Page 2 of 86 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 854

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #11
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,842
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,342
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    Maybe that is the point where we differ---
    No, not really.
    I agree with you, the whole concept makes no sense and is not internally consistent.
    But that's because we try to keep the whole concept in mind, or at least work through all the consequences of all the stated traits.

    For the B'leever, God's traits are only important as they are necessary to explain the world we find ourselves in.

    In Genesis, God 'looked away' from Woman and Adam, just so they could screw things up. If He was omnipotent and omnipresent at that time, He'd bear some responsibility for what happened. But that wouldn't make sense, as the whole point of the story is to explain why a god of infinite mercy and love exists but we do not live in paradise. WE need to be the ones that deserve punishment, not God.

    So, yeah, we can surprise and disappoint God, if the narrative requires that, just as God already knows everything that's going to happen and thus His prophecies prove His divinity.

  2. Top | #12
    Super Moderator Torin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    125
    Rep Power
    4
    The fine tuning argument is a species of the argument from miracles which alleges that the fine tuning we observe is miraculous.

  3. Top | #13
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,266
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,305
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    Sorry, I am just not comprehending this. I think the sticking point is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    ...God purpose-built the universe to achieve US (fine-tuned), and tweaked the situation as necessary during installation to keep it on track (miracles).
    A god that really was omnipotent/omniscient would never have to do any tweaking though. You tweak and adjust things because unknown factors and surprises come into play. That would not be an issue for God though, being omnicrap. He could just get it right, right from the start.
    Imagine you're writing about a wizard with superhuman powers. With his staff he can ride out against the nazgul, blind them and drive them off, saving his people from destruction. Yet when the bad guys are breaching the walls of his fortress he has to fight them individually with a sword.

    If our wizard was a real wizard and not just a wannabe there wouldn't even be nazgul, bad guys to attack his fortress. That he has to fight with a sword is the ultimate contradiction, and this is of course how fiction works. We see it with modern superheroes as well. The superhero called god is no different.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,496
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,442
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    Yeah, the Christian spin on it also confuses more than it clarifies. Sometimes people point to the FTA or the AFM, as a response to us atheists, to prove that *some* deity must exist, even before they get into identifying it as the Christian god. The FTA and AFM work off contradictory premises, it seems to me. Either God is unlimited in power and knowledge and can create natural laws to accomplish any task, or God is limited and constrained in what he can make the natural laws be, so sometimes he has to veto and overrule his own natural laws to get the job done.
    I agree. The FTA and the AFM contradict each other. You can't fine-tune a universe and then have fuckups that require interventions.

    It doesn't matter that Christians do a song and dance about sin causing the fuckups, because fine-tuned is fine-tuned.

    The Bible and the later Greek-inspired theological arguments tell two completely different tales about God, so Christians often switch between the abstract omni-God and the tribal dumbass God. Or try to mingle them with no success at all. But considering the two arguments without referencing the biblical fables, they are contradictory.

    I've seen Michael McCormick's Atheism and the Case Against Christ mentioned as one source of this criticism.

  5. Top | #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    967
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,766
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    The FTA essentially states that if the various physical features and natural laws of the universe were even slightly different from what they currently are, then we humans would not exist. Since we do exist, then the universe is fine-tuned to have those features and laws, and the best explanation for that fine-tuning is a divine or supernatural sentient being. God.
    The fine tuning argument implicitly assumes that the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to support life, specifically human life on this piece of rock we call Earth. We have no evidence to support the idea that the universe has a purpose to its existence, much less that the purpose is to support life on Earth. Without this underlying assumption, the fine tuning argument falls apart, especially when we consider that an overwhelmingly large proportion of the universe, including much of Earth except for a thin sliver at the surface, is inhospitable to life.

    The honest answer is that we don't know why the universe exists, how it came into being, or even if the visible universe is all there is. We have cosmological models that attempt to describe its origins from a state of extreme low entropy, but not the ability to test the models as yet. Life exists on Earth because the conditions on Earth allows life to exist. Anything more is speculation driven by religious bias.

  6. Top | #16
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,506
    Rep Power
    10
    I think these are probably different parties; someone who believes that the universe is fine-tuned probably does not think of miracles as supernatural events that "break" nature, but rather seek rational explanations for why that thing happened at that time, visualizing them as events that were always meant to occur as they did. The idea that miracles are a violation of natural law is a common one, but not universally held or dogma for any official body that I know of.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,977
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    The fine tuning argument implicitly assumes that the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to support life, specifically human life on this piece of rock we call Earth. We have no evidence to support the idea that the universe has a purpose to its existence, much less that the purpose is to support life on Earth. Without this underlying assumption, the fine tuning argument falls apart, especially when we consider that an overwhelmingly large proportion of the universe, including much of Earth except for a thin sliver at the surface, is inhospitable to life.

    The honest answer is that we don't know why the universe exists, how it came into being, or even if the visible universe is all there is. We have cosmological models that attempt to describe its origins from a state of extreme low entropy, but not the ability to test the models as yet. Life exists on Earth because the conditions on Earth allows life to exist. Anything more is speculation driven by religious bias.
    Agreed on all those criticisms of the FTA argument. I was wondering if there was an additional flaw in the FTA on top of those, namely that it contradicted the AFM. On second thought though, if the FTA was refined so that the fine-tuner was not omni-everything but was just powerful and smart enough to create our universe, then that could allow for it to make some errors and have unknown consequences that would need correction for. It is only when we call the fine-tuner "God" and state that the fine-tuner is omnipotent/omniscient that the FTA and AFM contradict.

    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    I've seen Michael McCormick's Atheism and the Case Against Christ mentioned as one source of this criticism.
    Minor correction---On googling that is Matthew, not Michael, McCormick.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,678
    Rep Power
    17
    You can harmonize the two arguments by accepting that God doesn't find anything 'miraculous' about His own actions.

    Ask Him...
    "did you finely tune the laws of physics?"
    "is your design intelligent?"

    I don't think God has any need for the categories "supernatural" or miraculous".

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,450
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    You can harmonize the two arguments by accepting that God doesn't find anything 'miraculous' about His own actions.

    Ask Him...
    "did you finely tune the laws of physics?"
    "is your design intelligent?"

    I don't think God has any need for the categories "supernatural" or miraculous".
    Nor intelligence.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,977
    Rep Power
    70
    Even if God does not use those labels, people who make arguments on behalf of God use them. They should stop, since they apparently do not apply to God.

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •