Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Argument #2: The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life points to a designer of the cosmos.
There are only three possible explanations of this fine tuning: here, again, we are witnesses to the “false choice – argument from personal incredulity” combo.
A) Physical necessity – the constants are independent of the laws of nature
B) Chance – it’s very unlikely. Solution: Multiverse. But, there is no evidence that a world ensemble exists.
C) Design
[b]So even if we accept that these are the only three possibilities (which is anything but obvious), this argument is still extremely fallacious. He rejects option B because he claims there is no evidence for it. And then… declares option C the winner by default, even though there is no evidence for it either. A remarkable dishonesty.
I disagree with you - i think these 3 possibilities are completely obvious and beyond question.
Start with a mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive set of possibilities:
1. Universe was designed
2. Universe was not designed
Then split #2 into 2 subchoices that are similarly mutually exclusive/exhaustive
2a. randomness was involved
2b. randomness was not involved
Slightly reword each of the 3 choices, same meanings, just more distinctive lingo:
1. necessity (ie, no design, no randomness)
2. chance (ie no design, with randomness)
3. design (ie design ldo)
Note that you don't have to believe in a fine-tuned universe for this argument. You can skip that premise and just point to "how did the universe come to its current state" - and you have 3 mutually exclusive/exhaustive choices, design, neccessity, chance.
I do agree with you that his conclusion is rubbish (which answer he chose and why). But narrowing his question to 1 of these 3 possibilities is logically valid.