God and Fine-Tuning
The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is often presented as evidence for the truth of theism over atheism. However, it seems that even if the FTA (Fine-Tuning Argument) is able to conclude that some extra-universe cause with intentionality created the universe as it currently is, it seems that this does not necessarily lead to the inference that this cause is be identified with the God that most people would have in mind, namely one that has all the omni-properties. To put it concisely, the worry is that the FTA may actually be overstating its case. The following argument shows why this may be the case:
1. According to the FTA, if some property x was not present at the conception of the universe, then the universe would not have existed.
2. If the universe could not have existed, then God could have failed to achieve His purposes.
3. If God could have failed to achieve His purposes, then God is not omnipotent or omniscient.
4. If God is not omnipotent or omniscient, then the God portrayed by the FTA is not the same God that most theists believe in.
5. Therefore, if, according to the FTA, some property x was not present at the conception of the universe, then the God portrayed by the FTA is not the same God that most theists believe in.
The most contentious premise, and the one that is key to this argument, is premise three. To illustrate the problem with this premise, one could very well conceive of a scenario where the most intelligent engineer in the world has the capability to always build the perfect car and always has the best machines to build said perfect car without apparent fail. However, the engineer is always tasked by her higher ups to build normal cars using machines that could fail to produce the end product. Based on the above scenario, it is apparent that however a product turns out, this does not necessarily reflect the capabilities of the creator. There is some truth to the above scenario, however, this just then leads to this question: is the precarious nature of the universe just an appearance? If so, then the fact that the universe could have failed to exist is not really all that interesting after all since the end result was certain regardless of the conditions. If not, then God must not be omnipotent or omniscient since only in the absence of these qualities could it genuinely be the case that the universe was contingent. Neither of the above would be satisfactory for the theist who advocates for the FTA.
1. According to the FTA, if some property x was not present at the conception of the universe, then the universe would not have existed.
2. If the universe could not have existed, then God could have failed to achieve His purposes.
3. If God could have failed to achieve His purposes, then God is not omnipotent or omniscient.
4. If God is not omnipotent or omniscient, then the God portrayed by the FTA is not the same God that most theists believe in.
5. Therefore, if, according to the FTA, some property x was not present at the conception of the universe, then the God portrayed by the FTA is not the same God that most theists believe in.
The most contentious premise, and the one that is key to this argument, is premise three. To illustrate the problem with this premise, one could very well conceive of a scenario where the most intelligent engineer in the world has the capability to always build the perfect car and always has the best machines to build said perfect car without apparent fail. However, the engineer is always tasked by her higher ups to build normal cars using machines that could fail to produce the end product. Based on the above scenario, it is apparent that however a product turns out, this does not necessarily reflect the capabilities of the creator. There is some truth to the above scenario, however, this just then leads to this question: is the precarious nature of the universe just an appearance? If so, then the fact that the universe could have failed to exist is not really all that interesting after all since the end result was certain regardless of the conditions. If not, then God must not be omnipotent or omniscient since only in the absence of these qualities could it genuinely be the case that the universe was contingent. Neither of the above would be satisfactory for the theist who advocates for the FTA.
Comments (8)
There are other reasons, reasons that are compatible with omnipotence, for the possibility that the universe couldn't have existed: Tiger Spares Deer's Life
As a minor note, the argument is not that the universe could not have existed if it lacked some feature, but that it would have been lifeless if its fundamental parameters were not confined within a narrow range. I suppose this correction doesn't affect the logic of the argument, which, I confess, escapes me.
God is usually said to be both all-powerful and free. Freedom is only meaningful if there are alternative possibilities. If the world could not have been otherwise than it is, as a matter of metaphysical law, that would have robbed God of freedom and of power to choose and bring about one state of the world over another. Indeed, God would have been superfluous in such a world. For God to be free and omnipotent, it ought to be metaphysically possible for the world to have been different.
:up:
Here is where the equivocation occurs:
Quoting Jjnan1
In the first "could" the possibility might be due to lack of will rather than lack of power. In the second, you assume that God has willed a purpose, which might not be true based on the premise.
I think that my primary concern with this argument is premise 1, and that the FTA makes claims about the existence of life in the universe rather than about the existence of the universe itself. I think that some defendants of FTA mention the necessary states for the beginning of the universe according to Big Bang theory, but my understanding is that FTA focuses on the states/parameters in which life exists in the universe, and then infers that these parameters are not just the result of chance but of a “mind” that designed it to be so. I do think that you make a great point to question whether the FTA truly leads to the existence of a God that theists typically believe in, or just a super-being with a super-mind. This is where I think Theists get in trouble for jumping to the conclusion of a personal God, rather than examining if the FTA conclusion supposes that.
Against P1, the FTA asserts that the properties present at the conception of the universe (particularly the strength of gravity) have allowed for the universe to continue existing after its beginning without immediately collapsing in on itself or expanding at too rapid a rate. This “property x” is not the reason that the universe came to exist, but a parameter in which the universe can continue to exist and life (like us) can exist and observe such a parameter. Another issue with the argument could arise from Premises 2 & 3 if we don’t do something about P1. I am trying to think of a way in which the two “coulds” in P2 make sense. P2 says that because there is a chance that the universe could of not existed, then God could have failed to bring it about. Is it true that “if the universe could not have existed, then God could have failed to achieve his purposes?” I don’t think it follows that God’s ability (success or failure) follows the potential existence of the universe. I’d suggest rather that God’s ability/decision to create or not create is the deciding factor in the possibility of the universe. If God is the necessary being that God is described to be, and the universe is contingent, wouldn’t the universe’s existence or nonexistence be a result of God’s purposes either way?
I also do not agree further that God is not omnipotent or omniscient because God could have failed to achieve his purposes (P3). This seems like a kind of omnipotence or omniscience that is too rigid to be appropriately defended, and I can see how God could have the potential to fail, but does not because of his maximal goodness/knowledge, and thus still possesses these omni-traits.
Your first premise says, “According to the FTA, if some property x was not present at the conception of the universe, then the universe would not have existed.” This doesn’t seem to affect your argument as much as the objection to premise 2; however, if I remember correctly, the FTA was saying that the universe required a very precise combination of factors to exist and be inhabitable. This precise combination of factors actually happening is supposedly extremely unlikely without God. There wasn’t just one property that had to be present for the universe to exist. The Christian God seems almost like the x in the premise, except I suppose without Him, the universe could have existed, albeit it would have been extremely unlikely. To summarize, the FTA just seems to be saying that our universe seems more likely under a being like God rather than by chance. This being can be any universe creator, including the Christian God.
Going back to objecting premise 2, maybe you meant that God could have failed to achieve something that He wanted to do. However, like I have said earlier, it can be said that the universe could not have existed, but under the FTA, that refers to an existence by chance where God does not exist. It seems to me that the FTA would allow that if God exists, He created the universe and is omnipotent, but the FTA was just trying to show whether an omnipotent God creating the universe or a universe created by chance is more probable. Since the FTA says that the universe could have not existed if it was created by chance, then I don’t think that itself entails that God could have failed because in that scenario God does not exist.