Earlier in this blog, I tried to respond to the complexetic argument from design. I am now trying to refute the teleological one which is also known as the fine tuning argument. Thanks to the numerous people who advised me to do this and motivated me get my PC and type.
The teleological argument from design asserts that in this beautifully complex universe, everything is in the perfect order and is made for some definite purposes. Like everything is just in the right place at the right time everywhere. For example, the colour of the grass grass is green, the perfect colour for our eyes, if it would have been blue then it would have been awkward. Another example is given that earth is in the exact distance from the sun, not too far not too close as we can live in in it. Further they assert that if the fundamental properties of the universe were changed a tiny bit, the difference would have been a huge one and thus life could not exist. To learn further, go to this link.
To refute the argument, I must be as simple as I can because this is a matter of understanding. The fine tuning argument does a top-down analogy. It first assumes there is a God and then tries to judge everything by that assumption. Fortunately, there is another type of analogy, called the anthropic principle. In that analogy, it is asserted that it is not the case that the universe is designed for us, but that the only universe where you can exist is this one. It is not that stars are made to make us wonder, but that that the only universe where you can exist, you can see stars there.
Let me explain by giving an example, think you have made a group in a social media and the group population gets up to 4000, then the case is not that you made the group so it can contain 4000 people but your group was suitable for 4000 members.
Let me make some points here.
1. A universe created out of quantum fluctuations containing the fundamental properties as to suit biological evolution is completely possible.
I don’t have to explain this, you can go to the link to understand what I meant by quantum fluctuation and click in the ‘evolution’ to understand that.
2. A God creating a universe with billions and billions of stars and a massive amount of space in purpose to just create human life is highly unlikely.
As Richard Feynman said, “Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man’s struggle for good and evil seems inadequate“. As the story as it appears to be is that the stage is too big for the drama. The massive amount of space and matter is just unnecessary for us, and if for us, then for God also. It seems like a waste.
3. A God who needs to fine tune the universe in order to create human beings, is highly unlikely.
As the definition of God says God is omnipotent, means can do everything that can be expressed meaningfully by human language. God doesn’t have to fine tune the universe. If the properties are absurdly distinct, God can still create and sustain us with zero tension. Further if the laws were unsupportable for human life and human life existed, then it would have likened the possibility of an almighty.
4. The God idea can be replaced by the multiverse hypothesis.
Both are unproven, both of them can address the fine tuning if there is any.
5. The universe could have been a much much better place for us.
10000 diseases, many of them incurable. Natural disasters like the one recently messes with nepal, chances of meteor crashing etc. are the proof that the universe would have been better if they were not here.
The given objection aren’t all, but they are enough to unliken and refute the argument. One has to refute each of these points in order to establish the argument. So, we don’t have to take it seriously.
Thanks for reading.Like our facebook page for keeping in touch with us: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Refuting-God/106401523032141