For example: "6. If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical. " I know there are at least two common arguments against this 1) In order to answer the question of what created God one must first answer the question, What is God? If it transpires that God is the unmoved mover, then it makes no sense to ask what created God. 2) It is is reasonable in science to appeal to A in order to explain B, even when does not have an explanation for A. Many scientific theories are created to explain phenomena without an explanation of how they exist (I realise examples of this would have to be cited, perhpas the fact one cannot explain the state of existence before the big bang only theorise about it)
No not really. 1) Prove that God is the unmoved mover.
2) When A begs the same explanation it was supposed to provide for B then A is meaningless and should be ommitted by Occam's razor since it solves nothing and only compounds the problem. --wissam hemadeh 05:23, 15 March 2010 (CDT)
Anthropic Principle Merge
- I just now noticed this, and second your comment. Should the official article be under AP, or FTA? --Kazim 17:15, 18 June 2008 (CDT)
- I think calling it the "Fine-tuning argument" better describes what it's about. Plus the AP is really just a statement that supports the FTA - the AP is not an argument in itself --Jaban 12:30, 29 April 2009 (CDT)
"The argument of fine tuning is a rather new one. It has only came to be in the last eight to ten years"
Can we change the relative age to a most permanent one like ' It has appeared in the latter part of the 1990s' ? I'd do it myself, but I don't have the information and I am unsure of when the actual appearance of the argument is.Cafeeine 03:20, 29 April 2009 (CDT)
- Agree, and I've changed the text to reflect the above.
- I suspect, though, that the fine-tuning argument isn't as new as all that (perhaps it's become prominent in the last decade, but has been around much longer). But that's a separate issue. --Arensb 12:21, 29 April 2009 (CDT)
- I saw it in print in the mid-80's, it simply didn't have as many "proofs" as it does now. Like most creationist arguments, it has likely existed forever and simply grown to include more recent observations (or perceived to be more recent, even though they were made decades ago and are long outdated).
- It may be fair to say it has become more widely known and used since the 90's, but I don't know if there's even any data to support that. How common any argument appears to be likely depends on which flavour of creationist close to the observer are most vocal. --Jaban 12:30, 29 April 2009 (CDT)
People, the fine-tuning argument was present ages ago, before Bertrand Russell, under the name 'Natural Law Argument'. It was refuted then and it is refuted now.--wissam hemadeh 05:26, 15 March 2010 (CDT)
Link dump rolled back
I've rolled back a bunch of links that were dumped with no explanation of what they are, how they pertain to the subject at hand, or even wikification.
The links were a bunch of websites which challenged the fine-tuning argument. I should've organized them. offerring a brief explanation for each link. Apologies.--wissam hemadeh 05:27, 15 March 2010 (CDT)
Addition to counter arguments
I would suggest that the very first counter argument should be the gross misuse of the term "fine-tuning" by apologists. In physics, fine-tuning refers to models where certain parameters must be extremely precise in order for the model to accurately predict real world observations, and where the model itself does nothing to adjust the values. A "fine-tuned" parameter in a model (for example, the gravitational constant) is meaningless outside of the model.
Therefore, when an apologist suggests that the universe is "finely tuned" they are conflating our imperfect models of the universe with the universe itself.
This is similar to the mistake made in the ontological argument, where the proponent says that an imaginary god is less great than a real one. They are conflating their model of the universe in their head with the external universe.
Some counter arguments should be removed, some combined
Counter argument number seven makes the mistake of redefining the God in question. When talking with a theist, it is generally understood that God has a number of properties, one of which is self-explaining/independent existence. Asking any questions about how the creator came to be is to deny this property, which means that you are arguing against an entirely different definition of God.
Counter argument number eight makes a similar mistake, in that the existence of a creator and the existence of any later beings are different, in that the creator is independent and the others are contingent. While the properties eight refers to are not required for any sort of existence, they are required for our existence.
Number nine also has issues, in that the fine tuning argument does not, in fact, make any such assumptions. The fine tuning argument doesn't claim that life was not an accident, but that life is by far more probable if it wasn't an accident.
Number fourteen talks about the possible range of distances from the sun that the earth could support life in. Why does this matter? The fine tuning argument is concerned with the cosmological constants, not with things like this.
Should the arguments above be removed?
In addition to those issues, a number of arguments all try and make the same point. Namely, 4, 5, 11, and 12 all assert in one fashion or another that the universe is, in fact, NOT fine tuned for life. Should these be grouped into one argument that concludes that the universe is not fine tuned, using these as supporting arguments?
Arguments 2 points to argument 3 for support. Should these also be combined into a single argument about probability? Crrice 13:54, 18 September 2011 (CDT)