To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Unsolicitedadvice/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription. LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Subscribe to my Substack here for more of my writings (and my scripts): josephfolley.substack.com/
To me this argument always sounded like a nonsense when you see through a lens of conditional probability. Our own existence necessitates the universe to "seem like it is fine-tuned". In the analogy of card shuffler and the observer, we shouldn't be considered as a pre-existing observer, but rather be described as a beings which are generated when the card deck is coincidentally aligned in the excat order. It would take quintillions of quintillion trials for the shuffler to achieve that, but from the perspective of the beings who only appear when that kind of event happens it seems like the shuffler used a trick, rather than relying purely on chance. We won't know how many "experimental universes" which have vastly different configurations from our own universe have happened.
Saying the physical constants are "unlikly" implies a probability distribution in the same way that a 400 IQ person is unlikely. You have to know the bell curve descrbing the IQ of people, where 100 is the mean and it tapers on both end. You don't have that luxury to "sample" the "possible uniververses" (whatever that means). That means you can't say what value of the constants are likely or unlikely
That's correct. The underlying assumption that constants really aren't constants but variables, is questionable on a fundamental level. Why don't we ask "if π had a different value we wouldn't have existed"? Because we *understand* from where π comes from, so we also understand that (in a flat space) it necessarily has this value. All other constants could be like that, and personally I suspect they truly are like that. They are constants, because they have to be that way, out of necessity. In this way of thinking, if we can't derive the value of a constant, it represents the limits of our understanding. So we don't really know how much they could vary, if at all.
You're kinda right, but not in the sense you like. We would refer back to a kind of unmoved mover here. The fundamental forces being necessary, for example, as proposed in the video as a possible response, just moves the question one step back. Is there a reason they are necessary? I mean, from us being incredibly awed with the possibility of a life-allowing universe, we get infinitely more reasons to stand at awe in the face of a life-allowing universe being necessary. I mean, necessity would really seem to favour us, kinda like we just replace the term God with necessity. Now, if it is not supposed to be necessity, but just probabilities not applying at that level, I kinda agree. Even with the multiverse nonsense you would just need go from the fundamental laws of the universe to those of the multiverse, and there probabilities, the way we talk about them, could not apply, for they presuppose a probabilistic experiment or a process to take place, which works on certain laws and conditions itself, being essentially not fundamental in the fullest sense. Such probabilities would presuppose laws and constants to be already present, and this would also just move the problem one step back. However, that just avoids the actual questions: Could the fundamental constants be any different? "No" implies necessity, for which I have not said enough yet, but shall continue anyway. If "yes", then either the outcome of a universe/multiverse having those fundamental laws came by intention or not. Now, if we are to account for the argument of divine psychology, I would argue even stronger, with the help of the transcendental argument on the basis of knowledge, that this applies to human psychology as well. In the video Hume was quoted at one point, and the creator is very aware of the problem of induction (he is not dishonest about it or anything). Of course one could say that we can infer claims about the psychology of others by means of our own psychology, the actions of other people and how other people communicate with us, but for all this to work one still needs certain epistemological preconditions to be grounded, which cannot be done so in an atheist worldview (the transcendental argument for God on the basis of epistemology is a very interesting topic). Without that, the example of the deck-shuffling and firing-squad, as given in the video, would be even more problematic for the atheist, yet even if we grant that as an unjustified given to the atheist, than so could also the theist argue on the basis of revelation as a means of communication by God. Sure, the atheist could reject religious Scripture (which would not change the argument, since the question the atheist brought up to the theist was not whether or not that Scripture is definitely the true revelation of God, but whether or not the theist can give an account of revelation in the context of divine psychology, which is done here by taking partial account of the communicated intentionality of God through revelation), but in the theist context the outcome of the universe being designed in this way can be taken as an expression of that intentionality. Now, trying to apply necessity or chance to this intention, by way of asking what made God come to the intention of creating the world the way He did, just pre-supposes part of the atheist position, by assuming that God's will cannot be fundamental, that it must always reduce to an impersonal cause, and this proposition is ungrounded. The other point, practically of imagining a better universe, in which there is not this contradiction of the universe somehow allowing for life, yet still being unfriendly towards life, implying there is a contradiction or ill will in God, has to do with moral argumentation, and I don't even want to go there (although that's in the core of many atheist's positions). The transcendental argument for God on the basis of epistemology is basically enough. Anyway, that's just my little talk on this. God bless.
As a fellow agnostic atheist as well, we have to admit that despite the insufficient arguments for the existence God, we can't really prove that God does not exist definitively. We just can't know for sure, because of the insufficient amount of information given to us, all we can do is exercise rationalistic mental gymnastics with our own presuppositions. I personally assume that atheism is more likely to be true then theism, but neither I nor anyone else can prove for sure. The inability to prove one thing does not prove the opposite.
i think that's the least good argument for god because "fine tuning" is just survivorship bias. it's like if you ask a rich person how they became rich, they will often have endless ideas and beliefs that it's everything they did that lead up to the success they got in becoming rich and will often tell everyone else how badly they are doing things because they are not rich so they obviously must be doing something wrong, and sometimes they do acknowledge that they are somehow lucky, but sometimes this luck is translated to be some kind of fate or that they were ment for it, in essence they think they were picked by god or that there's something divine to them that they are somehow favored by things beyond their comprehension due to their luck. the same thing goes for this "fine tuning" process, because we can look at mars and venus and think that we must be special if those quite similar to our situation is just dead planets so something has to have favored us for our existence. so really this god question is really only about if we question our own existence and some just come to different conclusions about it because a lot of people don't agree with the religious doctrines that follows with religious beliefs, now the most intellectually honest position is to be an agnostic, to say you don't know but you are not above the chance that god might not exist or that they do because there's no way of knowing. it's just what do you do if there is no such thing? how will you act and behave if you are not beholden to a god? or the possibility that what is good is not necessarily good, will you break down and condemn the world and become a monster? will you ask further questions about why would anyone bother with the plausability of a god? or will you just shrug your shoulders and not think much of it and keep going as you were? well it depends on the person, but most people are pretty reasonable and will find their way of justifying what they think is good for themselves and why it is the way it is. for example, the human race have endured 2000 years of unquestioning racism but christians claimed that christianity have always been for the equality among the races, so why would it take 2000 years for christians to getting around to stop being racists if that was one of the core concepts of christianity? the reality is that people did not think anything of it religious or not, we would most likely have ended up with the same conclusion about the same time with or without religion and so would most of our social thinking as we adapt to the world around us. who knows what will happen next and how we will condemn our past in the future.
Historic note: Humanity has been tribal ever since tribes were a thing, and our written sources goes back about 6000 years ago. The oldest carved statue (Lionman) is about 40K years old, we can imagine tribes having been a thing at the time.
Looking at our one universe is enough to draw a reasonable conclusion on design. Even going on to the argument's combination in the position that the universe requires a First Mover. The rich man perspective argument can be used in the opposite direction. A rich man could be asked why he became rich and not others and answer that it must have all been up to chance. That's despite the fact that if he became rich, he should know at least some key reasons why. Tribal animosity due to the potential dangers that come from unfamiliarity is reasonable to have been ingrained in people. That can reasonably persist as a (self-viewed) "purely" practical matter in day to day matters, even if one believes all human beings are made in the image and dignity of God. You can affirm their dignity and think they might try to steal from you at the same time (even if unreasonably so in reality.) Racism itself was developed in large part alongside Social Darwinism. Before and after, there were Christians who acted and even thought beyond tribalism and later racism. Just blatantly claiming and stating that most humans would naturally come to view other humans as equally valuable in dignity without Christianity is ludicrous. You take everything for granted without cause. Liberalism itself constantly eats itself due to the fact that it's made of presuppositions that only exist due to Christian claims on Truth, origin, and purpose. Despite Liberalism long since attempting to justify itself, through only itself, and without a real foundation.
Survivorship bias on the scale of all existence. The only thing of its kind that is known to exist, and is not known to have been destroyed. “Just” survivorship bias. 😅 I mean sure… every thing that has ever happened is also “survivorship bias”, right? The video also addresses this before you even hit the 7 minute mark, and you didn’t refute his example. You didn’t watch the video and you wasted everyone’s time.
As an atheist I’d say that the previous best theist argument(epistemological argument, meaning evolution wouldn’t fit our minds to perceive the truth as good as god would) more thought-provoking that this one. This one is countered by my old friend Bayes and considering we’re ignorant of all probability distribution in question
Imagine we found out that the initial conditions of the universe spelled out "made by God". According to your line of reasoning this wouldn't be evidence for God because "we are ignorant of all probability distributions in question".
@@user-zx9mp3it6l what does that even mean? Initial condition is something like an equation, or do you mean that initial density distribution was a god signature? I think if the universe had one fundamental constant and it in binary representation represents all the primes, that would be an indication that the universe is a simulation Wether to consider a simulation universe as a universe with god is up to you
My cat: "I am a god. I have my own place to live, food at regular intervals, a human valet that cleans and maintains my litter boxes and It pleases me and therefore made for me and I must be a god."
@CremeForce But would if he could. The point is that any species could claim that the planet was made for them, discounting the stressors that seek to kill them or the environments that are not compatible with their existence.
@SeekersTavern... and thus the line of god kings began... Actually kinda poetic if you think about it. If God created the world and gave them minds to think and they rejected that same God, it stands to reason that the whole tower of babel incident was inevitable from a stochastic perspective.
I don't really find the fine tuning argument to weigh much on my thoughts concerning the existence of a God, but I think you missed it with many of the objections. 1. The anthropic principle just assumes a multiverse. It's true that any universe that could be observed is going to seem tuned to suit the observers, but that doesn't make it any less surprising if only one universe exists and it happens to fit the parameters to be observable. 2. You mentioned, who's to say the fundamental constants could be different? That's a non-objection. The fundamental constants of the universe are fundamental because to our knowledge they are not restrained by deeper parameters. They could be anything as far as we know, but even if our current understanding of physics is wrong and these constants are in fact constrained to be as they are, it's no less remarkable that the constraints happen to be those that form a universe where life is possible. 3. You say that if fine tuning were a good argument for God, it could also be turned into an argument against because why would God need to design things only to a particular set of constants? This is a misunderstanding. The constants could be different and still make a universe where life could exist, they simply all would need to be at different relative ratios to one another. There may be an infinite number of configurations for a life containing universe or different parameters altogether, just as there are an infinite amount of prime numbers. It would still be very suprising if you were tasked to pick just one number with 1,000,000,000 digits and you just happened to land on a prime number. Also I see in the comments that many people simply don't understand the basics of the fine tuning argument. The argument isn't to say that if the constants of the universe were different, life "as we know it" would not be possible, but perhaps other types of life could exist very different than ourselves. If the constants of the universe were not exactly in a sweet spot as the one we know, no matter at all would be able to exist, chemistry would not be possible. It would be a universe of black holes or a cloud of amorphous particles. It's not a matter of just imagining a new Star Trek species that could live on a hostile planet for humans, it's imaging life forming in a universe where no solid thing exists.
You're right that there are objections I didn't cover here :). I don't think the anthropic principle in itself assumes a multiverse - it is framed within a conditional, rather than positing the existence of other universes. It is working within a possibility set, rather than a multiverse structure. On point 2, the idea is that the proposition "the fundamental constants could vary (in some sense beyond mere non-contradiction)" is unverifiable. It is outside the scope of observation, and thus the sense of possibility needed for the argument to go through (something stronger than logical possibility but weaker than physical possibility in just the right way) is not established. The challenge is then establishing a well-defined and justified probability space for the fine tuning argument to follow. Here is a good paper if you would like to explore it in more detail as obviously I gloss over some of it here: philpapers.org/rec/COLPWT-3. 3. I think your point here is great (inasmuch as the subset relations of infinite sets is important and interesting - there is quite a lot in measure theory on this if I recall correctly). It is more for the specific task of God both designing the constants *and* grounding modality in the way many theists would like him to do (as being the point of total actuality, ground of reason and possibility etc.). I think your final point is pretty dead on! It's what I try to say at the beginning by talking about no stars or galaxies even being able to form, or the universe imploding in on itself.
@ on point 2: doesn't your objection "prove to much" in the sense that by this line of reasoning you would be forced to say that the stars spelling out 'made by God' would be no evidence for God because 'we can't really define the probability space’”?
Personally I don’t think so :). Just because we have observed movements of the stars before (as in, the set of observations of stars and star movements is much greater than 1), so I think we have more reason to think we can assign probabilities there. I do think that is a great response to the divine psychology argument (and, if I’m totally honest, not one I’m convinced the atheist has an airtight response to)
Honestly, I find the premise complete wrong : the universe is NOT well suited for life, as we mean it. Life is indeed very rare and extraordinaly unlikely. The very short, constantly threated forms of life that exist are the only ones that possibly that can exist, given the very adverse conditions of the universe.
День назад+1
it also assumes that a creator existed before life existed. so what was the "creator" if not alive?
they mean suited enough for life to exist - not that it is the SHIT but is is stupid cuz the moment you include probability and say "it is improbable " the first question is "based on what statistic? where are these other verses (which contradict creation in itself), and so on"
I can see why you'd think that, me personally I found this a bit challenging a few years back in Year 10, and even now as I'm graduating high school. I feel as though it's one of the more challenging ones compared to things like contingency and the objective morality ones.
@ For me I guess there are so many assumptions that need to be taken for this arguement to hold any merit. My go to is just the puddle argument. But even more simply as stated in the video “If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here”. For some reason Christians have this, frankly unintelligent, take that extreme improbability is justification for their point. And that’s in the most gracious of arguments against this too. Baring all the observational conversations.
@@musicbooksexplained I agree with you. On that "improbability" point, another commenter pointed out to me that the Universe is literally the accumulation of "everything" as a whole so the use of a statistical analysis makes no sense. So I the physical constants of the universe exist as rules of the universe, but to actually make the claim that the physical constants of the universe are improbable due to its scale (assumption 1 from the video), wouldn’t necessarily make sense because we would need actual evidence externally from the universe - which isn’t possible due to the fact that the universe is the accumulation of everything. So it’s impossible to look externally and actually obtain a value because stuff like "probability" just wouldn’t exist outside of the universe.
No, it's a good argument. If it's really true that the Universe is finely tuned for the possibility of life, it would mean something. Imagine a guy trying to make a Universe pancake. At his first try it's a mess, then he watches some youtubes and gets better. That's where we live... Kinda sad, really. ;-)
Positive, negative, neutral, Cause and effect. Now prove a mind or concept is necessary & needed for the listed to exist and react. The best potential to explain a god in fine tuning is that physics is god, but it has immutable qualities and no evidence of motivation. So god could be a thing, but not a being with intent. The only way intentional use of reality could be assigned to a being, is if it acted on the physical existence, no need for a creator god, which kinda eliminates all god ideas in the big leagues. The best you could get is one that manipulated what already is.
Some thoughts: 1. The puddle analogy doesn't work because if the constants were off, life would be impossible. Life can't adapt to all conditions. 2. Why must alternate universe be observed? If a constant has no reason to be what it is, it follows naturally that it could have been different. We don't need to observe them. 3. The firing squad argument doesn't work. We don't need to observe it, we can calculate it. If the constants are off no atoms could form which means that, necessarily, no life could form. 4. I don't understand why the probability is a problem. Something tending towards zero is not zero. If there is one life supporting universe and infinite universes that don't support life, obviously the probability of life is not zero.
It is a severe lack of fanatsy to be unable to imagine any life forms that could exist under different circumstances. There is an old essay by Stanislaw Lem on that somewhere.
My sister once said to me that if man does encounter new life, odds are even that he will not recognize it as life. We really can’t get over ourselves.
Precisely. The foremost error here, preventing anyone from entertaining a FT argument, is one must know all forms of life. Perhaps a universe of black holes fosters superior life.
День назад+1
@@calexj903 we don't recognize most of the life forms we know exist. They are microscopic.
If for example the cosmological constant would be different by a tiny amount, then the whole universe would collapse instantly. How can we have life without a universe?
Yeah…I guess it’s the idea life has to be carbon based or whatever. We have decided what we’ll call life though, so I’m not sure they even have to microscopic.
One thing I’ve always found curious: Religion has been a part of humanity practically since forever. Even cavemen worshipped nature as gods. So if humanity has always believed in a higher power, wouldn’t that be considered the default for us? So under that logic, wouldn’t the burden of proof fall upon the atheist as they are the ones trying to change the dogma?
@@kant.68 It's addressed in the video at around 20min mark, but doesn't seem like you've seen it, so I'll reiterate here. The argument presupposes that the universal constants could have been different, with 0 evidence that it could have been. If we also presuppose that trees can't exist without God, then the argument that since trees exist God is real would be valid, but we have 0 evidence that says trees can't exist without God. The fine tuning argument is really just using circular reasoning at its core. If it's unlikely for the universal constants to be the way that they are, then it's unlikely for the universal constants to be the way that they are without God, therefore God exists.
This video couldn’t have come at a better time for me 😭 I’m an atheist in a catholic school so in my philosophy class we mostly only discuss catholic philosophy, specifically St Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs. My teacher is a very passionate (sometimes too much lol) and well educated person so honestly when we were reading about his proofs, it made me question, am I really an atheist? I couldn’t really find a way to word my argument against these proofs. Ironically, the fine tuning argument was really the most convincing in my opinion and many atheists we watched said it made them think too. So thank you for this! It really helped me to see the other side of the argument and agree with it. And honestly I’m just finding out you can be an agnostic atheist due to your video and I think I identify with that label more, as I am open to hearing arguments for both. Love your channel, it’s really taught me a lot and how to actually formulate a response against theist arguments.
I am a Christian and I do appreciate your readiness to assert theist positions in a respectful manner. While some may disagree, I personally do not see proving positively that God exists as possible (using our current working definition of “proof”). Rather, arguments for the existence of God serve to demonstrate that the idea is not fundamentally irrational. For example, I observe that when something has a beginning it usually has a cause and since we have evidence of the universe beginning, I conclude that a cause that exists separately from the universe is probable, but the jump from there to “God” is pretty massive. Still, neither theists nor atheists have a scientific understanding of things which exist independently of our universe and where science ends we must carry on with logic and when logic can give us no more insight we must choose either faith or nothing. Personally, I choose faith.
Okay, well we can posit a Creator but it's indicted for grave negligence for failing to reconcile its correct guidance for honest people to ascertain. Doesn't bode well for contemporary theism. Faith already leads people to incompatible conclusions so that's not a wise strategy. Free, but irresponsible, Especially for those concerned with heaven and immortality which are secular matters to be created.
I applaud you for being a theist that recognises the jump between "the universe has a cause" and "that cause is God" because that gap always stood out to me.
I'm going to be brutally honest here... I appreciate your effort to steel man fine tuning . that is a true act of courage and valor, considering the dire plung it necessitates down a dangerous number of standard deviations in IQ. I am speechless about the power this argument holds for anyone. truly. I think this noble act may qualify you for god status. it may be ironic but well earned and that's what matters 😂💓 this really was good. I can't believe you made it interesting ☺️ thanks
What actually is so fine tuned about the universe? most of the space in the universe is just empty nothing, life is literally hell, eat or be eaten and even though humans have escaped the struggle for survival somehow in someway, most people are tortured by loneliness and sadness. No, there is no argument for God. Faith is a leap, either you dare or you don't.
@@angusmcculloch6653 of course it does, humans imagined it after all. It also says a lot how much more detailed and consistent image of hell usually is in our culture and imagination, opposed to heaven...
@ as a conception in your and my brain - yes, it does. We might and even most likely even imagine pretty different things when you say "time travel", but some very general idea is still there. God, or Hell, are pretty much the same.
You're making the assumption that full of life is equivalent to tuned for life. Any gardener that has re-potted a plant choking on its own roots would be able to see the flaw. The fine tuning argument has its problems, but you clearly haven't engaged with it seriously.
recently wrote an essay on this topic lol. specifically about the ontological argument of canterbury. my take on this was that our whole idea of a god makes it impossible to prove that he exists or doesn't exist. in short, when we think of a god as "more whole than anything else" he has to be more whole than even a idea could ever be and so, according to canterbury, he has to exist in reality - if he didn't he wouldn't be whole. (this was definitely not the most accurate depiction of his argument) the thing is, even if a god exists and even if we could see him, we would still only be able to talk about the idea we have of him since we could never gasp his wholeness, only our subjective interpretation of it. same thing if it proves that he doesn't exist - the idea would still be there. the idea will never just vanish, we can't kill god. so regardless of the outcome, the only thing we can do is talk about his idea. and even when we think it through to the end, what would happen if we do find a god? what would effectively change? why would anything change? if he is allmighty, why would we even think that we could discover him unless he wants to be discovered? and thus, why should we even continue to have this delaying debate? god or no god, we will never know for sure - but in the end and in any case the responsibility to act still lies on our side of the field. ok scratch that "in short" haha, hope that made at least some sense. love.
Maybe a reason to continue the debate is not so that we may "know for sure" whether there is or isn't a god, but to learn more about ourselves, the world, what kind of arguments we find convincing or far-fetched, and to think critically in general.
I'd say god/gods have been killed, in the sense that they no longer hold an explanatory position, nor do they ground any modern industrial society, relegated to a question of belief and identity. Religion is an important societal force yes, but even in a theocracy like Iran it operates like any other political/ideological force seeking to maintain its power and is built on support from sections of the society thereby acting in the same ground as any other political player, that is no serious observer today will ever invoke divine intervention to explain even the authority of a religious clergy and would instead resort to historical, political, social or economic explanations. This is a very different outlook from past societies.
Ricky Gervais joked about 3000 Gods and used that to ridicule Christianity. But yet non believers struggle to describe as little as two of those Gods outside of the God of the Bible.
🤨 we already have scientificaly verified working models for most of this. As far as I can see it comes down to if all the energy from the singularity, that makes up literally every thing in our reality, has any form of sentience, agency, intention, direction, will, purpose, consciousness, or any other type of cognition that we are currently unaware of yet? .. .. .. or not? 🤷
Do they not have education? Everybody knows Jupiter, Venus and Mars, maybe Dionysios , Hermes. There's Wotan and Thor with his hammer who smote Fanrir. There's Freya the goddess of fertility with her sisters Sunna and Volla. Vishnu and Shiva the destroyer. If we cannot describe them in detail it's because we do not believe in them. Of old there was Aru of Sumer who some say became El, the most high. Jesus did address his Father as "Eli" so it may be him.
Think in terms of paradoxes and both the positive and negative aspects of Brahman. "There are those who will call themselves an extension of Brahman, and there are those who will call themselves Brahman itself. We can NOT know 100% that our consciousness is an extension of Brahman because then Brahman will KNOW 100% that they are themselves masquerading as us, instead of allowing themselves to experience mortal life from another's perspective as though they are gaining new knowledge for the first time, despite the logical conclusion that determinism is true in some form. It's a co-operative competition between God (positive) and the devil (negative) attempt at changing the psyche of the other through active demonstration of the individual consequences of their respective moral alignment. ☯️ 93/93
It seems to me that the second objection (“How do you know that the constants could be different”) doesn’t make sense. Following this logic we shouldn’t believe in God even if we found out that the initial conditions of the universe spell out “made by God”, because “how do we know that the initial conditions could be different?”.
@@alexki3135 If the initial conditions spelled out "made by God", would this be evidence for theism? Following your reasoning it seems to me you would need to say No, but this is obviously wrong.
@@user-zx9mp3it6l Initial conditions, in my opinion don't reveal anything. We have studied the laws in nature and how they affect stuff. But we haven't observed how laws of nature or constants come to existence (to my knowledge), so reasoning in why they are is pure speculation. They could exist on their own forever, change in certain circumstances, come from over universe that dictates them by a mechanism or be God given. Choosing any mentioned explanation on the basis we exist is equally arbitrary. If you disagree, then I'd like to hear why our initial condition proves specifically a God.
If god existed he would know exactly what it would take to prove it to every single person on the entire face of the Earth but instead we are stuck with Divine hiddenniss
That would be a form of mind control though. Also, the argument you make assumes that this isn’t happening. You forgot free will. You live in a delusion that assumes people don’t simply reject god. So make up your mind: are we free agents to accept and reject god? Or machines that have no choice?
@@deanmccrorie3461is a religious person being mind-controlled when they have what is (to them) an unambiguous, definite and clear experience of God? Say that their conversion story involves such an experience.
@@deanmccrorie3461 we can still accept or reject him while perfectly knowing he exists. Choice has nothing to do with knowledge of subject, except that knowledge usually makes for a more educated choice.
I think god likes rocks. They are fun and you can watch them flying around. Big rocks, small rocks, enormous thermonuclear rocks. The only question is: why only some places(galaxies) are suitable for them, while intergalactic space is rock-free? Was god fine tuning universe to create rocks, but couldn’t make them everywhere?
The god idea has been around so long that we seem to have forgotten it's origin. Primitive people without any knowledge of science created a simple explanation for the existence of the world. The idea was then modified through the years to become rather sophisticated but it is still being used as an explanation. Where did this god idea come from is the question.
День назад+3
it came from primitive humans, and it persists because of primitive humans
Is our consciousness ejected into our reality. God as a concept is closely linked with the development of our consciousness. We humans need to "shatter" reality (breake it into peaces) to understand it, and then we humanize it (we apply human qualities to reality) . That's why each thing around us has a name. Our brain understand the environment better that way. We link a thing with a word, creating a web of connections between things and words. The symbolical world . At some point we begin to name abstract ideas, and thisnis the origin of fairy tales, morality and religion I think. This is the Inmaterial World, the realm of the metaphysical. At this stage we have forgotten that words and ideas had originally a material "support" , they were purely descriptive. The ideas are connected with other ideas. We began to value the metaphysical and the symbolical more than the material. That's when monotheism emerges, reminding us that everything comes from the same source, that everything is interconnected. That the inmaterial world can't exist without the material world. This is why monotheism is "truer" as a proposition, than pantheism. Now, where did all the otyer stuff about God and Christ etc came from? They came as a process of cultural exchange. God is an emergence from our consciousness interacting with reality, is not "man made" .
Disclaimer: not a mathematician Great video and great topic! I think there's some inaccuracies in the mathematics explanation around 20:00. The possibility of picking any of a finite number of options out of infinite possibilities is literally 0. "Tends towards 0" sort of implies that the options aren't actually infinite, though this might be too nitpicky. Also, if the constants can be any real number, there is likely an infinite number of life-supporting options, because if there is any wiggle room in the value, i.e, we know at least 2 values that could support life, and all intermediate values also could, you have an infinite number of options, so the finite vs infinite argument doesn't apply. I also think you get into axiom of choice territory when you make claims about whether god can pick a certain universe from an infinite pool.
Oh the “tends to” is just a nod to the 0 being inferred from the fact it is defined via a limit, so I didn’t want to say “0” because I suppose the mathematically definite thing I should say is “as the denominator tends to infinity, the numerator tends to 0” but I didn’t want to get into the weeds. I also kept it to finite sets just because if we allowed for infinite sets using the density of the real number line then I figure that fine tuning just becomes basically untenable, so I assumed the theist would want to make the set of possible values finite (this was basically skipping over technical steps on my part - I see how it looks strange with hindsight). I suppose the argument would then be taken to measure theory but I figure that’s probably beyond the scope of a video like this. I hadn’t thought of the axiom of choice here! That sounds really cool! And very relevant!
I don't think "fine-tuning" a very strong argument to begin with. Where is the data to support the odds? Those that use the fine-tuning argument must not have any education in probability and statistics. Maybe they should play more poker or something. Even a superficial understanding should be enough. Or else these people do have knowledge of the subject and choose to lie.
Fine Tuning is a non-argument to start with. How can you call it "Tuning", and why is it "Fine"? What basis do you have for making that claim? Anthropic reasoning elegantly explains everything we see around us. We can't have any apriori reasoning on what to expect in this universe, except the obvious fact that we exist, so surely the conditions must be that we exist. The fact that we exist as observers is a prior condition in observing the universe.
3 plus billion years on Earth to get to this point and apparently it was fine tuned. All those lives sacrificed for tiny incremental changes... Life fought and battled its way at every turn, there is no such thing as a continual natural perfect balance. The fine tuning argument is just another example of the religious co-opting science into their church.
fine tuning is applied not just for life, but for the existence of matter and particles at a basic level, i.e. the interaction btw gravitational, weak neuclear forces, expansion rate, electromagentic constants, cosm. constant etc. and, the conditions for matter itself to exist.
День назад+11
@@survivinglife262 which is completely unremarkable in the absence of life. FT absolutely IS about the existence of life.
Agreed and the earth isn’t fine tuned for life, only a small portion is suitable for life. You have the polar regions- to cold except for specific life forms - deserts - too hot and arid for except for specific life forms - the oceans - 67% of the earth’s surface - high mountains with thin atmosphere, there is very little surface area suitable for life, and the majority of the universe is devoid of life - space specifically
If the world was lava, then no life. Just because something is difficult doesn't then conclude that something wasn't fine-tuned. But clearly, things can be much more difficult for life to the point of impossibility. Can go the other way as well. It's so easy to live that there is no need for change.
@@survivinglife262I don’t know about that. How does the idea even arise in a universe with no life? I honestly would find that universe far superior to our own.
Fine tuning !!! I think it’s simple… “fine tuned for life” is too short of a sentence. It should be “fine tuning for life as we know it!” Life has evolved to life as we know it! Who is to say that if the constants were tweaked one way or another; a life too might have been tweaked as we know it. In other words, life has tuned itself to fit current universal constraints.
1:18 is false. There are more legal sequences of moves, but fewer legal positions (unless maybe if you count three-fold repetition states in which case it gets close)
I remember being introduced to the fine tuning argument way back in the late 90's when I was on my way to disbelief. My christian family suggested a film, the name of which I forget, that highlighted all the points of fine tuning through the christian lens. It was described to me in detail, but I remember being unimpressed. I found the idea laughable, without fully understand why at the time. I dismissed it and went on with my life, only to start running across more and more of it online through the late 2010's up until now. I studied up on it more, heard the pro's and con's, and came away even less impressed with the argument than I had initially been. I personally feel like it's another argument meant to reinforce belief, not so much to sway someone's way of thinking.
Here is one thing we know about our design that as we try harder we forget our thoughts are limited or bound, constraints exist such as language. The very premise that you can go from the physical to metaphysical is a full stop.
Gravitation has a numerical value and numbers are infinite, thus there are potentially infinite values for gravitation; but only a few in which complexity (life) can occur. The quantity of habitable cosmoses is few but the quantity of uninhabitable cosmoses is infinite. Life, like a liquid, fills in holes/niches. Therefore, the hole is not made for you (life) to fill in, but instead, you are made to fill in any hole you find. But universes with holes to fill are few while the ones without are infinite. Habitable cosmoses are rare and yet clearly favored by the evidence of our own existence. Why is complexity favored by cosmos? Cosmological natural selection via blackhole evolution is the best "agentless" theory I've heard. Otherwise, the rarity of habitable cosmoses does, in fact, favor the logic of agency.
We evolved from the universe that exists, so obviously we are going to be suited to existence. You can’t make gold from iron. The philosophers stone is god lol! You gave me the giggles with that one.
Well you can't but under the current understanding of chemistry it is possible though nuclear fusion. It just takes a lot of energy. If I recall correctly, it's a bit easier to make gold from lead through fission because it is removing parts of the lead atom to make a gold atom and that takes less energy.
I would consume way more of your content if you had a podcast or posted some of your videos or audio on Spotify. You have an amazing voice and vocabulary which is really engaging
When you go to sleep and have a dream you can be so shocked that you wake up alarmed. Are you having the dream, or observing the dream. Who is creating the dream? maybe you are being dreamt.
Good one. That highly improbable to achieve by chance, deck of cards shuffle in order analogy (1 divided by 52 factorial (52!), which is approximately 1 in 8 followed by 67 zeros) had me detour to check that a "quantum computer" could theoretically do it almost instantaneously...
I'm actually really surprised if hitchens really thought that this was a strong contender for proof of a creator. The fact is the universe is not fine-tuned, the vast majority of the universe would kill us in a millisecond, most of our own planet is trying to kill us constantly. If anything the fact that life exists at all is the miracle. Makes no sense to me that this is an interesting question for hitchens to ponder or any atheist for that matter.
You seem to contradict yourself, don't you? If it's a miracle like you say it's, then that bolsters the case of God. Perhaps that's what Hitchens thought too.
@@JasminehaydonNo because what we observe is expected on atheism. I doubt you expected Coronal Mass ejections, extinction events, and Siamese Twins on theism. What do you think is tuned?
День назад
@@Jasminehaydon he isn't using "miracle" in that sense, obviously
The fine tuning argument only says that it's more intuitive to believe there's a creator not necessarily that it's more likely because we have no way to calculate the probabilities of the origin of the universe. As for what a theist would respond for "why would God create universe with almost impossible conditions for life," by saying that he wanted us to figure out that he exists, since if the condition of life is broad, we won't find it miraculous, but I would says, there are far easier and foolproof ways to do that.
@@_nuance except theists do regularly use it as direct evidence for their chosen diety. Dozens if not hundreds of videos making that claim with thousands maybe millions of likes. What something is in theory is fine, but in practise this is used regularly as direct evidence.
To have a "specified outcome", that outcome must be specified beforehand. This is the problem with looking at probability after the fact. After the fact, the likelihood of that outcome having occurred is 100%. No probability calculations can conclude anything abount the probability.
In my mind, the fine-tuning argument for God makes a lot of assumptions about God. 1. that he exists (not even going into the gender part of that statement) 2. that there's only one God (or at least only one participating in the creation process) 3. that he's powerful enough to create the universe (what if the most powerful god is really not powerful enough to create the universe?) 4. that he's competent enough to create the universe 5. that this is the only universe he created (what if we are the product of a Tinkerer God who has created multiple universes, testing the effects of his various changes, and we're one of his many projects) 6. that he intended to create this universe 7. that he created the universe according to his design (what if he f'd up with ours and moved on to another one?) None of these are ascertainable. The question of "Is there an all powerful god who designed and created our universe vs there are no gods at all?" is a false dichotomy. On the topic of universal constants, it's often mentioned that if any of them were slightly different, the resulting properties of the universe would fall apart. However, those arguments are always pointing out the effects of changing 1 constant and keeping the others stable. I have yet to see anyone consider the possibility of having all the constants be different and balancing each other with different values from the ones we observe now. i.e. is it really True that the universal constants we observe in our universe are the only viable configuration?
Yes, I think the proof by contradiction approach is the best method for falsifying the fine-tuning argument. If we accept it is true the consequences as you outlined put theists in a worse position. The argument changes the properties and attributes of their god and they just skip that step and the declare the argument god has all the 'correct properties'. How does god know these are the correct set of numbers from all the infinity numbers? How does god gain that knowledge without running the experiment of creating all possible universes? Also if I am all powerful why would I not just create all the possible universes? Also why can't an all powerful god pick a more beautiful set of numbers and make the universe work with those? Also what are the numbers used to create bliss of paradise? I think it might help some polytheism religions (parents of gods and gods creating gods, etc) but I think to accept this argument invalidates monotheism as the consequences of fine-tuning. In general, the fine-tuning argument seems nothing more than a god of the gaps argument with a set of numbers proving god is hiding in the cracks of the quantum foam.
This is quite disagreeable. (1) is the conclusion of the argument, not one of its premises. (2) is not assumed by the fine-tuning argument -- all *theistic* arguments are also *poly*theistic arguments. (3) and (4) are included in the conclusion of the argument. (5) is not assumed by the fine-tuning argument, and it is actually plausibly compatible with the scriptures of Abrahamic faiths. (6) is in the conclusion of the argument; fine-tuning a thing requires aiming at an end, which is just what intention is. (7) stands on the same ground as (6) -- the possibility that this universe is a mistake would only be marginally more likely (if at all) than an atheistic hypothesis, which is just what the fine-tuning argument concludes is improbable. This doesn't show an assumption of the argument, but rather begs the question against it.
The fine tuning argument is like saying "Isn't it weird that we happen to live on the only habitable planet in the entire universe? Out of all the barren planets in the universe, it must be divine intervention that we have a planet with water and breathable air."
The universe is definitely not inherently suited for us. We're a single point in a myriad of lifeless other planets around. Moreover, our species took 200000 years to evolve our cognitive system enough in order to develop what we needed to assess all this. Life is rare as it gets to be.
@可思ʻ thoughtful comment, I appreciate it. I guess you're right the universe is rather inhospitable apart from the habitable bubble we're fortunate to live on!!
I have always thought the fine tuning argument is/was the worst arguments for thiests to combat athiests with. We have already proven that space expands, and stars and such create elements when they explode, that there are more galaxies than we can comprehend, etc. Using probability even if we don't have all the possibilities for life on other planets in other galaxies, it would be completely inaccurate and incredibaly gulible to state and believe that life in this galaxy on this world could've only happened via a creator. I personally think it's even more gulible to believe we are the only ones in the entire universe to be so intellegent. While I am not an athiest myself, I also know there is no fesable way to prove in gods or to debunk them, if youre wondering what I believe, I believe that every god/goddess is real it only depends on you who you want to follow.
I am joining the Catholic church this easter after a decade of atheism 🎉. And I must say, after years of debating theist and now debating atheist. I grow tired of these discussions. The reality of the situation is that we have multiple reasons for belief and non-belief, and logical argumentation is only one reason. What the philosopher atheist type get wrong is that they try to reduce the phenomenon of theology to logical argumentation. If I can logically disprove God, he therefore doesn’t exist (or I have no reason to assent to it), vice versa. But most people do not come to God because of reason and most people don’t reject God because of reason. So to act as if you can get anywhere with a syllogism is just autisticly unfocused.
most people come to god for a reason without paying too much attention to the rational/reason. they come for guidance and solace, for re-parenting and seeking the ultimate authority. It's rather important to modern man to stay within frameworks of 'the scientific', or at least 'rational', so they appreciate all the arguments based on science and rationality, pure faith just doesn't cut it for us, it is associated with all undesirable traits of our ancestors, the dark ages, the primitive people, the fools, children, all the lesser beings. Yet, even if there's god that fine tuned the universe for life to emerge, it does say nothing about what he wants from you, human, or what is his emotional relation to you, human. but if we could prove that god exist in a rational manner, than somehow we feel less irrationally awkward when we believe that god is this or that.
Maybe true but these are about 'proofs of god'. Someone giving objections and pointing out flaws in something that someone e offers as "proof" is justified
@@lemurlaemuReligion started when some losers that couldn't survive on their own or compete with others invented a reason for why everybody else would have an obligation to look after them and care for their welfare. There's nothing more natural in nature than competition for survival. If theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that. Otherwise its just more unsubstantiated and unscientific faithbased religious nonsense that they need to keep to themselves. I can't imagine a more privledged and entitled attitude or perspective to have than to believe that your well being should automatically be worth anything to anybody. Its delusional and narcissistic. What do we need 8 billion ppl for? .... pushing the threshold of what the planet can even support, its reckless, and irresponsible stewardship of our precious limited resources.
What other discussion you want? Have you demanded this Creator you think exists reconcile its correct guidance for honest people to ascertain? Or are you a selfish elect? Do you think it's acceptable a Creator hides? What do you think of mortal integrity?
I would recommend the weak as well as the strong anthropic principles for a scientific answer to the fine tuned universe argument. Mind u its a scientific thesis so maybe outside the scope of a philosophy oriented channel, but the challenge is the fun of it 😊
agreed. some people might point to the fact that many of these religions have the exact same, or very similar, ideals and or figures as proof of the opposite.
Okay.... but sometimes I wonder from where this concept came into humanity's mind!! Why almost every civilization had this concept? Why people from almost every civilization had mythologies etc about God or higher divine beings?? Is it only to control the weak by the strong or there is actually something or some being who is supreme?
I agree with you, but only after a specific rewording: The existance of thousands of religions indicates that any one specific God is probably a manmade one. The fact that so many people wrote and thought so much about the idea of gods is interesting to me, but I just don't see why any one of them should have gotten it more right than the others.
this is a strange parallel argument to the one I enjoy the most: the universe is actually not tuned at all to facilitate life of any sort, and life comes from something outside of a standard subset of atoms and molecules. it is the injection of life into this otherwise lifeless universe which has led to a single observable anomaly. life itself. the green planet earth, is the outlier, and people discount the crap out of that fact. Im going to school right now for CAD engineering, because I was blown away when I started reading more about math and history. even our number system is taken for granted, look up what sexagesimal is, the OG system, to recorded history. I have found design in life that is truly beyond any single conscious understanding. If this implies that God dwells in the subconscious evolutionary behaviors built in our DNA, those of epigenetic memory of living things, im willing to believe it. tardigrades make life and death seem incidental, what else is alive that we think is dead? where consciousness is stored? what is it? is it dark matter? some emf?
The greatest pull i have yet felt from theology was Wes Hof claiming (2 religious texts dated 1000 years apart?) were "word for word" identical. Unsurprisingly he had misspoke; but for a moment it invoked a feeling that the 'word of god' could possibly have carved its way through history unaltered. If we are to imagine a statement like this to be true it leaves a number of major questions and as with all religions arguments could never provide a 'proof' for god but for the joy of philosophy it is an idea that i'd love to learn more about. maybe throw myself into some kind of evolution of religious scripture phase
Why stop at scripture when there are archaeological sites that are described in religious texts that underwent destruction at the same time frame as the text says and bears physical evidence of the very type of destruction described? And no, I'm not talking about Tell el-Hammam.
The book of Isaiah is not word for word identical... because orthography changes😅. Some sentences are also obviously missing but that's just because the scrolls are damaged . Thus Wes was right, it is the same unchanged Word
Why can’t humans just be really good at transmitting information over long periods of time? There are Aboriginal Australian oral histories that seem to accurately reference events that took place 10,000 years ago, like peninsulas becoming islands as sea levels have risen. Geologists can look at the areas being described and confirm that these events did in fact happen - and the Aboriginal population didn’t even have writing to lean on here. Does that mean the Dreamtime is real? (all of this is said assuming Wes is right, which he doesn’t seem to be - missing verses, etc)
@giwrgosemdou6545 whilst the majority of differences are orthographical there are a great number of significant differences in meaning between the texts; that being said the similarities that do exist are impressive and it's cool to see how the text changed between the 2 instances
@@ecta9604 i feel this way largely because of my perceived scale of religious texts, they are incredibly complex being absolutely packed with meaning and substance. for me, it's hard to imagine a word for word text of this size could remain fundamentally unaltered in meaning and substance over 1000 years of culture and orthography. the sheer scale of the influence from all sorts of areas (e.g. reiterations/interpretations/philosophy/ culture/translations/war) over such a time period is insane
The Fine Tuning Argument is, in essence, a prime example of retrospective misdirection. It imposes the human perspective on the universe by interpreting the "random product" of the regularities of nature and physical constants as "fine-tuned." And there are many such "arguments." It is a typical example of the error that occurs when we try to ascribe meaning or purpose to something that simply is as it is. By pointing to the fine-tuning of the universe as if it were something consciously arranged, one overlooks the fact that things only appear "fine-tuned" because we view them through a human lens. The universe is as it is, and if it were different, we wouldn’t retroactively assign anthropocentric meaning to the regularities of nature, based on our very existence, and fantasize that meaning into it. We exist, the universe exists because we are a part of it, how else could it be? The regularities of nature are what they are. If they were different, we wouldn't be constructing such nonsensical arguments, which ultimately serve only one thing: the anthropocentric ego, the weakness of seeking meaning in an existence that doesn't inherently have one. Okay, that was a bit harsh. It’s not meaningless, it exists, and that is the meaning. A meaning that doesn’t derive from a goal or ego but simply from itself, to exist. Or in simplier words, the fine tunig argument ist survivorship bias
Religion started when some losers that couldn't survive on their own or compete with others invented a reason for why everybody else would have an obligation to look after them and care for their welfare. There's nothing more natural in nature than competition for survival. If theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that. Otherwise its just more unsubstantiated and unscientific faithbased religious nonsense that they need to keep to themselves. I can't imagine a more privledged and entitled attitude or perspective to have than to believe that your well being should automatically be worth anything to anybody. Its delusional and narcissistic. What do we need 8 billion ppl for? .... pushing the threshold of what the planet can even support, its reckless, and irresponsible stewardship of our precious limited resources.
День назад+2
it's a post hoc rationalization and grossly cherry-picks the evidence, which mostly reflects adversity to life.
@@gregsanich5183 I basically agree with you, but I wouldn’t call them losers. I would call them victims of existence, when thinking deeply about life turns existence itself into a crisis. Religion is nothing more than a coping mechanism to deal with this existential crisis. We are all balancing on the edge of a dark, massive abyss called the Unknown, an unknown that brings us uncertainty, fear, and so much more. And instead of living with this unknown, this uncertainty, religion rolls out a carpet over the abyss, calls it God, and voilà, the coping is complete. But the abyss is still there, lurking, waiting to swallow us at the right moment. It’s sad how people, in their attempts to cope, close themselves off to the unknown and, through a constructed divine order, almost lobotomize themselves. They are victims. I’ve already lived through my existential crisis, and to be honest, I had moments where I wanted to believe in God. It would have made everything so much easier, but it didn’t work, it was incompatible with who I am, it felted like ... nothing. So I had no choice but to live through my existential crisis, and what I found, I can’t really put into words. The closest I can come is the realization that life is simply an uncertain adventure (with death as the only certainty), an adventure at which we should embrace despair with joy and curiosity. To embrace the pain of life, the uncertainty of knowledge... but even these words feel inadequate to express how I navigated my crisis. Still, something along those lines, I guess.
What is scary is that the fine-tuning argument itself should have a question like what if God's version of being alive or life is not what we are experiencing, because he's a higher conscience to to us we are living but God we are practically dead.
The Fine Tuning argument is particualrly specious. The theist will be unable to explain how and why some supposed god exists and why it has the supposed characteristsics that it has. e.g. the ability to create. Why should those abilities reside with some god and not be an inherent part of nature ? If some god can exist without any explanation, why can't the universe ?
The how and why of his existence is because he created the universe, he is omnipotent. Intelligent design is all around you and faith is necessary, something atheists are lacking.
@@casuallydeep1368 "The how and why of his existence is because he created the universe, he is omnipotent." - Circular argument. "Intelligent design is all around" - Baseless assertion. "faith is necessary, something atheists are lacking." - Reason trumps faith.
This is very obvious. I think most theist would notice this, it's a suspicious fundamental gap on the fine-tuning. I don't think it needs to definitely proof God existence, but rather give credibility of God existence. However, I must say, I think the fine tuning argument is just a part of the God's Gap, not really an argument, and God's Gap usually don't give credibility on God..
@SachiiHatsuna Where's the credibility to the existence of _anything_ that's non-physical and outside of space & time ? How can something non-physical create or influence something physical ?
@@lewis72due to the physical being below on the hierarchy. God created the physical to do his bidding. I personally think that trying to frame God is a fools errand. As a finite being how would you be able to understand the infinite?
When we look at the fundamental forces of the universe, we cannot possibly conclude that it is even possible for these forces to vary from their measurable attributes, because to do so, we would have to able to observe conditions where that would result, which we obviously cannot do. Just because we can imagine a universe in which such might be the case does not at all mean that such a universe exists. We are in this particular universe, and our universe IS the way it IS, so it is much more logical for us to assume that it is simply not possible for the fundamental laws of Physics to be anything other than what they are, until and unless we can observe otherwise. If we proceed from that basis, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that the natural constants of the laws of Physics are the way they are becausse they are a necessary consequence of the very nature of matter and energy and spacetime, and therefore, the probability of the universe supporting life is, and always was and ever shall be, a resounding 1.
Bruh what are you even talking about No matter what people, as a whole, believe, there will never be an absolute answer to reality because it’s simply nature. The why? Is massively insignificant to the actual result and assuming its some god with nice intentions is just your human desire for answers speaking - nothing more
I never understood the idea of saying multiple universes would be different, with the information that we have if another or infinite number of universes started with exactly the same condition as ours, i believe that the chances of all of them ending up as exact copies as ours would be higher than any other possible scenario. If all data points at our universe being deterministic why no one ever assumes that a multiverse would also be deterministic.
32:06 "We often take it for granted that God is a certain way and that He would value roughly the same things we do." If God valued roughly the same things we do, then there wouldn't be any children with leukemia.
The BEST argument for God was provided by George Berkley "To exist is to be perceived". Given that we have a discussion about God is proof that God exists according to George Berkley .
Is it fine tuned for life? Last I checked theists were constantly saying it was impossible for life to form on its own. Now they're saying, actually it's way too easy for life to form?
I think this is a great video with some really good points. But I think the multiverse defence is really underrated: If a multiverse of the kind mentioned actually did exist, it would explain fine tuning perfectly, obviously we find ourselves in a fine tuned universe because it’s the only kind of universe we can find ourselves in out of all the ones that exist, and because just by running the numbers, moderately fine tuned universes (where life can just about exist under some very specific circumstances) are SO much more common than extremely fine tuned universes (where life is everywhere and comes about very easily), no wonder we find ourselves in a universe where life is rare. The big question is whether such a multiverse is more likely than God. Many physicists strongly consider the possibility of a multiverse given the evidence we have, and while we have very little evidence to go off of, what we do have doesn’t point away from a multiverse, and a considerable number of experts are arguing that it in fact points towards it. God on the other hand has a lot more evidence to consider, empirically speaking we have the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, and this idea mentioned in the video of “spatial disorder”, that the VAST majority of the universe is empty, lifeless, and acts as evidence against design. Fine tuning is one of very few empirical evidence points put forward in God’s favour, and I’ve argued here that a multiverse accounts for this much better than God does. So it seems a multiverse may be more likely than a God given the data we have, and thus a more plausible reason for the fine tuning we observe. But this video does show all the other ways to respond without committing to a multiverse, I just don’t think it’s that unreasonable at all to believe in a multiverse, and it’s a defence worth considering and discussing when talking fine tuning, we should not dismiss it out of hand.
As a physicist, I think the multiverse fairy tale is, to put it diplomatically, implausible. It is a fantasy, garnished with a bit of math, a lot of speculation, but there is nothing empirical to it. Even if the multiverse exist, it has and will have no meaning for us, not that we could know about it because we have no access to it, because we cannot simply leave the universe and look. Unfortunately, there are a few physicists who propagate this rubbish, but in the end it is not science because they shift their "explanations" into the unobservability.
The multiverse only kicks the can down the road. A multiverse would have all the same existential questions about it's own existence and origins, as our observable universe does.
@@cookiescraftscatsindeed. So if theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
@@gregsanich5183 " A multiverse would have all the same existential questions about it's own existence and origins, as our observable universe does" yeah that is good, I lke it
Trying to say that the universe is unlikely to exist in the way that it does without a God is like having a single card from a deck, not knowing the size of the deck it comes from, and confidently extrapolating its a miracle this card was pulled. But like, what if the deck of cards was only two cards in size? What if every card in the deck was the same kind of card in your hand? What if every card in the deck was pulled at some point? Without knowledge of the sample size or the content you pull from, it is impossible to make any justified probabilistic claims. We don't know the size of the deck, the content of the deck, or the number of cards that have been pulled. Hell, we don't even know the number of decks cards are being pulled from. The universe is unlikely, theist? Unlikely in relation to what?
The problem I have with almost every argument for God is that they appeal to some far off, nebulous existence responsible for the creation of the universe or of life and then say “That settles it, this holy book is the all-truth.” Even if you can’t prove a godlike eternal entity doesn’t exist, you can certainly prove beyond reasonable doubt that none of the specific gods exist.
Remember everyone, believing the Big Bang/creation of the universe was caused by no one is just as big a leap of faith as thinking it was caused by someone
No it’s not. There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from different galaxies, Hubble’s observation that the universe is expanding, etc.
There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from different galaxies, and Hubble’s observation of the expanding universe, etc.
There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from galaxies, Hubble’s observation of the expanding universe, etc.
I think change is the primary mover of the universe. The fact that things never stay the same and are always interacting with something else to me makes more sense
There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the BB though. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from galaxies, Hubble’s observation of the expanding universe, etc.
I just found your channel a few days ago and I enjoy your videos immensely! Hearing you break down these concepts is like a multiple course meal for my brain. I find myself wanting so much to bounce ideas off of you! What I would give to have had you sitting next to me in philosophy class. :)
Shuffle a deck of cards. You and the cards are the universe. A friend will close his eyes. You shuffle the cards, he only opens his eyes if the cards are ordered. That's the universe. We wouldn’t be able to perceive anything except a universe that supports life.
I think the point of Adam's argument might have been that we adapt to the constants and not the constants are adapted to us, which means, perhaps, that if there were other sorts of constants, "life", but not as we know it, might have arisen, but only if universes with those constants "like" to create life (in the functionalist sense of actually being able to create life, and doing so, as ours evidentially has). Another possibility, suggested from the psychometric literature, is that if we could observe many universes with different constants, we might find that they were highly correlated, so that if one constant is perturbed, the others would also be, perhaps in the direction countering the effects of the first perturbation. Not being a physicist, I'm more interested in the idea that the constants may have teleology behind them, but no sentience, at least not in the sense that we have sentience. Your circulatory system has a teleology behind it, but no sentience of it. Why can't the universe (at its non-life-existing phases in particular) be the same way? And if I believe in a kind of "non-sentient" God (AKA some cosmological infrastructure that just allows life/sentience to evolve), why am I not an atheist, given I've refuted scriptural theism at its face value (or a type of "God" that is "sentient" of us)? And if I am an atheist, why cannot I say I believe in God, albeit a non-sentient one?
How do we know that the values the constants have can be something else ? Or is it like saying "imagine if Pi was equal to 12, we wouldn't have circles !" ?
I mean... what are the odds of god having just the particular nature and inclination to design this particular universe? Like so often, theism just kicks the can from an unobservable point down an unobservable road, pretending to not suffer from the exact same fundamental problems that everyone else faces..
I loved the video. Though I am a theist, I don't believe in the societal image of God. God, to me, is a conscious fact that is not constrained to physical means and logic only.
I think a numerical problem with fine tuning, if I understand it right, is that any possible fundamental constant would be fine tuned. Even if there were a much wider range of life-supporting values for a constant, it would comprise a vanishingly small part of the real number line. On the other hand, if we do accept the fine tuning argument, it seems pointless to ask about divine psychology, as the god we’d have “proven” would specifically be one who wants life. In other words, it doesn’t seem to be an argument for god (who may or may not create life) but rather an argument for a life-wanting god. The question of how little life we can observe also seems unproblematic to me as it’s perfectly plausible that, in an infinite, life-permitting universe, there could be an infinite amount of very spaced out creatures. The low density of life would be insignificant in that case. Thoughts?
I think it is pointless to use logic in either proving or disproving a god, and fundamentally misunderstands the reasons why humans flock to religion. The attention of philosophy and science ought to be directed to more important questions.
I can't believe people think the Fine Tuning argument is the most persuasive one. For me it seems obvious that some form of cosmological argument would be the best one for God. It's weird because many people also think the Problem of Evil is one of the best atheist arguments and when I was a Christian it didn't bother me at all. As a Christian the best way to demonstrate the falsity of Christianity would be some failure of the cannon (i.e. a failed prophecy in the Bible, or an internal contradiction). For me as an atheist, the most compelling argument for God would be if we couldn't explain existence without him.
There's without question some designer like entity, the real question is: Who is that designer? To claim life came to be out of nothingness sounds like a miracle happening and a thesis like this sound even more like a claim some kind of higher entity or will must exist.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"Who is Yahweh - How a Warrior-Storm God became the God of the Israelites and World"* by Dr Justin Sledge at Esoterica (Dr Justin Sledge is Jewish) Watch *"How did Yahweh Become God? The Origins of Monotheism"* by Dr Justin Sledge at Esoterica
The main problem with applying probability theory to God is that he's declared all-powerful. Which means that there is no condition that allows to update probability of any of his qualities. Any test we can possibly run would be of no use because God is supposedly able to perfectly predict it and fake any result in order to appear a certain way. Starting with the obvious example - the Bible itself could easily be a lie, and God just lets everyone into heaven or sends into hell, or there is no afterlife at all.
technically God cannot deny himself, for example: one of his titles is the most just so he cannot do something unjust. I know that if we take into account that he writes the rules the example becomes strange but I can't explain it better.
@@krzysztowbzymek8003 how do you know he can't? How do you know that what he told you about being just is true? How do you know that he told you anything on purpose and it's not some accidental consequence of whatever he was doing?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Unsolicitedadvice/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS
Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Subscribe to my Substack here for more of my writings (and my scripts): josephfolley.substack.com/
I am a high school student..
Any tips for reading books & how to memerise quickly...
😈 😮 😱 😨 🙀 😃 😀 😄 😁 🤣 😂😅😮 *¡¿a "horrible horror" or a "horror horrible"?!* 😮 😱 😨 🙀 😃 😀 😄 😁 🤣 😂😅😮 😈
You bring joy to my life with gifts of pondering. Thank you for being you.
Now here's a bone to gnaw on, appreciate an all cards on the table presentation like this be they shuffled or no.
To me this argument always sounded like a nonsense when you see through a lens of conditional probability. Our own existence necessitates the universe to "seem like it is fine-tuned". In the analogy of card shuffler and the observer, we shouldn't be considered as a pre-existing observer, but rather be described as a beings which are generated when the card deck is coincidentally aligned in the excat order. It would take quintillions of quintillion trials for the shuffler to achieve that, but from the perspective of the beings who only appear when that kind of event happens it seems like the shuffler used a trick, rather than relying purely on chance. We won't know how many "experimental universes" which have vastly different configurations from our own universe have happened.
Saying the physical constants are "unlikly" implies a probability distribution in the same way that a 400 IQ person is unlikely. You have to know the bell curve descrbing the IQ of people, where 100 is the mean and it tapers on both end. You don't have that luxury to "sample" the "possible uniververses" (whatever that means). That means you can't say what value of the constants are likely or unlikely
So there is no multiverse? Nice.
How lucky it is then, that we got this Universe in which life is possible!
@@DartNoobo I object to the multiverse existence on moral grounds, because it would reward the laziest of thinking! ;-)
That's correct. The underlying assumption that constants really aren't constants but variables, is questionable on a fundamental level. Why don't we ask "if π had a different value we wouldn't have existed"? Because we *understand* from where π comes from, so we also understand that (in a flat space) it necessarily has this value.
All other constants could be like that, and personally I suspect they truly are like that. They are constants, because they have to be that way, out of necessity.
In this way of thinking, if we can't derive the value of a constant, it represents the limits of our understanding. So we don't really know how much they could vary, if at all.
@bakters isn't it wonderful that they have to be exactly the way they are? Tj allow life and structure?
You're kinda right, but not in the sense you like. We would refer back to a kind of unmoved mover here. The fundamental forces being necessary, for example, as proposed in the video as a possible response, just moves the question one step back. Is there a reason they are necessary? I mean, from us being incredibly awed with the possibility of a life-allowing universe, we get infinitely more reasons to stand at awe in the face of a life-allowing universe being necessary. I mean, necessity would really seem to favour us, kinda like we just replace the term God with necessity.
Now, if it is not supposed to be necessity, but just probabilities not applying at that level, I kinda agree. Even with the multiverse nonsense you would just need go from the fundamental laws of the universe to those of the multiverse, and there probabilities, the way we talk about them, could not apply, for they presuppose a probabilistic experiment or a process to take place, which works on certain laws and conditions itself, being essentially not fundamental in the fullest sense. Such probabilities would presuppose laws and constants to be already present, and this would also just move the problem one step back.
However, that just avoids the actual questions: Could the fundamental constants be any different? "No" implies necessity, for which I have not said enough yet, but shall continue anyway. If "yes", then either the outcome of a universe/multiverse having those fundamental laws came by intention or not.
Now, if we are to account for the argument of divine psychology, I would argue even stronger, with the help of the transcendental argument on the basis of knowledge, that this applies to human psychology as well. In the video Hume was quoted at one point, and the creator is very aware of the problem of induction (he is not dishonest about it or anything). Of course one could say that we can infer claims about the psychology of others by means of our own psychology, the actions of other people and how other people communicate with us, but for all this to work one still needs certain epistemological preconditions to be grounded, which cannot be done so in an atheist worldview (the transcendental argument for God on the basis of epistemology is a very interesting topic).
Without that, the example of the deck-shuffling and firing-squad, as given in the video, would be even more problematic for the atheist, yet even if we grant that as an unjustified given to the atheist, than so could also the theist argue on the basis of revelation as a means of communication by God. Sure, the atheist could reject religious Scripture (which would not change the argument, since the question the atheist brought up to the theist was not whether or not that Scripture is definitely the true revelation of God, but whether or not the theist can give an account of revelation in the context of divine psychology, which is done here by taking partial account of the communicated intentionality of God through revelation), but in the theist context the outcome of the universe being designed in this way can be taken as an expression of that intentionality. Now, trying to apply necessity or chance to this intention, by way of asking what made God come to the intention of creating the world the way He did, just pre-supposes part of the atheist position, by assuming that God's will cannot be fundamental, that it must always reduce to an impersonal cause, and this proposition is ungrounded.
The other point, practically of imagining a better universe, in which there is not this contradiction of the universe somehow allowing for life, yet still being unfriendly towards life, implying there is a contradiction or ill will in God, has to do with moral argumentation, and I don't even want to go there (although that's in the core of many atheist's positions). The transcendental argument for God on the basis of epistemology is basically enough.
Anyway, that's just my little talk on this. God bless.
Congrats on 500k!
@TwoDudesPhilosophy Joe, we need a livestream
As a fellow agnostic atheist as well, we have to admit that despite the insufficient arguments for the existence God, we can't really prove that God does not exist definitively. We just can't know for sure, because of the insufficient amount of information given to us, all we can do is exercise rationalistic mental gymnastics with our own presuppositions. I personally assume that atheism is more likely to be true then theism, but neither I nor anyone else can prove for sure. The inability to prove one thing does not prove the opposite.
We can’t prove that there isn’t an invisible intangible magical island where dinosaurs roam. I’m quite happy to say that it doesn’t exist however
Yes. We are agnostic atheists.
We don't intend to disprove God.
That'd be gnostic atheists.
Agreed in that we cannot know anything about anything. Fine tuning is the way of our species; all roads lead to us.
@@Detson404 how can you know that it doesn't exist in the universe?:)
@@Detson404that's an argument from bad faith. A creator of the universe does not equate to your statement at all.
i think that's the least good argument for god because "fine tuning" is just survivorship bias.
it's like if you ask a rich person how they became rich, they will often have endless ideas and beliefs that it's everything they did that lead up to the success they got in becoming rich and will often tell everyone else how badly they are doing things because they are not rich so they obviously must be doing something wrong, and sometimes they do acknowledge that they are somehow lucky, but sometimes this luck is translated to be some kind of fate or that they were ment for it, in essence they think they were picked by god or that there's something divine to them that they are somehow favored by things beyond their comprehension due to their luck.
the same thing goes for this "fine tuning" process, because we can look at mars and venus and think that we must be special if those quite similar to our situation is just dead planets so something has to have favored us for our existence.
so really this god question is really only about if we question our own existence and some just come to different conclusions about it because a lot of people don't agree with the religious doctrines that follows with religious beliefs, now the most intellectually honest position is to be an agnostic, to say you don't know but you are not above the chance that god might not exist or that they do because there's no way of knowing.
it's just what do you do if there is no such thing? how will you act and behave if you are not beholden to a god? or the possibility that what is good is not necessarily good, will you break down and condemn the world and become a monster? will you ask further questions about why would anyone bother with the plausability of a god? or will you just shrug your shoulders and not think much of it and keep going as you were? well it depends on the person, but most people are pretty reasonable and will find their way of justifying what they think is good for themselves and why it is the way it is.
for example, the human race have endured 2000 years of unquestioning racism but christians claimed that christianity have always been for the equality among the races, so why would it take 2000 years for christians to getting around to stop being racists if that was one of the core concepts of christianity?
the reality is that people did not think anything of it religious or not, we would most likely have ended up with the same conclusion about the same time with or without religion and so would most of our social thinking as we adapt to the world around us.
who knows what will happen next and how we will condemn our past in the future.
Brilliant argument!
Historic note: Humanity has been tribal ever since tribes were a thing, and our written sources goes back about 6000 years ago. The oldest carved statue (Lionman) is about 40K years old, we can imagine tribes having been a thing at the time.
@@lorenzogumier7646 no it isn't.
Looking at our one universe is enough to draw a reasonable conclusion on design. Even going on to the argument's combination in the position that the universe requires a First Mover.
The rich man perspective argument can be used in the opposite direction. A rich man could be asked why he became rich and not others and answer that it must have all been up to chance.
That's despite the fact that if he became rich, he should know at least some key reasons why.
Tribal animosity due to the potential dangers that come from unfamiliarity is reasonable to have been ingrained in people. That can reasonably persist as a (self-viewed) "purely" practical matter in day to day matters, even if one believes all human beings are made in the image and dignity of God. You can affirm their dignity and think they might try to steal from you at the same time (even if unreasonably so in reality.)
Racism itself was developed in large part alongside Social Darwinism. Before and after, there were Christians who acted and even thought beyond tribalism and later racism.
Just blatantly claiming and stating that most humans would naturally come to view other humans as equally valuable in dignity without Christianity is ludicrous. You take everything for granted without cause. Liberalism itself constantly eats itself due to the fact that it's made of presuppositions that only exist due to Christian claims on Truth, origin, and purpose. Despite Liberalism long since attempting to justify itself, through only itself, and without a real foundation.
Survivorship bias on the scale of all existence.
The only thing of its kind that is known to exist, and is not known to have been destroyed.
“Just” survivorship bias. 😅
I mean sure… every thing that has ever happened is also “survivorship bias”, right?
The video also addresses this before you even hit the 7 minute mark, and you didn’t refute his example. You didn’t watch the video and you wasted everyone’s time.
As an atheist I’d say that the previous best theist argument(epistemological argument, meaning evolution wouldn’t fit our minds to perceive the truth as good as god would) more thought-provoking that this one. This one is countered by my old friend Bayes and considering we’re ignorant of all probability distribution in question
Imagine we found out that the initial conditions of the universe spelled out "made by God". According to your line of reasoning this wouldn't be evidence for God because "we are ignorant of all probability distributions in question".
@@user-zx9mp3it6lwhat if the conditions spelled out "not made by any gods"?
@@user-zx9mp3it6l If, as you say, we "found out..."", then surely we ARE now NO LONGER Ignorant? 🤔
@@user-zx9mp3it6l what does that even mean? Initial condition is something like an equation, or do you mean that initial density distribution was a god signature?
I think if the universe had one fundamental constant and it in binary representation represents all the primes, that would be an indication that the universe is a simulation
Wether to consider a simulation universe as a universe with god is up to you
@@dimitrosskrippka2154 basically I mean the same as Joe at 27:35 .
Thanks!
My cat: "I am a god. I have my own place to live, food at regular intervals, a human valet that cleans and maintains my litter boxes and It pleases me and therefore made for me and I must be a god."
Yeah but your cat doesn't actually think that
@CremeForce But would if he could. The point is that any species could claim that the planet was made for them, discounting the stressors that seek to kill them or the environments that are not compatible with their existence.
And I have to add, he is very unappreciative of the environment he does have lol
But it was made for the cat by a higher intelligence xd
@SeekersTavern... and thus the line of god kings began...
Actually kinda poetic if you think about it. If God created the world and gave them minds to think and they rejected that same God, it stands to reason that the whole tower of babel incident was inevitable from a stochastic perspective.
I don't really find the fine tuning argument to weigh much on my thoughts concerning the existence of a God, but I think you missed it with many of the objections.
1. The anthropic principle just assumes a multiverse. It's true that any universe that could be observed is going to seem tuned to suit the observers, but that doesn't make it any less surprising if only one universe exists and it happens to fit the parameters to be observable.
2. You mentioned, who's to say the fundamental constants could be different? That's a non-objection. The fundamental constants of the universe are fundamental because to our knowledge they are not restrained by deeper parameters. They could be anything as far as we know, but even if our current understanding of physics is wrong and these constants are in fact constrained to be as they are, it's no less remarkable that the constraints happen to be those that form a universe where life is possible.
3. You say that if fine tuning were a good argument for God, it could also be turned into an argument against because why would God need to design things only to a particular set of constants? This is a misunderstanding. The constants could be different and still make a universe where life could exist, they simply all would need to be at different relative ratios to one another. There may be an infinite number of configurations for a life containing universe or different parameters altogether, just as there are an infinite amount of prime numbers. It would still be very suprising if you were tasked to pick just one number with 1,000,000,000 digits and you just happened to land on a prime number.
Also I see in the comments that many people simply don't understand the basics of the fine tuning argument. The argument isn't to say that if the constants of the universe were different, life "as we know it" would not be possible, but perhaps other types of life could exist very different than ourselves. If the constants of the universe were not exactly in a sweet spot as the one we know, no matter at all would be able to exist, chemistry would not be possible. It would be a universe of black holes or a cloud of amorphous particles. It's not a matter of just imagining a new Star Trek species that could live on a hostile planet for humans, it's imaging life forming in a universe where no solid thing exists.
You're right that there are objections I didn't cover here :).
I don't think the anthropic principle in itself assumes a multiverse - it is framed within a conditional, rather than positing the existence of other universes. It is working within a possibility set, rather than a multiverse structure.
On point 2, the idea is that the proposition "the fundamental constants could vary (in some sense beyond mere non-contradiction)" is unverifiable. It is outside the scope of observation, and thus the sense of possibility needed for the argument to go through (something stronger than logical possibility but weaker than physical possibility in just the right way) is not established. The challenge is then establishing a well-defined and justified probability space for the fine tuning argument to follow. Here is a good paper if you would like to explore it in more detail as obviously I gloss over some of it here: philpapers.org/rec/COLPWT-3.
3. I think your point here is great (inasmuch as the subset relations of infinite sets is important and interesting - there is quite a lot in measure theory on this if I recall correctly). It is more for the specific task of God both designing the constants *and* grounding modality in the way many theists would like him to do (as being the point of total actuality, ground of reason and possibility etc.).
I think your final point is pretty dead on! It's what I try to say at the beginning by talking about no stars or galaxies even being able to form, or the universe imploding in on itself.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Thanks for the detailed reply! I appreciate it
No problem! Thank you for the comment :)
@ on point 2: doesn't your objection "prove to much" in the sense that by this line of reasoning you would be forced to say that the stars spelling out 'made by God' would be no evidence for God because 'we can't really define the probability space’”?
Personally I don’t think so :). Just because we have observed movements of the stars before (as in, the set of observations of stars and star movements is much greater than 1), so I think we have more reason to think we can assign probabilities there. I do think that is a great response to the divine psychology argument (and, if I’m totally honest, not one I’m convinced the atheist has an airtight response to)
Honestly, I find the premise complete wrong : the universe is NOT well suited for life, as we mean it. Life is indeed very rare and extraordinaly unlikely. The very short, constantly threated forms of life that exist are the only ones that possibly that can exist, given the very adverse conditions of the universe.
it also assumes that a creator existed before life existed. so what was the "creator" if not alive?
they mean suited enough for life to exist - not that it is the SHIT
but is is stupid cuz the moment you include probability and say "it is improbable " the first question is "based on what statistic? where are these other verses (which contradict creation in itself), and so on"
🤦♂️ something can exist and not be "alive" as we understand it, specially if we are talking about something akin to a "spirit" or a consciousness.
Do atheists actually think the fine-tuning argument is even somewhat sound? I always thought it was one of the worst ones
I can see why you'd think that, me personally I found this a bit challenging a few years back in Year 10, and even now as I'm graduating high school. I feel as though it's one of the more challenging ones compared to things like contingency and the objective morality ones.
@ For me I guess there are so many assumptions that need to be taken for this arguement to hold any merit.
My go to is just the puddle argument. But even more simply as stated in the video “If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here”.
For some reason Christians have this, frankly unintelligent, take that extreme improbability is justification for their point.
And that’s in the most gracious of arguments against this too. Baring all the observational conversations.
@@musicbooksexplained I agree with you. On that "improbability" point, another commenter pointed out to me that the Universe is literally the accumulation of "everything" as a whole so the use of a statistical analysis makes no sense.
So I the physical constants of the universe exist as rules of the universe, but to actually make the claim that the physical constants of the universe are improbable due to its scale (assumption 1 from the video), wouldn’t necessarily make sense because we would need actual evidence externally from the universe - which isn’t possible due to the fact that the universe is the accumulation of everything. So it’s impossible to look externally and actually obtain a value because stuff like "probability" just wouldn’t exist outside of the universe.
Given an infinite amount of time, wouldn’t a universe with everything tuned perfectly end up appearing eventually?
No, it's a good argument. If it's really true that the Universe is finely tuned for the possibility of life, it would mean something.
Imagine a guy trying to make a Universe pancake. At his first try it's a mess, then he watches some youtubes and gets better. That's where we live...
Kinda sad, really.
;-)
Positive, negative, neutral, Cause and effect. Now prove a mind or concept is necessary & needed for the listed to exist and react. The best potential to explain a god in fine tuning is that physics is god, but it has immutable qualities and no evidence of motivation. So god could be a thing, but not a being with intent. The only way intentional use of reality could be assigned to a being, is if it acted on the physical existence, no need for a creator god, which kinda eliminates all god ideas in the big leagues. The best you could get is one that manipulated what already is.
What is what already was tho?
Some thoughts:
1. The puddle analogy doesn't work because if the constants were off, life would be impossible. Life can't adapt to all conditions.
2. Why must alternate universe be observed? If a constant has no reason to be what it is, it follows naturally that it could have been different. We don't need to observe them.
3. The firing squad argument doesn't work. We don't need to observe it, we can calculate it. If the constants are off no atoms could form which means that, necessarily, no life could form.
4. I don't understand why the probability is a problem. Something tending towards zero is not zero. If there is one life supporting universe and infinite universes that don't support life, obviously the probability of life is not zero.
It is a severe lack of fanatsy to be unable to imagine any life forms that could exist under different circumstances. There is an old essay by Stanislaw Lem on that somewhere.
My sister once said to me that if man does encounter new life, odds are even that he will not recognize it as life. We really can’t get over ourselves.
Precisely. The foremost error here, preventing anyone from entertaining a FT argument, is one must know all forms of life. Perhaps a universe of black holes fosters superior life.
@@calexj903 we don't recognize most of the life forms we know exist. They are microscopic.
If for example the cosmological constant would be different by a tiny amount, then the whole universe would collapse instantly. How can we have life without a universe?
Yeah…I guess it’s the idea life has to be carbon based or whatever. We have decided what we’ll call life though, so I’m not sure they even have to microscopic.
One thing I’ve always found curious: Religion has been a part of humanity practically since forever. Even cavemen worshipped nature as gods. So if humanity has always believed in a higher power, wouldn’t that be considered the default for us? So under that logic, wouldn’t the burden of proof fall upon the atheist as they are the ones trying to change the dogma?
I don't find it persuasive at all. I find it exactly as bad as "look at the trees."
Explain why ? You need a valir argument to disproove it
Unless you believe in magic and things just happening just because
@@kant.68 It's addressed in the video at around 20min mark, but doesn't seem like you've seen it, so I'll reiterate here. The argument presupposes that the universal constants could have been different, with 0 evidence that it could have been.
If we also presuppose that trees can't exist without God, then the argument that since trees exist God is real would be valid, but we have 0 evidence that says trees can't exist without God.
The fine tuning argument is really just using circular reasoning at its core. If it's unlikely for the universal constants to be the way that they are, then it's unlikely for the universal constants to be the way that they are without God, therefore God exists.
This video couldn’t have come at a better time for me 😭 I’m an atheist in a catholic school so in my philosophy class we mostly only discuss catholic philosophy, specifically St Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs. My teacher is a very passionate (sometimes too much lol) and well educated person so honestly when we were reading about his proofs, it made me question, am I really an atheist? I couldn’t really find a way to word my argument against these proofs. Ironically, the fine tuning argument was really the most convincing in my opinion and many atheists we watched said it made them think too. So thank you for this! It really helped me to see the other side of the argument and agree with it. And honestly I’m just finding out you can be an agnostic atheist due to your video and I think I identify with that label more, as I am open to hearing arguments for both. Love your channel, it’s really taught me a lot and how to actually formulate a response against theist arguments.
I am a Christian and I do appreciate your readiness to assert theist positions in a respectful manner. While some may disagree, I personally do not see proving positively that God exists as possible (using our current working definition of “proof”). Rather, arguments for the existence of God serve to demonstrate that the idea is not fundamentally irrational.
For example,
I observe that when something has a beginning it usually has a cause and since we have evidence of the universe beginning, I conclude that a cause that exists separately from the universe is probable, but the jump from there to “God” is pretty massive. Still, neither theists nor atheists have a scientific understanding of things which exist independently of our universe and where science ends we must carry on with logic and when logic can give us no more insight we must choose either faith or nothing. Personally, I choose faith.
Very sensible argument.
Okay, well we can posit a Creator but it's indicted for grave negligence for failing to reconcile its correct guidance for honest people to ascertain. Doesn't bode well for contemporary theism. Faith already leads people to incompatible conclusions so that's not a wise strategy. Free, but irresponsible, Especially for those concerned with heaven and immortality which are secular matters to be created.
@@paulgaras2606 The Big Bang wasn’t the beginning. It is an expansionary period we can observe the remnants of.
I applaud you for being a theist that recognises the jump between "the universe has a cause" and "that cause is God" because that gap always stood out to me.
I'm going to be brutally honest here... I appreciate your effort to steel man fine tuning . that is a true act of courage and valor, considering the dire plung it necessitates down a dangerous number of standard deviations in IQ. I am speechless about the power this argument holds for anyone. truly. I think this noble act may qualify you for god status. it may be ironic but well earned and that's what matters 😂💓 this really was good. I can't believe you made it interesting ☺️ thanks
What actually is so fine tuned about the universe? most of the space in the universe is just empty nothing, life is literally hell, eat or be eaten and even though humans have escaped the struggle for survival somehow in someway, most people are tortured by loneliness and sadness.
No, there is no argument for God. Faith is a leap, either you dare or you don't.
If life is literally hell, then hell exists ... ?
@@angusmcculloch6653 of course it does, humans imagined it after all.
It also says a lot how much more detailed and consistent image of hell usually is in our culture and imagination, opposed to heaven...
@ Humans also imagined time travel. Are you saying time travel literally exists, because humans imagined it?
@ as a conception in your and my brain - yes, it does.
We might and even most likely even imagine pretty different things when you say "time travel", but some very general idea is still there.
God, or Hell, are pretty much the same.
You're making the assumption that full of life is equivalent to tuned for life. Any gardener that has re-potted a plant choking on its own roots would be able to see the flaw.
The fine tuning argument has its problems, but you clearly haven't engaged with it seriously.
recently wrote an essay on this topic lol. specifically about the ontological argument of canterbury.
my take on this was that our whole idea of a god makes it impossible to prove that he exists or doesn't exist. in short, when we think of a god as "more whole than anything else" he has to be more whole than even a idea could ever be and so, according to canterbury, he has to exist in reality - if he didn't he wouldn't be whole. (this was definitely not the most accurate depiction of his argument)
the thing is, even if a god exists and even if we could see him, we would still only be able to talk about the idea we have of him since we could never gasp his wholeness, only our subjective interpretation of it. same thing if it proves that he doesn't exist - the idea would still be there. the idea will never just vanish, we can't kill god. so regardless of the outcome, the only thing we can do is talk about his idea. and even when we think it through to the end, what would happen if we do find a god? what would effectively change? why would anything change? if he is allmighty, why would we even think that we could discover him unless he wants to be discovered?
and thus, why should we even continue to have this delaying debate? god or no god, we will never know for sure - but in the end and in any case the responsibility to act still lies on our side of the field.
ok scratch that "in short" haha, hope that made at least some sense.
love.
Maybe a reason to continue the debate is not so that we may "know for sure" whether there is or isn't a god, but to learn more about ourselves, the world, what kind of arguments we find convincing or far-fetched, and to think critically in general.
I'd say god/gods have been killed, in the sense that they no longer hold an explanatory position, nor do they ground any modern industrial society, relegated to a question of belief and identity. Religion is an important societal force yes, but even in a theocracy like Iran it operates like any other political/ideological force seeking to maintain its power and is built on support from sections of the society thereby acting in the same ground as any other political player, that is no serious observer today will ever invoke divine intervention to explain even the authority of a religious clergy and would instead resort to historical, political, social or economic explanations. This is a very different outlook from past societies.
Another amazing video. You truly never fail to make my day
Thank you! I am glad you are enjoying them
@@robertvann7349 You okay there buddy?
Ricky Gervais joked about 3000 Gods and used that to ridicule Christianity. But yet non believers struggle to describe as little as two of those Gods outside of the God of the Bible.
🤨 we already have scientificaly verified working models for most of this.
As far as I can see it comes down to if all the energy from the singularity, that makes up literally every thing in our reality, has any form of sentience, agency, intention, direction, will, purpose, consciousness, or any other type of cognition that we are currently unaware of yet? .. .. .. or not? 🤷
Thor, Zeus, Ra.
Have you only ever met extremely historically illiterate atheists?
Do they not have education? Everybody knows Jupiter, Venus and Mars, maybe Dionysios , Hermes. There's Wotan and Thor with his hammer who smote Fanrir. There's Freya the goddess of fertility with her sisters Sunna and Volla. Vishnu and Shiva the destroyer.
If we cannot describe them in detail it's because we do not believe in them.
Of old there was Aru of Sumer who some say became El, the most high. Jesus did address his Father as "Eli" so it may be him.
Think in terms of paradoxes and both the positive and negative aspects of Brahman.
"There are those who will call themselves an extension of Brahman, and there are those who will call themselves Brahman itself.
We can NOT know 100% that our consciousness is an extension of Brahman because then Brahman will KNOW 100% that they are themselves masquerading as us, instead of allowing themselves to experience mortal life from another's perspective as though they are gaining new knowledge for the first time, despite the logical conclusion that determinism is true in some form.
It's a co-operative competition between God (positive) and the devil (negative) attempt at changing the psyche of the other through active demonstration of the individual consequences of their respective moral alignment. ☯️
93/93
It seems to me that the second objection (“How do you know that the constants could be different”) doesn’t make sense. Following this logic we shouldn’t believe in God even if we found out that the initial conditions of the universe spell out “made by God”, because “how do we know that the initial conditions could be different?”.
If the argument relies on probability, then it must be possible for the constants to be different, otherwise there is no probability.
if the initial conditions spelled out god theists wouldn't need to make lame arguments
@@alexki3135 If the initial conditions spelled out "made by God", would this be evidence for theism? Following your reasoning it seems to me you would need to say No, but this is obviously wrong.
what exactly is the difference between the initial conditions spelling out "made by god" and the initial conditions being such that life can exist?
@@user-zx9mp3it6l Initial conditions, in my opinion don't reveal anything. We have studied the laws in nature and how they affect stuff. But we haven't observed how laws of nature or constants come to existence (to my knowledge), so reasoning in why they are is pure speculation. They could exist on their own forever, change in certain circumstances, come from over universe that dictates them by a mechanism or be God given. Choosing any mentioned explanation on the basis we exist is equally arbitrary.
If you disagree, then I'd like to hear why our initial condition proves specifically a God.
If god existed he would know exactly what it would take to prove it to every single person on the entire face of the Earth but instead we are stuck with Divine hiddenniss
That would be a form of mind control though. Also, the argument you make assumes that this isn’t happening. You forgot free will. You live in a delusion that assumes people don’t simply reject god.
So make up your mind: are we free agents to accept and reject god? Or machines that have no choice?
@@deanmccrorie3461is a religious person being mind-controlled when they have what is (to them) an unambiguous, definite and clear experience of God? Say that their conversion story involves such an experience.
@ that same question can be answered by replacing god with a person.
Now run the question again and see what happens.
@@deanmccrorie3461 we can still accept or reject him while perfectly knowing he exists. Choice has nothing to do with knowledge of subject, except that knowledge usually makes for a more educated choice.
@deanmccrorie3461 knowing God exists doesn't force you to accept him?
I think god likes rocks. They are fun and you can watch them flying around. Big rocks, small rocks, enormous thermonuclear rocks.
The only question is: why only some places(galaxies) are suitable for them, while intergalactic space is rock-free? Was god fine tuning universe to create rocks, but couldn’t make them everywhere?
black holes
The god idea has been around so long that we seem to have forgotten it's origin. Primitive people without any knowledge of science created a simple explanation for the existence of the world. The idea was then modified through the years to become rather sophisticated but it is still being used as an explanation. Where did this god idea come from is the question.
it came from primitive humans, and it persists because of primitive humans
Reject humanity. Return to monke
Is our consciousness ejected into our reality. God as a concept is closely linked with the development of our consciousness. We humans need to "shatter" reality (breake it into peaces) to understand it, and then we humanize it (we apply human qualities to reality) .
That's why each thing around us has a name. Our brain understand the environment better that way. We link a thing with a word, creating a web of connections between things and words. The symbolical world . At some point we begin to name abstract ideas, and thisnis the origin of fairy tales, morality and religion I think.
This is the Inmaterial World, the realm of the metaphysical.
At this stage we have forgotten that words and ideas had originally a material "support" , they were purely descriptive. The ideas are connected with other ideas.
We began to value the metaphysical and the symbolical more than the material. That's when monotheism emerges, reminding us that everything comes from the same source, that everything is interconnected. That the inmaterial world can't exist without the material world.
This is why monotheism is "truer" as a proposition, than pantheism. Now, where did all the otyer stuff about God and Christ etc came from? They came as a process of cultural exchange.
God is an emergence from our consciousness interacting with reality, is not "man made" .
Disclaimer: not a mathematician
Great video and great topic!
I think there's some inaccuracies in the mathematics explanation around 20:00. The possibility of picking any of a finite number of options out of infinite possibilities is literally 0. "Tends towards 0" sort of implies that the options aren't actually infinite, though this might be too nitpicky.
Also, if the constants can be any real number, there is likely an infinite number of life-supporting options, because if there is any wiggle room in the value, i.e, we know at least 2 values that could support life, and all intermediate values also could, you have an infinite number of options, so the finite vs infinite argument doesn't apply.
I also think you get into axiom of choice territory when you make claims about whether god can pick a certain universe from an infinite pool.
Oh the “tends to” is just a nod to the 0 being inferred from the fact it is defined via a limit, so I didn’t want to say “0” because I suppose the mathematically definite thing I should say is “as the denominator tends to infinity, the numerator tends to 0” but I didn’t want to get into the weeds.
I also kept it to finite sets just because if we allowed for infinite sets using the density of the real number line then I figure that fine tuning just becomes basically untenable, so I assumed the theist would want to make the set of possible values finite (this was basically skipping over technical steps on my part - I see how it looks strange with hindsight). I suppose the argument would then be taken to measure theory but I figure that’s probably beyond the scope of a video like this.
I hadn’t thought of the axiom of choice here! That sounds really cool! And very relevant!
As a thiest I love your videos about god even though i personally disagree with the conclusion
I don't think "fine-tuning" a very strong argument to begin with. Where is the data to support the odds?
Those that use the fine-tuning argument must not have any education in probability and statistics. Maybe they should play more poker or something. Even a superficial understanding should be enough.
Or else these people do have knowledge of the subject and choose to lie.
broooo i lowk just finished a video. ur so consistent. LOVE UR DEDICATION
Ah thanks! I hope you enjoy this one!
Fine Tuning is a non-argument to start with. How can you call it "Tuning", and why is it "Fine"? What basis do you have for making that claim? Anthropic reasoning elegantly explains everything we see around us. We can't have any apriori reasoning on what to expect in this universe, except the obvious fact that we exist, so surely the conditions must be that we exist. The fact that we exist as observers is a prior condition in observing the universe.
3 plus billion years on Earth to get to this point and apparently it was fine tuned. All those lives sacrificed for tiny incremental changes... Life fought and battled its way at every turn, there is no such thing as a continual natural perfect balance. The fine tuning argument is just another example of the religious co-opting science into their church.
fine tuning is applied not just for life, but for the existence of matter and particles at a basic level, i.e. the interaction btw gravitational, weak neuclear forces, expansion rate, electromagentic constants, cosm. constant etc. and, the conditions for matter itself to exist.
@@survivinglife262 which is completely unremarkable in the absence of life. FT absolutely IS about the existence of life.
Agreed and the earth isn’t fine tuned for life, only a small portion is suitable for life. You have the polar regions- to cold except for specific life forms - deserts - too hot and arid for except for specific life forms - the oceans - 67% of the earth’s surface - high mountains with thin atmosphere, there is very little surface area suitable for life, and the majority of the universe is devoid of life - space specifically
If the world was lava, then no life. Just because something is difficult doesn't then conclude that something wasn't fine-tuned. But clearly, things can be much more difficult for life to the point of impossibility. Can go the other way as well. It's so easy to live that there is no need for change.
@@survivinglife262I don’t know about that. How does the idea even arise in a universe with no life?
I honestly would find that universe far superior to our own.
Fine tuning !!! I think it’s simple… “fine tuned for life” is too short of a sentence. It should be “fine tuning for life as we know it!” Life has evolved to life as we know it! Who is to say that if the constants were tweaked one way or another; a life too might have been tweaked as we know it. In other words, life has tuned itself to fit current universal constraints.
Technically, it's not even an argument, it's an intriguing question, that's it
it's a dumb question. It ignores all the ways the universe is inimical life. It's extreme cherry-picking AND a post hoc fallacy.
It's just an extension of personal incredulity from what I can tell.
Inference, as all theistic arguments / counter-arguments.
A question with only one possible answer. God.😊
@@mikewalker8956 I remain unconvinced.
1:18 is false. There are more legal sequences of moves, but fewer legal positions (unless maybe if you count three-fold repetition states in which case it gets close)
I remember being introduced to the fine tuning argument way back in the late 90's when I was on my way to disbelief. My christian family suggested a film, the name of which I forget, that highlighted all the points of fine tuning through the christian lens. It was described to me in detail, but I remember being unimpressed. I found the idea laughable, without fully understand why at the time. I dismissed it and went on with my life, only to start running across more and more of it online through the late 2010's up until now. I studied up on it more, heard the pro's and con's, and came away even less impressed with the argument than I had initially been. I personally feel like it's another argument meant to reinforce belief, not so much to sway someone's way of thinking.
it's utter nonsense, transparent apologetics.
Here is one thing we know about our design that as we try harder we forget our thoughts are limited or bound, constraints exist such as language. The very premise that you can go from the physical to metaphysical is a full stop.
God is a Jungian archetype. What could be more anthropologically fundamental than Jungian archetypes ?
An actual creator deity that preceded humanity maybe
A creator of those archetypes Jung discovered.
Gravitation has a numerical value and numbers are infinite, thus there are potentially infinite values for gravitation; but only a few in which complexity (life) can occur. The quantity of habitable cosmoses is few but the quantity of uninhabitable cosmoses is infinite.
Life, like a liquid, fills in holes/niches. Therefore, the hole is not made for you (life) to fill in, but instead, you are made to fill in any hole you find.
But universes with holes to fill are few while the ones without are infinite. Habitable cosmoses are rare and yet clearly favored by the evidence of our own existence. Why is complexity favored by cosmos? Cosmological natural selection via blackhole evolution is the best "agentless" theory I've heard. Otherwise, the rarity of habitable cosmoses does, in fact, favor the logic of agency.
We evolved from the universe that exists, so obviously we are going to be suited to existence. You can’t make gold from iron. The philosophers stone is god lol! You gave me the giggles with that one.
Well you can't but under the current understanding of chemistry it is possible though nuclear fusion. It just takes a lot of energy.
If I recall correctly, it's a bit easier to make gold from lead through fission because it is removing parts of the lead atom to make a gold atom and that takes less energy.
This is absolutely marvelous how you can objectively speak about such a subject. People really need to take notes
I would consume way more of your content if you had a podcast or posted some of your videos or audio on Spotify. You have an amazing voice and vocabulary which is really engaging
When you go to sleep and have a dream you can be so shocked that you wake up alarmed. Are you having the dream, or observing the dream. Who is creating the dream? maybe you are being dreamt.
Nonsense.
the brain is never fully at rest, that's why we dream, it's a widely studied subject
Good one. That highly improbable to achieve by chance, deck of cards shuffle in order analogy (1 divided by 52 factorial (52!), which is approximately 1 in 8 followed by 67 zeros) had me detour to check that a "quantum computer" could theoretically do it almost instantaneously...
I'm actually really surprised if hitchens really thought that this was a strong contender for proof of a creator. The fact is the universe is not fine-tuned, the vast majority of the universe would kill us in a millisecond, most of our own planet is trying to kill us constantly. If anything the fact that life exists at all is the miracle. Makes no sense to me that this is an interesting question for hitchens to ponder or any atheist for that matter.
You seem to contradict yourself, don't you? If it's a miracle like you say it's, then that bolsters the case of God. Perhaps that's what Hitchens thought too.
@@JasminehaydonNo because what we observe is expected on atheism. I doubt you expected Coronal Mass ejections, extinction events, and Siamese Twins on theism. What do you think is tuned?
@@Jasminehaydon he isn't using "miracle" in that sense, obviously
Life is either a miracle or an error. You can use our Existence to defend God's existence or his non Existence.
Great video. That jacket suits you really well btw
The fine tuning argument only says that it's more intuitive to believe there's a creator not necessarily that it's more likely because we have no way to calculate the probabilities of the origin of the universe.
As for what a theist would respond for "why would God create universe with almost impossible conditions for life," by saying that he wanted us to figure out that he exists, since if the condition of life is broad, we won't find it miraculous, but I would says, there are far easier and foolproof ways to do that.
If one wished to be known, mortals wouldn't be appealing to mere deduction FT. Such a Creator would verify itself to all.
@@michaelwilliams8414 but see, it wants to be known, but not too easily. actual theists think that lol.
@@_nuance except theists do regularly use it as direct evidence for their chosen diety. Dozens if not hundreds of videos making that claim with thousands maybe millions of likes. What something is in theory is fine, but in practise this is used regularly as direct evidence.
To have a "specified outcome", that outcome must be specified beforehand.
This is the problem with looking at probability after the fact.
After the fact, the likelihood of that outcome having occurred is 100%.
No probability calculations can conclude anything abount the probability.
In my mind, the fine-tuning argument for God makes a lot of assumptions about God.
1. that he exists (not even going into the gender part of that statement)
2. that there's only one God (or at least only one participating in the creation process)
3. that he's powerful enough to create the universe (what if the most powerful god is really not powerful enough to create the universe?)
4. that he's competent enough to create the universe
5. that this is the only universe he created (what if we are the product of a Tinkerer God who has created multiple universes, testing the effects of his various changes, and we're one of his many projects)
6. that he intended to create this universe
7. that he created the universe according to his design (what if he f'd up with ours and moved on to another one?)
None of these are ascertainable. The question of "Is there an all powerful god who designed and created our universe vs there are no gods at all?" is a false dichotomy.
On the topic of universal constants, it's often mentioned that if any of them were slightly different, the resulting properties of the universe would fall apart. However, those arguments are always pointing out the effects of changing 1 constant and keeping the others stable. I have yet to see anyone consider the possibility of having all the constants be different and balancing each other with different values from the ones we observe now. i.e. is it really True that the universal constants we observe in our universe are the only viable configuration?
Yes, I think the proof by contradiction approach is the best method for falsifying the fine-tuning argument. If we accept it is true the consequences as you outlined put theists in a worse position. The argument changes the properties and attributes of their god and they just skip that step and the declare the argument god has all the 'correct properties'. How does god know these are the correct set of numbers from all the infinity numbers? How does god gain that knowledge without running the experiment of creating all possible universes? Also if I am all powerful why would I not just create all the possible universes? Also why can't an all powerful god pick a more beautiful set of numbers and make the universe work with those? Also what are the numbers used to create bliss of paradise?
I think it might help some polytheism religions (parents of gods and gods creating gods, etc) but I think to accept this argument invalidates monotheism as the consequences of fine-tuning.
In general, the fine-tuning argument seems nothing more than a god of the gaps argument with a set of numbers proving god is hiding in the cracks of the quantum foam.
This is quite disagreeable. (1) is the conclusion of the argument, not one of its premises. (2) is not assumed by the fine-tuning argument -- all *theistic* arguments are also *poly*theistic arguments. (3) and (4) are included in the conclusion of the argument. (5) is not assumed by the fine-tuning argument, and it is actually plausibly compatible with the scriptures of Abrahamic faiths. (6) is in the conclusion of the argument; fine-tuning a thing requires aiming at an end, which is just what intention is. (7) stands on the same ground as (6) -- the possibility that this universe is a mistake would only be marginally more likely (if at all) than an atheistic hypothesis, which is just what the fine-tuning argument concludes is improbable. This doesn't show an assumption of the argument, but rather begs the question against it.
The fine tuning argument is like saying "Isn't it weird that we happen to live on the only habitable planet in the entire universe? Out of all the barren planets in the universe, it must be divine intervention that we have a planet with water and breathable air."
The universe is inherently and automatically suited to us or we wouldn't exist in it to observe this as a fact.
The universe is definitely not inherently suited for us. We're a single point in a myriad of lifeless other planets around. Moreover, our species took 200000 years to evolve our cognitive system enough in order to develop what we needed to assess all this. Life is rare as it gets to be.
@可思ʻ thoughtful comment, I appreciate it. I guess you're right the universe is rather inhospitable apart from the habitable bubble we're fortunate to live on!!
@@jacksonnn1661 It's nice to add up to the discussion! :)
I have always thought the fine tuning argument is/was the worst arguments for thiests to combat athiests with. We have already proven that space expands, and stars and such create elements when they explode, that there are more galaxies than we can comprehend, etc. Using probability even if we don't have all the possibilities for life on other planets in other galaxies, it would be completely inaccurate and incredibaly gulible to state and believe that life in this galaxy on this world could've only happened via a creator. I personally think it's even more gulible to believe we are the only ones in the entire universe to be so intellegent. While I am not an athiest myself, I also know there is no fesable way to prove in gods or to debunk them, if youre wondering what I believe, I believe that every god/goddess is real it only depends on you who you want to follow.
I am joining the Catholic church this easter after a decade of atheism 🎉. And I must say, after years of debating theist and now debating atheist. I grow tired of these discussions. The reality of the situation is that we have multiple reasons for belief and non-belief, and logical argumentation is only one reason. What the philosopher atheist type get wrong is that they try to reduce the phenomenon of theology to logical argumentation. If I can logically disprove God, he therefore doesn’t exist (or I have no reason to assent to it), vice versa. But most people do not come to God because of reason and most people don’t reject God because of reason. So to act as if you can get anywhere with a syllogism is just autisticly unfocused.
most people come to god for a reason without paying too much attention to the rational/reason. they come for guidance and solace, for re-parenting and seeking the ultimate authority. It's rather important to modern man to stay within frameworks of 'the scientific', or at least 'rational', so they appreciate all the arguments based on science and rationality, pure faith just doesn't cut it for us, it is associated with all undesirable traits of our ancestors, the dark ages, the primitive people, the fools, children, all the lesser beings. Yet, even if there's god that fine tuned the universe for life to emerge, it does say nothing about what he wants from you, human, or what is his emotional relation to you, human. but if we could prove that god exist in a rational manner, than somehow we feel less irrationally awkward when we believe that god is this or that.
Maybe true but these are about 'proofs of god'. Someone giving objections and pointing out flaws in something that someone e offers as "proof" is justified
@@lemurlaemuReligion started when some losers that couldn't survive on their own or compete with others invented a reason for why everybody else would have an obligation to look after them and care for their welfare.
There's nothing more natural in nature than competition for survival.
If theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that. Otherwise its just more unsubstantiated and unscientific faithbased religious nonsense that they need to keep to themselves.
I can't imagine a more privledged and entitled attitude or perspective to have than to believe that your well being should automatically be worth anything to anybody. Its delusional and narcissistic.
What do we need 8 billion ppl for? .... pushing the threshold of what the planet can even support, its reckless, and irresponsible stewardship of our precious limited resources.
So you're choosing God just because you're tired? God doesn't need such people. You're already doomed.
What other discussion you want? Have you demanded this Creator you think exists reconcile its correct guidance for honest people to ascertain? Or are you a selfish elect? Do you think it's acceptable a Creator hides? What do you think of mortal integrity?
I would recommend the weak as well as the strong anthropic principles for a scientific answer to the fine tuned universe argument. Mind u its a scientific thesis so maybe outside the scope of a philosophy oriented channel, but the challenge is the fun of it 😊
To me personally, I think the simple fact that there are thousands of religions is enough proof that God is a manmade concept, what do you guys think?
agreed. some people might point to the fact that many of these religions have the exact same, or very similar, ideals and or figures as proof of the opposite.
There are thousands of scientific theories but yet u accept the one which is true
Okay.... but sometimes I wonder from where this concept came into humanity's mind!! Why almost every civilization had this concept? Why people from almost every civilization had mythologies etc about God or higher divine beings?? Is it only to control the weak by the strong or there is actually something or some being who is supreme?
I agree with you, but only after a specific rewording: The existance of thousands of religions indicates that any one specific God is probably a manmade one.
The fact that so many people wrote and thought so much about the idea of gods is interesting to me, but I just don't see why any one of them should have gotten it more right than the others.
@@adnanmir2873 The important difference is that scientific theories can be proven and disproven, whilst religions can't.
A nice day to you too sir❤
Excellent video!
I'm grateful!
this is a strange parallel argument to the one I enjoy the most:
the universe is actually not tuned at all to facilitate life of any sort, and life comes from something outside of a standard subset of atoms and molecules. it is the injection of life into this otherwise lifeless universe which has led to a single observable anomaly. life itself. the green planet earth, is the outlier, and people discount the crap out of that fact.
Im going to school right now for CAD engineering, because I was blown away when I started reading more about math and history. even our number system is taken for granted, look up what sexagesimal is, the OG system, to recorded history. I have found design in life that is truly beyond any single conscious understanding. If this implies that God dwells in the subconscious evolutionary behaviors built in our DNA, those of epigenetic memory of living things, im willing to believe it. tardigrades make life and death seem incidental, what else is alive that we think is dead? where consciousness is stored? what is it? is it dark matter? some emf?
The greatest pull i have yet felt from theology was Wes Hof claiming (2 religious texts dated 1000 years apart?) were "word for word" identical.
Unsurprisingly he had misspoke; but for a moment it invoked a feeling that the 'word of god' could possibly have carved its way through history unaltered.
If we are to imagine a statement like this to be true it leaves a number of major questions and as with all religions arguments could never provide a 'proof' for god but for the joy of philosophy it is an idea that i'd love to learn more about.
maybe throw myself into some kind of evolution of religious scripture phase
Why stop at scripture when there are archaeological sites that are described in religious texts that underwent destruction at the same time frame as the text says and bears physical evidence of the very type of destruction described? And no, I'm not talking about Tell el-Hammam.
The book of Isaiah is not word for word identical... because orthography changes😅. Some sentences are also obviously missing but that's just because the scrolls are damaged . Thus Wes was right, it is the same unchanged Word
Why can’t humans just be really good at transmitting information over long periods of time?
There are Aboriginal Australian oral histories that seem to accurately reference events that took place 10,000 years ago, like peninsulas becoming islands as sea levels have risen. Geologists can look at the areas being described and confirm that these events did in fact happen - and the Aboriginal population didn’t even have writing to lean on here. Does that mean the Dreamtime is real?
(all of this is said assuming Wes is right, which he doesn’t seem to be - missing verses, etc)
@giwrgosemdou6545 whilst the majority of differences are orthographical there are a great number of significant differences in meaning between the texts; that being said the similarities that do exist are impressive and it's cool to see how the text changed between the 2 instances
@@ecta9604 i feel this way largely because of my perceived scale of religious texts, they are incredibly complex being absolutely packed with meaning and substance.
for me, it's hard to imagine a word for word text of this size could remain fundamentally unaltered in meaning and substance over 1000 years of culture and orthography.
the sheer scale of the influence from all sorts of areas (e.g. reiterations/interpretations/philosophy/ culture/translations/war) over such a time period is insane
One major flaw i see in all religions is that all it takes to destroy them is for new humans not to be told about them 😂
Always love being early to your videos
The Fine Tuning Argument is, in essence, a prime example of retrospective misdirection. It imposes the human perspective on the universe by interpreting the "random product" of the regularities of nature and physical constants as "fine-tuned." And there are many such "arguments." It is a typical example of the error that occurs when we try to ascribe meaning or purpose to something that simply is as it is.
By pointing to the fine-tuning of the universe as if it were something consciously arranged, one overlooks the fact that things only appear "fine-tuned" because we view them through a human lens. The universe is as it is, and if it were different, we wouldn’t retroactively assign anthropocentric meaning to the regularities of nature, based on our very existence, and fantasize that meaning into it.
We exist, the universe exists because we are a part of it, how else could it be? The regularities of nature are what they are. If they were different, we wouldn't be constructing such nonsensical arguments, which ultimately serve only one thing: the anthropocentric ego, the weakness of seeking meaning in an existence that doesn't inherently have one.
Okay, that was a bit harsh. It’s not meaningless, it exists, and that is the meaning. A meaning that doesn’t derive from a goal or ego but simply from itself, to exist.
Or in simplier words, the fine tunig argument ist survivorship bias
Religion started when some losers that couldn't survive on their own or compete with others invented a reason for why everybody else would have an obligation to look after them and care for their welfare.
There's nothing more natural in nature than competition for survival.
If theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that. Otherwise its just more unsubstantiated and unscientific faithbased religious nonsense that they need to keep to themselves.
I can't imagine a more privledged and entitled attitude or perspective to have than to believe that your well being should automatically be worth anything to anybody. Its delusional and narcissistic.
What do we need 8 billion ppl for? .... pushing the threshold of what the planet can even support, its reckless, and irresponsible stewardship of our precious limited resources.
it's a post hoc rationalization and grossly cherry-picks the evidence, which mostly reflects adversity to life.
@@gregsanich5183 I basically agree with you, but I wouldn’t call them losers. I would call them victims of existence, when thinking deeply about life turns existence itself into a crisis. Religion is nothing more than a coping mechanism to deal with this existential crisis.
We are all balancing on the edge of a dark, massive abyss called the Unknown, an unknown that brings us uncertainty, fear, and so much more. And instead of living with this unknown, this uncertainty, religion rolls out a carpet over the abyss, calls it God, and voilà, the coping is complete. But the abyss is still there, lurking, waiting to swallow us at the right moment.
It’s sad how people, in their attempts to cope, close themselves off to the unknown and, through a constructed divine order, almost lobotomize themselves. They are victims.
I’ve already lived through my existential crisis, and to be honest, I had moments where I wanted to believe in God. It would have made everything so much easier, but it didn’t work, it was incompatible with who I am, it felted like ... nothing.
So I had no choice but to live through my existential crisis, and what I found, I can’t really put into words. The closest I can come is the realization that life is simply an uncertain adventure (with death as the only certainty), an adventure at which we should embrace despair with joy and curiosity. To embrace the pain of life, the uncertainty of knowledge... but even these words feel inadequate to express how I navigated my crisis. Still, something along those lines, I guess.
What is scary is that the fine-tuning argument itself should have a question like what if God's version of being alive or life is not what we are experiencing, because he's a higher conscience to to us we are living but God we are practically dead.
The Fine Tuning argument is particualrly specious.
The theist will be unable to explain how and why some supposed god exists and why it has the supposed characteristsics that it has. e.g. the ability to create.
Why should those abilities reside with some god and not be an inherent part of nature ?
If some god can exist without any explanation, why can't the universe ?
The how and why of his existence is because he created the universe, he is omnipotent. Intelligent design is all around you and faith is necessary, something atheists are lacking.
@@casuallydeep1368
"The how and why of his existence is because he created the universe, he is omnipotent."
- Circular argument.
"Intelligent design is all around"
- Baseless assertion.
"faith is necessary, something atheists are lacking."
- Reason trumps faith.
This is very obvious. I think most theist would notice this, it's a suspicious fundamental gap on the fine-tuning. I don't think it needs to definitely proof God existence, but rather give credibility of God existence. However, I must say, I think the fine tuning argument is just a part of the God's Gap, not really an argument, and God's Gap usually don't give credibility on God..
@SachiiHatsuna
Where's the credibility to the existence of _anything_ that's non-physical and outside of space & time ?
How can something non-physical create or influence something physical ?
@@lewis72due to the physical being below on the hierarchy. God created the physical to do his bidding. I personally think that trying to frame God is a fools errand. As a finite being how would you be able to understand the infinite?
When we look at the fundamental forces of the universe, we cannot possibly conclude that it is even possible for these forces to vary from their measurable attributes, because to do so, we would have to able to observe conditions where that would result, which we obviously cannot do. Just because we can imagine a universe in which such might be the case does not at all mean that such a universe exists. We are in this particular universe, and our universe IS the way it IS, so it is much more logical for us to assume that it is simply not possible for the fundamental laws of Physics to be anything other than what they are, until and unless we can observe otherwise. If we proceed from that basis, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that the natural constants of the laws of Physics are the way they are becausse they are a necessary consequence of the very nature of matter and energy and spacetime, and therefore, the probability of the universe supporting life is, and always was and ever shall be, a resounding 1.
As much as you try to escape it, there will never be a scientific measurement that will relieve you of a confrontation with faith
This comment reeks of fear
Bruh what are you even talking about
No matter what people, as a whole, believe, there will never be an absolute answer to reality because it’s simply nature.
The why? Is massively insignificant to the actual result and assuming its some god with nice intentions is just your human desire for answers speaking - nothing more
There are no scientific arguments for believing either. You convinced yourself to belive. That's fine, just not everyone's choice.
I never understood the idea of saying multiple universes would be different, with the information that we have if another or infinite number of universes started with exactly the same condition as ours, i believe that the chances of all of them ending up as exact copies as ours would be higher than any other possible scenario. If all data points at our universe being deterministic why no one ever assumes that a multiverse would also be deterministic.
Except our reality isn’t inherently deterministic but probabilistic due to quantum physics
I was atheist 47 years - than I researched the truth and uncovered lies on top of lies. And uncovered that God is real.
Wow, such truth. Much knowledge. Big brain time.
Care to shed some more light on how you finally came to the conclusion?
Have you demanded it reconcile its correct guidance for honest people to ascertain? How could mortals foil a Creator's effort to verify itself?
You said nothing... nothing at all.
What a clown
32:06 "We often take it for granted that God is a certain way and that He would value roughly the same things we do."
If God valued roughly the same things we do, then there wouldn't be any children with leukemia.
The BEST argument for God was provided by George Berkley "To exist is to be perceived". Given that we have a discussion about God is proof that God exists according to George Berkley .
My favourite one of his is the master argument. "If you cannot think of something unthinkable, it doesn't exist"
Santa claus is real then.
@ Yes, for children Santa is real. God is real even for adults because he plays very important anthopological roles.
Yes, god is just an idea. I agree. People have an idea about a fictional character callled god. Welcome to atheism brother!
Does Berkley argue that this proves god has an existence outside of imagination?
0:21 did I miss something? Since when is this vast vacuum full explosions and radiation made for life?
There’s a reason fermi paradox exists
Is it fine tuned for life? Last I checked theists were constantly saying it was impossible for life to form on its own. Now they're saying, actually it's way too easy for life to form?
Some people tend to not let little quibbles like outright contradictions stand in their way.
I think this is a great video with some really good points.
But I think the multiverse defence is really underrated:
If a multiverse of the kind mentioned actually did exist, it would explain fine tuning perfectly, obviously we find ourselves in a fine tuned universe because it’s the only kind of universe we can find ourselves in out of all the ones that exist, and because just by running the numbers, moderately fine tuned universes (where life can just about exist under some very specific circumstances) are SO much more common than extremely fine tuned universes (where life is everywhere and comes about very easily), no wonder we find ourselves in a universe where life is rare.
The big question is whether such a multiverse is more likely than God.
Many physicists strongly consider the possibility of a multiverse given the evidence we have, and while we have very little evidence to go off of, what we do have doesn’t point away from a multiverse, and a considerable number of experts are arguing that it in fact points towards it.
God on the other hand has a lot more evidence to consider, empirically speaking we have the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, and this idea mentioned in the video of “spatial disorder”, that the VAST majority of the universe is empty, lifeless, and acts as evidence against design. Fine tuning is one of very few empirical evidence points put forward in God’s favour, and I’ve argued here that a multiverse accounts for this much better than God does. So it seems a multiverse may be more likely than a God given the data we have, and thus a more plausible reason for the fine tuning we observe.
But this video does show all the other ways to respond without committing to a multiverse, I just don’t think it’s that unreasonable at all to believe in a multiverse, and it’s a defence worth considering and discussing when talking fine tuning, we should not dismiss it out of hand.
There is zero evidence that suggests the existence of gods or leprechauns. 🤷♂️
As a physicist, I think the multiverse fairy tale is, to put it diplomatically, implausible.
It is a fantasy, garnished with a bit of math, a lot of speculation, but there is nothing empirical to it.
Even if the multiverse exist, it has and will have no meaning for us, not that we could know about it because we have no access to it, because we cannot simply leave the universe and look. Unfortunately, there are a few physicists who propagate this rubbish, but in the end it is not science because they shift their "explanations" into the unobservability.
The multiverse only kicks the can down the road. A multiverse would have all the same existential questions about it's own existence and origins, as our observable universe does.
@@cookiescraftscatsindeed.
So if theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
@@gregsanich5183
" A multiverse would have all the same existential questions about it's own existence and origins, as our observable universe does"
yeah that is good, I lke it
Trying to say that the universe is unlikely to exist in the way that it does without a God is like having a single card from a deck, not knowing the size of the deck it comes from, and confidently extrapolating its a miracle this card was pulled. But like, what if the deck of cards was only two cards in size? What if every card in the deck was the same kind of card in your hand? What if every card in the deck was pulled at some point? Without knowledge of the sample size or the content you pull from, it is impossible to make any justified probabilistic claims. We don't know the size of the deck, the content of the deck, or the number of cards that have been pulled. Hell, we don't even know the number of decks cards are being pulled from. The universe is unlikely, theist? Unlikely in relation to what?
The problem I have with almost every argument for God is that they appeal to some far off, nebulous existence responsible for the creation of the universe or of life and then say “That settles it, this holy book is the all-truth.” Even if you can’t prove a godlike eternal entity doesn’t exist, you can certainly prove beyond reasonable doubt that none of the specific gods exist.
I'm still trying to figure out where fruits and vegetables come from, why are they here?
Remember everyone, believing the Big Bang/creation of the universe was caused by no one is just as big a leap of faith as thinking it was caused by someone
No it’s not. There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from different galaxies, Hubble’s observation that the universe is expanding, etc.
There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from different galaxies, and Hubble’s observation of the expanding universe, etc.
There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the Big Bang. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from galaxies, Hubble’s observation of the expanding universe, etc.
I think change is the primary mover of the universe. The fact that things never stay the same and are always interacting with something else to me makes more sense
There’s substantial scientific evidence that supports the BB though. Such as CMB radiation, redshift of light from galaxies, Hubble’s observation of the expanding universe, etc.
I just found your channel a few days ago and I enjoy your videos immensely! Hearing you break down these concepts is like a multiple course meal for my brain. I find myself wanting so much to bounce ideas off of you! What I would give to have had you sitting next to me in philosophy class. :)
Since when do you have dubbed audio? damn good shit
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.
This is easily the best video on this argument yet.
Shuffle a deck of cards. You and the cards are the universe. A friend will close his eyes. You shuffle the cards, he only opens his eyes if the cards are ordered.
That's the universe. We wouldn’t be able to perceive anything except a universe that supports life.
I dont belive in god, but i do really like imagining atheist thinking going to heven and meeting god. Like a really awkward sitcom moment.
I think the point of Adam's argument might have been that we adapt to the constants and not the constants are adapted to us, which means, perhaps, that if there were other sorts of constants, "life", but not as we know it, might have arisen, but only if universes with those constants "like" to create life (in the functionalist sense of actually being able to create life, and doing so, as ours evidentially has). Another possibility, suggested from the psychometric literature, is that if we could observe many universes with different constants, we might find that they were highly correlated, so that if one constant is perturbed, the others would also be, perhaps in the direction countering the effects of the first perturbation.
Not being a physicist, I'm more interested in the idea that the constants may have teleology behind them, but no sentience, at least not in the sense that we have sentience. Your circulatory system has a teleology behind it, but no sentience of it. Why can't the universe (at its non-life-existing phases in particular) be the same way? And if I believe in a kind of "non-sentient" God (AKA some cosmological infrastructure that just allows life/sentience to evolve), why am I not an atheist, given I've refuted scriptural theism at its face value (or a type of "God" that is "sentient" of us)? And if I am an atheist, why cannot I say I believe in God, albeit a non-sentient one?
How do we know that the values the constants have can be something else ? Or is it like saying "imagine if Pi was equal to 12, we wouldn't have circles !" ?
I mean... what are the odds of god having just the particular nature and inclination to design this particular universe? Like so often, theism just kicks the can from an unobservable point down an unobservable road, pretending to not suffer from the exact same fundamental problems that everyone else faces..
It just feels like an extension of personal incredulity to me 😂❤
I loved the video. Though I am a theist, I don't believe in the societal image of God. God, to me, is a conscious fact that is not constrained to physical means and logic only.
I think a numerical problem with fine tuning, if I understand it right, is that any possible fundamental constant would be fine tuned. Even if there were a much wider range of life-supporting values for a constant, it would comprise a vanishingly small part of the real number line. On the other hand, if we do accept the fine tuning argument, it seems pointless to ask about divine psychology, as the god we’d have “proven” would specifically be one who wants life. In other words, it doesn’t seem to be an argument for god (who may or may not create life) but rather an argument for a life-wanting god. The question of how little life we can observe also seems unproblematic to me as it’s perfectly plausible that, in an infinite, life-permitting universe, there could be an infinite amount of very spaced out creatures. The low density of life would be insignificant in that case. Thoughts?
I think it is pointless to use logic in either proving or disproving a god, and fundamentally misunderstands the reasons why humans flock to religion. The attention of philosophy and science ought to be directed to more important questions.
I can't believe people think the Fine Tuning argument is the most persuasive one. For me it seems obvious that some form of cosmological argument would be the best one for God. It's weird because many people also think the Problem of Evil is one of the best atheist arguments and when I was a Christian it didn't bother me at all. As a Christian the best way to demonstrate the falsity of Christianity would be some failure of the cannon (i.e. a failed prophecy in the Bible, or an internal contradiction). For me as an atheist, the most compelling argument for God would be if we couldn't explain existence without him.
Daring not to face a mom sick, insane or a BANKRUPT_ _
13:40 "you got the argument wrong" no the guy reframed it in a way that isn't biased towards our own point of view. right?
There's without question some designer like entity, the real question is: Who is that designer?
To claim life came to be out of nothingness sounds like a miracle happening and a thesis like this sound even more like a claim some kind of higher entity or will must exist.
The confidence behind "without question" is astonishing!
Did you even watch the video lmao
Rewatching this multiple times, very information dense, great work
Got an upcoming "conversation" with a theist friend of mine , This is precisely what I've been looking for
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.*
A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"*
(Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"Who is Yahweh - How a Warrior-Storm God became the God of the Israelites and World"* by Dr Justin Sledge at Esoterica
(Dr Justin Sledge is Jewish)
Watch *"How did Yahweh Become God? The Origins of Monotheism"* by Dr Justin Sledge at Esoterica
this is fascinating, thank you!
Interesting that fine tuning is seen by many atheists as the strongest argument for theism. I’m a theist and I find it among the weakest.
Interrupting an Unsolicited advice video for a new one 😏
The main problem with applying probability theory to God is that he's declared all-powerful. Which means that there is no condition that allows to update probability of any of his qualities. Any test we can possibly run would be of no use because God is supposedly able to perfectly predict it and fake any result in order to appear a certain way. Starting with the obvious example - the Bible itself could easily be a lie, and God just lets everyone into heaven or sends into hell, or there is no afterlife at all.
technically God cannot deny himself, for example: one of his titles is the most just so he cannot do something unjust. I know that if we take into account that he writes the rules the example becomes strange but I can't explain it better.
@@krzysztowbzymek8003 how do you know he can't? How do you know that what he told you about being just is true? How do you know that he told you anything on purpose and it's not some accidental consequence of whatever he was doing?