"Fine-tuned for life" - supposed to be an argument for a designer or for a creator?

[GrowingSmaller]

I am fallible. There's no sign of God. I may be wrong, so therefore I am not looking hard enough.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

'Fine-tuned for life' is simply the idea that the Earth is unique in it's design and purpose, having a very questionably rare paradigm of events and workings for life to prevail.

There's no scientific proof of alien existence, and the Fermi paradox, though attempting to be tackled recently, is still a problem for astrophysics and mathematics- there is something obviously off about the notion the universe should be filled with life.

 

[Foxhole87]

'Fine-tuned for life' is simply the idea that the Earth is unique in it's design and purpose, having a very questionably rare paradigm of events and workings for life to prevail.

There's no scientific proof of alien existence, and the Fermi paradox, though attempting to be tackled recently, is still a problem for astrophysics and mathematics- there is something obviously off about the notion the universe should be filled with life.

The earth, or the universe? Because there's someone on the forums right now arguing, to and beyond exhaustion, that the universe was finely tuned for life. I'd argue the positions are mutually exclusive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quatona, is the universe too big for you or something?

 

[quatona]

Quatona, is the universe too big for you or something?

Here´s hoping you are more careful and attentive when you read and interprete the bible than when you read and interpreted my OP.
Now, why don´t you go to one of your counting threads?

 

[SkyWriting]

However, the "fine-tuned/designed for life" argument rests on the idea that an incredibly huge, complex universe is required for sustaining a tiny bit of life in an incredibly small and insignificant spot in this universe.

You talk pretty big for such an insignificant number atoms.
Why should we ponder your question when we have clusters
of galaxies that are much bigger in size.....to chat with?

 

[quatona]

You talk pretty big for such an insignificant number atoms.
Why should we ponder your question when we have clusters
of galaxies that are much bigger in size.....to chat with?

Well, you have become a member of a discussion board the purpose of which is to talk with other people.
You are free and welcome to chat with those clusters instead. To each their own. Goodbye.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is not the teleological argument. It seems you have a misunderstanding of what a defense of the argument entails and what it does not. I am a proponent of the argument and am willing to discuss it if you are open to accepting the conclusion.

You mean the teleological fallacy....

 

[DogmaHunter]

The teleological or fine-tuning argument is an argument for the hypothesis that the fine-tuning observed in the cosmos is due to design. The argument attempts to show that the competing hypotheses i.e. chance and necessity cannot adequately account for the fine-tuning observed in the universe and that therefore

So.... the "fine-tuning" is an argument from ignorance right out of the gates?

"this and this doesn't explain it, therefor god"?

, the fine-tuning is due to design because there are only three hypotheses that can account for the fine-tuning. They are: chance, necessity, and design.

Right, right....

So first, you setup a false dichotomy.
Then you rule out all the options at face value except the one you want to have left over.
Then you say that the one you want to conclude is the correct one.
And your "evidence" for that conclusion is "the other explanations are wrong".

I don't think you could make this argument even more fallacious if you tried.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lots of criticism of the "fine-tuning/design"-arguments have been given in countless threads.

Here I´d like to focus on just one point that I can´t seem to be able to make sense of:

One token of (good, intelligent) design is elegance and parsimony.
However, the "fine-tuned/designed for life" argument rests on the idea that an incredibly huge, complex universe is required for sustaining a tiny bit of life in an incredibly small and insignificant spot in this universe.

Doesn´t look like good design to me, sorry. Unparsimonous to the max and full of redundancy.

Unless, of course, this huge, complex system was necessary for life to be able to exist. Which raises the question: What powers did the designer have? What were the pre-existing conditions that he had to accept as given, and with which he could just fiddle around? What about those often-cited "constants" - did he actually create/invent them, or were they something that already existed and that he had to accept as given?

So what am I supposed to believe, exactly? That there was a creator who created conditions, laws, constants and other such stuff, and then there was a designer who tweaked these until life was possible?
Or do you actually refer to an omnipotent ex-nihilo-creator as a "designer" - in which case he certainly could have simply created life directly - without creating the fact that a huge universe is required for there to be some life, along with it.

The other problem is that the supposed creator has to repeatedly interdict in the natural process to create life, create humans, create just the right planet, and the other claims that creationists claim. The fact of the matter is that the universe that creationists claim is fine tuned for life is hostile to life.

For all we know, God tried to create a sterile universe with multicolored nebulae and supernovae . . . and failed. Perhaps we are like the mold on God's bread, or the bird poop stains on a beautiful statue.