Furthermore, the notion that everything that begins to exist requires a cause also has implications on the notion of free will. For if a thought “begins to exist” in my mind, then it too must require a cause, otherwise it violates the way the principle of sufficient reason is being used here. If my thought requires a cause, there must have been some kind of antecedent chain of events that lead to my thought being caused, like if for example, the atoms in my brain caused me to have that thought due to a regress of physical causes going back to the big bang. Such an idea would lead one to adopt determinism. But if my thought is not caused in such a manner, then it must begin to exist without a cause. Saying my “soul’ caused the thought only takes it one step back. What caused the soul to cause the thought?

I'm arguing a hypothetical on a site full of Catholic theology. Imagine that !

Seriously I'm not arguing a hypothetical. I'm pointing out that it is not a surprise that reality exhibits a certain amount of regularity. It follows from the fact that we are here discussing reality. It's like Douglas Adam's comment about puddle thinking.

A puddle wakes up one day and says:

'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

Or as someone else, maybe Stephen J Gould, commented, isn't it remarkable how the Mississippi River passes under every bridge, past every mooring, right next to every person fishing ...

Michael you are arguing a hypothetical

All I can say is that I read a fair amount of popular books and articles on cosmology, and when I have come across the concept of fine tuning, it has not been mentioned as an argument for the existence of God.

I think we have different experiences of where we've seen this argument bandied about and it's therefore colouring our respective views of it. I've almost always only ever seen it used as an argument for god - that god is the tuner and the tuning is for the benefit of man.

In fact, I can clearly show that you HAVE come across it mentioned as an argument for the existence of god... right here:

https://strangenotions.com/unpacking-first-cause/#comment-959790380

It's what started the whole damn thing off...

I think in my reading the question of fine tuning is a matter of why the fundamental constants are what they are, not something different.

That's interesting. 'Why' isn't generally a question that gets asked. Not even sure it makes sense. "Why is gravity the strength it is?" What books are you reading on this subject, if I may ask?

Of course, I generally don't bother to read books and articles that try to use science to "prove" there is a God, since I like to read science, not religion.

No arguments here.

In any case, the fact that some people try to use the concept of fine tuning to prove there must be a God is irrelevant to the question of whether the universe is fine tuned or not.

If there's no tuner then it's not fine tuned. It merely is. Tuning implies a purpose. If there is no tuner then what is the difference between a universe that is fine tuned and a universe that isn't?

There seems to be an unstated assumption or an underlying tendency among some people here that everything believers say must be refuted, otherwise it's an admission that God exists.

I wouldn't think so but I can't speak for everyone. It's just so much they say SHOULD be refuted. The whole reason we're on this topic is because of the post I linked to above. That 'fine tuning' suggests that the laws of the universe came from a unified source (god, obviously).

Now, even though the last paragraph of the post I'm replying to now would have served as a fine rebuttal to the post that kicked the whole thing off, instead of replying to the religious person for his erroneuous statment, you've levelled that shot at ME.

I'm starting to think you have an underlying tendency to attempt to refute everything I say otherwise it's an admission I'm right. Should have picked someone else, pal. I'm always right. ;)

David, this is all fine with me for the narrow sense of "fine tuning" you are employing here. That's the sense in which physicists and cosmologists use it which has nothing to do with God.

But on a religious website I assume people are bringing it up in order to make some kind of fine-tuning argument (for God). And I hope I've clarified above why all such arguments fail.

This is getting very deep for me! What I will reiterate is

• "Fine tuning" does not (as some have argued) in any way mean that huge swaths of the universe (or even the planet earth) are or must be hospitable to life as we know it.

• Fine tuning is not solely an argument that God made the universe precisely as it is so life as we know it could exist. Atheists and scientists can discuss fine tuning without any assumption that God is the "tuner."

• Fine tuning is a metaphor, and just because some take it to mean there must be a "tuner," it doesn't have to be taken to mean that.

• Often in scientific discussions (mainly informal ones), it is convenient to speak in terms of purpose- or goal-directed processes when in reality there is no belief that the process is purposeful or goal oriented. Here's an example I found in a few seconds by googling "why is fluorine so reactive?"

Flourine has a total of 9 electrons, 2 in the first and 7 in the second. Those 7 electrons are tightly bound to the nucleus because they are so close. The atom has a VERY strong affinity to get the missing 8th electron needed to have a full shell. So it will jump at the chance to make a covalent bond with any atom that will share an electron. The bond it makes is likewise very strong.

We all know that atoms don't literally "jump at the chance" to do anything at all. But nevertheless, it's a good nontechnical explanation of what happens.

I like your response and have comments, but I don't have time to respond properly at the moment. I'll try and pick this up over the weekend; if I don't, please remind me.

Those that put it forth are normally referring to human life and that the universe was fine tuned for humans by an external agency.

If that has been your experience, I can't contradict you. All I can say is that I read a fair amount of popular books and articles on cosmology, and when I have come across the concept of fine tuning, it has not been mentioned as an argument for the existence of God. It is more likely to be used as an argument for string theory or the multiverse.

Given WHY people are trying to use this unfalsifiable, ill defined, poorly structured argument . . . .

I think in my reading the question of fine tuning is a matter of why the fundamental constants are what they are, not something different.Of course, I generally don't bother to read books and articles that try to use science to "prove" there is a God, since I like to read science, not religion.

In any case, the fact that some people try to use the concept of fine tuning to prove there must be a God is irrelevant to the question of whether the universe is fine tuned or not. Christians will use the argument that people ought not to lie, steal, cheat, or kill because there is a God and he gave us consciences that tell us that. It would be foolish to argue that people ought to lie, steal, cheat, and kill because Christians argue that God is the origin of morality.

There seems to be an unstated assumption or an underlying tendency among some people here that everything believers say must be refuted, otherwise it's an admission that God exists. The universe can be finely tuned—that is, the fundamental constants can be what they are—for a number of reasons—one being that we live in a multiverse—without God being invoked or needed as an explanation in any way.

However, can't we all agree that the concept is not a claim that many or most environments in the universe are hospitable to life as we know it? Nobody believes that, and nobody is asserting that.

Those that put it forth are normally referring to human life and that the universe was fine tuned for humans by an external agency. Absent that, the idea of fine tuning is worthless. If there's no purpose to the tuning then there's no tuning. There simply are the conditions of the universe and we happen to be here.

Given WHY people are trying to use this unfalsifiable, ill defined, poorly structured argument - to show the universe was made for humans by their own personal god - you might as well cut straight to the chase and point out that it isn't.

David, there is an issue although I don't think a strict definition is quite where it lies. Physicists discuss the 'fine-tuning' of the Higgs mass, basically in some models it seems to indicate a very precise cancellation between large terms that are naively unrelated free parameters. This has nothing directly to do with life but it's an open question if there is a good explanation for this cancellation or something that avoids it entirely.

You are correct that one can argue that if certain parameters were slightly different we wouldn't have life like ours. Similarly, if the parameters of the theories I mentioned were slightly different we would see a very different Higgs mass. But it is a fallacy to then conclude that the purpose of the parameters is to produce a light Higgs, and mutatis mutandis for 'life as we know it.' There is no need to adduce a purpose whatsoever. The Higgs mass and LAWKI :) are consequences of the more fundamental parameters and we don't have any guidance as to what principle sets those parameters. If we have such a principle we would no longer have a fine tuning question of any sort.

However, we can go a little further yet. If there were a principle which set the parameters that could somehow be described as having LAWKI as a goal, then we can argue that we should see life all over the place and not in extremely rare environmental conditions. So this is another way to kill the fine-tuning argument, although 'fine-tuning' in the sense of sensitivity to parameters could still exist. If the universe were tuned for something, it is infinitely more likely that it is tuned for space dust and weak radiation than for life. Life would just be a side effect.