When sophisticated debaters like William Lane Craig debate the issue of God's existence, they do so under the supposition of Big Bang cosmology, not the literal Genesis account of creation. It turns out that the Big bang produced certain laws/constants that, had they been any different to the slightest degree, the universe would not have allowed the emergence of life. An example of this is the weakness of gravity. If the physical constants produced from the Big Bang were slightly altered then gravity could have been much stronger than it is, causing stars to quickly collapse in upon themselves and planets would have never been produced.
According to the proponents of the arguments, the physical constants being the way they are to allow the formation of life is so slim to be one in many billions. For a universe with the actual natural laws to have come into existence is therefore so improbable that it cannot have happened by chance. Thus, it requires a special explanation -- God.
I do not find this argument convincing. Here are my objections:
#1. The fine tuning argument relies on a major assumption: other combinations of physical constants are even possible. Granted, other combinations are conceivable. People like Craig spend a lot of time describing different combinations of constants that would not allow for the emergence of life. But the fact that the constants could have been something else remains unproven. Conceivability does not equate to possibility.
To say that any imaginable combination of laws/constants are possible assumes that there are more fundamental laws above and beyond the physical laws of our universe, and according to those more fundamental laws, any other laws could have easily been true of our universe. This is a huge claim that no theist has proven. This leads us to the second objection:
#2. Without the evidence to demonstrate that any other conceivable combination of physical constants are even possible then there's no reason to think that the present physical constants are not a necessary fact. To ask why constants/physical laws are the way they are is to presuppose that there is an ultimate reason to be found, something beyond the material. But if the existence of the universe is a necessary fact then there is no reason or cause to be found.
#3. Even if the laws could have been any other possible combination, it doesn't follow necessarily that our set of laws would be as improbable as theists make it out to be. The long odds against the universe having laws allowing life to emerge are arrived at by multiplying each each of the several probabilities. However, if the laws and conditions are not independent then the probability theory does not allow us to multiply the probabilities. If the constants are not fully independent then it would be a mistake to multiply them since the probability of the universe having the laws it has could either be much higher (or possibly much lower).
#4. The fine tuning argument proceeds by looking at just one or a few laws or constants different from those in our universe, assuming that all other laws would remain the same. If we assume that all the laws might simultaneously be different, the conclusion does not follow. No attempt has been made to show that the emergence of life is improbable, given that all logically possible combinations of laws are possible.
#5. Let's suppose that the probability of our universe producing life-permitting physical constants is too improbable. Still, the argument must assume that there is only one universe. If there are, or have been a great many universes, or perhaps an infinite stream of universes then it would not be too improbable for some of those universes to have the laws required for life.
#6. Lee Smolin has suggested that universes may reproduce, in the sense that events in one universe may give rise to other universes. If , for instance, there are universes that produce new universe by generating black holes, and if universes tend to generate new universes in some respects like themselves, then there would be a natural selection of universes likely to form black holes, and therefore there would be natural selection for universes having laws very much like ours.
#7. Fine tuning is an argument against design. The idea of extreme fine tuning beyond which the target can exist is not indicative of an intelligent designer. To understand this, an analogy is required. Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as fine tuning. The atmosphere composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life and would require an "explanation". But how could this justify intelligent design?
A designer would not make it to where humans are constantly in danger of suffocation. An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, that ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. This is the case with humans who can breath in atmospheres rich and thin in oxygen.
#8 The fine tuning argument lacks specificity. People assume that it must have been caused by a personal God, but I see no reason to think that's a necessary conclusion. It is possible to imagine that a supernatural process, law, or impersonal creator caused the universe to come into existence, instead of a personal being.
#9. Most of the universe, far from being hospitable to life, is actually lethal to life. Who would conclude that, a house that is swamped with a lethal vacuum deadly radiation is perfectly designed for life just because there is a microscopic speck of area that sustains life? Would you conclude that the house was built to serve and benefit the subatomic speck? Yet this is precisely how theists view the universe.
Our universe is the perfect universe, not for producing life, but for producing black holes. The emergence of life is simply a by-product of our perfect black hole generator universe. Richard Carrier has offered a simple analogy: If you found a pair of scissors and didn't know what they were designed for, you could hypothesize that they were designed as a screwdriver, since scissors can drive screws. Once you became aware of the fact that scissors our perfectly designed for cutting paper, it would become clear that their ability to drive screws is simply a by-product of their design. Nobody would never continue to cling to their idea that the scissors were designed to drive screws. Likewise, understanding that our universe is primarily "designed" to be a perfect black hole generator, and that the emergence of life is simply a by-product of that "design", there no longer remains a reason to think that the "design" of the universe is to allow the emergence of life anymore than the design of scissors being for driving screws.
In light of all these objections, I conclude that the fine tuning argument fails. It is the majesty of natural law, not a god, that fills the heavens.
No comments:
Post a Comment