An argument for intelligent design that I commonly hear is that the universe is: that in order for life to exist, certainly universal constants must be in place. The intelligent [sic] design community posit that the universe is so incredibly complex, that it MUST have been created by a designer.
Dear Christians, I have some important news for you: the universe is NOT fine-tuned for your fucken existence.
You cannot live on almost 80% of the entire earth’s surface without technological assistance, living outside of the earth’s atmosphere is an impossibility, we have bugs and creatures that were specifically “designed” to kill you, and to top it all off, most of the universe is empty space where humanity dare not traverse in their current state, lest they be killed in an instant by the elements. Just because we have one small place in a tiny region of our small galaxy where people can survive, doesn’t mean that you can logically conclude that the universe was made for your existence. No. Just no. The universe is a place where there is a lot of recycling going on, along with a lot of destruction, and elements fighting each other for space and time. The only reason humans have been able to survive as effectively as they have is because of our own interventions – by creating houses/shelter, by creating tools to kill predators before they kill us, and slowly designing medicine to treat ailments. If this was a “special design,” then it was poorly done.
Famous Christian apologist William L. Craig posits that there needs to be a “first uncaused cause,” and this “uncaused cause” needs to be “maximally intelligent” due to the existence of intelligent beings (ie. humans). He continues to argue that this “uncaused cause” must be “timeless,” “spaceless,” and “personal.” Craig continues to argue that everything that exists MUST have a cause, and that the universe is extremely complex with intelligent life. Because the universe is incredibly complex with “intelligent beings,” an intelligent designer MUST have created the universe.
Mr Craig, what kind of fucken rhetoric is this? You have no fucken clue how the universe came to be, and you simply can’t just make up an answer if you don’t know. You are assuming that the universe had a beginning, but once again – how do you know? We may be able to trace it back 14,000,000,000 years, but prior to that, we don’t have a definitive idea on where/when time began. The next assumption you make on top of having a “being” create everything is that your being needs to be “personal,” as well as “timeless,” and “space less.” What is your evidence that such a being exists? All William Lane Craig has done is raise an opinion that simply raises more questions. Once again, why create an opinion when you have no fucken clue how everything started in the first place? Also, why does there need to be a “first cause”? Causality is a human-made concept. How do you know the universe needs a beginning to begin with? Time is a human perception, and we measure it in an abstract way. Again, why does there need to be a “first cause?” A simple question that blows William Lane Craig’s sophistry out of the water is this, “What is the cause of this intelligent designer?” If you can “beg the question,” then what is stopping me from doing so?
As I mentioned earlier, the universe isn’t fine-tuned for human life. “Universal Constants” is a buzz-phrase that proponents of the Intelligent Design community use often to suggest that the universe would fall apart. The “Universal Constants” are apparently required to “fine tune” what we have. But seriously: what universal constant is needed or everything will fall apart? Are we talking about the speed of light? The speed of light isn’t exactly constant (unless we are talking about this constant in the case of a vacuum). If this (or any other) constant did change, who’s to say that life couldn’t occur? Perhaps the life would be different, or perhaps there would not be life at all, I don’t know. Who’s to say (apart from other humans) that the universe is “fine-tuned” for us? This is a ridiculous proposition as 99.999999999999………% of the universe cannot sustain life as we know it. Most of it is empty space.
Creationists will continue the argument by suggesting that scientists have accepted that the universe is “fine tuned.” The fine-tuning argument is not a universal scientific idea, and depending on who you ask will also depend to what extent they regard the importance of different variables. It goes all the way from having a very loose idea of which variables are required, to having a very strict idea of variables (ie. Distance of planet from star, elements on planet, gravity, etc.). The problem with this approach is that it is anthropomorphic. It doesn’t take into account that there may be life that has the capability of living in a completely different kind of atmosphere and composed of completely different elements. I saw a theory once that posited life could be incorporeal. It was just a theory, but it was a fascinating idea. Technically speaking, religious people already believe in incorporeal beings. It is within the realm of possibility.
The fine-tuning argument relies heaving on having an anthropomorphic factor, and this is a very narrow scope of thinking. Who’s to say that the different variables couldn’t change and we could have completely different forms of life? What of the incorporeal beings that religious people believe in? What do they require to survive? Even energy that interacts within an environment would have some form of requirements for survival. The fine-tuning argument is an argument from the consequences, and it doesn’t take into account the infinitesimal possibility of life evolving or the universe getting along without us, or any other form of life. Sure the universe would be different if the variables were different, but how is this an issue? Of course it would be different, and all-in-all I don’t think that any of it matters.
Fine-tuning? No, you have presented a circular argument. Try again.