Yesterday I shared a video-link to my recent debate with Justin Schieber at the University of Texas at Dallas. Some objections in the comments were aimed at the fine-tuning argument. While feedback was appreciated, they failed to grasp with the formalization of the argument. By “fine-tuned” we mean not that there was a fine-tuner, but rather that if values like the gravitational constant were altered to the slightest degree, then the Universe would not permit the existence of any kind of life, much less communities of moral agents. That is to say, the Universe can be fine-tuned regardless of how hostile 99.99% of it is to life, and if you check the link provided below, you will see that few physicists doubt the fact of fine-tuning. The argument notes that this fine-tuning is a very unexpected development for atheists, and by contrast fits wonderfully on the theistic hypothesis. Put differently: Compared to atheism, on theism this amenability of the Universe it is not nearly as “epistemically improbable” (i.e. surprising/unexpected); theists are naturally and understandably comfortable with it in a way that atheists cannot rationally be. I go into more detail and answer objections here: treesearch.org/god-exists#the-universe-is-fine-tuned-to-permit-life In terms of the formalize, here is how Collins presents it: (1) Given the fine-tuning evidence, LPU is very, very epistemically unlikely under NSU: that is, P(LPU | NSU & k′)
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:53:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015