An excerpt from section 5.2:
As Richard Swinburne has argued (2004, pp. 99–106), since God is perfectly good,
omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly free, the only motivation God has for bringing about
one state of affairs instead of another is its relative (probable) contribution to the overall
moral and aesthetic value of reality.37 Simple forms of life, such as bacteria, do not seem
in and of themselves to contribute to the overall moral value of reality, although it is possible
that they might contribute to its overall aesthetic value. On the other hand, embodied
moral agents seem to allow for the realization of unique types of value. Hence, it is this
form of life that is most relevant for arguing that ~P(Lpc|k′ & T) << 1, and thus the most
relevant for the fine-tuning argument.
Just by reading this, it's hard to not be dismissive and simply call this bullshit, but I will try to make the effort. This is essentially arguing specifically that because humans exist and are moral agents, they add relevance to the fine-tuning argument.
The interesting thing about morality in a physical universe, and especially for humans on earth (since we are the only moral agents we know of), is that it is based on economy, whether we like it or not. Some examples to clarify: the rich giving to the poor, and the attempt to cure diseases and help those who suffer can be seen as moral goods, yet the fact remains that is so because resources are not limitless, and so there always the haves and the have-nots. What other morality do we know of, except the one tied in with the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of humans? Again, I am forced to invoke the problem of evil, but in a special classification. The problem of evil is inherent in a physical, limited universe! Let's be more specific. The planet earth, upon which humans live on, and the only known planet known thus far to sustain life, is very limited in its vital resources, further exacerbating the problem. Resources are not limitless, hence perpetual cycle of the haves and the have-nots, and the only way to attain any so called moral transaction!
Without scarcity, without sacrifice, without pain and evil, there seems to be no basis for morality, at least as far as this Christian theist version goes. So, essentially the argument is pain and evil must exist in order for morality to exist, and that that in no way invalidates a fine-tuned universe? Well, that just opens up another whole can of worms. What makes Collin's assertions valid over any other theistic model? Haven't we observed that religion is wholly subjective and interpretive?
Bohm, in regards to this comment:
With regard to the initial low-entropic state of the early universe: I think the most important thing to realize is what physics actually governed that phase of the universe is largely unknown, not just in terms of conditions but the actual laws. My guess is largely uninformed, but i think that to get any progress on the question one would need first to get an accurate description of how gravity work on those levels, and thats properly decades in the future.
As that is Collin's strongest argument, and the initial conditions of the universe are still largely unknown, it is yet another appeal to the god of the gaps. So for me, it appears his strongest argument is not strong at all.
