Recall our discussion in class today about the fine-tuning of physical constants. The main idea is that there are certain numbers, called physical constants, which cannot be predicted from physics and which determine the kind of universe we find ourselves in. A list of fundamental constants can be found here. Because they cannot be predicted from physical theory (in other words, they have to be inputed from the outside), and because the range of values of such constants which results in a life-permitting universe is very very small, the odds of a life-permitting universe such as ours arising by chance is very small.
Because of this, some philosophers have used fine-tuning as evidence for the existence of God in the following way: recall that we recognize an object as an artifact if its parts are accurately adjusted to each other and constitute means toward the fulfillment of a certain purpose (they are means to an end). Physical constants are 'parts' of the world-machine and seem to exhibit accurate adjustment to each other (it is not enough for one constant to be tuned within the life-permitting range, all the other constants have to be tuned to that range at the same time) and exhibit means-ends functionality (the constants have the values they do IN ORDER to produce life). Since artifacts are products of intelligent agency, and if the Universe is an artifact, then it too must be the product of intelligent agency.
A summary of the fine-tuning argument can be found here.
What do you think of this argument? Is fine-tuning evidence for the existence of God? Think of at least two potential objections to this argument (you should read chapter 12 in our textbook as well).
the evidence is great evidence for the existence of God. The whole universe is in proportion with itself and everything works with everything else.For example, the sun is the exact distance to the earth for there to sustain life. the counter argument would be that everything does not compliment everything else because if it would, then there would be life. However, how do we really know if there is not life on other planets outside our solar system. maybe the environment that we need is different that another planets environment. But it could still have life. it would have life that would be adapted to that environment.
ReplyDeleteanother counter argument is that we all have lived without the help of God. How every through my personal experiences, i have discovered that things seem to happen at the right exact time. for example things happen for a reason. all of my experiences draw me to the same conclusion. therefore i believe that the evidence for the existence of God is true.
This arguemnet is valid, but just seems to go along with the Big Bang theory. The first part of this arguement seemed to be a few of what if questions. What if questions are help should just be questions not apart of the arguement. Fine-tuning is not evidence of God. In fact I think that it is saying that there is no God. Like how I stated earilier, it relates to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is just one big expansion of the universe or one big expolsion. The fine-tuning at the being of the arguement seemed to ask what if questions about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory was just this small thing of matter that exploded into this giant universe, which would mean there is no God. Two objections to this argument, one that God really does exist. That would mean God created everything in this world. That everything has to be real in something else is real. There has to be a cause for every cause.
ReplyDeleteI think this argument is very interesting. I like how it proposes that the universe itself is an artifact as it meets the requirements of an item that an intelligent being would create, such as a watch. I think that when the universe is put into a perspective like this it does show evidence for an intelligent creator. One counter argument is that everything could have happened on their own, even though the chance of this is happening is incredibly small, there is still the possibility. Another objection is that if there is a creator behind all of this, then why is there evil in the world? Even with these counter arguments however, I still find the design argument very interesting as well as a good thought on how the universe was created.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fine-tuning argument is good evidence of a god. the argument has many sound points and facts to back up the theory. the odds that everything we know in our universe comes together so perfectly as to allow our existence seems almost impossible and certainly improbable. the fine-tuning argument certainly leaves room to allow evidence that there is an existence of god. one argument to the fine-tuning theory is the one i made earlier in class. if the world was so perfectly adjusted, why would we question its existence? if it was so finely tuned, we would know all their is to know about it...and for that matter how DO we know that it is so perfectly tuned? another argument i could make is MAYBE the perfect tuning is just chance, and not design. say the chances of our universe are one in a billion. we don't know how many universes there are. there could be billions of billions of universes, allowing more like ours. so the combination of constants that allows for our universe to happen is statistically bound to happen (even more than once for all we know)
ReplyDeleteI do think that the fine-tuning argument is evidence of a God. Artifacts are things that are made with parts adjusted and have a means to an end. These artifacts were made by an intelligent being and the world is an artifact. There had to be a higher being that made the Universe and that higher being is God. Arguments could be spontaneous appearances. Since everything is spontaneous, that means that everything spontaneously fits together which means that there was no design, it was just by chance. Also, we discussed that we do not know everything about everything; no one does. There are still questions to be answered and things that we will never find out so is everything finely-tuned? Who knows. But then again we did say that poor design is still a design.
ReplyDeleteFine-tuning, in my opinion, is the best evidence to the theory of a higher being, such as God. The physical constants must be premise in order to have a stable universe where life can prosper. The odds that this can happen are slim to none; the fact that it was made possible is no coincidence. If our planet was any closer or a bit further away from the sun, life could not be possible because conditions must be exact to obtain life on a planet. If the earth's gravity was stronger then it currently is, objects floating in space could be pulled into our vicinity and collide with the planet, ending life as we know it. Measurements have to be perfect in order for us to survive. God must have been behind this because the probability of this being a spontaneous act is absurd.
ReplyDeleteI think that Fine-tuning is agreeable because for example if we are too close too the sun. Then the earth would be inhabitable because we wouldn't be able to stand the heat. Still if it was too far away the tempture would drop and we freeze and the water would freeze kind of like mars. We are in between were we can live in good weather. It can't be random then what would have moved the strings to make the building block of the earth. could it have just have happened just some breeze. No, their was no breeze because nothing was there so something had to have made the strings to make our universe.
ReplyDeleteFine tuning in my opinion is most likely aggreeable. For example: Earth. the third planet from the sun. Not the fourth, not the second, but the third. Earth is also the only planet in the solar system with a breathable, livable atmosphere. Mercury and venus, on the other hand, both have extreme temperatures and no livable atmosphere. If we lived there we would either burn to a crisp or die of suffocation or both. if we lived somewhere like jupiter or saturn we would fall right through it or be crushed to death by our own weight, or suffocate, or freeze or all 4! but we don't live on any other planet, we live on earth. it's like the planet was made for us. Either we underestimate the power of the universe or somebody or something made it, and whatever made it must have used some fine tuning. otherwise we would not be here or would be here but nothing would be exactly the same as it is now.
ReplyDeleteI think that this argument is a very good one. I believe that the seemingly fine-tuned Universe is possible evidence for the existence of God. As mentioned, the chances of all the physical constants taking on life-permitting values is infinitesimal. But like any other argument, this one has points against it. One of them could be that other values for physical constants could be life-permitting, but just may not be able to support human life. This would mean that there are more possible combinations of values for constants that permit life and that the chance of randomly assigned values allowing life to form goes up. This could potentially prove that it isn't entirely impossible for our Universe to be created at random. Another counter argument is the idea of a multiverse. This theory states that there is something that spits out billions and billions of universes with values for their physical constants assigned at random. This idea also means that the chances of a life-permitting Universe being created at random goes up. Either of these points are potential flaws in the argument that the Universe is an artifact created by an intelligent being.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I think Fine Tuning is true and in certain ways it does prove the existence of God. Only God could make a planet in such a small range that could support life. And only god could make such a perfect planet that can provide us with all of the water, food, and resouces we could ever need. But there is proof that the Fine Tuning Argument is true and that God is real. And the Proof of that is the Bible. The Bible tells how the universe and the planet are created. So therefore this is proof of the Fine Tuning Argument, and of the existence of God. One objection of the Fine Tuning Argument why is there no life on any other planets? Another objection to this argument could come from an athesist. That person would probably say, if there is no God then how could this theory be true?
ReplyDeleteFrank Punzi
The argument of fine tuning in my mind is a good one. I do believe that fine tuning is evidence for the existence of God. One of the counter arguments for this is the idea of multiverse. Even though there is no proof to support this, this is the best counter argument. It is because when you have something happen enough times what you want is bound to happen. Another counter arguement is that since everything is so finely tuned there why is there so many flaws, evil everywhere, and so much unknown out there.
ReplyDeleteA theory known as M-theory posits the existence of eleven dimensions, which would make it possible for a multiverse to exist. If a multiverse did exist, it would pose badly for the design argument, which uses the fact that the universe's universal constants are so precisely adjusted to each other as to produce life in order to argue for the existence of a God. It seems to me that the multiverse hypothesis is the only substantial objection to the design argument. Other objections, like the possibility of spontaneous order, in which it would have been impossible for the constants to take on any other values than they currently hold, don't seem to hold up. In order for spontaneous order to occur, there would have to be some sort of "outer world", that dictated them. Likewise, for the multiverse to exist, there would have to be eleven dimensions. I think that both of these objection depend on too much to be likely, and that the design argument does indeed provide good evidence for the existence of God.
ReplyDeletemaybe fine-tuning is not evidence of god but simply evidence for a constantly balanced universe. maybe everything that happens is not so much for a reason, but to keep the world in a proper flow. if it was God behind fine-tuning then you must accept the faith aspect. no matter how hard you try your outcome will always be the one that was set in stone. Maybe it is all part of a large universal equation were everything equals out.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of fine turning to me is okay.I do believe somewhat that fine tuning is the existence of God. The reason why I am is saying this is because an example of this is multiuniverse. Just because there is no evidence to prove this it doesn't mean we can't believe in it!
ReplyDeleteI think this argument is not very good evidence for the existence of God. To be blunt, the evidence it presents, when looked at with bias in favor of the existence of a God, looks like it proves that the universe is an artifact. In fact, this does not technically work, as many other objects exist that once seemed to be artifacts, such as smooth stones found in rivers, or rock formations that appeared to be shaped like people, such as "The Old Man of the Mountain" in New Hampshire, which were just coincidental combinations of natural factors. The universe likely falls into a similar category, we simply have not been able to observe it yet.
ReplyDeleteI do think that this argument is fairly solid proof for the existence of God/a God. I find it impossible to grasp the numbers that are being thrown around as to the likelihood of our existence without believing that something was behind it all. One objection that has been raised to this argument is the possibility of a multiverse. That is, perhaps if universes are getting churned out by a machine, all with differently adjusted physical constants, perhaps ours is just one with the right combination. However, there is no proof of this whatsover, and even if this were true, these universes are contingent upon a universe-producing machine: what is the nature of that machine?? I don't put much stock in this argument. In response, many people searching for an answer besides God have thrown out some very strange answers as to the nature of that being. Again, we have no proof of this, and again, how would you define that being in the end anyway?
ReplyDelete--Gareth Haynes