Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe at all.
Ridiculous. Does your television cease to exist if it is not tuned to Fox News? We would not be here to observe the Cosmos if it had different constants, though we have no way of knowing whether or not some completely different sort of life might exist under those circumstances. Life, Jim, but not as we know it. If it were so that a Cosmos could not exist if it did not have the specific constants ours has, then there could be no "fine-tuning." The dials would only have one setting. "Fine-tuning" presupposes a such wide range of possible physical constants available that supernatural intelligent beings are necessary in order to explain how the cosmic dials were set ("fine-tuned") to the very precise and specific values our Cosmos exhibits, "so that life could exist." If a Cosmos like this one (with the physical and cosmological constants it has) is the only possible Cosmos, there would be no tuning for supernatural beings to do, "fine" or otherwise.
I find it curious that theists seem to like the idea of "fine-tuning" so much. If supernatural beings have to "fine-tune" a Cosmos in order to make it work, instead of just willing it to work because,
magic, it means the powers of the "fine-tuners" are
limited. They can carefully twiddle dials to select a set of physical constants and press their Big Bang button to make a Cosmos, but
they are subject to the limits of physics. The fine-tuners
cannot make a life-filled Cosmos with other constants. If they could,
there would be no need for fine-tuning. They could bake the cake in any number of ways. If the "fine-tuners" are subject to the constraints of physics, are they really "supernatural?"
Now here's the coup de grace: if a Cosmos like ours (with one, very specific, "fine-tuned" set of physical constants) is the
only sort of place that can support intelligent life (hence, the calculation of odds and so forth) then the fine-tuners themselves (assuming they're intelligent life) must
also live in a Cosmos just like ours. If there's such a thing as a "supernatural realm" that is
not a Cosmos
exactly like ours, governed by the one, specific, extremely precise set of constants and physical properties (the relative strengths of sub-atomic forces, and so on) that ours has, then congratulations: we now have
two, different kinds of places that are amenable to the existence of intelligent life. All probability calculations showing the unlikeliness of a place where life can exist are instantly cut in half. If there's one "supernatural" realm, how do we know there aren't more? There could be dozens, or even 6.2 x10
996,350,113,081 different "supernatural" realms with different properties, each inhabited by its own God or Pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.
If you want to try to argue that there's only one, particular possible "supernatural realm" (good luck with that), then who "fine-tuned" it be just that way? The logic of the "fine-tuning" argument would require a "super-supernatural realm" for the "fine-tuners" of the "supernatural realm," and we're off to the races. If you want to try to argue that your supernatural entity of preference (e.g. Yahweh) does not require one specific kind of "fine-tuned" supernatural realm for his existence--that he can exist in any and all possible realms or Cosmoses, including ours--then you've got an example of intelligent life that does not require "fine-tuning" to exist, and the whole argument fails.
Even the elementary forces are finely tuned. So is the expansion rate of the universe..... The vast majority cannot host life, but our earth can, and that is due to a incredible arrangement , which is finely tuned. The odds this to be due to chance are so big, that chance becomes a bad explanation.
You realize that by talking about things like elementary forces (e.g. the electro-weak force) and "the expansion rate" of the Cosmos, that you're taking Standard Model physics and Big Bang cosmology as a given, right? Again, the "fine-tuning" argument assumes that the "fine-tuners" are
limited to that as their mechanism. They can twiddle dials on their Big-Bang-O-Matic to specified values and press the big red button, then wait 14.5 billion years or so for beings capable of worshiping them to appear (perhaps with the occasional subtle tweak of the evolutionary process to cobble bacterial flagella or whatever), but they are ultimately
constrained by physics. The "speak, and it is so," method of Cosmos fabrication is not available to Cosmic "fine-tuners." They
can't make a life-filled Cosmos with any arbitrary set of values, or one without any "constants" at all, held together by pure magic or divine will. They're
limited to one option. Isn't that blasphemy or something?
Even if our Cosmos was "fine-tuned" by some form of super-intelligence to be exactly the way it is, on what basis (beyond sheer anthropocentric hubris) would we deduce that its purpose has anything to do with
us? Earth is such a teeny, tiny, sub-microscopic little speck compared to the rest of the known Cosmos (not to mention whatever might exist beyond the reach of our instruments), that it isn't even a rounding error. For all practical intents and purposes, the entire Cosmos is inimical to human life and out of our reach. This is an inescapable fact. Do a Google Image search for "Hubble Deep Field."
Form follows function. If the Cosmos (with one, inconceivably miniscule and insignificant exception) is inimical to human life and out of human reach, it follows that "habitat for humans" is not its function.
Especially if the Cosmic Design Department is a repository of vast, sublime intelligence and incredible capability. The more intelligent and capable a designer is, the more effectively they are able to craft form to function, and the more elegant and efficient their designs will be at accomplishing their purposes. From this, it follows that if our Cosmos is exquisitely "fine-tuned" by intelligence for a purpose, then
it isn't about us. We would be like bacteria on a doorknob in the Large Hadron Collider saying, "Hey, the temperature range and atmospheric pressure on this doorknob are 'fine-tuned' to values that let us live here. That must mean this whole place was built for
us!"
So how can we based on what we do know confidently say, the universe is the result of purely natural forces ?
Can you provide one demonstrable example of an
unnatural force? If not, why should we look to such a thing as an explanation for anything?
I have not brought God into the game in my inicial post, have i ?
So, we can't take your chosen Forum name as evidence of where you're going and what you're arguing for? Why so cagey and coy?
It seems you do not know the claim of philosophicla naturalism : namely the natural world is all there is ( aka no God required )
So can we
now proceed from the premise that you're "bringing God into the game," or do you want to go back to being slick and evasive?
So far, the claims of philosophical naturalism have held up extraordinarily well. Everything from the simple lever to the computer you're reading this on operates on naturalistic principles. No one rides to work on a flying carpet, no one has yet been able to bring their favorite genie, angel, sprite, faerie, deity or devil to James Randi and win his million dollars. No one can cast a 10D Lightning Bolt spell or call fire down from the heavens. How 'bout you? Can you take the 2 Kings 18 Challenge?
