This post is a continuation of the Fine Tuning Argument for God. My first post is here Proof of God from Fine Tuning Part One
It is a continuation from this post Proof of God from Fine Tuning Part IV
(There is no part 2 or 3)
The Fine Tuning for G-d argument goes roughly like this:
(1) Gravity in the early Universe had to be exactly what it was. On the one hand if the gravity was even a minuscule stronger the Universe would have collapsed. On the other hand if it was a minuscule weaker the Universe would be too dilute. In either case there would be no life. There are many constants of nature that must have certain very precise values in order to allow life to form/exist in the Universe. Moreover, each constant has a theoretical extremely wide range of possible values. Luckily we have the appropriate value of the constants for life to exist in our Universe. Perhaps we may also add that the “laws of physics” could have been different within a very wide range. Luckily we have just the appropriate laws that allow life.
In other words, for life to have formed or exist in a Universe, the Universe would require very precise values from within a wide range for many constants and perhaps we may also add a very precise selection of the “laws of physics from a wide range. Remarkably, our Universe has the appropriate “laws of physics” and the appropriate values of the constants for life !
(2) It is extremely extremely improbable that our Universe should have the appropriate values for the constants and the appropriate “laws of physics” that are required for life.
(3) The extremely extremely low probability requires, indeed cries out for an explanation.
(4) Theologians argue the explanation is a Deity fine tuned the constants and laws to be just right for life.
I will now explain what I think is one of the fatal flaws of the argument.
For the sake of argument I will accept the validity of (1) and (2). I take issue with (3). If (3) is not valid then no explanation is required.
I will assume any given Universe has certain values for the numerous constants and certain “laws of physics”. This could even include a Universe with no constants, and “no laws of physics”.
Lets say we have a Universe, call it “ Universe A” that is similar to ours, but different values for some of the constants yet similar laws of physics. Thus life will not exist in “Universe A”, because the values of the constants are not life allowing. Now here comes the fatal flaw.
“Universe A” would ALSO be extremely unlikely because the constants and ” laws of physics would have been selected from an extremely wide range of possible values and types receptively. Would the existence of “Universe A” demand an explanation ?
The Theist may argue that our Universe demands an explanation because there is a relation between our constants and laws with life. While in “Universe A” although it is an improbable Universe , it does not have life nor anything special about it. So “Universe A” does not require an explanation.
My response is “Universe A” could also have certain characteristics (except life) that could be fairly unique to it and thus require an explanation. Arguably, just about any Universe may have something unique about it and thus require an explanation.
Another way to understand this fatal flaw is that Theologians single out Universes that have life to require an “explanation”. But that is Theological hubris to claim only Universe’s with life require an explanation. I can select a Universe with some other fairly rare characteristic and argue that Universe also cries out for explanation. Said another way, Our Universe requires no more explanation than just about any other Universe.
