Posted: Jun 08, 2011 4:49 pm
As an atheist one is not obliged to refute the fine-tuning argument. All we need to do is show that it doesn't work as evidence for the existence of god(s). And the most beautifully simple way of doing that is to highlight the fact that we don't know if the constants can change, whether other universes with other constants exist, and so it is logically fallacious to make a probability argument with a sample size of 1.
It seems to me the theist is under the obligation to show that fine tuning has taken place(not merely assert it), by showing that the values are indeed tweakable/variable. Just because Craig can alter a value or ratio on a piece of paper, doesn't mean it can be done in reality.
It seems to me the theist is under the obligation to show that fine tuning has taken place(not merely assert it), by showing that the values are indeed tweakable/variable. Just because Craig can alter a value or ratio on a piece of paper, doesn't mean it can be done in reality.