A new way to address the fine Tuning argument (WLC version)

Hello everyone. I know I rarely ever write on here anymore but this morning I came up with a thought that I just *had* to write down and when I need to write down stuff I usually do it on here.

I had a discussion this morning and I wish I had brought this point up. But I didn’t so I will do it here.

I believe there’s a way to tackle the fine tuning argument from William Lane Craig successfully without any appeal to any science at all.

First of all we gotta lay down his argument:

P1 The fine Tuning of the Universe is either due to chance, physical necessity or design

P2 It is not due to chance or physical necessity

C Therefore it is due to design

So how can we now tackle this. Well with my approach I thought of this morning we deny P1. The thing is: We do not deny the design aspect of it we deny either chance or physical necessity as an a priori option.

So the Theist has 3 options:

1. He can abandon the argument, which he won’t do because an option he doesn’t even hold to just got eliminated
2. He can argue in favor of say chance, which he won’t do because he rejects that anyways and why would he put it back on the table?
3. He can reformulate the argument dodging my objection that chance is not an option.

This is a fair and acceptable way to go. The way the Theist will go and as we will see in a minute it’s a move that will destroy his argument. So here’s what the *new* argument would look like:

P1 The fine Tuning of the Universe is either due to design or physical necessity

P2 It is not due to physical necessity

C It is due to design

Now this right here is what is known as a true dichotomy. These two options are the only options. The list here is exhaustive. No third option. We have the Theist Hypothesis (design) and the Atheist Hypothesis (necessity). The problem here might not be obvious if put in the two terms “design” and “necessity” so let me illustrate it: The design Hypothesis is the “God” Hypothesis while necessity is the “not God” Hypothesis.

So it is either “God” or “not God” . This is the true dichotomy underlying the argument.

So let’s see what happens if we put it into these terms:

P1 Either God or Not God (fine tuned the Universe)

P2 Not Not God (fine tuned the Universe)

C God (fine tuned the Universe)

Now if the problem isn’t obvious already let’s say Atheist is right:

P1 Either God or Not God (fine tuned the Universe)

P2 Not God (fine tuned the Universe)

C Not God (fine tuned the Universe)

Two more examples but this time divorced from the God question:

P1 Either beer or not beer (is what I drink)

P2 Not not beer (is what I drink)

C Beer (is what I drink)

Or

P1 Either beer or not beer (is what I drink)

P2 Not beer (is what I drink)

C Not beer (is what I drink)

It’s obvious now is it not? In both cases Premise 2 is the conclusion!!!

Maybe someone will claim that if we put it back God or Not God into the real faithful version we will escape this problem. We won’t though:

P1 The fine Tuning of the Universe is either due to God or not God

P2 It is not due to not God

C It is due to God

Or

P1 The fine Tuning of the Universe is either due to God or not God

P2 It is not due to God

C It is due to not God

The problem with the argument cannot be escaped. If there’s a true dichotomy in the premises and one is ruled within the second premise you will always commit begging the question.

So once you force the Theist into this position when making this argument, the argument is dead. And if abandoning the argument isn’t an option nor if arguing for chance or necessity isn’t then the Theist can’t succeed with this particular fine tuning argument at least.

Goodbye from yours truly,

Renevelation