William Lane Craig Is Wrong about Fine Tuning
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Yet another thing Billy is wrong about. And yes, when the subject is physics, "Dr. Craig" is appropriately addressed as "Billy".
The debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig can be found here: • William Lane Craig and... (footage used for purposes of commentary and criticism)
If you'd like to support me on Patreon, go to / martymer81
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/At8v_Yc044Y/mqdefault.jpg)
I wonder if WLC would say something like this too:
"All lottery winners have been fine tuned to actually win the lottery in the end. They could not win just by chance. Maybe one, but not all of them."
I like what my physics teacher said many years ago. " If the universe wasn't as it is, we wouldn't be here to ask why it is the way it is."
Yep, that's called "anthropic principle".
Do people like Craig ever explain why the universe is so infinitely large if it’s supposedly conjured solely for the benefit of human kind? Doesn’t seem like much of a finely tuned or particularly intelligent design plan to me.
if you were to argue that side the argument could be he created it in anticipation of humanity spreading to the universe
elazer twist Quite probably. Even though it would take us 25,000 years travelling at light speed just to make it out of our local galaxy, so you know, He could have trimmed things down a wee bit and still not exactly constrained us terribly much.
elazer twist That's a decent counter I've thought of before, but the problem I see with it is some parts of the universe would require faster-than-light (FTL) travel to reach, given the expansion rate of the universe (particularly during the inflationary period).
Admitting FTL travel brings with it a very heavy price (either Relativity or causality has to go), and theists are not going to be eager to go that route given the problems it involves (yet, it seems WLC is ok with ditching Relativity . . .).
I have actually heard him argue that efficiency is not important to God since he has access to infinite time and resources and might see a certain beauty in such a huge inefficient universe. Craig said that God in that sense is more like a gourmet chef rather than an engineer... Although as I see it a God that is concerned with the wellbeing of humans would still make space travel a little easier for them.
tetrapack24
Gourmet food is bullshit and it is usually overpriced. Kinda like this universe.
That still doesn't mean that it was made by a god.
Oh, you kicked his ass, Marty!
***** Actually 6 is mentioned only 2 times (unless you count 60 as a mention of 6, but that is your bias towards 10 digit system!)
Hardly. Martymer 81 has a bad habit of getting things wrong *himself* in his haste to disagree with Craig on every little thing. Practically *every* physicist agrees that the universe exhibits fine-tuning. Even Sean Carroll agreed that it's fine-tuned; he just argued that it may not be fine-tuned for *life.* Similarly, Paul Davies said the following "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that *the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life...* the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather *it is fine-tuned* for the building blocks and environments that life requires."
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 "Fine-tuning is NOT synonymous with a conscious being,"
Nor did anyone say it was...
"It only means if the constants, initial conditions, etc had been different things would be different than they are now."
Well it's a bit more than that. On these same laws of nature, it would indeed mean a lack of certain necessary components of intelligent life. Probably the most notable would be lambda, or the cosmological constant. If it had just a bit larger value space would expand so rapidly stars wouldn't even be able to form.
"And no, Craig did not win."
I disagree. I think Craig pressed Carroll to actually name and defend a working model of the universe which evaded the Boltzmann Brain problem while adhering to the data, and Carroll wasn't able to do it (or perhaps just refused to do it, who's to say). I also think Carroll failed at his attempts at philosophy, making a large number of non sequitur type arguments about what we should/shouldn't expect in a theistic universe. There's more, but you get the idea.
@@Vic2point0 As you probably know, any theist, including Craig, uses the "fine-tuning" argument as evidence for a conscious being. That being is the fictional character they believe in.
And no, it is not a bit more than that. If the laws, constants, etc were different, things would be different now. It is as simple as that. It does not mean there could not be life; but it may be vastly different.
If Craig's agenda was to present evidence for the Christian deity, which it always is, he did not do it. Hence, he did not win.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 "any theist, including Craig, uses the "fine-tuning" argument as evidence for a conscious being."
Actually, most theists probably don't even *know* about the fine-tuning of the universe. And IME they typically base their belief on personal experiences they've had in which "god" has "made himself known" to them in some way.
"That being is the fictional character they believe in."
Okay, so you've made a claim of your own here. What's your evidence/argument to show that their god doesn't exist?
"If the laws, constants, etc were different, things would be different now."
Yes, and with some of them things would be *so* different as to prevent embodied life. And I gave an example of one such constant.
You are correct though in saying that under different *laws* we have no idea what would be possible.
What?! WLC wrong about an argument of his? Jesus Christ I almost fell out my chair. Unprecedented.
Let's apply Craig's logic to God himself. Clearly God is extremely fine-tuned given that he's conscious, able to create a universe and life, communicate, etc. Therefore we can use Craig's logic:
1) The fine-tuning of God is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3) Therefore it is due to design. In other words, something designed God.
Craig's counter-argument? God is special (ie. special pleading)! Infinite regress (ie. non-sequitur)! Reasons!
+WarpRulez The problem with your argument is that it doesn't follow that something is fine-tuned because it is "conscious, able to create a universe and life, communicate, etc." The way scientists know the *universe* is fine-tuned for life is that they know that given these laws of nature life wouldn't have been possible if the constants and quantities had have fallen outside of the narrow range Craig's talking about. The odds that all of these constants and quantities would've fallen within the narrow range are extremely small, without design as an explanation.
Besides which, even if your argument *did* work, all it would suggest is that there was a designer of "god", which would then be the real god.
God Jul på dig, Martymer! Hoppas du har en riktigt skön julafton! And keep the good work up! :D
This is one of your best videos. Very well written.
That was great. Thanks. My favorite part was near the beginning... when you said, "William Lane Craig is wrong." Really, after that it was just icing on the cake.
Cats : the universe is fine-tuned for cats to exist
Mushrooms : the universe is fine-tuned for mushrooms to exist
Kim Kardashian : the universe is fine-tuned for Kim Kardashian to exist
(...)
That last one explains why she's famous.
ProjectEchoshadow sorry, logic fail, there is no explanation for that
ProjectEchoshadow Eeeeeewww... that just gave me an awful thought... what if the world really does revolve around Kim Kardashian??
Abdel Armstr not but I don't think you realize all of the millions and billions and trillions of coincidences that had to happen I mean it had to of been planned do you know how many variables had to come into place for my cup to be sitting on this table right here right now first the universe has to be created from nothing which asking to creationist is the same odds as winning the lottery 9 billion times in a row and think about all the variables from there on placement of the planet placement of the sun development of life all the shit it's impossible God had to have designed the universe specifically for my cup to sit on this table
It's the only thing that makes sense
+Abdel Armstr None of your premises follow from the scientific evidence, but we *do* know that without the fine-tuning *life in general* would not exist, so that's a much better starting point. You'll notice that Craig never asserts that the fine-tuning is for *human* life (because he doesn't need to).
So I know this is unrelated, but Spirit Science has finally uploaded a new video, and it's on chakras again. Any chance we'll get to see that video get thoroughly destroyed?
Definitely.
IThinkWithMy Liver Calm down, don't mess yourself. :) I'm working on it.
***** Can't wait to see Jordan's bastardization of "science" get destroyed again.
Thanks Martymer for another debunking. I think, though, that what this is [and what Craig and others almost always do] is referred to, even by themselves, as "Presuppositionalism." The propositions are simply statements of unjustified opinion
rather like this.
1. A rock is composed of minerals which have formed into a solid mass.
2. Gold is a heavy metal often found in rocks.
3.. This rock is heavy so the predominant mineral must be gold.
It looks logical as to form, but is not logical because most, if not all, of the terms are inadequately defined. The relationships between items and between propositions are also not adequately defined. It also seems to be reasoned from result to cause rather than the reverse, just like the "fine tuning" argument.
At least that is how I see it, feel free to tutor me if I have messed up the analysis.
If i was a deity, i would make an endless plane of existence, like a flat earth....
that just keeps going in all directions...
Dont question the logistics, I would be omnipotent!
WLC bases his philosophical "evidence" for his God's existence on his relationship with the holy spirit...enough said.
No he doesn't. None of his arguments depend on that.
***** If craig's arguments can be said to rest on anything its his experience of 'the holy spirit'.
"We've already said that it's the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity's truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role. I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa."
Sean Davison
Your quote proves you wrong. What you're claiming is that what undergirds his argument is the witness of the holy spirit, while he admits that the arguments are separate from the experience of the holy spirit and that the arguments are intended for people who haven't experienced the holy spirit yet. Granted that Craig's primary reason for believing isn't evidential, you're not going to find any arguments with the holy spirit in its premises (perhaps aside from his arguments for the resurrection).
Just look at his fine-tuning argument. Where in that do you see the holy spirit? You don't You can't judge an argument on what the argument *isn't* about, and the fact that so many atheists try to do this pathetic. Granted I'm not really convinced by the fine-tuning argument, but it isn't because it somehow depends upon the holy spirit being true because it doesn't.
***** Of course it does. He might not use the holy spirit argument in a lecture, but privately he has stated that the holy spirit has given his faith authenticity. And then from there flows the rest of his arguments.
***** They might as well... His arguments would be just as solid (i.e. not at all)
According to Atheists we evolved to fit in this Universe and the Universe evolved to fit in what? Nothingness? Stupid answer.
even in the creationists version of the definition "fine tuning": No its NOT fine tuned for life, it 99,9999X % hostile to life and in very rare, vulnerable, in cosmological terms short lived exceptions, there is some life in tiny little bubbles like frogs in a jar. That is not fine tuning, but the beauty of randomness.
I've tried to point this out to apologists with no success, but design implies constraints. When I design a house I can't put all the doors on the first floor and the foundations in the attic, and that is because physics constrains my design. Design without constraint is just randomness, so the appearance of design paradoxically is the evidence against it. Just because this violates our intuitive understanding doesn't mean it is false.
The only potential objection I can think of is that god did make the universe in an arbitrary way but made it seem intelligible to us, however that does nothing to rescue the fine tuning argument because that would mean god manipulated our intelligence to make things seem logical.
Tjaart Blignaut
Why would manipulation of intelligence necessarily flow from your argument?
@@CRAFTE.D it's either that or deeply flawed inteligence. Because if it was random and our brains are made to think it wasn't it means our brains were designed in such a way to come to an incorrect conclusion.
I'm no apologist but I can think of an objection taste. There gods is typically a being with a mind and preferences. I can make a drawing however I want I don't need it to actually work with the laws of physics. But I still do because otherwise it just looks weird to me. So maybe the god is like the one of Mormonism and he was once a mortal being that lived on planet maybe similar to ours but was given a universe of his own.
Marty, I'm not a physicist by any description so can I ask a question, these 'constants' like the 4 fundamental forces, are they called constants because their values are not known to change, or known not to change? In either case, how can theologians claim, as I have seen them do, that if the values were different we wouldn't exist, and by that I mean how are they postulating fine tuning within a range of values when there is no range of values?
I hope that's clear enough.
They are called constants because the values don't seem to change on their own. For example the speed of light changes depending on the medium that a travel through but it does not change at all as far as we can observe in a vacuum.
tyrannisis lucifaeris Thanks for you explanation.
So, if someone was to say, to use your example," if the speed of light in a vacuum was different ......." then they are speculating on a variable that we do not know can be a variable? Is that a fair statement?
George Forsyth There is a genuine debate among cosmologists as to whether the fine-structure constant (α) is actually a constant (some anecdotal evidence suggests that it may have a different value in other parts of the universe). But the speed of light in vacuum must be constant if relativity is true.
My Username Is Inigo Montoya Thank you. That's useful to know. And before you tell me to prepare to die I did not kill your father.
My Username Is Inigo Montoya how do you get anecdotal evidence from different parts of the universe?
Sorry for necroposting, but I really don't get what the fuss is about. From my point of view, "fine tuning ergo God" argument is most easily refuted by the anthropic principle:
P1. Only a universe supporting conscious observers can be consciously observed (at least from within)
P2. We consciously observe our universe (from within)
C. Ergo, our universe must support conscious observers (that is, us). If it didn't, we couldn't possibly observe it.
Any further argument appealing to statistics to the tune of "but the chances of a universe supporting conscious observers are astronomically low" would be completely groundless. We only have a single example of a universe and it does evidently support conscious observers. For all we know, the chances might as well be 100% (1 in 1). Anything beyond that is baseless speculation unless evidence to the contrary is presented.
This is a bit absurdist non-explanation, and not at all satisfying to most, including myself. But there is no evidence for or against any of the proposed more satisfying "explanations", which all basically boil down to "I believe X is true".
The universe isn't finely tuned for dragons to exist.
Thank you for the videos!! i learned a lot!
The universe is "finely tuned" for death.
Death usually requires life. There are more black holes than living things.
@@goldenalt3166
No, not “usually.” Every thing which dies was once alive. But the point is that every thing that is alive must necessarily die as a consequence of the “finely tuned“ universal laws. In other words, the universe is a death trap. This fact has theological implications; but this is seemingly lost on you.
Do you have a proper citation for that black hole thing or did you just pull that out your ass.
@@claudiaquat Most single called organisms don't naturally die. (And There are multi celled ones that don't age as well.) They just spilt in two and continue both lives until eaten or killed.
There are estimated to be billions of black holes in our galaxy alone.
So if compare the organisms we know to die to the black holes we know to exist it would seem that the universe isn't fine tuned for death.
I find that theology doesn't seem to be much affected by reality so I'm not sure what you think a fact would do to theology in any case.
there is no such thing as fine tuning. none. not a thing - not like the apologists want it to be.
Marty, this addressing of the fine tuning argument was simply one of the most elegant I've ever seen, truly well done. I specially loved how you turned the table and constructed an argument for the non existence of God, I'm still laughing out loud xD
I still don't get how he can get from his argument to, therefore the god of the Bible is correct.
I know he says that he can reach this from the Bible, yet I've never seen him really defend this.
If a deity were creating a universe, I'd predict she'd make something much more akin to the ancient Jewish or Greek cosmology. She'd have made an enormous flat plane for humans to live on under a vast display screen or firmament which displays information to the people below. The Gods' realm would be a physical reald right above the firmament, and the underworld would be a physical realm below the earth. There's just way way way too much unusable and instantly deadly wasted space in the cosmos for a God to have built it with humans in mind.
Right, its like saying:" I;m going to make a cage for my hamster the size of the earth, but I will only let him stay in a small enclosed area. Why did you make the cage so fucking big in the first place?
It's nonsensical to be sure. I'd even go as far as to say a flat earth would a decent argument for intelligent design. But only a few morons still believe in a flat earth.
The concept of a god creating a place for him or her to live in alongside the human place to live is also... well.... just fucking oddball. Why, or rather, HOW would a god entity exist, and then create or need to create a realm to live in? Where were they before they create their god realm above the firmament?
***** The point is, if a deity DID exist and DID want to make a world for humans to live in, a flat world seems to me to maximize livable space for humans, while the real world is almost entirely unlivable space.
IThinkWithMy Liver Exactly.
If Craig were asked to respond to this, Marty would wish he wasn’t fine tuned to breathe the air that gives life.
Some problems with the fine-tuning argument and the anthropic principle in general:
If you take a piece of clay into a form it will take the shape of that form. For example, a cylinder in this case. The cylinder won't fit into another form, like a cube, only a cylinder form. Craig would then have to claim, in order to not be inerrant, that the form was fine-tuned to fit around the clay-cylinder. This ignores the fact that the cylinder exists because of the forms shape, not because of the opposite, much like how life exists because of how the Universe is, not the reverse. The case f the argument is asking why the Universe had those specific constants rather than any else, or why the form had that specific shape. Though this is utterly meanignless. There is no reason why the clay should rather be a cylinder or that the Universe should have its current constants. The clay and the Universe could have any form, and that's it. It wouldn't matter if they were different.
This leads to the second problem: The whole thing is an emotional appeal. People in support of these argument always proposes life as being important. They ignore the fact that the Universe is also fine-tuned for the existence of Mars. Life could easily be substituted for Mars, but in that case, Craig would just look like a fool, talking about how the Universe is fine-tuned for Mars. The Universe can be said to be fine-tuned for anything that exists in it. Had the universal constants been different, other, different celestial bodies would have formed, and that Universe could be considered fine-tuned for those specific bodies.
Even if you dismiss theism out of hand, you still have a fine tuning problem. What you're calling "statistical necessity" is just multiplying probabilistic resources of the chance hypothesis. It's quite easy for cosmologists to build a model of the multiverse which either doesn't itself support life (for example if you require a mechanism to in part energy which can be later converted like the inflaton field or a mechanism like string theory to vary the constants). Or in which embodied conscious agents are not the predominant kind of observers.
A number of people have pointed the above out, like philosopher of science Robin Collins, and independently, if I've understood them correctly, cosmologists Laura Mersini-Houghton & Malcolm Perry and George Ellis among others.
Usually cosmologists like Stephen Hawking calculate the wave function to solve the fine tuning.
Andrew Wells We're not in a position to assess the probability of a life-permitting universe on naturalism. In order to justify the claim that our universe is fine-tuned for life, this argument depends upon counting the number of possible universes with different values for the anthropic constants but with the same laws of physics.
But why restrict the set of possible universes to only those with the same laws of physics?
Why not also include possible universes with different physics?
Here's the problem. If we can vary both the constants and the laws of physics themselves, then our probability calculations need to consider all possible combinations. Not only has no one yet done that, but it's hard to see how that could be done, since the number of combinations is infinite. The upshot is that we have no good reason to believe that a life-permitting universe is improbable on naturalism.
Hasan Mohammad I agree you have to specify an upper and lower bound on the space of possible universes, which you cannot do with classical theory, you can't for example take the cosmological constant and put it into a Hamiltonian form and take the liouville measure. Though you can use other (far less rigorous) methods, like taking the contribution of all the fields in quantum field theory.
We don't need to consider "other physics", even without that consideration we still have to explain why various constants and initial conditions are improbable given our laws of physics. John Leslie gives the example of a solitary fly on a large blank region of a wall, you still require an explanation of why, say a randomly fired bullet pierces the fly, even if beyond that region the wall is literally covered with flies.
Unless you can somehow demonstrate that the ACTUAL tuning of the fundamental constants could even possibly have been configured differently, you really have no argument. It may be merely a matter of sheer necessity - there may not have been any other way for a universe to have turned out. We then default to the argument that if the kind of universe that could give rise to our kind of life couldn't have come into existence, then we couldn't be here to ask the question - and it therefore becomes a moot question.
Plus, there is the issue that you have not accounted for the fact that altering any of the constants MAY automatically have an affect on one or more of the other constants. It may be that you cannot vary just one constant and one constant alone - if this is the case, it may not be possible to throw the tuning (fine or otherwise) of the Universe out of whack by simply changing one variable. It would necessarily settle into some other sort of equilibrium or another. Again, unless you can demonstrate that this could not be the case - you have no argument.
Usually the person claiming something is impossible has the burden of proof. Nevertheless claims of fine tuning come from fundamental theories in physics (e.g., the standard model, general relativity etc). In standard probability you then apply a principle of indifference; which states all else being equal unless with have reason to think otherwise, if we have multiple possibilities we should treat all of these as having equal probability.
If instead you're claiming, out of all the possible configurations of the constants and initial conditions, our life permitting set is necessary, then that's an even bigger problem. Because then life is written into the physics of the universe.
The weak anthropic principle by itself doesn't solve anything: it has to be then combined with the multiverse explanation to avoid the world ensemble from undercutting regular claims of probability. By itself it's analogous to a prisoner who survived an attempted execution by a firing squad, taking off his blind fold and stating 'Of course they missed or else I wouldn't be here to wonder why they did!'
The final point is something which the astrophysicist Luke Barnes calls the flippant funambulist fallacy. What matters is the entire life permitting range, irrespective of how it's distributed.
Andrew Wells Yeah, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what I was trying to say, because I made no claim that ANYTHING was impossible. I think that if you carefully reread my reply, you'll find that I did not make the point that you were apparently responding to.
And on another point, learn to use the "reply' button - what say? It allows others to more easily follow the thread - for those who might be "witnessing" our conversation are the primary reason that I even engage in a discourse such as this in the first place. Because, let's face it, neither you or I are likely to change our positions based solely on a RUclips "'comments section" conversation.
Willian Lane Craig is...wrong...? the world crumbles around me.
One of your best videos, forced me to re-subscribe to your channel. thank you.
Excellent video. I haven't heard that rebuttal before.
In the thumbnail I thought that picture with Craig was a motherboard for a second, am I the only one?
Question:
You said that Graig's first premise is a false dichotomy. However, does dichotomy not refer to a situation where only two options are possible? E.g. only A and B are possible. If not A then B.
Since Craig had three options then does the term "Dichotomy" still apply?
Semantics, I know...but I can't help it :P
I said false trichotomy. :)
My bad then ^^
I laughed out loud when he used evolution as a means to explain
Here's an aspect to this argument that I don't see people use often. What are they saying? Are they saying that the universe is fine tuned to promote and encourage life? No, they're saying that life is fine tuned to allow for life. Isn't that a bit like saying that the human body is finely tuned for the AIDs virus? Life is wonderful and rare and amazing and all those things but it wasn't destined to be. It's not significant in that way. It's just something that happened to the universe. Without a God, fine tuning doesn't suggest one. And also, any universe is a finely tuned one. Even if we had completely different fundamental constants, the theists would still call it a fine tuned universe. Maybe in some far off realm of time and space, some other dimension of existence, there are two floating balls, beings of pure energy and light debating over the finely tuned constants of their universe that's made up of only energy and light. The theist ball might argue that if the constants had only been slightly different, matter and antimatter would flood the universe with its destructive influence.
It always bothers me when people say that the chance of the universe coming into being without divine help is so small as to be nonexistent. The fact is, that the only universe we know of is the one in which we live, so the sample size is far too small to say that the odds are against it happening at all. You can't just look at one house cat and conclude that all felines are small and friendly to humans. Secondly, the vast majority of those people who use that argument are ignorant in the fields necessary to come to that conclusion in the first place (eg: cosmology, physics, quantum physics and even probability itself).
Great takedown of the theists' "holes are made to have puddles in them" argument. ;)
Lucius Kapahs
It's a reference to a Douglas Adams quote.
It's natural to think the hole is shaped perfectly to fit the puddle when you're the puddle, but it's still wrong.
The only way the finetuning argument would have any sway would be if a majority of planets in the universe were capable of hosting human life. The problem that people like WLC ignore is that the reality is the opposite.
Did you just use a more serious version of the Babel Fish argument from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?..."
I think that you did! And the fact that it works makes it even more hilarious! xD
Fine tuning is a fallacious notion of anthromorphicism many have nin regards to the relationship of mankind and the Universe. The Universe isn't humancentric, but the Universe itself.
Creationists even go so far as to state that all the physical constants are fine tuned to the 50th decimal place or whatever yet still claim that the speed of light and radioactive decay constants were different by several orders of magnitude before the mythical flood. Those constants don't seem very fine tuned if they can vary by so much to make the Earth 6000 years old.
I wouldn't say "that's not what finely tuned means". I would say "that's just a more convoluted way of saying exactly the same thing as the creationist" and go with the first argument
William Lane Craig Is Wrong" is redundance right?
The universe was spoken into existence by the Almighty Gob.
He's made a huge mistake
I am going to watch this full video knowing its going to be trash logic.
Martymer says cats are dogs.
***** No he didn't , it is just that the point he was making went over your head.
As did my comment going over your head, grin
*****
:D
You said "it implies Deism not theism" when listing the flaws with the argument.
my problem with that is that any time you imply Deism you are automatically implying theism... theism does not automatically imply any dogma whatsoever... it only asserts that "a god exists", it could be a god with dogma... or it could be a god without Dogma... "a Deist god"
Impelling Deism does not negate it implying theism...(unless there is something im missing)
Traditionally theism is associated with a more robust view of God that involves personality and active involvement with the universe, while Deism is the view that God exists, but has little to no relevance to our daily lives.
This distinction is a bit confusing though, as apart from defining deism, theism is defined as simply the acceptance that god(s) exist. But, the use of theism/deism Marty is using in this video has been used in the relevant literature regarding specific cases where deism is a "threat" to religious views of God. It's just not very often.
Hokon Cazalet i see what your saying. he is using a "version of theism that DOES imply a dogma" ok... still, the dogma is not intrinsicallyapart of the concept of theism...
Ziliath
Well the problem I think comes from the use of 'theism' in this context, as it's rather narrow. In deism vs. theism, 'theism' tends to be a stand in for "acceptance of the existence of a christian-esque God."
I would agree with you though, that it's probably not a good way to phrase things anymore. Rephrasing it is the best option to avoid the confusions, given the way 'theism' is meant in every other context.
Either somebody is an atheist or a theist. But what about a deist? Are deists considered theists? I have always been confused with this.
Bert Simmons they are, a deist beleives a god exists, thats all you need to be a theist...
A theist is about beleiveing a god exists... being a deist is similar to being a christian... not only are you a theist, butr you believe something About that god you beleive in...
you could almost say Deism is in contrast to dogma...
Deism = no dogma
The fine tuning argument for either side seems almost unnecessary if consciousness creates reality
The fact remains that if the Gravitational Constant was different by even a magnitude of 10^(- million zeros) you and me and nobody would be there to contend and dispute the Fine Tuning Argument. The fundamental constants all didn't have to assume their values calibrated exactly to allow the formation of stars, planets and finally life. It was not necessary by any means and that begs the question
Default User94 but there might be a loosely bound collection of quarks arguing about how the universe is fine tuned for their existence
"The fact remains that if the Gravitational Constant was different by even a magnitude of 10^(- million zeros) you and me and nobody would be there to contend and dispute the Fine Tuning Argument"
It's a FACT? Where's the evidence? As far as i know, we can look at only one instance of universe, ours. Have you seen other universes with different constants? Can you say it's a FACT that life couldn't exist? No, you can't, and doing it makes you a liar or an ignorant twat. Choose freely, you have all the time.
On the fine tuning argument, i just say they are looking at the problem in reverse, where the necessities for liquid water are met, that is where you will find liquid water, where the necessities for for life are met, that is where you will find life, with a 99.9% extinction rate of life, its ridiculous to say the universe is fine tuned for life, the earth certainly was not originally fine tuned for any complex life, there was no oxygen and it was extremely hot and hostile to almost all life, except for stuff like extremophiles , then it took nearly 3 billion years to fill the atmosphere with oxygen before the first organism that could metabolize oxygen (a rocket fuel in comparison) emerged. A Very strange way of making a perfect universe designed for us humans......
_"A Very strange way of making a perfect universe designed for us humans..."_
Yeah, the apologists' way of explaining fine-tuning suffers from the same unwarranted anthropocentric view as a lot of their other ideas. It's basically impossible from their theology to see humans (and all life, for that matter) as a simple biproduct of the way the universe works...because it's hard to reconcile that with the notion that the creator of the whole freakin' universe died for your sins.
***** First of all hello, I'm a huge fan ^_^ Is hard to find someone whos not a religius nut nor an atheist on a vendetta against religion. I like that all your videos are logical.
I have a few questions:
6:10 How can you reject his argument because there could be multiple universes and ours was a statistical chance?, because we have no proof of any other universe but our own.
8:46 I know this argument is meant to explain why this universe is ruled by laws and not God but, in my opinion, it's actually doing the opposite. If all these factors align perfectly for us to exist with the laws of nature then this supports the fine tuning argument.
This argument feels pointless because the laws of nature could've been established by a God and the universe created trough them. What science can observe is the laws of nature and how everything works. The fact that everything makes sense and this is not a universe of chaos and randomness suggest that Fine tuning as described by some theists is very possible.
PS I'm not Religious or Atheist I'm Agnostic
I realize this idea may be a bit past it's time (to say the least), but I'd love to see you do a vid' destroying the "electric universe" hypothesis (as a matter of principle, I REFUSE to dignify it by calling it a theory). What do you think - would you be willing to have a go at it?
0:38 Now, I'm not much of a debater, nor do I know a lot about formal definitions of logic, but isn't the big problem with this conclusion that premise 2 is basically "Because I say so."?
I mean, I could go
P1: There is either a molten core of heavy metals inside the earth or there is a tropical utopia inside the earth.
P2: There is not a molten core of heavy metals inside the earth.
C:There is a tropical utopia inside the earth.
and it would make about as much sense.
Please teach me, Oh Vulcans of our reality!
It appears to be a false trichotomy. He limits to only 3 options.
I am trying to understand the clarification on the "more sophisticated" definition of "fine tuning" Craig uses.
You say "water can only exist under certain temperature and pressure conditions, those conditions are found on Earth so Earth is finely tuned for liquid water."
Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding how this redefinition changes the argument to NOT mean "earth exists because it has water." Can you break it down a bit more? Because it seems I can still answer the "smarter" fine tuning argument by saying "we exist because we are a result of the universe, not the universe exists because we meet its conditions." I'm probably wrong or still shifting back to the creationist argument, it just still seems to assert some conclusion that's backward to me.
What he basically meant is thus:
Liquid water can only exist under certain conditions which are not found everywhere. Because it's not found everywhere, it's reasonable to say that liquid water can only exist in a finely tuned environment (ie, an environment in which the specifications required for it to exist are met). Therefore, since Earth meets those requirements, it is reasonable to say that Earth is finely tuned to allow liquid water to exist.
That's the general breakdown of what he was saying.
Not that Earth exists because there is liquid water, but rather that Earth meets the prerequisite conditions that allow the liquid water to exist.
I think you went on a red herring here, Marty. Idk if WLC stated it clearly or not, but while the argument that earth is finetuned for life is clearly fallacious because it's the other way around, we can't say the same for the whole universe. The reason behind it being that as far as we know, the physical constants of the universe have completely arbitrary values. There's no inherent mathematical significance to them. Now if Planck's constant were say in the order of 10^-20 instead of 10^-34, what kind of universe would that produce? This is of course, assuming that the basic physical constants are independent of each other and can have arbitrary values independently. I don't know for sure if that's true but if it is, then there's an infinite number of possible combinations of values for the constants, only few of which permit life to exist. This would make a universe supporting life statistically unlikely and hence make us kind of special. And while this can be explained by a multiverse, what if the basic fundamental constants are indeed related to each other, meaning that changing one would end up changing the others as well, drastically reducing the number of possible combinations and thus rendering all universes similar to ours?
Ah, fine tuning. Where else can we find such a perfect example of fallacious cognitive dissonance? We are so specially planned for the Universe that the fraction of but one small planet we find to be inhabitable is justification enough to claim we are the sole purpose for all of "creation." Cute.
Isnt it amazing that a square always has four equal length sides, and equal angles? Must be god.
WLC made me so frustrated when I watched him debating Christopher Hitchens. He did okay refuting the nonsense, but I wish he had this concise an explanation to deliver.
The fine tuning argument falls down for me when you consider if humans were around a few billion years ago on this planet we would have found it an incredibly hostile environment, I'm not sure we would even be able to breath the atmosphere. Why would God create a world unfit for human life for 4 billion years.
Objection 1: The argument from fine-tuning is just another god-of-the-gaps argument. It amounts to saying, “We don’t know how the universe came to be fine-tuned to permit life, therefore God did it.”
This is a common mischaracterization. The argument does not use God to fill a gap in our knowledge. Instead, it weighs the explanatory power of the available competing hypotheses (i.e., chance, necessity and design) and rules in favor of the one which is most plausibly affirmed. This is known as an inference to the best explanation, and it is formed on the basis of what we know, rather than what we do not know. Given what we know (i.e., our universe is life-permitting only because certain physical constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of possible values), the design hypothesis is a better explanation than either chance or necessity. Abductive arguments like this are a common form of everyday and scientific reasoning.
Objection 2: The argument is fallacious because it presents us with a false dichotomy.
There is no false dichotomy present in the fine-tuning argument. The alternatives considered by the argument exhaust the range of possibilities. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that there are only two historically discussed alternatives to design which could account for the fine-tuning of the universe: necessity and chance.2
Objection 3: If the universe weren’t fine-tuned, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. So we shouldn’t be surprised by fine-tuning, and we shouldn’t waste time trying to explain it.
It is true that, given the fact that we’re here and we’re alive, we should expect to observe a life-permitting universe. This is called the Anthropic Principle. But that expectation, and our observations which confirm it, do nothing to explain why the universe is life-permitting when it didn’t have to be. A life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one, so why does a life-permitting universe exist? What is the best explanation? Is it chance, necessity, or design? Fine-tuning cries out for an explanation, but the anthropic principle is not the answer. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is helpful once more: “While trivially true, [the anthropic] principle has no explanatory power, and does not constitute a substantive alternative explanation.”3
Objection 4: If God created and fine-tuned the universe, who created God?
The universe had a beginning4, so it makes sense to ask who or what created it. God, on the other hand, is eternal5, so it’s a category mistake to ask who created Him. It would be like asking if pencils were happy. Pencils are not in the category of things that have emotions, so it’s a meaningless question. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that have a beginning, so it’s meaningless to ask who created Him.
But even if the objection were valid, we still wouldn’t need to offer an explanation of our explanation. Philosopher William Lane Craig writes, “In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn’t have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from.”6
Craig goes on to argue that if we make explanations of our explanations a requirement, then every explanation would lead to an infinite regress of further explanations, so that nothing could ever be satisfactorily explained. We simply don’t need to have an explanation of God in order to infer His activity as the best explanation of fine-tuning.
(We address this objection in more depth here.)
Objection 5: There are so many randomly ordered universes - perhaps an infinite number - that some of them are bound to be fine-tuned for life. Ours just happens to be one them.
This objection points to the multiverse as the answer to the problem of fine-tuning, but the multiverse faces a serious problem of its own, namely that there is no evidence for it. Physicist John Polkinghorne writes, “Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes.”7 Leading cosmologist George Ellis agrees: “Nothing is wrong with…philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.”8 The only reason to postulate a multiverse is to diminish the strength of the design inference by increasing the probability of fine-tuning. But it’s obviously fallacious to think one has explained fine-tuning by merely imagining a solution.
Furthermore, we have good reasons to think that the multiverse - if it exists - would have to have a beginning, and that beginning would require both a sufficient cause and fine-tuned initial conditions.9 So while the multiverse hypothesis pushes the problem back a notch, it does nothing to solve it.
In the end, appeals to the multiverse ironically bolster the strength of the argument from fine-tuning. This is because the proponent of the multiverse - by the very nature of his case - is admitting that neither necessity nor chance have sufficient explanatory power to account for it. He must go beyond mere luck/necessity and postulate an imaginative solution that multiplies his probabilistic resources to the point where fine-tuning becomes inevitable. The fallacious and desperate nature of this speculation shows that there is no good alternative to the design hypothesis, which is why we hold it to be the best explanation.
Objection 6: What if the constants and quantities had to be the way they are? If their values are somehow necessary, then fine-tuning isn’t a problem that needs to be resolved or explained.
This objection amounts to burying one’s head in the sand. Physicists and cosmologists openly acknowledge that the need to explain fine-tuning is a very real problem; they also acknowledge that necessity is not the answer. Consider this recent statement from George Ellis: “Physicists’ hope has always been that the laws of nature are inevitable - that things are the way they are because there is no other way they might have been-but we have been unable to show this is true. Other options exist, too. The universe might be pure happenstance-it just turned out that way. Or things might in some sense be meant to be the way they are-purpose or intent somehow underlies existence.”10 Stephen Hawking has likewise concluded, on the basis of his work in string theory, that the constants and quantities did not have to be the way they are. He writes, “…[string theory] allows a vast landscape of possible universes…”11 Paul Davies writes, “…the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.”12
This is reality and we have to face it squarely. The range of possible values for our universe’s physical constants and quantities is vast, and there is no prescriptive law which determines what values must be assumed. They just happen to fall into the extraordinarily narrow range of universe- and life-permitting values. The incomprehensible improbability of fine-tuning, coupled with the fact that it is not necessitated by law, leaves us stunned by its actuality. It cries out for an explanation, but neither chance nor necessity can be more plausibly affirmed than design.
On objection 2, wouldn't that be "...a false trichotomy."? On objection 6, I think you're using a fallacy from authority quoting Davies and Hawking merely asserting and denying necessity rather than actually showing why that must be true. It certainly isn't obvious why the "fine tuning" isn't necessary.
Mr JimFit This ignores a simple refutation to the “fine tuning” argument: The Universe is NOT fine tuned to human life.
Even on *this planet* over 75% of the *surface* is a medium humans need artificial means to survive (the oceans) crossing, much less living on. A significant portion of the solid surface has conditions humans can’t survive in naturally (freezing cold, blistering heat and lack of surface potable (it means drinkable) water sources).
That is without going into the fact that in our Solar System there is exactly *one* planet with conditions (even in that small percentage of livable area for humans) that humans can survive naturally on. Not to mention the vast deadly vacuum between each of those planets.
In a Universe “fine tuned” for us, humans could live *anywhere* , instead of a tiny sliver of a single planet in our neighborhood.
THANK YOU, Marty, for this one, as for all your discussion(s) of Billy. THANK YOU!
Another point. If the universe was fine tuned for humans by God, then God had no need to create the universe so big as we know it. The fine tuning only exists within the Goldilocks zone. Rest of the universe is far from being fine tuned for humans to exist. Planet mars, though it resembles earth still is not fine tuned for human existence. Forget about any other stars, planets, quasars, supernova and so many damn things.
Find the ratio of how much is fine tuned to how much is not, you'll approach to near zero. And therefore for an "intelligent" God, creating all these "not-tuned" regions proves to be totally useless. He could have either really created all the universe fine tuned for human inheritance (which clearly isn't the case), or he should have simply created the Goldilocks zone only (which is again not the case), or he is too damn bored that he created a universe that contains a Kuiper Belt containing ice balls and Asteroid belt that prove to be of no use to human existence, and billions of other useless things.
So what is the probability that this narrow portion of Goldilocks zone was intentionally fine tuned for humans, compared to rest of the universe which was clearly not?
Oh.. and what about the Black Holes? What purpose do they fulfill in human existence? To get sucked in and come out in a fifth dimension tesseract so that you could talk to your daughter through gravity in her bedroom and throw random books from shelf for her to understand the message S.T.A.Y.?
you're right. Why don't God just create a cube?
Must have right laws - this could be laws that we don't know about and could possibly differ the proces of universe that can have life. So i think next "Must's" are non-sequitur.
You state in the false trichotomy argument that an infinite number of universes mean that our existence COULD be chance, but an infinite set does not necessarily contain all possible terms.
how would you solve the bolzmann brain problem?
I've always wondered why _"every possible universe"_ *must* exist. Could you explain that to me? (the crux lies in the word _'must'_)
Just imagine how hard it would be for someone to listen with an open mind, if every one of their friends and family believe in fine tuning.
They truly believe that someone is looking out for them, cares about them.
I know it must be hard, to anyone reading this that's in that situation.
Please look up Cognitive Dissonance.
When we have two attitudes or beliefs that don't match, our brain enters self defense mode, and shuts down whichever attitude or belief takes the least sacrifice.
It may be hard to accept that there's nobody looking over your shoulder making sure you have a good life, or that there might not be a heaven for you to just live forever.
However, if you knew for certain that everything you do in your life will come to an end one day, what purpose is there in life?
I'll tell you, to make this world a better place than it was before you came into it.
The only reason any of us have anything to enjoy in this world is because of people who gave their lives to create something regardless of the fact that they wouldn't be here to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Go make the world a better place, you don't need to believe in anyone to do it.
another great post- one of the smartest posters on YT
0:35 what music is that ?
I'm not sure I'd push Craig out the creationist basket. He may not be a young Earth creationist but he still relies on their crappy understanding of evolution and probability to argue shit like this:
"n fact, that leads me to his other argument, concerning biological evolution. And I'm going to suggest that the idea that evolution could have occurred without an intelligent Designer is so improbable as to be fantastic. This has been demonstrated by Barrowand Tipler in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth.19 They estimate the odds of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4-360 (110,000), a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God! And here the Christian can be much more open to where the evidence leads. He could say, "Well, God could have used evolution; He could have used special creation. I'm open to the evidence." But, you see, for the naturalist evolution is the only game in town! No matter how fantastic the odds, no matter how improbable the evidence, he's stuck with it because he hasn't got an intelligent Designer. So it seems to me that the Christian can be far more objective on this point. After all, if you were to find watch lying on the ground, and, say, it didn't function exactly perfectly, it lost one minute per hour, would you therefore conclude that the watch was not designed properly?
Source: www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-pigliucci-debate
And let's not forget he is considered a fellow of the Discovery Institute
Source: www.discovery.org/p/85
And he also had an association with the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design's "peer-reviewed" journal. And only used the word had in that last sentence seeing as the journal hasn't published anything for a while now.
Ah, but Occam's Razor destroys the notion of theistic evolution. For example, should we accept the cause of lighting to be a bunch of ice particles colliding in the clouds alone, or should we accept that Zeus uses this natural process to then create the lightning? The first option of course, because Zeus is an unnecessary assumption, natural processes don't require the use of any supernatural force to operate them. Therefore atheistic evolution is the simpler explanation because it doesn't make that extra unfounded assumption. The same thing can be said for theistic evolution, or the belief that God is behind the cause for natural disasters.
Bert Simmons - I'm still scratching my head on how your post has anything to do with mine. I wasn't making the case that evolution needs the guiding hands of an all-power, all-knowing god or even that a god would be necessary in the first place.
My comment was to point out why I reject the notion that Craig can't be lumped with every other creationist out there.
*****
*"In fact, that leads me to his other argument, concerning biological evolution. And I'm going to suggest that the idea that evolution could have occurred without an intelligent Designer is so improbable as to be fantastic."*
And I say, screw that. Occam's Razor disagrees.
I was responding to WLC's notion that evolution happening without an intelligent designer is improbable, that's all.
Bert Simmons
*And I say, screw that. Occam's Razor disagrees.*
You should be careful with that. Using Occam's Razor to establish truth will mean that you'll have to accept solipsism, as it is both the simplest and the most effective way of explaining everything.
Occam's Razor shouldn't really be used to seek for truth, as it's much better used in scientific inquiry, where it's better if models are more effective at explaining and more simple in their formulation, as the models are not meant to represent truth anyway. Simple and more effective models are just easier to use, and that's why Occam's Razor is used to scrape all the unnecessary shit from our scientific models.
*****
Occam's Razor does apply in cases where God is needlessly invoked, such as with theistic evolution. Because like I said, natural processes do not require the use of the supernatural, just like ice particles colliding in the clouds to make lightning don't require the use of Zeus. Same thing with natural selection, which is obviously, a natural process. So like the lighting example, inserting a god in evolution is an unnecessary assumption. Therefore it is in violation of Occam's Razor.
Could I be wrong, and that there was a god who guided evolution? Sure, Occam's Razor like you said, shouldn't be used to find truth. But it does lead you to where all the evidence points to thus far. Such as all the evidence pointing to that natural processes don't require any supernatural driving force behind them.
In this case, it scrapes off the unfounded/unnecessary assumption that God was involved with evolution. Leaving you to what actually HAS been demonstrated. In other words, the best explanation, not that I'm claiming absolute certainty.
*"And I say, screw that. Occam's Razor disagrees."*
- I'll rephrase it: "And I say, screw that. It is in violation of Occam's Razor."
My favorite part of this debate was obviously when Guth actually said that WLC doesn't understand his theory... and then good old Billy says that clearly Guth doesn't understand his own theory. William Lane Craig, everyone! Quite possibly the finest example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect currently on display. Step on up and enjoy the show.
***** It seems that the original thread has been deleted. If not then it would be greatly appreciated if you could post the link to that thread here. Anyways, my response is below.
“I'm sorry, but a statement has no weight at all unless evidence is given to support that statement. It's an absolutely pathetic attempt to argue against the MOA because its inventor didn't think it was successful. Plantinga's statement carries no weight whatsoever.”
Plantinga’s statement about his own argument does hold more weight than yours being that he is a professional philosopher and the one who formulated the argument. I find it ironic that you were defending Craig by citing a philosopher’s statement about Craig’s arguments yet deny the same charity when someone does the same.
“No, they can't. If a definition entails existence... well, then it entails existence. You can't say that something entails existence and then turn around and say it doesn't actually entail existence.”
Yes they can. I can define anything as necessarily existing but that doesn’t mean that it actually does in fact exist. For instance, I can say that the Buddha necessarily exists by definition but that in no way entails that the Buddha actually exist. It is simple as that. What do you not understand about that?
“Not true. The definition of truth entails the actuality of truth. To deny this is to presuppose that the denial is true. There are things that simply have to exist by virtue of their definition.”
The definition of truth may entail the actuality of truth but that does not entail that everything that is defined as actually existing (including God) entails that it literally exists nor does it mean that one must concede that a thing that is defined as existing must really exists. Again, definitions prove nothing. I gave you an example with Buddha above to illustrate this point. Definitions do not necessarily translate to the real world. Furthermore, it is highly controversial what existence is which leaves further room for doubt (plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/).
“Nobody is denying this. The entire debate revolves around whether God can exist in any possible world. However, you have to actually defend the argument. Merely formulating it isn't enough. On the theistic side, we have Robert Maydole's modal perfection argument among other things. On the atheistic side, there isn't much to go on other than arguments from evil and divine hiddenness.
Keep in mind that merely asserting that a possible world is coherent in and of itself won't prove anything relevant. One needs to discover a possible world which flatly contradicts a maximally great being, and I see no way of providing such arguments.”
You seem to forget impossibility arguments on the atheistic side that flat out contradict a maximally great being. For instance, Patrick Grim wrote a whole book arguing that the notion of omniscience in its many forms is impossible or at least most likely impossible (www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Universe-Totality-Knowledge-Truth/dp/0262519119/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419931911&sr=1-1&keywords=patrick+grim). There are also arguments for the impossibility of omnipotence and the impossibility of combined attributes. There are even open theists that argue against omniscience as well so there are not only arguments against a maximally great being on the atheistic side but also on the theistic side. Such arguments, if successful, render modal perfection ironically incomplete. Divine hiddenness and the problem of evil are not the only arguments out there that are against the possibility of a maximally great being.
I also find it ironic that you argue that merely asserting that a possible world is coherent in and of itself won't prove anything relevant when you provide no reason to accept that a maximally great being is possible let alone define what a maximally great being is. Stating that the “philosophical community” accepts this or that proves nothing. For all we know you may be making things up and if you are telling the truth then you need to provide reasons why there is no controversy regarding the possibility of a maximally great being when there is plenty of literature in the “philosophical community” arguing against such a notion. From what I have read, theists can’t even agree on what omnipotence is let alone what constitutes a maximally great being and there is controversy concerning whether the attributes (namely omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence) of a maximally great being are possible on their own or combined in the philosophical literature (i.e. “philosophical community”). What is annoying is that you seem to speak so confidently as if the matter is settled and in favor of the theistic side.
Well I am far from a scientist(I have a high school degree but not a college one), I also don't think myself very religious(I believe something but don't follow one religion). I love your video's and feel that if there is a god he would think you are doing good work. At the end of the day Science may one day prove or disprove god, but that day is very far off. Until then I will say I feel (aka totally non scientific) that there is one, and that he set up this wonderful world/solar system/galaxy/universe in such a way that we CAN explore it. If I am right then scientists are doing more then religious fundamentalists.
Either way Martymer 81 keep up the good work and keep making fun informative videos. I wish I had found you and people like you sooner, because when I was young I was taken in by a lot of false info on the supernatural.
What happened to spirit science? :S It was a fun serie.
5:23 "You cannot reject the logic of the argument", yes, but isn't it still nonsensical? Isn't that an example of a formal fallacy?
No. As I showed with the Lassie example, the logic is spotless. Given that definition of cat, Lassie is a cat. Definitions are completely arbitrary. It only appears nonsensical because you reject the definition, because you hang on to a completely arbitrary set of agreements regarding definitions, commonly referred to as the English language. Since the definition used is provided, it is clear that the common English definition is not the one being used in the argument.
However, if the definition wasn't provided, you could reject P1, and the argument would fail.
***** Sorry, you state that as such in the video yet I posed the question anyway. It doesn't matter how "nonsensical" the content of the definition sounds because the value of the definition itself is what stands, not an external evaluation of it. Thanks.
Lyrtin Losk
it was a hypothetical argument anyway, however if in his example ***** was to have a hypothetical argument arguing against that definition with facts to show lassie is in fact not a cat because the definition of "dog" is determined by it's physical characteristics which in many ways are very different from cats. However since ***** isn't a biologist I can see why he steered clear of that point, which may be the main reason you got mixed up in the example.
NUTCASE71733 Aren't all arguments "hypothetical"? And I think I got slightly confused by your incomplete/run-on sentence.
I got mixed because I, for all intents and purposes, did not fully assimilate that the definition is extremely important: his whole point.
this video is on the right track but gets a few things wrong. ultimately the fine tunning argument for god is a question about probabilities. what explains the universe we see better? theism or naturalism? i think naturalism but it isnt a perfect answer. Sean Carroll is the guy to listen to on this.
If you make a playlist of all your videos dealing with WLC, you should call it "William Lane Craig is Wrong About Everything".
William Lane Craig is wrong about pretty much everything that comes out of William Lane Craig's mouth.
I like Viced Rino on this one. People existing where they should be able to exist is not explained by God, people existing where it is impossible for them to exist is explained by god and that does not happen.
5:30 isn't the definition part of the argument? Otherwise people can spout all kinds of definitions and produce incredibly stupid (though valid) logic implying that Lassie is a cat.
What is fallacious in those cases is using the technically defined word inconsistently, typically requiring the meaning used in ordinary speech. While the fallacy of equivocation is common when people monkey with language, the definitions of ordinary terms are often too vague or ambiguous to be used with precision as they are. Equivocations occur in natural speech _already_, and on quite a frequent basis (quite a bit of humor takes advantage of this).
Geometry has employed technical definitions for thousands of years, and is all the better for it. While excessive cases like Marty's example should arouse suspicion that someone is trying to pull a fast one on us, using technical definitions is overall helpful for science and other intellectual inquiries.
are the infinite number of universes interconected in any way?
Possibly through gravitational interaction.
*****
There are some fascinating hypothesis in that direction.
It would be nice to know that one of the can be proven, because this would also explain some of the strange behavior of gravity.
9:30 -- "Must expand at the the proper rate."
Just like _Attack of the The Eye Creatures_.
had not thought of fine tuning in these terms before... interesting
Billy Craig is wrong about everything that he preaches about..
“This type of universe…requires a degree of fine tuning in the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom.’ - Astronomers Idit Zehavi and Avishai Dekel, N. Straumann, “The Mystery of the Cosmic Vacuum Energy Density and the Accelerated Expansion of the Universe,” European Journal of Physics (200)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” - George Ellis, British astrophysicist
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”- Paul Davies, British astrophysicist
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” - Alan Sandage, winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” - John O'Keefe. NASA astronomer
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency -or, rather, Agency- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” - George Greenstein, astronomer
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” - Arthur Eddington, astrophysicist
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” - Arno Penzias, Nobel prize in physics
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” - Roger Penrose, mathematician and author
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” - Tony Rothman, physicist
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” - Vera Kistiakowsky, MIT physicist
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?” - Stephen Hawking, British astrophysicist
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”- Alexander Polyakov, Soviet mathematician
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God -the design argument of Paley-updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” - Ed Harrison, cosmologist
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” - Edward Milne, British cosmologist
“Who created these laws [of nature]? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”- Barry Parker, cosmologist
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” - Drs. Zehavi and Dekel, cosmologists
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”- Arthur L. Schawlow, professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”- Henry "Fritz" Schaefer, computational quantum chemist
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” - Wernher von Braun, pioneer rocket engineer
"Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe." - Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in physics, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998
"When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it." - John Polkinghorne, one of the world's highest authorities on astrophysics, Cambridge University physicist, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998
Nice channel. I like the way you do the videos.
TJ for laughs, ***** for semi serious videos.
Subscribed
WLC's arguments make little sense even when I'm a little drunk
if Craig likes physics so much, why didnt he study it. Just the idea of a guy that studied theology thinks he can make conférences about physics is otherly stupid
I wish Jordan would make new videos so I could get some popcorn and wait for shots to be fired :)
I agree mostly, but there are many things in nature that seem to point to creationism that evolution theory "alone" cannot account for. Here's just one; How does one explain the solar eclipse? The sun is significantly larger than the moon. It is also much further. During an eclipse both bodies give the illusion of fitting perfectly? what is the chance that such a thing would be observed on a planet where beings were intelligent enough to recognize this phenomenon and marvel? We know that it is not a matter of light bending because we observe it in a lunar eclipse too. I suppose anythings possible in the multiverse where any and every situation can be accounted for. But, what is likely? There is much evidence of intelligent design "and" evolution.
"Here's just one; How does one explain the solar eclipse?"
Coincidence. Coincidence happens all the time and we know it. Still no evidence of creation: if the moon wasn't in that particular position, would it disprove creation? Obviously not. So it can't be used to prove it.
"During an eclipse both bodies give the illusion of fitting perfectly"
"Perfectly" is the kind of lingo so dear to theists. But the eclipses aren't every time "perfect". Sometime some of the sun can be seen behind as a ring, sometime the moon covers a lot more of the sun itself covering part of the corona too, sometime you see half, or a quarter, of an eclipse. So no, it's not "perfect". And again, it's not an indication of creation because it beeng false is not a disprove of creation model.
"what is the chance"
This is not a good arguement again. The chance of something rare happening when having practical limitless time to happen is quite 100%. Given enough time, you can have a streak of winning lottery tickets every year for 50 years. The chances are low, but you have a practical infinite time to try for it.
"We know that it is not a matter of light bending because we observe it in a lunar eclipse too"
What this has to do with fine tuning?
"I suppose anythings possible in the multiverse where any and every situation can be accounted for"
Yes, you suppose, and I disagree. Present me with some evidence to check, your supposition and arguements are worthless without. And by the phrasing you are using I can infer you have no idea of what a multiverse is.
"There is much evidence of intelligent design"
No there isn't. Sorry.
I think the Flintstones who invented this nonsense were only talking about life in the Middle East. One could try and stretch this to include the whole planet if it weren't for the fact that they didn't know there was such a thing as a whole planet, just a flat Earth with its sky dome. Strangely their gods seem to know just about as much as they themselves did concerning reality back in the day which doesn't inspire confidence in the modern era. Earth isn't fine-tuned to life in general … life as we know it is fine-tuned for existence on planet earth. It would chemically be different if life was found on Jupiter or Mars or Kronos, how could it be otherwise? That is why we are called Earthlings and not Jovian’s or Martians or Klingons.
Well you need to do the math the WLC way. It is as follows: magic+magic+words that sound like science+fancy(and expensive productions)+large well sponsored talks=millions of dollars. Hence there is no need to change the formula to match reality.
I bet you do a mean Walken impression....
Has anyone ever told you that you sound like a Swedish Carl Sagan?
Imagine if God originally did create the universe literally as described in the Bible; then as man's knowledge progressed, and they started to investigate the world around them and the laws of nature, God suddenly had to scramble to retroactively squeeze in the bigger, more complex universe so we'd never bump into the edge (or see a limit to his power).
Like adding a second floor to your house, because your children are growing up and need separate bedrooms.
for all we know there's a universe with different physics and would look almost identical to fluidic space from star trek voyager
I still think the Universe was fine-tuned for ... the 5 big mass-extinction events. Ok, ok, the dinosaurs did think, like me and WLC, that it was fine-tuned for THEM but we're still around and they clearly are not so : CheckMate, Dinosaurs! Clearly fine-tuned for my favourite kind of life (in purpose)! :-D
Nice work! Thanks for that video ....
The fine tuning of the universe is due to either: 1. necessity 2. chance 3. design It is not a product of necessity. It would be possible for the forces of nature to be differently balanced. It is not a product of chance, since the mathematical odds of a universe so finely tuned is inexplicably unlikely. Therefore, it is logical that it is by design.
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
You wasted all your time with these posts; you still have not stated evidence for a religious deity. We already know all religious deities are man-made. So, at best, one may only suspect that possibly some other being/beings may have something to do with it. You still have not provided evidence for even that, possibly someday there could be, but not presently...Just because some human apes cannot understand that does NOT negate that fact.