References for The Fine-Tuning Argument

This is the reference companion page to this blog post on fine-tuning.  I have not studied everything here.

Links in Support of Fine-Tuning Argument for God

  1. Robin Collins probably has the most carefully worked out form of the argument, but it is a bit weaker than the more common form.  Here is a video of him at the Greer Heard Debate.
  2. Luke Barnes has a lot of good articles and resources on fine-tuning – he is an agnostic, but seemed to lean toward theism in this interview with Luke Muelhauser.
    1. Website
    2. List of his favorite posts
    3. Peer reviewed paper
  3. Here is William Lane Craig’s detailed version of the argument (search for teleo).
  4. Richard Swinburne’s book is a common reference.  You can see an interview here.
  5. Responses to probability issue: Alexander Pruss, Jeffrey Koperski, Robin Collins.
  6. Stephen Barr’s book.
  7. Guillermo Gonzalez presentation.
  8. An article responding to the claim that the universe really is not fine-tuned.
  9. Rodney Holder’s response to multiverse.  Strangely this focusses only on “infinite” number of universes, but infinite is not given as an essential part of the hypothesis – “many” is what I usually see.

Links Against Fine-Tuning Argument for God

  1. The claim that we cannot know the probabilities of the range of the constants:
    1. Three Christian apologists (Tim & Lydia McGrew and Eric Vestrup) explain in “Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument“.  They bring up other important related issues as well, including the possibility that other universes could contain constants that aren’t even in ours.  Here’s an interview with Lydia.
    2. Christian apologist William Dembski explains.
    3. This article is along the same lines with further issues in probability (very technical).
    4. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies states same objection in The Mind of God, pg 204-5.
    5. Robin Collins, Alexander Pruss and Jeffrey Koperski have all tried responding to the McGrew/Vestrup paper (see links above).  The response from the McGrews is here.
  2. Neil Manson’s website has links to several papers.  (by the way this, and this both relate to the questions of probability, and include other objections.)
  3. The Ikeda/Jefferys paper is yet another different take related to probabilities.  I’ve tried to make it through this paper but only made it halfway – it gets very technical.
  4. Although the majority opinion of cosmologists is that the constants are fine-tuned there are several cosmologists that have questioned this.  None of these studies (or even studies “for” the argument for that matter) vary all constants of our universe and obviously none of them vary the equations themselves (because that would give infinite possibilities, which is another problem for the argument that is neglected.)
    1. Astrophysicist Fred C. Adams Paper explaining how set of constants necessary to support stars are not particularly rare.  Note Luke Barnes’ response which brings us right back to the normalizability / probability function question.  Also note this on p. 29: “An important and more global question is whether or not these universes could also support life of some kind.  Of course, such questions are made difficult by our current lack of an a priori theory of life.”
    2. Steven Weinberg video and transcript where Weinberg notes his skepticism of fine-tuning.
    3. Article in MIT News.
    4. Related article on FQXi blog.
    5. Anthony Aguirre’s paper.
    6. Very new information (take with grain of salt): article on Physics World.
  5. Christian apologist Hans Halvorson speaks against the argument.
  6. Evangelical Christian Don Page explains that even if the constants may be in a tight range they don’t look optimized for life.  While this does not eliminate the need for an answer (if we assume the constants are probabilistically “rare”), it does add to skepticism that there really was an intelligent mind behind the universe.
  7. Sean Carroll’s writeup, debate with Crag, and debate with Halvorson.
  8. Keith Parson’s brings up a common objection which sounds valid to me.
  9. Long list of possible objections (Bradley Monton).  Very brief, and just food for thought.  Some I think can easily be shown to be invalid.

Related Interviews on Closer To Truth

  1. Why Fine-tuning Demands Explanation
  2. Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed
  3. What does a Fine-tuned Universe Mean?
  4. Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?
  5. Is God the Cause of a Fine-tuned Universe?
  6. Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?
  7. Why a Fine-Tuned Universe?
  8. Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Consciousness

Informational References (claim fine-tuning in need of explanation, not necessarily for/against theism)

  1.  Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees is another oft-cited book.
  2. The Goldilocks Enigma, by Paul Davies

Please add links in the comments that you think may be useful and valid claims for or against this argument.

1 thought on “References for The Fine-Tuning Argument

  1. Pingback: Is the Universe Fine-tuned For Life | Truth Is Elusive

Please leave a reply - I'm very interested in all respectful thoughts both disagreeing or agreeing

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s