Fine Tuning Argument vs. Omnipotency

Just Arrived Joined: Aug 29, 2008 Posts: 2

Hello,

One of the few reasonably compelling arguments for God that I've heard relates to that of Fine Tuning in the universe. Actually, I am not sure it argues compellingly for God but it's certainly interesting to reflect that life as we know it would appear to be possible only because various physical constants exist within narrow ranges.

But I was thinking of the implication of Fine Tuning as an argument for God. If only a narrow range of physical constants would allow for life, which suggests design and specifically God as the designer, doesn't that also suggest that God could not create a universe compatible with life with substantially different constants?

If so, doesn't that imply God is not omnipotent, since he had to work within the constraints of the physical constants we observe? If not, and other arrangements are possible, doesn't that undermine the Fine Tuning argument altogether?

I haven't heard this discussed and wondered what people think the theistic response would be.

Thanks,
Michael

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:07 am

They may not have to say that God *could not have* brought about life under any other more hostile conditions. They may just have to say that the development of life in the universe, and the favorable conditions of the fundamental physical constants, are too unlikely a scenario without God. Whether or not God could have brought life about under more hostile conditions isn't the issue as much as whether or not it makes sense to think that it is likely that life would have developed at all in a non-theistic universe.

Could an omnipotent being create life in an environment that does not allow for it, though? Well, it depends. Believers usually define "omnipotence" as the ability to bring about any logically possible state of affairs. So, God could create life by changing the constants - changing the hostile environment to one that was not so hostile, and having life come about that way. But it seems contradictory to say that God could have life develop in a universe that does not physically allow life to develop. And if it is contradictory to say so, then this shouldn't phase believers very much, since they understand omnipotence to be a trait that has a boundary line at logical possibility.

Just Arrived Joined: Aug 29, 2008 Posts: 2

I agree with you distinction about omnipotence within logical possibilities.

It strikes me, however, that the nature of physical constants is of a different degree than whether God can sin, whether he can allow free will without permitting sin, etc.

Let's imagine a possible alternative universe with a gravitation force twice that we experience. The Fine Tuning argument suggests that life would not be possible given the laws of physics as we understand them. But do theists concede that God could not have engineered stars, planets and life forms that could which could support life? If so, than it seems the physical constants exist outside God and even he can't sustain life in a world where gravity equals 2g. If so, that strikes me as more of a failure to achieve omnipotence than the examples I gave. It also raises the questions about whether the physical constants preceded God. If not, how is it possible that God created the constants but can only create life in a small, small subset of possibilities?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 550

The fine tuning argument is stupid. Even if there are certain conditions under which life can form, the possibility of life forming is proportional to the number of possible planets. There are billions of solar systems in the universe, so thinking that life could form in at least one of them isn't such a big stretch.

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:17 am

Cygnus wrote:

The fine tuning argument is stupid.

Word.

Its pretty pathetic to believe in god just because life seems to be improbable to arise naturally...

I mean come on, the earlier christians thought they knew pretty much exactly what god is, what he thinks and where he lives, but now he has become so incredibly abstract that they have to retreat to arguments from ignorance.

As for the theistic response, they would probably just say that "its not really proof for god, but just another piece of evidence which appears to be more plausible in a universe with a creator".
But even that is fallacious because the incredible size of our universe doesn't make life that implausible at all, unless you use bogus-mathematics a la Dembski.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 550

Quote:

unless you use bogus-mathematics a la Dembski.

Haha. "The probability of life forming by itself is one in ten thousand gazillion times ten to the eleventh power multiplied by five". Yeah, the problem is his big fancy numbers, while wrong, still look big and fancy to the uneducated.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore