Richard Swinburne - Why Cosmic Fine-tuning Demands Explanation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 мар 2020
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
The universe works for us because deep physical laws seem to work. But if the values of these laws would much change, in either direction, then all we see and know could not exist. No galaxies. No stars. No planets. No people. Do such special physical laws cry out for explanation?
Watch more interviews on why cosmic fine-tuning demands explanation: bit.ly/38zN9vK
Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He is Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
What a marvellous, articulate answer from an obviously, very humble and wise man!
So is the universe is finely tuned or not? What about the golden ratio?
@@ramzichouk4080 Given our present observable scientific evidence, one universe with the inherent Physical Constants, the universe looks like it's fine-tuned for Life. It's not proof but it's good evidence. We will never have any observable evidence for any other universes. I think 'sacred geometry' is a glimpse of the underlying Order.
Always fascinating to listen to Dr Swinburne's rigorously logical articulation of ideas. His thought process is just phenomenal.
Exactly, even if i do not like religions and religious thoughts
@@kuroryudairyu4567 Swinburne is not necessarily talking about religion (though the subject they're discussing does have religious implications). It's interesting to note that Jesus' sworn enemies were the super religionists of his day.
cringe + ratio
He is wrong!
ruclips.net/video/CJ62UoO0gw4/видео.html
I’ve read most of Richard Swinburne’s works. His case for God via natural theology is something everyone needs to take seriously.
NOPE!
GeoCoppens you’re missing out on seeking some of the most fundamental truths then is all I can say
@@RadicOmega It's not! Nothing has been fine-tuned for any reason!
@@GeoCoppens what? You know this is only one of Swinburne arguments right? He takes a probability approach though I disagree with his idea of what God is, his inductive cosmological argument and his fine tuning argument are some of the best I have seen.
@@gabepearson6104 Inductive logic is here totally invalid and therefore worthless. There is no fine tuning because there is no fine-tuner! These god-seekers are infantile morons!
The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning. Indeed, all the various materialistic explanations for the origin of the fine-tuning - i.e., the explanations that attempt to explain the fine-tuning without invoking intelligent design - invariably invoke prior unexplained fine-tuning.
Hi! Might you be able to help me learn more?
I've been learning about fine-tuning for a while and I can't believe I just heard this argument (that a multiverse would probably need to be very fine-tuned too). I'd love to learn more about it, but I'm having trouble finding sources that discuss this.
If you know of resources, can you please let me know?
It might be late but I would start with Stephen Meyer and discovery science
I highly respect Mr Swinburne. Unlike most of the idiots this channel interviews, he is skeptical, careful and does not make emphatic claims about things that are far beyond our ability to comprehend.
I looked it up and the guy you invited on is a philosopher. He also is clearly stating many personal opinions in amongst science. Where the science ends, and philosophy begins, is not being made clear.
8:08 Define “best.” Best in what way? Highest possible measurement of what?
“Many physicists say it’s completely solved” is an absurd overstatement.
To be clear, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum reality remains controversial, with some physicists arguing that it borders on metaphysical (see George Ellis and Silk’s “Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics”, Nature magazine, 2014). Those who do defend the theory merely acknowledge that it is one of many possible explanations-but one that, unlike theism, has defined parameters.
They has to be a fine tuner
@Shep Raynham so much system working in harmony do not happen by chance / the world start to detaorate after the fall in an orderly manner also / not my guest / the order come from the order not from a dis- order creator
I really don't see how the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics solves the problem of the laws, constants, and initial conditions of the physical universe. These other worlds would all have the same laws, constants, and initial conditions as ours.😊
What really is a difficult question to answer is; how does anything cause anything else? If two events are truly independent of each other, then how can one event cause another event? But, if causation is possible, then the consistency of the universe is no surprise because, the reasoning for how something had a particular result one time, could continue to be the same rational every time that it happens. The true question is; how does causation happen?
Great question. You either reason your way to "first cause" or "infinite regress". You decide.
@@chriswyles553 I’m going w first cause but, I think that it was a material cause.
Observer selection effect at work. Plain to see. Beyond that, we cannot say at the moment.
The multiverse theory as an explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is a much less convincing argument for atheism than Francis Crick’s “panspermia” theory is for the unintended, unintelligent, non-designed origin of life.
I hate to say it, but this went round and round for at least 2 minutes without going anywhere.
multiverse: the laziest argument ever
I can beat it: "[Insert specific invisible friend here] did it".
2:40 Sir [Richard Swinburne], with all due respect, Multiverse is a 'hypothesis' and not a 'theory'. And as you know, there is an epic difference between the two. Best wishes, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
Not a scientific theory as unfalsifiable.
@@mattsmith1440 Yes. The odds of a precisely tuned universe coming into being, without a mind, are next to impossible.
@@drew2fast489
I don't think the Universe did come into being at all, and I've no idea how you made that 'calculation'.
In other words we still don’t know WTF is going on...
So we are forced to conclude that an invisible pink unicorn... errh ... the Christian god must have done it. Or have I missed something in Swinburne's reasoning?
I saw a very fabulous video on RUclips that was quite enlightening. To summarize, it basically illustrated how we essentially live in a reality bubble. Everything we know and are grounded to has limits. In any direction you look, if you look far enough, you end in uncertainty. Look backwards to the big bang and you end in "I don't know". Look forward to the infinite future and you end in "I don't know". Look as far as you can into the ends of the cosmos, same thing. Look down as far as you can into the quantum realm, same answer. Look into your own past -- you can't even remember being born. From where did your consciousness come from? One day you were conscious, but you don't remember what day it was. Look far enough into your own future and none of us really know with 100% confidence what happens after we die. We are in a dark dark place and we are illuminated with a street lamp. We can make it brighter. We can install more. And yet... the darkness of uncertainty extends and will extend forever.
Long way to say, yeah, we don't know and I can argue will NEVER know WTF is going on.
@@darioinfini Yea, but some people's bubble is bigger than others.
On the attractive forces and repulsive forces are necessary.
This is exactly why the archaic law of 3 was reasoned through logical deduction.
If everything that exist has a variation. Then it is a requirement that it is a variable that exists within a scope.
A scope that always has two extremes, that define the limits.
So you had a major, mean, minor of the archaic world, that was built upon the foundation that duality was a necesssity.
Choice can not exist without making a variant of duality a requirement.
If life is expressed by free will, that free will is choice, which is a position within a framework that relies upon dualities scope.
A neutron would be meaningless without a proton and an electron.
An up quark and a down quark are duality, yet they can occupy a superposition between.
Regardless, most of the arguments about the requirement of the many worlds, is within a framework of a sequential experience construct called time.
Remove time (as opposed to just now) and they fall apart. The point that now follows after the big bang, or even that the big bang is necessary, also falls apart.
The past (what might have been) is not the present, the future (what might be) is not the present and only the present actually exists in reality.
We confirm a history from experience of the present and confirm prediction from the experience of the present.
Memories and Predictions can be / are/ and will be, adjusted to suit present and personal reality (decay and erosion for instance or a redirection of focus).
So we have a comparison system of what might have been (imaginary storage), vs what might be (imaginary storage), vs what is (objectively observing reality).
Arguably we also have what could be (random storage/dreams or non sequential time)
We use trial and error to manipulate and/or directly experience/sense this objective reality.
The more we have control over this process of 'reality', the more 'evolved' we are deemed to be.
Time can not exist without formula/inertia, as predictions could not be made.
Time can not exist without duration/permanance, as historical relics would not exist, nor their 'relative' position between the scope of the beginning and the end.
e.g. We 'assume' a 'constant' of nature had/have/will have an 'infinite duration', rather than vary with time and/or circumstance..like a change in value of other 'constants'.
As the further away the past/future is, the more unreliable it becomes to the extreme of unknown rather than known. It could be a time loop, with no one the wiser.
So even present time is a variable of duality between knowable and unknowable.
Essentially science comes down to how much 'confidence/faith' you place in an 'educated guess'.
Even repeatability/reproducability is redundant if the constants upon which assumptions are bases, are not in fact eternal constants (prove an eternal constant).
Without the past or future becoming your present, it can never be 100% certain, as only the present is real rather than supposition and proposition by 3rd parties.
@Al Garnier Entropy is an indicator of time like inertia. It is a product of linear sequential time. "You can not observe the future" (that would require time travel). You can only predict the future and observe the present. And if you choose to use the I am in the future argument, that too falls apart, because you are still observing the present.
@Al Garnier Besides, Entropy only exists as long as the weak nuclear force obeys current rules of 'the present'. Historical and future values are assumtpions and conjecture. They can not be verfied truly without the past being your present or the future being your present. Then physical observation is used, rather than modeling artificial constructs.
The Universe may look like it was fine tuned and so this would demand an explanation. What is the explanation? An invention of something unexplainable (a creator)that explains it?
What is a god? Is something all powerful, something out of time, something not made of some stuff, something that knows the absolute truth, that knows what is good and bad? Neither of these can be confirmed whether they are possible or not, they don’t seem possible. Plus as free will doesn’t seem possible it means there is no such a thing as good or bad beings
They "don't seem possible" to who? You? That is your opinion? Well if there is no creator and we really are just cosmic dust accidents this is all absurd anyways and why are you even considering it? After all "you" are just an accidental byproduct of chemical and electrical interactions happening by chance in your brain right? But nobody really believes this about themselves if they are being honest. Self-aware atheists, as you seem to be, will admit this but never ACT as if it is true. You will still think and act as if there is objective good and evil. The next step is being open to the possibility that how you're acting and feeling is closer to reality than the mental gymnastics that atheism demands of you.
Why aren't the constants naturally forced to constrain to limited values?
I think the point is, the constants are what they are. They have no range. The argument for a creator is that there are many constants, and if their values had deviated more than a tiny bit then there would be possibility of life. The odds of all of them being what they are suggests that they were set that way. I could be persuaded to believe that we are the simulation that worked.
@@ronaldmorgan7632
"It suggests they were set that way" or they were naturally constrained to a narrow range, or multiple variants were filtered by cosmic natural selection or we experience a workable universe by the anthropic principal.
To say a God did it only creates the question of how then did this God have all the right parameters and on an even grander scale!
To posit a matrix creates one more layer of unnecessary and unexplained complexity!
@@ronaldmorgan7632 What makes you think life, specifically the type of life we know of, was the goal?
@@sledzeppelin Not just because the bible tells us that, but because there were so many ways that it could have never got started. I could go on and on, but a little at a time.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Simulation theory is just a scientifically palatable version of Theism. Why? Because it affirms the idea that a being exists outside of our space/time who intentionally created our universe, that we can know absolutely nothing of this beings nature outside of what he reveals to us, that such a being created the parameters, and could even perform acts in our space/time that are unexplainable ie miraculous according to the parameters we’re limited by, that the Creator would be unimaginably powerful and knowledgeable of our entire realm, that the creator could reward us with a rebooted world to inhabit if we live according to his instructions, etc etc etc.
I certainly think it is most reasonable, and makes the most sense, and is a lot more logical, to say, yes, there is a power outside of space and time and our physical universe that is the cause for bringing it all about-- even if we are to believe the multiverse theory, are we to simply believe it all came about out of nothing? We're still missing first cause, and it makes sense that the first cause for our universe is outside of our physical existence, and is an eternal being capable of creation-- it is one of the reasons I can't be an atheist because I can't accept it all came about out of nothing and/or by pure chance for no reason whatsoever, it just seems to lack sense to me. Oh well I guess people will believe in the atheist/materialist assumption because it is attractive to believe there is no God to whom we will be accountable to, people would rather be gods of their own lives.
Right on!! If there is only materialism, what is the point in looking. We'll never see before the big bang. I believe there is a power (Mind) that created space and time. However most human minds are too proud & limited to admit it. Hence the multiverse to explain the order, that came about by blind chance.. Somewhere out of nowhere..
Hebrews 3:4.. Follow your logic John Watts..
My Gods and Goddesses are greater than Yahweh. And he is not omnipotent. Just a pretender
What fine tuning the universe isn’t perfect for us by any stretch of the imagination we survive here because we are of the universe
The Earth is in the Universe, and so is Uranus, neutron stars, the IGM and many other things and places; which one you think'd be 'closer to perfect' for us?
can a universe be finite?? Just asking.
it is
@@ikhlashasib8256 A finite universe needs a endpoint. Please explain where they are.
@@alcohalic6338 It's expanding bro
@@ikhlashasib8256 yes indeed it is expanding in to a infinite space.
@@alcohalic6338 you don't know that.
fascinating argument
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
It seems no matter how large one makes things one can always speculate about and just the existence of god.
When the thing you're examining has as part of its definition that it is beyond our capacity to understand, no matter what you consider, you can always speculate that it might possibly fit. The problem is that speculation is all you can do.
There is another possibility that could produce a fine-tuned universe - the simulation theory. However that creates the question, is the universe that the programmer is in fine-tuned also, how, and why?
Simulation theory isn't any different from what the teleological (fine tuning) argument argues for. The teleological argument only gets you to an intelligent agent capable of either creating the world with certain laws and conditions, or changing the laws and conditions of the world.
Simulation theory is a further postulate that the world is emergent from a computer programmed by this intelligent agent.
Argument from Divine Indifference. Until you can rebut that, any and all Cosmic Fine Tuning Arguments will not get off the ground.
Of course if you unpack it he way you did and ignore the salient points, it's irrelevant. Good for you. There there.
If you can't even unpack it properly and respond to it head on, I can't be bothered.
@@Anduril919 Divine indifference is only from your very limited perspective!
Fine Tuning can demand an explanation all it likes, that doesn't mean there will be one any time soon. The Fine Tuning argument conflates precision with probability, a value with limits of 1/1000 doesn't have a probability of 1 in 1000 of being within those limits. We have no basis for stating the probability of any of the Fine Tuned 'constants' as far a I know.
8:44 Define “good.” What makes us “good” to you? Something about our genetic makeup? Something we do? Be more precise.
3 minutes into the video… He says that the multiverse theory “postulates a lot to explain a little.” So, he agrees then that the “fine tuning,” of the universe, is insignificant? Also, wouldn’t any nonambiguous “God theory” postulate a lot? Also, why must we postulate anything before any answer is proven?
🤣"it takes more faith to be an atheist"🤦🏿♂️No that's not what he's saying...simply put,it's an over explanation to a simple problem.Why are there so many constants in the universe and why are they fine-tuned to such a degree that a small change in one of them means that there's no universe as we know it.
@@Chulu.10 So, are u atheist or believer, then?
Swinburne loves to talk about "good things" with absolutely no foundation for defining their apparent positive values. He says that even without humans to view it, the night sky is a good thing, because it is a "marvelous dance." But that's our relationship to the night sky, not the night sky itself. For a lion, tearing apart a gazelle is a good thing. For the gazelle, denying the lion its meal is even better.
I think you've totally missed the point of his reasoning tbh
I must admit, the new argument for the existence of Zeus is better than the old ones.
@praywithj
But we have physical evidence for Zeus.
An Emeritus Professor of Philosophy who is also a passionate Christian has written about his philosophical reasons for accepting that the Christian god is real.
Who would have thought?
Why would any other universes be different if their cause is the same? Blind random chance is the least scientific answer for an effect of any explanation that exists.
Wonderful! This is simple, beautifully offered, plausible reasoning to deny the implausible, speculative, highly imaginative offering of a multiverse. I like the phrase of Dr Swinburne: ( The concept of the multiverse) "...postulates an awful lot to explain very little." In comparison, Occam Razor ("The simplest explanation is usually the best one.") steps in here: God did it.
By the same token a universe fine tuned for the existence of a god appears less likely than a universe fine tuned for the existence of basic carbon based life forms and who fine tuned god's universe, an infinite regression of gods?
Life is vanishingly rare but has a non zero chance of existing somewhere, life can only be observed in the areas in which it arose.
The universe is not find tuned for the existence of God, because God does the fine tuning
Multiverse hypothesis reveals naked scientific butts in this universe.
Multiverse, infinite number. As goood as an explanation of that of a creator.
An infinite number of universes. As opposed to a finite (although very small) probability that the constants are tuned. This is what he means that "you have to postulate a lot" for a multiverse. Therefore the explanations are not equal in value.
The multiverse is purely philosophical and supports only the cause of everything being blind random chance, which is the least scientific explanation of any explanation that exists.
What would be the scientific proof that there are multi-universes that have no life?
Interesting factoid: the step brother of the guy being interviewed is named Richard Swineflu
People who believe in fine tuning have just replaced 'The earth is the center of the universe' with 'Humans are the center of the universe'.
All arguments against fine tuning as a proof of god - Physicists & Philosophers reply to The Fine Tuning Argument on skydivephil channel.
A very enjoyable show . Mr Swinburne presents a respectable case, and certainly this position is worthy of consideration.. As a person who follows the evidence, I REMAIN unconvinced, simply because there is none in his solely philosophical arguments.. Conversely Mathematical reasoning IS evidence for a thing, as QM has demonstrated by ushering in the electronic age.. The current debate is around the INTERPRETATION of what IT says about our universe (multi-verse) but these aren't baseless hypotheses as the counterpoints arguably are..
Bill Norris I’m not sure whether Mr Swinburne, not being a physicists, understand that the multiverse IS the simplest explanation. It is the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions, indeed far fewer than the god hypothesis does, but I doubt that he’d agree with that fact.
@@plasticvision6355 I think that's right vision.. 1000 years ago, people thought our solar system was all there was.. 100 years ago, that view was expanded to believe the galaxies we were discovering defined the entire universe.. We could be in the early stages of ANOTHER such paradigm shift..
Bill Norris I totally agree. This is exactly how theologians like Swinburne can end up with metaphorical egg on their faces.
But to be fair, Swinburne, being smart, couches his arguments in more speculative terms, unlike those apologists and theologians that make more definitive claims, even though they always deny they are not.
I find it interesting that Craig has refuted his own fine tuning and Kalam argument by arguing the case, using science, for the second coming. What’s more interesting is that many theists seem to blissfully unaware that he has done this.
It’s hard to determine whether he scored this massive own goal wittingly or unwittingly, but the effect is the same: he’s fatally undermined his own arguments for the existence of god and that god being the cause of anything.
Mystical experiences are evidence of a sort. They are subjective but still call out for an explanation of their character.
The Multiverse - reasons, why it's not a good explanation for the existence of our fine-tuned universe.
A strong motivation for introducing the multiverse concept is to get rid of the need for design, this bid is only partially successful. Like the proverbial bump in the carpet, the popular multiverse models merely shift the problem elsewhere - up a level from universe to multiverse”
The task of a multiverse generator
The smallness of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single the greatest problem confronting current physics and cosmology. The cosmological constant acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand and, when negative, acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. To get our universe, this constant must be right amongst 10^123 possibilities. That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143.
Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate. He would have made 10^18 attempts after 30 billion years.
Once he had that right, to get a universe with atoms, he would have to make the following number of trials:
the right Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10^40
If a multiverse generator existed, he must have been VERY busy in the last trillion trillion trillion years to get out only our universe......
does that make sense?
7:40 Define “god.” Is this science or philosophy? If you want to be scientific, then you must define a clear concept which you call a “god.” Not to mention that saying “God,” as a name, rather than “a god,” implies that a specific god has already been proven to exist, previously.
ugh slay queen going for that beautiful 'I'm old and will die soon' moment. #DontStopBelieving
cringe + ratio
Given the many ways that our immediate environment is trying to, and succeeding at killing us you can't say say the universe is fine tuned for life.
Just a way for the fittest to survive.
@@PappyGunnI think my point stands.
No, if the laws were different life wouldn't be hard, it would be IMPOSSIBLE
@@Waddle64 If life is hard, you can't say the universe is fine tuned for life.
Well there are almost 8 billion humans on earth so we seem to be doing pretty well right now. Life is literally everywhere on this planet from deep ocean vents to floating in the upper atmosphere so what are you actually talking about??
He is right to be skeptical of multiverses, one can invent reasons to believe in them but such reasons should not be convincing especially when those theories can never be tested.
"Fine tuning" assumes a tuner, another invented thing there is no reason to believe in.
The constants that are supposedly fine tuned are not things in the universe as a whole, they are things in our description of the universe. As our knowledge improves our description will change so best not to rest any ultimate arguments on such soggy ground.
It's not a believe...all models based on the Inflationary Big Bang lead to a Multiverse. I study Astrophysics and I know of no serious models except Lee Smolins Refund Universes and Steinhardt-Turok and their cyclic universe ( im not counting Penrose and his CCC model ).
I guess you could include VSL but using the standard model and the data we have generating models....they ALL lead to a Multiverse. Most don't like the idea but Nature or...the cosmos...dont care about out opinions.
@@Raydensheraj People whose claims to having studied astrophysics are more substantial than a youtube comment do not believe inflationary theories necessarily lead to multiverses. For example:
Sabine Hossenfelder
ruclips.net/video/-dSua_PUyfM/видео.html
Fermi Lab:
ruclips.net/video/lxWLfEPl8kM/видео.html
Sir Roger Penrose
ruclips.net/video/0thgTlvpCEo/видео.html
@@Raydensheraj I've seen nothing that leads to a multiverse. Scientists who don't believe in a God have hit a dead end in their quest for answers and have invented the idea of a multiverse thinking that it answers the questions of fine tuning. Thus, it allows them to not have to ponder the possibility of there being a creator.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 The fine tuning argument is the absolute worst Christians can throw in my opinion. I can tell you haven't looked beyond apologetics. Fine tuned for human life? You could not leave earth without taking something from Earth with you. And then you will be literally be bombarded by DNA changing cosmic rays...we also can not act like we know if different "tunings" wouldn't allow different life. Life is just part of existence. It doesn't need an man made outside DJ that chooses the tune. Especially in a highly evolving universe that allows literally anything and everything because of its ridiculous size.
@@ronaldmorgan7632
Not all cosmologists accept find tuning, and regardless of religious beliefs scientists have to use methodological naturalism in their work. Saying 'magic did it' is not an option.
2:40 Sir [Richard Swinburne], with all due respect, Multiverse is a 'hypothesis' and not a 'theory'. And as you know, there is an epic difference between the two. Best wishes, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
I think he was using the secondary definition of the word which meaning idea or hypothesis, I don't think he was speaking about it scientifically.
A fool says in his heart "there is no God." (Bible) I pity those atheistic scientists who are desperate to avoid the divinely caused fine tuning of the universe, seeking to find an alternative explanation which turned out to be multiverse theory. It is quite interesting to see that the fact of fine tuning compels the scientists to choose between accepting it as consonent with the biblical claim of creation and rejecting it.
The cosmological constant is the strongest proof that god created this universe the the universes upon our universe cause it cant be by chance even leonard susskind who was athiest said the it cant be accidetal...
It isn't any kind of proof "that god created this universe" just that we don't yet know why the cosmological constant is that way. "God" is not some kind of default conclusion when something is not known... that fallacy has a name: The god of the gaps.
If a god created the universe then that god has a even harder explanation of why it exists than why the cosmological constant has that value, for example the Universe might change over time and it now has the right value
2. You take that constant that we don’t yet have an answer for and explain it by introducing an unexplainable concept which is God: all powerful? What does that mean? Is it possible for such a thing to exist? All loving? Again, is there such a thing? What is God made of? Not made of anything. That doesn’t even sound logical
We live in a Universe almost pathologically committed to killing life. What little life that exists is life that has slipped through the cracks, it's just life that the universe hasn't managed to kill yet.
heh! the universe is fine tuned to eliminate life.
KEvron
I think you miss the point of the argument this is why I don’t like the popular apologist way of putting it, it’s a probability argument at least for Swinburne, which takes the existence of the laws of nature as they are and compares the two theories that exists pains them and sees which one best explains it, and when one does a that theism explains it better than naturalism.
7:50 So multiverse or universe fine tuned by God for us------That's the only alternatives? Talk about a solution that is more problematic than the original problem!
Fine tuning is an argument for a God who doesn’t break the laws of Physics. Bible God gives Joshua a long day, floating ax head, ascensions, teleportation, walking through walls, walking on water, zombie resurrections….
I didn’t find his ending argument very persuasive.
@Al Garnier You'd have to clarify - I heard mention of God, but I missed out the reference to Santa. Plus, since you explained absolutely nothing, I don't find your claim that "religion is a cue to tune out the lies" is very persuasive. LOL
Because he's reciting from his heart, the answers there before being asked, he doesn't pause a second weather he might have a invariable answer, it's kind of aloofness sets upon his character...
@@suatustel746 that’s a terrible way to think of things. It’s fine when you’re in love with someone. But the universe doesn’t have the ability to care whether you think of it from your heart or not.
@@melgross I'm not sure are you with him or against his views, he's a theologian, therefore he dismiss other scientific theories such as multiverse parallel universe m theory string theory etc. When he's been interviewed he's speaking what has been presupposed in his books nothing new under the sun so to speak...
@@suatustel746 I’m definitely not with him. I find all theological “stories” to be unpersuasive. But, I’m willing to listen just in case someone does make a case. So far, no one has. In philosophy and religion, no real case needs to be made. The only thing that matters is that convincing the gullible who are looking for something that tells them they’ll be ok, is all that’s needed. Remember that the vast majority of people aren’t capable of questioning their religion, and just believe what their parents and most everyone around them believe, because it’s been pounded into their heads since they were small children. They believe because of an accident of birth. Those who leave and take up a different religion, often do so out of rebellion.
The first thing I'd like to say about the multiverse is "bollocks". How convenient you can't prove that particular theory. Still, it doesn't explain that THIS universe has finely tuned constants.
What a load of twaddle: If Swinburne thinks that multiverse is an extravagant hypothesis, then his super omni god that can make everything out of nothing, surely takes the biscuit when it comes to being extravagant. I always wonder how theists just can not see that!?
The reason is that at least for swinburne God is a very simple hypothesis. For him, to introduce an explanation for everything that is limited in power/attributes requires further explanation as to why it has that limit. This entails that whatever the ultimate cause of everything must be unlimited in its powers/attributes or have no powers/attributes. It cant have none however because it would then be unable to cause anything.
@@joelunderhill126 I am aware of this equivocation on the word "simple", it is pure sophistry: In order for anything to be capable of multiple behaviour patterns, it requires that behaviour to be implemented in some underlying substrate that gives it those capabilities. So the more behaviors a thing is capable of exhibiting the more complex it needs to be in terms of the underlying functionality that gives it those capabilities. If you want to claim that the fundamental basis of everything is of necessity "unlimited" (whatever that might mean, if anything) then that would need to be demonstrated not just asserted. This is the kind of specious argument that gives philosophy (really theology) a bad reputation. In science we adhere to the principle of not multiplying entities beyond necessity and that is because we are looking for explanations that are sufficient (not necessary!) to explain a phenomenon given behaviour we have already observed and/or measured. Going beyond that just leads to an exponential increase in the number of arbitrary solutions.
@@roqsteady5290 well swinburne would most likely deny your premise that for something to be complex it must have an underlying substrate. A counter example for you to consiser may be something like fundamental particles, which have no substrate but do have multiple properties like spin, charge and mass. Maybe you would take this to be evidence that fundamental particles are composed of something smaller perhaps?
@@joelunderhill126 Well, if he did deny that, then he would be claiming that god was nothing, which as it happens is my position :). As to fundamental particles, they are not nothing and many things other than particles have multiple behavioural properties, which involve their interaction with their surroundings - in order to spin you have to be changing orientation relative to something else and so on. And yes, likely fundamental particles are made of something, for instance string theory proposes they are strings which vibrate in multiple dimensions, although that isn't verified so far... Why there is something rather than nothing is not something I (or anyone else) can tell you, but what we surely can say, as Spinoza did, is that there must be some fundamental basis of reality (substance in Spinoza's terminology) that is not nothing - meaning nothing in the philosophical sense of absolutely nothing at all, not the nothing of scientists such as Lawrence Krauss, which isn't really nothing (phew).
The twaddle is with you my friend. I've seen people healed with tissue, nerves etc spontaneously appearing. It defies physics. There is free will, logic, math, reason, morality etc all physics free. I agree God does take the biscuit.
Very well stated, we as humans try to make infinite excuses ie universes to justify the belief that a finely tuned universe is more likely a result of randomness instead of intelligent design but as he said it’s a lot of extra just to produce a little which goes against real science. It’s because many religions have done a lot of harm but from a purely intellectual viewpoint the idea of intelligent design makes much more sense than randomness.
Brandon Hodnett I’m pretty sure that neither you or Swinburne understand that, contrary to what Swinburne claims, the multiverse IS the simplest explanation. This is like mistaking the number of air molecules (trillions in a cubic meter) in a room for the fact you only need three types of molecule.
Swinburne is not a physicist so why he is pontificating nonsense on here is hard to fathom.
@@plasticvision6355 Sorry but you're expanding your probabalistic resources there, rather than accepting that the universe is created, same thing if we look at a work of Shapespeare, cant explain it so you go looking for a room full of monkeys typing it up randomly, what's more likely? That is was created by an individual or by accident? Ditto for the universe.
kasparov9 What are you talking about an accident? The laws of physics are not accidental.
And why assume a creator?
kasparov9 Neither philosophy or physics needs a creator. You need to educate yourself and rid yourself of the infantile belief.
kasparov9 And no, god by far requires the greater number of assumptions - that is, Occam’s razor and philosophy for that matter, render gods unnecessary.
You do understand that the noun (god) doesn’t explain anything, don’t you?
9:02 Is this your opinion or the scientific fact? You need to make clear what parts your stating scientific fact vs philosophizing. Otherwise, I can’t trust your words as a source in regards to science.
A universe generator for the multiverses is a ridiculous idea. Clutching at straws in order to avoid acknowledging the powerful creator whose mighty work is clearly evident
This guy is labouring under a pre conception----a prejudice if you will. I am labouring under a preconception---a prejudice. I come here to compare his prejudice with my prejudice. I am thereby testing my prejudice, as best I can, for soundness.
Am I wrong in thinking that the wording of the title of this video is prejudicial toward the theistic position? Does the title assume and convey the idea that fine tuning is real? How would the title have to be worded in order to be neutral?
2:08 "It's postulating an awful lot" ... doesn't that describe "god" even moreso than a multiverse? Yes, yes it does. "God" doesn't explain anything about how the universe exists or operates. In the later part of this video Richard Swinurne says "it seems to me that god would have abundant reason to bring about a multiverse" is just one example of how theists see everything as being the will of god. It doesn't matter what one suggests, they have can find a reason why god would do that.
To them it's pretty much a prediction of their god-hypothesis. They conveniently forget that the hypothesis was proposed (in part) to explain the universe to begin with. There's nothing wrong with circular reasoning if you just forget where you started when you come back around!
He is presupposing a creator god and then applying an anthropocentric value judgment of "goodness" to the existence of the natural world.
we're born good and we learn to be bad , is that enough for you ?
the proof of a creator is the big bang and singularity , no life can result from a bomb exept if it a controlled explosion from start to finish
@@ramzichouk4080 Nope. Good and bad are human value judgments that have absolutely no explanatory power for the existence of the universe.
@@ramzichouk4080 And you know this for a fact? Argument from incredulity. "I can't think of a better explanation so it must be my imaginary friend"
@@ramzichouk4080 Interesting, how can God control every single quantum bit of stuff when huge cosmic explosions happens? He should, or outcome of such chaotic events can't be predicted and this world can't be the best of all possible worlds than.
I am curious what "cosmic fine-tuning" you're an demanding an explanation of.
The universe is full of absolute chaos.
Astronautical Engineer if the universe is not finely tuned, surely it is also not in chaos
Please educate yourself on cosmic fine tuning. I can recommend the book “a Fortunate Universe” by cosmologists, Barnes & Lewis. Barnes is a theist and Lewis an atheist, so bias free. Enjoy.
@@kjustkses Perhaps it would have been a MORE bias-free assessment, IF a Theist wasn't involved.. I'm willing to defend that assertion if it went over anyone's head.. Peace.
@@sujamahmudasad8548 Your comment contained an element of self-contradiction friend.. When the level of organization is decreased in any system, the level of DISORGANIZATION rises proportionately.. Obviously I'm struggling to understand your comment friend... Can you explain?
Bill Norris
The facts are the facts. Whether or not the cosmologist is a theist or not. Most cosmologists don’t deny cosmological fine tuning.
It is mainly atheistic biased individuals who deny it, for no good reason apart from it fitting certain theistic narratives.
The most simple explanation is that there is no universe, there is only the potential, and that is what we are experiencing,, as nothingness is the only potential for everything, remember, one day we will all be gone, and our history no longer exist.
The so-called "Multiverse" is just as solid a proposition as any other whimsy any old religion would care to come up with.
The Multiverse - reasons, why it's not a good explanation for the existence of our fine-tuned universe.
A strong motivation for introducing the multiverse concept is to get rid of the need for design, this bid is only partially successful. Like the proverbial bump in the carpet, the popular multiverse models merely shift the problem elsewhere - up a level from universe to multiverse”
The task of a multiverse generator
The smallness of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single the greatest problem confronting current physics and cosmology. The cosmological constant acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand and, when negative, acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. To get our universe, this constant must be right amongst 10^123 possibilities. That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143.
Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate. He would have made 10^18 attempts after 30 billion years.
Once he had that right, to get a universe with atoms, he would have to make the following number of trials:
the right Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10^40
If a multiverse generator existed, he must have been VERY busy in the last trillion trillion trillion years to get out only our universe......
does that make sense?
The multiverse is non sense of the highest order. It is based on the idea that there is an infinite number of possible universes. That is plainly illogical
@@intelligentdesignacademy3460 Exactly. It gives those who prefer for some reason to not believe there to be a God a theoretical way out.
@@patricksee10 a multiverse also needs a multiverse generator...... and then we have to ask: where did that come from.
It does not help to argue any old religion is illogical if you are trying to rule out the fine tuning argument. What must be proven is the possibility are multiverses where all possible physical outcomes occur. As I have demonstrated, such a multiverse is illogical. Thus it must be discounted as an answer to fine tuning. Arguing that religion is illogical is beside the point where it is assets that the multiverse counters fine tuning on logically possible grounds. Best wishes.
I don’t understand what people are talking about when they say that the universe is fine tuned.
The Bible tells us that the existence of God can be seen in the beauty of his creation. We have all witnessed a beautiful sunrise for example. But in our stubbornness, we do not want to give glory and honor to God, the Creator.
Science is supposed to be stubborn. We can't just decide whose ideas to believe.
,
“A god” would be a theory, making many postulations, were you to give us a precise definition of what a “god” is. And, if you fail to, then you fail to explain anything.
In a philosophical sense, "God" can be simply interpreted as a "First Cause".
For something like a universe to be initiated by a first cause, all of the created elements of that universe will 'partake' in greater or lesser degrees in the 'will' and essence of the first cause.
@@chriswyles553 But, what if the first cause was the universe itself, in its first form?
The fine tuning argument only works if you assume God cannot do miracles.
We know that God can do miracles, so he didn't need to fine tune.
He could make anything work under any conditions.
Don't underestimate the power of God !
Demonstrate how we know there's a god who can do miracles.
@@sledzeppelin
I can't do that, but I can tell you that East is East and West is West.
@@tedgrant2 You said you know there’s a god who can do miracles. How can you know that if you can’t demonstrate it?
East is East? What is that supposed to mean?
@@sledzeppelin
Have you ever wondered who made the trees ?
And the other thing is an example of some other thing.
@@tedgrant2 No, I have never wondered WHO made the trees, because there's no reason to believe it was a who.
Why are you people so dazzled by trees that you think they prove the existence of a sky wizard? It's bizarre.
Now, explain how you arrived at "knowing there is a god who does miracles".
lol
I’m frantically solving a PUZZLE and Sean Carroll was designing the puzzle. So, multiple 💩 on multiple universes.
Just change the word "God" to "Force" it makes more sense..
May the "Force" be with you
rubiks6 Panpsychism is a force.
@@rubiks6
You probably believe a mind can exist without needing a mind to create it, so your argument refutes itself.
@@rubiks6
You didn't address argument at all, so there is that.
Do all minds need a mind to create them? No, correct? So your assertion that human minds needed a mind to create them is as baseless as that of saying there is a terminator to an infinite regress.
There's no problem with an infinite regress apart from your lack of understanding of the infinite.
@@rubiks6
No gods exist, so you're just wrong. Minds can exist with no mind to create them so your argument refutes itself. Have a nice day!
There is simply no fine-tuning!!!
@GeoCoppens Good cogent argument!
Well who did it? The Andromeda galaxy is heading for a collision with our Milky Way in a few hundred million years! That's fine-tuning for you
@GeoCoppens The refutations keep on coming. Touché!
@@Tozniak Fine-tuning supposes purpose! There isn't any!
GeoCoppens we all bow to your superior arguments and are left speechless.
Lost me at 9:13 - because there is no free will! How can this otherwise, very articulate man not understand this fundamental fact about the nature of life! P.s. this is a rethoric question, since I am aware that he has no choice!=)
there is free will between point A and B but they will never change
Please let me know when, where, and by who it was determined that us not having free will is just a “fact of life” when this debate as ever more pressing as it was before
You can only wish that you had no choice to write your Monty Pythonish comment you dimwit.
@@RadicOmega One word: Causality! There you go...
Amor Fati and have you ever heard of agent causation?
classic philosopher nonsense. "I'll spout terms like quantum mechanics, relativity etc. I've no idea what they mean. but by christ it'll make me sound clever. and the beauty is very few people know or understand them”
ask him to quote the schroedinger equation and what the terms in it mean. Ask him to quote the Einstein field equations and what they mean. He wont have a clue. And much more importantly their significance.
And ‘fine tuning’ he wont understand that either. Or its relevance. Sad to listen to; especially knowing there are gullible Christians out there lapping it up with a spoon. Shame on him
"And it's a basic principle of scientific explanation that you shouldn't postulate too much in order to explain too little." Richard Swinburne. Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
Fine tuned for poverty, loneliness, disease, inequality, religious wars and oppression.
Do we have control over these things? Or are these things inevitable things out of our control?
Grow up and get friends. This is not a SJW safespace, this is a discussion on physics and cosmology.
You are looking for fine-tune, there's no such thing as fine-tuning, cause and effect. Just get on with it for fuck's sake.
you can not deny the fact
Funny stuff. This guy has a problem with the magnitude of postulation needed for a multiverse, which in spawning an infinite number of universes would necessarily spit out one like ours, that would be fine tuned for life. Yet, he has no problem in postulating a god with powers sufficient to spit out a universe from nothing at all. And, presumably, that self same god used his powers to scoop up a bit of dust with which to create a living human being. He wants us all to believe his lie, but refuses to consider our lie as possible. He'd not make a very good fishing buddy.
"With God, nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37).
Therefore the "fine tuning argument" proves Jesus was mistaken !
Idea of gravity is every particle in the universe interact with all other particles, so everything can influence everything else and all exist in a perfect balance. This is why idea of infinite space, full of infinite things, doesn't make much sense because it demands balanced space, stretching to infinity and back. Weird thing is, creation of life is also a kind of equilibrium of natural forces. And weird thing about life is we're all created by a mother and a father, except the first living cell.
if something has a start it means it's not infinite, only the creator is infinite he has no begining and no end !
@@ramzichouk4080 It's easy for you to say :)
Ramzi Chouk But doesn’t Craig argue that the infinite universe began to exist? If so, infinity can have a beginning on the theists own argument.
That's not the definition of life ..
@@nihlify You're right, it's just a fact nobody can deny.
How would a god qualify as a simple explanation when it in itself has no explanatory power...
It's the simplest explanation. Why is universe so fine tuned? Cause God made it that way, now STOP ASKING QUESTIONS OR YOU'LL GO TO HELL!!! See, simple.
Positing a Creator at least passes Occum's Razor. The act of a Creator would be the definition of explanatory power so that questions doesn't really make sense....what actually doesn't have explanatory power is say "oh there is an infinite number of universes" without any shred of evidence whatsoever just because you cannot explain how this universe came to be. You have just moved the problem up one rung. So where did the multiverses come from?
@@hambone4728 Saying that the cosmos exists because it had a "Creator" explains nothing more than saying it exists because "magic".
If the Creator can be shown to exists and its methods of creation can be studied, then we could talk about explanations, but saying "we don't know therefore God" is not an explanation of anything other than our collective ignorance. And yes, that of course goes for positing multiverse theories or anything else without evidence too.
"We don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer when we, in fact, don't.
@@JohanJonasson @Johan Jonasson Except "we don't know therefore god" and "the universe exists so it must have a creator" are actually strawman arguments that atheists reduce theist arguments to.
The argument for fine tuning COMES from the scientific discoveries of the cosmological constants that underpin the physics of the universe. And the argument against evolution as the cause of abiogenesis comes from the insane complexity of biological systems even in unicellular organisms.
The arguments come from science itself...not inspite of science. That is what most atheist don't seem to be able to grasp.
Saying we don't know is a prudent answer in many cases but we can also infer answers or ideas from relevant data. Such as the existence of a powerful creating mind outside of the bounds of our universe violates the laws of physics as we know them. Conversley, the rapid expansion of a singularity from nothing also violates the laws of physics as we know them. So we could conclude that from the relevant ideas and data we have to draw from, the beginning of the universe most probably was a one time event that violates known physics.
Or maybe it was something else entirely but just sitting on our hands saying I don't know doesn't push understanding forward.
@@hambone4728 I'm not suggesting sitting on our hands or accepting that we do not know, maybe it came across that way.
Not trying to strawman. It wasn't directed at the fine tuning argument. That argument I don't think is very compelling though. We find ourselves in a universe that can sustain life. It might be a necessary set of constants and it might suggest a multiverse, or an infinite loop of universes where we haven't been able to exist until know because the ones before this one didn't have the prerequisite constants etc. If it's fine tuned, it's pretty poorly fine tuned. There's an incredibly large part of the universe where we can't live, it's basically a waste of space (no pun intended). The universe is literally trying to kill us for the better part of our lives. That doesn't appear very fine tuned.
And still, even if it turns out that it's fine tuned by a God, it doesn't explain much of anything other that "that's the way it is, because God made it so" which is on par with "the universe is this way because the universe happens to necessarily be this way".
We are the manipulation of the universe to experience itself.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
And to many, it doesn't
They haven't even '"understood" the home galaxy, just make-up more universes cause the "numbers" say so, smh
Insufferable
Richard is spot on. Economy of hypotheses should be a central core principle of science. Hence there is no reason to invoke a multiverse at all. Cosmic fine tuning, strongly implies the existence of G-D.
Whether or not one chooses to explain fine-tuning with God, one has to accept that fine-tunig exists and we can quantify the probabilities for it. The old guy is saying start figuring that out, instead of relying on the lazy multiverse explanation.
@@PappyGunn I agree, the Multiverse is a lazy way out. All the top scientists in the early 20th century must be turning in their graves at the rubbish modern scientists are coming out with. i would include String Theory in this category. Time to look at funding of some of this nonsense and get back to real science.
Congratulations for a masterful example of Economy of Hypothesis------gettting God down to two letters.
8:05. So God can't do the impossible. Then what's a miracle?
Even assuming the universe is fine tuned, what makes you think its fine tuned for us?
cringe + ratio
Poor old Swinburne: assiduously filling scientific gaps with his God. Just insert, "universe/multiverse creating pixie", everytime he says God, to see the absurdum.
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
He is a philosopher, not a scientist. Do we really need to know more? There is NO way to verify any claim by any philosopher. All it is presently is "navel-gazing." Cosmologists' hypotheses are at least more reasonable than a God.
Multiverse, very reasonable?
@@kreyvegas1 , defend the religious point of view. You folks are making the claim. Science-based thinkers say, "We don't know, but are working on it." What advancement has RELIGION ever done?
@@86645ut Why do you assume I defend the religious point of view? Now to your point, what verifiable method can you think of for the existence of the multiverse? And "we are working on it" should mean only that... working. How come your industrious and arduous working is giving us something beyond any possible testing?
Kami Rey Vegas , how do you know that the efforts of scientists will not be productive in being able to test a hypothesis? “We don’t know” presently is the only answer but quantum mechanics is leading to some interesting speculation.
@@86645ut First of all, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. The Multiverse is science fiction so far. In my opinion, people like you should stick to the “I-don’t-know” principle; that would make a lot more sense and it wouldn’t sound as pretentious as saying “It’s the only answer”. That’s not an answer at all; it only pushes the problem one step higher and you end up with more questions than answers. My fist question: where exactly are the boundaries of our currently known universe, please?
This is the biggest idiot I’ve ever heard speak. When freaky beings from another universe enter our universe in order to wipe us out, making our universe safe for their kind, then we’ll know there are other universes.