Dr Luke claims that varying the constants is not special for the fine tuning argument, but i would claim that it is, because the argument only succeeds if we believe that varying the constants is a good way to survey the set of possible universes, the proponent of the fine tuning arguments owes us a reason to believe that the sample of possible universes surveyed by varying the constants is representative of the set of all possible universes including ones with different laws structures, failing to do that; the premise that there is fine tuning fails. a good article on this "Naturalism, Fine-Tuning, and Flies" by Aron Lucas
I actually just read a paper by Peter Epstein in preparation for an upcoming fine-tuning workshop where he raises a similar objection. I think the right response is straight-forward: we take our laws of nature - that is, their mathematical form - as background information. That is, GIVEN these laws, what kind of constants of physics allow for life? We then compare theism and naturalism with those laws as given. So, it just doesn't matter what universes governed by different laws of nature look like; when we zero in on the subset of universes governed by our laws of nature, we find that only a tiny fraction of them are fine-tuned. The only question, then, is whether this maneuver of zeroing in on that subset by taking the laws themselves as background information is licit or illicit. I think that it's perfectly fine to do so, because naturalism gives us no more reason to expect these particular laws of nature than does theism. The form of the laws is therefore irrelevant to evaluating theism and naturalism and may therefore be taken as background information. I'll have to read Lucas' paper - what would he say to this kind of response?
From the description of this video; "....as explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life." No such fine-tuning exists, so no such explanation is needed, from either side. It is like asking; "which best explain the Garfleblarst and it's foundation of all religions?".
Listen please, the atheist logical fallacy is censored. Why would anyone censor an idea? The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Spinoza was right. Thank you.
Dr Luke claims that varying the constants is not special for the fine tuning argument, but i would claim that it is, because the argument only succeeds if we believe that varying the constants is a good way to survey the set of possible universes, the proponent of the fine tuning arguments owes us a reason to believe that the sample of possible universes surveyed by varying the constants is representative of the set of all possible universes including ones with different laws structures, failing to do that; the premise that there is fine tuning fails.
a good article on this "Naturalism, Fine-Tuning, and Flies" by Aron Lucas
I actually just read a paper by Peter Epstein in preparation for an upcoming fine-tuning workshop where he raises a similar objection. I think the right response is straight-forward: we take our laws of nature - that is, their mathematical form - as background information. That is, GIVEN these laws, what kind of constants of physics allow for life? We then compare theism and naturalism with those laws as given. So, it just doesn't matter what universes governed by different laws of nature look like; when we zero in on the subset of universes governed by our laws of nature, we find that only a tiny fraction of them are fine-tuned. The only question, then, is whether this maneuver of zeroing in on that subset by taking the laws themselves as background information is licit or illicit. I think that it's perfectly fine to do so, because naturalism gives us no more reason to expect these particular laws of nature than does theism. The form of the laws is therefore irrelevant to evaluating theism and naturalism and may therefore be taken as background information. I'll have to read Lucas' paper - what would he say to this kind of response?
Underrated channel
How old is the universe? 13.79B years old. What is that measured from? The BEGINNING!
From the description of this video;
"....as explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life."
No such fine-tuning exists, so no such explanation is needed, from either side.
It is like asking; "which best explain the Garfleblarst and it's foundation of all religions?".
Listen please, the atheist logical fallacy is censored. Why would anyone censor an idea? The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Spinoza was right. Thank you.