What is the Most Persistent Objection to the Fine-Tuning Argument?

Dr. Craig and Dr. Frank Turek discuss the most common objections to the fine tuning argument from both lay and academic audiences!

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[godonlyone]

Love these two -- it's great to see them together!

[empiric]

And, of course, the fact that whatever produced the "multiverse" would have to be even more Fine Tuned than our observable universe...

[tiffanymagee]

The multiverse hypothesis would require some kind of universe creating mechanism which itself would require fine-tuning. So the multiverse doesn't dodge the fine-tuning reality after all.

[Me-dvcu]

3:30 EXACTLY! When they start going down that road I just say "Boy you really are fishing and going head over backwards just to avoid sating G-D is at the very least a very likely possibility aren't you?"
I mean people say we should follow statistical data, and YEAH then they go around creating these unlikely, random scenarios that do nothing but just add a couple more steps to reach G-D instead of just going to the pretty straightforward answer.
Whoever's positing this is just trying to doge the answer and reveals more about their psychology than their philosophy.

[lme]

What fine tuning? Most of the universe is incredibly hostile towards life and even life on earth struggles to survive within its specific habitat.
If a god was all powerful, why would he/she/it need to fine tune it for anything?

[hooligan]

A comedy of irony and arrogant assumption.

[WhiteScorpio]

We can observe that the Universe exists in a certain way. The Universe may or may not have existed in other ways, who the fuck knows. Life arose in a Universe that had properties that allowed life to arise. OK. Where does this "fine-tuning" thing come from, exactly?

[dmitrimikrioukov]

An atheist gets punched in the face. The atheist asks, "Why did you just do that?" The attackers respond, "Well, we didn't. You see, you just happened to be in such a universe where you hallucinated this way."

[all_time_Jelly_Fish]

the most ridiculous assertion here is that theoretical physicist are proposing models based on theological concerns.

[seannoll]

I recently heard it put this way. If you're an atheist who holds to the multiverse theory, you believe in an existence where literally ANYTHING and EVERYTHING exists.... except the possibility of an intelligent designer.

And theists are the ones who are unreasonable for our beliefs?

[reasonforge]

Unless observers are not merely a feature of one of these supposed many universes, but are actually some kind of thing that exists whether or not a physical universe exists and then get sucked to the right universe in the supposed multiverse, then there can be no reason to suppose observers existing is different than any other phenomena that is improbable such as just assuming all written works of shakespear was written by monkeys by wild chance and we happen to be in the universe where it happened.

[katamas]

Simple objection: What makes you think that the *constants* of the universe are *variable?* Fine tuning only makes sense if you can tune the value. What makes you think the value is tunable in the first place?

[johnnyllooddte]

there is no plausible argument AGAINST the precision of fine tuning of the universe.. ZERO ZIP NADA... there is a Creator..

[nateronipizza]

Does anyone know where Dr. Roger Penrose makes that statement about multiverse? I would love to hear more of his thoughts on the matter, but I can't seem to find that particular argument.

[JackgarPrime]

You use one of my biggest annoyances when I hear apologists talk about opposition to the fine tuning argument. That is, that the most common one you hear is the multiverse hypothesis.

Who is saying this? I listen to a LOT of discussion around this topic, and opponents of the fine tuning argument tend to bring up many, many things other than multiverse. In fact, I've rarely seen it used as a go-to counterargument. Personally, I could probably go on for hours about my opposition to the fine tuning argument without bringing up the multiverse hypothesis a single time.

It feels like you're trying to cherrypick what you consider to be the weakest and most esoteric potential argument and portray that as the most common because its the one you most enjoy arguing against. When really, things like the hostility of the universe to life outside of our one unimaginably tiny dot upon a dot upon a dot are arguments I hear vastly more often . Even our own planet has many, many ways of killing us and places where we would never be able to survive to begin with. So I think even putting multiverse as being in the top 5 is either being woefully disingenuous or the folks you're talking to are wildly non representative of the positions.

[lkhotinthang]

Two of the greatest apologist in our christendom

[abrahamgena]

There are two possible worldviews here: a finely tuned universe suggesting that there is a fine tuner; or a multiverse, where everything that can possibly happen, does happen, and we are the luck of the draw. Both worldviews have no concrete evidence, therefore whichever you prefer, you nonetheless have to have a measure of 'faith' in which is true.

[snakeb]

What about the sunny that there's no evidence that the universal constants are adjustable but could be necessary in their nature

[MrFossilabgfyth]

Nice and interesting discussion, like always. A multiverse may well exist, the same goes for other realms outside our very own. Now, there is no evidence to prove this, but it is definitely possible. Just last week, I was having a conversation with my Dad about creation and intelligent design. I brought up the fine-tuning argument. But the thing is, the Fine-tuning of the universe could be a product of natural causes overtime. May things set themselves into motion through natural means. But, that doesn't mean God isn't the maker of it all.

[maksimbolonkin]

It's frustrating to see how two apologists talk to each other, how they carefully avoid any tricky questions and only focus on stuff that is convenient for them. You would never expect Turek to ask WLC
- why do you think constant can change in the first place
- how do you calculate those "vastly low" probabilities and why don't you calculate a probability of your god existing by the same principles
- how is the Universe fine tuned for our existence if we can only exist in the minuscule part of that Universe
- so you are saying that your god couldn't change those constants and still let us exist? Isn't he supposed to be almighty?