I find this argument silly, honestly. Even if I grant that it's highly improbable that the universe as we know it came into existence through random processes, it's even more highly improbable that a being capable of creating the universe exists and decided to do so (for whatever reason). That being is by definition several orders of magnitude more complex than anything it would have created, so, using the logic of the argument against randomness, that being's existence is significantly less probable.
Unless of course you already assume that being exists and are just looking for rationalizations.
It also assumes that the universe as we know it isn't based on the circumstances in which it arose and exists but rather was created to exist in our current circumstances. The universe exists as a balance of the elements that make it up, and if one were to be dramatically changed it would rebalance itself. Life as we know it is the most relevant example: it has been very adaptive, and has changed over time as its circumstance has. To hear these neo-creationists tell it, life as we know it was created for the circumstance in which it exists currently, which is exactly backwards.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying I found your show on Sunday frustrating. I'm glad you did the show and are willing to host people like Mr. Collins, but ultimately none of his defenses rose significantly above the level of philosophical rationalizations of what he wants to be true. Ultimately I don't think he presented a single argument that didn't rely on the belief in god, which lowered the level of discourse for me (as someone who does not share that assumption).

In his Confessions, St. Augustine of Hippo posed a question: What was God doing before He created Heaven and Earth? Augustine's first answer, that God was preparing Hell for the people who delve into profundities, was obviously intended as a joke because Augustine then addressed the question seriously. Time, he proffered, was part of Creation; therefore, there was no "before."
Science too leaves us no better informed. In the Big Bang, our universe is said to have spewed out of nothing (call it a singularity, if you must). But what did it spew into? Certainly not into empty space for space came into being in the spewing out of our universe. It is just as easy to conceive a universe that is infinite in extent and eternal in time, as some eminent scientists still do.
Now, if God the Intelligent Designer exists, He is certainly more complicated than our universe and beyond our comprehension.

根据定义，上帝创造了宇宙。
宇宙包含了除上帝以外的一切事物，上帝为了创造宇宙，必须在宇宙形成之前就存在。
We are part of the universe.
如果我们是宇宙的一部分而上帝不是宇宙的一部分如何通过宇宙的一部分对宇宙其余部分的检验来揭示上帝的存在。
只有被告知上帝的存在，我们才能知道上帝的存在。
Hence religion.

我喜欢听信徒们试图建立一个(或多个)神存在的合理证据。谢谢你，罗宾，谢谢你分享你的一些想法。我发现，要想找到一个合理的解释，解释为什么一定会有一个神，这本身就是个问题。如果有一个造物主想要我们的崇拜，它就会彻底(且不可避免地)清楚地表明它的存在。在我看来，信徒能做的最好的事就是“这需要信仰”。

我喜欢阅读从这个博客中提出的话题中产生的不同观点。主要是因为各章节?why Talk仍然80%忠于它的首要目标:谈论一切有哲学意义的事情。80%是我的估计，所以，大家不要激动。另外一些人则在神的问题上争论不休，毫无疑问，他们还会继续这样做。整个事件之所以重要，是因为它影响着我们与他人互动的方式。
Expectations have such dramatic effects on who we are---or THINK we ought to be (your previous post on partisan politics illustrates this well.) I am a benign agnostic. God may exist, and if so, good for that. But, faith in anything begs affirmation. I think I'll have faith in myself. God can take care of its own affairs and those of the faithful---if that is how things really work. In accord with Bill, I have seen no data.

Aside from other problems like sample size pointed out above, I'm always struck by the failure of imagination that goes with fine-tuning arguments. Yes, it's true, having the Earth turn out just as it is, with precisely the values of the physical constants we have may be quite unlikely (although we certainly are not sure that those constants are in any way arbitrary rather than products of a deeper physical law). Our existence is just one outcome in the set of all possible forms of intelligent life, and we just don't know how big that set is or what it looks like. Further, when we think of the events leading to our own existence, we have to acknowledge that any long causal chain will contain lots of unlikely steps, whether it leads to an interesting outcome or not. A happy accident is just that, literally, and it shouldn't surprise us.
在生物学中，我们曾经说过，所有的生态系统“必须”能获得阳光作为一种能源……直到我们发现深海热泉和化学合成细菌。我们真的自大到认为我们掌握了生命进化的所有可能方式，以至于可以估计它的可能性吗?同样，估计概率(这是微调论点的本质)需要知道所有可能的结果中有多少满足“包含智能生命”的条件。我的猜测是，有“很多”方法来获得某种集成的、智能的生命，即使有奇怪的不同的物理定律。

我们的星球并不完美，在这个地球上肯定有一些地区充满了绝望、饥饿和痛苦的人们。如果上帝存在，为什么他或她会创造一个如此不完美的星球，有这么多所谓的宗教民族，为了哪个宗教最和平而互相争斗和杀戮……真是浪费精力。我说…成为一个怀疑论者，质疑一切——而不是像一只“绵羊”，盲目地遵循《圣经》中所谓的真理。我建议你拿起一本叫做《穴居人逻辑》的书，打开你的思维盖子，改变一下。Another good read is "Parenting Beyond Belief"
Just my humble opinions here folks.

God is simply another name for the Universe and the Universe another name for One.
Be One,
=

I'm always baffled by these "inference to the best explanation" arguments for God. And it's always for the same reason: I never see what it is that they are supposed to buy you. I don't see anything new in the Fine Tuning Argument. Although, if you ask Laurence Krauss, the premise is no good to begin with, since (a) there isn't evidence of any special fine-tuning, (b) we have no good way of estimating the range of alternative life forms that might have existed given various alterations to some of the constants, and (c) no matter who or what came out at the end of a possibly very different cosmological process, they'd sit there just as we are, asking the same questions. [ re (c), consider: I might wonder how it could possibly have come about without divine plan that I, Steve Tighe, exist here today. Well, if any of the millions upon millions of different sperm produced by my father had met one of my mother's eggs, someone else, NOT Steve Tighe, would be sitting here (barring some tragedy earlier in their life). But, whoever that person was, SHE could surely ask the very same question, with the very same warrant. A random event, such at the particular day on which my parents conceived me, can have a unique outcome.] I'll also ignore the problem of how you get from "a creator" to anything approaching any being that might be recognizable as God. (As one of my undergrad philosophy teachers liked to say, "The universe does show evidence of design. It looks like it was, perhaps, the equivalent of an extra-terrestrial high school science project, for which the "creator" got a grade of "C+". Unfortunately, that creator, and her whole race, are now extinct.") Put aside these issues.
让我们关注这个论证在解释价值方面应该给我们买什么，因为这是它的营销幌子。我从一个公认的宇宙之谜开始:为什么它有某些属性，为什么这些属性是地球上生命(实际)过程所必需的?现在我得到了启示:有一个存在，上帝，他创造了它，让它成为现在的样子，拥有这些属性。我快乐吗(当然是智力上的快乐。提出或接受这个论点，除了纯粹出于智力上的考虑，肯定没有别的动机了吧?哦,还没有。大家一致同意的问题是解释世界是如何具有某些属性的。借用斯宾诺莎的说法，作为一种解决办法，就是说出一个名字，并声称一切都由此得到了解释。上帝是如何创造世界的?通过什么方式? HOW does a being go about twiddling knobs and setting physical parameters? One old creationist answer, given by Henry Morris, went, roughly, "God created the world for purposes we can't understand using powers beyond our comprehension and forces nowhere operating in the universe today". Well, put that way, the argument collapses. One can't market something as "an explanation" which is essentially an eternal monument to inexplicability. So what more is needed? Well, I would think, some sort of idea of HOW the purported explanation is supposed to go. Eg., I believe that many living things begin from a single cell, when a sperm fertilizes an egg. In the human case, after 9 months, out pops a very complicated being, all sorts of structures, symmetries, and incredible resemblance to a miniature adult human, usually looking a lot like one of its parents. HOW does that come about? I take it the rough answer is, "that original single cell contained a complete genetic code, one half from the mother, one half from the father, which over the course of pregnancy guided development ..." etc, etc, etc. I'm not an embyologist, but I suppose one could give a real answer. Without something similar, the God Hypothesis seems to be in the situation of having 3 theoretical items, God, the act of creation (ie., setting the physical parameters, creating matter, etc.), and the universe, and providing no idea how they are supposed to go together.
Theists might draw analogies to modern science. For example, Quantum Theory is, according to those who know it best, darn near incomprehensible. Trying to explain its view of physical reality in terms amenable to commonsense is hopeless. So why shouldn't the God Hypothesis be the same? Well, (that is a long, drawn-out, half sighing, "well", by the way), yes. So if it could be shown how the God Hypothesis works to yield explanations of features of the universe as well as quantum theory yields explanations of higher level physical phenomena, theists might have a point. The problem, as should be evident, is that ANY outcome is compatible with the God Hypothesis. Creationists have always been in the (enviable?) position of knowing in advance of any evidence that their thesis is true, and therefore cheerfully able to claim apparently recalcitrant evidence as further support. (As the history of Christianity's rejection and subsequent embrace, at least by some, of evolution as part of God's plan shows.) As far as the universe goes, we don't know God's purposes, we don't know (theoretically) how anyone could set physical constants and endow matter with its fundamental properties, and we don't know what sort of powers and forces would be needed to bring it all about. And that is the crucial thing. If someone embraces an "explanation" that seems not to explain anything, while increasing the number of unexplained things to boot, I begin to suspect the main motive is something other than theoretical insight.
At the outset, I said that these sorts of arguments always baffle me. Now I can say why. Accepting a disputed premise, the fine-tuning of the universe seems to need explanation. So, we have one mystery. One problem. The God Hypothesis, far from resolving that problem, gives me at least 3: For what purpose)s) did God create the world as he did? What theoretical knowledge did God use to twiddle the knobs and set the physical features of universe? What powers are needed to do so? ("Twiddling knobs" is, of course, a metaphor. But I really have no idea, and despite reading and listening to a lot of stuff on modern physics, I have no idea what a non-metaphorical account of "setting the physical parameters of the universe" would look like, or if one is even possible.) I said "at least 3" because, of course, there is probably still going to be the problem of explaining how God exists. The old-fashioned Cosmological Argument, inferring God as the creator from the contingent existence or nature of the world, had the same problem. In place of one problem-the unexplained existence or nature of the world-we were given 2: the existence of God and the means by which God created the world. Barring answers to these, the initial problem still remained as well, ie., we would still not have an explanation for those problematic features of the world. I don't see where the Fine Tuning Argument has made any progress. It's still the same move, just in fancier dress. In the end, I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell's analogy of the pursuit of knowledge with climbing a mountain in the fog, with more and being revealed as the fog dissipates. I wonder if there aren't a lot of people who just like the fog.
PS Hi Ken!!!

物理学、化学和逻辑学的定律足以让我们在我们所能理解的范围内理解宇宙。这些律法对于试图证明上帝的存在或他的特性(如果他真的存在的话)是无用的。道德考量并不会限制我们对控制宇宙的过程的理解，但在试图理解上帝时，它们是至关重要的。
在我年轻得多的时候，我开始从头到尾地阅读《圣经》。我已经到了一个地步，我无法想象一个上帝会像书中描绘的那样冷酷无情。但宗教传统中的残忍与自然界的残忍相比，根本不值一提。例如，考虑到几百万年前可能至少有8种原始人(也可能多达16种)。只有一个幸存下来，成为人类的祖先。为什么?似乎随着原始人类头部大小和脑容量的增加，只有一个物种能够解决生育问题，这是通过“早产”实现的——在9个月而不是预期的21个月。
Cruel nature is credible; a cruel God, especially an infinitely cruel one, is not credible. Intelligent design, indeed?

在我看来，上帝是a clever invention, having been posited across a wide spectrum of societies, cultures and traditions. The "God Delusion", as described by the redoubtable Richard Dawkins, remains a well-articulated and persuasive opinion, that seems to support a common hypnosis. In an angrier rant, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote that God is Not Great, while Salman Rushdie said that the title of Hitchens' work should have been: God is Not. I do not support any position in this endless and pointless argument, because it has achieved nothing, AFAIK. And, as I see it, none of us will ever KNOW; while we live to tell about it.

有神论者认为上帝最初的状态极其简单，这一论点并没有被物理学所驳斥。宇宙的初始状态(T=0时)也是极其简单的。和热!在CERN无法达到的温度下。这种状态也是高度不稳定的(因为它也是极不可能的)。宇宙热大爆炸模型(Hot Big Bang Model of The Universe)描述了这种不可能性的结果(今天的宇宙)。主要是普遍的膨胀和冷却趋势。如果上帝是可能的最简单状态(无限简单?)，那么上帝也一定是可能的最热状态(无限热?)比T=0时的宇宙温度还高。既然无限状态不可能存在(与数学家讨论这个说法，最好是集合理论家)，那么上帝也不可能存在。 End of Story.

The universe is not what you think it is; it is much more wonderful. I fell of a cliff while mountain climbing. My leg was broken in so many places that it was backwards, and I was going to die up there all alone. I prayed to God more deeply and totally that I had ever done in my life. After about 10 minutes I had an experience.
I saw everything around me to be of undescribable beauty, order and indestructable substance. I saw everything as God experiences it. I call it "experiencing heaven". The infinite unlimited is real. It is we who are stuck in 3 dimensions and experiencing limitations.
当我恢复正常意识时，我的腿立刻完全恢复了正常。完美的。没有任何肿胀、疼痛、僵硬和变色。完美的。与上帝在一起的经历只是一瞬间的事。
我不是一个宗教妄想者。这是真实的。我也有过一些类似的经历。
I cannot begin to figure out all the things you understand about the Big Band, black holes, etc. But I saw what mankind will learn when he figures it all out. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but as advanced as science it, science is still in kindergarten.
被创造的宇宙是一个无限的源(上帝)的辐射，他是精神。源头显现物质。人类被赋予了引导能量的能力。我们也限制了宇宙的可能性，限制了我们自己对宇宙的体验，因为宇宙确实有无限的维度。这很难解释。我只是个农民。

I am surprised by how many posts here make highly controversial claims that are supposed to refute the fine-tuning argument without being aware that the claims are highly controversial or offering any argument for them. Most are confidently stated, with little support. In this post, I will address several of the objections raised by previous posts. I deal with most of these in articles I have written, many of which are posted on my personal website (search for Robin Collins). Here I will just give brief responses.
OBJECTION 1: God must be as complex as the Universe posted by Colin and Arvoasitis on March 18th
The first objection was raised by two posters. It is a common objection that is often promoted as a simple, fatal objection to the fine-tuning argument but is rarely argued for. The first post claimed ?That being [God] is by definition several orders of magnitude more complex than anything it would have created?; and the second claimed that ?if God the Intelligent Designer exists, He is certainly more complicated than our universe and beyond our comprehension.?
很难看出第一篇文章中的陈述有什么意义。对上帝的普遍定义是一种存在或存在的基础，它是全能的、无所不知的、完美的、永恒的，支撑着存在中的一切。上帝比他所创造的任何事物都要复杂，这是这个定义的一部分吗?在我刚刚给出的定义中显然没有提到这一点。它不像独角兽的例子，独角兽的定义中有一个角，或者像单身汉的例子，单身汉的定义中有一个未婚。第二篇文章只是断言这个观点，没有任何论据支持，好像这是显而易见的。因此，两位作者都没有给出任何理由来证明上帝一定比宇宙更复杂。
Those who offer this objection would have to show that for any being to have the attributes that God has would require a high degree of underlying complexity. Consider consciousness (awareness). One might argue that from our experience with humans and other organisms, consciousness always is associated with a complex structure, namely the brain. This, however, does not give us much reason to think that consciousness NECESSARILY requires a complex, internal structure, since nothing in our CONCEPT of consciousness requires this ? and typically a connection of necessity is established by showing that the corresponding concepts must go together. If one thought that the property of being conscious was reducible to a certain complex set of interrelationships, then one would have a reason to think that of necessity it requires a complex structure to exist. No plausible analysis along these lines has yet been given, and many philosophers (both theists and atheists) have thought none can be given. In any case, it is clear that our concept of consciousness is not that of having a complex structure, since as children we knew we were conscious before we had much of an idea of what a complex structure is. So, I think it is plausible that an entity (or ground of being) could be conscious without having any internal structure, just as an electron has the property of having a negative electric charge without having any internal structure sustaining it.
The claim that God?s has unbounded awareness (i.e., God is omniscient) is also important for the claim that God has minimal internal complexity. If there were some truths God were ignorant of (but it was possible for a being to be aware of), then there would have to be some law or principle external to God, or something about God?s nature, that determined which truths God was aware of and which he/she was not aware of. That would add complexity to reality. So, I think a plausible case can be made that an unbounded consciousness need have no internal complexity. Similar things could be said about the other properties of God.
OBJECTION 2: Sample of One Objection posted by Bill on March 19
?By its very name, the universe is a single data point. No pattern, be it a line or curve, can be constructed or extrapolated from a single point.?
我从不把微调的论点作为一种外推的形式。更确切地说，我把它作为上帝假设的确认，通过一个微调的、具体化的、意识主体允许的宇宙的存在。海报中的单个数据点?任何时候都能证实假设。20世纪60年代发现的宇宙微波背景辐射的存在只是海报下的一个数据点?S准则，因为它是这个宇宙的一个特征，但它强有力地证实了大爆炸理论。科学上还有许多其他的例子。因此，至少就像反对意见所说的那样，我认为它没有多大价值。
OBJECTION 3 Other Life Forms Objection posted by Duncan on March 20th
?Our existence is just one outcome in the set of all possible forms of intelligent life, and we just don't know how big that set is or what it looks like.?
The point of this objection is supposedly that we do not know enough about what kinds of intelligent life (or in my terminology, embodied conscious agents who can significantly affect each other through their choices) can exist to say whether it requires fine-tuning. This is just not true; all we have to know is that embodied conscious agents require stable, reproducible complexity. A universe in which the strong nuclear force that binds neutrons and protons together is too weak would have no atoms other than normal hydrogen. It should be obvious that highly complex entities that can significantly interact with each other cannot be made with just hydrogen ? whether in gas or liquid form ? let alone evolve; for example, we are not going to find intelligent life forms evolving in the sun?s atmosphere. As another example, if the dark energy density were not tuned to within 10^120 of its naturally occurring value (the Planck scale), then either the universe would expand so rapidly that the matter in the universe would never condense into galaxies or stars, or the universe would collapse long before it cooled sufficiently for galaxies and stars to form. In either case, stable reproducible complexity is not going to evolve ? e.g., without stars, there will not be any usable energy sources, such as the volcanic vents the author mentions. Matter would just be evenly distributed in space, such as one atom per cubic meter. I think people who raise this objection just have not carefully considered the fine-tuning evidence.
OBJECTION 4. Lack of Explanatory Value Objection posted by Steve on March 21st
Steve Tighe raised the objection that the God hypothesis does not buy us anything of explanatory value. Although often presented as an inference to the best explanation, I believe this is a bad way of presenting the argument (as I stated in my interview). One problem is that there are many different kinds of explanations, each with their own criteria for what constitutes a good explanation, with these largely depending on one?s pragmatic ends. A better way of framing the argument is either to claim that the fine-tuning data strongly confirms theism over its naturalistic contenders. The situation can be thought of as follows. Define ?elaborated theism? as the claim that God exists conjoined with claims that God does not require fine-tuning (for the type of reasons stated above) and that a universe with embodied conscious agents realizes goods that could not otherwise be realized. Before the fine-tuning evidence, many have found elaborated theism as not completely implausible, especially when compared with the contending hypothesis that the universe just happens to exist. Suppose that one is such a person. You might have doubts about the coherence of the God hypothesis (or the other two claims that are part of elaborated theism). The fine-tuning evidence will not itself give you insight into why you should find theism coherent, or make the other two conjuncts seem more plausible when considered alone. I claim, however, that it should make the naturalistic hypothesis much less plausible: not only is naturalists stuck with the inherent implausibility of claiming that the universe?s existence is a brute fact, but now they are stuck with the hugely coincidental fact that is set just right for the existence of embodied conscious agents. So, I claim, the inherent plausibility of naturalism has gone way down. Although the inherent plausibility of theism has not gone up, its plausibility IN RELATION to its major contender ? naturalism ? should significantly go up.

Further thoughts on Fine-Tuning.
I have to admit that I don't find the fine tuning argument all that convincing. It seems to turn on a premises -- that the fact of a life-supporting universe is in some sense improbable, given all the possible non-life supporting universes there could have been. But I don't really know how to think about the probability or improbabilty of an overall universe. I said as much during the episode. That principle says that we should reality - total reality -- to be in some sense plenitudinous. That is, we should antecedently expect that all possible ways that things "might be" will be actualized. That's not to say that the actual cannot be a limited subset of the really possible. But when only a limited subset of the really possible is actualized, it seems that we want some explanation of the limited actualization of the possible.
Not sure how big a deal that is. Wouldn't call it a hard constraint. Not sure it can be justified as any more than a human craving rather than anything like a deep metaphysical constraint. Still, although I'm not sure what to make of it, I'm not in general opposed to judicious use of something like such a principle. And I do wonder whether something like the principle of plenitude might work to generate something like the fine-tuning argument.
回到我在节目中顺便说的一些话，同时建立在约翰的观点上。我怀疑在整个宇宙中有无数个维持生命的行星。也许进化有千百万次机会施展它的魔法。如果是这样的话，根据丰富原则，你可能会合理地认为，在某个星球上进化出来的生命形式的总和，是真正可能存在的生命形式的一个非常大的子集。如果存在某种假定的真正可能的生命形式，但在哪里进化都没有，人们可能会开始怀疑这种生命形式是否真的可能。用我们的嘉宾罗宾·柯林斯喜欢的术语来说，如果进化在其他地方产生的只是在这里产生的生命形式的分布，那将是令人难以置信的“惊人”。然后你可能会开始怀疑某种隐藏的手，甚至可能是神的手，似乎在加载进化的骰子。
但是这些与微调的论点有什么关系呢?我已经承认了我不会被你的论点打动，所以也许根本不会。但在我们得出这个结论之前，有几个不同的观点值得讨论。首先，如果你认为只有一个实际的宇宙，而认为各种各样的宇宙，其基本常数等的不同值，不仅在逻辑上或概念上是可能的，那么你可能就到达了微调论证的起点，但其方式与它的提倡者设想的有点不同。这一现状需要解释。不是因为“不可能”吗?再说一次，谁知道整个宇宙的概率是多少?顺便说一下，目前的物理学并没有告诉我们这一点。相反，你是通过充分实现真正可能的原则到达那里的。现实似乎不如现实的可能性那么丰富。 Of course, the principle might drive you into the arms of the multiverse because that gives you an actuality that has the same degree of plenitude as the really possible. But you can also -- it seems to me -- accept that idea that random symmetry breaking at the beak bang does just as well (and probably better) at explaining the one universe and its special character than the the fine tuning hypothesis. Only if (fundamental) reality abhors randomness would you have to deny that. But why think that?
Still, even if you reject both the multiverse and fine-tuning,and prefer random symmetry breaking, maybe you still want to reduce the plenum of a possibilities so that there isn't such a great gap between the totality of possibilities and the totality of actualities. You might do this by trying to reduce the number of independent fundamental variables to the smallest number possible -- thus limiting the set of possibilities. Not sure how far you can get with that. But it's worth a try, it would seem. You might still have more real possibilities than actualities, but the gap wouldn't be so great.
Plus it seems like the drive to reduce the number of independent fundamentals is driven more by a methodological or regulative regulative constraint. Is there really any more antecedent reason to believe that the universe is "simple" (in the sense of having a few independent fundamentals) than that it is irreducibly "complex"
Not sure what to make of any of this. But that's what doing an episode on the fine-tuning argument will get you -- more questions than answers.

恕我直言，柯林斯先生，你有点虚伪。你认为我们生活的宇宙是如此复杂，它显示了“微调”的证据，这一论点基于这样一个概念:复杂性不会通过进化发生，因此必须是任意世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区创造的结果。你选择的术语“微调”的真正含义是指一种有意识的努力来完善某事。简单的东西不能随意创造复杂的东西——它需要理解为什么它所做的是最好的选择。不管我给它多少次机会，水都不会通过找到自己的水平来解复杂的方程。它甚至不知道去尝试。为了分析和“微调”，上帝需要比它解决的问题更复杂——这是一个逻辑上的命令。
同样的逻辑(一个复杂事物的存在等于证明一个更高的复杂性创造了那个复杂的事物)在你的创造宇宙的上帝身上就不成立了:创造这个宇宙的神必须比它所创造的宇宙还要复杂，创造他的神也一样(因为按照你的逻辑，一件事达到复杂性的唯一方式是被更复杂的东西“微调”)，创造那个神的神也是如此，很快就会变成乌龟。大家都知道万能的同义乌龟。
That's my argument. I'm sure you've heard it before, and that you've given it some serious consideration. Your response (if I may paraphrase) is: Who says god has to be complex? It's an interesting hedge, and I'm glad that you're not trying to argue that the rules just don't apply to him - at least you're making an effort to adhere to logic. But then you lose me with your definition of god: "A common definition of God is a being, or ground of being, that is all powerful, omniscient, perfectly good, and eternal, and that sustains everything in existence."
Now, I'm not sure where that definition is from, or even that it is common, but for the sake of argument, let's just use that as our working definition.
我承认，如果上帝是所有这些东西，他可以存在而不比宇宙更复杂。但是，如果上帝是所有这些东西，而且仅仅是这些东西，那么在这个定义中，是什么赋予了他创造宇宙的能力(或动力)?没什么。这个定义中有什么暗示了他在宇宙中故意创造特定的事物以适应他们的环境?没什么。在这个定义中，是什么确立了上帝是简单的，或者甚至有能力随意创造复杂的事物，而不比他创造的事物更复杂?什么都没有。
Your definition is irrelevant to the question at hand and in no way establishes that something simple could willfully create something more complex than itself. Or whether god is or isn't highly complex.
所以这个定义对我们的讨论没有意义。
Which brings us back to your question: Who says god has to be more complex than what he's created? The terms of your own logic. IF the proof of god's existence is the complexity of the universe (which couldn't exist without willful creation), THEN in order to willfully create the universe he must be more complex than all of the components of the universe combined. Because he's willfully, consciously "fine tuning" it. The fact that your argument is based on the existence of complexity but demands that the creator of such complexity isn't complex is logically incoherent. You can't have it both ways: either the complexity of the universe is proof of god's existence (and thereby proof of his higher level of complexity than the universe, the creation of which he was created for creating), or it's incidental.

All indications are that the observed universe has an underlying structure such that stochastic inputs ratchet evolutionary processes forward. Not only bio-evolution but also the other aspects of nature's machinery, from the formation of the chemical elements in stars and supernovae right through to the evolution of technology within the collective imagination of our species.
All of which exhibit strong directionality. A pervasive and persistent pattern which can usefully be extrapolated to predict the imminent emergence of a new, non-biological predominant cognitive entity on this planet from what is now the Internet.
越来越多的人进一步认识到，随机输入可以(并且确实)以这种方式驱动“生命”过程的方向性。An overall directionality clearly observable in the biological and other evolutionary processes which, from our traditional human perspective, we interpret as "purpose"
Jose Ignacio Pascual et al of Freie Universität Berlin have also helped fan the flame of this understanding by recently demonstrating that the stochastic motion of vibrating hydrogen molecules can be used to move a mechanical cantilever.
The interpretation of processes of this kind as a ratcheting mechanism happens to be my own preferred analogy. It does however require an underlying structure in the fabric of our universe evidence with which stochastic component interacts. And it is this which provides a rational basis for the contentious issue of fine tuning of the universe for "life"
“微调”的证据实际上非常有力。但它绝不支持《智能设计》或其他任何源于宗教迷信神话的虚构。
The physical parameters are but the tip of the iceberg. There is actually a much greater body of evidence to support fine tuning to be found in fields of science far better established than cosmology.
After all, perhaps the earliest proponent of fine-tuning was the biochemist Lawrence Henderson. In ?The Fitness of the Environment?, published in 1913, he observed that ??the whole evolutionary process, both cosmic and organic, is one, and the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric?
Geology, biology and particularly chemistry provide many examples of ?just right? prevailing conditions that enable and, indeed, make virtually inevitable, the strong directionality we observe in evolutionary processes.
The most recent part of this evolutionary continuum is that most familiar to us and of which we have the best knowledge: The autonomous evolution of technology within the medium of the collective imagination of our species.
但是，如果微调是一种有效的现象，那么它就倾向于有神论，这种普遍持有的假设是有缺陷的。
Because it predicated by the very common and entirely intuitive belief that it suggests a ?designer?.
But it can be very plausibly argued that, except in a very trivial sense, the concept of a ?designer? is but an anthropocentric conceit for which there is no empirical basis.
An objective examination of the history of science and technology bears this out.
To quickly put this counter-intuitive view into focus, would you not agree that the following statement has a sound basis?
We would have geometry without Euclid, calculus without Newton or Liebnitz, the camera without Johann Zahn, the cathode ray tube without JJ Thomson, relativity (and quantum mechanics) without Einstein, the digital computer without Turin, the Internet without Vinton Cerf.
当然，这个列表可以无限扩展。
这个广泛的进化模型，远远超出了生物学领域，在《金发姑娘效应:机缘巧合为我们做了什么》一书中有很非正式的概述。这是一个免费下载的电子书格式，从?不寻常的观点?的网站。
My work in preparation "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry Uphill" will provide a more formal and detailed treatment of this issue.

I'm certain that I'm misreading your reply, but it seems to me to boil down to, "If you're predisposed to accept the existence of God and his authorship of the Universe, the fine-tuning argument will appeal to you. If you're not, it won't.." Did I miss something? IF, and again ,this is, per Laurence Krauss, a disputed IF, IF I accept the claim that the universe appears fine-tuned for life, it seems there are 2 possibilities. Somehow in the conditions of the Big Bang, matter acquired these properties. They are somehow inherent in the structure of physical reality itself. It might be that physicists will never be able to figure out how that might have happened. So those properties of the universe will remain unexplained. The other possibility is that some outside agency acted somehow to produce the universe with just those properties. So, eg., matter could have had many other sets of properties. I admit this to be, quite possibly, merely an autobiographical peculiarity, but I really don't see what interest such an explanation would have, UNLESS we are also given the means by which God did, or could have done, whatever he did to set those properties (and for what reasons).
鉴于你对不同类型解释的评论，以及我对上帝应该是哪种类型解释的无知，我想我不知道如何评估(有争议的)宇宙微调证实了上帝假说的主张。因为我不知道什么才算确认。但是让我试着通过一个看起来很糟糕的类比来解决这个问题。假设我说:我知道是什么导致了精神分裂症。木星。(是星球，不是古代的神。)假设你问我:“木星如何解释精神分裂症?”我回答:“就是这样。”你又问了一遍，试图弄明白我的意思，“但是木星和精神疾病之间可能有什么联系呢?”我回答说:“如果你准备接受天体对我们心理的影响，你可能会喜欢这个解释。如果你不是，你可能不会。 But that's the explanation". I would expect to be taken as not serious, or as a bit nutty. But the problem is, I don't see where the God hypothesis is fundamentally any different, except for the historical fact that more people have been raised to be sympathetic to the God hypothesis. You point to a (disputed) puzzling feature of the universe. You offer an explanation. The explanation involves no filling in of the connection between explanans and explanandum. God's existence and ability to twiddle knobs and set physical constants ARE presented as brute facts, and the connection between God and the universe is left unintelligible. So, even given your reply, I ....probably could just have restated my first comment all over again. And I will repeat, I don't see why this isn't exactly what Spinoza meant by people who utter a name and think they've explained all.

Don't play into an argument that is not rational to begin with. There are no 'accidents'. That is opinionated. Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes if we don't know why, we say "god did it". This is a way of saying that we're not god, and that we don't know, yet not saying that "we don't know" as it doesn't inspire children with confidence, and it makes people want to know something which may not be worth finding out to begin with.

"All of this --- that is, a world with life, intelligence, beauty, humans, morality, etc., ---- couldn?t have come about by accident. It must be due to some intelligent, powerful Being --- and that?s what God is."
This argument has two parts, (a) that the world is a wonderful place with beauty and morality etc. and, (b) that people astonished from the beauty of the world would search for the creator of that awesomeness.
Well, (b) would not be so popular if it wasn?t for (a), don?t you think?
让吗?不存在一个有生命的世界，生命等于世界，世界就是生命。没有生命，我们无法定义世界。此外，我们定义的智能是我们自己的逻辑和情感功能，被认为是使用我们的自然能力，即大脑和情感的最佳方式。谁把我们人类定义为智能生物?我们所做的。没有别的生物可以这么做。我们无法通过与其他物种交流来了解它们对我们的看法。和我吗?我对他们说的话很感兴趣。
Morality is a term so flexible. It is strictly related to cultures, historical periods and nationalities. What is morality? Morality may be a way for societies to point out that people should respect the good in every man and every man should try to be the best aspect of him. But ?good? and ?best? are defined by society itself and cannot be accounted as God?s gifts to humanity. Ethics, that is the basis of morality, is a mixture of historical, political and economic factors that form the archetype of the moral man.
Nietzsche stated ?In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.? Einstein, I think, gave the right perspective of morality directing its definition towards society, ?Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.?
聪明的人，有道德的人，是一个很好的故事，但我认为，如果你环顾四周，你会发现人类既不聪明，也不道德。每个社会都创造了行为原型，这些行为原型结合了逻辑和情感模式，并引导人们生产更多，并为此感到高兴。了吗?这不是奇迹。
Hence, there is not much to admire in the world. I don?t say people should not be happy to be alive, but life is not a matter of happiness rather than a matter of purpose. We live in this world, because we are created by it, for the purpose of contributing to its continuity. If we accept the realistic facts of our existence, outside the society at first and then in a society that could allow for the realization of our individuality as the purpose of the existence, then the world would not be about good and bad, but about the truth.
We admire the things we cannot yet explain with our tools (i.e. science). For humans, that have created such a great idea for themselves, it is very hard to accept randomness, and so the hope of God?s existence eliminates the fear of the unknown and gives all of us a way, through religion, to be like God. That is a fact that cannot be excluded from any argument about the existence of God. The religious man tries to resemble God, follows the guidelines in order to concur His greatness. Thus, have all the answers.
我们的世界有许多矛盾。对我们人类来说，看到这个世界和我们的社会的本来面目会更诚实，然后我们可能会看到他们的本来面目。人的首要问题应该是:自己该怎么办?为什么我这么漂亮??!也许，世界就会变得美好而无需解释原因。

For disembodied entities peering into an external universe, it is reasonable to ask, "Why this universe?" The answer "Because God created it" raises two questions: "Why does God exist?" and "Why did God choose this universe out of an infinite set of possibilities?" These two questions have a simple, well-known answer: "Because we created God in our image."
然而，目前的科学共识是，我们不是宇宙之外的灵魂;我们是其中的一部分。如果我们是宇宙的一部分，我们的存在就意味着宇宙就是它本来的样子，这是一种重复。它是一个同义重复，因为它简单地断言这个宇宙的存在意味着这个宇宙的存在。同义重复不需要解释。宇宙学家把这种重复称为人择原理。

Replies to Colin's and Steve's Replies
Colin and Steve, thanks for your replies to my reply. Here is the next iteration in which I reply to some of your replies.
First, to Colin?s post:
COLIN: ?Your argument that the universe we live in is so complex it shows evidence of being "fine tuned" depends on the notion that complexity cannot happen through evolution and therefore must be the result of willful creation.?
MY REPLY: The argument has nothing to do with evolution (if you evolution by natural selection), since that kind of evolution applies to biological complexity, and this argument has to do with the universe?s needing to have the right structure for evolution to even occur. The closest thing to an evolutionary account of the fine-tuning is the many universes hypothesis, which relies on the chance production of universes and observer selection instead of natural selection. I briefly addressed this hypothesis in the interview and more in my papers on the subject.
COLIN: ?The very meaning of your term of choice - "fine tune" - implies a conscious effort to refine something. Something simple cannot willfully create something complex - it needs to have an understanding of why what it's doing is the best choice.?
MY REPLY: If God is an unbounded consciousness, then God will be aware of and therefore understand all truths, which means that God will understand what is the best choice. As I stated in my post, I do not see why an unbounded consciousness would need to be complex at all. For example, there is nothing in the notion of ?consciousness? that requires complexity. As to your point about the meaning of fine-tuning, that is the name that has been commonly given to the fact that the initial conditions of the universe and the constants of physics must be precisely set for life to occur. At least according to almost all the major thinkers in theistic tradition, God wills the universe into existence; thus, no refining is involved. Now, you might object that having the power to will something into existence is unintelligible, but agents such as us do this all the time with thoughts and images in our minds ? I will to form an image in my mind of a red beach ball and the image occurs. So, initially such a power seems intelligible, though unless one is a philosophical idealist in the case of God, the power extends to bringing about more than just mental entities. Of course, in the case of God I cannot give a further account of how God can have this power (at least in terms of some underlying mechanism), other than just postulating that God does. However, one always runs into that issue, even in scientific explanations: at some point, one must just hypothesize that mass-energy has certain powers or obeys certain laws, without being able to give a further analysis. (See my response to Steve below).
科林:创造这个宇宙的神应该比它创造的宇宙还要复杂，创造他的神也一样(因为按照你的逻辑，一件事达到复杂的唯一方式就是被更复杂的东西“微调”)，创造那个神的神也是如此，很快就会变成乌龟。
MY REPLY: I never said that the only way something can achieve complexity is by being fine-tuned by something more complex. Of course, if I said that, then I would fall into the problem you elaborate. I did not even say complexity needed a further explanation or cause. Rather, I only claim that the particular type of complexity of the universe was very, very surprising under naturalism but not under theism, and thus by the likelihood principle strongly confirms theism over naturalism. Or, another way of putting it is that the fine-tuning evidence has made naturalism considerably worse off in comparison to theism than it was before the fine-tuning evidence.
COLIN: ?what in that definition gave him the ability (or impetus) to create the universe??
我的回答:这是所有力量(全能)定义的一部分吗?这大致意味着做任何事情的能力不自相矛盾。你可能会拒绝这种全能的想法，或说这需要高度的复杂性，但在行动能力的概念中却没有什么。要求高度的复杂性。
COLIN: ?IF the proof of god's existence is the complexity of the universe . . .?
Response: Besides what I said above, argument is not a proof (only a claim that fine-tuning provides evidence for theism) and it is not based on the complexity of the universe. For example, a random configuration of letters is highly complex (just try to reproduce it), but no one would infer to design from finding such a random configuration. The argument is rather that the fundamental parameters of physics must fall into a very narrow range of values (compared to their theoretically possible ranges) in order for life to exist. Nothing in that statement refers to complexity. Given my statement of the argument, you would have to critique it by saying that something about God must also be precisely set for God to be able to create the universe. The objection would be a good one if one conceived of God as, for example, an alien with a brain. Then, since we know brains need to be set just right to function, so would God. That, however, is not how the leading thinkers in the theistic tradition have conceived of God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE: ?I'm certain that I'm misreading your reply, but it seems to me to boil down to, ?If you're predisposed to accept the existence of God and his authorship of the Universe, the fine-tuning argument will appeal to you. If you're not, it won't..? Did I miss something??
我的回答:我认为你的表述不太正确。更好的表述是用?你是否倾向于接受上帝的存在?“如果你不认为上帝的存在是完全不可信的”;最后一个短语可以被翻译成主观或认知概率的语言，如?你若不给神呢?S存在的初始概率为0 ?如果你给它一个非零的初始概率，那么微调证据就可以证实假设。我所使用的是确认理论的似然原则:如果一组证据的存在(在这种情况下是一个精心调整的宇宙)在一个假设(上帝)下不那么令人惊讶，那么在另一个假设(自然主义的单一宇宙假设)下，如果它证实了一个最不令人惊讶的假设，确认越强，惊讶程度的对比就越强烈。(确认的程度可以从贝叶斯?theorem of the probability calculus, which I do in my papers on the subject.)
史帝夫:但我真的不明白这样的解释会有什么好处，除非我们也被赋予了方法，通过上帝做了，或可能做了，他做了什么来设置那些属性(出于什么原因)。
MY RESPONSE: If one is using a personal agent conception of God (historically, there are other conceptions), the type of explanation being invoked is what Richard Swinburne calls a personal explanation, a kind we use all the time. If I want to explain why you drove to the store, I would invoke a reason (you wanted to get groceries) as my explanation. If you pressed me further on how a reason can bring about your body moving in the direction of the store, I would say that you are an agent ? that is, the kind of thing that has the power to act ? and that is motivated by reasons. Although perfectly acceptable in ordinary life, note that this sort of explanation does not address how you are able to respond to reasons or intend to do what you do, at least not in the sense of providing a mechanism. In the case of God, we can be given the reason (because of the value realized by the existence of conscious embodied agents), but not necessarily an analysis of how God has this power.
Even though we rely on these types of explanations all the time, you might find this explanation uninteresting in the case of God because it does not provide an account of how God (as an agent) can bring about anything or respond to reasons. But, if you do, it is because you are looking for a particular kind of explanation ? a scientific explanation ? that attempts to explain an occurrence in terms of underlying mechanisms and laws. An explanation that does not do this is usually considered scientifically uninteresting because it does not allow one to make further explanatory progress by uncovering the mechanisms or laws by which something operates. I agree that finding such underlying mechanisms or laws has been very helpful for scientific progress, and so if that kind of progress is what one is after, invoking God will likely not help. But note that is a certain type of pragmatic concern. If one is merely interested in the ultimate cause of a phenomenon ? the structure of the universe -- and is willing to take the ability of God to bring about the universe as a fundamental power that is not further analyzable, then one might very well be happy with this sort of explanation. Or if one only wants an explanation to take away the surprise of some feature occurring by invoking an hypothesis that was not just made up to explain the phenomenon in question, then the God hypothesis will also be an adequate explanation in the sense of removing the surprise that the universe has the structure it does.
As to the worry that one must accept God?s ability at this point as a power that is not further analyzable, that is the case with any explanation. For example, you can explain why water boils by appealing to the claim that water is composed of atoms and the laws regarding how atoms behave, and then attempt to explain the laws governing atoms by appeal to laws governing their components ? e.g., electrons -- and so forth. Eventually, however, unless you are willing to countenance an infinite regress of explanations, your explanation must stop and you must appeal to some brute powers or laws that you cannot further explain, but just say that is the way things are. At this bottom level, even in scientific explanations, you must just say that matter just behaves this way, without being able to provide any further connection between what is doing the explaining and the thing being explained. For example, suppose we cannot find any further account than that of general relativity of why masses attract each other. General relativity says masses attract each other because mass curves space-time, and in the absence of other forces, masses follow geodesics. If that was your ultimate explanation, you would just have to take the power of masses attracting each other as a brute given, without any further explanation. So, scientific explanations also have to accept brute powers (or at least laws) that are not further scientifically analyzable, but they just do it further down the chain. (As a side note, Newton?s theory of gravity was resisted by advocates of the mechanical philosophy for over 100 years because he did not give any account of how masses could attract each other, but just wrote down an equation for the relation between the force of attraction, the quantity of mass, and their distance apart. Eventually, scientists can to merely accept that at some point one must just invoke powers or laws without any further explanation for how the entity in question has those powers.)
All that being said, I further stress that I think casting the fine-tuning argument into an inference to the best explanation is a faulty way of proceeding, largely because one is comparing personal explanations with scientific explanations; this is like comparing apples and oranges, since if one is looking for a scientific explanation, one will never be satisfied with appealing to the powers of a personal agent. (Also, this holds in reverse. If I want to know why you went to the store, and you give me an explanation of the firing of neurons in your brain that explains the movement of your body towards the store, I would be unsatisfied: I would want to know the reason why you went to the store.) In the likelihood formulation, one avoids this whole problem of comparing explanations, As long as one allows that it might just be possible, though perhaps very unlikely, that such a being as God exists, I claim the fine-tuning evidence confirms that hypothesis.
Finally, I will address your interesting Jupiter case. I think it is relevantly disanalogous to the case of God, as you recognize it might be To make it analogous, at least three features would have to be added: (1) the occurrence of schizophrenia would have to be very, very surprising under the non-Jupiter hypothesis, but not surprising under the Jupiter hypothesis; (2) the Jupiter hypothesis would have had to have been seriously advocated before finding these that schizophrenia was very, very surprising ? say, because of purported religious experience with Jupiter and its powers; (3) one eliminated any other possible explanation other than chance. In that case, it seems to me that the occurrence of schizophrenia would confirm the Jupiter hypothesis. As another analogy, if a group claimed that there was a spirit called Groodle whose favorite number was 1346523423441765 and that the spirit was going to try bring about that the next sixteen die roles would come up with that number, and it came up on that number, I would take the Groodle hypothesis much more seriously even if I could not understand how a spirit could do such a thing. (This, of course, assumes I have eliminated any other plausible explanation, other than chance, the latter which I take to be the contrasting claim the case of the universe ? it simply came about by chance.)
再次感谢您花时间阐明您的反对意见。

So much speculation. Much of it based on faith. Some of it grounded in physics. We seem to have all sorts of "arguments" regarding the God issue. Someone will surely set me straight here, because this blog and its commenters is/are adept at such. I have parsed the voluminous and, mostly eloquent, writings set forth in the previous comments. There is one approach or notion I heard of, many years ago, that my parsing has not unearthed in the current discussion. The age-old explanation of an all-knowing, all-powerful capital-G god was discussed, as would be expected. Michael, the true soul that he is, said that the Universe was another name for God. Simplicity is safe and comfortable for many of us who have other things to do in our lives. I admire and cherish those who live simple lives, trying each and every day to do so myself.
无论如何，我所指的方法/概念是这样的:如果一个全知、全能的(G)上帝创造了这个造物，我们是其中的一部分，那么，a)这个上帝从哪里来;第二，为什么我们作为一个(现在的)有智慧的物种，被选中来收获这种全能的恩惠，第三，我们是否认为，正如迈克尔所说，这个上帝实际上对宇宙拥有全能的统治?
Shirley, someone will set me straight. I am counting on it.
The Carpenter.

我从许多播客、讲座和讨论中注意到，当谈到宗教时，他们的信仰总是比他们的哲学训练和背景重要。因此，你以明显严肃的哲学论点结束，这些论点仅仅依赖于或建立在毫无价值或毫无价值的断言之上。
e.g. Robin Collins: "If you look at traditional theism, the creator first of all is thought to be necessarily existent and second, and this was long before the fine tuning, this was the plausible view, both in the West and in the East...
The creator is thought to be not only necessarily existent but have no internal complexity"
In what sense is making statements like this and then constructing a "Fine-tuning argument for God" based on such assertions "Doing Philosophy"?

The Creator:
The Sun, the stars, the planets, the Earth,
The space, the air, the water, and the dirt,
The plants, the animals, the mankind too,
The Universe, Nature, the infinite, the immeasurable,
The sacred, the holy, the God, the everything,
The truth, the just,
The you, the me,
The almighty, the One,
The All,
The is,
=

致巴塞尔的保罗:谢谢你的评论。我自己也在想这个问题，但我没有对这个问题进行解释，因为我以前就冒犯过别人。我的观点是，我们不应该把神智学和哲学混在一起，即使它们最多是远亲。在我看来，在这个繁忙的现代时代，我们偶尔会回避批判性思维。或者，我们可能只是缺乏挑战民粹主义范式的勇气。进步是不可阻挡的，但绝不是绝对正确的。我仍然欣赏不确定性——它让我们保持谦逊。警报。

Reply to Paul from Basil on Doing Philosophy
当我们讨论一个假说的优劣时，我们必须弄清楚这个假说的提倡者认为什么是这个假说的一部分。然后你可以问这个假设是否被一些数据所证实，或者逻辑上是否连贯，等等。我不认为报道有神论者传统上认为的上帝假设的一部分是不哲学的，而恰恰相反。也就是说，如果有人不仔细听，他们会误解我在做什么。
In this case, I am just reporting the kind of God the leading theologians and philosophers in the theistic tradition have believed in long before the fine-tuning evidence ?a God that does not have a great degree of complexity. To say that their God must be enormously complex and thus requires fine-tuning is just plain false, because by definition their God does not; the objection should rather be stated that the traditional conception of God is logically incoherent, since any being who created the universe would have to have an enormous complexity of the type that required fine-tuning. It is part of doing good philosophy to state arguments and objections as precisely as possible.
What difference does this distinction make? Among other things, it shows that postulating that God has little internal complexity that needs fine-tuning is not ad hoc in this context, since to be ad hoc requires that a hypothesis be made up to save a theory from refutation, which I pointed out in the interview. It also leads to a more precise framing of the fine-tuning argument. Although I said a few words about why God has been believed to have little internal complexity, in my view, no one has proved the traditional conception is logically coherent, and no one has proved that it isn?t. So, before the fine-tuning evidence, one is left with doubts about the coherence of the traditional conception of God versus doubts about the universe existing on its own without a further explanation, etc. To repeat what I stated before, I claim that the fine-tuning evidence does not introduce any new doubts about the inherent coherence or plausibility of the God hypothesis that has been traditionally held, but I argue that it does introduce new serious doubts about the plausibility of the naturalistic hypothesis that the universe just exists as a brute fact. So, given that one does not find theism initially completely implausible, its plausibility should increase for one relative to its naturalistic contender. What is unphilosophical about that line of reasoning?

If I were to attempt an argument in support of fine-tuning, it would go something like this:
在我们的宇宙中，有些事情是允许的;其他事情是不允许的。例如，一颗橡子可以变成橡树，但它不能变成蝴蝶或诗人。
有些事情，虽然不是严格意义上的不可能，但却不太可能，以至于我们没有必要不去注意它们。例如，惰性气体直到20世纪60年代才被认为不会发生化学反应，当时一位大学教授能够使氦在极端温度和压力的条件下发生化学反应。自从那些令人陶醉的日子以来，我再也没有听到关于这个问题的消息。
Now here is an astonishing fact. Human life depends on a multitude of almost-impossible biochemical reactions (comparable to the inert gas reactions) occurring frequently, regularly and unfailingly in every human being while temperature and pressure remain nearly constant. How is this possible?
The answer is that that there are biochemical substances, called enzymes, which power the near-impossible reactions, sometimes trillions-fold, to make life possible. The question now is this: did these enzymes evolve naturally through a series of blind accidents? Or was there some sort of plan that brought them into being? Or were they the product of divine intervention? Or, is there yet another possible explanation?

宇宙的条件与生命的结构和过程之间的紧密对应，可以被看作是一种有神论对宇宙的微调，以使生命以一种非常有限的方式存在，或者是生命对其自身所处的特定条件的进化适应。在阅读有神论者的论点时，我的感觉是，他们真的不明白一个复制的实体可以有多大的适应性，无论它可能采取什么形式。我们从来没有见过一个只有氢的宇宙有一个更弱的强力是什么样子的;谁知道那里的生命会如何进化呢?
I'll close with a nugget of wisdom from the deeply insightful Douglas Adams:
“这就像你想象一个水坑某天早上醒来，然后想，‘我发现自己身处的是一个有趣的世界?我发现自己在一个有趣的洞里?很合身，不是吗?事实上，它非常适合我，一定是为我量身定做的!'"

那不是两个d的亚当斯吗?其他几位思想家都很尊重搭便车的人——因此，显然，一位小说家在撰写他自己对世界的描述时，网罗了许多真正聪明的人。几乎没有人考虑过这个问题。大多数这样做的人，嗯，已经死了。确定。