The Fine-Tuning Argument - Essay Example

Every day science is discovering new things, so it would be inadequate to conclude that God is omnipotent.  This is a response to the reasoning and responses to the universe hypotheses of the fine-tuning argument (Collins, 3)

I am not convinced by the general principle reasoning. It formulates the fine-tuning argument against the ‘atheistic Single-universe’ hypothesis. It uses the prime principle of confirmation. The confirmation principle states that for two hypotheses H1 and H2. Something counts as evidence for hypotheses rather than another which is when is truer under a certain hypothesis than another (Collins, 8). Therefore in probability, the greater the difference, the greater the probability of counting as evidence. The examples offered in the principle of confirmation are, firstly, find rocks. Whereby if you find rocks in the mountain errand Saying ‘welcome to mountains’ there is a great probability that it is your brother who wrote it rather than chance. Secondly, a defendant's fingerprints found on a murder weapon would more probably suggest that he is the murderer. I do not agree with the application of the principles that rely on the fact that that the universe has the fine-tuned life factors being more probable under the theism hypothesis. The belief that the universe along with the essential life factor is an inexplicable brute fact (Collins, 18). The principle questions whether there are other universes. If there are, then one of the universes has to be fine-tuned. It happens that the only fine-tuned universe could be ours because the other does not support intelligent life.

I am not convinced by the response to many universes' hypothesis because it describes the universe as large or perhaps infinite thus it differs from the fundamental physical parameters. I agree that the majority of the universes do not support life-permitting values only one. It's hard to understand the existence of an improbable universe such as ours. The response also uses the oscillating big bang theory whereby, it suggests that the universe came into existence 10-15 billion years ago in an explosion. It goes further and states that our universe will eventually collapse and go back to its original form. Later the big bang will reoccur in another universe and so on (Collins, 23). Personally, I think the big bang theory is unreasonable because the parameters of physics are assumed to be reset randomly in the beginning. It explains that collapse and explosion will go on for eternity thus a fine-tuned universe will occur. I agree with the argument made by Collins against the many universe hypotheses. He prefers natural extrapolations and suggests that many universe assumptions are null.