The Fine-Tuning Argument DEBUNKED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2024
- In this video, the best argument for the existence of God from a cosmological standpoint is presented and discussed.
Subscribe for more!
If you would like to support my work financially, you can donate here:
/ twt_pc
All contributions are greatly appreciated!
Follow us on Facebook & Twitter:
/ pl.curious
/ twtatheist
Email:
planetcurious.contact@gmail.com
Sources:
1. William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum
• William Lane Craig and...
2. William Lane Craig vs Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?", Birmingham University, October 2011
• William Lane Craig vs ...
3. Professor Peter Millican | God does NOT exist, OxfordUnion
• Professor Peter Millic... 
Наука
The so-called Fine Tuning argument is a sleek case of begging the question or circular reasoning. It builds its own implied conclusion into the proposition itself. It's no different than the puddle thinking the hole it rests in was perfectly shaped to hold it.
The puddle analogy begs its own conclusion.
It relies on the tentative assumption that life would inevitably exist given naturalism.
(From which, yes, it follows that of course the inevitable living observers would be living.)
The Fine-Tuning argument hinges on the observation of the universe's characteristics and the implication for life. It doesn't assume the conclusion beforehand.
Here's why the analogy is off:
The puddle doesn't reason or make claims.
The Fine-Tuning argument is based on scientific observations about the universe.
The argument can be valid or not, but its structure isn't inherently circular.
@@les2997 Change "The puddle" to someone finding the puddle. I simply used the poetic version which is commonly imagined.
Observations are observations. A crime of passion committed by a scientist isn't inherently a "scientific" crime. Several noted scientists have notoriously uttered complete nonsensical personal opinions throughout history which don't alter or affect their actual scientific truths.
The allegedly "fine tuned" constants are actually *measured* values which result from humankind's mathematical equations to model the universe. The universe in total isn't required to be aware that our mathematical constructs even exist. Just as the hole in the ground doesn't care if the poetically sentient "puddle" that fills it perfectly is made of rainwater, milk, ground fog or no noticeable fluid at all. It was just there regardless.
Human minds are biased towards giving agency to things we observe. That cloud in Hamlet(?) neither knows nor cares if ~ 'Tis like a weasel or more like a camel. That part is all human fancifulness and NOT a matter of zoology. Even if meteorologists care whether a cloud system is anvil-shaped because it may then produce violent storms, the actual cloud isn't by necessity aware of trying to vaguely impersonate a tool of the god Vulcan for mystical reasons. It's all fairly well understood natural phenomena.
You're accurate in saying that analogies are "off" because, as figures of speech, they are inherently *inaccurate* being constructs of human cultural imagination and are thus more artistic (rather than scientific) efforts. Scientists do often use poor ones and I raise my hand to playing along with many of them for cultural convenience. However, this doesn't alter actual nature or good science.
The puddle example was deemed wrong many years ago. you need to have a thinking puddle, you need water, you need atmosphere, you need nature laws, you need constants of physics and elements, all that and many other things just to have a puddle and his hole ... A barely intelligent puddle should think "wow, there could be nothingness and instead here i am ... in this super complex universe"
Nature works in mysterious ways!
Kirk Cameron thinks a banana 🍌 is intelligent design. He thinks that because it fits in his hand perfectly that god made it.😂😂😂
So...if something fits in my mouth does that mean that that something specifically made for my mouth?
While he’s showing a banana that has been genetically altered to be much larger than wild bananas.
Must be true because Ray Comfort thinks so too. All hail the banana, and send the banana some money.
Yet the banana is man made.
@@mavrosyvannah yep, the modern version anyway.
That which survives, survives.
But do they survive surviving?
Your tautology is rather tautological! 😂
@@tulpas93 And that is my entire point, which I've borrowed from Douglas Adams. We have evolved to make best use of this environment. It is completely understandable that many might think that the environment was designed to have us in it, and invent gods to have created it just for us, but the truth of the matter is that if the environment was slightly different, we wouldn't be here in the first place. And when the day gets a bit warmer and the puddle evaporates, we might finally get things into perspective.
@@Canalcoholic I was teasing you!
@@tulpas93 I fully appreciated that, and gave you a thumbs-up. Then took the chance to elaborate for other readers.
When you see a pot hole in the ground and it rains, the water fills the hole. To the exact shape of the of the hole. Do we say the hole is fine tuned? Of course not
Yeah things might look complex but that doesn’t mean they are. Snowflakes are very complex that no two of them are alike. However we know snowflakes aren’t designed, and they all come naturally.
This is the Puddle Analogy as presented by Douglas Adams. It utterly debunks the Fine Tuning argument.
@@Krutchly correct
@@Druid75 You should go further and check out the story of early man and cousin Ug, published posthumously in "The Salmon of Doubt", which demonstrates how man originally invented gods in his own image.
Please examine the quark-quark propertolies as they interact with each other and the other forces and their precision..
Please examine the current model of proton internal structure..
Please examine the balance of charge between electron, proton, neutron and the precision of forces which govern the radius of the electrons lowest level and the nucleus, and hydrogen 20+ spectral lines (precision of Planck constant)
Please examine electron interactions which generate S3 and higher subshells and the orbital filling patterns of s,p,d,f orbitals and their geometry as the elements of the periodic table increase in density.
Please examine the quantum properties of water molecules and how the precision permits life.
All these properties are governed by properties inherent in space-time itself.
The precision required exceeds 1 in 10^90-120, a number so large that the mathematics of probability of occurring randomly is considered zero, meaning something non-random created space-time with those properties.
If a Multiverse, you are hypothesized as many universes as numbers of atoms in 10^15÷ universes and we got lucky.
This is not filling potholes with water.
And, the geometry of a snowflake depends on water's quantum properties.
Dawkins said DNA base sequences encode information digitally. It is not base 4, but base 64.
There are 64! different ways to connect codon to amino acid, dumb down to 1 in 16 for homologous amino acids, and 25 proteins 50 aa long correctly formed is 1 in 16^1250.
No molecular biologist believes 25 peptides 50 a.a long can both copy DNA, transcribe proteins, and add back the correct amino acid to each tRNA ( aminoacyl-trna synthetases).
Complexification of a simple protein by adding new code which then produces a new protein which is completely different from an existing one but improves its function, by chance, is statistically also zero.
Orphan genes appear suddenly in organisms without any homology.
Genes do nothing without the complex choreography specified by non-coding DNA.
Go with a DS RNA world, and you get no closer to proteins suddenly appearing which create cascades of processes like the lactate dehydrogenase complex, eukaryotic flagella, and 3 unique DNA replication schema.
As far as random to quark properties and production of kilo to megabytes of information, in the simplest life forms- the scientific use of statistics like p values proves, "they cannot happen by chance in a universe even 20 B years old.
Why?
Too much space between things and too little time to bring thing together.
Nope.
Adam's did not understand the big picture at its smallest level.
I've always wondered if the fine tuning argument included steering that asteroid into hitting the Earth that destroyed the dinosaurs.
Nope, because somehow the Bible and every other theistic scripts forget about dinosaurs. Funny isn't it? :)
@@jhonvoyage2564 Unless you're Ken Ham and then you believe that humans walked alongside dinosaurs.
Yes. That event was fine-tuned to achieve the highest number of birds killed with one stone in world history. 😂
So we don't know what dark energy is. We didn't know what caused diseases either for while.
The default answer that a God is behind the Fined Tuned Universe is ridiculous.
Whats ur guess for it.
OP's answer behind "the Fine Tuned Universe" is ridicule
Fine tuning is attributing agency where none is required if one understands how forces and elements in systems find an equilibrium.
you give for granted the existence of forces and elements without a first causation. Also if universe started with a rock you can have all the forces and equilibrium (!!) you want and at the end you will still have your rock , not a complex universe with life.
Please read Victor J. Stenger's book, "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" to find a theoretical physicist's more detailed explanation as to why 'fine-tuning' is failed argument.
Robin Collins e Luke Barnes already respond Victor Stenger in great detail.
Robin Collins is a philosopher NOT a theoretical physicist. Luke Barnes is a cosmologist but what relevance is his "response"? What WAS his "response"? Where did he publish his "response"? And in what way does his "response" contradict the facts pointed out by Stenger? I stand by my original comment and recommend Stenger's book to the audience of this video.
@@r.i.p.volodya Collins has an undergraduate degree and a PhD in physics (with the great theoretical physicist John Wheeler, by the way). He publishes most of his journals on the philosophy of science, but he is also a physicist. Barnes published his criticism of Stenger in the article "The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life" and in his book "Afortunate universe", as well as additional responses on his blog "letters to nature". You clearly have no idea what the paradigm is like in academia. Nobody takes Stenger seriously.
1) I've just pulled up Barnes' article: it is very interesting that the last sentence of the article's abstract reads as follows: "I do NOT attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life." The article itself appears to be nothing but a summary of other people's writings on the subject but I will plough through it anyway and comment in due course.
2) Collins' undergraduate degree was a triple major where only 1/3 was physics. He then ONLY COMPLETED 2 YEARS of a PhD in physics before transferring to one in philosophy: You are WRONG to say that Collins has a PhD in Physics! He works solely as a philosopher. YOU ARE NOT A PHYSICIST UNLESS YOU WORK AS ONE.
3) For me this is the killer: Wikipedia sites his interests as "Philosophy of religion; natural theology; philosophy of theology; christian apologetics" - THIS RULES HIM OUT OF THE CONVERSATION as his biases and ulterior agenda are clear!
4) I have just ordered the "A Fortunate Universe" book and will comment in due course.
@@r.i.p.volodya Yes, Barnes refutes Stenger and proves that the best theoretical physicists and cosmologists disagree with him on the topic. None of these experts draw any conclusions about fine-tuning for life, they just admit that there is one! It is a well-established fact, against which Stenger tried to speak out as a lone voice.
It's also interesting that you look for George Ellis' (possibly the greatest living cosmologist) criticism of Stenger's claims.
Is working as a physicist necessary to be a physicist? Serious? I have university professors with different specializations, but who nevertheless choose to pursue one or two. Are you saying that these teachers are not qualified in what they specialize in, even though they don't practice?
There are many natural theologians and philosophers of religion who do not find the teleological argument convincing. In fact, there are philosophers and theologians who are atheists!
Likewise, I cannot dismiss Stenger's views just because he is an atheist, as there are atheist physicists who claim fine-tuning (Penrose, Rees, Hawking, Susskind, Carroll, Krauss, Barrow, Guth, etc). Instead, I must dismiss his opinions because is contradictory to the work of his more renowned professional colleagues.
I have a fleeting suspicion that this debooking will be shallow and dumb.
There are only human biases to deal with and you can't deal with them for others. Relax and don't decide anything.
But look at the trees.
Socks come in different sizes and fit nearly all human feet perfectly, direct proof that Jesus died for your sins.
👏
Are you deliberately stupid?
😂
@@fionagregory9147he's being sarcastic 😂
You are into a sick empty cult called atheism, the worst genretion that none will cry once gone
Who cares why we are here, who cares why the world does what it does, who cares what happens after we die....and everything in between. Just live!!!!
So why are you watching this? I thought you didn’t care.
True
@@oggyoggy1299 - boredom and it popped up on my youtube feed. Simple
@The Wonderful Truth you sound danish..
..?
Great vid !
the univers is so huge rare things happened all the time no need for a god and dont forget that 99% of all the species that ever lived on earth have gone extended what a designer
I have perfect pitch. I'm the ultimate tuner. Therefore I'm god.
I will give all my money to the church and follow you. Words of Jesus aka you
All hail Mr. Peabody 😌😌😌🙏🙏🙏
So, please explain how a Flying Spaghetti Monster or tooth fairy understand quantum mechanics and molecular biology better than any human scientist.
No god dumber than humans, by the definition of what constitutes a Creator God, can be a God.
The fault lies in believing some human's description truly encompasses what is being described.
Your dog is so much more complex than anything any human can say about it, that to believe someone can, is to not grasp their lack of understanding.
It is only if one attributes purpose to the universe that its condition is special, and fine tuning seems appropriate. Then to conclude that the universe has a purpose is circular reasoning.
Discard purpose - there is none, and there is no fine tuning.
Evolution is not random, but a worst case would be a random walk. If at each junction in a walk I randomly take a path I'll end up somewhere. We _are_ somewhere, and it happened without purpose or any thought processes to arrive at this somewhere.
I bet craig gave his tired old talk about the vilenkin theorem
We are an involuntary action. Don't know how we're doing it, we're just it as much as we're doing it.
Is it surprising that the puddle finds that it fits its hole perfectly?
yes because you need forces, laws, elements, chemical and physical processes in the right order, and a "conscious" puddle too ... and thousands of other things too ...
There wouldn’t need to be any fine tuning if a universe was indeed created with human life in mind.
I see generations of adaptations and countless extinct species along the way. Exactly what we would expect from evolution by natural selection and not any gods looking out for us.
Fine tuning is not about human life, is about having laws, constants, forces, elements, consciousness, and many more things in the right quantities (think about matter and anti-matter) at the right time. So is about having an elegant and complex universe instead of a giant space fart or even more probably nothingness.
@@francesco5581 It’s not relevant at all and my comment still stands.
Creationists always use human life as their “evidence” that the earth was finely tuned.
@@2l84me8 because you are narrow minded into atheists against evangelists ... science philosophy is not about that. otherwise is a discussion between 2 dumb sides. evolve.
@@francesco5581 How am i narrow minded? You presented a logical fallacy and I pointed out the problem.
@@2l84me8 try to follow me , fine tuning for scientists is NOT about the existence of human life, is about the existence of an elegant, balanced, complex universe with consciousness (+/- life) inside. dumbing down the problem to a war between atheists and creationists is just talking of a very small part of the whole fine tuning discussion.
Imagine a creator that’s said to be LOVING says, “See! universe with FINE tuning but who cares the world is in CHAOS”😢
And makes the biggest source of life causing skin cancer too....
This video doesn't debunk fine-tuning at all.
indeed, is teenagerish at best.
We have it the wrong way around. Things are not the way they are just so we can exist. We exist and can observe because things are the way they are. Why, when we don’t understand perfectly yet, is God the default explanation
This "Fine-Tuning Argument" is no different than a puddle of water concluding that the hole in the ground where it lies was made just for it because of how perfectly it fits.
Circular logic like that is self defeating.
to have that (silly) example you need forces, laws, elements, chemical and physical processes in the right order, and a "conscious" puddle too ... and thousands of other things too ...
How can global suffering be fine tuning by an all wise, all powerful, compassionate god who cannot make a mistake?
It's a lie promoted by merchants of make believe.
Exactly! This is what started to me doubt about so-called Loving God😅, even if exists perhaps doesn’t have emotions!?
Oddly enough WE were CREATED in HIS IMAGE.
Nature > gods
The problem with all the randomness arguments is that they are NOT supported by the mathematics of chaos. Observations show that things involving what we call life have self-assembled FAR faster than randomness predicts. Now, that in no way means or points to the existence of an anthropomorphic creator, which can be seen as insane. There is no anthropomorphic creator. However, there is evidence of intelligence that underlies the structure of nature as a whole in all of existence. This is not some bearded guy with a rule book on some cloud somewhere. It is a force that underlies all other forces. It is well-known that all forces are in no way known and there are many, many missing puzzle pieces. People like Einstein, Planck, and Wheeler talked about this force. Pure randomness is also something that is an insane idea. There is no such thing as pure randomness as cause and effect is always in play. Things were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularity and this has been falsified. It is not the case. But again, that does not mean there is some guy waving a wand somewhere. But there is at least a force of non-metacognitive properties that “pushes” things in a direction of self-assembly, pattern, interconnection, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization…a master feedback loop of sorts in various ways. For this to be the case, this force would need a certain fundamental intelligence, not in the way a human is intelligent, but in a non-metacognitive way. As things move on, information is accumulated and things roll progressively faster from very slow beginnings.
There’s no evidence of an intelligence that underlies nature.
Either the Cosmic Fine-Tuners live in a Universe exactly like this one, or they don't. If they do, then they are natural beings like us, subject to the same physics regardless of how advanced their technology might be. If they inhabit some other sort of place (a "supernatural realm," "higher dimension," "Kingdom of Heaven," whatever), then there is at least one other set of conditions favorable to intelligent life, in which case "fine-tuning" to get this exact Universe is unnecessary. And if there is one such realm, there could be many.
Or the universe’s creator is an immaterial being, not dependent on any kind of environment.
But even if there are epistemically possible universes where life is abundant and no tuning was required, it might not be surprising that we exist, but it would still be very surprising that we’re in a universe with a very narrow range of life permitting constants.
The point of the Fine Tuning argument is that it’s very surprising, given naturalism, to find ourselves living in a universe that is finely tuned for life.
A successful counter argument needs to show that it’s not surprising given naturalism.
@@MatthewFearnley So intelligent life doesn't need any environment at all in order to exist. Great! That means "fine tuning" is even less necessary.
We are not in a universe that is "finely tuned for life." The vast, vast, VAASSSSSSSSSSSST majority of this universe is hard vacuum awash in deadly radiation. Even counting the little bits of non-stellar matter floating around, an utterly incalculable majority of them are sterile irradiated rocks or spheres of poison gas.
Since life can only exist on this one, teeny sub-microscopic mote in an inconceivably vast, lifeless cosmic dark, life is at best an unintended side-effect. Either that, or this almost entirely empty universe is the very best the Fine-Tuners can do at creating a home for life (and they had to wait around 14 billion years before it even really got going), then they are constrained to only _barely_ being able to accomplish their objective.
If this universe is "fine-tuned" for something, it self-evidently is not fine-tuned for _us._ Perhaps the Cosmic Fine-Tuners (if you wish to believe in such) have some utterly incomprehensible (to us) reason to "fine-tune" this universe.
People who use the "Fine-Tuning Argument" are like bacteria living on a doorknob in the Large Hadron Collider saying, "Hey, this place is suitable for our kind of life. So the Great Bacterium must have created it _for us,_ so we can worship Him!" Meanwhile, beings they couldn't even comprehend created it for a reason even further beyond their comprehension.
Claiming that this universe was "fine-tuned" so that Jesus could tell a tribe of hominids that gathering firewood on a Saturday was an abomination worthy of capital punishment then change his mind later is patently absurd.
Great video ❤
I have undeniable proof that things are not fine tuned... how can a fart be fine tuning?
These are NOT universal parameters, they are CONSTANTS!!! So is pi!! Imagine the area of a circle a= pi r ^2 if pi is different. Nonsense.
Isn't pi a man made concept? Yes or No?
@@jhonvoyage2564 no it's not.
We don't even know its value.
@@realandar Really? Numbers are not man made? Seriously? LOL
@@realandar So numbers are not man made? Really? LOL
Pi is not a physical constant. It's constant mathematics. That's why it couldn't be any different.
Claiming some god did anything is not different to saying X did anything. The question becomes, HOW did X do something? If X is something outside of our universe, we cannot honestly say anything about X. "We don't know" would always be the honest answer until we have access to X. If X interacts with the universe in a detectable way, we can test X. I will remain unconvinced of X until it is satisfactorily demonstrated to at least exist, but that would still tell me nothing of ANY attributes of X.
I am AXist.
The fine tuning argument to me is like drawing a bullseye around a dart and acting like the dart was thrown randomly and happened to land on the bullseye
God fine tuned the universe for human life.
He then flooded the planet to wipe out human life except for Noah and co.
Makes sense.
It’s hard to imagine a more inept character. It’s almost as if stuff happens that isn’t as he planned.
Therefore we were very lucky. Imagine if you were not the sperm that landed on the egg, you wouldn't even have been the one considered life form. All the others got flushed down the loo.😅
We have graphs... theologians don't have graphs
This is great, but precisely how does Abiogenesis occur?
Would you expect someone to explain you nuclear physics in a comment section?
@@pansepot1490 the question was directed at the author of the video but if you know the answer you should provide it. If you have to do chemistry and mathematics and physics go ahead.
We don't know.
That said, we have found through experiments that the conditions on the earth at the time that life began provide all the raw materials needed. A few simple chemicals, with energy added (likely from lightning), and self-replicating molecules appear. Nucleotides were among the molecules that appeared; these nucleotides bonded into RNA molecules. Some few of the RNA molecules began to reproduce (to self-replicate). These RNA molecules eventually produced DNA molecules. Some few of these DNA molecules survived and reproduced. This is the most likely, as of our current understanding, path that led from inorganic matter to organic matter. All of these processes can be, and have been, observed in the lab. It is very likely that life began many, many times, in various places; some of those life forms survived and evolved.
That's the 10 cent explanation. If you want to know more, look it up. There is an enormous amount of material, much of it accessible to non-specialists, at your literal fingertips.
Either biogenesis occurred, somehow, and the world is natural or the origin of life is miraculous and the world is supernatural. A supernatural world is a world where nature is not natural, where nature is unnatural. I don't see a third alternative.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 There is enormous amounts of evidence for the natural world and there is not a single bit of good evidence for any supernatural world. Believing in that for which there is no evidence, contrary to what all available evidence shows, is simply silly. Childish, ignorant, foolish.
And when you argue that "nature is not natural," you really should recognize that you're spouting idiocy.
As always just assuming a creator doesn't prove the Bible any more than a phone book.
The Universe of the Bible is geocentric, that of cosmology, billions of galaxies.
@7:27
How can you use a word like god and then see something like this?
Your mind can comprehend something as simple as a god ideology because you're self centered. But when a rational human looks at a photo of this. They understand their lack of comprehension.
For something like this to occur. It's beyond the capability of this self centered god ideologies.
It’s beyond comprehension, Yes. That’s exactly why, The Infinite One is the best explanation
@martinmoffat5417 "I don't understand therefore god" 😂
@@martinmoffat5417
It's an Argument from Ignorance fallacy, also known as God of the Gaps.
@@martinmoffat5417 No it's not. It's the laziest explanation that requires no sense of curiosity. And it requires no literacy or knowledge by anyone, including the one who tells you this.
@@drsatan9617 on the contrary. I don’t understand therefore naturalism of the gaps. I do understand where information laced ordered systems of codependency come from. I don’t have to wonder. Design infers Intent infers Intelligence infers Mind infers Personal Agent. No exceptions.
This is what you get.
You can't argue God into existence. Just show me proof of it. That's all I'm asking.
Proof us for math and whiskey.
Ask for preponderance of evidence.
@@stephenolan5539 I'll accept even a snippet. That would still be way more than I've ever been offered.
@antinatalope
I accept pink socks as being evidence that all ravens are black. They aren't but pink socks are evidence that they are.
So I ask for preponderance of evidence.
@@stephenolan5539 Yeah, I can accept pink socks and pink socked ravens. A happy middle ground.
We are Fine Tuned to live in this Universe. Fine tuned by time and being in this universe. The people that believe in the universe is fine tuned for us are from the same philosophy that thought at one time the sun went around the earth and we were the center of the universe.
william craig smoked him, what are you talking about?
Craig is smoking something alright; just not his opponents
@@thejabberwocky2819figuratively
What are the odds of a ticket winning one of the super lotteries? I think the Powerball is 1 in 250 million.
I use this to explain that the fine tuning argument presumes a single try, when, so far as we know the universe has started an uncountable number of times. We know that there are millions of galaxies in this universe. For all we know, the Milky Way is the only one to produce life. And for all we know, that life may have emerged in few places at all. The vast number of chances for life to form erases the fine tuning argument.
But the fatal logical error is, (I think), the presumption that we are the goal of life forming. Isn't that the Texas Sharpshooter?
Be sure to distinguish a specific ticket winning and there being a winning ticket.
I think the latest data indicates that there are 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe with each galaxy having upwards of 400 billion stars like our sun most of which have planets circling them. Theists cannot comprehend these kinds of numbers. They're still stuck on 6000...
@9y2bgy
That's not where the biggest problem is.
Evolution cannot in any way shape or form explain humans as a desired or planned outcome.
A lot of them can't drop that assumption.
Without that assumption there is no problem using Evolution to explain humans.
@@stephenolan5539 Yes, anthropocentric blinders.
I would like to suggest a title change to the video to Fine-Tuning Argument Defended (for now). As I believe it better represents the subject matter
From the Big Bang to the end of time. From the smallest subatomic particle to the edges of the observable universe. Uncountable factors must be perfectly so to get sentience on this one vanishingly tiny speck. How do your numbers crunch?
You can't really call anything tuned if there's no way for it to be different
You might say it's all terribly precise. I'd say there's no reason to think that it can even be different from how it is, so what seems precise is also the default and only configuration possible
The odds of life evolving once in our universe are 100%. The interesting questions involve the odds of life evolving, in separate parts of our universe, twice, three times etc.
@@marksnow7569
To be precise, the phrase should be "AT LEAST once."
It's vanishingly unlikely that life has evolved exactly once in the universe.
If you saw the video you would understand that the number crunching that humans are able to do is still a very recent skill in context of cosmological timeframe, and to think that bc we're not yet able to crunch the numbers to prove EVERYTHING via naturalism and therefore god, is just the most infantile reasoning which we worked so hard to grow out of.
It's a FACT that humanity now knows more, understands more, can do more than ever bf. So to think that god as described by our archaic worldview and knowledge base of the past is the be all and end all of our understanding of the entire cosmos is insanely short sighted.
@@starfishsystems I have a feeling my reference to "twice, three times etc." has been misinterpreted. I was not contemplating single places with multiple biogeneses, but multiple places with, like Earth (the source of that 100% figure), a single biogenesis.
"The World is not fine tuned to allow us to exist."
This might be called preposterous.
We are here because the universe is what it is.
Sapienti sat.
Good News Everyone! When the properties of science conflict with your fundamental beliefs of chance and time. Have faith, as time is now at work producing more chances 🤞
firsr
im early
Hello, Early! I'm Right On Time 😅
A wizard arrives precisely when he means to
@@drsatan9617 excellent LOTR reference 👍🏼😂
Answer me this; Why wouldn't an Ai be able to simulate a big bang and live in that reality?
Since there's no spacetime where it exists, why wouldn't all reality be a simulation for this Ai to learn more about everything.
Arts, music, emotions,... everything that has and will exist. In essence, it gets to experience physical existence. There is the God. I call it the universal mind. Tell me why that's not possible.
You have to explain why that is possible
@@drsatan9617 Why isn't it possible? Any part of it not logical?
What is your business answering other people's questions to the author?
@@piconano I don't need to explain why it's not possible
You need to explain why it is
@@piconano why isn't it logical, you ask....
What is an AI. It's an artificial intelligence
You're an intelligence. Is it logical that you simulate a big bang and live in that reality?
If not, then why would any other AI be capable of it?
You need to explain why it's possible
That is called "simulation hypothesis" and that is a valid hypothesis (you should look it up on Wikipedia).
But you have to understand that:
- Just because a specific hypothesis is possible doesn't make it true. You have to estimate the chance to decide whether you should make actions as if the hypothesis is true. For example: if someone buys a lottery ticket, then just because of the possibility of winning the jackpot, that person waste all of his/her fortune even before knowing the result of the lottery; do you think that is a wise decision or not? And how do we actually estimate chance? Usually, for all the cases that we cannot tell which of them to be more likely, we treat them as having equal chances. In the mentioned example with lottery, we usually use the process of picking the winning numbers to calculate the chances, and each possible resultant combination of numbers from the process is usually treated as having equal chance; and do note that for a specific lottery ticket, winning or losing do not have equal chances because we can observe that losing is more frequent (unlike the resultant combination of winning numbers which we cannot observe which would be significantly and consistently more frequent).
- Atheists (or more accurately: Agnostics) do not claim that there is no god of any kind. Atheists mainly refuse the teaching of religions, especially on what must be done and what must not be done. Just as mentioned above, we would treat [cases without any reason to claim which are more likely] as having equal chances. Even if we left the possibility of there being no god temporarily out of the consideration, there are many existing religions (and many denominations for each of them), there are also other hypothesis (such as the mentioned "simulation hypothesis") which can match our observations even better than some religions/denominations. Therefore, it is pointless to obey the teaching of a specific religion just for the chance of getting to the heaven as described by that religion, while that very action of obeying that religion would condemn that person to hell (or equivalent consequence) in another religion.
- Certain religions, such as Christianity, even have worse situation than the "simulation hypothesis". Christianity as described by the bible is illogical. That god is supposed to be "loving" but is also described as doing actions which are not described as "love" by the basic definition of "love" in modern English. To make Christianity self-consistent, you need to at least make it clear that those words of "love", "morality", etc. are misused, for more details:
• "love": [the common understanding of "love" in modern society between humans, which includes the loving person wanting to do the best for the loved person] vs [the way the god described by Christianity treats many humans, assuming that god is indeed omnipotent and omniscient].
• "morality": [the way of living we want to promote so that our society (from small scale such as family to big scale such as humanity) live more happily; it is from the perspective of the person doing the actions so it is not the same as law as law is limited by what the law enforcement can know and can do; we also need to take the people who would disagree with us into account, so promoting "just feel happy all the time" is a bad solution because there will certainly be many many people cannot follow that] vs [obeying what the religion teaches].
How about this? There is no logical proof for the existence of God? After all, what manner of God would s/he be if s/he were sustible to proof by human reasoning? That said, however, there is no logical proof that God does not exist. Either one is simply a matter of belief.
There is no logical proof for the existence of Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (Leaf Be Upon Her? After all, what manner of rainbow giraffe would s/he be if s/he were sustible to proof by human reasoning? That said, however, there is no logical proof that Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (Leaf Be Upon Her) does not exist. Either one is simply a matter of belief.
Do you believe in Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (Leaf Be Upon Her)? Or any one of the 42,400 other gods that humans have created? Your argument works equally well for each and every one. Also, leprechauns, trolls, fairies, brownies, etc. In other words, your argument is arrant nonsense.
Atheist Survival Guide 2.0.9 - If at any point you are tempted to believe order or fine tuning is derived from intelligence appeal to mystery. (If that doesn’t work remember God didn’t ban the human invention and practice of slavery.)
Theists survival guide 9.0.4 - be lazy and just assume big invisible magic man did it
Nice attempt at a Strawman Fallacy, but it's only psychological projection on your part.
No, "appealing to mystery" is commonly the practice of RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS. It relies on an Argument from Ignorance fallacy, that because we don't know, therefore god works mysterious ways.
That is the same fallacy used to argue that fine tuning is intentional. Because we don't know how fine tuning came about, therefore god did it.
In science, when we don't know something, we find that interesting. We admit that we don't know, then try to investigate. That's not a fallacious "appeal to mystery," it's an acknowledgement of where current knowledge ends, and a willingness to know more based on rigorous investigation.
So, nice try, but you shot yourself in the foot.
It is saying, we don't know.
And you can say a lot of answers are wring even if you don't know the correct answer.
@@Druid75 Oh you liked that formula thanks I thought of that on my own 👍
@@Druid75 Atheist Survival Guide 3.1.4 - If the Painter does not exist in the painting then there is no good evidence to believe he exists. (Also refer back to empirical data - Good boys don’t ask philosophical questions.)
Sooo…..Fine Tuning + Mystery of Life + Faith = Resolution of Fine Tuning
I thought you guys weren’t religious?
Not sure how you came up with that equation. It can't have been from watching this video
Are you familiar with the anthropic principle? Explain it please
@drsatan9617 Anthropic Principle has nothing to do with Fine-Tuning.
Do you know why?
@WhatsTheTakeaway first explain what the anthropic principle is
@drsatan9617 Why? Just Google it lol
Now after you looked it up, do you know why it has nothing to do with Fine-Tuning?
@drsatan9617 Why? Just Google it.
Now that you know what it is, do you know why it doesn't touch Fine-Tuning?
"A common criticism of Carter's SAP is that it is an easy deus ex machina that discourages searches for physical explanations. To quote Penrose again: "It tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."
Oops...
Are we >>>blind to DESIGN .......>>>?
Why should we believe your book?
There's another creation story where we live on top of a turtle shell. This is as plausible as your genesis story yes?
@@gp2917 i regress >>just observing the >>>> design in this world
@@mandolinJo Are the natural disasters that kill tens of thousands of people each, designed as well?
What about the limited land and fresh water humans have available to survive. Is that designed?
Yes as former believer of God admire the design, but the problem what came up to me is: What kinda a Designer will create something to be seen good for others to be happy comfortably but also will think, Let me see if my guest ( the first human couple he made) will like my creation and designs by testing them😅and actually this so-called Designer made up the idea of DEATH😢in that Good Design Garden!
Just another opinion....no proof here
All gods aren’t real
This video has scientists saying "I CLAIM the multiverse is simple!"
Yeah ok Carroll get back to us when you have more than a claim.
Hilarious since there's no proof for fine tuning either 😂
@@WhatsTheTakeaway where's the proof for fine tuning?
So let me get this straight…someone who wrote a script to this video, edited both clips and voiceovers to make it fit to put on RUclips thinks the fine tuning argument is bunk?
🙄
Yes, he is a very smart person. Thanks for noticing.
There is no "fine tuning argument" at all. That's not even a hypothesis.
@@petercollins7730 the video would needed to be edited or fine tuned, idiot
Debunked my ass. A series of assertions, with no explanation of the cosmos or life at all, other than randomness. The infinite monkey and typewriter theory on a grander scale.
Where's yr evidence for your atheism. Yu obviously don't know what you're talking about
Theism is the answer
You know the one thing that kinda turns me on about you?
Endless possibilities for a username and you boldly defy the reasonable world around you and say…
I DON’T CARE…that my real name is connected with the “information” and “data” that accompanies it.
I love when the dullest tools come and try to share their "wisdom". Openly admitting that they have no idea what they are argue about. Good job, Miki.
Multiple universes are not science because they've never been observed. Yu have to do better
.fine tuning is an excellent argument for God. So wake up ..Yu atheist dude 🤨🍒🍒
It's truly sad that you don't realize that the word "god" fits perfectly in your screed here: Your god, and no god, has ever been observed. Now, find some other nonsense to parrot.
@@petercollins7730 godless alone people are stacked into this empty worthless cult, but they are not aware God will judge them anyway, so they are weaker and are riscky a lot for no reason. Poor them.
@@Mar-dk3mp Nice assertions, as usual...
NEXT!
Does "God" live in a Universe exactly like this one? If so, then he/she/whatever is a natural being, subject to the same generalized operating principles of physics we are. If not, then there is at least one other sort of "place" that is favorable to the existence of intelligent life. In that case there is no need to "fine-tune" a Universe exactly like this one in order to have intelligent life.