The answer is...yes.
Before I am besieged by an angry mob all responding with posts concerning the problems with ID, who designed the designer, probability arguments, etc., I must clarify. Yes, the universe is “fine-tuned” in that there are certain constants (sometimes called fine-tuned constants or FTCs) that, were they ever-so-slightly altered, we wouldn’t exist. For some, no life would exist and possibly no universe. This interpretation of fine-tuning is similar to the “weak anthropic principle” (WAP), which is essentially a tautology. It asserts that because we exist, the nature of the cosmos must have properties such that we can exist, for if it did not, we wouldn’t be here.
But I wouldn’t start a thread just to note that some uses of two terms have an entirely non-religious context. To me, the fine-tuned argument (FTA), which uses fine-tuning as evidence for design, provides the best evidence for the existence of a “god” or “designer” available, but it is generally misunderstood. I will seek to remedy these (hopefully) over the course of this discussion, but I can’t just reference the FTA without addressing what it is.
The FTA has, essentially, to components. One is not disputed: there are a number of properties of physics, such as the strength of gravity, which, had its force been stronger or weaker by about one in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, life wouldn’t exist (no stars). Then there is the big bang, which requires a much, much larger number to represent how little a change would be needed in order for the big bang to either immediately turn into a “big crunch” or expand far to rapidly for life. The list goes on and on, but here I am just introducing issues, and the list is for debate/discussion.
The other component of the FTA is that so many properties of the universe require such extreme, unimaginable precision indicates design (and thus a designer). Normally, this part of the argument is (usually badly) justified on the basis of probability. Probability is a deceptively and deeply philosophical matter with important implications for most of the sciences. I bring this up because one counter-argument to the FTA is simply that we have no idea what the “probability space” is such that we can determine the probability that e.g., gravity would have the force it does. This interpretation of probability is frequentist. It assumes that events/outcomes are some subset from a set of all possible outcomes and the probabilities of these are determined in advance just the way we determine the probability of a coin flip to be 1/2.
The Bayesian approach is different. It is different in application, but more importantly it is also different philosophically, in that it does not posit probabilities to be viewed in absolute, idealized terms that are never actually realized, but in terms of likelihood given our state of knowledge. Thus we need not necessarily ask about the probability of a particular FTC, but rather its likelihood (in the technical sense of the term).
With as minimal information as I could manage to start this thread, I invite comments, questions, positions, arguments (for or against), criticisms, credit card information, and donations.
