just wanted to correct your interpretation of the general argument.

I have an examination tomorrow morning (its late here in the UK) but when time permits I’ll get back to you on your points.

But I will answer one of your points…

No, the conclusion is not that the universe is fine-tuned for homo sapiens, or even life as such but rather that it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environment that life requires.

@Vouthon,

Okay… so we have just one universe. And it is the size of a giant rock, with a telephone booth sitting on it.

And we can imagine things about this Rock and Telephone booth Universe - - because we are in that phone booth, looking at that big rock. And we are wondering where lunch is going to come from … and you are even wondering how you know anything about lunch … but that’s for another thread.

You look at the rock… and you look at your phone booth. And if that rock was instead a giant blob of boiling sulphuric acid, you and your phone booth would not be here.

But it isn’t acid… it’s a rock. And so you are here. Are there any other rocks? Nope. You can’t see anything but this one rock.

What does it tell you about rocks? Lots of things…because you have test equipment you can run from the phone booth.

But does it tell you that God created the rock? No. You just don’t know what how it got there… or how you yourself got there.

But thank God for that rock! Ha! - - you say! I just said “Thank God!” Okay, you start to wonder. Who is God?

This is probably the most inaccurate description of fine-tuning I have ever read. It’s “not even a strawman.” The fine tuning argument has nothing to do with intelligence.

The biggest-picture fine tuning argument is this (or at least close to this):

  1. Any kind of life, anywhere in the universe, at any time, requires complex chemistry and large molecules (to store information, for one thing). The big bang only produced Hydrogen and Helium, from which you can only get Hydrogen and Helium, and no life.

  2. To get the heavy elements (e.g., Carbon) needed for life, the universe, on its own, somehow, needs to produce the elements.

  3. The elements are produced in the interior of stars or in supernova explosions. At any rate, the process (itself somewhat fined tuned) requires the existence of stars.

  4. The primary fine tuning in the fine tuning argument is the sensitivity on the physical constants for the production of stars. No stars, no heavy elements, no life. But stars are from guaranteed. Change the cosmological constant, the initial baryon density, perhaps even the initial entropy, ratios of the strengths of fundamental forces, --no stars. It seems way easier to produce a universe that expands too rapidly (no stars) or quickly collapses (no stars) that to produces stars. At least based on what we know now.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.