The Cosmic Lottery and Fine Tuning: Debunking the This Universe Objection

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Mancould be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

I am starting my reply with Anthony Flew’s ‘Parable of the Invisible Gardner’ as I think the ‘fine tuning argument’ is just an extension of the intelligent design argument. The idea of there being some type of ‘intelligent design’ or something that puts some type of order on the chaos of our world is old e.g Cicero. De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) 45BC. Many people find the belief that there is some type of intelligence behind the design of the world intuitive and in the absence of a better explanation, this is not unreasonable.

Of course people now have gained more knowledge since Cicero and perhaps more emphasis on the random nature of events. So as an alternative to intelligent design, we can make some type of speculation that because of the infinity of space and time, there is the possibility of many (finite?)/infinite worlds (or even the re-occurrence of this world) as infinity divided by infinity = one. So this world has to exist. (Please excuse my rough guide).

There is a third position which is more humble and skeptical and I think more appealing. It has always been argued that the human understanding of the world is limited. Even the most basic building blocks of our understanding e.g. Space, Time, Causation, Infinity, Randomness, our own Freedom and Subjectivity run into difficulties when we comprehend them. There is a strong traditional of this in both eastern and western thought. Thomas Aquinas for example argues that only an Absolute mind can have absolute knowledge. He also acknowledges that belief in God is a matter of faith (alone?). I don’t think he ever claimed that you could prove that God existed (as this was considered a heresy for leaving no room for faith). I think what he did try to prove was that belief in God is not an unreasonable position to take.

A quick reading of Flews parable seems to suggest that he is supporting some type of 'design Argument'. But his last sentences change everything when he says'

Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?

I think he is making the point that despite the persuasiveness of the argument that there is some type of 'invisible gardener', it cannot either be verified or falsified as the 'gardener' has no difference from 'no gardener at all'. There is a full discussion with Flew in the link below.

https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/article-anthony-flew-parable-of-the-garden-and-falsification/

The reason I brought up this parable is because I am wondering does both the 'fine tuning argument' and the 'cosmic lottery' also fall into the same problem of verification and falsification?

I wonder then why does one choose one argument over the other if neither can be proved? I presume that some find one theory more appealing than another or it fits better into their world view. I am happy to take the sceptical position of 'Epoche' (suspension of judgement) on these matters.

Stanford has an article on 'Philosophy of Cosmology' below with sections on '4.2 Fine-Tuning', 4.3 'Multiverse' as well as a discussion on the problem of treating cosmology as a science (5).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/