Thursday, August 11, 2016

The Inherent Fallacy in the Argument from "Fine Tuning"

The argument from "fine tuning" is a broken and fallacious argument from its very core.
It's completely meaningless to argue about the small points and whether some phenomenon is actually true and/or amazing and/or "has to be exact in order for us to exist".

I mean, sure it's a bonus when so many creationists get SO MANY scientific facts so terribly wrong while trying to invent scientific support for their "fine tuning" argument.
But pointing out those errors isn't going to change anything.
They'll just keep making new errors.

The fact of the matter is very simple:

The "fine tuning" argument is NOT an argument FOR god.
The "fine tuning" argument is an argument AGAINST god.
Think about it.

What if the universe wasn't fine tuned the way it is? What if it was vastly different?
Obviously, we would not exist. At least, that's what any sensible and reasonable person would say, and that's also the main point that creationists are trying to get across:
We exist because we exist in a universe whose physical laws allow us to exist.


But... What's so amazing about that? What does it actually prove?
That in order for us to exist, certain conditions must be met, and since we observe that those conditions are indeed met, then that proves... what?
It's nothing but a tautology - a truth statement proving nothing but itself.
Not only that, but this argument also assumes that everything that exists comes from nature, because everything must obey natural laws...
In other words... This argument assumes NATURALISM.
And isn't that the opposite of arguing for a supernatural God?

But you know what WOULD have been amazing?
If we existed in a universe WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED US TO EXIST.
Think about it.

Imagine if we had found ourselves in a universe where the laws of physics shouldn't have allowed us to exist.
I'm not talking about our existence being "unlikely" or "highly improbable" or "having an infintecimal chance of happening" or however you want to call it.
I'm talking about a physical impossibility.
Wouldn't THAT be actual evidence of an 'all powerful intelligent designer'? Wouldn't THAT be an actually amazing supernatural miracle - by definition!?

Indeed many creationists do try to claim such evidence that would suggest that our existence is "impossible" based on physical laws and observations.
Their most favorite is the argument against Abiogenesis: i.e. it's impossible for a living being to naturally evolve from non-living matter through purely chemical processes (a.k.a. "chemical evolution", "origin of life", etc.).

Unfortunately for them, multiple scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite:
Chemical evolution of non-living matter into a living organism is very much possible, and in more ways than one, even.

Sure, scientists have yet to prove which of the possibilities gave rise to our own biological evolution specifically, and indeed the chances of any such process to happen naturally is rather improbable (which supports the observation that biological life is indeed very rare on a cosmic level).
But it doesn't matter.
It is proven to be possible and that alone is enough to undermine the entire creationist argument of "fine tuning".

No comments:

Post a Comment