I really just wanted to
re-post this from
Debunking Christianity, where a user by the moniker D Rizdek had a great comment on
this thread. It's a unique perspective on the old
fine-tuning canard that I've never heard before, and I'm only going to add to it with
a little topical self-promotion. Anyway, here's the quote:
Fine tuning only makes sense if there is no god. If there is no god,
then it is quite remarkable that all the universal constants seem to be
"just so" such that matter/energy comes together in atoms, then
molecules, that gravity is "just right" so that planets and suns form
that give off light that nurtures life, blah blah. But that's only
remarkable if there's no god. But of course that indicates there's no
god.
If there IS a god, then it's all mundane. It's all arbitrary. Matter
and energy can behave anyway this god wants it to. There need be no
universal constants at all, or they can be ANYTHING this god desires,
because,well, it's god. God can design things any it want's to. Life
need not have a planet it live on IF god designed it otherwise.
Matter/energy need not come together to form atoms, planets and stars.
What would be the point if life doesn't need them. Besides, if god
wanted atoms, planets or start, they'd just appear without any
constants. Because that's what gods do. It's only after applying human
limitations on god that one can use the argument from fine tuning. The
reasoning is that because WE are limited in how we must interact with
the immutable physical universe, somehow the theist becomes ingrained in
thinking their god must also be thus limited. They believe he must
come up with "just so" constants otherwise nothing would work.
 |
| Giant gas cloud in lifeless void, clearly proving the universe was designed to support life |
Comments
Post a Comment