The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Could be valid, currently based on assumptions.
- There are a vast number of physically possible universes.
- A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions. Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
- The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
- Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
- Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 and 4).
- There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
- Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine- Tuner.
- God exists.
The difference is that the variables that can vary widely and affect the possibility of life on a planet (such as distance from a star, having a moon/asteroid belt to deflect impacts with space objects, the presence of water, etc.) are most likely all fulfilled throughout the universe. There are enough planets that one can say, “sure, we are alive on this planet because we couldn’t be alive elsewhere.” However, we can only account for one universe. If this universe is all there has ever been, and if the aforementioned laws and constants can vary to the degree apologists claim, then I agree that we are such a coincidence that a designer is a better explanation than chance. I’m just not convinced because those "if"s are not answered. I tend to think that the laws and constants can vary, but that enough other universes either have, will or currently exist to make the anthropic principle meaningful--but that’s just personal speculation.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Invalid, only replaces one mystery with another.
- Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
- The universe has a beginning of its existence;
- Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
- (Implied) God is that cause.
This argument is at least based on something that is most likely true--the Big Bang Theory. So, I won't argue premise 2. As much as they like the Big Bang, apologists stop paying attention to the science after it can be used to support their beliefs. Traditional causation could very well not apply in general at the quantum level in which we find the singularity, and especially in the case of the universe with no prior time or space for a cause to occur or God to exist. The Big Bang, after all, isn't just the beginning of our universe, but also space and time as we understand it. To posit otherwise is merely an "of the gaps" argument. The implication of 4 is hasty now that there are more hypotheses than ever for possible causes of the universe and likely others that haven't occurred to us. In the end, the biggest weakness is that the argument establishes a rule because a lack of counter examples and then arbitrarily makes what they want to believe an exception. If we say that everything that begins to exist has a cause because we have no examples of things that exist without a cause, then we can also say everything that exists is within time and space because we have no examples of things that exist outside time and space. Since apologists require their God to be outside time and space for this argument to work, they would have to explain why the first statement is legitimate while the second it not.
The Ontological Argument: Invalid, basically it's just wordplay.
- Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated as part of the definition of “God”).
- It is greater to exist than not to exist.
- If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of some-thing greater than God (from 2).
- To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).
- It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
- God exists.
"Greater" is a value judgement that can vary from person to person, which is problematic to this argument. However, the real problem is that the argument works for any concept that includes the linguistic trick of including "must exist" in it's definition. For example, if one said the Fly Spaghetti Monster exists, by definition, then it exists. Somehow I doubt many Christian apologists would accept that definition. Nor should they, because existence isn't a property one can prescribe conceptually. Neither is "greatness" for that matter.
- There exist objective moral truths. (Slavery and torture and genocide are not just distasteful to us, but are actually wrong.)
- These objective moral truths are not grounded in the way the world is but, rather, in the way the world ought to be.
- The world itself—the way it is, the laws of science that explain why it is that way—cannot account for the way the world ought to be.
- The only way to account for morality is that God established morality (from 2 and 3).
- God exists.