Responding to Other Objections to the Fine Tuning Argument

-

 

We have already discussed the possibility of a multiverse, being behind this fine-tuned universe. Let’s address a few other objections.

Neil Sinhababu (Am Philos Q 54(1):89–98, 2017) has recently argued against the fine-tuning argument for God. They claim that the question of the universe’s fine-tuning ought not be ‘why is the universe so hospitable to life?’ but rather ‘why is the universe so hospitable to morally valuable minds?’ and that, moreover, the universe isn’t so hospitable.

For it is metaphysically possible that psychophysical laws be substantially more permissive than they in fact are, allowing for the realisation of morally valuable consciousness by exceptionally simple physical states and systems, rather than the complex states of brains.

I reply that Sinhababu’s argument rests upon unsupported claims and that we have reason to doubt that an omnibenevolent God would make the psychophysical laws more permissive than they in fact are.

 

Physical cosmologists claim that the universe is balanced on a razor’s-edge as far as human life is concerned. Our existence would be impossible had not various forces and constants taken the values that they in fact do. In some cases, minute diferences in those values would have entailed a universe devoid of any structure, let alone the complexity to support life.

Three examples of such fne-tuning observations are as follows:

·         Gravity

·         Rate of expansion of early universe

·         Strong nuclear force



Sinhababu’s response to the fine-tuning argument may be reconstructed as proceeding in three stages: reframing the central question, the universe is not particularly hospitable to morally valuable minds, theists must affirm the metaphysical possibility of the e‑world, on pain of inconsistence.

Against Sinhababu’s argument:

Against Indifference Objections to the Fine-Tuning Argument (Prof. Metcalf)

https://tinyurl.com/4ex9jhf6

Explaining the Physicality of the Universe:

The Argument from Compatibility:

1. Given theism, any feature F that the actual world ends up having will, with probability unity, be G-compatible.

2. Given atheism, any feature F that the actual world ends up having will, with probability less-than-unity, be G-compatible.

3. Therefore, for any feature F that the actual world ends up having, the probability, given theism, that F will be G-compatible is higher than the probability, given atheism, that F will be G-compatible.

4. A world’s being physical is G-compatible.

5. Therefore, a world’s being physical is prima facie evidence for theism over atheism.
















Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Refuting Atheism: Two Interesting Arguments for God

-
Image
  Thomas Aquinas' “First Cause” argument: (P1) In the physical world, we find that physical things come in series. (P2) A series of physical things cannot regress infinitely. (P3) Therefore, there must have been a first, immaterial, necessarily existing cause (from 1 & 2). (C) So, God exists (from 3) .. “Nomological Argument” by Prof. Hildebrand: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nous.12364 According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not.
Read more

Defending Theism: The Problem of Evil

-
Image
  This is an atheist’s favorite. They conclude that since evil exists, God is not both Good and Powerful, as suffering should not exist. Since it does, there is no God. The notion of God being evil is very fallacious because it assumes that the atheist’s standards for morality are above God. Furthermore God has far more knowledge than any human being and thus has a reason for allowing anything to happen even if we humans don’t have the full picture. But here’s the major flaw in the atheist argument. Atheists make a big fuss about the “problem of evil” and how they cannot in good conscience accept that God exists in the face of a world full of innocent people suffering. Curiously, they are not equally perturbed by the prospect of innocent people suffering tremendously at the hands of the wicked who themselves live comfortable lives and will never have to face any consequence or repercussion for their crimes. And when you think about it, which scenario is more troubling? In the...
Read more

Proofs for Islam: DMT

-
Image
  DMT in the Qur’an The Qur’an correctly describes the experience of death, also mentioning DMT. … DMT was researched extensively in the 20th Century, the Quran’s knowledge of it in the 7th Century, proves it is authored by a deity no less than  God. … DMT (dimethyltryptamine) is the most power hallucinogenic substance known to man. It’s endogenous (naturally produced in the body), and is suggested to be mass synthesized by the body during death. According to Timmermann et al., a significant amount of user reports on the experience of DMT include feelings of entering a different realm, encountering mystical beings, and “ego death” (feeling detached from the self and the material world). . What does this have to do with the Quran?  Well, there’s a peculiar verse in Surah Qaf about dying: Note the word intoxication. Islamically, this refers to mind-alteration, and the most notable effect of DMT is its extreme mind-alteration. If DMT is truly released in the body at death, i...
Read more