The Fine Tuning Argument has bothered me for a long time because it has always seemed to be the one good argument theists have. Most theistic arguments are very poor. The Watchmaker Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for instance, can be refuted as a footnote. The Fine Tuning Argument, on the other hand, was a bit more difficult for me to see.
To start, consider the Ideal Gas Law from Chemistry:
PV=nRT
This is an equation which relates pressure, volume, number of particles, and temperature. The term R is a constant which makes the equation true. Is R a fine-tuned constant? Yes. It is finely tuned by us. Humanity painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant, so that future chemists could derive, say, temperature when given the other three variables. But R is absolutely not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; if it were, we would expect this equation to be valid, say, within the core of the sun.
This section is invalid as pointed out in comments below.
Similarly, Newton's gravitational constant G is just a number we insert into gravitational equations in order to make them true, and to make predictions. But G will not work in all situations. Obviously, G does not apply inside a black hole. G is not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; G is finely tuned by us.
So we need to find a constant that is applicable in all possible scenarios. Not even c seems to qualify, given our knowledge of quantum mechanics. If we have a constant that is applicable in some scenarios but not in others, then, as far as we can tell, the constant is finely tuned by humans. It will not be until we find a constant that is applicable in all scenarios that we can even have a discussion on this matter.
Let me also explain, as far as I understand things, why some cosmologists apparently attest to fine tuning. Theists have quoted atheist cosmologists as being sympathetic to fine tuning, and for the moment I will assume that the theist is both correct and honest in such citations. My understanding is that cosmologists run simulations of the early universe and change the values of certain constants by small degrees, only to witness disaster. But this result would have been predicted by what I'm saying: if the cosmologists finely tuned constants to make their equations work, then obviously there will be problems if they alter those constants. Perhaps if we got someone on here who knew what they were talking about, they might tell us that the very point of early-universe simulations is for astro-physicists to finely tune their constants.
And simulating the Big Bang is already a fool's errand for a ton of reasons. First, there may exist some particle which we will never be able to create in a particle accelerator because it requires more condensed energy than even exists in our current Hubble Sphere; and if this speculative particle played a significant role in the outcome of the Big Bang, we will never be able to fully model the Big Bang. Second, and most obviously, the Big Bang involved a Relativistic amount of mass (all mass in the universe) and therefore Relativity cannot be ignored, and yet the Big Bang occurred on the smallest scale possible and therefore quantum mechanics cannot be ignored; unfortunately, we currently lack the language to make these two theories compatible with one another. It is fundamentally impossible for us to accurately model the Big Bang at this point. Fine Tuning is something we can only claim once we actually know everything that is relevant.
In conclusion, I'll summarize via a logical syllogism:
1.) If a physical constant is applicable under some conditions but not under others, then the constant is man-made and is not intrinsic to the universe.
2.) There is no known physical constant that is applicable under all conditions.
3.) By 2), there is no known physical constant that is intrinsic to the universe.
4.) By 3), there is no known physical constant that is finely tuned.
Footnote
PV=nRT
This is an equation which relates pressure, volume, number of particles, and temperature. The term R is a constant which makes the equation true. Is R a fine-tuned constant? Yes. It is finely tuned by us. Humanity painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant, so that future chemists could derive, say, temperature when given the other three variables. But R is absolutely not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; if it were, we would expect this equation to be valid, say, within the core of the sun.
This section is invalid as pointed out in comments below.
Similarly, Newton's gravitational constant G is just a number we insert into gravitational equations in order to make them true, and to make predictions. But G will not work in all situations. Obviously, G does not apply inside a black hole. G is not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; G is finely tuned by us.
So we need to find a constant that is applicable in all possible scenarios. Not even c seems to qualify, given our knowledge of quantum mechanics. If we have a constant that is applicable in some scenarios but not in others, then, as far as we can tell, the constant is finely tuned by humans. It will not be until we find a constant that is applicable in all scenarios that we can even have a discussion on this matter.
Let me also explain, as far as I understand things, why some cosmologists apparently attest to fine tuning. Theists have quoted atheist cosmologists as being sympathetic to fine tuning, and for the moment I will assume that the theist is both correct and honest in such citations. My understanding is that cosmologists run simulations of the early universe and change the values of certain constants by small degrees, only to witness disaster. But this result would have been predicted by what I'm saying: if the cosmologists finely tuned constants to make their equations work, then obviously there will be problems if they alter those constants. Perhaps if we got someone on here who knew what they were talking about, they might tell us that the very point of early-universe simulations is for astro-physicists to finely tune their constants.
And simulating the Big Bang is already a fool's errand for a ton of reasons. First, there may exist some particle which we will never be able to create in a particle accelerator because it requires more condensed energy than even exists in our current Hubble Sphere; and if this speculative particle played a significant role in the outcome of the Big Bang, we will never be able to fully model the Big Bang. Second, and most obviously, the Big Bang involved a Relativistic amount of mass (all mass in the universe) and therefore Relativity cannot be ignored, and yet the Big Bang occurred on the smallest scale possible and therefore quantum mechanics cannot be ignored; unfortunately, we currently lack the language to make these two theories compatible with one another. It is fundamentally impossible for us to accurately model the Big Bang at this point. Fine Tuning is something we can only claim once we actually know everything that is relevant.
In conclusion, I'll summarize via a logical syllogism:
1.) If a physical constant is applicable under some conditions but not under others, then the constant is man-made and is not intrinsic to the universe.
2.) There is no known physical constant that is applicable under all conditions.
3.) By 2), there is no known physical constant that is intrinsic to the universe.
4.) By 3), there is no known physical constant that is finely tuned.
Footnote
The Watchmaker Argument Debunked
1.) We find a watch in the forest, and, by contrasting it with the forest, we conclude that the watch is designed.
2.) This means we are starting with the assumption that the forest is not designed.
3.) The argument then attempts to conclude that nature is designed.
4.) Since the argument is not a proof by contradiction, the argument is fatally flawed.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
1.) As causality is defined, a cause and an effect must be separated by some amount of time.
2.) The Big Bang was the first moment of time and was not preceded by anything.
3.) By 2.), the cause for the Big Bang could not have been before the Big Bang.
4.) It is commonly agreed that the cause for the Big Bang did not occur after the Big Bang (retrocausality).
5.) There could not have been a cause for the Big Bang.
1.) We find a watch in the forest, and, by contrasting it with the forest, we conclude that the watch is designed.
2.) This means we are starting with the assumption that the forest is not designed.
3.) The argument then attempts to conclude that nature is designed.
4.) Since the argument is not a proof by contradiction, the argument is fatally flawed.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
1.) As causality is defined, a cause and an effect must be separated by some amount of time.
2.) The Big Bang was the first moment of time and was not preceded by anything.
3.) By 2.), the cause for the Big Bang could not have been before the Big Bang.
4.) It is commonly agreed that the cause for the Big Bang did not occur after the Big Bang (retrocausality).
5.) There could not have been a cause for the Big Bang.
Last edited: