Why the Fine Tuning Argument Doesn't Prove God

Sean Carrolls’ arguments to William Lane Craig on whether cosmology gives evidence for God:

  1. We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.
  2. Fine-tuning for life would only be relevant if you already have accepted naturalism as God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
  3. Apparent fine-tuning may be explained by improved notions of probability.
  4. The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.
  5. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different.

Patrick… I think you meant to say that if YOU had fine-tuned the Universe … it would look very different.


P.S. @Patrick… forgive me, but I’m responding here as a PS … I just don’t want to spend one of my POSTING coins discussing fine points with a non-Christian. The reason I said your post was about how YOU would fine-tune the Universe is simple - - you have no idea what fine-tuning God has in mind.

1 Like

Not at all. Carroll considers this his most important point. Here he goes into not only the cosmos, but the nature of human culture which, Carroll avers, comports much better with naturalism than with God.
Here is the video.

1 Like

And neither do you.

1 Like

You keep parroting the same thing so many times (don’t you get tired of so much repetition?) - perhaps you can spend your time more productively if you were to read up on the reasoning materialists and atheists with such views, and the conclusions they propose. For example, materialists eventually conclude that we as human beings are deluded into having any beliefs (including belief in evolution, ND, NS, multiple universes) because this has given us an advantage in survival. They than go on to rationalise everything, such as culture, psyche, reason, human history, etc, to fit in with this banal view . This too is a belief (some irony :smile:) but this does not present a problem to those with such an outlook. Surely such an extreme view would inspire weird outlooks and beliefs amongst people!

The argument that is often (erroneously imo) termed fine tuning, is more to do with the unchangeable nature of scientific/mathematical constants, without which we cannot do science. From this “is” regarding the creation, many infer that someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make sure the creation remains correct and would produce what we have now. However, this points to God determining the creation to be what it is, and has a lot to do with the intelligibility of the creation to human reason and intellect. Since we now can speak of time and space as the Creation, we are correct in stating that God determined all things before the beginning of time and space. - this means the Creation “is” what God brought into existence.

1 Like

A very serious problem here is that atheists are using two contradictory definitions of Nature and Naturalism at the same time. One definition of Nature is the universe, which is fine. The other definition of Nature is a universe which is purely physical and therefore is not rational and has no purpose. This second definition predetermines the argument without viewing the evidence, which is what atheists are trying to do. The second definition completely distorts our understand of reality by taking rationality, meaning, and purpose out of life and the universe. This is what @GJDS was referring to as the creed/world view of New Atheism.

Now to say that the universe is structured in a way to allow for the creation of life is a truism. Whether this proves God is another question. However it does seem to me that the evolution of life on earth does indicate that Nature is rationally structured, because evolution favored the creation of humans who are rational.

It is not that other creatures are irrational, but humans are have taken rationality to a different level which gives them control over themselves and their environment. This situation where humans are raised to a level higher than the rest of nature, indicates that there must be a God over humans and the rest of nature or that humans alone are metaphysical, which we know is not true.

Carroll tries to attack fine-tuning by completely separating Nature (which can be done only by using the second false definition of Nature) from God, which is not true. When one begins with a false assumption, one comes to a false conclusion.

1 Like

It’s an interesting talk, but at the end of the day God cannot be proved (or disproved).

Sean Carroll is a good speaker. At the end he keeps saying, “Under theism you would expect x.” But earlier he says that theism is not well defined, so how would he know what to expect?

Would have been good to see what William Lane Craig’s story was. Or was it fundamentalist-type stuff?

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.