From philosopher Hans Halvorson at Nautilus blog:
This new fine-tuning design argument claims the imprimatur of physics, and is presented in quantitatively precise terms: among the set of all possible universes, the percentage that could sustain life is so small that the human mind cannot imagine it. By all rights, our universe shouldn’t have existed. What wonder that our universe has given birth to life, especially intelligent life. It seems the only explanation for this wildly improbable outcome is the supposition that there is a Designer.
There’s a deep problem lurking in the background of the fine-tuning argument, which rests on two factual claims. One is that a life-conducive universe exists. And the second is that this kind of universe is improbable.* It’s the second fact that is responsible for the resurrection of the design argument, and fine-tuning advocates are so focused on using it as a premise that they’ve failed to see that it needs explanation. That is, why is it the case that it’s unlikely for an arbitrary universe to be conducive to life? It’s not plausible to write it off as a brute necessity, because it’s not obvious that this had to be the case, nor could it have been discovered by pure reason alone. The reason to believe the second fact is because it is a prediction of our best physical theory.
But even if we do find the much-needed explanation, it will be disastrous for the fine-tuning argument, because it would disconfirm God’s existence. After all, a benevolent God would want to create the physical laws so that life-conducive universes would be overwhelmingly likely. More.
But that’s a ridiculous objection. We believe our universe to be fine-tuned on the basis of evidence for the fine-tuning. We know of no other universes to compare it with. There is no way of evaluating the question of whether it would be more benevolent to create more universes as we have no idea what the ramifications would be, from a divine perspective.
Is this the best argument against fine-tuning available, this side of crackpot cosmology?
See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Multiverse cosmology at your fingertips
Follow UD News at Twitter!