It seems that the fine-tuning argument might commit the fallacy of ignoring relevant background knowledge that we have regarding design and intelligence.
Many times in history, we have seen that we tend to impose design or intelligence on things in nature that can be explained eventually by natural processes. Given this fact, it seems like we should be somewhat skeptical about inferring design from fine-tuning. We already know that we’ve gotten it wrong many times. To overturn this, it seems that the fine-tuning argument is going to have to pile up a lot of evidence to outweigh our background knowledge. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks the fine-tuning argument comes close to epistemically obligate one to accept design.
I’m not endorsing metaphysical naturalism of the gaps. Rather, I’m saying that we have to be careful about inferring design so quickly. If the fine-tuning couldn’t be explained within 150 years or 1000 years given the rapid success of science, then yes, I think the argument would be very very compelling.
#Fine-tuning fallacy #Rebuttal of the fine-tuning argument #fine-tuning argument debunked #God #God’s existence from fine-tuning rebuttal #rebuttal #reply to the fine-tuning argument #objection to fine-tuning #recent