The question is why do you treat fine tuning as evidence for theism, while, if anything, it's evidence to the contrary?
All universes without God necessary has to be finetuned, so that life could exist in them, while universes created by God do not have to be. God may have all kind of reasons to still create finetuned universe, but likewise God can have all kind of reasons to create non-finetuned universe. Even if absolute majority of universes that are created by God are finetuned, existing in finetuned universe is still more likely if there is no God.
Well that is false precisely for the reason Sinhababu gives. But if it were too fine tuning would still be striking because the odds that there would be finely tuned life are low even if life requires fine tuning. If life requires fine tuning then the odds of life are low.
Life in a universe without a God fine tunes itself to the universe through natural selection. Thus observing life properly fine tuned to the universe is evidence against the existence of God, just like observing non-finetuned living organisms, which couldn't possibly originate through natural selection would be evidence in favor of God. Conservation of expected evidence and all that.
Now, you can say that probability of life existing in a universe with God is highter than in a universe without God. But it doesn't seem obvious to me at all. The space of all possible Gods is vast. Some of them are interested in creation of life but some are actively opposed to it. And, of course, this all has to be multiplied on prior of any God existing at all for which doesn't appear to be beyond 50%, even if we are charitable.
But the odds that there would be any life to evolve are very low because that requires atoms form which is unlikely given fine tuning. Fine tuning is used to support a perfect God who'd want to bring about good things.
How likely on bare theism is the HoI theodicy? It seems to work pretty well, but it also seems to have a much lower probability of being true than I would like for a theodicy, or even a defense.
I think pretty unlikely but that it's the best game in town by far. Think about the vast range of evils on the world that are predicted by the HoI (conditional on the other stuff that we're counting as part of the evidence calculus):
--animal suffering
--suffering of moral patients
--the fairly random distribution of pleasure and pain given by evolution
--geographically random distribution of pleasure and pain
--extreme agony provided by great torture
--the full range of diseases
And this is just scratching the surface--it wouldn't be hard to list 30 more things. The odds that all of these things would be optimal is ~zero.
I mean, I think you could say the same thing about a necessitarian theodicy as well. I’m just not sure how well it pans out after we apply a weighted average principle
Necessitarianism doesn't help at all because the epistemic probability is unaffected by metaphysical probability (that's why it doesn't explain why a person gets a royal flush in poker by saying it's necessary). The WAP doesn't help.
The question is why do you treat fine tuning as evidence for theism, while, if anything, it's evidence to the contrary?
All universes without God necessary has to be finetuned, so that life could exist in them, while universes created by God do not have to be. God may have all kind of reasons to still create finetuned universe, but likewise God can have all kind of reasons to create non-finetuned universe. Even if absolute majority of universes that are created by God are finetuned, existing in finetuned universe is still more likely if there is no God.
Well that is false precisely for the reason Sinhababu gives. But if it were too fine tuning would still be striking because the odds that there would be finely tuned life are low even if life requires fine tuning. If life requires fine tuning then the odds of life are low.
I don't think I get what you mean here.
Life in a universe without a God fine tunes itself to the universe through natural selection. Thus observing life properly fine tuned to the universe is evidence against the existence of God, just like observing non-finetuned living organisms, which couldn't possibly originate through natural selection would be evidence in favor of God. Conservation of expected evidence and all that.
Now, you can say that probability of life existing in a universe with God is highter than in a universe without God. But it doesn't seem obvious to me at all. The space of all possible Gods is vast. Some of them are interested in creation of life but some are actively opposed to it. And, of course, this all has to be multiplied on prior of any God existing at all for which doesn't appear to be beyond 50%, even if we are charitable.
But the odds that there would be any life to evolve are very low because that requires atoms form which is unlikely given fine tuning. Fine tuning is used to support a perfect God who'd want to bring about good things.
I do not at all understand the rubber duck analogy. Like, at all.
How likely on bare theism is the HoI theodicy? It seems to work pretty well, but it also seems to have a much lower probability of being true than I would like for a theodicy, or even a defense.
I think pretty unlikely but that it's the best game in town by far. Think about the vast range of evils on the world that are predicted by the HoI (conditional on the other stuff that we're counting as part of the evidence calculus):
--animal suffering
--suffering of moral patients
--the fairly random distribution of pleasure and pain given by evolution
--geographically random distribution of pleasure and pain
--extreme agony provided by great torture
--the full range of diseases
And this is just scratching the surface--it wouldn't be hard to list 30 more things. The odds that all of these things would be optimal is ~zero.
I mean, I think you could say the same thing about a necessitarian theodicy as well. I’m just not sure how well it pans out after we apply a weighted average principle
Necessitarianism doesn't help at all because the epistemic probability is unaffected by metaphysical probability (that's why it doesn't explain why a person gets a royal flush in poker by saying it's necessary). The WAP doesn't help.