Cosmic fine tuning and skeptical theism

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
41
✟39,486.00
Faith
Humanist
Hi all your, neighbourhood friendly atheist here.

On his excellent YouTube channel Capturing Christianity (apologetics and Christian philosophy Chanel), Cameron hosted a discussion about the fine tuning argument.

As the argument was being laid out the notion was advanced that the presence of conscious beings is very unexpected on naturalism but very expected on theism, indicating that our presence is evidence that strongly favors theism over naturalism.
My worry here is that I'm struggling to see how conscious beings are more probable on theism defined broadly. We can imagine, as billions have, that a deity would want conscious beings to exist for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it wants them to worship it, or to be in relationship with it, to believe in it, to be subjects to its plan of moral progress etc.

Conversely it seems to me that we could equally imagine a deity that has no wish for conscious creatures. They would be inferior unfit for relationship, they would be imperfect and sully the perfection of its domain, they would be aggravating and wayward.etc.

We can conjure up infinite reasons on both sides of that question so it seems to me that general theism just doesn't make the existence of conscious beings more probable.

That said, it is of course the case that the Christian worldview has the resources to tip that scale. If one accepts the accounts of the Bible, then the deity is clearly motivated to make conscious creatures.
This leads me to think that the order these arguments are often presented is flawed. We often hear that the cumulative case for God begins with making the general theism case and indeed the fine tuning argument is often one of the first bricks in the road. We are told that once general theism has been established, that we can go on to wonder about the specific nature of the deity.

But based on my analysis here, it seems to me, that unless you have already established the truth of something like the Christian worldview, that general theism doesn't have the resources to escape from skeptical theism as it applies to the cosmic fine tuning argument. This suggests to me that if one wanted to deploy the fine tuning argument, one would first have to demonstrate the existence or likely existence of a personal God.

Thoughts?

Peace
Athee
 

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
My worry here is that I'm struggling to see how conscious beings are more probable on theism defined broadly.

I am just going to peek my head in and make a tiny contribution. The arguments from fine tuning or consciousness that you refer to seem to me to be arguments from effect to cause. They are vaguely analogous to Paley's watchmaker argument, where an effect is discovered that strongly implies a particular kind of cause. That is to say that consciousness and fine tuning seem to imply an orderly intelligence that gave rise to them, and that the causes available on Naturalism have a hard time accounting for such data.

I would also say that fine tuning and consciousness are two different arguments, albeit with a similar form.
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Hi all your, neighbourhood friendly atheist here.

On his excellent YouTube channel Capturing Christianity (apologetics and Christian philosophy Chanel), Cameron hosted a discussion about the fine tuning argument.

As the argument was being laid out the notion was advanced that the presence of conscious beings is very unexpected on naturalism but very expected on theism, indicating that our presence is evidence that strongly favors theism over naturalism.
My worry here is that I'm struggling to see how conscious beings are more probable on theism defined broadly. We can imagine, as billions have, that a deity would want conscious beings to exist for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it wants them to worship it, or to be in relationship with it, to believe in it, to be subjects to its plan of moral progress etc.

Conversely it seems to me that we could equally imagine a deity that has no wish for conscious creatures. They would be inferior unfit for relationship, they would be imperfect and sully the perfection of its domain, they would be aggravating and wayward.etc.

We can conjure up infinite reasons on both sides of that question so it seems to me that general theism just doesn't make the existence of conscious beings more probable.

That said, it is of course the case that the Christian worldview has the resources to tip that scale. If one accepts the accounts of the Bible, then the deity is clearly motivated to make conscious creatures.
This leads me to think that the order these arguments are often presented is flawed. We often hear that the cumulative case for God begins with making the general theism case and indeed the fine tuning argument is often one of the first bricks in the road. We are told that once general theism has been established, that we can go on to wonder about the specific nature of the deity.

But based on my analysis here, it seems to me, that unless you have already established the truth of something like the Christian worldview, that general theism doesn't have the resources to escape from skeptical theism as it applies to the cosmic fine tuning argument. This suggests to me that if one wanted to deploy the fine tuning argument, one would first have to demonstrate the existence or likely existence of a personal God.

Thoughts?

Peace
Athee

The argument for fine tuning, as proof of God, rests firmly on the unsupported assumption that the existence of conscious beings is, in itself, indicative of God's existence. This is not necessarily true.

If you take this assumption at face value, then the fine tuning argument becomes redundant. If the existence of conscious beings proves God, then why the need to argue that the circumstances (fine tuning) which produced the conscious beings also proves God?

OB
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi all your, neighbourhood friendly atheist here.

On his excellent YouTube channel Capturing Christianity (apologetics and Christian philosophy Chanel), Cameron hosted a discussion about the fine tuning argument.

As the argument was being laid out the notion was advanced that the presence of conscious beings is very unexpected on naturalism but very expected on theism, indicating that our presence is evidence that strongly favors theism over naturalism.
My worry here is that I'm struggling to see how conscious beings are more probable on theism defined broadly. We can imagine, as billions have, that a deity would want conscious beings to exist for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it wants them to worship it, or to be in relationship with it, to believe in it, to be subjects to its plan of moral progress etc.

Conversely it seems to me that we could equally imagine a deity that has no wish for conscious creatures. They would be inferior unfit for relationship, they would be imperfect and sully the perfection of its domain, they would be aggravating and wayward.etc.

We can conjure up infinite reasons on both sides of that question so it seems to me that general theism just doesn't make the existence of conscious beings more probable.

That said, it is of course the case that the Christian worldview has the resources to tip that scale. If one accepts the accounts of the Bible, then the deity is clearly motivated to make conscious creatures.
This leads me to think that the order these arguments are often presented is flawed. We often hear that the cumulative case for God begins with making the general theism case and indeed the fine tuning argument is often one of the first bricks in the road. We are told that once general theism has been established, that we can go on to wonder about the specific nature of the deity.

But based on my analysis here, it seems to me, that unless you have already established the truth of something like the Christian worldview, that general theism doesn't have the resources to escape from skeptical theism as it applies to the cosmic fine tuning argument. This suggests to me that if one wanted to deploy the fine tuning argument, one would first have to demonstrate the existence or likely existence of a personal God.

Thoughts?

Peace
Athee

The only alternative I see to an eternal God is an eternity past of cycling universes that somehow luckily made us on this particular universe cycle, but I don’t know if it’s physically possible for an eternity past of cycling universes to have existed, hence the need for a supernatural God that at least isn’t always constrained by the physical laws he made.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
The only alternative I see to an eternal God is an eternity past of cycling universes that somehow luckily made us on this particular universe cycle, but I don’t know if it’s physically possible for an eternity past of cycling universes to have existed, hence the need for a supernatural God that at least isn’t always constrained by the physical laws he made.
Statistically we only need one universe. That's the universe we're in. The odds that this universe produced 'us' are certainty. We know that because we exist.
OB
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
41
✟39,486.00
Faith
Humanist
The only alternative I see to an eternal God is an eternity past of cycling universes that somehow luckily made us on this particular universe cycle, but I don’t know if it’s physically possible for an eternity past of cycling universes to have existed, hence the need for a supernatural God that at least isn’t always constrained by the physical laws he made.
I also don't know but what about eternally existing energy or quantum fields or some undiscovered natural process. I wouldn't assert any of those as true but they might be interesting for smarter people than I to wonder about.
I also am curious what did you make of my notion that general theism doesn't predict conscious creatures?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I agree that the order of the arguments is fundamentally flawed, though for a different reason. I think there's a serious issue in defining what "generic theism" means at all--our Western concepts are so shaped by the Abrahamic tradition that I'm not confident we can conceptualize a generic God who is not in some sense Christianized. I've actually tried to escape into pure philosophical theism multiple times, but I've become increasingly unconvinced that you can establish more than a vaguely numinous non-naturalism without drawing from revelation.

In that sense, I think people start with too specific a concept when they immediately jump to trying to defend the probabilities of even a generic God. You need to start with said vaguely numinous non-naturalism and build from that, instead of rushing to incorporate in all of the additional theological baggage that comes with a fully developed theism.

(Incidentally, I do think the argument from consciousness is the best one out there, at least when taken in an ontological rather than cosmological direction.)
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Someone asked about eternal cycles. Many treatments of cosmology I have read say that it's believed this is impossible, for reasons involving entropy. However there are now some concepts of a cyclical universe that seem OK. So the answer seems to be: we don't know (1) whether there are an infinite number of universes, (2) whether there are infinite cycles, (3) whether physical laws are the same everywhere. (It very much appears that they are the same throughout the observable universe. However this could be part of a much larger system.)

This makes fine tuning really hard to assess.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Statistically we only need one universe. That's the universe we're in. The odds that this universe produced 'us' are certainty. We know that because we exist.
OB

Yes, but that doesn’t address the evidence that suggests this universe was caused by something else prior.
 
Upvote 0

Chriliman

Everything I need to be joyful is right here
May 22, 2015
5,895
569
✟163,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I also don't know but what about eternally existing energy or quantum fields or some undiscovered natural process. I wouldn't assert any of those as true but they might be interesting for smarter people than I to wonder about.
I also am curious what did you make of my notion that general theism doesn't predict conscious creatures?

Idk, if we’re assuming theism at all, then the fact that we exists means God, at some point, either wanted us to exist or didn’t stop us from existing.

If we assume eternity past energy or quantum fields then wouldn’t it make sense that it would have made universes prior to ours, given eternity past?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Yes, but that doesn’t address the evidence that suggests this universe was caused by something else prior.
True - but that's another topic.

The OP talked about fine tuning and conscious beings.
OB
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
41
✟39,486.00
Faith
Humanist
Idk, if we’re assuming theism at all, then the fact that we exists means God, at some point, either wanted us to exist or didn’t stop us from existing.

If we assume eternity past energy or quantum fields then wouldn’t it make sense that it would have made universes prior to ours, given eternity past?
Truly I am less interested (for this thread) in possible explanations of the cosmos.
My point is that if all you have is general theism, a being with the power to be the ecessary first cause, that view can't really make a universe like this one more probable since we have no way of knowing what kinds of desires (if any) such a being would have. If arguing for Christian theism then it certainly wcomes more probable but you would then have to first demonstrate the plausibility of the Christian God as a plausible candidate explanation prior to deploying the argument that the apparent fine tuning of the cosmos to produce conscious beings like us, is any evidence for that particular theism.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but that doesn’t address the evidence that suggests this universe was caused by something else prior.

Causality does not exist without the universe already first existing.

If there's some ambient space in which our universe is embedded, and there is a causality defined there, then either you're merely pushing the problem back a step or proposing an infinite regress. The former does nothing to help theism, and the latter makes theism redundant.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Causality does not exist without the universe already first existing.
True.
If there's some ambient space in which our universe is embedded, and there is a causality defined there, then either you're merely pushing the problem back a step or proposing an infinite regress. The former does nothing to help theism, and the latter makes theism redundant.
Why must it be embedded in a 'space'? This is merely anthropomorphising from our experience that we exist 'in' something. So the conclusions you draw are flawed. Causality can come into being with the universe, be an aspect of it, and cause and effect as principles be concurrent. There need not be causality as we understand it, 'outside' the universe. There is no reason to posit a fishbowl universe here. You are dealing here with the fine gradations between Deistic creation, Panentheism and Pantheism, too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Fine Tuning is not the best argument in my opinion, as simply stated, for beings like us to exist, the universe must be as it is. So arguing that it is so, in order for us to exist, is merely a Petitio Principii. That other set-ups might have been is simply conjecture, or that other universes existed, or if we had repeated cycles. We simply don't know. I think people can use it as support for Theism if they wish, but there are much better arguments to be made, and Fine Tuning is best treated as ancillary or supportive. I have really never understood why so many Atheists often treat this as if the most problematic Theist argument - on its own, it holds a shallow fortification.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,159
1,805
✟794,650.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I start with the idea “something” has always existed, because something does not come from nothing unless you redefine nothing as being something, which still means something only comes from something.

This “something” might only be energy (an infinite amount of energy to take can of entropy), since matter has been shown to come from energy, but we have today intelligence, so intelligence would have to come from energy also. (It could be energy and space, but some believe space is an illusion).

We can imagine and see to some degree intelligence coming from intelligence with smarter and smarter computers, but how could it ever come from just pure energy?

We might also imagine even our own intelligence coming from super intelligence and energy, so are we the first intelligence made from just energy or was there a super intelligence before us which made us?

If energy alone could make intelligence than with an infinite amount of time before man comes into the picture, there would most likely be intelligence and even super intelligence, but that also means we would be most likely the result of a previous super intelligence (God).

I really do not see why it takes more “faith” to trust in the eternal existence of energy without God versus energy with God, especially see why humans are here and what God would have to be like.

God, who has been around “forever”, would not be working toward something, but would be at the epidemy of how far you can go. God would be perfect “Love” (totally unselfish) or be totally bad, but whatever God would be He would also have humans perceive that as being something to admire (worship) since we would want them to recognize Him as God and not worship something else.

God being totally unselfish would be trying to gift those He created with the greatest gifts possible, which would include becoming like Himself in that these beings would have His Love.

There is really nothing you (a created being) can “do” to help the Creator, but you can allow of your own free will God to help you, which is God’s desire since God is a huge giver of gifts.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves. Would becoming like God Himself not be the greatest gift we could get?

The objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain this Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is to be created with instinctive (programmed) Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real likely alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

In order to be forgiven of sin you must first sin, so sin is necessary but not desired.

This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing mature adult individuals to see, receive, give, experience, accept and know Godly type Love. All these tragedies provide opportunities for Love, but that does not mean we go around causing opportunities, since we are to be ceasing these opportunities (there are plenty of opportunities) to show/experience Love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think generic Theism is, in actuality, that broad, but rather that a single property from a set of likely properties is being used in the FTA. That property being the ability to create conscious beings. If it is the case that there is a being that created us, that would strongly imply additional properties that would best explain the nature of the created being and the created world the being exists in. We can know that our hands are for grasping by observing how fit they are for grasping. In the same way if a generic God created us He created our intellectual faculties to point toward reality in a way that accomplishes His purpose. (If he didn't then we don't have the intellectual faculties to continue). Generic God also created our moral intuitions. Such a high degree of intellectual and moral faculties seems to indicate a high degree of expectations and purpose regarding them. That seems to indicate an attribute of being personal.

So in short, I think if generic God is to be taken as the explanation of fine tuning, it necessarily implies a further set of attributes which are required to explain the world and beings that were actually created. IMO those attributes suggest a being that would interact with His creation to some degree. Especially given the imperative of moral duties in our intuitions and the fear of consequence that comes with it. We could certainly disagree on what could be implied, but I think we should be able to imply more upon generic God than simply it's ability to create.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,555
Colorado
✟427,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
....As the argument was being laid out the notion was advanced that the presence of conscious beings is very unexpected on naturalism but very expected on theism, indicating that our presence is evidence that strongly favors theism over naturalism.....
For any event, you can always write up a new story in which the event is more probable than the current story.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums