Rebunking the Fine-Tuning argument for theism.
A comprehensive logical and theological rebunk of the Fine-Tuning argument against common counter-argumentations.
16.06.26
─
Renzo R (rome)- @rcrenzoo on tiktok
Introduction
The fine-tuning argument is the product of probability analysis for God’s existence.
It searches for mathematical probability in favor of theism rather than atheism.
It relies on logic, starting from the fact that the universe is so vastly precise and mathematically admirable that it is rather plausible for a higher being to exist.
It is an adaptation of the ancient teleological argument of the design argument.
Simplified methodology
L — T * Theism. L — A * Atheism.
L is life conditions.
L — T Is more plausible. L — A is less plausible = P(L — T) > P(L — A)
Conclusion: It is mathematically correct to believe in God, rather than to not.
Common critiques
Taken from Anx (@venzai00)’s video on TikTok.
Critique 1.
Claiming “P(L — T) > P(L — A)” for probability is a mere fallacy, given it solely relies on greater explanatory power.
Further explanation:
Analogy for X. If X data provides two hypotheses, “A” and “B”, and it is established that A has a 1% probability of happening, and B the latter 99%, even if A has greater research done for, and greater explanatory power, we know that B is still far more likely to happen, meaning explanatory power has little to no effect over probable outcomes.
If we establish X = God, A = theism , B = atheism, even if theism has greater explanatory power, atheism still comes out on top.
Get rcrenzo’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Critique 2.
This counter critiques the first of the two original premises: “L — T is not very low”.
It utilizes the supposedly called “divine psychology” counter, which acts as a counter argument for theists claiming that L -T is not very low because God most likely has a desire to create a universe with life, thus higher chance that, since ours has, God exists. The counter says: If there are an infinite number of possible universes God may want to create, and alike ours with life, there might be an opposite purely made of Black holes, then there is no explanation to believe God would have a desire greater than another (to create ours, and not the latter).
Basically:
If universe “A” exists, and has life, and the rest of the letters from the alphabet are different universes each, then why is “A” created prior to the rest?
It relies on the lack of possible explanation onto why “A” has greater importance than the other universes.
Critique 3.
This criticizes the claim: L — A is very low.
It counters: “if laws and constants within our universe did not exist, then life would not exist” by saying that this claim relies on life as we know it, and not GENERAL plausible life.
Critique 4.
The possibility of life by theism to suffer is far lower than the possibility of Godless life to suffer. This argument basically tries to say that it would make far more sense to believe that there is no God, and for that it makes sense that millions of years of predation and agony are more plausible, than to believe God DOES exist and still lets this happen.
P(L | T) Probability that we’d see this much suffering if God exists.P(L) Probability that we’d see this much suffering in general without God.
P (L) > P(L | T).
Debunks for each critique
Debunk for critique one:
There are two primary issues with this counter. First and foremost, its primary analogy relies on established probabilities for both outcome “A” and “B”, which is not plausible for a faith related argument such as a theistic vs atheistic debate. The second issue is perfectly correlated to its prior, which is related to the fact that the research done on outcome “A” could perfectly be redirected in favor of outcome B, since its subject of study could be an obvious example, and all research for outcome A can be redirected in favour to outcome B.
This issue however is not thinkable in a debate where strict researchable proof is impossible to obtain (since it’s based upon faith), and it relies on structural arguments, where Theism does take the upper hand, making it more plausible than the atheistic outcome.
Debunk for critique two:
There are three primary issues with this counter.
First, it fails to remember God exists outside of time, in an eternal manner as we understand it, meaning that he eternally existed before the creation of universe “A”, therefore it shows no sign of permitting universe “A” to hold greater importance over any other, making it infinitely possible to exist within all realms, alongside others.
Secondly, God possibly doesn’t handle the concept of importance or desire as we do, given his perfect judgement, which leaves no possibility for interpretation. For example, as God could’ve created universe A based on our understanding of love, he could have perfectly created said universe based upon fun, which is consistent with our history (God may find pleasure in suffering, so he created an universe where suffering is constant), meaning that we can´t attribute importance, desire or any other emotion to the creation of our/a universe, relative to itself, its creator or in competition to the creation of another universe, which is what the counter primarily tries to refute, failing miserably as its arguing against a wall.
Classical theism would argue then that the creation of our universe, filled with life, is attributed to purpose, such as development, and not the demonstrated argument of love and importance.
And lastly, it fails to remember that we have no provable knowledge on our universe existing by itself, meaning that the multi-verse may exist, and so a universe that solely consists of black holes may also exist, and it could have perfectly been created prior to universe “A”/ours, refuting the supposed claim that the universe with life holds greater meaning because it exists by itself, since its creation is paradoxically plausible to have happened later than its partners.
Debunk for critique three:
The issue with this counter is its lack of structure.
Obviously life as we know it wouldn’t exist, because what we understand as life is solely based upon our experience (the animal kingdom, for example); meaning that the argument claiming “general life” might exist outside our laws is simply untrue, given that if such possibility existed, we simply wouldn’t refer to it as life.
All other forms of beings that we define as such aren’t yet provable as constants and laws haven’t been proven to be bent into the permission of another form of life.
Debunk for critique four:
The issue with this argument is that it relies in the belief that God is entrancingly good or tries to benefit humanity, but this belief not only contradicts critique 2 (that God has no reason based on love to create a universe with life over one without), but that it also relies in something in fact not provable, and even refutable, given the premise itself.
Many religions collectively decide that God is good (for example, christianity, that such idea is the result of Jesus kindness and his claim of being God’s son), but theism itself does not actually acclaim such, meaning that this “evil or inexistent God” counter rather refutes christianity, and not theism itself.
Conclusion
Given all initial counter arguments are partially or completely refutable, then it’s correct to assume the fine-tuning argument has been rebunked, which concludes in God’s existence as more possible based upon this model.
