As a relatively recent arrival here at TSZ, I am somewhat intrigued to still see the Fine-Tuning Argument in regular rotation. It appears often in comments, but the two most recent OP’s that I have come across dedicated to the topic are Mung’s ‘The Wonder of Water‘ and RobC’s ‘The Big Numbers Game‘.
That I find the Fine-Tuning Argument completely unconvincing will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read any of my comments on TSZ. But I think it is worth taking a moment to explain why that is as my reasoning differs slightly from that of others whose comments I have seen. In a comment on the ‘Wonder of Water’ thread, Joe Felsenstein comes closest while referring to the ability of the Schrodinger Wave Equation to model all of the properties that we see expressed in Chemistry:
“If Michael Denton’s Intelligent Designer wants to fine-tune properties of water she has to do it by tinkering with the SWE. Which would mess up a lot else.”
In a UD post cited on RobC’s OP, vjtorley argues (with his emphasis) that God fine-tuned the universe because He wants us to discover His existence through the fine-tuning of the cosmos.
I will circle back to Joe Felsenstein’s comment momentarily.
For starters, it is important to make certain that everyone is familiar with the idea of Kettle Logic as expressed by Sigmund Freud in “The Interpretation of Dreams”. That is, using multiple arguments which are inconsistent with one another.
The example used by Freud is that of a man who is accused of returning a borrowed kettle to his neighbor in a damaged condition. He responds with the following 3 arguments:
1- The kettle was undamaged when he returned it.
2- The kettle was already damaged when he originally borrowed it.
3- He never borrowed the kettle in the first place.
Individually, any one of these arguments might be true. However, used together they represent an absurdity since they are each mutually exclusive of at least one of the remaining two.
To relate this to the Fine-Tuning Argument, I will put forth 3 statements that reflect the position of proponents of the argument as I understand it. We can hash out semantics in the comments.
1- An infinitely powerful being, God, created the Universe ex nihilo.
2- The same being carefully tuned a number of fundamental physical constants to extremely narrow ranges outside of which life as we know it would not be possible.
3- God’s creative hand is clearly visible in the structure of our Universe and its properties.
As with the Kettle Logic example above, any one of these three arguments might be true by itself. However, also as with the previous example, I don’t see any way that all three can be true simultaneously.
Scenario A: Assume statement 1 is true – If God is infinitely powerful and God created the Universe from nothing, then there can be no limit as to which values God could set physical constants to. If he literally sets the rules, then he would be able to make any combination of values work for his desired outcome (If 1, then not 2). And whatever set of values he chose, it should appear to any observers who might emerge within the Universe to be a brute fact (If 1, then not 3).
Scenario B: Assume statement 2 is true – If there are only very narrow ranges of physical values that will allow life to emerge, then God could not have created the Universe from nothing. In that case there must be a pre-existing substrate upon which reality is built which limits the creative actions of God (If 2, then not 1). And similarly to Scenario A, if the constants were set at the beginning, they would appear to any observers in the Universe to be an unchanging brute fact (If 2, then not 3).
Assuming that statement 3 is true brings me back to Joe Felsenstein’s comment that I quoted above. The chemical properties of water are indeed exceptional. However, as Joe points out, changing anything about the properties of water would necessarily change the nature of all of chemistry since water is made up of components which are common to all elements.
Deducing the creative action of God would require the observation of something that did not follow the established norms of the universe. The divine nature of Jesus is not believed based upon the observation of his normal habits of respiration and digestion for example. It is rather believed based upon the accounts of miraculous events in the Gospels which stand out from everyday commonplace events.
One way to look at it is as the difference between what I have occasionally heard described as tuning (setting of initial conditions) and tinkering (on-the-fly adjustments). Experiencing a miraculous event could lead one to deduce Divine action in the Universe. However, the mere fact that the event is miraculous means that it departs from the expected pattern of natural occurrences (If 3, then not 2).
Since this is my first OP, I apologize in advance for any formatting errors. I also apologize if I have misrepresented the position of proponents of the Fine-Tuning Argument. I would be happy to have my understanding enlightened.
My exposure to the argument has come primarily by way of Christian Apologists such as William Lane Craig and Fr. Robert Spitzer. Therefore, my statements here are primarily informed by that mindset versus more esoteric versions of Christian belief or by ID.
Are you referring Daoism? If so, I’ve read the Tao Te Ching, but nothing else of that I can bring immediately to mind. And to clarify, I don’t desire to come closer to anything specific. I simply enjoy reading works from diverse worldviews from which I can occasionally glean meaningful wisdom.
Yes I am… I have discovered that eastern wisdom and Jewish mysticism overlap significantly.
You may want to give Allan Watts The Way of Zen a try…
Although I suspect Watts had already taken one hit of acid over the line already by the time he wrote that book
You just reminded me of one of my teachers who took offense when I laughed out loud on one occasion.
I remarked that Chassidus/Kabbalah seemed to have much in common and he narrated a story that Lao Tsu’s real name was Leibl Shumacher and and an itinerant cobbler who traveled the Silk Road and found himself in China. He handed out scraps of leather to his customers with short quotes from Talmud, which gained him a loyal clientele. One day he desired to return to the Holy Land but was not allowed to leave until he wrote down a compendium of his greatly appreciated wisdom; the result was Tao Te Ching.
I repeat, I laughed out loud… and my teacher took offense as he was most earnest. That particular teacher was Baal Teshuva who had mastered Dao as a young man before returning to Chassidus.
A genuinely odd coincidence, but a close friend who was visiting from out of town this past weekend recommended Alan Watts’ “The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are”. I’ll take a look at the Way of Zen after I get through with the first. Thanks.
Not trying to have anyone chew my food for me, but the small bits of ‘Summa Theologica’ and ‘Contra Gentiles’ that I have read appear to either attack specific analogies (e.g. Stone too heavy) or to make a ‘Divine Command Theory’ sort of bald assertion that nothing that God does can be counter-logical.
I’m far less qualified than Sean Carroll to speculate, but the idea that ‘logic’ itself somehow precedes the creation of the Universe and its physical laws seems incoherent to me.
Well that’s great for Einstein. But are you asserting that my formulation of the argument is a misrepresenation of how it is put forth by Christian Apologists? If so, please explain how.
RoyLT,
You are operating under some misconceptions, primarily that there are no restrictions whatsoever to the presumed-existent God’s nature or ability; and that if there were such restrictions, they would be external and thus God would not be the creator of “everything”.
God is not taken as the creator of “everything” because no theologian claims (to my knowledge) that god created himself. Rather, the premise is that God exists eternally and that god has innate characteristics that god cannot change nor act in conflict against.
Being omnipotent (in the theological sense) is not the same as being infinitely powerful; it just means that god has the ability to do anything that is possible given its nature and the internal limitations that nature generates.
So, your entire argument is founded on an entirely erroneous set of assumptions (and inferences thereof) about the nature of the fine-tuning argument.
Yes – the apologists on this forum do not have the depth of either Aquinas nor Descartes
Since Sean Carroll seems to like Stanford U’s “Plato” so much, I will cite the following:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
or alternatively
William J Murray just summarized Aquinas. Descartes thinks otherwise.
I do not dispute this part of your statement. I did not state that God created ‘everything’ in my OP, simply the Universe. If I did use that term in my comments anywhere, then I was in error and meant it more as a shorthand for ‘everything that was created’.
RoyLT,
This is a statement based on inductive reasoning and observation. Your counter is a simply your opinion or an unsupported claim.
So you agree the multiverse is the most complex explanation?
Then God had no choice with regards to the nature of the Universe? His only choice was whether or not to create it?
hmmm again say I
I promise you, over the centuries, some of history’s greatest thinkers have grappled with these questions. There is nothing new here… OK clever yes, but new no.
A while ago I dropped a hint: where exactly do you presume to be the boundary between G-d and Creation, if you mean by creation what is commonly called the Universe?
Is the universe some stand-alone entity which keeps on ticking on its own after the watch-maker has taken his leave?
I make no assertion about the watchmaker haven ‘taken his leave’, but if the Universe began to exist while the watchmaker did not I cannot easily see how the Universe would not be a separate entity.
And I promise you that your presumably well-meant cautions to me are completely unnecessary. I do not think that I have unlocked the secret mysteries of philosophy or that my opinions would hold up under the scrutiny of scholarly theological and philosophical analysis for a moment. If I thought they would, I would be publishing them elsewhere, and certainly not anonymously. I’m simply someone with a passing interest in philosophy and theology who prefers to air my opinions for review and adjustment here rather than boring my wife to tears with them at the dinner table.
TomMueller,
Thanks for the references.
Understandable – because our thinking is limited by symbolic language constructs, which at times are necessarily arbitrary and may perhaps not always correspond to reality. Emphasis on the word “may”
ITMT I remind you, Time’s Arrow may be illusory and our notion of casuality incoherent.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creation-conservation/
Sounds to me, you are an excellent candidate for some intensive upper level philosophy courses
gotta run, will catch up later
best regards
I doubt it, but thanks for the praise. I’m a bit too old and set in my ways. But I can still absorb some wisdom by osmosis on a hobby basis.
we just cross-posted
it would appear we also have much in common 😉
sei gesint
False dichotomy. There is plenty of distance between having some internal limitations by nature that restrict possible options going forward down a flowchart of creation and not having any choice beyond whether or not to create a universe at all. Your premise is that God has unlimited capacity and power; there is no theologian (that I know of) which subscribes to that premise. Therefore, your premise is a straw man – a magic god unhindered by any limitation whatsoever.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/9-bible-verses-to-help-us-understand-how-unlimited-god-is/87200.htm
Reality notes otherwise WJM.
I don’t see how this helps your position.
If there is more than one possible configuration that he could have chosen for the Universe, then my objection from the OP stands.
If there is only one configuration of the Universe possible and the values required have to be very finely-tuned, then he had no choice.
If there is only one configuration of the Universe possible but there is some play allowable in the values of the fundamental constants, then the FT argument is invalid.
Nice reference. That is some deep-water, but I’ll try to make it through that article and post something a bit later. I see a couple of items (e.g. Occasionalism) that I have not encountered which warrant a deeper dive.
RoyLT,
I do agree with Mung that this is a strawman argument. You are separating the tuning from the design vs a universe that is designed with finely tuned parameters.
You are overlooking the scenario that he starts with several possibilities but is limited once he choses his medium of creation.
If he is limited once he chooses his medium of creation, then how do reconcile miraculous events that suspend the known laws of physics in the Old and New Testament? How did Joshua command the Sun to stand still for a day?
More importantly, did he have an infinite number of media to choose from?
Job 36:22-24. “God’s power is unlimited. He needs no teachers to guide or correct him. Others have praised God for what he has done, so join with them.”
Your argument doesn’t hinge upon whether or not god had a choice in the constraints, but whether or not those constraints were pre-existent and exterior to god so that the creation could not be ex-nihilo but rather upon a substrate that already had physical constraints.
Constraints that stem from the nature of God are not external constraints.
So this “God” guy can be modelled with the same equations as our universe? Four forces, cosmological constant, and such shit?
RoyLT,
How is this inconsistent with a finely tuned universe with inter dependent parameters?
OMagain,
This is not inconsistent with the fine tuning argument only a strawman version of it.
Because if he can, at will, suspend natural laws (i.e. conservation of momentum when stopping a planet and then restarting the rotation), then the physical constants that we observe can’t be all that sensitive.
But they are constraints which predate the creation of the Universe.
From the OP:
You have, via Special Pleading, created a class of constraints which serve to limit the creative actions of God without counting as limits in your eyes. Either his nature allows for multiple combinations of physical constants or it does not and he has no choice.
TomMueller,
I’m struggling with a couple of things from that Stanford article.
In particular, if Conservation is required to sustain all created objects from one moment to the next, then doesn’t Human Free-Will become sensibly diminished? I’m struggling with the idea of morally significant decisions made about objects which have no self-sustaining causality. Any thoughts?
RoyLT,
Why can they be suspended and sensitive at the same time? If atoms were designed programable this is a chip shot 🙂
The inter-dependence is key in this regard. It seems rather irrational to expect occasional instances of the total cessation of all natural laws while arguing that the structure of those natural laws is a key piece evidence for God’s existence.
I would argue that you can have miracles or intelligibility of nature, but not both at the same time.
If you say so…
RoyLT,
If we define a miracle as technology we don’t understand ( an I phone would be considered a miracle 100 years ago) then having both is expected. There is what we observe in nature and there is what the designer can do to modify nature when he wants to.
A computer usually runs very predictably to do the tasks we want. The technician or system designer can modify the operation due to his understanding of the software and hardware that the lay user does not understand.
So we have developed technology far enough that we can understand how a system can operate day to day very predictability but be modified by someone that understands the interworking of the system components.
The analogy for God would be understanding the interworking of primary matter and having the tools to modify when desired. To claim that God could not set up the universe with the ability to modify matter is a bit of a stretch.
But if we define a miracle as a phenomenon inconsistent with what we have determined to be the basic principles, then we have a problem. I think people are becoming increasingly sophisticated as to the difference between advanced technology and “the impossible.” Clarke’s Law carefully uses the word “magic” rather than “miracle.” Magic is something we don’t understand and can’t explain. Miracles violate what we DO understand.
Flint,
How close do you think we are to understanding the complete capability of the atom?
The word miracle or magic are just words the question is what additional capability does matter have that we don’t understand yet.
We already know we can change the course of how matter operates remotely.
That’s irrelevant. Of course there are constraints that predate the creation of the universe because any Theologian will point out that God is constrained by it’s own nature.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Of course the nature of god limits what god can create; for example, god cannot create a square circle, nor can god make something evil good. Most theologians agree on this. These limitations exist in the nature of god regardless of if God creates anything and regardless of what kind of universe god creates.
Whether or not god has a choice in how to set the constraints and constants in order to create a universe capable of supporting intelligent life is utterly irrelevant to your argument. The question is about what you mean by “ex nihilo”; obviously, it cannot mean “nothing” in the sense of there being no god. You said: “In that case there must be a pre-existing substrate upon which reality is built which limits the creative actions of God” … but every theologian I know insists that all of creation is built upon a substrate that is the very essence of being and existence – God. So I assume you meant a limiting substrate that existed outside of god putting external limitations on what god could create on that pre-existing, external substrate.
This is why your premise is flawed, and it is hardly “special pleading” to point out that you simply don’t understand the theological position. You are arguing from a child-like “magic god can do anything” premise. If you want to stick with that premise for the sake of your argument, fine. But it’s not a premise any theologian I know agrees with.
hmmm… or perhaps G-d’s choices were unconstrained, but once G-d made his choice, G-d just grabbed that particular celestial football and ran with it?
begging the question, we can think of G-d in the third person singular and address G-d in the second person singular!
hmmm again I say
😉
first of all, Time’s arrow may be an illusory construct on our parts – ditto causality, and even if neither weren’t; G-d may not be limited by the same constraints as we – explaining the contention of G-d’s “unkowability”… this all while begging the question you are able to dissect the universe away from G-d’s omnipresence somehow.
You may want to consult a Chassidic rabbi on Tanya if ever you have the chance, that or a Catholic theologian on Aquinas.
😉
Now you are thinking like Aquinas and contradicting Descartes…
Great point! I too struggled with exactly that line of thought myself when my undergrad philosophy professor confronted me.
The syllogism runs thusly:
As I mentioned earlier – some of the greatest minds in history have grappled with this notion long before we weighed in… as far back even as the composition of Exodus:
Did Pharaoh have free will? Was he morally culpable?
There are many levels of understanding in Chassidus/Kabbalah and I was startled to discover Wikipedia has a blurb thereon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)
Bottom Line: the definitive answer to your question is esoteric in the extreme and I really am unable ( unqualified really ) to expound in any detail.
Quicky and unsatisfactory Bottom Line: one or more of the premises is in error. I suggest that the pious may suggest there are two solutions to the dilemma:
1 – God has Free Will means we have limited Free Will if we are created in G-d’s image. How can Free Will be “Free” if simultaneously limited? many answers to that.
2 – Another thought: maybe our spark of the divine within confers the necessary connection to the infinite and enables our Free Will; which brings us full circle to your original citation of “Conservation” above.
there are resolutions to your conundrum which from a strictly empirical POV are incoherent… “Incoherent”? That is why “religious experience” is not subject to empirical scrutiny and why Reason cannot contradict Faith, as Aquinas was wont to claim.
I remain bemused by Evangelical Fundamentalists’ difficulties to respond and again wonder out-loud whether or not they should reconsider their return to the embrace of Mother Catholic Church. 🙂
… frankly, I reckon a return to and re-embracement of yiddishkeit the better option
;-))))
In any case, another excellent reference from Stanford-Plato
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#God
RoyLT
regarding your point #3
Do you understand now, how Aquinas would consider that the ultimate “straw man”?
Nope. Aquinas would not think of that as a straw man. The bible says something about his handiwork been clearly seen in what has been made, or something to the effect (Romans 1:20). Given that, Aquinas would have discussed the issue, probably citing contradictory statements (like those about people who didn’t know “God”),rather than dismiss it as if Aquinas had The Ultimate Truth [TM] already figured out.
Christian theology is the art of taking fantasies way too seriously and then trying to figure out ways around loopholes, contradictions and other nonsense (like the trinity, or the meaning of omni-whatever).
I have read Aquinas, and the guy was smart. Not a black-and-white idiot (like today’s mere-charlatans-who-pass-for-philosopher-and-theologians). A thinker, even if he did not realize he was trying to make sense out of fantasies. Borrowing some excuses and prior roundabouts from the Greeks, for good measure.
Reading about Aquinas thoughts, doesn’t mean that he had those as the ultimate answers. It just means we have a glimpse of the way he thought, and solution he proposed. That doesn’t mean that he thought he had all the answers figured out.
Either way, the point of the OP is the fine-tuning argument and kettle logic. The three points are very much fine-tuning (Aquinas didn’t have the cosmology and equations to play that game, come on!). Christians do think that the shit points to their magical being, therefore point 3 in the OP applies. Fine-tuning is a claim that this magical being’s handiwork is visible right there, regardless of what you think Aquinas would have thought. Otherwise it would not be an argument for the magical being in the first place.
With the assumption of Conservation, I certainly see how this would be so. But I am far from comfortable with how one accepts the other metaphysical baggage that is entailed by that assumption (at least as far as I can grasp them from deep within the well).
Setting aside, just for the moment, the Intro to Aquinas that you have been so kind as to provide;-)
I have no doubt that there are many. I can think of a handful from just reading the first half of the Stanford summary of Creation and Conservation… if I take some specific assumptions as given.
I just want to be careful that we are still talking about the same conundrum. Observation of the physical constants present in the Universe would seem to be an inherently empirical activity. The intelligibility of those constants and their interdependence, which would appear to be a starting point for any inference to a guiding intention, becomes an empty concept if the Universe at large and all of its characteristics persist only at the pleasure of that intention from moment to moment. I am interested in looking more into the other references that you provided on Causality, but since Humans experience time linearly (ignoring Relativity for the moment) the FT Argument would seem meaningless if not framed in those terms.
And for record, it is obvious to me now that I should have rephrased the bolded portion of Point 3 in the OP. As most of my comments have shown, I see a conflict between the assumption of the (1) Creator’s power, (2) his need to carefully tune parameters, and (3) his ability to suspend parameters at will without crashing the system as the Kettle Logic inherent in the argument.
What can you suggest (either by comment or by reference) to grapple with the apparent conflict between intelligibility of nature and miraculous events?
LOL
Entropy – I always enjoy your succinct understatements!
FTR – I think you may be quoting Romans 1:20 out of context. Read 18 – 32 to understand what Paul is talking about. Certain moral imperatives should have been understood as a priori self-evident by recipients of his epistle. Paul also sees as a priori self-evident the Historical Christ’s (i.e. before the poor bastard was posthumously elevated to the status of god) apocalyptic message of the immanent end of days as prophesied in Hebrew Scripture; as also clearly self-evident…
Of course, none of that worked out quite as Paul predicted, but we digress.
Your point is well taken: “Christians do think that the shit points to their magical being, therefore point 3 in the OP applies… ”
… applies only to unworthy opponents, some of whom frequent this site and have little training in philosophy or in theology.
The writings of Aquinas do not fall under category #3
According to my understanding of Aquinas: Reason cannot contradict Faith; neither can Reason affirm Faith, for Faith would therefore become superfluous.
Much confusion ensues when considering Aquinas’ so-called “Five Ways” written as part of a primer for theology students. I refer you again to
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#God
Now we digress and are moving the goalposts onto quite another playing field.
A long way back, I agreed with Entropy’s recent contention that #3 of your OP does indeed apply to unworthy opponents who pretend to be Christian and often frequent this site.
I am flattered – but, I am not sure I am the person to ask… I am less than a dilettante in this field of endeavor.
Amen!
… you will also remember that I cited Descartes’ contradiction of Aquinas