Some time ago, I offered a fanciful critique of the Fine Tuning argument titled, “Fine Tuning Debunked.” The OP was a bit of a farce but there was some interesting discussion. I’d like to present a more serious argument against fine tuning.
The fine tuning argument goes, approximately, that if any of the properties of the universe were just a little bit different from what they are, then the universe couldn’t exist or couldn’t support life. For example:
If the gravitational constant or the weak force constant had varied from their values, by only one part in 10 to the 50th power (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) The universe would have either exploded continuously in its expansion (thereby burning everything, not good for life forms), or contracted into a black hole (where the complete mass-energy of the universe would collapse [–quote taken from one of the comments in the previous thread]
And because the chances of those properties being exactly what they are by chance is infinitesimal, the universe must have been designed.
To which I say: This argument confuses description with causation. It assumes that the gravitational constant and weak force constant cause particles to behave the way they do. But there’s no reason to believe that those two numbers cause anything. Rather, they describe the way things work. If you’re smart enough (which I’m not) you can plug those numbers into an equation and show how particles behave in relation to each other. But your equation isn’t causing them to behave that way.
So: Can we now put fine tuning to rest? 😋
Bonus points to the first person who identifies my bad visual pun.