Steven Carr
August 25, 2003, 06:57 AM
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/washdeba-question.html
Craig states :-
'Now with respect to natural evils or infant suffering, I already said it seems to me in a world operating according to natural law there would be the possibility of such evils and harms befalling us.'
So in a world according to natural law, not even God can do much about earthquakes and floods (What happened to divine intervention, BTW?)
This belief that God is helpless if the laws of physics are a given cuts out much of the force of the Fine-tuning argument.
God adjusted the laws of physics so that the strength of gravity was weak enough to allow the Big Bang to happen and not collapse on itself.
But according to Craig's logic that in a world operating according to that natural law it was then POSSIBLE that gravity might have been too weak to allow stars and planets to form.
It wasn't of course, but as Craig himself has raised the possibility that this natural evil MIGHT have happened to stymie God's plan, we can conclude that God was lucky that the laws of physics allowed a universe to form.
This is exactly the problem (isn't it lucky the laws of physics allow life) that the fine-tuning argument is supposed to solve.
Strictly speaking, to get around this Craig should use earthquakes and floods as examples of fine-tuning.
God has fine-tuned the tectonic activity of the planet so that there are some earthquakes, but not enough to kill all people.
Similarly God has fine-tuned the level of flooding so that not all people are killed.
Craig would never argue that way, but how can God suddenly become helpless and fail to fine-tune certain characteristics of the world, when he has no problem fine-tuning anything Craig wants to cite as support for theism.
Craig states :-
'Now with respect to natural evils or infant suffering, I already said it seems to me in a world operating according to natural law there would be the possibility of such evils and harms befalling us.'
So in a world according to natural law, not even God can do much about earthquakes and floods (What happened to divine intervention, BTW?)
This belief that God is helpless if the laws of physics are a given cuts out much of the force of the Fine-tuning argument.
God adjusted the laws of physics so that the strength of gravity was weak enough to allow the Big Bang to happen and not collapse on itself.
But according to Craig's logic that in a world operating according to that natural law it was then POSSIBLE that gravity might have been too weak to allow stars and planets to form.
It wasn't of course, but as Craig himself has raised the possibility that this natural evil MIGHT have happened to stymie God's plan, we can conclude that God was lucky that the laws of physics allowed a universe to form.
This is exactly the problem (isn't it lucky the laws of physics allow life) that the fine-tuning argument is supposed to solve.
Strictly speaking, to get around this Craig should use earthquakes and floods as examples of fine-tuning.
God has fine-tuned the tectonic activity of the planet so that there are some earthquakes, but not enough to kill all people.
Similarly God has fine-tuned the level of flooding so that not all people are killed.
Craig would never argue that way, but how can God suddenly become helpless and fail to fine-tune certain characteristics of the world, when he has no problem fine-tuning anything Craig wants to cite as support for theism.