I’d like some feedback on my refutations to two common arguments for the existence of God: the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine Tuning Argument.
My refutations are relatively simple. I’m aware that there are quite a number of more lengthy and more sophisticated responses but it seems to me that mine do the job. So, if you think there is something wrong with mine, I’d like to hear about it.
1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
It is unknown what, if anything, caused the big bang. Not knowing is never a good enough reason to leap to the supernatural or the divine for an explanation.
It is not known what, if anything, preceded the big bang. It is not known what, if anything, is outside of our universe. Therefore, anything that is said about what came before the big bang or what is outside of our universe (in this case, “outside” and “before” are the same thing) is necessarily speculation. I contend that it is more reasonable to speculate that, if there is an “outside”, it is some form of what we already know (space-time; matter-energy) than that for which we have no direct evidence (i.e. God).
2. Fine Tuning
I see this as a form of the argument from personal incredulity. “It boggles my mind that the universe came to be the way it is, therefore god.”
In addition, we cannot say what are the odds that the universe would have turned out the way that it did because we do not know many ways it could have turned out. Did it turn out the one and only way that it could have or are the possibilities so numerous that, for the purposes of this argument, they might just as well be infinite? I don’t know — and neither do you.