First, I want to address Eric’s major claim about the “fine-tuned universe argument”. That is, that the universe has many characteristics that , should any one of them be even slightly different than it is, then human life, or any form of life as we know it, would not be possible.
Eric opens up with this little caveat:
Lately I’ve been addressing, following the logic of the atheist universe, the atheist’s inability to explain the uniformity of nature. First showing that science depends on the universal nature of absolute physical laws, which we cannot expect to have if the universe has a random beginning as atheists claim. Then showing that the atheist must use the Christian worldview to expect an orderly universe, in order to make science viable, to then use that science to reject God. As if science in and of itself could give them the ability to rationally do so. ”
This shows a lot of interesting inherent assumptions that I was simply embarrassed to notice: Firstly, that science “depends” on the (or a-) universal nature of absolute physical laws. First of all, Eric here seems to equate Atheism with the scientific method. Even though I’m aware that atheism is the product of the scientific method and worldview, it doesn’t have to be. It could be the mere desire for rebellion against the authority of God or his self-ordained representatives on earth.
In any event, Eric doesn’t seem to give a chance to the possibility that some aspects of the universe are chaotic. I seemed to have missed his explanation as to why he assumes that everything has a cause or why randomness is impossible or isn’t observed. Maybe I should forgive him, since this wasn’t a major topic in his discussion of the so-called “atheist worldview”.
He definitely doesn’t define what “orderly” means to him other than the fact that it allows life to exist.
But, thing is, what Eric doesn’t seem to contemplate is that the only reason the universe may “seem fine-tuned for living forms” is because we know of DNA-based living forms but not of anything else. We could, of course, imagine to ourselves life forms that are not DNA-based, life forms that evolve in nanoseconds and not in billions of years, life forms that are only possible in a universe in which Planck’s constant is equal to 50 (and not aproximately 6*10^-34 as it is now), etc.
In short, the only reason that Eric gives for the universe being “fine-tuned” is because it exists and we exist. This is a very naive, yet understandable assumption, and I’ll give Eric credit for the fact that it is, in fact, irrefutable that there is any other universe that exists that can support life (of any kind) merely because this is the only universe we have access to and any case, refuting the fine-tuned argument, like refuting the existence of God, is impossible, and because of the same reason: you can’t refute what you can’t investigate. This inconvenient fact, I’m afraid, makes the fine-tuned argument completely moot. This refutation, by the way, is not something I just made up. I think I read it up on Talk Origins about 3 years ago when I just started reading about origin sciences (evolution and cosmology) and definitely before going to the university to study biology.
As an epilogue to my addressing of this particular argument, I would like to say that there is some creepy gullibility, and thus was I so intrigued by this argument, in the absolute faith that a universe that allows us to exist is a universe that was custom-made for our existence. It is an exercise in teleology that is so reminiscent of childish teleology (of the “trees exist so that we can hide from the rain” persuasion) that it bespeaks some psychological process that is way beyond my understanding. Maybe by investigating Eric’s reasoning and arguments about atheism and science, I will eventually learn more of why Eric thinks the way he does, or how he casually regresses to puerile teleology regarding something as mind-bogglingly imperceptible as the creation of the entire universe (assuming he doesn’t use that same teleology regarding trees as shelter for rain).