This is the final installment of my response to Kolbe19:
The Fine-Tuning Argument: This is a variant of the Argument from Design that claims our world has been "fine-tuned" for life, which implies that this "fine-tuning" was done by a being interested in doing so (i.e., god). Granted, our planet is unlike other planets we've observed currently in that its physical constants make life possible (as we currently understand "life" to be). To say that this is indicative of "fine-tuning" is a stretch to say the least. No account is made of the fact that, while our world is capable of supporting life, life has to find a way to survive the conditions of the world. Yes, life is possible on our planet, but life must adapt and adjust accordingly in order to survive. In science, this is a process known as natural selection.
I'm sure that, if the thousands and thousands of species that have gone extinct could talk, they'd raise a few objections to the fine-tuning argument.
Our planet can support life, but not without a fight. We require shelter, food, heat, protection from the elements and the natural phenomena insurance companies ironically refer to as "acts of god." This is a world which will kill us if we don't protect ourselves. And let's not forget about the viruses that have killed millions of people. Evidence of "fine-tuning"? I find that claim dubious, to say the least.
The assumption inherent to the Fine-Tuning Argument is that the world was created to support life. This is most definitely an assumption, because the converse could just as easily be true: life emerged in (as far as we know) the one place where conditions would make life possible, and "found a way" (as Dr. Malcolm said in the movie Jurassic Park) to survive and flourish. Species that couldn't adapt and "find a way" went extinct. I realize this sounds way too Darwinian for a lot of creationists to accept, but the rest of us understand that this is science.
The biggest failure of the Fine-Tuning Argument is that it simply doesn't prove the conclusion. Instead of serving as a sound argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument is yet another example of an argument from ignorance often employed by apologists. When William Lane Craig remarked that "[t]here is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do," what he is really saying is, "I don't know why the world works this way. Must be (my) god."
This isn't just a fatal flaw of the Fine-Tuning Argument; it's a flaw found in any variant of the Teleological Argument. It's also the flaw of the Cosmological Argument. "How'd it all get here? Must have been (my) god (not your god, of course)." An argument from ignorance serves as the prime defense of the resurrection of Christ as well. Apologists will critique all the well-known natural explanations for the empty tomb (disciples stole the body, "swoon theory", hallucinations, witnesses went to the wrong tomb, et cetera), dismiss them as unlikely, and then argue that the resurrection of Christ is the only explanation that best fits the facts. Apologists sometimes quote Arthur Conan Doyle in an attempt at eloquence: "... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Even if Christian apologists can debunk these natural explanations it lends no credence to the claim that god resurrected Jesus. Apologists still need to provide evidence for a supernatural resurrection. Even if they eliminate explanation X, Y, and Z, they haven't proven A. There could very easily be an explanation B, C, or D they haven't yet seen.
I mention the resurrection of Christ to point out that the Fine-Tuning Argument is merely one example of this habitual pattern of argumentation employed by apologists. Arguments from ignorance are an often utilized tool in a religious apologist's arsenal, in spite of the fact that arguments from ignorance prove nothing except for the ignorance of the arguer.
Dead-Logic.com
The Fine-Tuning Argument
The Fine-Tuning Argument
Posted by , Published at 10:00 PM and have
