I disagree with those atheists. As I was once one I must say that the morality argument was far more convincing and played a huge part in my conversion
@@DominikĎurkovský If it is the one that refers to the existence of logic I agree it Can be very persuasive but I still think the morality argument is more instinctive because every one encounters moral dilemma on a daily basis. Especially when submitted to foreign wars, genocide or murder, morality is everywhere whereas the use or logic and reason is much more intellectual and in general people are not used to even question the existence of logic as it is their axiom/faith.
As a formet atheist also, i dont think fine tuning is that solid. We cant really say what is moat likely or not as far as an indicator of design. Often it feels we are surprised by something but what alternative would we expect? God is a choice not a measurement. It was actually abstract ideas that leqd me to faith.
As a non-believer, I think the argument from the existence of consciousness is probably the strongest. Consciousness is extremely hard to explain from a scientific pov.
@aidanya1336 Agreed, I can at least see science eventually being able to explain consciousness, I don't see it ever explaining the fine-tuning or how the universe came into being. This is because we can't know what happened before the universe began because science didn't exist before the universe did.
@Voxis_23456 maybe, but there is a chance we find that all these different parameters are all derived from each other. Which can bring it down to only 1. We might not be able to find out why that one is the way it is. But fine tuning is pretty dead by than.
its not that hard. cognitively neurons travel inside different part of brain function but, belivers is more like cowards amydala which only posess emotion with lack of logic.
Alex O'Connor doesn't belong in the thumbnail; he has said, on multiple occasions, that he doesn't find the fine-tuning argument very compelling-he finds the contingency argument better
@@ryanevans2655 Even then physics and science can't yet explain what causes conciousness and awareness beyond just the ability to respond to stimuli. This isn't to say there isn't a naturalistic explanation, but we don't even have an idea as is. All we know right now is that it's somehow associated with the brain and brain states, that's it.
@@ldd4043 which is by itself a telling statement about the quality of all these arguments for god. If Someone like Alex, who probably knows and understands all the common arguments for god and tries to steelman every single one of them as much as possible, thinks that an argument that can be broken down to: "we don't know therefore god", is the best one, then the arguments for god must be really bad.
@@TgfkaTrichter can you imagine any argument for the existence of God that couldn't be reframed as 'we don't know, therefore God'? I don't mean actually real proofs, I mean even in some hypothetical. Like if God came down from the sky, said, 'I'm God btw', and whisked us off to heaven. 'Well, I don't know how that happened, and God is the only explanation that makes any sense, but maybe it's just something else we don't know.' Anything that could possibly prove God's existence could be explained as 'well, it's either that God is real, or something else that we don't know'. That's how literally every proof that isn't mathematically precise works, ie every single proof outside of the fields of math, computer science, and logic.
There is something comedic to me that I don't find the fine-tuning argument rather strong, despite being Christian, while atheists claim it as the best argument.
Yeah, not all atheists will agree it is. It seems like a lot of channels do, but I'm an agnostic atheist, but I actually think it's not one of the better arguments. I think things like personal experiences are probably better
@@hydraph4843 personal experiences is just anecdotal evidence which by any objective measurement is among the weakest forms of evidence. Sure they can provide an emotional response but if you are person that is not easily swayed by emotional appeals then an argument from personal experience is going to be remarkably uncompelling.
The reason they think that’s the strongest is because the New Atheists were ignoramouses that didn’t understand Classical Theism. They don’t understand the basic definition of God and still imagine him as a contingent god like Zeus or Poseidon. You need to understand classical theism or God as pure act for St. Thomas’ or Aristotle’s arguments to make sense.
Charity is a virtue ;) These are bright people, if they don't understand classical theism (which most people don't) it's probably because they haven't been introduced to it properly. For that, I place the blame on the shoulders of academia, which has systematically excluded such thought in favor of STEM, which provides more grant funding to university.
Problem is in the OT testament he acts EXACTLY like Zeus. Read the Book of Samuel - Israelite generals are literally having conversations with him about military strategy via magical devices like the Urim Thummin.
@@anthonyzav3769okay you misunderstood what the original argument said, they dont realize that we believe that God is identical to existence (not bound by time), not a singurality that is born out of caos, like zeus, how God acts is irrelevant to the point presented, the distinction of both is not because of morality, bur simply that one exists in time while the other is what time naturally flows from, which is the basis for classical theism
@@juliuslinus Charity is a good approach for most, but the new Atheist's actively lie in bad faith. For example when Dawkins and ilk questioned the existence of the person Jesus. For them it was all political. People who followed Hitler were ignoramuses but you arent likely to go to hell just for supporting a candidate. Otherwise everyone democrat in the USA would go to hell because democrat position on abortion. Being atheist on the other hand is a one way ticket.
@@DigitalGnosis "Psychophysical" laws are universal laws referring to the set of laws that govern two discrete types of phenomena: material things and minds. So, the gentleman proposing the "electrons in love" thought experiment is relying on materialism being false.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 under the empirical materialism most atheism prides itself upon yes, it has to presume an unobserved set of conditions that are contrary to what we have actually observed from physics.
Hi, I'm an atheist. I was recommended this by youtube out of the blue. As a self proclaimed layman, I don't find Sinababu's hypothesis or your refutation to be that good, as they seem to be going past the core argument of fine tuning and attributing agency unfounded, by matter or by God. And whilst I can't say as to intent, I think it's ranked high amongst atheists because it's logically deceiving rather than its soundness. However, this was a well put together video, and I do hope you make more. It'd be cool to hear more about this from those who would have more understanding than I. If anyone read this long comment, ty.
I considered myself an atheist searching for Truth until searching for the Truth led to the Truth being revealed to me.... No one appeared to me in a vision, I heard no audible voice, but ...I began to SEE everything for what it actually is. I could not admit there was a God bc to do that would be to validate the fact that we stand before a righteous and holy God who will one day pour out his final wrath and judgment on us whether we believe it or not. Faith , which is evidence of things unseen, not "I've decided to think God is real bc I feel like it" , comes to us by hearing . Bc , believe me, I was not looking for evidence to prove the God of the Bible . But once you starting getting hit with the wisdom of God .... there's no way I could ever deny Him ...
The worst part of the argument is the assumption we know enough to put percentages on the likelihood of how things turned out during the history of the universe. We don't even know if there was a beginning of the universe.
@@CarrieLaffs _"Faith , which is evidence of things unseen, not "I've decided to think God is real bc I feel like it" , comes to us by hearing . Bc , believe me, I was not looking for evidence to prove the God of the Bible . But once you starting getting hit with the wisdom of God .... there's no way I could ever deny Him ..."_ Now change te word "god" for or "chemtrails" and see what happens. Faith is NOT evidence of anything other than the concept you have faith in. It's nothing more than a figment of the imagination. Sorry mate, but faith being evidence of anything else, well, it just sounds a bit out of touch.
For myself as someone that formerly identified as an atheist (I would not call myself a true believer but more a reluctant agnostic theist) it was not fine tuning alone that gave me pause; but a cumulation* of many aspects of reality that seem to operate under convenient behavior; especially at a sub atomic level but then countered against the likelihood that these conveniences all would exist by mere chance. As an atheist that prided myself on being as objectively skeptical as I could, the idea of randomness being behind these conveniences (quarks behavior, the constants, formation of hydrogen given presence of muons, origin of life, emergence of consciousness etc) then it is an even bigger miracle than a man raising from the dead. It is not that I found the fine tuning argument convenience; but the lack of tuning or guidance just seems a less likely possibility. Edit: the type of near mockery alternative explanations that Neil Sinhababu comes up with here is yet another reason I disassociated from atheism. These types of arguments (string 'theory', steady state theory, any cyclic universe theories, and this bit of nonsense about 'Electrons in love') are all based on absolutely nothing scientific and are nothing more then unobservable speculations and maybe some theoretical mathematics thrown in to try to act as some kind of 'proof'. They come up with these explanations to try to disprove God, but what they do is change nothing about the ability to create the laws of physics and the universe, instead they just try to deny that the 'creator' has a will. I find the argument that the universe was sparked by 'forces that exist outside of time, space, and the laws of nature' indistinguishable from the argument that the 'forces' are the product of a mind.
Keep in mind that God, being omnipotent, can make anything in any way he wants. Those constants, for him, are arbitrary. If he wanted those constants to have different values and still support the formation of stellar bodies, life, or whatever... he could have done so, and the result would not change. By arguing that "those constants are very precise and fine tuned", you're denying God's omnipotence. You're unadvertedly stating that God was not to choose the value of those constants, but that they couldn't be otherwise. What does that mean? God was bound to FOLLOW RULES. And who created those rules? If other being above him, he's not omnipotent. If it was God himself, again, the values of those constants are really arbitrary, and its exact values don't matter.
@@haitaelpastor976 I do not agree, God (if one does exist) would have things like logic and reason as innate characteristics; which means that even as omnipotent would not be able to create logical impossibilities and paradoxes. Your protest in itself is a paradox. This is like saying "Can God sin? if no, then he is not all powerful and can not do anything and therefor is not God. If God can sin, then he is by his own definition an imperfect being and cannot be all powerful and therefor is not God". the conclusion does not follow the premise. What is more likely if a God exists is that creation is what it is because it is literally impossible to be any other way. God would have to violate one of his own characteristics in order to create a universe/reality capable of impossibilities and paradoxes. Such as sentient protons.
@@patrickthomas2119 Why are sentient protons an impossibility or paradox? If they are, why is it that there could be no other way? From where did those rules come? Did God create those rules and by doing so he made himself not omnipotent?
@@haitaelpastor976 that is a complex question fallacy. What we know of reality and how minds work; sentience in a sub atomic particle is not possible. You might as well ask "why is the sky green in the multiverse equivalent of earth". asking absurd questions does not invalidate the premise. And you can also ask the "why god did it this way and not that way" indefinitely; where the goal is not to actually understand but to make excuses to make your own opinion feel more validated. On the question of rules; you are asking it is in the wrong direction; if logic and reason are innate to the God character, it means that it didn't create or follow those rules as things to be followed, it simply IS those things. What this would mean is; God cannot do things that are contradictory to its own nature. not because it is a rule but because it would contradict itself; thus making it a paradox. You are trying to demand an answer to a paradoxical problem you have created.
@@haitaelpastor976 God is the alpha and the omega. Nothing came before him. Not even the rules that operate the universe- because he allowed them to by the power of his holy spirit. God is a certain nature, and he doesn't do things that are against his nature. God gave you free will, and you are the one who makes their own actions and thoughts.
The problem with the fine tuning argument is that it pre-supposes so many things, how can we prove that the universe could've been any other way? How do we know life is contingent on these fine tunings? How do we know the universe is contingent on these tunings? How do we know that the fine tuning of the universe requires a supernatural creator?
As an atheist, it's one of the silliest arguments, not that any diest argument is good. If the universe didn't support life, you wouldn't be here to ponder about it. It's 100% chance that for a sentient being to ponder about reality, reality must support the existence of sentient beings. The fine tuning arguement is the equivalent of asking me if I feel lucky that I wasn't born a rock in a volcano. No because if "i" was a rock I wouldn't be me or be conscious. Aren't you lucky you were born on earth? No. There is no luck involved. I wasn't going to be born in Jupiter's gas clouds suffocating instantly, how would I?
Thanks for this video. The title made me laugh! It's not related at all to the actual contents of the video, or course, but as clickbait, it's pretty funny.
@@JesusIsMyLordandMyGod Well, atheists don't really fear or avoid logical arguments (at least the kind of atheists who comment on RUclips videos). It's kind of our thing. I don't think the fine tuning argument is difficult at all to counter. The fine tuning argument is a matter of perspective--something seems so unlikely that it might as well be impossible. But that only seems to be the case from our limited point of view. It's a bit like imagining a golf ball landing on a blade of grass. What are the odds that the golf ball would land on that single blade of grass? Incredible, right? It couldn't possibly have happened by chance. The golf ball must have been directed there by God. But of course, the golf ball had to land somewhere. It's the same thing with the Universe. We look at the precise way that our Universe works, and think, well that's too unlikely. It couldn't possibly have happened by chance. But we're like the blade of grass that the golf ball lands on.
in a universe where conscious beings don't exists, no one will be there to propose the fine tuning argument, so a universe with no such being will never give rise to such an argument, defeating it's purpose.
As an atheist with the same interest, I agree. It just doesn’t convince me since I believe that we lack the fundamental understanding of what reality actually is. And therefore all attempts to determine probabilities are somewhat meaningless in my opinion.
@@maxmaximus2608As an atheist, it's one of the silliest arguments, not that any diest argument is good. If the universe didn't support life, you wouldn't be here to ponder about it. It's 100% chance that for a sentient being to ponder about reality, reality must support the existence of sentient beings. The fine tuning arguement is the equivalent of asking me if I feel lucky that I wasn't born a rock in a volcano. No because if "i" was a rock I wouldn't be me or be conscious. Aren't you lucky you were born on earth? No. There is no luck involved. I wasn't going to be born in Jupiter's gas clouds suffocating instantly, how would I?
7:15 as to the envelope thing, they already have Moses and the prophets, if they don't believe because of them, or because Jesus rose from the dead, they're not going to believe because of a magic trick as you said.
@@TheCatholicNerd - Thomas believed specifically because he was granted evidence on demand. Even Jesus, who was furious at him for critical thinking instead of faith, acknowledged this. - if people won't believe the words of an old book, they won't believe miracles. Pick one. Where was the Bible wrong?
I don't find the fine-tuning argument compelling because, if we are evolved products of the universe, it must necessarily look like it was designed for us. In other words, we evolved to fit the universe, we should expect it to look like we are finely-tuned products of it. Oxygen doesn't exist so we can breathe, instead we evolved to breathe oxygen. Same thing all the way down.
@@Mario_Sky_521 We have plenty of evidence to suggest that our understanding of Evolution, the age of the Earth, and the age of the universe are correct. We know that life started on Earth BEFORE the atmosphere had oxygen in it, and that the oxidation of our atmosphere caused an extinction event (look up the Great Oxidation Event). It's always crazy to me how you Christians will deny some consensus science (Evolution, the age of the Earth/universe), but pull from the SAME consensus science in the next breath. The Cosmological Constant is used to describe the energy density of space and the accelerating expansion of our universe, both of which are directly related to the Big Bang (and our current understanding of both is dependent upon our current understanding of the age of the universe, which is roughly 13.8 billion years). So which is it? Is science real, or not? Or is it only real when it agrees with the conclusions you got from your old book?
@AnthoniePerez-v1e Life (as far as we know) only started evolving on Earth around 4 billion years ago. That said, life that was incapable of surviving long enough to reproduce (at any point in time, under any circumstances) failed to persist. The life that did persist is around today! When it comes to the evolution of life on Earth, there are literally ZERO gaps to hide a god in. As for the fundamental forces/constants of our universe, we know much less about these. What would the universe look like if they changed? Could they even change, or are they simply a function of the very nature of the universe itself? We don't know! A lot of people see that "We don't know!" as a gap they can put a god in. A lot of other people (myself included) would immediately identify that as a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, and point out that every other gap you've tried to hide him in has been filled with scientific knowledge about the natural world and left no room for speculation about the supernatural.
Maybe I’m missing something but I really don’t fine the argument that impressive. It’s like saying “man what is the probability that I’d have been born to my exact parents?” It conditions were different you’d just be asking about those conditions about a different set of parents. Similarly, if the universe didn’t happen to be tuned for life, there’d be nobody around to ponder the question. In a sense, the question can only be asked in a universe that would support it, so it’s kind of not that impressive imo. I think the possible immateriality of consciousness is a much more interesting avenue to explore.
The fine-tuning argument isn’t just about us existing but about the universe’s constants being incredibly precise-far beyond what chance would allow. This precision suggests intent, pointing to a Creator rather than random coincidence.
@@abelhgds They are precise... they are what they are... we dont even know if they can vary. We have only this universe and nothing else to compare to. Yes, we can imagine that universe (as we know it) wouldnt exists if some of those values would be different. But we dont know if a universe with different values can exists or if those values can even be different. Its like trying to calculate probability of a dice roll without knowing how many sides that dice have.
@@petrvokas8506 The fine-tuning argument doesn't assume we know the constants can vary; it highlights that, if they could, even slight changes would render a life-permitting universe improbable. This observation isn't about probability per se but about the remarkable precision observed, which invites deeper explanation regardless of whether alternative universes exist.
TAG all the way, baby. Fine-tuning sounds convincing but I could brush it off easily if I assume a skeptical worldview. At best all it proves is a deistic clockmaker god who wounded up the initial mechanism and disappeared from the world.
Terrible video. It doesn't address the biggest objection to fine tuning: why assume that the constants came into existence from a cosmic dice roll? Yes, when you plug different numbers into an equation, it yields universes that cannot produce life. This is not evidence that those different numbers are even possible, since we can only observe our current set of constants. There is no evidence that the constants could be anything else at all; we have a single universe with a single set of constants, and no other observations.
It's very easy to imagine a being with the same mindset and intentions as ours. This argument is only a product of Human-absolute centrism. No, the universe does not revolve around us. Just because something adapted, and is the way it is, does not apply any intent. Why do tectonic plates move in ways that are determined to cause earthquakes and doom millions over the course of years? Why do events align perfectly just to bring out an entropic outcome? But then someone would say things like: "Mandarins are already split inside and people say god doesn't exist." Don't Christians often say that science is unrelated to god? In that case they've undercut a great deal of natural theology.. If the material can't bear on the supernatural, then these arguments are rendered useless, no? Then The fine tuning argument is generally one of the easiest to stave off if you see through it, but it's very convincing, making it effective against people who haven't actually looked into things. Either way, I'll stay unshaken, not because of myself, but because of religion itself being spiritual placebo and a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain,
for me the best argument is in the moral sphere. cause when i was an atheist i realized that the logical conclusion of my worldview at the time was moral relativism. and in all honesty i couldn’t look at something like the holocaust and not say it’s objectively wrong.
You still are a moral relativist You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil. Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design" Basically you are asserting a position (good or evil) relative to an event in the world (the metal in the watch)
This one really moved me too. Once I realized (as an atheist) that nothing objectively matters and there was no such thing as right or wrong it was too much to handle. I knew deep down that right and wrong did exist and that evil was real. It wasn’t too much longer after that when I became a believer
it may be the best argument, but I see it as a non-starter argument, ultimately both sides are equally compelling and don't actually go anywhere. The way I see it is that the universe isn't really designed for us. The amount of aliens we know of is 0, 0 in the entire universe - trillions upon trillions of planets that could support life as we know it are lifeless. But the universe is 'fine-tuned' because we exist. No, we have tuned ourselves for the universe, not the other way round, if anything the universe is tuned against us because. Even our own planet which abides by the laws of the universe tries to kill us constantly. Oxygen, the air we breathe is not made for life, it literally explodes and violently reacts with most other elements, our biology adapted to harnessing these explosions as energy so we can operate. The oxygen didn't cater to our biology. Speaking of the air we breathe, if we had a difference of 10% either way in oxygen levels, we (humans) would go extinct - life is that fragile. "But it's fine-tuned as we exist here today" Yeah if you ignore the fact we are in the 0.1% of the 0.1% of species that still exist. And that may very well not be the case in 100 years.
Its an interesting phenomenon, but Ive never found it that compelling. There's no precedent whatsoever for the idea that the physical constants are arbitrary. And we've all heard the list of other potential explanations, design being among them. Most people don't fear this argument, because it has multiple equally unproveable possible explanations. It just doesn't go anywhere.
The constants came from somewhere. Something happened that decided them. There is no reason understood by science why the strength of gravity is what it is. So it's not that it's arbitrary, but how did the constants end up this way?
@@phillipjones2924 Let's say the constants were some other way. You cannot possibly know how this new universe would appear. Perhaps lifeforms would exist everywhere, perhaps the universe would be vastly more interesting than the one we are currently in. As long as there is physics we don't understand (which there is a LOT we don't know) then there will be even less to understand about this new universe we imagine. The argument goes nowhere. Fine-tuning assumes way more than most fallacies.
Great video! The title is a bit silly but in an ocean of content you gotta stand out. Respect. I really enjoy your demeanor, voice and the fact that you give the rebuttals to parts of this argument. I look forward to watching more. There seemed to be some logical problems that stood out to me in the video but I do hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe Dan Barker was willing to drop his standard down to you telling him what was written on the paper in the envelope to demonstrate the lack of your gods power. This does not necessarily mean his standards to believe in a god are this low but for a demonstration, he would make a simple test for your good. At that debate he was willing to concede that your god was real, if you told him the right answer. He made his point when you couldn't tell him. Then you jump to the conclusion that if he would accept A (the probability of you guessing what was on the paper is too high for you to get it right) as evidence than he should accept b ( the probability of the universe containing it's exact properties it has is too high to be formed naturally) Even if we ignore he only made the claim to prove a point, you never proved A was true. Thus, if your god can't do the simple task of telling you what he wrote on a piece of paper, how are we to assume he created the universe or even exists at all? The fine tuned argument seems to bean argument from incredulity. "The probability is too high for me to accept it being natural, therefore only a god could have done it." I'll have to watch more of your videos to see your responses to the more popular rebuttas to this argument. Your rebuttal to Sinhababo is mix of logical fallacies. You say "because you can form an image in your mind, it doesn't mean that it could actually happen." Kind of like saying a god created everything. It's special pleading. Your holding Sinhababo to a standard that you don't hold for yourself. Then you make the claim "Just because a mind can exist apart from a physical body doesn't follow that it can exist with in any physical body." Why not. You give no reason for this claim. It's just asserted. But lets just say that claim is true in our universe. If the properties of another universe are different than ours, then why can't the properties of a mind be different? Just because light can't pass through lead in our universe doesn't mean it would act the same in an altered universe. I believe the point of Sinhababo's paper was showing how a universe with different constants could contain conscious life, and our universe is just one version of how that consciousness could form under these universal constraints. It's not negating that our universe is rare. it's just pointing out that just how theist's feel our universe is as fine tuned for humans, the electrons and protons in love could claim their universe was fine tuned for them. How else can you explain the universal conditions being so exact to make consciousness? You can extrapolate that in the opposite direction as well. With a universe that contains a highly complex conscious beings that make our human forms look as simple as a proton does to us. You make a claim a god wouldn't create just any world. He would create a world that had "real love" and that would include sacrifice, hardship and free choice. And somehow those are tied to our biology, specifically. Why? How do you know this? Is this believed by all Christians or are these specific to you? You also assert that this would be better than having electrons that fall in love floating around not living morally meaningful lives. How do you know that your god thinks this or that there is a "better" to a god? Doesn't the fact that many people throughout human history have NOT lived meaningful or moral lives negate that argument? If it's ok for our universe, why not an other? At least the Electrons and protons aren't harming each other isn't that "better"? You continue to assert more things about what's "good" and what a god would make, with no explanation of how you know this or why this is true. I'm interested in how you came to all these conclusions. Someone lead me to some answers. I'd like to know why you believe the things you claim. Much love!
"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity" Romans 1:20 DRA
Book containing talking snakes, walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding five thousand on five loaves and two fishes! You expect us to take such a book seriously?
@@MillionthUsername You do get that humans coined the term 'ape'? Right? That means humans decided what the ape means. Humans decided that the word ape includes us. It's not complicated. Oh, and evolution does not say we evolved out of goo. But hey, if you want to believe the completely plausible idea that a magic space wizard made a man of clay and a woman out of one of his ribs then have at it.
@@Shoomer88 "You do get that humans coined the term 'ape'? Right? That means humans decided what the ape means. Humans decided that the word ape includes us. It's not complicated." So you are not a talking ape? "Oh, and evolution does not say we evolved out of goo." I didn't say "evolution says" but that YOU believe that. Don't you believe that? The goo came before the cell in your belief, did it not? Use whatever word you like, but didn't the cell which eventually became the talking ape derive from the goo?
but we have NO IDEA what the actual probability is for Fine Tuning? Someone please correct me but there seems to be a big jump from "these constants wouldn't support life (as we know it) if they were altered a very small amount" to "and that means they're proportionally improbable." It's a very interesting thing to discuss but it's purely speculation until we actually know what sets those constants (if we ever do).
@@landonpontius2478 no correction needed, you are right, we currently have no idea whether the constants are necessary, random or set by something. This is the reason why I personally find this argument to be annoying at the very least and aggravating at worst. Essentially the argument for fine tunning is: -correctly stating that the constants are fine tuned, -saying they could be random (with no justification or support) -coming up with a big scary number (with no justification or support) -filling this self created probabilistic hole in our understanding with God
@@jofsky9066 well said. I even think using the term "finely tuned" is a bit dishonest. The constants do appear to be "precise" or "necessary" in some sense but using "tuned" smuggles in so much theistic intuition.
yep, since we can live on the worst tuned universe - it's pretty random and chaotic. How many other universes do we know to compare? Or maybe there's no other possible values of for those constants? Or maybe there are billions possibilities and billions form of matter we can't even imagine - since we know so little about matter in this universe?
The constants have been individually studied and variations of their values is known to be detrimental. The atheists look for something scientific to prove or disprove God. That’s a dangerous approach as God isn’t a part of our universe and is not subject to the laws within it.
I am a [protestant] Christian, and Trent Horn is one of my favorites, more eloquent and effective apologists these days. Thank you for your work, brother!
11:31 this is where I take issue with this rebuttal for the electrons in love argument. "Imagining these electrons, doeasn't mean that this state of affairs could actually happen." I respond exactly the same way to the fine-tuning argument. Just because we can imagine that the universe could be nothing, or never harbor life, doesn't mean this state of affairs can actually happen, as far as we know this may be the only option the universe in its laws. Great video, though. Your videos are definitely among my favorites when it comes to theistic arguments and the discussion surrounding God's existence.
I think there is a big difference. With electrons in love we are imagining an entirely new kind of being existing, a conscious particle. In contrast, imagining the value of the constants being different is just a difference in degree. It's like the difference between imagining a world where fish swim 5% faster and a world where fish can talk. The former seems at least a little more possible. And even if the constants couldn't be different, the situation is still weird. It's like walking into a room with 80 million combinations on a thermostat and only 100 degrees are life sustaining. Suppose the thermostat for some reason is stuck in that range and can't be changed. It's very strange it just happens to be stuck (i.e. couldn't be any different) in the life permitting range. And thanks for the kind words!
@@TheCounselofTrent It is not strange at all that it happens to be stuck in the life permitting range. The only reason that it seems strange is that you're subconsciously treating the other ranges on the thermostat as being remotely plausible, which is precisely the assumption that the "unchangeable constants" perspective denies. Just because we can fiddle with numbers in an equation, it doesn't lend an iota of evidence to the idea that the universe's constants could be anything aside from what they are now. Our imagination is not evidence of anything at all. All we can observe is a single set of constants, and given this observation, it is completely irrational to assume any other constants are possible until we have evidence of this. Human intuition is fundamentally flawed when used to evaluate the universe as a whole.
@@herroyung857 We also have no evidence that the climate of the earth can be any different than what it is right now. But we trust climate scientists who make models based on hypothetical past scenarios. To deny the possibility of different past human behavior that effects the climate means you deny any alternative timelines/universes as well as free will. We can come to conclusions in hypotheticals even though we ourselves cannot make that situation happen. Maybe, it is *necessary* that free will doesn't exist and the universal constants must *necessarily* be what they are and humans must *necessarily* be the only known beings with high level consciousness. But I'd much rather have one necessary thing than the many random conditions that must be untouchable.
@@twalrus9833 You are comparing phenomena we observe within the universe to phenomena outside of the universe. From our past observations of the Earth's climate, we can easily derive future observations. This is science. We discover patterns within our observations of the universe, and we seek mechanisms and frameworks that explain and predict those patterns. What is not science is extending our assumptions and intuitions derived from the universe to outside of the universe, if that's a concept that even makes sense. All that we can observe is our universe, so how can you possibly make any assumptions on what alternate universes might be? Any analogies involving observations of our universe simply fail. Phenomena we observe on Earth do not translate to phenomena that may or may not exist separate from our universe. Why? Because there is no evidence that there is anything other than our universe, while there is boatloads of evidence regarding the state of affairs of Earth. I will repeat myself once more. Intuitions derived from our observations of our universe do not apply to speculations on phenomena outside of our universe, because we have never observed anything outside of our universe and therefore have nothing with which to develop an intuition. "But I'd much rather have one necessary thing than the many random conditions that must be untouchable." First, no one is saying that the random conditions are untouchable. We are saying that given the current evidence, arguments in support of God are fundamentally flawed and irrational. And until proven otherwise, it is unreasonable to simply assume that the universe could be any other way, and then to use this bald assertion as an argument for God. Second, the way you're framing this "necessary" rhetoric is objectionable. I am not defending a "necessary" universe or a "necessary" cosmos/multiverse containing the universe. I am simply pointing out that the most honest position is "I don't know yet" and it's irrational to choose the "necessary" God over the other claims when you cannot demonstrate that God is more probable.
@@herroyung857 I appreciate your desire for evidence, but as you say human intuition can never be enough to "prove" anything outside the observable universe in the same way that we can "prove" phenomena here on Earth. This is because the scientific method was created with certain fundamental principles in mind, and one of these was that it only applies to the physical and natural world. This is why there are different "kinds" of knowledge; the kind that the scientific method produces is empirical, whereas the kinds of philosophical knowledge being discussed here is fundamentally different. I don't understand, then, why you require or even expect empirical knowledge (that is, knowledge based on observation) when you admit there isn't a way to acquire this knowledge in the first place, as you can't observe outside the universe? See, the crux of your original reply is that there is an unproven assumption those making the fine-tuning argument are making, and that is that the physical constants we see in the universe COULD be different. In your eyes, since there is no evidence the constants COULD be different, the argument is thus "flawed", "irrational", etc. While it is true we can't PROVE the constants could be different, and thus the argument is contingent on the constants being able to be different, I want to point out again that we are not talking about empirical knowledge, and thus the burden of proof is not on those making the fine-tuning argument to prove this to be the case. Rather, it becomes a subjective evaluation of how "reasonable" it is for these constants to possibly be different, as opposed to the subjective evaluation of how "reasonable" it is for these constants to be necessary. In my opinion the former seems much more reasonable, but if to you the latter seems more compelling, that's fine, but you would then need to DEFEND that point. Simply saying "you can't prove yours definitively with empirical evidence" is a non-starter because we will never be able to do that (since we ourselves lack the perspecive that an omnipotent Being would), and to then call anyone making either argument "irrational" seems silly. TL;DR I think you misunderstand the kind of knowledge that is being discussed, and that causes you to see a necessary but unproven precondition in a philosophical argument and think the entire thing is "irrational" to argue in the first place.
I didn't know what the "Electrons in Love" argument was, but I had heard that it was a devastating argument against Fine Tuning. I came away from that thinking, "What? How on earth is this supposed to be a good argument? There are so many false or unbacked assumptions with so many possible responses."
the idea behind it, I think, is that it is almost supposed to be almost a mockery and get christians to recognize that the arguments for God and fine tuning are also false or backed by assumptions. Like most arguments against the existence of a creator with a mind, they are only arguments against claims of theism and not really arguments for claims of atheism. Atheism by design is a critical perspective that scrutinizes the claims of any and all religious thought and demands to be convinced for claims they don't agree with. The part i find annoying about this (as someone that used to identify as an atheist) is atheist do not hold their own claims and positions to the same scrutiny. It is all attacking others and never self reflecting. This is one of the reasons I stopped identifying as an atheist some time ago.
I'm curious what false or unbacked assumptions you see within the argument. While I understand it may not be compelling, there doesn't appear to be much to support.
@@Boundless_Border The argument assumes that the world we live in is mind-unfriendly, because not everything has a mind, and that just because God didn't create the world one way He must not have created it the way it actually is. Even if God could have created the world with more minds with such simple bodies, why is that superior to the amount of minds there are with the complexity of bodies that we have? I certainly don't think it is.
@Konxovar0 The first assumption is a premise of the FTA. So you confused me a bit since I couldn't tell which argument you were criticizing. The argument doesn't assume that a god doesn't create the world with the follow up conclusion that a god couldn't create the world. The argument doesn't propose that simple bodies are superior. The argument is trying to show that simple bodies are compatible with types of worlds the proposed god could make. Which you seem to be somewhat in board with. Thanks for sharing what you took issue with.
So how did you calculate the probability that the universe was fine tune? How did you calculate the probality of other options? How did you calculate the probability that a super natural being could even exist?
As an atheist, it's one of the silliest arguments, not that any diest argument is good. If the universe didn't support life, you wouldn't be here to ponder about it. It's 100% chance that for a sentient being to ponder about reality, reality must support the existence of sentient beings. The fine tuning arguement is the equivalent of asking me if I feel lucky that I wasn't born a rock in a volcano. No because if "i" was a rock I wouldn't be me or be conscious. Aren't you lucky you were born on earth? No. There is no luck involved. I wasn't going to be born in Jupiter's gas clouds suffocating instantly, how would I?
In line with the intelligent design argument (fine tuning), I’m also fond of the intelligibility argument. Basically this argues from one of the axioms that make science possible and effective: the fact the universe is well ordered and understandable, allowing us to observe the patterns that make the universe work. We would not expect this intelligibility given the universe originated from random chance. Even the concept of a multiverse or an infinitely repeating universe that expands and retracts needs a way of explaining why this patterned state of affairs exists. This makes most sense given an intelligent creator, the same way we can know a book with an intelligent story and setting written in it was made by an author. When scientists explain phenomena with natural laws, they may say “God didn’t do it because there’s a natural explanation” but they forget how these natural explanations themselves would have their origin in God’s design. This relates to another argument I think I made myself (as someone who studied product design), observing that the way things are is kind of arbitrary, it didn’t have to be the case that humans have 2 arms instead of 4, or that grass is green instead of purple, or that we live on a sphere instead of a disc, or that trees don’t make oxygen but flugelhorns do. From my experience designing things, you often have to make arbitrary choices as to how something looks or functions, rarely if ever is there only one way to create something (though there can be better or worse ways). So I would reason that in observing how the way things are in nature isn’t necessary, they demand something (necessary itself) that arbitrated on how _this_ is the way it will be.
Oddly enough, I have the exact same arguments for God. Still bothers me how maleness and femaleness could arise without an intentional agent behind it.
_"We would not expect this intelligibility given the universe originated from random chance."_ Why not? After all, we evolved _in this universe._ We evolved to understand, at least in part, the environment we evolved in, because that was a survival advantage. Note that we don't _know_ if the universe originated from random chance. And, obviously, "random chance" isn't the same thing as "unplanned," either. But if a god actually existed, then how could we expect that everything would continue the way we've come to expect? After all, according to most theists, they think that their god can do anything - literally *anything* - any time he likes, for no reason we would necessarily be able to determine. How would we be able to predict that? We couldn't. Indeed, most theists - of nearly _every_ religion - think that their god _does_ do that stuff. Everyone who believes in miracles thinks so. So the argument should be the exact opposite of what you claim, shouldn't it? Shouldn't that be evidence that your god _isn't_ real? _"it didn’t have to be the case that humans have 2 arms instead of 4"_ Yes, you're right, but only if a god exists. _If_ a creator god exists, then you're absolutely right. But if all gods are simply imaginary, then it's obvious why human beings have only two arms, rather than four. It's not a puzzle at all. An all-powerful creator god could do anything he liked. It wouldn't even have to make _sense,_ he could still do it. That's what "all-powerful" _means_ when it comes to a creator god. Heck, he could make some people have four useful arms _now,_ if he wanted. Magic can do anything at all, and all on God's mere whim. But we have two arms, instead of four, because we evolved from creatures with four limbs. And evolution is not magic. It's a natural process that works with what already exists. _That's_ why we don't have four arms. Again, it's not a mystery. And the only way we might get a human with four arms is if there's a glitch in the natural process of reproduction (like the two-headed animals which show up sometimes). _Or_ if a god is real and decides that's what he wants. Again, your argument seems exactly backwards, doesn't it? If anything, it's an argument for gods *not* being real. PS. Have you ever heard of the panda's thumb? It's one example among many - in human beings, too - which show that life _wasn't_ intelligently designed. After all, _good_ design could potentially be explained by either a god or by the natural process of evolution. Both explain good 'design.' But _bad_ design, non-optimal design, silly design - Rube Goldberg type stuff which would be stupid to actually design - only makes sense through natural, unplanned evolution. Now, obviously, we don't need good evidence that life _wasn't_ intelligently designed, as long as there's no good evidence that it _was._ But we do have that evidence, nonetheless - _lots_ of it. (The human eye is just another example among many.)
Oh hi Bill Yeah yeah we developed in this particular universe, things would be different in different worlds, so what, the intelligibility argument (and my arbitrariness argument) works for any universe that has certain arbitrary patterns that govern it. Again, ask why is it the case that “this” is the state of affairs that allows something like evolution which brings about 2-armed humans? I already said you can point to natural processes that brought about this state of affairs, that doesn’t mean God did not create those exact processes. Besides, you really don’t argue for the necessity of humans (ie all mammals) having 2 fore limbs other than their legs. Surely it’s possible certain events could have affected the way evolution developed such that mammals have 4 fore limbs. This goes to demonstrate the arbitrariness of this state of affairs, which suggests an arbiter with power and intent to choose the way the world is going to be. I’m assuming by “unplanned” you mean that natural laws just exist and don’t need outside intelligent influence to cause things to happen. Still, that only pushes the question back, you haven’t answered what is the origin of these laws (because they aren’t necessary, they are arbitrary). Without an intelligent designer, the only other option I’m aware of is random chance. I’m sure you heard the clarification that God can do anything that’s not logically contradictory (ie square circles). He could indeed create things we couldn’t comprehend, but it makes more sense that he would create things we could comprehend (given his intent to create us with a desire for understanding in the first place). Furthermore, just because you have the power to do something doesn’t mean you are bound to do it. God could pop into existence a flugelhorn that creates oxygen out of CO2 when you blow in it, but why would he? I don’t think theists would actually say God does things for no reason, because there’s always some intent behind a created thing. He’s already created things the way he wanted (and scripture mentions him resting from his creative work); imagine God being like “oops let me change this real quick, no reason, just cause.” That actually poses a harder problem for theists than what you think is an objection. Miracles are interesting since critics will say they violate the laws of nature (ie God’s very own laws). For one this assumes the laws are necessary (instead of being arbitrated by a creator), and for another it assumes miracles _violate_ natural law. God can have good reason to do a miracle when it brings about a good (meaning it’s not for “no reason”), like curing an illness that the human body is not naturally disposed to cure, by suspending/surpassing the law that states the body can’t fix certain health problems on its own. And it’s possible because God’s supernatural authority overpowers nature. Miracles are _above_ nature, not contrary to it. And I would say extraordinary miracles do happen (also ordinary miracles where natural things just happen to occur at the best time). I have no idea why you would think God not doing something crazy on a whim means he doesn’t exist. PS, Trent already addressed that intelligent design doesn’t automatically claim optimal design, thus vestigial structures don’t disprove theism. Besides, pandas thumbs do serve a function in grabbing things. But again, it’s as if you think theistic creation means God just pops creatures into being without any process or connection to other creatures. The very paradigm of evolution itself where we have creatures trying to survive and pass on their genes to adapt to environments over generations, this paradigm is itself arbitrary and demands an arbiter. Why shouldn’t it be the case that creatures live forever, constantly adapting their own DNA to their environment without having to mate and hope their offspring do better?
@@killianmiller6107 _"I already said you can point to natural processes that brought about this state of affairs, that doesn’t mean God did not create those exact processes."_ True. But it also doesn't mean that your god - or any god - _did_ create those processes. Or that any god is even real. _"Surely it’s possible certain events could have affected the way evolution developed such that mammals have 4 fore limbs."_ Not really - not mammals, at least, because four limbs were probably set before that. But at _some_ point, yes. After all, not all animals have four limbs. I'm not following your argument, though. _"This goes to demonstrate the arbitrariness of this state of affairs, which suggests an arbiter with power and intent to choose the way the world is going to be."_ I'm not sure if you and I agree on what "arbitrary" means, but why would that "suggest" anything like that? I see absolutely no connection there. And again, it wasn't "arbitrary" for human beings. _Or_ for mammals. Natural processes must work with what they've _got._ Evolution starts with what _is._ A magical designer wouldn't have that limitation. _"Still, that only pushes the question back, you haven’t answered what is the origin of these laws (because they aren’t necessary, they are arbitrary)."_ I'm quite willing to admit when I don't know something. (I wish _theists_ were as willing to admit that!) But why do you claim that those laws are "arbitrary"? How would _you_ know that? Besides, even if they _could_ have been some other way - and we have no idea if that's true or not - so what? "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." It really doesn't. _"I don’t think theists would actually say God does things for no reason, because there’s always some intent behind a created thing."_ You've never heard "God works in mysterious ways"? It's been my experience that theists claim all sorts of diverse, contradictory 'reasons' for things, unless they can't make up an answer they find appealing, in which case it's always "God works in mysterious ways." _"For one this assumes the laws are necessary (instead of being arbitrated by a creator)"_ There you go. You said it yourself. Earlier, you claimed that the natural laws _aren't_ necessary, but that seems to be only because you want them to have been created by your god. You're not providing any good evidence that your claims are true, you're just making claims based on what you _want_ to be true (i.e. your god), aren't you? _"And I would say extraordinary miracles do happen"_ There you go. Then you _can't_ rely on the universe being "well ordered and understandable," as you put it, because - according to _you_ - your god does "miracles" whenever he wants. Those of us who _don't_ believe in a magical being interfering whenever he wants are the ones who can expect the universe to go on as we've always experienced it to be, without magical interference. If things change, we'll have to change our minds. But we have no good reason to _expect_ 'miracles.' You do. _"pandas thumbs do serve a function in grabbing things."_ So what? This has nothing to do with "serving a function." It's about the abundant evidence that living things _weren't_ planned. The human eye serves a function, too. But only a complete idiot would design an eye with a blind spot right in the middle of it (an _unnecessary_ blind spot, as cephalopod eyes demonstrate quite clearly). _"The very paradigm of evolution itself where we have creatures trying to survive and pass on their genes to adapt to environments over generations, this paradigm is itself arbitrary and demands an arbiter."_ *Evidence?* _"Why shouldn’t it be the case that creatures live forever, constantly adapting their own DNA to their environment without having to mate and hope their offspring do better?"_ You tell me. Why didn't "God" do it that way? He would have avoided causing unnecessary suffering to billions, no, _trillions,_ of living things. Because, again, a god _could_ do that. A god _would_ be able to plan ahead. Nature can't. A god _would_ see the results of his horrific plan. Nature can't plan _at all._ And any kind of half-way decent god wouldn't want to cause such an _immense_ amount of unnecessary suffering, not just to human beings but to every other sentient creature. Nature can't feel, can't think, can't do anything deliberately. A god _could,_ if the god actually existed. (Of course, an imaginary god can't do any of that stuff, either.) Thanks for the reply!
that fails miserably too. In the Christian universe, the universe isn't well ordered and understandable. Your god makes it incoherent and unpredictable with its supposed miracles and interference.
@@haitaelpastor976 if not Him then what do you worship? Money, women, your job, your dog? We all worship something if you realize it or not. Me me me is a childish mindset. Don't stay a child. I was close to atheism but because of my life experience I am a strong believer. I don't know if I can really explain my reasons but I know now that this life would be much different if it was dictated by my inferior mind. Praise be to Lord Jesus Christ.
Personally, I find the cosmological argument more convincing than the fine tuning one. Just because it feels like the skeptic has more wiggle room to hand wave away the notion of God being the explanation of fine tuning by presuppossing some (currently not known) naturalistic law, compared to the cosmological one where it feels like the skeptic is more cornered into believing that God is the best explanation. Considering that before the universe, there is no nature for the skeptic to draw or presuppose a naturalistic law from.
When you propose the fine tuning argument, you are looking back at a string of 10,000 dice rolls remarking how infinitesimally low the odds of rolling that exact sequence was. Odds do not work in retrospect.
As an atheist the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is easily the single biggest challange to my current beliefs. Ultimately though I think theres other explinations aside from theism that can explain fine tuning (deism, simulation theory, pan theism, etc.) which are all cumulatively just as or more likely than theism to me. I also think that the probability of fine tuning given theism is grossly overestimated by theists (I still think its relatively high but not a near certainty as most theists take as a given). Still a very strong arguement for theism nonetheless.
why since there is no evdience for it at all? It's notable how these cultists claim "fine tuning" shows that their god exists, but when shown how this god's supposed "design" fails hilariously, they have to make excuses for this god.
Look at it this way: Fine tuning is a cardboard box you will use to pack things into. In order to maximize you pack your stuff in the most optimal way. If that box had other dimensions, you had it packed in another way. The the cosmic constants had been slightly different, the Universe had looked different. Now it happens to be that an electron has this charge, Plancks constant has this value etc. The fine tuning argument is much like god of the gaps argument.
Exactly but theists do not think outside of the box when it comes to what could be the explanation of fine-tuning, they automatically think God had to do it. It is simple it’s admit you do not know like the rest of us.
I have a good counterargument, the universe is very huge and very old, and yet we see no signs of life anywhere else, the fine-tuning argument would be compelling if the universe was teeming with life, but it's not, we're the only ones, and that accounts for the improbability of the formation of life There's also survivorship bias, we exist because everything lined up just right, if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to think about this This video also completely misunderstands the electrons-in-love concept by focusing in on that one example, the point is that life could look very very different from us, why are we carbon-based multi-cellular beings instead of something else? The answer is simple: Because that's the only thing that worked here, and we're only able to contemplate these things *because* it worked
I'm an atheist. I also think the fine-tuning argument is the best argument for the existence of God. However, I still find problems with it, which I will list below. 1. How do we know it's even possible for the physical constants to be any different? It might be the case that these are the only values they can have. 2. If it is possible for the physical constants to be different, how do we know how different they can possibly be? Perhaps the universe as we know it wouldn't be possible if they were different by 1 part in 10^1000, but what if it's only possible for them to be different by 1 part in 10^100000? 3. Say it's possible for the constants to have a wide range of values (so that objection #2 isn't a problem). How do we know what the probability is for any of those values? Perhaps it's extraordinarily unlikely for them to take on values outside of what they currently are. Mathematically speaking, how do we know the probability distribution is flat instead of highly clustered around certain values? 4. Theists don't seem to like this objection, but what if there is a multiverse? Then we would just happen to be in one if the universes where it's possible to live. I don't see this as terribly unlikely. Throughout history our view of reality has continually expanded. We discovered more continents, then more planets, then more stars with their own solar systems, then more galaxies. And we didn't just discover more of them, but we discovered there are an unimaginable number of them. So I don't see why discovering that there are more universes would be preposterous. 5. Say it is possible for the physical constants to be wildly different. How do we know that those different values wouldn't give rise to a different kind of universe with different kinds of life? This is essentially Douglas Adams' puddle analogy. (You should look it up if you're not familiar, it's a neat analogy.) 6. What if it's possible for not only the physical constants to take on other values, but for there to be other physical constants themselves? If that's possible, there's no telling what would be possible given all the different interactions that these different physical constants would have. For example, it might have been possible to have another constant acting on the force of gravity instead of just the gravitational constant. It also might have been possible to not have had the force of gravity at all, and to have a different force with a different physical constant.
I will add two notes that to your list. 1. The fact that if you vary several of the constants at once this will result in a different scope of values for life as we know it to exist while not being within the already established ranges. So it isn't quite that you have to roll X amount of 5s but you can roll a combination of 6s and 4s as well and end up with the same result. 2. As it is the form of the equations that gives rise to the constants. It doesn't make sense to manipulate the constants while holding the equations the constants arose from to be fixed. This is much like precisely calibrating an equation to match the data and someone coming along and saying "well if you change one of the coefficients the data won't align with the equation anymore."
The “probabilities” like the ten-royal-flushes one are purely speculative, as we have no idea about the total possible number of combinations of values that the fundamental constants could have taken on. Heck, can you demonstrate that there is even one possible combination of values besides the one we know? If not, then you have no argument.
@@bridgetgress The Argument from Fine-Tuning deals with the values of the fundamental constants of physics: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the gravitational constant, and electromagnetism. It does not deal with the conditions of Earth compared to the conditions of other planets. That said, we know very little about the life-supporting capability of the overwhelming majority of planets in the universe, which means we don’t know the denominator nor the numerator in the probability calculation of (number of planets that can support life)/(total number of planets).
Agreed, to day we don't know is perfectly acceptable. Which is why research is on going. To just attribute this supposed fine tuning to a God and stop looking for reasons, os just another example of the tree from the garden! It is deeply rooted in theists this teaching, it keeps them in check, through fear! The one emotion to control all that allow this emotion to control them! This has been known from 1000s of years, and it is still relevant today! Only now, it is ordinary people instilling this fear and spreading it. For the purpose of togetherness.
@@jimurban5367 moreover, people seem to forget that with each planet being statistically independent from others, scale of the universe works against this argument, since 1% is not an intuitively scary probability when I have million tries.
What converted me is actually the issue of Moral Subjectivism, the instant I realised that, without religion, our own human morality is subjective, I found that religion is the ONLY way to objectivify morality. If you don't see why Moral Subjectivity is bad, simply go and read up on Egoism and then make an actual argument that an Egoist would actually listen to and be unable to refute without the use of any Religion. Effectively speaking, what converted me was not the question of IF, but the question of WHY, what purpose does it serve us, and once I found that purpose, I embraced it like a frightened hound to their master.
This is the issue that sent me deep into depression and made life colorless. How can so many people defend evil and degeneracy and then claim that good people are bigoted or lack compassion? What would be the meaning of life if there isnt objective value and goodness? But wanting something to be true and it actually being true are two different things.
In fact what kept me from religion is the issue of Moral subjectivism... When I was younger, I always looking for objective morality, I was looking for that one ultimate view that tells me what is right and wrong, but I then realized that my morality was shaped by a lot of different things and beliefs, those things are all very subjective. Not only subjective, but also constantly changing throughout the years. The most recent experience is I realized how deeply my morality was shaped by patriotism. Never thought about it before, but somehow now I felt like my tax dollars became more important than people's life in some other countries. When I was younger, when I didn't need to pay tax, I never give it much of a thought. Life is life, and we cannot put a money value on life. I believed that. But it is extremely hard to act based on a general religion term such as 'all life are created equal'. If foreign life can be saved using my tax dollar, they are certainly not worth saving. It makes strong arguments if we are debating, but in real life and real money, it will not work.
_"I found that religion is the ONLY way to objectivify morality."_ Really? How, exactly? I don't understand how a religion - or a god - would get you there. PS. If I understand you correctly, it's not that you found good evidence that a god was real, but just that the idea of subjective morality _scared_ you? Well, that's honest, at least. But it hardly seems to be a good reason to believe that something exists in reality. Then again, wishful-thinking is a powerful motivator, huh? Unfortunately, I care about the truth.
@@YSFmemories _"What would be the meaning of life if there isnt objective value and goodness?"_ You're right that wanting something to be true doesn't mean that it really _is_ true. Indeed, we should be even more cautious in that case. But why would you assume that there _is_ a "meaning of life." After all, "meaning" _is_ subjective. It depends on a thinking, feeling creature, and what has meaning to me might not have meaning to you. And "value" is _obviously_ subjective. Trade would be impossible if we didn't value goods in different amounts. We sell what we value less to buy what we value more. (And yes, we tend to value friends and family more than complete strangers.) However, I don't mean to dismiss your feelings of depression. Not at all. But please note that there might be a medical issue there. Just in case, be sure to discuss that with your doctor if you're still feeling that way. Life is too short to suffer unnecessarily. I wish you well!
How do you even begin to assess the probability of physical constants being what they are, or how they "could have been different?" What does that even mean? I get the argument that it's surprising that there's something rather than nothing, and that existence includes intelligent life. But even that is so abstract...
I find it strange so many atheists regard the fine tuning argument so highly when I think it sucks. If that was the best argument for God, I’d still be agnostic. We don’t know what the possible values of the cosmological constants are. We don’t have a clue. So how can we know how improbable the universe is? We can’t. Argument dead. The moral argument, argument from contingency and from motion, even the ontological argument, all seem much sounder to me.
the Bible is fake: the exodus never happened; the gospels weren't written by the apostles; the Revelation is about Nero and not Satan. Jesus was just a charismatic sect leader, just like Muhammad. they weren't gods or divine.
I'll never really understand the misuse of the word proof by appologists, not even scientists use it that much and its actually their job to "prove". Literally just 10 seconds in🤦🏾♂️
@@standard-user-name "Respected" our choice is literally either become a slave to god and his servant or be tortured for ALL ETERNITY. Nice fucking choice man. Not to mention, he allows slavery, genocide and rape. But yeah lets cover all that up :D
@@austinjd2193 Yeah, funny, isn't it? Of course, he has no good evidence any of that is true, anyway. It's just a completely unsupported claim. But even their _claims_ make no sense.
Not the entire universe is hospitable to life. Just step out onto the moon without a space suit and see what happens. The universe is a myriad of different environments that each have their own shot at producing life, and when one gambles enough he eventually wins. We happen to be on Earth because Earth had the environment that was suited for life best that we know of. Statistically speaking, it’s practically impossible that the Grand Canyon exists in any one location on Earth, but Earth has so many locations that the Grand Canyon does exist, and it exists there thanks to the natural environment that molded it. In the incredible vastness of the universe with its billions of planets and dwarf planets and so forth, something was likely going to be hospitable, especially given the incredibly long amount of time to create the necessary conditions. TLDR: It’s not just one universe with one chance, it’s billions of planets with billions of chances
_"it’s billions of planets with billions of chances"_ Indeed, even _that_ is a gross underestimate, huh? It's more like sextillions of planets with sextillions of chances. I don't care _how_ low a chance might be, it's probably likely to happen with that many opportunities.
@@Bill_Garthright If Trent would have had sextillion guesses to what was written inside the envelope, I'm pretty sure he would have guessed correctly in the end. It's a flaw in his reasoning he overlooked.
Side note: Winning 10 games of Poker in a row with all Royal Flushes is an excellent demonstration of how natural selection works. Everyone gets a random set of cards, but there is only one winner selected and that’s the one with a Royal Flush. Now repeat.
The more I think about this argument the less compelling it gets, I think what atheists mean is that it is a decent reasoning compared to other arguments. In the end, I don't in any way see how this proves the truth of any man made religion like Islam and Christianity because the second you open one of their books the first idea you get is no way this is coming from a creator of the universe.
I appreciate your sentiment, but you're trying to connect two things that are unrelated. This is merely an argument for the existence of God, it has nothing to do with which God or if that God has even been revealed in a known religion. So, I'm uncertain why what you said would make the argument less compelling, as the argument doesn't deal with anything you mentioned. It's simply "is there a God... yes/no" and this is one reason to consider towards that question, nothing further.
@mwetter I reckon I kinda misrepresented my thought in comment due to laziness I guess and upon reading your response I thought I owe you a clarification 😅. In fact, I never meant to say that this argument dis/proves god, they were completely different ideas that I pronounced in the same instance because of the fact I'm not a native English speaker. What I meant to say that this argument doesn't help any religion in particular so it can be used by Muslim, Christian or even an Zoroastrian. And when I want to study a religion I look at its texts instead of this farfetched arguments that change nothing (at least for me), because at the end of the day I don't care what people want to worship I just want to know that what they believe doesn't call for my death (cough Islam cough). Peace.
@@Nemo12417 Elijah is my favorite example. I think most Christians know that their God would be just as silent as Ba’al during such a test and would call it evil to be treated like Ba’als prophets were.
Here's another argument against fine-tuning that I rarely see: just because the physical constants appear to be incredibly precise does NOT necessarily imply that the *chances* of them being that way are equally small.
They need not be equally small. Chance is an improbable theory for a precise state of affairs or even a moderately precise state. A shed is not as precise as a F-35. Chance is not a good explanation for a shed.
@Boundless_Border you seem to be bringing up a side matter as to what we can conclude from precision. The objection that x may just be precise not very precise is not a very good one to x not being caused by intelligence. By precise, you mean snowflakes are "held to low tolerance in manufacture" that would seem at least close to saying they are designed. If you are saying they are designed, I'm not the one saying there is intelligence behind their being you are.
@@Boundless_Border all these 3 definitions of precise from Merriam-Webster seem to talk of intelligence. "1 : adapted for extremely accurate measurement or operation 2 : held to low tolerance in manufacture 3 : marked by precision of execution" Do you have a definition in mind that doesn't?
I thought you were for sure going to say the cosmological arguments, though many atheists (even well-known ones) falsely believe that "who made God" is a competent rebuttal.
the point to replies like that is to point out that even if the "infinite regression" must have an end point, it's special pleading to declare it must be at any specific god.
@@TheAnimeAtheist Right, so before we specify which god is THEE God, we have to get past the point of "there is no god." Can't put the cart in front of the horse and expect to have a reasonable conversation.
@@TheAnimeAtheist Not when the end point of life, reason and consciousness is NOT naturalism or materialism. The most logical conclusion is reason, life and consciousness came out of eternity.
The funny thing about the fine-tuning argument is that it seems to overlook the reality that an omnipotent god could cause life to exist under any set of circumstances, and certainly wouldn't be constrained to work within a single, highly-specific set of physical constants.
Yup. We live where it is possible for us to live naturally. We evolved where it was possible for us to evolve naturally. But if an all-powerful god actually existed, he wouldn't have that limitation. We could live in the vacuum of space or in the heart of a sun - anywhere, really, since his magic would make it possible. Funny how gods never do anything that would actually require a god to exist, isn't it?
@@Bill_Garthright I feel like the one property we can reasonably assign to gods is their apparent desire to make it seem like they don't exist. Maybe they're just shy?
@@gabrielm1180 Right. So what's the justification for the presupposition that all other permutations of physical constants would necessarily lead to a chaotic and meaningless universe?
I am an atheist but also agnostic, meaning while I don't yet have a path to form a belief that a god does exist, I don't know if any gods do exist. I also find the fine tuning argument to be one of the better arguments but the reason I find all of the arguments to be subpar is that they are based on our ignorance, not what we can actually know to have a better understanding. Something like aerodynamics is not based on our ignorance, there are testable principles that lead one to a better understanding and know of its existence. Even something like the God particle gave us reasons to suspect it was there before we actually discovered it. I simply don't find anything like that where there is an expectation to find a God that isn't tied to emotions or subpar reasoning. I realize this doesn't mean that no Gods exist but it seems like we only have superficial reasons so far for believing this.
@@UnderWaterExploring I think because the other arguments are easier to actually debunk with something. The fine tuning argument, while still based on our ignorance, doesn't really have a something to come back with due to our ignorance. We can certainly imagine natural causes for the constants, which is why I don't think atheists view this argument good enough to sway them.
While I agree with you for the most part, I think, for me, the fact that the god of the gaps argument supplements the other arguments because we may not know things now but there are a lot of things we figured out that used to be exclusively in the divine realm.
@@ElationInStellation I am not completely sure what you mean about figuring things out that used to be exclusively in the divine realm? Do you mean like asserting Gods were responsible for lightning and thunder before we learned the natural causes or something else?
@@Thrillzrobloxbedwars well, no. there are a LOT of arguments in favor of the existence of Aliens, for example.. and they´re not evidence just because ther´re not disproved
@@Thrillzrobloxbedwars well, no. there are a lot of valid arguments in favor of the existence of Aliens, for example... and those are not evidence of the existence of aliens just because they are not disproved
when the atheist was daring Trent to ask God to tell him the content of the letter, I remember when satan was tempting Jesus in the desert. asking Jesus to ask God to order his angels to save Jesus when he jumps off the top of temple. goosebumps.
it's also disingenuous, because if Trent did indeed tell him the content of the letter, the atheist would simply accuse Trent of having foreknowledge of the dare and cheating.
@@Burt1038 This is a baseless assumption of yours. If you assume the atheist was a good-faith actor and that he made sure no one could know the contents of the letter but himself, he would certainly lean more towards the theistic position if Trent told him precisely what was in the letter. I would lean more towards the theistic position if there were verifiable accounts of people with their heads severed walking around the next day like nothing happened, or if amputees regrew their limbs overnight, or if children around the globe just stopped getting bone cancer out of the blue.
It's true we cannot know for sure. BUT- there are hints in a person's attitude how good faith they are.... Often it is quite clear that they are biased against God (Not judging, I am bias for God 🤷♂️ but it is what it is) There are numerous other preternatural possibilities- And some that could not be disproven. Like Hinduism. Trent guessing right could be just a manifestation of brahmin as part of the cosmic drama 🤷♂️ Even the Pharisees had evidence of miracles. Fr some people; one miracle is enough. For others, some seemingly preternatural occurrence is enough. Others, as I suspect this atheist would become... Would simply keep requesting signs till it was no longer "faith" but "facts". But God demands faith. Faith is a special sort of love. @@herroyung857
You left out the even more shocking concession from Dawkins in that same episode of the Justin Brierly podcast. When Justin asked him why he still rejected the argument, he stumbled and said that he could be convinced to be a deist but Jesus Christ and at that stuff was nothing to do with it. He raised no objection to the argument other than something that the argument does not attempt to prove. And yet, during an interview with Cosmic Skeptic, he said that he thought there to be 'no good arguments'.
@@michaelpryor78 Personally, I don't give a crap what Richard Dawkins thinks. After all, he's not the atheist pope or anything. Heh, heh. Heck, I was an atheist before I'd ever _heard_ of him. But I thought I'd point out that "agnostic" and "atheist" aren't contradictory. Indeed, I'd say they're complementary. I consider myself to be an "agnostic atheist." That's because I don't believe in a god or gods (atheist), but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary (agnostic). And although I don't know - and don't care - I suspect that Dawkins would readily agree with that.
@@Bill_Garthrightfalse. Agnostic atheism is a nonsensical term that means nothing. People who use it fundamentally misunderstand the nature of belief, knowledge, and the relationship between the two. If you have justified true belief that God exists, you're a theist. If you have justified true belief that God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you do not have justified true belief, you are an agnostic.
@@newglof9558 _"If you have justified true belief that God exists, you're a theist."_ Heh, heh. So you're saying that there _are_ no theists? That's a bold claim. Or are you saying that you _do_ have "justified true belief that God exists"? That's also a bold claim. Either way, it's just a claim. Can you back it up with *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking? Oh, and I don't give a crap what you think about the labels I use to describe my position. If you don't like the labels, then ignore the labels and address the position I stated above: I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary.
I was a Christian when I first heard of the fine-tuning argument and immediately saw it as bunk. The Universe has to be someway and it happens to be the way it is; and we can exist in it the way it is. Moreover, when you have a sample size of one and have no idea how the particulars came about, there is no way to determine probabiity.
This argument will not convince anyone that actually thinks about it. It's an argument from ignorance, can also be a false dilemma, and you could argue it invokes anthropic bias.
para ser justo, o ajuste fino não precisa envolver antropocentrismo; há versões do argumento dizendo que o próprio universo entraria em colapso se as constantes fossem um pouco diferentes.
It's quite literally the opposite of an argument for ignorance, there's no dilemma involved, and it's not even necessarily anthropic in nature because fine tuning is implied by any complex chemical structure, let alone sentient living being. You just actively don't want to be convinced.
@@PossibleTango I'm arguing there's nothing to refute, though. As I said, claiming fine tuning is an argument from ignorance is just bizarre, considering the point of the argument is that we know there are many fine-tuned aspects that we can observe through science for which the best explanation is just design. The false-dilemma point is also puzzling given no dilemma is being presented at all, and as I said fine tuning being implied by the existance of any complex chemical structure makes the anthropic part of your point weird to the least as well. tldr you are just saying things.
@@verbumcaroyt the anthropic part of OP's claim is wrong. However you are missing the false dilemma that is present: "The constanst are fine tuned, either by incredibly small odds, so small you can't even imagine how small they are or they were set by a designer." This is a false dilemma. 1. You can easily disregard the probabilistic part of the argument: -you can't appeal to small probability if you don't know what the probability is -just because the values are fine tuned it doesn't mean they could have been different -there is some evidence allowing for speculation that only one number has to have a set value and even then that number could be arbitrary and still permit everything to happen 2. God doesn't have to be the answer: -the constants could be a necessary part of the universe and reality without a need to change them -there are other valid proposals rather than God: mutliverse, a cyclical nature of the universe, necessary realms of mathematics or quantum fluctuations So the argument is set on a false premise (probability) and pushes one explanation as "better" with no justification
I always find it interesting that the fine tuning argument is rarely the argument that theists bring up as being the argument they find most convincing, yet it's the one that atheists tend to say is the best argument for God's existence. Don't really know what to make of it, though.
Its a bad argument and theist know it. You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil. Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design"
@@Oneocna This makes no sense You're mixing up 2 arguments fine-tuning and intelligent design No one is arguing the universe is finetuned for life What people argue is the the constants of the universe is fine-tuned
Did you know Darwin admitted he couldn't explain the origin of the eye? Well, when you just quote that one sentence, ignore the "seems", and cut off the next two pages when he goes on to explain it. Trent uses similar quote mining here. He quotes many atheists saying it is one of the better arguments for God, but clips off their sentences beginning "However" or "But" when they explain their disagreements with it- which he never handles.
Mister Horn, I am very thankful for your guidance. You have helped to answer so many of the questions I had on my journey towards joining the Catholic church. You are very well appreciated, Sir. Thank you
Fine tuning alone is an interesting and thought-provoking argument for God's existence. However, logical positions in isolation will probably not be enough to convince somebody to believe. A sceptic/truth seeker would need to experience some kind of supernatural experience/feeling of God's presence to fully accept him in my opinion.
Fine tuning argument only gets stronger when you add other details. Like how the moon is the EXACT same size as the sun relative to it's distance from Earth, precisely during a time period where a species can comprehend that, on the only known life-supporting planet...
It's powerful for people who are generally unfamiliar with philosophy. But I always found transcendental/presuppositionalism to be both philosophically and theologically problematic.
@@Oneocna well isn’t God making a rock too heavy for Him to lift the same as Him making a square with 3 sides or a bachelor who is married? It’s impossible in a very particular way.
@@Oneocna God has created plenty of rocks that are so large that the concept of lifting them is incoherent (the moon being one obvious example of this).
I think a very good way to explain why the Fine Tuning Argument SHOULD BE, so good. Is that if one were to create a system for life, if one were to create a program to do something, they would create that system, and that system alone. What need would a computer programmer have to create a system that tracks the time, if he's trying to create a formula solver? And right now with our understanding, Earth was perfectly constructed for life. The argument that we are the water wondering why the bowl was perfectly formed for us, only strengthens the point of a creator. Also, the universe from my understanding is infinitely expanding, is finite in every moment, just getting bigger. Meaning that in each moment there isn't an infinite chance for life to emerge, it was a one time roll, that was so improbable, it's reasonable to believe that it was not up to chance.
I always find it amusing because the fine tuning argument actually refutes the idea of an all powerful god, if life couldnt exist with slightly different constants, that means god isnt all powerful because he couldnt put life forms in such a universe. If god is all powerful, he can put lifeforms in any universe with any constants.
It does seem odd that on one day, on one occasion they are arguing for the fine tuned world that was made ever so carefully to found/support life but on the next day/occasion/argument the natural world is a random mess, a concoction of chaos and miscellaneous quagmire of unguided activity which absolutely could NOT have spawned life naturally. These same people guffaw at researchers trying to figure how life may have started naturally when in reality, these researchers would be exploring and trying to discover the greatest fine tuning achievement of all...God fine tuning the world SO THAT life could arise naturally and evolve into all the different kinds we see today. " If god is all powerful, he can put lifeforms in any universe with any constants." Or with no natural constants or components at all. Proof of this is their belief in supernatural life forms which have intelligence and free will.
I think there are several problems with the fine tuning argument: 1. It assumes that the universes' constant values (such as gravity, the speed of light, protons being lighter than neutrons) have a dial that can be turned and aren't just inherent parts of the universe. 2. An argument can be made for a malevolent God, a God that tried to make the universe as hostile as possible to life that even if the universes values were changed, even a little bit, life would cease to exsist. 3. It assumes that if God exists, he couldn't create life in any other possible universe where these values are different. If God can create life in other possible universes than this argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life is null
I also had developed a version of the fly-argument, but till now never heard someone else formulating it. Glad I found it here, because it's better formulated as I could do.
Exactly. It is like the puddle argument. A puddle that thinks that the hole it's in was made perfectly for him is like a theist thinking the universe was made for them to live in. When it obviously is the other way around, we evolved to live in our environment. If our environment was different, we would have evolved differently, or we wouldn't be here at all to ponder these questions.
@@stickyrubbAlthough I don’t disagree with your argument, you’re completely missing the point of the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument proposes that the chances that we live in a universe that permits the existence of life is so low, that God is a more likely explanation. Your argument that ‘we evolved to live in this universe’ doesn’t really work here because you have to accept the pretence that life will 100% come about. What if we didn’t evolve to live in this universe, that is to say, what if life didn’t happen at all (it’s not like it has to or that the universe must in some way allow it) and yet we are here. I think that’s more so the argument that the video is getting at.
@@AJCavalier the problem with the argument is that it says that the odds of having habitable zones are incredibly low but it doesn't take into consideration that the universe is absolutely masive. It's kinda like saying 1% is a small percentage, but when you roll 100 times, the odds of landing that 1% are very high. Also, life adapts to its environment, so having the "perfect requirements" is not evidence for this since life adapts to what it has acces to so the "perfect requirements" aren't the same for everyone.
I also didn’t find the fine tuning argument the most threatening as an atheist. The moral argument for sure. Of course we live in a universe that happens to have a planet that supports life because we couldn’t exist and wouldn’t be able to observe it otherwise.
I agree, that's always my thought. The only way we could be talking is if the conditions were right for life, no matter how likely or unlikely that is. Morality on the other hand could almost singularly keep me convinced
It's amazing. You are saying in the last part of the video especially, what would be a better world to create ...truly amazing that u know that because our human minds think anything else would be boring.
There are lots of problems with the fine-tuning argument, but the simplest is this: the physical constants could be necessary for the existence of any universe.
This is not addressing the argument, however. No matter how many universes there may be, you would still need God for it to have any uniformity. Otherwise, you would be arguing for a chance, self sufficient universe, where chaos and disorder were the main forces, that was created X billion of years ago yet ( *for some odd reason* ) favored us out of all the species in it. Not to mention the simple matter of how lucky you would have to be for chaos and disorder to be the author to order and uniformity.
@@franciscosilvestre6914 your comment is irrelevant to both the fine-tuning argument and my comment. The physical constants being necessary means they *could not* be anything else than what they currently are. There is no tuning possible in this world.
@@franciscosilvestre6914 Oh so please do tell me, how do you know, that physical constants could be any different then they are? How do you compare that? Compare them to what exactly?
The fine-tuning argument is nonsense. Who is to say the universe could have been different than it is? It may have been logically necessary for it to be that way. Even God can't make 25 not be a square number. And if it is necessary that the universe exists that way, then why is a God needed?
@@redirectthepath I mean, there really is no way to know. If he is real, then the paradoxes are real, and as long as he exits, the paradoxes too, will exist. Can he, or can he not, change the status quo? Forget about whether he is capable of it or not, does he even KNOW if he can do it? In the end, only the questions remain.
Adding on to the counter-rebuttal: If you accept the idea that anything including, such as electrons, can be conscious, then consciousness itself would be fine tuned. Either we are incredibly lucky such that only a hyper-complex arrangement of elementary particles can attain consciousness, or consciousness is itself fine tuned for some reason or another. That reason could be what you mentioned in that it allows for higher and more meaningful forms of love.
"If you were playing poker and the dealer told you he was gonna deal you 10 royal flushes in a row and then you were dealt 10 royal flushes in a row, you would?..." "Deny the existence of poker dealers and then conclude I'm the luckiest man in the world, why?"
@@redbepis4600 Are you just using terms you saw someone use on reddit once without understanding them yourself, or are you a bot with a particularly out of date learning algorithm?
I am a nominal atheist at best and honestly modern atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris have completely turned me against the "neorelgious" atheism that is so very popular today. I am really far more agnostic than atheistic, but I don't ever pretend that my conception of a God being if that being were to exist would obey anyone let alone a believer in that being simply to prove to me that the being of God does in fact exist. This is pure narcisim and just immaturity being demonstrated on the debate stage 4:23. Also yeah I have to agree the fine tuning argument is probably the best argument for the existence of a creator god being.
Fine tuning is bunk. We can plug in different numbers into an equation, and most sets of these numbers yield a universe where life cannot exist. This is not evidence that any sets of constants (aside from the single one we observe) are remotely possible. We can only observe one set of constants. Why is it reasonable to assume that more than one set of constants can exist, when there's precisely zero evidence of this aside from our ability to plug numbers into an equation?
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 .It is frankly weird to me, that you actually think you should get to require or make any demands of a god, of God or of gods. If you believe you are equivalent to a god then honestly just say so....
@@chucklindenberg1093 I'm not the one making any speculative claims on how our universe came to be, so it doesn't matter that I haven't created a universe. The point is that fine tuning is a terrible argument for god. For fine tuning to be of any support to deism, it must be based on rationalization of evidence. If there is no evidence of other constants, you cannot rationally conclude that our current set of constants is improbable. There is no evidence of other constants being possible, and there's only evidence of our current set of constants being possible. Therefore, fine tuning falls apart.
It's worth pointing out that though the Catholic Church reveres its theologians and their minds for coming up with imaginative theodices, it does not commit itself to any particular argument for the existence of God-not even the fine tuning argument. Rather, it draws on biblical authority, revelation and the traditions of the Church for establishing the claim as fact. That suggests it finds no argument for God to be definitive.
If I had to guess, I'd say that at least part of the reason is that it doesn't really work unless you have some other independent reason to think that the Christian God exists. It isn't prima facie obvious that Christianity and Atheism are the only two live options and even ignoring weird hypothetical "gods" like the god that would prefer you not to worship him and would torture anyone who does for all eternity, there's examples like Islam which (at least according to some) are just as exclusive as Christianity. If picking the wrong god can give you hell anyway, then that changes the game theory of the different choices.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol Thank you! You would have to combine that wager with some compelling argument for another “god” anyway so I see how that makes the wager alone not a very useful argument
@@Chicken_of_BristolThank you for presenting the issue of false dichotomy. There is also the issue of whether one can force himself to truly believe in something that he is not convinced of simply due to threats. Remember, for the Christian god, it's not enough to go through the motions. One must truly believe. The Wager ignores that problem.
@@Chicken_of_Bristolyou realize that Muslims and Christians (and Jews) orient their worship toward the same God, right ? My fellow Catholics don't like hearing this. You guys also understand worship in such a ridiculously narrow sense.
I think Neil's idea is pure genius. I also believe he may have accidentally discovered, in a philosophical or metaphysical sense, that atoms and sub-particles, like human beings, are capable of love, albeit in a rudimentary form. Here, “love” could be interpreted as a fundamental connection, attraction, or a form of bond, even if it’s basic or instinctive. This isn’t pantheism; it’s about the grandeur of interrelationships crafted by an Almighty God who desires love at every level of existence, crowning it with the love that human beings are capable of. In physics, particles attract due to forces like electromagnetism or gravity. But by interpreting these forces as a kind of rudimentary love, it imbues them with a poetic significance, suggesting that every interaction in the universe-whether between particles or larger beings-reflects an intrinsic connectedness. This interpretation provides a philosophical lens, where even the most basic components of reality are bound by a universal “desire” to relate to one another, hinting at an underlying unity that ties all existence together.
The problem with the fine tuning argument, along with many other arguments for God, is that it only pushes the question back one step. If you assert a god as the cause of all fine tuning, then what physical constants allow a god to exist? Theists can propose a simple god that must exist, but that's just speculation, and could just as easily be applied to every other claim. The only thing you can actual conclude is there is some reason why the constants are the way they are. Whether that reason is someone designed them, or obscene luck, or an infinite multiverse, or a larger range of life permitting values than we thought, we can't make any actual argument as to which explanation is more probable. It just remains an interesting observation about the universe, that we cannot, and may not ever answer.
@@caiof8968 "the whole point is that god is outside the universe" Isn't that just a bald assertion, followed by a special pleading when we ask what allowed that god to exist?
@caiof8968 Ask yourself if that actually makes sense. Imagine an atheist told you there was some natural, mindless mechanism that causes life bearing universes to come into existence. You ask them how that is possible, and they say it's outside the universe, so they don't need to answer that question. Sounds kinda silly, doesn't it?
@@dataforge2745 the existence of God is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. Science deals with things of the universe, God is by definition outside of it. No one is claiming god is a being that exists inside of this universe, so when you come up with this physics constants talk, it simply makes no sense since you aren’t talking about the same thing when you say “god”. That would be like demanding a mathematical equation as proof to someone’s view on whether or not drugs should be legalized. Atheists can believe whatever they want, such as a multiverse, but that is also in no way a scientific theory. Also, it only “deals” with the fine tuning argument, and there are numerous other arguments for god. The “mindless mechanism” you came up with is worse because it doesn’t really explain the fine tuning whatsoever. It is basically just ignoring it. Which of course you are free to do.
@@herroyung857 it is the “unmoved mover” idea from Aristotle. The one that exists by himself, which is what allows other things to exist. Or one could say God is existence itself.
One objection that’s new ‘to me’ is this: If the universe is defined as all space time and matter and the universe is finely tuned then we’ve never seen anything that hasn’t been finely tuned. So we’ve no standard against which to judge whether or not anything at all is finely tuned or not.
@@BerishaFatian But to categorize something as finely tuned begs the question if we cannot know what fine tuned even is. And how can we know what it is if we have no standard by which to judge?
@@LtDeadeye okay, but that argued assumes we have to see anything in the first place, the universe could have just been dead. Ur implicitly assuming pan-psychism.
@@LtDeadeyelook at the "Goldilocks" situation our planet is in. Look at the insane "coincidence" that allows full eclipses to exist. How water behaves vs how it should chemically. Look at highly constructed scientific processes like the Krebs Cycle that are perfectly balanced.
I was once an athiest, and my eyes were opened, now I'm a theist. I really like the fine-tuning argument but I don't think it's the strongest one. With slightly different cosmos constants, this universe might not even exisit, that's true, but in that case, maybe a different universe will exist with that set of different cosmos constants. The morality argument is the best.
That our universe is only dead and lethal to way over 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999...% is not the strongest argument for your god? Wow, I am impressed. So, the strongest argument is that we can understand that if we do not like getting punched in the face, other people also don´t like that! Yeah, great argument, for...(place here the name of the god that is most famous in the country where you have been born).
For me cosmic skeptic lost all credibility. I just finished watching a debate of his where he presented himself as an open minded “non resistant non believer”. I then watched a video of his on republicanism in the UK (being against monarchy) in which he deridingly said “a God that doesn’t exist”. Just bs. He’s trying to convert people, he’s not actually a genuine and honest enquirer who struggles with the notion of God.
I don't think he ever said he 'struggled'. He is a logical thinker who has concluded that for him, the evidence points towards no gods existing. Which is what all of reality points towards.
I think the simplest objection to the fine tuning argument is to simply steelman the opposite: Yes, we're the only lucky player who scored 10 wins in a row, with perfect cards. We're only here and wondering about it because we're the only ones who made it.
I think that the simplest objection is that of course the laws of this or that constant sit within this or that finely tuned band of values because if the values were different then the constants would simply be different. Of course the water is vase shaped, if it was in a toilet then it would be toilet shaped.
The "we're only here and wondering about it because we're the only ones who made it" response isn't actually very simple because it assumes the existence of a massive number of universes all with slightly different physical laws. And we have absolutely no evidence at all for the existence of even one other universe, let alone the large number it would need to bring the probability of one of them being life-permitting up high enough that it isn't surprising.
All you have to do to dismantle that steel man is to question whether "infinite universe" theory is even plausible. "Of course we can wonder about it since we're in the right universe" requires infinite universes to be a legitimate reality. There is no evidential proof that infinity exists beyond human numerical concepts. There are some very strong minds that will tell you that infinity in the real world is like a "square circle" - it doesn't exist. For example, supposedly you can cut a piece of paper into infinite pieces if you have an infinitely small knife. This only exists in theoretical mathematics where you can divide integers. In reality, the piece of paper has finite mass and volume that cannot be divided infinitely. So this "we're just lucky to be in the right universe" falls apart once you show that there is no evidence at all that other universes exist anyways, and no logical way to deduce they exist either.
As a classical theist, the fine tuning argument is not at all a proof for God as we classical theists define God. Whether or not the universe is fine tuned is irrelevant to whether or not God exists. Even if the universe were not fine tuned for life the universe is still contingent and thus has its cause beyond itself.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I disagree with those atheists. As I was once one I must say that the morality argument was far more convincing and played a huge part in my conversion
IMO the Transcendental Argument might be the best one as most of the objections I've seen to it have Been pretty bad
@@DominikĎurkovský If it is the one that refers to the existence of logic I agree it Can be very persuasive but I still think the morality argument is more instinctive because every one encounters moral dilemma on a daily basis. Especially when submitted to foreign wars, genocide or murder, morality is everywhere whereas the use or logic and reason is much more intellectual and in general people are not used to even question the existence of logic as it is their axiom/faith.
its a different argument for everyone as I see it.
@@conspiracy1914 Fair enough !
As a formet atheist also, i dont think fine tuning is that solid.
We cant really say what is moat likely or not as far as an indicator of design.
Often it feels we are surprised by something but what alternative would we expect?
God is a choice not a measurement. It was actually abstract ideas that leqd me to faith.
As a non-believer, I think the argument from the existence of consciousness is probably the strongest. Consciousness is extremely hard to explain from a scientific pov.
For me this puts them in the same bucket.
They claim something science can't explain, therefor god.
@aidanya1336 Agreed, I can at least see science eventually being able to explain consciousness, I don't see it ever explaining the fine-tuning or how the universe came into being. This is because we can't know what happened before the universe began because science didn't exist before the universe did.
@Voxis_23456 maybe, but there is a chance we find that all these different parameters are all derived from each other. Which can bring it down to only 1.
We might not be able to find out why that one is the way it is.
But fine tuning is pretty dead by than.
its not that hard. cognitively neurons travel inside different part of brain function but, belivers is more like cowards amydala which only posess emotion with lack of logic.
@@DeepKnight-nr6voAmygdala*
Pray for eachother, believers and skeptics. We are all His.
Doubt is the work of Satan.
Or pre His
Amen!
I'm not.
@@zimpoooooo praying for you.
Alex O'Connor doesn't belong in the thumbnail; he has said, on multiple occasions, that he doesn't find the fine-tuning argument very compelling-he finds the contingency argument better
Also recently he had stated consciousness, and the scientific lack of understanding of consciousness, is a better argument for God.
This makes sense, because he has more of a philosophy/theology background, not a physics/science background.
@@ryanevans2655 Even then physics and science can't yet explain what causes conciousness and awareness beyond just the ability to respond to stimuli. This isn't to say there isn't a naturalistic explanation, but we don't even have an idea as is. All we know right now is that it's somehow associated with the brain and brain states, that's it.
@@ldd4043 which is by itself a telling statement about the quality of all these arguments for god. If Someone like Alex, who probably knows and understands all the common arguments for god and tries to steelman every single one of them as much as possible, thinks that an argument that can be broken down to: "we don't know therefore god", is the best one, then the arguments for god must be really bad.
@@TgfkaTrichter can you imagine any argument for the existence of God that couldn't be reframed as 'we don't know, therefore God'? I don't mean actually real proofs, I mean even in some hypothetical. Like if God came down from the sky, said, 'I'm God btw', and whisked us off to heaven. 'Well, I don't know how that happened, and God is the only explanation that makes any sense, but maybe it's just something else we don't know.' Anything that could possibly prove God's existence could be explained as 'well, it's either that God is real, or something else that we don't know'. That's how literally every proof that isn't mathematically precise works, ie every single proof outside of the fields of math, computer science, and logic.
There is something comedic to me that I don't find the fine-tuning argument rather strong, despite being Christian, while atheists claim it as the best argument.
Possibly due from an information issue
It's what convinced me to look deeper in the existence of God when I was an atheist
Yeah, not all atheists will agree it is. It seems like a lot of channels do, but I'm an agnostic atheist, but I actually think it's not one of the better arguments. I think things like personal experiences are probably better
@@hydraph4843 personal experiences is just anecdotal evidence which by any objective measurement is among the weakest forms of evidence. Sure they can provide an emotional response but if you are person that is not easily swayed by emotional appeals then an argument from personal experience is going to be remarkably uncompelling.
The argument from motion and argument from contingency are the strongest arguments.
The reason they think that’s the strongest is because the New Atheists were ignoramouses that didn’t understand Classical Theism. They don’t understand the basic definition of God and still imagine him as a contingent god like Zeus or Poseidon. You need to understand classical theism or God as pure act for St. Thomas’ or Aristotle’s arguments to make sense.
Charity is a virtue ;) These are bright people, if they don't understand classical theism (which most people don't) it's probably because they haven't been introduced to it properly. For that, I place the blame on the shoulders of academia, which has systematically excluded such thought in favor of STEM, which provides more grant funding to university.
Problem is in the OT testament he acts EXACTLY like Zeus. Read the Book of Samuel - Israelite generals are literally having conversations with him about military strategy via magical devices like the Urim Thummin.
@@anthonyzav3769okay you misunderstood what the original argument said, they dont realize that we believe that God is identical to existence (not bound by time), not a singurality that is born out of caos, like zeus, how God acts is irrelevant to the point presented, the distinction of both is not because of morality, bur simply that one exists in time while the other is what time naturally flows from, which is the basis for classical theism
Almost like that's how he was originally written and new views are mere retcons. Christianity didn't pop out of nowhere. We remember your history
@@juliuslinus Charity is a good approach for most, but the new Atheist's actively lie in bad faith. For example when Dawkins and ilk questioned the existence of the person Jesus. For them it was all political. People who followed Hitler were ignoramuses but you arent likely to go to hell just for supporting a candidate. Otherwise everyone democrat in the USA would go to hell because democrat position on abortion. Being atheist on the other hand is a one way ticket.
I think its pretty wild that the new counter to fine tuning involves apparently biting the bullet on physical dualism. Bye, materialism.
Which leaves then vulnerable to an argument from the basis of morality
Who is saying this?
Yeah, also the idea of a necessary entity that created and fine-tuned the universe. Materialism is officially dead at this point.
@@DigitalGnosis "Psychophysical" laws are universal laws referring to the set of laws that govern two discrete types of phenomena: material things and minds.
So, the gentleman proposing the "electrons in love" thought experiment is relying on materialism being false.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 under the empirical materialism most atheism prides itself upon yes, it has to presume an unobserved set of conditions that are contrary to what we have actually observed from physics.
Hi, I'm an atheist. I was recommended this by youtube out of the blue. As a self proclaimed layman, I don't find Sinababu's hypothesis or your refutation to be that good, as they seem to be going past the core argument of fine tuning and attributing agency unfounded, by matter or by God. And whilst I can't say as to intent, I think it's ranked high amongst atheists because it's logically deceiving rather than its soundness. However, this was a well put together video, and I do hope you make more. It'd be cool to hear more about this from those who would have more understanding than I. If anyone read this long comment, ty.
Guys like you who respectfully lay out your objections instead of throwing a fit are very refreshing
I considered myself an atheist searching for Truth until searching for the Truth led to the Truth being revealed to me.... No one appeared to me in a vision, I heard no audible voice, but ...I began to SEE everything for what it actually is. I could not admit there was a God bc to do that would be to validate the fact that we stand before a righteous and holy God who will one day pour out his final wrath and judgment on us whether we believe it or not. Faith , which is evidence of things unseen, not "I've decided to think God is real bc I feel like it" , comes to us by hearing . Bc , believe me, I was not looking for evidence to prove the God of the Bible . But once you starting getting hit with the wisdom of God .... there's no way I could ever deny Him ...
The worst part of the argument is the assumption we know enough to put percentages on the likelihood of how things turned out during the history of the universe. We don't even know if there was a beginning of the universe.
@@CarrieLaffs _"Faith , which is evidence of things unseen, not "I've decided to think God is real bc I feel like it" , comes to us by hearing . Bc , believe me, I was not looking for evidence to prove the God of the Bible . But once you starting getting hit with the wisdom of God .... there's no way I could ever deny Him ..."_
Now change te word "god" for or "chemtrails" and see what happens. Faith is NOT evidence of anything other than the concept you have faith in. It's nothing more than a figment of the imagination. Sorry mate, but faith being evidence of anything else, well, it just sounds a bit out of touch.
@@CarrieLaffsto me, this just seems like another way of saying “atheists are liars” at the end
I saw the thumbnail and thought "nooo I wanna know" and then you said it in the first 10 seconds and merited all time off purgatory (maybe idk) :P
I'm a Protestant, so I don't believe in purgatory, but to me, it was kind of obvious that it was fine tuning in the thumbnail.
For myself as someone that formerly identified as an atheist (I would not call myself a true believer but more a reluctant agnostic theist) it was not fine tuning alone that gave me pause; but a cumulation* of many aspects of reality that seem to operate under convenient behavior; especially at a sub atomic level but then countered against the likelihood that these conveniences all would exist by mere chance. As an atheist that prided myself on being as objectively skeptical as I could, the idea of randomness being behind these conveniences (quarks behavior, the constants, formation of hydrogen given presence of muons, origin of life, emergence of consciousness etc) then it is an even bigger miracle than a man raising from the dead. It is not that I found the fine tuning argument convenience; but the lack of tuning or guidance just seems a less likely possibility.
Edit: the type of near mockery alternative explanations that Neil Sinhababu comes up with here is yet another reason I disassociated from atheism. These types of arguments (string 'theory', steady state theory, any cyclic universe theories, and this bit of nonsense about 'Electrons in love') are all based on absolutely nothing scientific and are nothing more then unobservable speculations and maybe some theoretical mathematics thrown in to try to act as some kind of 'proof'. They come up with these explanations to try to disprove God, but what they do is change nothing about the ability to create the laws of physics and the universe, instead they just try to deny that the 'creator' has a will. I find the argument that the universe was sparked by 'forces that exist outside of time, space, and the laws of nature' indistinguishable from the argument that the 'forces' are the product of a mind.
Keep in mind that God, being omnipotent, can make anything in any way he wants. Those constants, for him, are arbitrary. If he wanted those constants to have different values and still support the formation of stellar bodies, life, or whatever... he could have done so, and the result would not change.
By arguing that "those constants are very precise and fine tuned", you're denying God's omnipotence. You're unadvertedly stating that God was not to choose the value of those constants, but that they couldn't be otherwise. What does that mean? God was bound to FOLLOW RULES. And who created those rules? If other being above him, he's not omnipotent. If it was God himself, again, the values of those constants are really arbitrary, and its exact values don't matter.
@@haitaelpastor976 I do not agree, God (if one does exist) would have things like logic and reason as innate characteristics; which means that even as omnipotent would not be able to create logical impossibilities and paradoxes.
Your protest in itself is a paradox. This is like saying "Can God sin? if no, then he is not all powerful and can not do anything and therefor is not God. If God can sin, then he is by his own definition an imperfect being and cannot be all powerful and therefor is not God". the conclusion does not follow the premise. What is more likely if a God exists is that creation is what it is because it is literally impossible to be any other way. God would have to violate one of his own characteristics in order to create a universe/reality capable of impossibilities and paradoxes. Such as sentient protons.
@@patrickthomas2119 Why are sentient protons an impossibility or paradox? If they are, why is it that there could be no other way? From where did those rules come?
Did God create those rules and by doing so he made himself not omnipotent?
@@haitaelpastor976 that is a complex question fallacy. What we know of reality and how minds work; sentience in a sub atomic particle is not possible. You might as well ask "why is the sky green in the multiverse equivalent of earth". asking absurd questions does not invalidate the premise. And you can also ask the "why god did it this way and not that way" indefinitely; where the goal is not to actually understand but to make excuses to make your own opinion feel more validated.
On the question of rules; you are asking it is in the wrong direction; if logic and reason are innate to the God character, it means that it didn't create or follow those rules as things to be followed, it simply IS those things. What this would mean is; God cannot do things that are contradictory to its own nature. not because it is a rule but because it would contradict itself; thus making it a paradox. You are trying to demand an answer to a paradoxical problem you have created.
@@haitaelpastor976 God is the alpha and the omega. Nothing came before him. Not even the rules that operate the universe- because he allowed them to by the power of his holy spirit. God is a certain nature, and he doesn't do things that are against his nature. God gave you free will, and you are the one who makes their own actions and thoughts.
“Electrons in Love” would be a cool name for a song.
Sounds like a minor '80s hit! 😂
@@chernobylcoleslaw6698 My thoughts exactly! I spent like 20 mins singing a synthpop song in my head.
The problem with the fine tuning argument is that it pre-supposes so many things, how can we prove that the universe could've been any other way? How do we know life is contingent on these fine tunings? How do we know the universe is contingent on these tunings? How do we know that the fine tuning of the universe requires a supernatural creator?
As an atheist, it's one of the silliest arguments, not that any diest argument is good.
If the universe didn't support life, you wouldn't be here to ponder about it. It's 100% chance that for a sentient being to ponder about reality, reality must support the existence of sentient beings.
The fine tuning arguement is the equivalent of asking me if I feel lucky that I wasn't born a rock in a volcano. No because if "i" was a rock I wouldn't be me or be conscious.
Aren't you lucky you were born on earth? No. There is no luck involved. I wasn't going to be born in Jupiter's gas clouds suffocating instantly, how would I?
@@silvercrowntgobbledygook, never write a comment again please.
@Alex-qc2fb did logical reasoning upset you?
Thanks for this video. The title made me laugh! It's not related at all to the actual contents of the video, or course, but as clickbait, it's pretty funny.
Of course it will fear the atheist because that is so hard to counter attack.
By the word fear, he really must not mean it literally.
@@JesusIsMyLordandMyGod Well, atheists don't really fear or avoid logical arguments (at least the kind of atheists who comment on RUclips videos). It's kind of our thing. I don't think the fine tuning argument is difficult at all to counter. The fine tuning argument is a matter of perspective--something seems so unlikely that it might as well be impossible. But that only seems to be the case from our limited point of view.
It's a bit like imagining a golf ball landing on a blade of grass. What are the odds that the golf ball would land on that single blade of grass? Incredible, right? It couldn't possibly have happened by chance. The golf ball must have been directed there by God. But of course, the golf ball had to land somewhere. It's the same thing with the Universe. We look at the precise way that our Universe works, and think, well that's too unlikely. It couldn't possibly have happened by chance. But we're like the blade of grass that the golf ball lands on.
in a universe where conscious beings don't exists, no one will be there to propose the fine tuning argument, so a universe with no such being will never give rise to such an argument, defeating it's purpose.
as a Catholic who has an amateur interest in astrophysics, I like this argument best.
As an atheist with the same interest, I agree. It just doesn’t convince me since I believe that we lack the fundamental understanding of what reality actually is. And therefore all attempts to determine probabilities are somewhat meaningless in my opinion.
@@maxmaximus2608As an atheist, it's one of the silliest arguments, not that any diest argument is good.
If the universe didn't support life, you wouldn't be here to ponder about it. It's 100% chance that for a sentient being to ponder about reality, reality must support the existence of sentient beings.
The fine tuning arguement is the equivalent of asking me if I feel lucky that I wasn't born a rock in a volcano. No because if "i" was a rock I wouldn't be me or be conscious.
Aren't you lucky you were born on earth? No. There is no luck involved. I wasn't going to be born in Jupiter's gas clouds suffocating instantly, how would I?
7:15 as to the envelope thing, they already have Moses and the prophets, if they don't believe because of them, or because Jesus rose from the dead, they're not going to believe because of a magic trick as you said.
@@TheCatholicNerd
- Thomas believed specifically because he was granted evidence on demand. Even Jesus, who was furious at him for critical thinking instead of faith, acknowledged this.
- if people won't believe the words of an old book, they won't believe miracles.
Pick one. Where was the Bible wrong?
@@Nemo12417Was it ever right?!
@@Nemo12417 AT what point was Jesus furious at Thomas? All He did was answer Thomas' objections specifically.
I don't find the fine-tuning argument compelling because, if we are evolved products of the universe, it must necessarily look like it was designed for us. In other words, we evolved to fit the universe, we should expect it to look like we are finely-tuned products of it.
Oxygen doesn't exist so we can breathe, instead we evolved to breathe oxygen. Same thing all the way down.
@@Mario_Sky_521 We have plenty of evidence to suggest that our understanding of Evolution, the age of the Earth, and the age of the universe are correct. We know that life started on Earth BEFORE the atmosphere had oxygen in it, and that the oxidation of our atmosphere caused an extinction event (look up the Great Oxidation Event).
It's always crazy to me how you Christians will deny some consensus science (Evolution, the age of the Earth/universe), but pull from the SAME consensus science in the next breath. The Cosmological Constant is used to describe the energy density of space and the accelerating expansion of our universe, both of which are directly related to the Big Bang (and our current understanding of both is dependent upon our current understanding of the age of the universe, which is roughly 13.8 billion years).
So which is it? Is science real, or not? Or is it only real when it agrees with the conclusions you got from your old book?
@AnthoniePerez-v1e Life (as far as we know) only started evolving on Earth around 4 billion years ago. That said, life that was incapable of surviving long enough to reproduce (at any point in time, under any circumstances) failed to persist. The life that did persist is around today! When it comes to the evolution of life on Earth, there are literally ZERO gaps to hide a god in.
As for the fundamental forces/constants of our universe, we know much less about these. What would the universe look like if they changed? Could they even change, or are they simply a function of the very nature of the universe itself? We don't know!
A lot of people see that "We don't know!" as a gap they can put a god in. A lot of other people (myself included) would immediately identify that as a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, and point out that every other gap you've tried to hide him in has been filled with scientific knowledge about the natural world and left no room for speculation about the supernatural.
Precisely
Maybe I’m missing something but I really don’t fine the argument that impressive.
It’s like saying “man what is the probability that I’d have been born to my exact parents?”
It conditions were different you’d just be asking about those conditions about a different set of parents.
Similarly, if the universe didn’t happen to be tuned for life, there’d be nobody around to ponder the question. In a sense, the question can only be asked in a universe that would support it, so it’s kind of not that impressive imo.
I think the possible immateriality of consciousness is a much more interesting avenue to explore.
Oh so there is a sane person in the comment section, thank "god":D
The fine-tuning argument isn’t just about us existing but about the universe’s constants being incredibly precise-far beyond what chance would allow. This precision suggests intent, pointing to a Creator rather than random coincidence.
@ rolling a 67 on a 100 sided die is also precise, but it would have come up as something no matter what, it just looks precise in retrospect
@@abelhgds They are precise... they are what they are... we dont even know if they can vary. We have only this universe and nothing else to compare to. Yes, we can imagine that universe (as we know it) wouldnt exists if some of those values would be different. But we dont know if a universe with different values can exists or if those values can even be different.
Its like trying to calculate probability of a dice roll without knowing how many sides that dice have.
@@petrvokas8506 The fine-tuning argument doesn't assume we know the constants can vary; it highlights that, if they could, even slight changes would render a life-permitting universe improbable. This observation isn't about probability per se but about the remarkable precision observed, which invites deeper explanation regardless of whether alternative universes exist.
Alex O'Connor has a great response to the fine-tuning argument. You might need to change that thumbnail😂
Alex overrated man. His skull doesn't even have the morphology of a super smart person. It's rather small you could say.
TAG all the way, baby. Fine-tuning sounds convincing but I could brush it off easily if I assume a skeptical worldview. At best all it proves is a deistic clockmaker god who wounded up the initial mechanism and disappeared from the world.
Christopher Hitchens' voice is so fine tuned so that it only comes through my left speaker lol
Good video btw
Same lol
Thats hilarious. I had only my right earbud in and heard nothing lol
is that a joke of some sort?
Terrible video. It doesn't address the biggest objection to fine tuning: why assume that the constants came into existence from a cosmic dice roll? Yes, when you plug different numbers into an equation, it yields universes that cannot produce life. This is not evidence that those different numbers are even possible, since we can only observe our current set of constants. There is no evidence that the constants could be anything else at all; we have a single universe with a single set of constants, and no other observations.
I was listening with just one earbud and for a good 10 or 15 seconds thought "wow that's crazy, he had no response at all!"
i will protest every video till Trent Fine Tunes and Brings Mafia Trent back lol
Is that a character he had in older videos lol?
He's gonna make you an apologetic you can't refute
@@Malygosblues HAHAHA
Are you going to protest the lack of Mafia Trent until you become Protestant?
@TheClapped ruclips.net/user/clipUgkx9Bf2HdOliXySAdemwBqIjYCIIe0rOpV_?si=Y4dVhAZy3VhIdLnI
You know what they say: "Face your fears".
If the fine tuning argument is the best you've got, then I guess I'm good.
It's very easy to imagine a being with the same mindset and intentions as ours. This argument is only a product of Human-absolute centrism. No, the universe does not revolve around us. Just because something adapted, and is the way it is, does not apply any intent. Why do tectonic plates move in ways that are determined to cause earthquakes and doom millions over the course of years? Why do events align perfectly just to bring out an entropic outcome? But then someone would say things like: "Mandarins are already split inside and people say god doesn't exist." Don't Christians often say that science is unrelated to god? In that case they've undercut a great deal of natural theology.. If the material can't bear on the supernatural, then these arguments are rendered useless, no? Then The fine tuning argument is generally one of the easiest to stave off if you see through it, but it's very convincing, making it effective against people who haven't actually looked into things. Either way, I'll stay unshaken, not because of myself, but because of religion itself being spiritual placebo and a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain,
The most convincing argument against atheism:
P1: Atheism is gay
P2: Being gay is wrong
C: Atheism is wrong
Brilliant
Athiests fear this commenter above all else
Hilarious if facetiousness but I suspect this is what you believe.
😂😂
I'm not sure if I'm laughing with you or laughing at you, but I'm laughing all the same.
for me the best argument is in the moral sphere. cause when i was an atheist i realized that the logical conclusion of my worldview at the time was moral relativism. and in all honesty i couldn’t look at something like the holocaust and not say it’s objectively wrong.
Other than personal experience, I think this is what penetrates for most converts.
You still are a moral relativist You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil.
Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design"
Basically you are asserting a position (good or evil) relative to an event in the world (the metal in the watch)
This one really moved me too. Once I realized (as an atheist) that nothing objectively matters and there was no such thing as right or wrong it was too much to handle. I knew deep down that right and wrong did exist and that evil was real. It wasn’t too much longer after that when I became a believer
@@Oneocna God DID create a perfect world. Humans F----ed it up.
then why did god let it happen?
Actually let me rephrase. Why did god knowingly set of a chain of events that he knew was guaranteed to lead to it?
it may be the best argument, but I see it as a non-starter argument, ultimately both sides are equally compelling and don't actually go anywhere.
The way I see it is that the universe isn't really designed for us. The amount of aliens we know of is 0, 0 in the entire universe - trillions upon trillions of planets that could support life as we know it are lifeless. But the universe is 'fine-tuned' because we exist. No, we have tuned ourselves for the universe, not the other way round, if anything the universe is tuned against us because. Even our own planet which abides by the laws of the universe tries to kill us constantly.
Oxygen, the air we breathe is not made for life, it literally explodes and violently reacts with most other elements, our biology adapted to harnessing these explosions as energy so we can operate. The oxygen didn't cater to our biology.
Speaking of the air we breathe, if we had a difference of 10% either way in oxygen levels, we (humans) would go extinct - life is that fragile. "But it's fine-tuned as we exist here today" Yeah if you ignore the fact we are in the 0.1% of the 0.1% of species that still exist. And that may very well not be the case in 100 years.
I appreciate Trent mogging everyone in the thumbnail. It’s so real.
Trent may eventually come out.
@@IsMort_Ex "I myself as the chad and you as the soyjak.. I have already won" aah logic
Its an interesting phenomenon, but Ive never found it that compelling. There's no precedent whatsoever for the idea that the physical constants are arbitrary. And we've all heard the list of other potential explanations, design being among them.
Most people don't fear this argument, because it has multiple equally unproveable possible explanations. It just doesn't go anywhere.
The constants came from somewhere. Something happened that decided them. There is no reason understood by science why the strength of gravity is what it is. So it's not that it's arbitrary, but how did the constants end up this way?
@@phillipjones2924 Let's say the constants were some other way. You cannot possibly know how this new universe would appear. Perhaps lifeforms would exist everywhere, perhaps the universe would be vastly more interesting than the one we are currently in. As long as there is physics we don't understand (which there is a LOT we don't know) then there will be even less to understand about this new universe we imagine.
The argument goes nowhere. Fine-tuning assumes way more than most fallacies.
Great video! The title is a bit silly but in an ocean of content you gotta stand out. Respect.
I really enjoy your demeanor, voice and the fact that you give the rebuttals to parts of this argument. I look forward to watching more.
There seemed to be some logical problems that stood out to me in the video but I do hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe Dan Barker was willing to drop his standard down to you telling him what was written on the paper in the envelope to demonstrate the lack of your gods power. This does not necessarily mean his standards to believe in a god are this low but for a demonstration, he would make a simple test for your good. At that debate he was willing to concede that your god was real, if you told him the right answer.
He made his point when you couldn't tell him.
Then you jump to the conclusion that if he would accept A (the probability of you guessing what was on the paper is too high for you to get it right) as evidence than he should accept b ( the probability of the universe containing it's exact properties it has is too high to be formed naturally)
Even if we ignore he only made the claim to prove a point, you never proved A was true. Thus, if your god can't do the simple task of telling you what he wrote on a piece of paper, how are we to assume he created the universe or even exists at all?
The fine tuned argument seems to bean argument from incredulity. "The probability is too high for me to accept it being natural, therefore only a god could have done it."
I'll have to watch more of your videos to see your responses to the more popular rebuttas to this argument.
Your rebuttal to Sinhababo is mix of logical fallacies. You say "because you can form an image in your mind, it doesn't mean that it could actually happen." Kind of like saying a god created everything. It's special pleading. Your holding Sinhababo to a standard that you don't hold for yourself.
Then you make the claim "Just because a mind can exist apart from a physical body doesn't follow that it can exist with in any physical body." Why not. You give no reason for this claim. It's just asserted. But lets just say that claim is true in our universe. If the properties of another universe are different than ours, then why can't the properties of a mind be different?
Just because light can't pass through lead in our universe doesn't mean it would act the same in an altered universe.
I believe the point of Sinhababo's paper was showing how a universe with different constants could contain conscious life, and our universe is just one version of how that consciousness could form under these universal constraints.
It's not negating that our universe is rare.
it's just pointing out that just how theist's feel our universe is as fine tuned for humans, the electrons and protons in love could claim their universe was fine tuned for them. How else can you explain the universal conditions being so exact to make consciousness?
You can extrapolate that in the opposite direction as well. With a universe that contains a highly complex conscious beings that make our human forms look as simple as a proton does to us.
You make a claim a god wouldn't create just any world. He would create a world that had "real love" and that would include sacrifice, hardship and free choice. And somehow those are tied to our biology, specifically.
Why? How do you know this? Is this believed by all Christians or are these specific to you?
You also assert that this would be better than having electrons that fall in love floating around not living morally meaningful lives.
How do you know that your god thinks this or that there is a "better" to a god?
Doesn't the fact that many people throughout human history have NOT lived meaningful or moral lives negate that argument? If it's ok for our universe, why not an other? At least the Electrons and protons aren't harming each other isn't that "better"?
You continue to assert more things about what's "good" and what a god would make, with no explanation of how you know this or why this is true. I'm interested in how you came to all these conclusions.
Someone lead me to some answers. I'd like to know why you believe the things you claim.
Much love!
"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity" Romans 1:20 DRA
Why should I care what a book with talking donkeys says?
Book containing talking snakes, walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding five thousand on five loaves and two fishes! You expect us to take such a book seriously?
@@Shoomer88 Because you believe you are a talking ape. And not only a talking ape, but a talking ape that "evolved" out of goo.
@@MillionthUsername You do get that humans coined the term 'ape'? Right? That means humans decided what the ape means. Humans decided that the word ape includes us. It's not complicated.
Oh, and evolution does not say we evolved out of goo. But hey, if you want to believe the completely plausible idea that a magic space wizard made a man of clay and a woman out of one of his ribs then have at it.
@@Shoomer88 "You do get that humans coined the term 'ape'? Right? That means humans decided what the ape means. Humans decided that the word ape includes us. It's not complicated."
So you are not a talking ape?
"Oh, and evolution does not say we evolved out of goo."
I didn't say "evolution says" but that YOU believe that. Don't you believe that? The goo came before the cell in your belief, did it not? Use whatever word you like, but didn't the cell which eventually became the talking ape derive from the goo?
but we have NO IDEA what the actual probability is for Fine Tuning?
Someone please correct me but there seems to be a big jump from "these constants wouldn't support life (as we know it) if they were altered a very small amount" to "and that means they're proportionally improbable."
It's a very interesting thing to discuss but it's purely speculation until we actually know what sets those constants (if we ever do).
@@landonpontius2478 no correction needed, you are right, we currently have no idea whether the constants are necessary, random or set by something. This is the reason why I personally find this argument to be annoying at the very least and aggravating at worst.
Essentially the argument for fine tunning is:
-correctly stating that the constants are fine tuned,
-saying they could be random (with no justification or support)
-coming up with a big scary number (with no justification or support)
-filling this self created probabilistic hole in our understanding with God
@@jofsky9066 well said. I even think using the term "finely tuned" is a bit dishonest. The constants do appear to be "precise" or "necessary" in some sense but using "tuned" smuggles in so much theistic intuition.
yep, since we can live on the worst tuned universe - it's pretty random and chaotic. How many other universes do we know to compare? Or maybe there's no other possible values of for those constants? Or maybe there are billions possibilities and billions form of matter we can't even imagine - since we know so little about matter in this universe?
You are correct it is completely an assumption that they could be any different much less how different they need to be for this to apply
The constants have been individually studied and variations of their values is known to be detrimental.
The atheists look for something scientific to prove or disprove God. That’s a dangerous approach as God isn’t a part of our universe and is not subject to the laws within it.
I am a [protestant] Christian, and Trent Horn is one of my favorites, more eloquent and effective apologists these days. Thank you for your work, brother!
11:31 this is where I take issue with this rebuttal for the electrons in love argument.
"Imagining these electrons, doeasn't mean that this state of affairs could actually happen."
I respond exactly the same way to the fine-tuning argument. Just because we can imagine that the universe could be nothing, or never harbor life, doesn't mean this state of affairs can actually happen, as far as we know this may be the only option the universe in its laws.
Great video, though. Your videos are definitely among my favorites when it comes to theistic arguments and the discussion surrounding God's existence.
I think there is a big difference. With electrons in love we are imagining an entirely new kind of being existing, a conscious particle. In contrast, imagining the value of the constants being different is just a difference in degree. It's like the difference between imagining a world where fish swim 5% faster and a world where fish can talk. The former seems at least a little more possible. And even if the constants couldn't be different, the situation is still weird. It's like walking into a room with 80 million combinations on a thermostat and only 100 degrees are life sustaining. Suppose the thermostat for some reason is stuck in that range and can't be changed. It's very strange it just happens to be stuck (i.e. couldn't be any different) in the life permitting range. And thanks for the kind words!
@@TheCounselofTrent It is not strange at all that it happens to be stuck in the life permitting range. The only reason that it seems strange is that you're subconsciously treating the other ranges on the thermostat as being remotely plausible, which is precisely the assumption that the "unchangeable constants" perspective denies. Just because we can fiddle with numbers in an equation, it doesn't lend an iota of evidence to the idea that the universe's constants could be anything aside from what they are now. Our imagination is not evidence of anything at all. All we can observe is a single set of constants, and given this observation, it is completely irrational to assume any other constants are possible until we have evidence of this. Human intuition is fundamentally flawed when used to evaluate the universe as a whole.
@@herroyung857 We also have no evidence that the climate of the earth can be any different than what it is right now. But we trust climate scientists who make models based on hypothetical past scenarios. To deny the possibility of different past human behavior that effects the climate means you deny any alternative timelines/universes as well as free will. We can come to conclusions in hypotheticals even though we ourselves cannot make that situation happen. Maybe, it is *necessary* that free will doesn't exist and the universal constants must *necessarily* be what they are and humans must *necessarily* be the only known beings with high level consciousness. But I'd much rather have one necessary thing than the many random conditions that must be untouchable.
@@twalrus9833 You are comparing phenomena we observe within the universe to phenomena outside of the universe. From our past observations of the Earth's climate, we can easily derive future observations. This is science. We discover patterns within our observations of the universe, and we seek mechanisms and frameworks that explain and predict those patterns.
What is not science is extending our assumptions and intuitions derived from the universe to outside of the universe, if that's a concept that even makes sense. All that we can observe is our universe, so how can you possibly make any assumptions on what alternate universes might be? Any analogies involving observations of our universe simply fail. Phenomena we observe on Earth do not translate to phenomena that may or may not exist separate from our universe. Why? Because there is no evidence that there is anything other than our universe, while there is boatloads of evidence regarding the state of affairs of Earth.
I will repeat myself once more. Intuitions derived from our observations of our universe do not apply to speculations on phenomena outside of our universe, because we have never observed anything outside of our universe and therefore have nothing with which to develop an intuition.
"But I'd much rather have one necessary thing than the many random conditions that must be untouchable."
First, no one is saying that the random conditions are untouchable. We are saying that given the current evidence, arguments in support of God are fundamentally flawed and irrational. And until proven otherwise, it is unreasonable to simply assume that the universe could be any other way, and then to use this bald assertion as an argument for God.
Second, the way you're framing this "necessary" rhetoric is objectionable. I am not defending a "necessary" universe or a "necessary" cosmos/multiverse containing the universe. I am simply pointing out that the most honest position is "I don't know yet" and it's irrational to choose the "necessary" God over the other claims when you cannot demonstrate that God is more probable.
@@herroyung857 I appreciate your desire for evidence, but as you say human intuition can never be enough to "prove" anything outside the observable universe in the same way that we can "prove" phenomena here on Earth. This is because the scientific method was created with certain fundamental principles in mind, and one of these was that it only applies to the physical and natural world.
This is why there are different "kinds" of knowledge; the kind that the scientific method produces is empirical, whereas the kinds of philosophical knowledge being discussed here is fundamentally different.
I don't understand, then, why you require or even expect empirical knowledge (that is, knowledge based on observation) when you admit there isn't a way to acquire this knowledge in the first place, as you can't observe outside the universe?
See, the crux of your original reply is that there is an unproven assumption those making the fine-tuning argument are making, and that is that the physical constants we see in the universe COULD be different. In your eyes, since there is no evidence the constants COULD be different, the argument is thus "flawed", "irrational", etc.
While it is true we can't PROVE the constants could be different, and thus the argument is contingent on the constants being able to be different, I want to point out again that we are not talking about empirical knowledge, and thus the burden of proof is not on those making the fine-tuning argument to prove this to be the case. Rather, it becomes a subjective evaluation of how "reasonable" it is for these constants to possibly be different, as opposed to the subjective evaluation of how "reasonable" it is for these constants to be necessary.
In my opinion the former seems much more reasonable, but if to you the latter seems more compelling, that's fine, but you would then need to DEFEND that point. Simply saying "you can't prove yours definitively with empirical evidence" is a non-starter because we will never be able to do that (since we ourselves lack the perspecive that an omnipotent Being would), and to then call anyone making either argument "irrational" seems silly.
TL;DR I think you misunderstand the kind of knowledge that is being discussed, and that causes you to see a necessary but unproven precondition in a philosophical argument and think the entire thing is "irrational" to argue in the first place.
I didn't know what the "Electrons in Love" argument was, but I had heard that it was a devastating argument against Fine Tuning. I came away from that thinking, "What? How on earth is this supposed to be a good argument? There are so many false or unbacked assumptions with so many possible responses."
the idea behind it, I think, is that it is almost supposed to be almost a mockery and get christians to recognize that the arguments for God and fine tuning are also false or backed by assumptions. Like most arguments against the existence of a creator with a mind, they are only arguments against claims of theism and not really arguments for claims of atheism. Atheism by design is a critical perspective that scrutinizes the claims of any and all religious thought and demands to be convinced for claims they don't agree with. The part i find annoying about this (as someone that used to identify as an atheist) is atheist do not hold their own claims and positions to the same scrutiny. It is all attacking others and never self reflecting. This is one of the reasons I stopped identifying as an atheist some time ago.
I'm curious what false or unbacked assumptions you see within the argument.
While I understand it may not be compelling, there doesn't appear to be much to support.
@@Boundless_Border The argument assumes that the world we live in is mind-unfriendly, because not everything has a mind, and that just because God didn't create the world one way He must not have created it the way it actually is. Even if God could have created the world with more minds with such simple bodies, why is that superior to the amount of minds there are with the complexity of bodies that we have? I certainly don't think it is.
@Konxovar0
The first assumption is a premise of the FTA. So you confused me a bit since I couldn't tell which argument you were criticizing.
The argument doesn't assume that a god doesn't create the world with the follow up conclusion that a god couldn't create the world.
The argument doesn't propose that simple bodies are superior. The argument is trying to show that simple bodies are compatible with types of worlds the proposed god could make. Which you seem to be somewhat in board with.
Thanks for sharing what you took issue with.
So how did you calculate the probability that the universe was fine tune? How did you calculate the probality of other options? How did you calculate the probability that a super natural being could even exist?
As an atheist, it's one of the silliest arguments, not that any diest argument is good.
If the universe didn't support life, you wouldn't be here to ponder about it. It's 100% chance that for a sentient being to ponder about reality, reality must support the existence of sentient beings.
The fine tuning arguement is the equivalent of asking me if I feel lucky that I wasn't born a rock in a volcano. No because if "i" was a rock I wouldn't be me or be conscious.
Aren't you lucky you were born on earth? No. There is no luck involved. I wasn't going to be born in Jupiter's gas clouds suffocating instantly, how would I?
@@silvercrownt Well said if life was design for this universe we would be dependent on hydrogen and helium not oxygen and water.
In line with the intelligent design argument (fine tuning), I’m also fond of the intelligibility argument. Basically this argues from one of the axioms that make science possible and effective: the fact the universe is well ordered and understandable, allowing us to observe the patterns that make the universe work. We would not expect this intelligibility given the universe originated from random chance. Even the concept of a multiverse or an infinitely repeating universe that expands and retracts needs a way of explaining why this patterned state of affairs exists. This makes most sense given an intelligent creator, the same way we can know a book with an intelligent story and setting written in it was made by an author. When scientists explain phenomena with natural laws, they may say “God didn’t do it because there’s a natural explanation” but they forget how these natural explanations themselves would have their origin in God’s design.
This relates to another argument I think I made myself (as someone who studied product design), observing that the way things are is kind of arbitrary, it didn’t have to be the case that humans have 2 arms instead of 4, or that grass is green instead of purple, or that we live on a sphere instead of a disc, or that trees don’t make oxygen but flugelhorns do. From my experience designing things, you often have to make arbitrary choices as to how something looks or functions, rarely if ever is there only one way to create something (though there can be better or worse ways). So I would reason that in observing how the way things are in nature isn’t necessary, they demand something (necessary itself) that arbitrated on how _this_ is the way it will be.
Oddly enough, I have the exact same arguments for God. Still bothers me how maleness and femaleness could arise without an intentional agent behind it.
_"We would not expect this intelligibility given the universe originated from random chance."_
Why not? After all, we evolved _in this universe._ We evolved to understand, at least in part, the environment we evolved in, because that was a survival advantage.
Note that we don't _know_ if the universe originated from random chance. And, obviously, "random chance" isn't the same thing as "unplanned," either. But if a god actually existed, then how could we expect that everything would continue the way we've come to expect?
After all, according to most theists, they think that their god can do anything - literally *anything* - any time he likes, for no reason we would necessarily be able to determine. How would we be able to predict that? We couldn't.
Indeed, most theists - of nearly _every_ religion - think that their god _does_ do that stuff. Everyone who believes in miracles thinks so. So the argument should be the exact opposite of what you claim, shouldn't it? Shouldn't that be evidence that your god _isn't_ real?
_"it didn’t have to be the case that humans have 2 arms instead of 4"_
Yes, you're right, but only if a god exists. _If_ a creator god exists, then you're absolutely right. But if all gods are simply imaginary, then it's obvious why human beings have only two arms, rather than four. It's not a puzzle at all.
An all-powerful creator god could do anything he liked. It wouldn't even have to make _sense,_ he could still do it. That's what "all-powerful" _means_ when it comes to a creator god. Heck, he could make some people have four useful arms _now,_ if he wanted. Magic can do anything at all, and all on God's mere whim.
But we have two arms, instead of four, because we evolved from creatures with four limbs. And evolution is not magic. It's a natural process that works with what already exists.
_That's_ why we don't have four arms. Again, it's not a mystery. And the only way we might get a human with four arms is if there's a glitch in the natural process of reproduction (like the two-headed animals which show up sometimes). _Or_ if a god is real and decides that's what he wants.
Again, your argument seems exactly backwards, doesn't it? If anything, it's an argument for gods *not* being real.
PS. Have you ever heard of the panda's thumb? It's one example among many - in human beings, too - which show that life _wasn't_ intelligently designed.
After all, _good_ design could potentially be explained by either a god or by the natural process of evolution. Both explain good 'design.' But _bad_ design, non-optimal design, silly design - Rube Goldberg type stuff which would be stupid to actually design - only makes sense through natural, unplanned evolution.
Now, obviously, we don't need good evidence that life _wasn't_ intelligently designed, as long as there's no good evidence that it _was._ But we do have that evidence, nonetheless - _lots_ of it. (The human eye is just another example among many.)
Oh hi Bill
Yeah yeah we developed in this particular universe, things would be different in different worlds, so what, the intelligibility argument (and my arbitrariness argument) works for any universe that has certain arbitrary patterns that govern it. Again, ask why is it the case that “this” is the state of affairs that allows something like evolution which brings about 2-armed humans? I already said you can point to natural processes that brought about this state of affairs, that doesn’t mean God did not create those exact processes. Besides, you really don’t argue for the necessity of humans (ie all mammals) having 2 fore limbs other than their legs. Surely it’s possible certain events could have affected the way evolution developed such that mammals have 4 fore limbs. This goes to demonstrate the arbitrariness of this state of affairs, which suggests an arbiter with power and intent to choose the way the world is going to be.
I’m assuming by “unplanned” you mean that natural laws just exist and don’t need outside intelligent influence to cause things to happen. Still, that only pushes the question back, you haven’t answered what is the origin of these laws (because they aren’t necessary, they are arbitrary). Without an intelligent designer, the only other option I’m aware of is random chance.
I’m sure you heard the clarification that God can do anything that’s not logically contradictory (ie square circles). He could indeed create things we couldn’t comprehend, but it makes more sense that he would create things we could comprehend (given his intent to create us with a desire for understanding in the first place). Furthermore, just because you have the power to do something doesn’t mean you are bound to do it. God could pop into existence a flugelhorn that creates oxygen out of CO2 when you blow in it, but why would he? I don’t think theists would actually say God does things for no reason, because there’s always some intent behind a created thing. He’s already created things the way he wanted (and scripture mentions him resting from his creative work); imagine God being like “oops let me change this real quick, no reason, just cause.” That actually poses a harder problem for theists than what you think is an objection. Miracles are interesting since critics will say they violate the laws of nature (ie God’s very own laws). For one this assumes the laws are necessary (instead of being arbitrated by a creator), and for another it assumes miracles _violate_ natural law. God can have good reason to do a miracle when it brings about a good (meaning it’s not for “no reason”), like curing an illness that the human body is not naturally disposed to cure, by suspending/surpassing the law that states the body can’t fix certain health problems on its own. And it’s possible because God’s supernatural authority overpowers nature. Miracles are _above_ nature, not contrary to it. And I would say extraordinary miracles do happen (also ordinary miracles where natural things just happen to occur at the best time). I have no idea why you would think God not doing something crazy on a whim means he doesn’t exist.
PS, Trent already addressed that intelligent design doesn’t automatically claim optimal design, thus vestigial structures don’t disprove theism. Besides, pandas thumbs do serve a function in grabbing things. But again, it’s as if you think theistic creation means God just pops creatures into being without any process or connection to other creatures. The very paradigm of evolution itself where we have creatures trying to survive and pass on their genes to adapt to environments over generations, this paradigm is itself arbitrary and demands an arbiter. Why shouldn’t it be the case that creatures live forever, constantly adapting their own DNA to their environment without having to mate and hope their offspring do better?
@@killianmiller6107
_"I already said you can point to natural processes that brought about this state of affairs, that doesn’t mean God did not create those exact processes."_
True. But it also doesn't mean that your god - or any god - _did_ create those processes. Or that any god is even real.
_"Surely it’s possible certain events could have affected the way evolution developed such that mammals have 4 fore limbs."_
Not really - not mammals, at least, because four limbs were probably set before that. But at _some_ point, yes. After all, not all animals have four limbs. I'm not following your argument, though.
_"This goes to demonstrate the arbitrariness of this state of affairs, which suggests an arbiter with power and intent to choose the way the world is going to be."_
I'm not sure if you and I agree on what "arbitrary" means, but why would that "suggest" anything like that? I see absolutely no connection there. And again, it wasn't "arbitrary" for human beings. _Or_ for mammals. Natural processes must work with what they've _got._ Evolution starts with what _is._ A magical designer wouldn't have that limitation.
_"Still, that only pushes the question back, you haven’t answered what is the origin of these laws (because they aren’t necessary, they are arbitrary)."_
I'm quite willing to admit when I don't know something. (I wish _theists_ were as willing to admit that!) But why do you claim that those laws are "arbitrary"? How would _you_ know that?
Besides, even if they _could_ have been some other way - and we have no idea if that's true or not - so what? "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." It really doesn't.
_"I don’t think theists would actually say God does things for no reason, because there’s always some intent behind a created thing."_
You've never heard "God works in mysterious ways"? It's been my experience that theists claim all sorts of diverse, contradictory 'reasons' for things, unless they can't make up an answer they find appealing, in which case it's always "God works in mysterious ways."
_"For one this assumes the laws are necessary (instead of being arbitrated by a creator)"_
There you go. You said it yourself. Earlier, you claimed that the natural laws _aren't_ necessary, but that seems to be only because you want them to have been created by your god. You're not providing any good evidence that your claims are true, you're just making claims based on what you _want_ to be true (i.e. your god), aren't you?
_"And I would say extraordinary miracles do happen"_
There you go. Then you _can't_ rely on the universe being "well ordered and understandable," as you put it, because - according to _you_ - your god does "miracles" whenever he wants.
Those of us who _don't_ believe in a magical being interfering whenever he wants are the ones who can expect the universe to go on as we've always experienced it to be, without magical interference. If things change, we'll have to change our minds. But we have no good reason to _expect_ 'miracles.' You do.
_"pandas thumbs do serve a function in grabbing things."_
So what? This has nothing to do with "serving a function." It's about the abundant evidence that living things _weren't_ planned.
The human eye serves a function, too. But only a complete idiot would design an eye with a blind spot right in the middle of it (an _unnecessary_ blind spot, as cephalopod eyes demonstrate quite clearly).
_"The very paradigm of evolution itself where we have creatures trying to survive and pass on their genes to adapt to environments over generations, this paradigm is itself arbitrary and demands an arbiter."_
*Evidence?*
_"Why shouldn’t it be the case that creatures live forever, constantly adapting their own DNA to their environment without having to mate and hope their offspring do better?"_
You tell me. Why didn't "God" do it that way? He would have avoided causing unnecessary suffering to billions, no, _trillions,_ of living things. Because, again, a god _could_ do that. A god _would_ be able to plan ahead. Nature can't. A god _would_ see the results of his horrific plan. Nature can't plan _at all._
And any kind of half-way decent god wouldn't want to cause such an _immense_ amount of unnecessary suffering, not just to human beings but to every other sentient creature. Nature can't feel, can't think, can't do anything deliberately. A god _could,_ if the god actually existed. (Of course, an imaginary god can't do any of that stuff, either.)
Thanks for the reply!
that fails miserably too. In the Christian universe, the universe isn't well ordered and understandable. Your god makes it incoherent and unpredictable with its supposed miracles and interference.
God is not a genie, he is not here to grant our wishes.
Using God to explain a thing is granting our wish to explain the thing. God of the gaps is wishful thinking. Also, read Matthew 7:7-12.
If god wants you to believe in him but refuses to provide any evidence at all that would convince you, then he's doing a really poor job.
Then why worship him?
@@haitaelpastor976 if not Him then what do you worship? Money, women, your job, your dog? We all worship something if you realize it or not. Me me me is a childish mindset. Don't stay a child. I was close to atheism but because of my life experience I am a strong believer. I don't know if I can really explain my reasons but I know now that this life would be much different if it was dictated by my inferior mind. Praise be to Lord Jesus Christ.
@darrennew8211 There is a lot of evidence. People are just too stubborn to see it.
Personally, I find the cosmological argument more convincing than the fine tuning one. Just because it feels like the skeptic has more wiggle room to hand wave away the notion of God being the explanation of fine tuning by presuppossing some (currently not known) naturalistic law, compared to the cosmological one where it feels like the skeptic is more cornered into believing that God is the best explanation. Considering that before the universe, there is no nature for the skeptic to draw or presuppose a naturalistic law from.
When you propose the fine tuning argument, you are looking back at a string of 10,000 dice rolls remarking how infinitesimally low the odds of rolling that exact sequence was. Odds do not work in retrospect.
As an atheist the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is easily the single biggest challange to my current beliefs. Ultimately though I think theres other explinations aside from theism that can explain fine tuning (deism, simulation theory, pan theism, etc.) which are all cumulatively just as or more likely than theism to me. I also think that the probability of fine tuning given theism is grossly overestimated by theists (I still think its relatively high but not a near certainty as most theists take as a given).
Still a very strong arguement for theism nonetheless.
It isn’t.
why since there is no evdience for it at all? It's notable how these cultists claim "fine tuning" shows that their god exists, but when shown how this god's supposed "design" fails hilariously, they have to make excuses for this god.
Look at it this way: Fine tuning is a cardboard box you will use to pack things into. In order to maximize you pack your stuff in the most optimal way. If that box had other dimensions, you had it packed in another way.
The the cosmic constants had been slightly different, the Universe had looked different. Now it happens to be that an electron has this charge, Plancks constant has this value etc.
The fine tuning argument is much like god of the gaps argument.
Exactly but theists do not think outside of the box when it comes to what could be the explanation of fine-tuning, they automatically think God had to do it. It is simple it’s admit you do not know like the rest of us.
I have a good counterargument, the universe is very huge and very old, and yet we see no signs of life anywhere else, the fine-tuning argument would be compelling if the universe was teeming with life, but it's not, we're the only ones, and that accounts for the improbability of the formation of life
There's also survivorship bias, we exist because everything lined up just right, if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to think about this
This video also completely misunderstands the electrons-in-love concept by focusing in on that one example, the point is that life could look very very different from us, why are we carbon-based multi-cellular beings instead of something else? The answer is simple: Because that's the only thing that worked here, and we're only able to contemplate these things *because* it worked
I'm an atheist. I also think the fine-tuning argument is the best argument for the existence of God. However, I still find problems with it, which I will list below.
1. How do we know it's even possible for the physical constants to be any different? It might be the case that these are the only values they can have.
2. If it is possible for the physical constants to be different, how do we know how different they can possibly be? Perhaps the universe as we know it wouldn't be possible if they were different by 1 part in 10^1000, but what if it's only possible for them to be different by 1 part in 10^100000?
3. Say it's possible for the constants to have a wide range of values (so that objection #2 isn't a problem). How do we know what the probability is for any of those values? Perhaps it's extraordinarily unlikely for them to take on values outside of what they currently are. Mathematically speaking, how do we know the probability distribution is flat instead of highly clustered around certain values?
4. Theists don't seem to like this objection, but what if there is a multiverse? Then we would just happen to be in one if the universes where it's possible to live. I don't see this as terribly unlikely. Throughout history our view of reality has continually expanded. We discovered more continents, then more planets, then more stars with their own solar systems, then more galaxies. And we didn't just discover more of them, but we discovered there are an unimaginable number of them. So I don't see why discovering that there are more universes would be preposterous.
5. Say it is possible for the physical constants to be wildly different. How do we know that those different values wouldn't give rise to a different kind of universe with different kinds of life? This is essentially Douglas Adams' puddle analogy. (You should look it up if you're not familiar, it's a neat analogy.)
6. What if it's possible for not only the physical constants to take on other values, but for there to be other physical constants themselves? If that's possible, there's no telling what would be possible given all the different interactions that these different physical constants would have. For example, it might have been possible to have another constant acting on the force of gravity instead of just the gravitational constant. It also might have been possible to not have had the force of gravity at all, and to have a different force with a different physical constant.
I will add two notes that to your list.
1. The fact that if you vary several of the constants at once this will result in a different scope of values for life as we know it to exist while not being within the already established ranges. So it isn't quite that you have to roll X amount of 5s but you can roll a combination of 6s and 4s as well and end up with the same result.
2. As it is the form of the equations that gives rise to the constants. It doesn't make sense to manipulate the constants while holding the equations the constants arose from to be fixed. This is much like precisely calibrating an equation to match the data and someone coming along and saying "well if you change one of the coefficients the data won't align with the equation anymore."
@@Boundless_Border Those are good points as well!
Look up Father Mark Spitzer.....he has great arguments using science and mathematics that show the existence of God as the intelligent designer
Probably is not the best argument.
I love your content. I miss the longer episodes, rebuttals, dialogues, debates, etc.
We are currently raising funds to host more in-person dialogues and debates. And hopefully we will do some more rebuttals soon.
The “probabilities” like the ten-royal-flushes one are purely speculative, as we have no idea about the total possible number of combinations of values that the fundamental constants could have taken on. Heck, can you demonstrate that there is even one possible combination of values besides the one we know? If not, then you have no argument.
Yes we do. We have tons of other planets that don't meet the conditions to support life. Why did ANY of them develop in this way?
@@bridgetgress The Argument from Fine-Tuning deals with the values of the fundamental constants of physics: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the gravitational constant, and electromagnetism. It does not deal with the conditions of Earth compared to the conditions of other planets.
That said, we know very little about the life-supporting capability of the overwhelming majority of planets in the universe, which means we don’t know the denominator nor the numerator in the probability calculation of (number of planets that can support life)/(total number of planets).
@@jimurban5367 Are you an astrophysicist
Agreed, to day we don't know is perfectly acceptable. Which is why research is on going. To just attribute this supposed fine tuning to a God and stop looking for reasons, os just another example of the tree from the garden!
It is deeply rooted in theists this teaching, it keeps them in check, through fear! The one emotion to control all that allow this emotion to control them! This has been known from 1000s of years, and it is still relevant today! Only now, it is ordinary people instilling this fear and spreading it. For the purpose of togetherness.
@@jimurban5367 moreover, people seem to forget that with each planet being statistically independent from others, scale of the universe works against this argument, since 1% is not an intuitively scary probability when I have million tries.
What converted me is actually the issue of Moral Subjectivism, the instant I realised that, without religion, our own human morality is subjective, I found that religion is the ONLY way to objectivify morality.
If you don't see why Moral Subjectivity is bad, simply go and read up on Egoism and then make an actual argument that an Egoist would actually listen to and be unable to refute without the use of any Religion.
Effectively speaking, what converted me was not the question of IF, but the question of WHY, what purpose does it serve us, and once I found that purpose, I embraced it like a frightened hound to their master.
This is the issue that sent me deep into depression and made life colorless. How can so many people defend evil and degeneracy and then claim that good people are bigoted or lack compassion?
What would be the meaning of life if there isnt objective value and goodness?
But wanting something to be true and it actually being true are two different things.
In fact what kept me from religion is the issue of Moral subjectivism...
When I was younger, I always looking for objective morality, I was looking for that one ultimate view that tells me what is right and wrong, but I then realized that my morality was shaped by a lot of different things and beliefs, those things are all very subjective. Not only subjective, but also constantly changing throughout the years.
The most recent experience is I realized how deeply my morality was shaped by patriotism. Never thought about it before, but somehow now I felt like my tax dollars became more important than people's life in some other countries. When I was younger, when I didn't need to pay tax, I never give it much of a thought. Life is life, and we cannot put a money value on life. I believed that. But it is extremely hard to act based on a general religion term such as 'all life are created equal'. If foreign life can be saved using my tax dollar, they are certainly not worth saving. It makes strong arguments if we are debating, but in real life and real money, it will not work.
@@lixiaoyu1067 你是中国人?
_"I found that religion is the ONLY way to objectivify morality."_
Really? How, exactly? I don't understand how a religion - or a god - would get you there.
PS. If I understand you correctly, it's not that you found good evidence that a god was real, but just that the idea of subjective morality _scared_ you? Well, that's honest, at least. But it hardly seems to be a good reason to believe that something exists in reality.
Then again, wishful-thinking is a powerful motivator, huh? Unfortunately, I care about the truth.
@@YSFmemories
_"What would be the meaning of life if there isnt objective value and goodness?"_
You're right that wanting something to be true doesn't mean that it really _is_ true. Indeed, we should be even more cautious in that case. But why would you assume that there _is_ a "meaning of life."
After all, "meaning" _is_ subjective. It depends on a thinking, feeling creature, and what has meaning to me might not have meaning to you. And "value" is _obviously_ subjective. Trade would be impossible if we didn't value goods in different amounts. We sell what we value less to buy what we value more. (And yes, we tend to value friends and family more than complete strangers.)
However, I don't mean to dismiss your feelings of depression. Not at all. But please note that there might be a medical issue there. Just in case, be sure to discuss that with your doctor if you're still feeling that way. Life is too short to suffer unnecessarily. I wish you well!
How do you even begin to assess the probability of physical constants being what they are, or how they "could have been different?" What does that even mean? I get the argument that it's surprising that there's something rather than nothing, and that existence includes intelligent life. But even that is so abstract...
I find it strange so many atheists regard the fine tuning argument so highly when I think it sucks. If that was the best argument for God, I’d still be agnostic.
We don’t know what the possible values of the cosmological constants are. We don’t have a clue. So how can we know how improbable the universe is? We can’t. Argument dead.
The moral argument, argument from contingency and from motion, even the ontological argument, all seem much sounder to me.
I wouldn’t say they rate it highly. Just less terrible and taking more thought then some of the other travesties that apologists call arguments.
@@Tinesthiathe stuff I have heard man... The bar for passable argument here is really low.
Christ is King.
King of the idiots who believe in him.
Nah.
the Bible is fake: the exodus never happened; the gospels weren't written by the apostles; the Revelation is about Nero and not Satan. Jesus was just a charismatic sect leader, just like Muhammad. they weren't gods or divine.
I thought Elvis was?
I'll never really understand the misuse of the word proof by appologists, not even scientists use it that much and its actually their job to "prove". Literally just 10 seconds in🤦🏾♂️
Why would an atheist fear anything supernatural?
We're not the ones with the "loving God" who likes to condemn people to eternal torture.
God's nature demands justice but His person desires mercy.
You have free will. Align it with God or not. Your choices will be respected.
@@standard-user-name "Respected" our choice is literally either become a slave to god and his servant or be tortured for ALL ETERNITY. Nice fucking choice man. Not to mention, he allows slavery, genocide and rape. But yeah lets cover all that up :D
@@standard-user-name You have free will, but you better use it exactly the way God wants you to or you are going to hell. Really sounds free huh?
@@austinjd2193
Yeah, funny, isn't it? Of course, he has no good evidence any of that is true, anyway. It's just a completely unsupported claim. But even their _claims_ make no sense.
@@austinjd2193 You have free will, but you better use it exactly the way the law wants you to or you are going to jail. Really sounds free huh?
Not the entire universe is hospitable to life. Just step out onto the moon without a space suit and see what happens. The universe is a myriad of different environments that each have their own shot at producing life, and when one gambles enough he eventually wins. We happen to be on Earth because Earth had the environment that was suited for life best that we know of. Statistically speaking, it’s practically impossible that the Grand Canyon exists in any one location on Earth, but Earth has so many locations that the Grand Canyon does exist, and it exists there thanks to the natural environment that molded it. In the incredible vastness of the universe with its billions of planets and dwarf planets and so forth, something was likely going to be hospitable, especially given the incredibly long amount of time to create the necessary conditions.
TLDR: It’s not just one universe with one chance, it’s billions of planets with billions of chances
_"it’s billions of planets with billions of chances"_
Indeed, even _that_ is a gross underestimate, huh? It's more like sextillions of planets with sextillions of chances. I don't care _how_ low a chance might be, it's probably likely to happen with that many opportunities.
@@Bill_Garthright If Trent would have had sextillion guesses to what was written inside the envelope, I'm pretty sure he would have guessed correctly in the end. It's a flaw in his reasoning he overlooked.
@@brucelansberg5485
One of many. :)
Side note: Winning 10 games of Poker in a row with all Royal Flushes is an excellent demonstration of how natural selection works.
Everyone gets a random set of cards, but there is only one winner selected and that’s the one with a Royal Flush. Now repeat.
The more I think about this argument the less compelling it gets, I think what atheists mean is that it is a decent reasoning compared to other arguments. In the end, I don't in any way see how this proves the truth of any man made religion like Islam and Christianity because the second you open one of their books the first idea you get is no way this is coming from a creator of the universe.
I appreciate your sentiment, but you're trying to connect two things that are unrelated. This is merely an argument for the existence of God, it has nothing to do with which God or if that God has even been revealed in a known religion. So, I'm uncertain why what you said would make the argument less compelling, as the argument doesn't deal with anything you mentioned. It's simply "is there a God... yes/no" and this is one reason to consider towards that question, nothing further.
@mwetter I reckon I kinda misrepresented my thought in comment due to laziness I guess and upon reading your response I thought I owe you a clarification 😅. In fact, I never meant to say that this argument dis/proves god, they were completely different ideas that I pronounced in the same instance because of the fact I'm not a native English speaker. What I meant to say that this argument doesn't help any religion in particular so it can be used by Muslim, Christian or even an Zoroastrian. And when I want to study a religion I look at its texts instead of this farfetched arguments that change nothing (at least for me), because at the end of the day I don't care what people want to worship I just want to know that what they believe doesn't call for my death (cough Islam cough). Peace.
@ thanks so much for clarifying, that totally makes sense!
4:50 Haha, "do not put the Lord your God to the test" (Deuteronomy 6:16)
Except for Gideon.
@@jm329and Elijah.
@@Nemo12417
Elijah is my favorite example. I think most Christians know that their God would be just as silent as Ba’al during such a test and would call it evil to be treated like Ba’als prophets were.
Another cafetaria Christian cherry-picking the verses that support his narrative while ignoring the ones that directly contradict it.
@@1970Phoenix What cherry-picking? What verses say that God is obliged to respond to dares, commands, tests from men?
■■■ "PRAYING DOES NOT CHANGE GOD, but it changes him who prays." --Soren Kierkegaard
Here's another argument against fine-tuning that I rarely see: just because the physical constants appear to be incredibly precise does NOT necessarily imply that the *chances* of them being that way are equally small.
They need not be equally small. Chance is an improbable theory for a precise state of affairs or even a moderately precise state. A shed is not as precise as a F-35. Chance is not a good explanation for a shed.
@@nics4967
A snowflake is a "precise" state of affairs. Do you think there is a snowflake maker god?
@Boundless_Border you seem to be bringing up a side matter as to what we can conclude from precision. The objection that x may just be precise not very precise is not a very good one to x not being caused by intelligence.
By precise, you mean snowflakes are "held to low tolerance in manufacture" that would seem at least close to saying they are designed. If you are saying they are designed, I'm not the one saying there is intelligence behind their being you are.
@@Boundless_Border all these 3 definitions of precise from Merriam-Webster seem to talk of intelligence.
"1
: adapted for extremely accurate measurement or operation
2
: held to low tolerance in manufacture
3
: marked by precision of execution"
Do you have a definition in mind that doesn't?
@Boundless_Border is a snowflake of the same real moral significance as a human being?
I thought you were for sure going to say the cosmological arguments, though many atheists (even well-known ones) falsely believe that "who made God" is a competent rebuttal.
the point to replies like that is to point out that even if the "infinite regression" must have an end point, it's special pleading to declare it must be at any specific god.
@@TheAnimeAtheist Right, so before we specify which god is THEE God, we have to get past the point of "there is no god." Can't put the cart in front of the horse and expect to have a reasonable conversation.
@@TheAnimeAtheist Not when the end point of life, reason and consciousness is NOT naturalism or materialism. The most logical conclusion is reason, life and consciousness came out of eternity.
@@TheAnimeAtheistyou guys consistently misunderstand that God in an Abrahamic sense is not equivocal to "the gods" or "a god" in a pagan sense.
@@newglof9558 And the abrahamic god doesn't prove christianity, you still have judism and islam to distinguish from.
It’s not a proof - it’s an argument.
The funny thing about the fine-tuning argument is that it seems to overlook the reality that an omnipotent god could cause life to exist under any set of circumstances, and certainly wouldn't be constrained to work within a single, highly-specific set of physical constants.
Yup. We live where it is possible for us to live naturally. We evolved where it was possible for us to evolve naturally. But if an all-powerful god actually existed, he wouldn't have that limitation. We could live in the vacuum of space or in the heart of a sun - anywhere, really, since his magic would make it possible.
Funny how gods never do anything that would actually require a god to exist, isn't it?
@@Bill_Garthright I feel like the one property we can reasonably assign to gods is their apparent desire to make it seem like they don't exist. Maybe they're just shy?
this argument is against the notion of an chaotic meaningless universe.
@@gabrielm1180 Right. So what's the justification for the presupposition that all other permutations of physical constants would necessarily lead to a chaotic and meaningless universe?
@@shassett79
_"Maybe they're just shy?"_
Sure seems like it, huh? I mean, what _else_ could it be, right? :)
GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY. HALLELUJAH. AMEN.
ALL HAIL THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER, IT WILL BLESS US WITH ITS SAUCE. BOW DOWN TO THE FLYING ALLMIGHTY CREATOR. RAMEN.
Glory be.....give us a break, Troll!
great content again Trent!
I am an atheist but also agnostic, meaning while I don't yet have a path to form a belief that a god does exist, I don't know if any gods do exist. I also find the fine tuning argument to be one of the better arguments but the reason I find all of the arguments to be subpar is that they are based on our ignorance, not what we can actually know to have a better understanding. Something like aerodynamics is not based on our ignorance, there are testable principles that lead one to a better understanding and know of its existence. Even something like the God particle gave us reasons to suspect it was there before we actually discovered it. I simply don't find anything like that where there is an expectation to find a God that isn't tied to emotions or subpar reasoning. I realize this doesn't mean that no Gods exist but it seems like we only have superficial reasons so far for believing this.
why specifically do you find the fine tuning argument one of the better ones?
@@UnderWaterExploring I think because the other arguments are easier to actually debunk with something. The fine tuning argument, while still based on our ignorance, doesn't really have a something to come back with due to our ignorance. We can certainly imagine natural causes for the constants, which is why I don't think atheists view this argument good enough to sway them.
While I agree with you for the most part, I think, for me, the fact that the god of the gaps argument supplements the other arguments because we may not know things now but there are a lot of things we figured out that used to be exclusively in the divine realm.
@@ElationInStellation I am not completely sure what you mean about figuring things out that used to be exclusively in the divine realm? Do you mean like asserting Gods were responsible for lightning and thunder before we learned the natural causes or something else?
@@scottguitar8168 Yes.
intriguing ≠ convincing.
argument ≠ evidence.
scientific theory ≠ fact
@@Spoiler_Alertist true. Scientific theory = the best model to explain observable reality. Like gravity
Yes but arguments are the presentation of evidence conveyed in objection that can constitute as evidence if not disproved.
@@Thrillzrobloxbedwars well, no.
there are a LOT of arguments in favor of the existence of Aliens, for example.. and they´re not evidence just because ther´re not disproved
@@Thrillzrobloxbedwars well, no. there are a lot of valid arguments in favor of the existence of Aliens, for example...
and those are not evidence of the existence of aliens just because they are not disproved
The odds of the universe existing is 100%.
That‘s true in any conceivable universe.
when the atheist was daring Trent to ask God to tell him the content of the letter, I remember when satan was tempting Jesus in the desert. asking Jesus to ask God to order his angels to save Jesus when he jumps off the top of temple. goosebumps.
Thought that as well! Deuteronomy 4:16, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."
it's also disingenuous, because if Trent did indeed tell him the content of the letter, the atheist would simply accuse Trent of having foreknowledge of the dare and cheating.
@@Burt1038 This is a baseless assumption of yours. If you assume the atheist was a good-faith actor and that he made sure no one could know the contents of the letter but himself, he would certainly lean more towards the theistic position if Trent told him precisely what was in the letter. I would lean more towards the theistic position if there were verifiable accounts of people with their heads severed walking around the next day like nothing happened, or if amputees regrew their limbs overnight, or if children around the globe just stopped getting bone cancer out of the blue.
Reminds me of 1 kings 18, where God has no problem being tested.
It's true we cannot know for sure. BUT- there are hints in a person's attitude how good faith they are.... Often it is quite clear that they are biased against God
(Not judging, I am bias for God 🤷♂️ but it is what it is)
There are numerous other preternatural possibilities-
And some that could not be disproven. Like Hinduism. Trent guessing right could be just a manifestation of brahmin as part of the cosmic drama 🤷♂️
Even the Pharisees had evidence of miracles.
Fr some people; one miracle is enough.
For others, some seemingly preternatural occurrence is enough.
Others, as I suspect this atheist would become... Would simply keep requesting signs till it was no longer "faith" but "facts".
But God demands faith.
Faith is a special sort of love.
@@herroyung857
You left out the even more shocking concession from Dawkins in that same episode of the Justin Brierly podcast. When Justin asked him why he still rejected the argument, he stumbled and said that he could be convinced to be a deist but Jesus Christ and at that stuff was nothing to do with it. He raised no objection to the argument other than something that the argument does not attempt to prove. And yet, during an interview with Cosmic Skeptic, he said that he thought there to be 'no good arguments'.
He could be a pantheist
I believe Dawkins actually claims nowadays to be an agnostic who leans strongly towards atheism rather than an outright atheist.
@@michaelpryor78
Personally, I don't give a crap what Richard Dawkins thinks. After all, he's not the atheist pope or anything. Heh, heh. Heck, I was an atheist before I'd ever _heard_ of him. But I thought I'd point out that "agnostic" and "atheist" aren't contradictory. Indeed, I'd say they're complementary.
I consider myself to be an "agnostic atheist." That's because I don't believe in a god or gods (atheist), but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary (agnostic). And although I don't know - and don't care - I suspect that Dawkins would readily agree with that.
@@Bill_Garthrightfalse. Agnostic atheism is a nonsensical term that means nothing. People who use it fundamentally misunderstand the nature of belief, knowledge, and the relationship between the two.
If you have justified true belief that God exists, you're a theist.
If you have justified true belief that God does not exist, you are an atheist.
If you do not have justified true belief, you are an agnostic.
@@newglof9558
_"If you have justified true belief that God exists, you're a theist."_
Heh, heh. So you're saying that there _are_ no theists? That's a bold claim. Or are you saying that you _do_ have "justified true belief that God exists"? That's also a bold claim. Either way, it's just a claim. Can you back it up with *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking?
Oh, and I don't give a crap what you think about the labels I use to describe my position. If you don't like the labels, then ignore the labels and address the position I stated above: I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary.
I was a Christian when I first heard of the fine-tuning argument and immediately saw it as bunk. The Universe has to be someway and it happens to be the way it is; and we can exist in it the way it is. Moreover, when you have a sample size of one and have no idea how the particulars came about, there is no way to determine probabiity.
This argument will not convince anyone that actually thinks about it. It's an argument from ignorance, can also be a false dilemma, and you could argue it invokes anthropic bias.
para ser justo, o ajuste fino não precisa envolver antropocentrismo; há versões do argumento dizendo que o próprio universo entraria em colapso se as constantes fossem um pouco diferentes.
It's quite literally the opposite of an argument for ignorance, there's no dilemma involved, and it's not even necessarily anthropic in nature because fine tuning is implied by any complex chemical structure, let alone sentient living being.
You just actively don't want to be convinced.
@aasalata I would prefer there being an all loving God instead of nothing. Your attempt to refute me is weak and clouded by bias.
@@PossibleTango I'm arguing there's nothing to refute, though. As I said, claiming fine tuning is an argument from ignorance is just bizarre, considering the point of the argument is that we know there are many fine-tuned aspects that we can observe through science for which the best explanation is just design. The false-dilemma point is also puzzling given no dilemma is being presented at all, and as I said fine tuning being implied by the existance of any complex chemical structure makes the anthropic part of your point weird to the least as well.
tldr you are just saying things.
@@verbumcaroyt the anthropic part of OP's claim is wrong. However you are missing the false dilemma that is present:
"The constanst are fine tuned, either by incredibly small odds, so small you can't even imagine how small they are or they were set by a designer."
This is a false dilemma.
1. You can easily disregard the probabilistic part of the argument:
-you can't appeal to small probability if you don't know what the probability is
-just because the values are fine tuned it doesn't mean they could have been different
-there is some evidence allowing for speculation that only one number has to have a set value and even then that number could be arbitrary and still permit everything to happen
2. God doesn't have to be the answer:
-the constants could be a necessary part of the universe and reality without a need to change them
-there are other valid proposals rather than God: mutliverse, a cyclical nature of the universe, necessary realms of mathematics or quantum fluctuations
So the argument is set on a false premise (probability) and pushes one explanation as "better" with no justification
I always find it interesting that the fine tuning argument is rarely the argument that theists bring up as being the argument they find most convincing, yet it's the one that atheists tend to say is the best argument for God's existence. Don't really know what to make of it, though.
Perhaps it is because athiests want physical proof, and this argument is the one that comes closest.
Perhaps it is because atheists want physical proof, and this is the argument that comes closest.
@@maciejpieczula631 It's because they respond to the most common arguments by theists, who by in large, don't really use this argument.
Its a bad argument and theist know it. You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil.
Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design"
@@Oneocna
This makes no sense
You're mixing up 2 arguments fine-tuning and intelligent design
No one is arguing the universe is finetuned for life
What people argue is the the constants of the universe is fine-tuned
Did you know Darwin admitted he couldn't explain the origin of the eye? Well, when you just quote that one sentence, ignore the "seems", and cut off the next two pages when he goes on to explain it.
Trent uses similar quote mining here. He quotes many atheists saying it is one of the better arguments for God, but clips off their sentences beginning "However" or "But" when they explain their disagreements with it- which he never handles.
Mister Horn, I am very thankful for your guidance. You have helped to answer so many of the questions I had on my journey towards joining the Catholic church. You are very well appreciated, Sir. Thank you
Another mind lost to gobbledigook
Fine tuning alone is an interesting and thought-provoking argument for God's existence. However, logical positions in isolation will probably not be enough to convince somebody to believe. A sceptic/truth seeker would need to experience some kind of supernatural experience/feeling of God's presence to fully accept him in my opinion.
Fine tuning argument only gets stronger when you add other details. Like how the moon is the EXACT same size as the sun relative to it's distance from Earth, precisely during a time period where a species can comprehend that, on the only known life-supporting planet...
The transcendental argument is the best argument, honestly.
It's powerful for people who are generally unfamiliar with philosophy. But I always found transcendental/presuppositionalism to be both philosophically and theologically problematic.
Why?
it is really bad
is god limited by logic or is god not limited by logic and therefore can create a rock he cant lift and limit himself
@@Oneocna well isn’t God making a rock too heavy for Him to lift the same as Him making a square with 3 sides or a bachelor who is married? It’s impossible in a very particular way.
@@Oneocna God has created plenty of rocks that are so large that the concept of lifting them is incoherent (the moon being one obvious example of this).
Trent have you heard about the psychophysical harmony argument?
I would appreciate if anyone could simplify the psychophysical harmony argument in layman terms if possible?
it's dualism, the same baseless lies that christians use all of the time.
I think a very good way to explain why the Fine Tuning Argument SHOULD BE, so good.
Is that if one were to create a system for life, if one were to create a program to do something, they would create that system, and that system alone.
What need would a computer programmer have to create a system that tracks the time, if he's trying to create a formula solver?
And right now with our understanding, Earth was perfectly constructed for life.
The argument that we are the water wondering why the bowl was perfectly formed for us, only strengthens the point of a creator.
Also, the universe from my understanding is infinitely expanding, is finite in every moment, just getting bigger.
Meaning that in each moment there isn't an infinite chance for life to emerge, it was a one time roll, that was so improbable, it's reasonable to believe that it was not up to chance.
I always find it amusing because the fine tuning argument actually refutes the idea of an all powerful god, if life couldnt exist with slightly different constants, that means god isnt all powerful because he couldnt put life forms in such a universe. If god is all powerful, he can put lifeforms in any universe with any constants.
Its certainly at best alludes to a half-ass god considering the mountain of “design” flaws in the mix. Thats for sure
It does seem odd that on one day, on one occasion they are arguing for the fine tuned world that was made ever so carefully to found/support life but on the next day/occasion/argument the natural world is a random mess, a concoction of chaos and miscellaneous quagmire of unguided activity which absolutely could NOT have spawned life naturally. These same people guffaw at researchers trying to figure how life may have started naturally when in reality, these researchers would be exploring and trying to discover the greatest fine tuning achievement of all...God fine tuning the world SO THAT life could arise naturally and evolve into all the different kinds we see today.
" If god is all powerful, he can put lifeforms in any universe with any constants."
Or with no natural constants or components at all. Proof of this is their belief in supernatural life forms which have intelligence and free will.
he best argument foR God is sOmething that atheist cannot debunked
THE SHROUD OF TURIN
*God
@ Even more so. unless by specifying God you’re referring to a less than omnipotent being.
I think there are several problems with the fine tuning argument:
1. It assumes that the universes' constant values (such as gravity, the speed of light, protons being lighter than neutrons) have a dial that can be turned and aren't just inherent parts of the universe.
2. An argument can be made for a malevolent God, a God that tried to make the universe as hostile as possible to life that even if the universes values were changed, even a little bit, life would cease to exsist.
3. It assumes that if God exists, he couldn't create life in any other possible universe where these values are different. If God can create life in other possible universes than this argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life is null
I also had developed a version of the fly-argument, but till now never heard someone else formulating it. Glad I found it here, because it's better formulated as I could do.
As an atheist, I think of fine-tuning argument as arguing "if my green plant wasn't green, it wouldn't be green."
Exactly. It is like the puddle argument. A puddle that thinks that the hole it's in was made perfectly for him is like a theist thinking the universe was made for them to live in.
When it obviously is the other way around, we evolved to live in our environment. If our environment was different, we would have evolved differently, or we wouldn't be here at all to ponder these questions.
@@stickyrubb in other words the survivor ship bias
@@pmg567 Yes!
@@stickyrubbAlthough I don’t disagree with your argument, you’re completely missing the point of the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument proposes that the chances that we live in a universe that permits the existence of life is so low, that God is a more likely explanation. Your argument that ‘we evolved to live in this universe’ doesn’t really work here because you have to accept the pretence that life will 100% come about. What if we didn’t evolve to live in this universe, that is to say, what if life didn’t happen at all (it’s not like it has to or that the universe must in some way allow it) and yet we are here. I think that’s more so the argument that the video is getting at.
@@AJCavalier the problem with the argument is that it says that the odds of having habitable zones are incredibly low but it doesn't take into consideration that the universe is absolutely masive.
It's kinda like saying 1% is a small percentage, but when you roll 100 times, the odds of landing that 1% are very high.
Also, life adapts to its environment, so having the "perfect requirements" is not evidence for this since life adapts to what it has acces to so the "perfect requirements" aren't the same for everyone.
I also didn’t find the fine tuning argument the most threatening as an atheist. The moral argument for sure. Of course we live in a universe that happens to have a planet that supports life because we couldn’t exist and wouldn’t be able to observe it otherwise.
You find the moral argument threatening?
I agree, that's always my thought. The only way we could be talking is if the conditions were right for life, no matter how likely or unlikely that is. Morality on the other hand could almost singularly keep me convinced
@@JB-cd8eb that seems to be misunderstanding the argument
It's amazing. You are saying in the last part of the video especially, what would be a better world to create ...truly amazing that u know that because our human minds think anything else would be boring.
Whatever the improbability of having something supernatural exist is way more improbable than life on earth's improbability.
I look forward to seeing your calculations justifying these relative probabilities.
@@1970Phoenix No calculations necessary. There isn't a single event that has affimative evidence to have supernatural origin.
@@charlesdarwin180 I misread your comment - I agree with you.
Take a look at the occult. It's for real.
What exactly makes the idea of the supernatural so unbelievable?
There are lots of problems with the fine-tuning argument, but the simplest is this: the physical constants could be necessary for the existence of any universe.
This is not addressing the argument, however. No matter how many universes there may be, you would still need God for it to have any uniformity. Otherwise, you would be arguing for a chance, self sufficient universe, where chaos and disorder were the main forces, that was created X billion of years ago yet ( *for some odd reason* ) favored us out of all the species in it.
Not to mention the simple matter of how lucky you would have to be for chaos and disorder to be the author to order and uniformity.
@@franciscosilvestre6914 your comment is irrelevant to both the fine-tuning argument and my comment.
The physical constants being necessary means they *could not* be anything else than what they currently are. There is no tuning possible in this world.
@@greengandalf9116There is no scientific evidence to suggest that the physical constants couldn't be different than what they are.
@@kze24 there is also no scientific evidence to suggest they could be different. It's a question that is entirely up in the air.
@@franciscosilvestre6914 Oh so please do tell me, how do you know, that physical constants could be any different then they are? How do you compare that? Compare them to what exactly?
Absolutely love this account
Seeing them crash the atheist podcast is priceless haha
Why?
The fine-tuning argument is nonsense. Who is to say the universe could have been different than it is? It may have been logically necessary for it to be that way. Even God can't make 25 not be a square number. And if it is necessary that the universe exists that way, then why is a God needed?
Maybe nothing at all is needed. It's a nihilistic viewpoint, but who can prove it wrong?
You have some idea of what God is capable of. Just because mere flesh and machine cannot solve a problem doesn't mean the creator can't.
@@redirectthepath Or he can't. You don't know for sure, do you?
@Sreerags5959 yeah you're right I don't really know. But being all powerful he should be able to solve things that are paradoxical.
@@redirectthepath I mean, there really is no way to know. If he is real, then the paradoxes are real, and as long as he exits, the paradoxes too, will exist. Can he, or can he not, change the status quo? Forget about whether he is capable of it or not, does he even KNOW if he can do it? In the end, only the questions remain.
Adding on to the counter-rebuttal: If you accept the idea that anything including, such as electrons, can be conscious, then consciousness itself would be fine tuned. Either we are incredibly lucky such that only a hyper-complex arrangement of elementary particles can attain consciousness, or consciousness is itself fine tuned for some reason or another. That reason could be what you mentioned in that it allows for higher and more meaningful forms of love.
And higher and more meaningful forms of hate, too. And a _far_ greater capacity for self-deception. :)
"If you were playing poker and the dealer told you he was gonna deal you 10 royal flushes in a row and then you were dealt 10 royal flushes in a row, you would?..."
"Deny the existence of poker dealers and then conclude I'm the luckiest man in the world, why?"
I would say I don't understand how it happened. How could you know enough to answer otherwise? Unless you already made your mind up from the start.
Nice Lutheran Satire reference there! The History Channel Detectives video was hilarious.
blatant false equivalence. Analogies are not facts
The thing is we can see and know poker dealers, and many of us may be so.
@@redbepis4600 Are you just using terms you saw someone use on reddit once without understanding them yourself, or are you a bot with a particularly out of date learning algorithm?
I am a nominal atheist at best and honestly modern atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris have completely turned me against the "neorelgious" atheism that is so very popular today. I am really far more agnostic than atheistic, but I don't ever pretend that my conception of a God being if that being were to exist would obey anyone let alone a believer in that being simply to prove to me that the being of God does in fact exist. This is pure narcisim and just immaturity being demonstrated on the debate stage 4:23.
Also yeah I have to agree the fine tuning argument is probably the best argument for the existence of a creator god being.
Seriously? If a god demands worship from you, why would it be narcissistic to ask for proof for its existence?
Fine tuning is bunk. We can plug in different numbers into an equation, and most sets of these numbers yield a universe where life cannot exist. This is not evidence that any sets of constants (aside from the single one we observe) are remotely possible. We can only observe one set of constants. Why is it reasonable to assume that more than one set of constants can exist, when there's precisely zero evidence of this aside from our ability to plug numbers into an equation?
@@herroyung857 Sure when was the last time you created a universe?
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 .It is frankly weird to me, that you actually think you should get to require or make any demands of a god, of God or of gods.
If you believe you are equivalent to a god then honestly just say so....
@@chucklindenberg1093 I'm not the one making any speculative claims on how our universe came to be, so it doesn't matter that I haven't created a universe. The point is that fine tuning is a terrible argument for god.
For fine tuning to be of any support to deism, it must be based on rationalization of evidence. If there is no evidence of other constants, you cannot rationally conclude that our current set of constants is improbable. There is no evidence of other constants being possible, and there's only evidence of our current set of constants being possible. Therefore, fine tuning falls apart.
It's worth pointing out that though the Catholic Church reveres its theologians and their minds for coming up with imaginative theodices, it does not commit itself to any particular argument for the existence of God-not even the fine tuning argument. Rather, it draws on biblical authority, revelation and the traditions of the Church for establishing the claim as fact. That suggests it finds no argument for God to be definitive.
Your not converting any atheist to Christianity with fine tuning tbh.
Objectively false tbh.
Why is Pascal’s wager F tier to the new atheists?
If I had to guess, I'd say that at least part of the reason is that it doesn't really work unless you have some other independent reason to think that the Christian God exists. It isn't prima facie obvious that Christianity and Atheism are the only two live options and even ignoring weird hypothetical "gods" like the god that would prefer you not to worship him and would torture anyone who does for all eternity, there's examples like Islam which (at least according to some) are just as exclusive as Christianity. If picking the wrong god can give you hell anyway, then that changes the game theory of the different choices.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol Thank you! You would have to combine that wager with some compelling argument for another “god” anyway so I see how that makes the wager alone not a very useful argument
@@Chicken_of_BristolThank you for presenting the issue of false dichotomy. There is also the issue of whether one can force himself to truly believe in something that he is not convinced of simply due to threats. Remember, for the Christian god, it's not enough to go through the motions. One must truly believe. The Wager ignores that problem.
Because it implies that God can be conned by the simulation of belief.
@@Chicken_of_Bristolyou realize that Muslims and Christians (and Jews) orient their worship toward the same God, right ?
My fellow Catholics don't like hearing this.
You guys also understand worship in such a ridiculously narrow sense.
I think Neil's idea is pure genius. I also believe he may have accidentally discovered, in a philosophical or metaphysical sense, that atoms and sub-particles, like human beings, are capable of love, albeit in a rudimentary form. Here, “love” could be interpreted as a fundamental connection, attraction, or a form of bond, even if it’s basic or instinctive. This isn’t pantheism; it’s about the grandeur of interrelationships crafted by an Almighty God who desires love at every level of existence, crowning it with the love that human beings are capable of.
In physics, particles attract due to forces like electromagnetism or gravity. But by interpreting these forces as a kind of rudimentary love, it imbues them with a poetic significance, suggesting that every interaction in the universe-whether between particles or larger beings-reflects an intrinsic connectedness. This interpretation provides a philosophical lens, where even the most basic components of reality are bound by a universal “desire” to relate to one another, hinting at an underlying unity that ties all existence together.
The problem with the fine tuning argument, along with many other arguments for God, is that it only pushes the question back one step.
If you assert a god as the cause of all fine tuning, then what physical constants allow a god to exist? Theists can propose a simple god that must exist, but that's just speculation, and could just as easily be applied to every other claim.
The only thing you can actual conclude is there is some reason why the constants are the way they are. Whether that reason is someone designed them, or obscene luck, or an infinite multiverse, or a larger range of life permitting values than we thought, we can't make any actual argument as to which explanation is more probable. It just remains an interesting observation about the universe, that we cannot, and may not ever answer.
“What physical constants allow a god to exist” the whole point is that god is outside the universe, so that question doesn’t make sense.
@@caiof8968 "the whole point is that god is outside the universe"
Isn't that just a bald assertion, followed by a special pleading when we ask what allowed that god to exist?
@caiof8968 Ask yourself if that actually makes sense. Imagine an atheist told you there was some natural, mindless mechanism that causes life bearing universes to come into existence. You ask them how that is possible, and they say it's outside the universe, so they don't need to answer that question. Sounds kinda silly, doesn't it?
@@dataforge2745 the existence of God is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. Science deals with things of the universe, God is by definition outside of it. No one is claiming god is a being that exists inside of this universe, so when you come up with this physics constants talk, it simply makes no sense since you aren’t talking about the same thing when you say “god”.
That would be like demanding a mathematical equation as proof to someone’s view on whether or not drugs should be legalized.
Atheists can believe whatever they want, such as a multiverse, but that is also in no way a scientific theory. Also, it only “deals” with the fine tuning argument, and there are numerous other arguments for god. The “mindless mechanism” you came up with is worse because it doesn’t really explain the fine tuning whatsoever. It is basically just ignoring it. Which of course you are free to do.
@@herroyung857 it is the “unmoved mover” idea from Aristotle. The one that exists by himself, which is what allows other things to exist. Or one could say God is existence itself.
One objection that’s new ‘to me’ is this:
If the universe is defined as all space time and matter and the universe is finely tuned then we’ve never seen anything that hasn’t been finely tuned. So we’ve no standard against which to judge whether or not anything at all is finely tuned or not.
We don't need a standard, through science we see that life in the universe wouldn't exist if the universr weren't fine tuned.
@@BerishaFatian But to categorize something as finely tuned begs the question if we cannot know what fine tuned even is. And how can we know what it is if we have no standard by which to judge?
Exactly. Don’t find the argument convincing at all and I’m a devout Catholic.
@@LtDeadeye okay, but that argued assumes we have to see anything in the first place, the universe could have just been dead. Ur implicitly assuming pan-psychism.
@@LtDeadeyelook at the "Goldilocks" situation our planet is in. Look at the insane "coincidence" that allows full eclipses to exist. How water behaves vs how it should chemically. Look at highly constructed scientific processes like the Krebs Cycle that are perfectly balanced.
I was once an athiest, and my eyes were opened, now I'm a theist. I really like the fine-tuning argument but I don't think it's the strongest one.
With slightly different cosmos constants, this universe might not even exisit, that's true, but in that case, maybe a different universe will exist with that set of different cosmos constants.
The morality argument is the best.
That our universe is only dead and lethal to way over 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999...% is not the strongest argument for your god? Wow, I am impressed.
So, the strongest argument is that we can understand that if we do not like getting punched in the face, other people also don´t like that!
Yeah, great argument, for...(place here the name of the god that is most famous in the country where you have been born).
For me cosmic skeptic lost all credibility. I just finished watching a debate of his where he presented himself as an open minded “non resistant non believer”. I then watched a video of his on republicanism in the UK (being against monarchy) in which he deridingly said “a God that doesn’t exist”. Just bs. He’s trying to convert people, he’s not actually a genuine and honest enquirer who struggles with the notion of God.
I don't think he ever said he 'struggled'. He is a logical thinker who has concluded that for him, the evidence points towards no gods existing.
Which is what all of reality points towards.
They never are.
I think the simplest objection to the fine tuning argument is to simply steelman the opposite: Yes, we're the only lucky player who scored 10 wins in a row, with perfect cards. We're only here and wondering about it because we're the only ones who made it.
I think that the simplest objection is that of course the laws of this or that constant sit within this or that finely tuned band of values because if the values were different then the constants would simply be different. Of course the water is vase shaped, if it was in a toilet then it would be toilet shaped.
The "we're only here and wondering about it because we're the only ones who made it" response isn't actually very simple because it assumes the existence of a massive number of universes all with slightly different physical laws. And we have absolutely no evidence at all for the existence of even one other universe, let alone the large number it would need to bring the probability of one of them being life-permitting up high enough that it isn't surprising.
All you have to do to dismantle that steel man is to question whether "infinite universe" theory is even plausible.
"Of course we can wonder about it since we're in the right universe" requires infinite universes to be a legitimate reality. There is no evidential proof that infinity exists beyond human numerical concepts. There are some very strong minds that will tell you that infinity in the real world is like a "square circle" - it doesn't exist.
For example, supposedly you can cut a piece of paper into infinite pieces if you have an infinitely small knife. This only exists in theoretical mathematics where you can divide integers. In reality, the piece of paper has finite mass and volume that cannot be divided infinitely. So this "we're just lucky to be in the right universe" falls apart once you show that there is no evidence at all that other universes exist anyways, and no logical way to deduce they exist either.
The problem is that its not 10 wins in a row, its millions upon millions in a row. That’s mathematically impossible
A simple example of survivorship bias. Wonderfully put
As a classical theist, the fine tuning argument is not at all a proof for God as we classical theists define God. Whether or not the universe is fine tuned is irrelevant to whether or not God exists. Even if the universe were not fine tuned for life the universe is still contingent and thus has its cause beyond itself.
Pre-sup gobbledigook