I'll start with Sean Carroll. He's obviously a very smart guy , but his objections to fine tuning are awful.
1.As many physicists have pointed out in the literature , if not for fine tuning there would not be stable atoms or chemical reactions at all. There'd be no stable structures like planets for life to live on . You can't have life without some kind of chemistry.
2. is multiply flawed
a. even if this was tre , it would give use good reason to reject naturalism is favor of God.
b. Swinburne has pointed out that in order for there to a universe that we can behave regularly in ie , for me to get into my car and know it would work or for me to swing a hammer and know it will drive in a nail, there needs to be some kind of physical laws governing the universe. So unless Carroll wanted to live in a lawless andrandom universe , I don't see the force of this objection
1.We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.
2.Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
2.Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
2. is multiply flawed
a. even if this was tre , it would give use good reason to reject naturalism is favor of God.
b. Swinburne has pointed out that in order for there to a universe that we can behave regularly in ie , for me to get into my car and know it would work or for me to swing a hammer and know it will drive in a nail, there needs to be some kind of physical laws governing the universe. So unless Carroll wanted to live in a lawless andrandom universe , I don't see the force of this objection
Comment