Skydivephil once again assembles a magnificent array of brilliant minds, this time deconstructing the fine-tuning argument from many different angles. Well done - you and your team do a great service to science, philosophy, and humanity!
If they were brilliant, they would be able to come up with a common sense quantum gravity theory that explains what is going on, what the underlying mechanism is.
@@wulphstein We have many theories of quantum gravity, and the fact that we don't know everything is precisely the beauty of science. Science doesn't know everything, and religion doesn't know anything.
@@wulphstein We don't have a problem with that, currently experimental cosmology is not at that level, but that is not an argument for theism or any argument against naturalism.
@@kenandzafic3948 Did you ever stop to consider that ALL of your assumptions are wrong? Maybe God does exist and maybe God won't show you how all the physics fits together unless you show praise to the Creator. It worked for me. It's all very simple once you see what the building blocks of spacetime have to be (in terms of physics).
What this illustrates is that an argument that can be stated in 5 minutes needs an hour to debunk, which is why throwing out four or five of these arguments in a debate is a sneaky tactic since in order to properly refute the arguments the debate opponent would need far more than the allotted time to adequately point out the flaws in the argument.
Wow! An ensemble of people with brilliant minds who can nevertheless express their arguments with such clarity for a lay person like me. The best thing I have watched in ages, thanks.
Its fun hearing the same objections I've independently found to this argument put into different and more elegant ways. For example at 17:11 I always thought of this type of thing as someone asking, what are the chances of water just freezing? It's a meaningless question. If the conditions are right it will freeze. There are no odds.
yes, my perspective is not the you cant sign any probabilities but the confidence that those probabilities you do assign repreesent anything objective in the world should be low
@@wulphsteineven if it was , it shows that the original assumption of the probability was wrong. Now apply the same to our universe and see how all the numbers and probabilities you guys pull out are also wrong.
Many thanks for “fine-tuning” this impressive video. Alas, I fear however that in a vast multiverse landscape, there are innumerable such “fine-tuned” videos, thus rendering it repetitive rather than fine-tuned.
@skydivephil I disagree with @garybalatennis - I don't see many analyses of the Fine Tuning argument, let alone many that do it well. Really good to see these arguments, most of which I'm seeing for the first time. Well done.
I wonder what would happen if, say, one of the people shown on screen at @32:37 turned up in the comments and said: "I have numerous times - in a published book, peer reviewed papers and in talks - explicitly **denied** the view that this video attributes to me. It is exactly what I don't believe." Prediction: this comments section will be totally fine with it. No one will think that misrepresentation is a problem. No one will suspect that it flushes all credibility of this video down the toilet. No one will suggest that skydivephil should amend the video. Commenters will change the subject and make snarky comments about something else. Let's see, shall we?
"Life would be likely given theism" - NOT. The whole gob argument is terrible and miscarriage of logic and reason. Furthermore, the Bible always glorifies God. So we can infer that God would be glorified if life was difficult to achieve, but God created life anyway! That would make sense from a Biblical point of view, and seems to be what Luke Barnes comment is saying.
Sorry you got misrepresented. I went to your videos on closer to truth about this subject and from what I understood, what you're saying is that after we make a scientific explanation of the universe, we still have to explain why they follow those mathematical rules and that's where God comes in. Some sort of theological explanation of the the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. In case I understood you correctly, why does the universe owes us a teleological explanation? Couldn't be that at the end of all the "why" question there's just one "how" one and that's it? And also, why do we need to add more entities? It seems like if we know the how, we don't need to explain "why". "Why questions" seems to be a shortcut for us to study things without having to process tons of information in order to make predictions.
Hi Luke, I honestly did no see this comment when you posted, so apologies.Im going to respond to this criticism in a future video but I have been extremely busy with another project so its had to go on the back burner . But when I do feel free to reply and again apologies for missing your comment.
@@PhilHalper1 Hey Phil, thanks for the reply. There's no predicting the RUclips comment algorithm, so I'm not surprised you missed my comment. Keep me posted.
@Dr.Wrong 😂😂😂 "There is a RUclips employee standing behind you with a gun, so they can't respond. Wow, you have to come up with that excuse. Simply ridiculous..." 🤣😆😀
A few comments: 7:21 to 8:10 - A flagrant omission here is epistemic probability of objective evidential relations (e.g., it's an objective fact that the scientific evidence supports evolution). (Yes, epistemic probability is addressed in a later video, but this segment gives the false impression that this sort of epistemic probability isn't a standard probability interpretation). 8:42 to 8:58 - Short answer: no it doesn't, and this can be shown with the help of math. See Wolfgang Tschirk's "The Principle of Indifference Does Not Lead to Contradictions." 15:45 to 20:23 - This misses the point. Even if you assume that the fundamental constants are physically necessary, we can just as easily imagine a physical necessity to land on one of the far larger regions of life-prohibiting ranges. You'd just be pushing the same problem back a step. Matthew O'Dowd raises the same point at PBS SpaceTime ("Can You Observe a Typical Universe?" in 15:26 to 16:21; see also 14:20 to 15:26 responding to those who would deny fine-tuning), noting that a multiverse explanation is preferable. 23:59 to 37:02 - The fact that God doesn't need certain physical configurations for life to exist may be true but it's irrelevant and does nothing to refute a design inference. To give an analogy, suppose a meteorite shower clearly spelled out on the moon the first four verses of the Gospel of John in New Testament Greek, and scientists learn that certain parameters were fine-tuned for this meteorite shower text to appear such that if the parameters were altered even slightly, no meteorite shower text would appear. The reply, “God wouldn’t need certain physical configurations for that message to appear” would be true but would also be impotent in refuting a supernatural explanation. To claim that God's omnipotence would rob him of any motive to design the universe this way (at around 23:28 to 23:44) is false; one possible motive would be to imprint an earmark of design for future scientists to discover. 32:36 to 32:41 - This is a straw man of what Luke Barnes actually believes. He doesn't believe or claim that fine-tuning is _likely_ given theism, just that it's not vanishingly small. 37:02 to 38:53 - Apply the "maybe the parameters are necessary" to the fine-tuned meteorite shower scenario and see what happens. My thoughts: a multiverse explanation is by far the best hope the nontheist has to avoid a design inference, but a satisfactory multiverse hypotheses must meet a number of desiderata for it to be a better explanation than design (e.g., the mechanism for generating multiple universes must not itself require fine-tuning, it must avoid the Boltzmann brain problem, etc.) and it's unclear at best that there is a current multiverse hypothesis that meets all the desiderata (it largely depends on who you talk to). See Capturing Christianity's "Philip Goff and Luke Barnes DEFEND the Fine-Tuning Argument" video for more.
I wasn't moved by some of the arguments against FT either. From the video, I like: -We don't know if constants can be different -many constants are interdependent and balanced so changing one might not effect anything -we don't really have any way to say some changes are more favorable or less -many of the constants could be more favorable for life so its not fine tuned but more like coarsely tuned
@@pjaworek6793 Really the only objection I think _might_ work is the multiverse response (which may be tricky because of the all the additional desiderata you need beyond the mere existence of the multiverse). _-We don't know if constants can be different_ Apply that to the fine-tuned meteorite shower scenario; clearly that objection won't work there, but why? One reason I think this doesn't work is that even if the constants are physically necessary we can just as easily imagine the physical necessity lying on the much broader range where the specified outcome (a life-permitting universe or meteorite shower text) won't happen; the physical necessity itself would have to be fine-tuned and it basically pushes the problem back a step. _-many constants are interdependent and balanced so changing one might not effect anything_ _-we don't really have any way to say some changes are more favorable or less_ _-many of the constants could be more favorable for life so its not fine tuned but more like coarsely tuned_ The impression I'm given is that the scientific consensus agrees that there are real cases of fine-tuning, even if fine-tuning doesn't apply in all cases (e.g., some constants not being finely-tuned for life).
@@MaverickChristian That's where I'm being led as well, to an eternal inflation with multiverses. As to a better explanation of our observations, that's where you have me stumped. How does FT or God have any explanatory power whatsoever? Isn't it a dead end with no hope for progress? Oh and when you say pushed back a step, aren't we implying an eternal step? Such as with our current quantum fields existing throughout cosmic inflation? Correct me if I'm wrong or incomplete on that point.
@@MaverickChristian How can you talk about a multiverse without considering the possibility that in another universe, the laws of physics are different? If physics laws can be different, then so can physics constants. This is another example of how atheists are completely biased in their thinking, logically inconsistent, and cannot be trusted to know what reality is.
@@pjaworek6793 _As to a better explanation of our observations, that's where you have me stumped. How does FT or God have any explanatory power whatsoever? Isn't it a dead end with no hope for progress?_ Well, it would explain the fine-tuned data, so it would have that explanatory power. But perhaps your objection is that it has no explanatory power beyond that. My response: even if true, so what? Consider the fine-tuned meteorite shower once again. Suppose the design hypothesis in this instance has no explanatory power beyond the meteorite text, and there is no hope of progressing the explanation further. None of that would constitute any reason to reject a design inference here. _Oh and when you say pushed back a step, aren't we implying an eternal step?_ No, because there are alternative possibilities to the design inference that do _not_ simply push the fine-tuning problem back a step, the most obvious one being a satisfactory multiverse explanation (in that a multiverse explanation could in principle work).
A little comment about Sean Caroll view about multiverse: I'm not so sure whether he is talking about cosmological multiverse related to the inflation model or the multiverse from the many world interpretation of quantum theory (since I know he is a strong suporter of this idea). But nevertheless-this video is GREAT, OUTSTANDING AND AMAZING: you are one of the best channels on youtube and you deserve millions of views!
It’s a shame that a YT channel which interviews some of the smartest people on earth, the real experts on the subject who give valuable insights, gets relatively few views, while the videos of apologists like Craig get millions of views even though their rambling is nothing but hot air.
Phil. You keep doing this amazing work. It should be compulsary material on schools all over the world. People have so many believes that are based on absolutely nothing at all presented by people like WLC who have the gift of making stupid nonsensical claims sound logic and resonate with your intuition. I readily hace to admit that this one is easier to fight than the Kalam once you get people to understand that a value of a constant has no correlation whatsoever whit it's probability distribution. But getting people to see that is hard with those thought leaders who Keep on pretending that it does. Thanks a lot man.
thanks very much , really appreciate your comment. I would urge you not to use the word idiot when describing intellectual opponents though , I understand the temptation but its bad form, thanks again.
You do realise most people still think fine-tuning is a problem, right? It's hilarious that you claim fine-tuning is easily dismissed and then people (including some people in the video) will argue for a multiverse (which has no empirical evidence whatsoever).
@@Al-ji4gd I don't think there is even something like fine tuning. Just because it appears like it doesn't make it so. Problem is that when it comes to theism you guys got it absolutely wrong. You don't understand nothing about probability. Probability depends on the probability distribution not on the value that a constant may or may not have. I've seen clowns claiming that if we where 1inch closer to the sun we would not exist at all. Nonsense of course. If you buy a lottery ticket the chance of winning depends on the number of tickets sold. Not on the value of the jackpot. Nonsensical
A good thought experiment to establish the framework of probabilistic thinking around this question is the following: There are three scenarios. The first is 1,000,000 mi.² of beach of pebbles upon which is found one very improbable stack of five pebbles. The second is a 10 cm² beach upon which is found one stack of five pebbles. The third is a 1,000,000 mi.² beach of pebbles upon which every pebble is in a stack of five. Order these three scenarios based on their relative probabilities. Which scenario best reflects our reality?
I'm so glad you did this. I have a curiosity about why the constants are what they are, but to me it is so clearly nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. I'm consequently often baffled by 2 sides of the argument. I want to say, yes, the questions are interesting, but no, they do not prove any God and certainly no specific one. I do prefer other hypotheses to those requiring infinite inflation and universes. But I think that's an aesthetic preference, since there's not yet any way to rule either out.
@@Cat_Woods maybe because you're stuck in your own logic and because of your logic you cannot perceive truth because your logic is false. We call it brainwashing. You cannot use any randomness and fine-tune anything.
this was a sufficiently atheism-biased and theism-prejudiced presentation. There are just as many physicists and philosophers who perfectly willing to argue that the cosmic fine-tuning does constitute good evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer.
There are some closer to truth clips for starters, I personally want to see both sides of the argument because I'm pessimist but at least parts of this video with the screaming for naturalism, naturalism wasn't all that good for anything but reinforcing your viewers beliefs
And why did it use such ludicrously unpredictable methods - such as natural laws, chemical reactions, planetary and continental collisions - when it could have just spoken everything into existence exactly as it wanted?
The problems I've always had with the "fine tuning" argument: 1) it rests on probability, but to calculate a probability one has to know the number of possible outcomes and the number of attempts. Knowing neither, no valid calculation is possible; 2) a probability argument only works if it leads to an alternative that is more probable, which requires calculating that probability as well - so the fine tuning advocates MUST also calculate the probability of the existence and actions of their designer, otherwise their argument is swinging at air; 3) am I really supposed to believe that the universe is fine-tuned for our existence when we can only exist in one ten-quintillionth of it, after 14 billion years of superfluous processes, and even in that tiny space/time it constantly tries to kill us?
Thanks for another mind-bending video. I’ll be watching it repeatedly to better absorb it. My take. I feel that the one flawed assumption that all the speakers here are making is: any Supreme Creator is all-powerful in any specific pre-designed purpose of fine-tuning to permit intelligent sentient life as we know it. What if any Creator force is less than all-powerful? It might make for different arguments, pro and con.
Carroll's claim that only under naturalism life needs fine-tuned constants is not completely accurate. He says that under theism, God is omnipotent and that implies He can create life even if the constants do not allow it -- after all, He can do whatever He wants. While that would certainly apply to Abrahamic views (e.g., Christian, Islamic and Jewish), it would not apply to theistic/deistic views that postulate a limited designer. That's a shortcoming or limitation of Carroll's argument.
@@pjaworek6793 I'm not sure what there is here to "fact check." The claim follows logically; it is a category error to ask for empirical evidence in this context, i.e., "fact check." I'll try to help you here. Carroll's claim is: _if the designer is omnipotent, then he doesn't need finely-tuned constants for life to exist._ That implies that: _if the designer is NOT omnipotent, then he might need finely-tuned constants for life to exist._ Now, which gods are said to be "all powerful"? The Judeo-Christian and Islamic gods. But why should we think only Abrahamic gods are possible? No argument was presented to support this assertion.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Oh, I'm just trying to find a religion with a limited God belief which uses fine tuning arguments. Like I said, it's an interesting rebuttal. I agree with him though. Why does there need to be both fine tuning for life and the creation of life. It seems it can be any other combination and still get life. Besides that, the belief is that God takes over your life if you believe. You would think someone can see evidence for any of this by now.
@@pjaworek6793 Well, obviously the Ancient Greek religion posited limited gods -- very limited indeed. And your demand that this religion uses "fine-tuning arguments" has nothing to do with whether the argument would apply to that religion or not. In other words, whether the followers of that religion use it or not is not pertinent to the question of whether the argument would be valid if they used it. Finally, even if there is no religion at all that postulates limited gods, that would be completely immaterial to the question of whether such gods could exist. And only possibility is pertinent in this context. Therefore, Carroll's argument only applies to omnipotent beings (or, alternatively, beings who do not need to finely-tune the cosmos in order for life to exist).
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco I see your point that Carrol's argument is limited to refuting FTA with omnipotent gods. He doesn't cover the lesser scenario here I guess. The scenario that a limited God could preconceive and create a universe suited for life but himself be limited within that creation. It seems like a tough sell, like creating life is easier than some purpose bound but naturalistic universe. Good rebuttal. Honestly, I find a lot of the counter arguments clunky but the topic is fascinating.
Can we stop making analysis of probability a posteriori? What is the probability that something that happened, happened?100% What is the probability that the Power Ball Numbers will be exactly 01 06 40 61 72 - 02? It is one in almost 300 Billion. Well, those are the numbers that came out last draw. What are the chances? 100% To say that an event that actually happened was likely or unlikely, you NEED to define BEFOREHAND what you will call likely or unlikely. This is used, for example, in statistical process control. You define for example that a trend up or down of 8 consecutive points will be considered as that something special (i.e. not just random variation) is happening to the process. Why 8? Well, because, if randomness was the only force at play, after the first point in the run, each consecutive point has a 50% chance of being above or below the previous one (not exactly correct, I am simplifying a bit), and 0.5^7=0.007 or a bit under 1%. One has to be careful, though. Because you know what other run has the same probability? I don't know, let's say UP-UP-DOWN-UP-DOWN-DOWN-UP. or DOWN-DOWN-DOWN-UP-DOWN-UP-DOWN. Or ANY SPECIFIC COMBINATION. That is one what you DON'T do in Statistical Process Control is look a the data a posteriori and say "hmm, that looks odd, what is the chance that we got these numbers?" Because any specific set of umbers will be incredibly unlikely. Final analogy, if you randomly pick a number between 1 and 1 million, there is a 1 in 1 million chance that you pick one specific number, whatever that specific number is. Yet, I can guarantee with 100% chance that you will pick one number between 1 and 1 million, Calling that number "specific" after the fact and saying "hey, how unlikely you picked this one" just makes no sense.
What amazes me is that there are so many people who don't want there to be a God. While FT doesn't prove anything, it is one of a number of arguments that suggests God as a possibility.
@@PhilHalper1 I guess if the constants can be tweaked they’d still relate to one another in some ratio. Ratios sound more “fundamental” to me than an intelligent mind. (Intelligence needs to process information input anyway so it can’t be fundamental. It must be contingent on the information being available or else it’s not an intelligence lol!)
Maybe, but I agree it is an interesting point, brings me back to soft determinism as a notion of will vs constants (fixed and/or random). Such a god must give some of their power to some kind of other reality or form that is either or both very very firm or very very squishy. Randomness is something that is possibly philosophically and scientifically impossible, so that would make things simpler. Oh, fine tuning is a garbage argument, it is a multiverse theory and a wild one at that.
yeah, something is adapting, on some level conscious. Is it the organism or is it all designed and run, moment by moment, by a single being? The first one is easier for me to picture. Does it even matter if we're tied to a single being? Shouldn't we be that independent, portioned-off part and not some self worshipping thing in this universe?
An infinite multiverse allows all the logical possibilities to exist infinite times. So unicorns, dragons, fairies, spaghetti space monsters, the actual God ect. all exist in this world since they only need to be logicaly consistent. That's a very interesting idea indeed.
But there are infinite different kinds of physical laws. The only thing each system needs is logical consistency. I don't know how universe creative aliens can not be consistent God-like ?
@@jaskitstepkit7153 depends on your definition of God if its an immaterial mind then such aliens would not count as God's . Also in the multiverse scenario we entertain the laws don't change only thr values of the constants do
How is fine tuning compatible with omnipotence? I wonder how Jesus walked on water? Did he fine tune the local laws of gravity or did he fine tune his mass to zero or did he just use his omnipotent power to will his freedom from the constraints of gravity? As a catholic I was raised to believe the soul is life and eternal. So how would the soul be contingent on universal initial conditions and physical constants? What fine tuning is required for the existence of angels? The fine tuning argument is DOA. It is utterly contrived from the misuse of scientific data much more so than the theories positing a multiverse.
24:30 it makes no sense that god necessarily wouldn't be constrained by physics. Depends on your diety of choice i suppose but as an atheist examining fine tuning it strikes me as a DM designing a game. Sure God's powerful, but it kinda defeats God's whole point if the rules are broken.
What strikes me is how humble actual physicists and philosophers of physics are, even theists. Especially when compared to the monumental arrogance apologists with absolutely no relevant expertise exude.
I always got the impression it was more about fundamental physics, like you tweak a value here and particles can't stick together, or you tweak a value there and the universe has way too much energy to settle into the one we exist in. I've always interpreted the argument to be more about reality itself, rather than life. Or so the logic goes; without the physical reality we have, we can't imagine how any life could exist.
@@Grinsekatze113 No, I expect to find myself in one tuned for life. Although some would call that an anthropic fallacy, I still think it's obviously the best view we can ever hope to have. But I don't agree that it's pointless to talk about it. People have been asking this question since before you and I were born. Theists aren't the only ones who invoke it. Atheists disagree with each other on this issue as well. It can be framed as a theological question, but it's not exclusively theological.
@@WaxPaper well said. it is a theological argument. Id just take it a step further and say this is creationism, ken ham style. you know it baffles me that americans fall for it over and over.
It was great but much more philosophical than scientific. Towards the end however scientific evidence for and against fine tuning became interesting with the discussion on the multiverse. Overall a nice attempt again
A Multiverse would be a way to circumvent the fine tuning argument, the issue with multiverse theory from Hawking is that you need universe generating mechanisms that would need to be finely tuned to spew out these multipleverses, then youd be back to where you started. Id ditch the multiverse thing and all the science is pointing to a finite universe anyway that had a beginning so youd have to construct an argument against the fine tuning argument from that prospective only. although the value of a constant indeed does not correlate with its probability distribution. the only way to explain the value of the constant without purpose or deliberate intent is to distribute probability in order to explain the value. rather than someone put that value there not needing any probabilities or any rolls of any dice.. so in other words the values cant be explained by design because you cant assign probability but the only way to explain the value without intelligent design is to assign probability. its self defeating. weve never observed other universes where they take on different values we havent observed repeated trials of universes created by the same processes to see different values but you want multiple verses of different values to explain the values of constants we see in the real world.its self defeating Nothing cannot create something. For nothing is truly not anything and something can only be something. for only something could create something out of nothing and that something could only be omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent that isn't effected by something or anything let alone by time space or matter. in order to argue from the prospective of nothing creating something from itself you need probability and multi verses to arrive at the values we are all seeing, so you need multiple chances . One can tryt and explain this away go for it .. but I argue that non sense remains nonsense even if its spoken by world famous scientists like Hawking
our friend justin brierly isn't interested in science or maths though, this isn't a science or maths video he's presenting, it's a recruitment video for religion, a religion that has no evidence itself.
@@PhilHalper1 You THINK he's wrong or you KNOW he's wrong? I'm with HarryNicholas in spirit; I think Brierly is wilfully ignoring what he knows to be the truth re the die.
The Bronze Age is over... God is dead... The age of AGI is coming and with it an order of magnitude greater intelligence and transhuman evolution. Well done Phil, a convincing presentation.
@@PhilHalper1 Artificial general intelligence (AGI) - The ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can.
@@Henok-qn6nc actually why don't you check out the whole channel I think you ll fine a lot of material you'll like ruclips.net/channel/UCtOgKmAM4MeFu-jd-HB3_cg
Reading Victor Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning" years ago led me to suspect that Fine Tuning was nothing more than a re-hash of Intelligent Design arguments in an Astrophysical setting. This video reinforced my suspicion in that regard. Unfortunately Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and similar pseudo-scientific arguments resonate strongly with the general public. They need to be firmly deconstructed with more videos like this one.
ALL of the criticisms of Fine Tuning are completely based on intolerance and bigotry toward religion. None of the atheist arguments are based on science. Even the "watch maker argument" is called a fallacy, but the reasons why are not explained well (because it's a fraudulent argument).
@@wulphstein According to your pseudo logic this is a good argument. Plants are living things You are a living being Plants are plants You are a plant.
This presentation would have been a lot more useful if it started with someone knowledgeable laying out clearly and with precision what the fine tuning argument is and why it makes so much sense to some people. How can you argue against something with so much confusion around it?
Considering the fact that we find amino acids pretty much everywhere we look, including on asteroids, then it seems to suggest that the emergence of life is inevitable and a "trivial outcome" of the expansion of the universe. That would suggest the fine tuning argument is rather pointless.
@@christaylor6574 If you've ever done engineering work, failure to fine tune means production turns out unusable products. Failure to fine tune means that life can't exist.
@@wulphstein Except if God exists then that's not true. God could create an immaterial universe of only souls which doesn't require fine-tuning for life because, well - souls don't require finely-tuned physical constants to exist. Another error in the FT reasoning.
Penrose: "We don't know enough about life" Sigh. Sorry Roger, but no, we know enough about life to reasonably conclude that no life (of any kind) would be possible in a hydrogen-only universe, or a universe where Maxwell's laws applied at the subatomic scale, or a universe that collapsed back on itself 2 plank seconds after its origin, or a universe that expanded so rapidly that elements are separated by light years of empty space
I recommend the philosophical book on fine-tuning arguments by Jason Waller. He adresses many of the arguments in this video and reaches a different conclusion. An interview: Dr. Jason Waller, Is the Fine-tuning reason to believe in God? RUclips · TJump 08.01.2020
Nobody can possibly prove the Universe could have actually been any different. To claim it definitely could have been different is just assuming the conclusion that what we see is however improbable they assume it to be.
All you have to do is play around with the hydrogen wave function energy equation to get other values for the physics constants. It is a bit of a puzzle to work out, but it's not impossible.
@@wulphstein you can't prove those values are actually possible though, that's the point I was making. You can make up new values all you want, but you can't verify that they're applicable to reality.
@@prophetrob But you can tell how it would effect the universe. You would figure out pretty quickly that hydrogen atoms were emitting gamma rays. Right?
I am curious as to what the criticisms would be of the fine tuning argument. Your response to the Kalam was pretty good but maybe that's just because I find causal finitism to be false given my version of the diffusion principle (that God at no point in time would cease from creation). But fine tuning is a whole different ballgame. The best objection I've seen is the electrons in love one, everything else is bad (e.g. multiverse, selection effect objections etc.) I'm also wondering if you will be responding to Craig's version of the FTA or the bayesian ones from those like Luke Barnes. Personally I think the FTA just becomes a sort of psychophysical harmony argument given the electrons in love objection. Since you are including Sean Carroll in here about what are the relevant explanatory factors that contribute to what is and what is not a good explanation of fine tuning. From what I've seen of Carroll his criteria of what a "good explanation" is supposed to be is just completely misguided. If explanation guides confirmation then how does naturalism as a hypothesize make any meaningful predictions about what would be fine tuned or not? He also ignores that the axiological dimension is crucial when doing any sort of epistemological confirmation This gives us the probability function as P(E|T) = P(E) and P(~E) situated within a higher order explanatory framework (axiology) E being the proposition that the observation has an identifiable positive feature. Richard Swinburne has what I think is the best formulation of what we ought to expect from God's actions. That His actions will always be directed toward some good and will never act toward some bad. Thus, whatever we identify as the handiwork of God, only obtains because God apprehended its goodness. This gives us what can be called the axiological relevance thesis (ART). ART: For any O, theism predicts O iff a relation of axiological relevance connects propositions about theism to propositions about O. What guides our understanding of theistic confirmation is its relevance to axiology. Naturalism is axiologically indifferent (indifference hypothesis) as it doesn't act towards what is axiologically relevant. This gives us the comparative statement P(O|T&E) > P(O|O-naturalism) O-naturalism does not have a claim to E since ART only holds for theism. Furthermore, theism is always antecedently epistemically friendly towards the existence of value-states than O-naturalism since the kind "natural" is neutral with respect to value-states. Fine tuning has axiological relevance since it produces creatures like us with valuable states. Naturalism is value indifferent and so doesn't produce any sort predictions about value states. Theism narrows the space of expected value states, within the total spectrum possible. Naturalism doesn’t narrow the space at all-inside the space where there are beings like us with value. What we observe falls into the space inside theism’s narrowing. From this it follows deductively that fine tuning (or I prefer psychophysical harmony) confirms theism over naturalism. Any talk about "why God couldn't do it this other way" is completely irrelevant. Just my quick thoughts. I need to watch the documentary of course!
The designers of online computer games have to obey computer code. How is that different from an Intelligent Designer deciding what the constants should be?
@@wulphstein An intelligent designer doesn't depend on constants, what would he do, especially constants that we would be better off without, also why would a designer tune the universe for life in the first place, do you realize that is an unproven assumption?
Without time stamps I can't cite this suitably, but Sean Carroll says (my timeline suggest approx 44 minutes in) "... you don't postulate a multiverse, that's not what you do, that's just a mistake, they're getting it wrong. What you postulate are laws of Physics that give rise to a multeyeverse." A corollary is as much an axiom as its logical precursor, so the multiverse _is_ a postulate with the same/smaller domain as the precursor axioms/postulates, hence the multiverse is a postulate. (Any non redundant axiom reduces the domain of discourse). [Aside: A theory has a domain of applicability. Newton's theory of gravitation has a domain, which is quite large, but it has limits - we do not assume that it extends indefinitely - we tested its limits and found it wanting. When we can test the multiverse it will have some credibility: let us call it a domain of credibility; at present that domain is tiny. A goal of many Physicists is an indefinite domain, but a goal should not be a gaol.]
The fine tuning argument is a differential prediction. The alignment of all of the physical constants for life is predicted in a universe with a telos for life, but not in a naturalist model. There's a lot of post hoc rationalizing going on here.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib I think you missed my point. That the constants are finely tuned for life is consistent with and predicted from the theory that the universe has a telos for life. One would never predict fine-tuning from a naturalist model. That's why all we hear in the video is post-hoc rationalizing.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib My position's consistent. The only reason why fine tuning is a topic of conversation is because it appears to be very inconsistent with what we would expect from naturalism. This isn't really controversial.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Thanks for laying that out for me. I get where you're coming from a lot better. You think fine-tuners are making mountains out of mole hills, are just jumping to conclusions. Maybe some of them are. I can't speak for them. What I personally find very odd and interesting about the values of the constants is that it only takes minute deviations of any one of them to upset the whole apple cart. That's fucking weird! There's nothing in naturalism that would predict this. The findings appear more in line with a teleological universe, which isn't an illogical theory. This is my inference to the best explanation. I hope that helps you get where I'm coming from.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib it sounds like you're asking me to prove that it's logically impossible for fine tuning to exist in a deterministic, natural universe. Is that right? I'm not certain you understand my argument, because if you did you wouldn't be making these types of objections.
Always interesting to see Craig and his ilk displaying as loose & selective a grasp on cosmology and physics and biology as they have on philosophy. Why, again, do people think these people are so clever and authoritative?
@@PhilHalper1 I know better. What does Craig get wrong? You can argue over the interpretation of a physical theory, this is not the same as misunderstanding, failing to grasp a theory or of course flat out lying. I do not know if CARLO ROVELLI, A C GRAYLING, LARRY KRAUSS, A W MOORE are pathological liars or just pig ignorant but all have been caught out with making HUGE false claims about philosophy, mathematics and physics. Craig does not engage in these types of distortions.
@@PhilHalper1 From your Kalam video with Craigs response. This is, after Larry Krauss' fake e-mail from Vilenken, the most egregious nonsence on the Kalam ever uttered. CARLO ROVELLI: Well, cosmological time is a fake. Why? Because matter, gravity slows time so inside the galaxy clocks go slower than outside. Point is there are many different clocks in the universe which they don't agree with one another and there are many times in the universe which don't agree with one another. The idea of the cosmological time is just one arbitrary definition of an average, but I can give a different definition of it. Response: For shame! Rovelli knows that the slowing of clocks in a gravitational field has absolutely nothing to do with the time parameter that measures the duration of the universe. Cosmic time is not arbitrary but charts the evolution of hyper-surfaces of homogeneity.
@@wulphstein Nothing about the multiverse being the case or not lends itself to arguments about god(s). Care to offer some of this vast evidence you have for the existence of your god? Oh and I'm not going to watch your video, you can make the case for it's existence here if you are actually able.
@@wulphstein So you can't defend your position ? Why should I go watching a list of videos , either offer the evidence yourself or stop spamming me. I've got really tired of lazy theists who don't even understand their own arguments.
@@tdsdave I hear you. I don't like to watch videos when a simple explanation would be better. But you did ask for evidence. There is a tonne of near death experience and out of body evidence that proves that we are a soul inhabiting a body. Furthermore, the biological cell is just too complicated to be able to happen by accident. So, I gave you evidence; but in your limited wisdom, you ignored it. I can't learn for you.
This is a terrific way to engage with philosophical ideas . The effort behind this comprehensive, subtle and balanced presentation is obviously immense and of immense public benefit. I am sorry to say the contrast with apologists use of the argument is striking as it would suggest something close to intellectual deception on their part. Or maybe self deception?
No fine tuning means that the physics constants can be unsuitable for chemistry. No chemistry means no DNA. No DNA means no life. No life means no evolution. No evolution means no humans to talk about whether or not the universe is fine tuned or not. If there is self deception, it is on the part of atheists.
Why would an all powerful god need to fine tune at all? Couldn't it create the universe to contain life, regardless of the constants in play? Fine tuning implies a lack of omnipotence.
Seems to me that either outcome is astonishing and demands explanation. If it is possible that the constants could have been different, but are exactly as they are to allow an intelligent life permitting universe, that's astonishing points towards a fine tuner. If the constants couldn't be different, but are exactly right to allow intelligent life in this universe, that's even more astonishing and points towards design.
@@andrewdouglas1963 how could they be otherwise under naturalism. Under theism, they don't have to be as God can create via miracles,s so I agree that Naturlism precist life permitting constants, theism doesn't. A win for naturalism.
@@PhilHalper1 Yes under theism, God can do miracles but I'm sure even with God, there would be compromises to be made so that everything works as intended. Take the mouth for example. Some people say it's a really bad design to have the airway and throat in the same orifice. But it's actually very efficient. Using one orifice to eat, breath, talk and swallow is far more efficient than using 2 or more systems. But the compromise is on occasions food may go down the wrong way. I usually ask people who say this is a bad design, what they would do to improve it. Unsurprisingly no one ever comes up with any better suggestions. So like the mouth, the cosmological constants maybe had to have the exact values they have for everything to work as intended with some compromises.
@@PhilHalper1 "how could they be otherwise under naturalism" - much more easily than they could permit life like ours! If naturalism is true, it is surprising that we exist at all.
Stating the opinion that the "observed fine tuning" is improbable is stating an opinion based upon ignorance, as it could just as easily be not just probable, but always happens. Meanwhile, how probable is it that gods evolved enough to the point where they could start making universes?
A fair debate implies simultaneous confrontation of experts with different or opposite opinions, not multiple and longlasting interventions of the same position.
@@PhilHalper1 A 4’30” clip of a single person vs 1hour video of many people repeating more or less the same argument. The main supporter of God’s existence based on fine tuning theory is Stephen Meyer who is interviewed by neutral or skeptical blogger (like Joe Rogan) alone or in a meeting with other experts with different views (like in Fiesole conversations).
@@paolochinellato2721 you didnt answer the question. Have you commented on video where people only advocate for fine tuning and complained they were one sided?
The whole thing is fine tune, it does not matter who did it or who did not do it, it is extremely well fine-tuned. A far better word for fine-tuned is self-consistency. This means everything must hang together. It has nothing to do with life. There are molecules that are vibrating at the rate of 10 to the 10 per second, that is the level of the fine-tuning. That is 10 to the 10 opportunities to mess up every second and that is everywhere. Not only is that everywhere, it is repeated independently on different levels. People take the concept out of context so they can talk about God or they can feel awesome. All those multiverse ideas people are throwing around are the possibilities, no limits, but this is the only one that can hang together at the level required to make a cosmos. All kinds of strange objects do appear, they are seen in particle accelerators, for 10 to the minus 18th of a second sometimes. That is the level of their consistency. That is going on all the time. Time really has nothing to do with it, it is just a manner of speaking.
There is nothing more complicated than life. Fine tuning has EVERYTHING to do with life. The fact that we are all here physically should be an obvious clue that we were created. There is no sane and rational argument that we could exist without Intelligent Design.
There is no fine tuning. You got that from scientists who need to tune theories and math to match observations. The term has been essentially hijacked and means nothing without a creator and a beginning and the assumption that a universe could be any other way.
@@pjaworek6793 The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God.
@@wulphstein LOL. I've listened to many fine tuned debates, there is nothing in it, no prima facie requirement. Design! Everything that exists must have design, design does not start at life. This is just another version of, we are at the center of the cosmos. It's the way we use the word intelligence, it's misleading. Intelligence deals with particulars. Some people believe there is nothing beyond that but that is because they cannot see, not because there is nothing to "see". Bear in mind, the words of one great master, " he who has eyes to see, let him see". If you have been trained and practiced in the solutions to quadratic equations, when you see one, sometimes the solution just appears, you can "see" it. Many people, equally or more intelligent will not be able to "see".
@@wulphstein No one cares about intelligent design, much less than it's successor, fine tuning. There's no one serious unless scamming others, that cares about a rational argument for an entirely faith based 'activity' of personal belief and 'worship'. This is all about your feelings. We don't care in this case; your "argument" is in our territory. It's irrelevant and destroys itself. Clear on our different positions, atheists and theists? Hmm?
My car's license plate reads 187KNV: the odds of that happening by chance is astronomically unlikely, as there are ten Arabic numerals (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and 26 Greek/Roman letters. My license plate therefore shows that the Motor Vehicle Department is God.
Dr.JustIsWrong @georgbenad4436 "has your keyboard frozen" Nope. YT won't let me post a reply. I rarely laughed so much about your excuse. You are a true inspiration. If you were to say 'I cannot provide you with a scientific explanation,' you would be on the same level as the WHO, and this would not be a shame. As Lenin once said: 'Learn, learn, and learn again.'"😂😂😂
@@PhilHalper1 I don’t have to address any single argument to give my overall reaction to it. What is it about fine tuning that bothers them so much? It is obviously fine tuned otherwise we would not be here in the Goldilocks zone in relation to the sun with oxygen and all that is necessary for life. Randomness is a possibility but even a Rolls Royce coming together by randomness is hard to imagine.
The universe isn't fine-tuned. Life is adapted to the universe, and a more complex, more mathematically sophisticated universe that can't support anything we would call life can be simulated. Nevertheless, given that most of the universe is too hot, too cold or too radioactive to support life and that in our s solar system alone only one planet out of eight can support life, fine tuning is nonsense. Any unsolicited comment whatsoever will bring on effective blockage of the user.
Go ahead and block me if you like, but here is an atheist who converted back to Christianity because of science. ruclips.net/video/OMBQwGzn_TE/видео.html
What's the probability of there being anything at all to begin with...? We just don't know. (FWIW, I am a theist, but just find the fine-tuning argument to be, ahem, less than compelling. Any search for physical evidence of the Divine is, I suspect, a fool's errand. Regnum deus intra vos est, after all.)
It certainly depends on how you define such an entity. To a start you need to forget all these scriptures of a personal entity. And you are still left with: who or what created this entity. And you are back to square. And from a scientific view how to falsify it. As Caroll mentions known one knows if we could have lived in a universe with different constants. So in a sense it is waste of time unless it is a philosophical class. It’s not science
i the description we defined God as the omni God of modern theism. Granted there could be other conceptions of God and we do talk about Gnosticism in the video but in a 1 hour film we have to keep things simple to some extent.
I understand the dilemma. But faith is not a faith as soon the slightest evidence exists to support any claims. So as long you can’t falsify or prove that claim. Due to the scientific method it isn’t science. If we move to philosophy then it is an enormous subject. But still there is no limit for what claim one can do. Because the paradox of evidence. I don’t find faith interesting besides history and philosophy. ( culture ) but I’m doing science- and Bertrand Russell, C. Hitchens, Dawkins and others have been working for the truth and not what we believe. What is next Aliens! Visiting earth- if people claim that they must accept so many things before it sounds possible. And frankly most don’t even know what these things are. People are allowed to believe in whatever they want. But when it becomes an overbuilding to our democracy. Then it’s a problem. For our democracy. There is a reason why the highest educated people are the ones who are most atheistic. Or agnostic as I am. Not like 50/50 - 99.999 - 0.001 . I don’t want to offend anyone but this is how I feel is the best approach.
Skydivephil once again assembles a magnificent array of brilliant minds, this time deconstructing the fine-tuning argument from many different angles. Well done - you and your team do a great service to science, philosophy, and humanity!
If they were brilliant, they would be able to come up with a common sense quantum gravity theory that explains what is going on, what the underlying mechanism is.
@@wulphstein We have many theories of quantum gravity, and the fact that we don't know everything is precisely the beauty of science. Science doesn't know everything, and religion doesn't know anything.
@@kenandzafic3948 But do you have any theories of quantum gravity that include experimental observations about our universe?
@@wulphstein We don't have a problem with that, currently experimental cosmology is not at that level, but that is not an argument for theism or any argument against naturalism.
@@kenandzafic3948 Did you ever stop to consider that ALL of your assumptions are wrong? Maybe God does exist and maybe God won't show you how all the physics fits together unless you show praise to the Creator. It worked for me. It's all very simple once you see what the building blocks of spacetime have to be (in terms of physics).
What this illustrates is that an argument that can be stated in 5 minutes needs an hour to debunk, which is why throwing out four or five of these arguments in a debate is a sneaky tactic since in order to properly refute the arguments the debate opponent would need far more than the allotted time to adequately point out the flaws in the argument.
and even the one hour doesn't really cover everything. We had to cut a lot to get it into the 1 hour target length.
Brandolini's law
It takes a lot of work to combat dunning Kruger effect
I can't smash that like button enough! Excellent work as usual Phil! Thank you.
thanks , thats very kind
Wow! An ensemble of people with brilliant minds who can nevertheless express their arguments with such clarity for a lay person like me. The best thing I have watched in ages, thanks.
thanks so much
It must've cost Phil a LOT to make all these high quality documentaries.
yes it does and thanks for your comment
Its fun hearing the same objections I've independently found to this argument put into different and more elegant ways. For example at 17:11 I always thought of this type of thing as someone asking, what are the chances of water just freezing? It's a meaningless question. If the conditions are right it will freeze. There are no odds.
This has got to be the greatest channel on RUclips ❤🔥
thanks thats very kind of you
No kidding. Where have you been all my life?
It really is@@PhilHalper1
@@jmike2039 yes
As a guitar builder I too am into fine tuning! 😂 Oh, and EXCELENT as usual Skydivephil! You rock!
lol, thanks , my brother plays a mean guitar check him out www.youtube.com/@barryhalper
@@PhilHalper1 Not bad. Needs more production, like in your videos! You may want to help him with that part. Tubers need the whole song and dance...😂
@@Bob-of-Zoid ill let him know thanks
I really loved the lentils and the black beans example. Until you understand the processes at stake, how can you ever assign probabilities?
yes, my perspective is not the you cant sign any probabilities but the confidence that those probabilities you do assign repreesent anything objective in the world should be low
@@PhilHalper1 the act of choosing lentils with black beans is intelligent design.
@@wulphsteineven if it was , it shows that the original assumption of the probability was wrong. Now apply the same to our universe and see how all the numbers and probabilities you guys pull out are also wrong.
Man, I can't imagine how much work Phil must have put into it to produce this masterpiece.
thanks
When Phil drops a video it doesn't disappoint
@@jimc.goodfellas thanks
masterpiece of deception yes.
@@UncriticalRaceTheory Really? Why do you think that?
Many thanks for “fine-tuning” this impressive video. Alas, I fear however that in a vast multiverse landscape, there are innumerable such “fine-tuned” videos, thus rendering it repetitive rather than fine-tuned.
thanks
@skydivephil I disagree with @garybalatennis - I don't see many analyses of the Fine Tuning argument, let alone many that do it well. Really good to see these arguments, most of which I'm seeing for the first time. Well done.
I wonder what would happen if, say, one of the people shown on screen at @32:37 turned up in the comments and said: "I have numerous times - in a published book, peer reviewed papers and in talks - explicitly **denied** the view that this video attributes to me. It is exactly what I don't believe."
Prediction: this comments section will be totally fine with it. No one will think that misrepresentation is a problem. No one will suspect that it flushes all credibility of this video down the toilet. No one will suggest that skydivephil should amend the video. Commenters will change the subject and make snarky comments about something else.
Let's see, shall we?
"Life would be likely given theism" - NOT.
The whole gob argument is terrible and miscarriage of logic and reason. Furthermore, the Bible always glorifies God. So we can infer that God would be glorified if life was difficult to achieve, but God created life anyway! That would make sense from a Biblical point of view, and seems to be what Luke Barnes comment is saying.
HEY ATHEISTS! At least one person who was mentioned in the video was misrepresented! The whole video is a lie!
Sorry you got misrepresented. I went to your videos on closer to truth about this subject and from what I understood, what you're saying is that after we make a scientific explanation of the universe, we still have to explain why they follow those mathematical rules and that's where God comes in. Some sort of theological explanation of the the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.
In case I understood you correctly, why does the universe owes us a teleological explanation? Couldn't be that at the end of all the "why" question there's just one "how" one and that's it?
And also, why do we need to add more entities? It seems like if we know the how, we don't need to explain "why". "Why questions" seems to be a shortcut for us to study things without having to process tons of information in order to make predictions.
Hi Luke, I honestly did no see this comment when you posted, so apologies.Im going to respond to this criticism in a future video but I have been extremely busy with another project so its had to go on the back burner . But when I do feel free to reply and again apologies for missing your comment.
@@PhilHalper1 Hey Phil, thanks for the reply. There's no predicting the RUclips comment algorithm, so I'm not surprised you missed my comment. Keep me posted.
@Dr.Wrong
😂😂😂
"There is a RUclips employee standing behind you with a gun, so they can't respond. Wow, you have to come up with that excuse. Simply ridiculous..."
🤣😆😀
Yet another fantastic video! This channel should be fine-tuned to have an infinite amount of subscribers.
thanks
Proof that this channel has a creator. Checkmate atheists! /s
@@eddie1975utube lol.... Seems you don't play chess right
@@Carlos-fl6ch LOL. /s means sarcasm.
@@eddie1975utube i/ means ignorance. I did not know s/
The universe must be fine-tuned otherwise I would not be able to play Bach's 48 preludes and fugues.
This is like a high quality TV production
thanks very much but it is entirely amateur
A few comments:
7:21 to 8:10 - A flagrant omission here is epistemic probability of objective evidential relations (e.g., it's an objective fact that the scientific evidence supports evolution). (Yes, epistemic probability is addressed in a later video, but this segment gives the false impression that this sort of epistemic probability isn't a standard probability interpretation).
8:42 to 8:58 - Short answer: no it doesn't, and this can be shown with the help of math. See Wolfgang Tschirk's "The Principle of Indifference Does Not Lead to Contradictions."
15:45 to 20:23 - This misses the point. Even if you assume that the fundamental constants are physically necessary, we can just as easily imagine a physical necessity to land on one of the far larger regions of life-prohibiting ranges. You'd just be pushing the same problem back a step. Matthew O'Dowd raises the same point at PBS SpaceTime ("Can You Observe a Typical Universe?" in 15:26 to 16:21; see also 14:20 to 15:26 responding to those who would deny fine-tuning), noting that a multiverse explanation is preferable.
23:59 to 37:02 - The fact that God doesn't need certain physical configurations for life to exist may be true but it's irrelevant and does nothing to refute a design inference. To give an analogy, suppose a meteorite shower clearly spelled out on the moon the first four verses of the Gospel of John in New Testament Greek, and scientists learn that certain parameters were fine-tuned for this meteorite shower text to appear such that if the parameters were altered even slightly, no meteorite shower text would appear. The reply, “God wouldn’t need certain physical configurations for that message to appear” would be true but would also be impotent in refuting a supernatural explanation. To claim that God's omnipotence would rob him of any motive to design the universe this way (at around 23:28 to 23:44) is false; one possible motive would be to imprint an earmark of design for future scientists to discover.
32:36 to 32:41 - This is a straw man of what Luke Barnes actually believes. He doesn't believe or claim that fine-tuning is _likely_ given theism, just that it's not vanishingly small.
37:02 to 38:53 - Apply the "maybe the parameters are necessary" to the fine-tuned meteorite shower scenario and see what happens.
My thoughts: a multiverse explanation is by far the best hope the nontheist has to avoid a design inference, but a satisfactory multiverse hypotheses must meet a number of desiderata for it to be a better explanation than design (e.g., the mechanism for generating multiple universes must not itself require fine-tuning, it must avoid the Boltzmann brain problem, etc.) and it's unclear at best that there is a current multiverse hypothesis that meets all the desiderata (it largely depends on who you talk to). See Capturing Christianity's "Philip Goff and Luke Barnes DEFEND the Fine-Tuning Argument" video for more.
I wasn't moved by some of the arguments against FT either. From the video, I like:
-We don't know if constants can be different
-many constants are interdependent and balanced so changing one might not effect anything
-we don't really have any way to say some changes are more favorable or less
-many of the constants could be more favorable for life so its not fine tuned but more like coarsely tuned
@@pjaworek6793
Really the only objection I think _might_ work is the multiverse response (which may be tricky because of the all the additional desiderata you need beyond the mere existence of the multiverse).
_-We don't know if constants can be different_
Apply that to the fine-tuned meteorite shower scenario; clearly that objection won't work there, but why? One reason I think this doesn't work is that even if the constants are physically necessary we can just as easily imagine the physical necessity lying on the much broader range where the specified outcome (a life-permitting universe or meteorite shower text) won't happen; the physical necessity itself would have to be fine-tuned and it basically pushes the problem back a step.
_-many constants are interdependent and balanced so changing one might not effect anything_
_-we don't really have any way to say some changes are more favorable or less_
_-many of the constants could be more favorable for life so its not fine tuned but more like coarsely tuned_
The impression I'm given is that the scientific consensus agrees that there are real cases of fine-tuning, even if fine-tuning doesn't apply in all cases (e.g., some constants not being finely-tuned for life).
@@MaverickChristian That's where I'm being led as well, to an eternal inflation with multiverses.
As to a better explanation of our observations, that's where you have me stumped. How does FT or God have any explanatory power whatsoever? Isn't it a dead end with no hope for progress?
Oh and when you say pushed back a step, aren't we implying an eternal step? Such as with our current quantum fields existing throughout cosmic inflation? Correct me if I'm wrong or incomplete on that point.
@@MaverickChristian How can you talk about a multiverse without considering the possibility that in another universe, the laws of physics are different? If physics laws can be different, then so can physics constants.
This is another example of how atheists are completely biased in their thinking, logically inconsistent, and cannot be trusted to know what reality is.
@@pjaworek6793
_As to a better explanation of our observations, that's where you have me stumped. How does FT or God have any explanatory power whatsoever? Isn't it a dead end with no hope for progress?_
Well, it would explain the fine-tuned data, so it would have that explanatory power. But perhaps your objection is that it has no explanatory power beyond that. My response: even if true, so what? Consider the fine-tuned meteorite shower once again. Suppose the design hypothesis in this instance has no explanatory power beyond the meteorite text, and there is no hope of progressing the explanation further. None of that would constitute any reason to reject a design inference here.
_Oh and when you say pushed back a step, aren't we implying an eternal step?_
No, because there are alternative possibilities to the design inference that do _not_ simply push the fine-tuning problem back a step, the most obvious one being a satisfactory multiverse explanation (in that a multiverse explanation could in principle work).
Man your channel and your team are so lovely and your products are of high quality! Thanks!
Skydivephil doing God’s work!
lol thanks
God is good. But Phil is great!
Physicist Sabin Hossenfelder also offers an excellent argument against FTA in her video a few months back.
yes I saw that, she like many others thing FT is a pseudo argument that needs no explanation.
A little comment about Sean Caroll view about multiverse: I'm not so sure whether he is talking about cosmological multiverse related to the inflation model or the multiverse from the many world interpretation of quantum theory (since I know he is a strong suporter of this idea). But nevertheless-this video is GREAT, OUTSTANDING AND AMAZING: you are one of the best channels on youtube and you deserve millions of views!
thanks , i think he is referring to the cosmological multiverse.
It’s a shame that a YT channel which interviews some of the smartest people on earth, the real experts on the subject who give valuable insights, gets relatively few views, while the videos of apologists like Craig get millions of views even though their rambling is nothing but hot air.
thanks , much appreciated. Yes I agree.
Sometimes a little philosophy can go a long way towards exposing unfounded assumptions. Great video.
thanks
Phil. You keep doing this amazing work. It should be compulsary material on schools all over the world. People have so many believes that are based on absolutely nothing at all presented by people like WLC who have the gift of making stupid nonsensical claims sound logic and resonate with your intuition. I readily hace to admit that this one is easier to fight than the Kalam once you get people to understand that a value of a constant has no correlation whatsoever whit it's probability distribution. But getting people to see that is hard with those thought leaders who Keep on pretending that it does. Thanks a lot man.
thanks very much , really appreciate your comment. I would urge you not to use the word idiot when describing intellectual opponents though , I understand the temptation but its bad form, thanks again.
@@PhilHalper1 I think you are absolutely right. I keep looking at my response but I can't seem to find the word idiot? Wonder what happened there. Lol
You do realise most people still think fine-tuning is a problem, right? It's hilarious that you claim fine-tuning is easily dismissed and then people (including some people in the video) will argue for a multiverse (which has no empirical evidence whatsoever).
@@Al-ji4gd I don't think there is even something like fine tuning. Just because it appears like it doesn't make it so. Problem is that when it comes to theism you guys got it absolutely wrong. You don't understand nothing about probability. Probability depends on the probability distribution not on the value that a constant may or may not have. I've seen clowns claiming that if we where 1inch closer to the sun we would not exist at all. Nonsense of course.
If you buy a lottery ticket the chance of winning depends on the number of tickets sold. Not on the value of the jackpot. Nonsensical
@@Carlos-fl6ch Plenty of smarter people than you or I recognise fine-tuning, so one stupid argument of yours won't make a difference.
Mind-boggling but cool! I haven;t exercised my brain this much in a long time-which is a good thing.Thanks again.
you are welcome
Looking forward to this.
Peace and reason.
hope you like it
Great video. Mustve taken a lot of effort. Very clear communication of the issues for FTA's. Just excellent!
thanks very much
A good thought experiment to establish the framework of probabilistic thinking around this question is the following: There are three scenarios.
The first is 1,000,000 mi.² of beach of pebbles upon which is found one very improbable stack of five pebbles. The second is a 10 cm² beach upon which is found one stack of five pebbles. The third is a 1,000,000 mi.² beach of pebbles upon which every pebble is in a stack of five.
Order these three scenarios based on their relative probabilities.
Which scenario best reflects our reality?
Looking forward to it. Maybe you can mention the relevant papers/books by the people in the documentary in the description.
some of them are put up on screen during the film
I'm so glad you did this. I have a curiosity about why the constants are what they are, but to me it is so clearly nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. I'm consequently often baffled by 2 sides of the argument. I want to say, yes, the questions are interesting, but no, they do not prove any God and certainly no specific one.
I do prefer other hypotheses to those requiring infinite inflation and universes. But I think that's an aesthetic preference, since there's not yet any way to rule either out.
thanks for your comment, its much appreciated
You lack common sense and wisdom. Randomness do not create anything fine tuned!!
@@Cat_Woods maybe because you're stuck in your own logic and because of your logic you cannot perceive truth because your logic is false. We call it brainwashing.
You cannot use any randomness and fine-tune anything.
To reach a goal by random events might be unlikely; but to reach _somewhere_ by random events is certain.
We are not the goal.
Just remember you are making a philosophical claim not a scientific one.
@@markrutledge5855 I am making a claim. I reject the term "philosophical".
If you roll the dice billions of times per second then probability goes out the window
brilliant, i can't wait to see how you guys wrestle with ontological arguments.
thanks maybe well do that down the road
this was a sufficiently atheism-biased and theism-prejudiced presentation. There are just as many physicists and philosophers who perfectly willing to argue that the cosmic fine-tuning does constitute good evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer.
Im wondering, have you posted this objection on videos that promote the fine tuning argument? As to your second claim, what's your evidence for that?
There are some closer to truth clips for starters, I personally want to see both sides of the argument because I'm pessimist but at least parts of this video with the screaming for naturalism, naturalism wasn't all that good for anything but reinforcing your viewers beliefs
@@cibriis1710 if you want balance there are plenty of videos promoting the FTA . They are not hard to find .
If god did it I want to know which one and how exactly it was done !
yep me too
@@PhilHalper1 did you not notice the irony? lol ok sheldon
And why did it use such ludicrously unpredictable methods - such as natural laws, chemical reactions, planetary and continental collisions - when it could have just spoken everything into existence exactly as it wanted?
Life is a miracle, do you agree? We are lesser than our creator, the essence of our being. Please do not mock, life is given to us.
@@rickvassell8349 i’ll mock what i want :D try to stop me
The problems I've always had with the "fine tuning" argument: 1) it rests on probability, but to calculate a probability one has to know the number of possible outcomes and the number of attempts. Knowing neither, no valid calculation is possible; 2) a probability argument only works if it leads to an alternative that is more probable, which requires calculating that probability as well - so the fine tuning advocates MUST also calculate the probability of the existence and actions of their designer, otherwise their argument is swinging at air; 3) am I really supposed to believe that the universe is fine-tuned for our existence when we can only exist in one ten-quintillionth of it, after 14 billion years of superfluous processes, and even in that tiny space/time it constantly tries to kill us?
Thanks for another mind-bending video. I’ll be watching it repeatedly to better absorb it. My take. I feel that the one flawed assumption that all the speakers here are making is: any Supreme Creator is all-powerful in any specific pre-designed purpose of fine-tuning to permit intelligent sentient life as we know it. What if any Creator force is less than all-powerful? It might make for different arguments, pro and con.
This should have so many more views
feel free to share it on social media but thanks
Carroll's claim that only under naturalism life needs fine-tuned constants is not completely accurate. He says that under theism, God is omnipotent and that implies He can create life even if the constants do not allow it -- after all, He can do whatever He wants. While that would certainly apply to Abrahamic views (e.g., Christian, Islamic and Jewish), it would not apply to theistic/deistic views that postulate a limited designer. That's a shortcoming or limitation of Carroll's argument.
That's interesting but not easy to fact check. 1 example please, if you don't mind.
@@pjaworek6793 I'm not sure what there is here to "fact check." The claim follows logically; it is a category error to ask for empirical evidence in this context, i.e., "fact check." I'll try to help you here. Carroll's claim is:
_if the designer is omnipotent, then he doesn't need finely-tuned constants for life to exist._
That implies that:
_if the designer is NOT omnipotent, then he might need finely-tuned constants for life to exist._
Now, which gods are said to be "all powerful"? The Judeo-Christian and Islamic gods. But why should we think only Abrahamic gods are possible? No argument was presented to support this assertion.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Oh, I'm just trying to find a religion with a limited God belief which uses fine tuning arguments. Like I said, it's an interesting rebuttal.
I agree with him though. Why does there need to be both fine tuning for life and the creation of life. It seems it can be any other combination and still get life. Besides that, the belief is that God takes over your life if you believe. You would think someone can see evidence for any of this by now.
@@pjaworek6793 Well, obviously the Ancient Greek religion posited limited gods -- very limited indeed. And your demand that this religion uses "fine-tuning arguments" has nothing to do with whether the argument would apply to that religion or not. In other words, whether the followers of that religion use it or not is not pertinent to the question of whether the argument would be valid if they used it. Finally, even if there is no religion at all that postulates limited gods, that would be completely immaterial to the question of whether such gods could exist. And only possibility is pertinent in this context.
Therefore, Carroll's argument only applies to omnipotent beings (or, alternatively, beings who do not need to finely-tune the cosmos in order for life to exist).
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco I see your point that Carrol's argument is limited to refuting FTA with omnipotent gods. He doesn't cover the lesser scenario here I guess. The scenario that a limited God could preconceive and create a universe suited for life but himself be limited within that creation. It seems like a tough sell, like creating life is easier than some purpose bound but naturalistic universe.
Good rebuttal. Honestly, I find a lot of the counter arguments clunky but the topic is fascinating.
Can we stop making analysis of probability a posteriori? What is the probability that something that happened, happened?100%
What is the probability that the Power Ball Numbers will be exactly 01 06 40 61 72 - 02? It is one in almost 300 Billion.
Well, those are the numbers that came out last draw. What are the chances? 100%
To say that an event that actually happened was likely or unlikely, you NEED to define BEFOREHAND what you will call likely or unlikely. This is used, for example, in statistical process control. You define for example that a trend up or down of 8 consecutive points will be considered as that something special (i.e. not just random variation) is happening to the process. Why 8? Well, because, if randomness was the only force at play, after the first point in the run, each consecutive point has a 50% chance of being above or below the previous one (not exactly correct, I am simplifying a bit), and 0.5^7=0.007 or a bit under 1%. One has to be careful, though. Because you know what other run has the same probability? I don't know, let's say UP-UP-DOWN-UP-DOWN-DOWN-UP. or DOWN-DOWN-DOWN-UP-DOWN-UP-DOWN. Or ANY SPECIFIC COMBINATION.
That is one what you DON'T do in Statistical Process Control is look a the data a posteriori and say "hmm, that looks odd, what is the chance that we got these numbers?" Because any specific set of umbers will be incredibly unlikely.
Final analogy, if you randomly pick a number between 1 and 1 million, there is a 1 in 1 million chance that you pick one specific number, whatever that specific number is. Yet, I can guarantee with 100% chance that you will pick one number between 1 and 1 million, Calling that number "specific" after the fact and saying "hey, how unlikely you picked this one" just makes no sense.
What amazes me is that there are so many people who don't want there to be a God. While FT doesn't prove anything, it is one of a number of arguments that suggests God as a possibility.
you did see that one of our main critics was himself a theist right?
Could an intelligence will the circle’s diameter be related to its circumference by any ratio but Pi?
interesting point
@@PhilHalper1 I guess if the constants can be tweaked they’d still relate to one another in some ratio. Ratios sound more “fundamental” to me than an intelligent mind.
(Intelligence needs to process information input anyway so it can’t be fundamental. It must be contingent on the information being available or else it’s not an intelligence lol!)
Maybe, but I agree it is an interesting point, brings me back to soft determinism as a notion of will vs constants (fixed and/or random). Such a god must give some of their power to some kind of other reality or form that is either or both very very firm or very very squishy. Randomness is something that is possibly philosophically and scientifically impossible, so that would make things simpler. Oh, fine tuning is a garbage argument, it is a multiverse theory and a wild one at that.
The Universe isn't "Fine tuned for life."
Life is fine tuned for this Universe.
It's a case of adaptation not manipulation. That's why there's nothing useful in FTA.
@@pjaworek6793 it is amazing that DNA is adaptive. I don't know if computer programmers can write adaptive programs.
yeah, something is adapting, on some level conscious. Is it the organism or is it all designed and run, moment by moment, by a single being? The first one is easier for me to picture.
Does it even matter if we're tied to a single being? Shouldn't we be that independent, portioned-off part and not some self worshipping thing in this universe?
...... which points to the exact same conclusion. Why would you think that point changes the argument?
@@pjaworek6793
Even adaptation can theoretically point at manipulation. I don't see how that difference changes anything.
A delightful and reasoned examination of the topic!
thanks
For the hydrogen atom, E_n = m_e*e^4/8*epsilon^2*h^2*n^2. Let's see if we can find constants that will break the equation.
An infinite multiverse allows all the logical possibilities to exist infinite times. So unicorns, dragons, fairies, spaghetti space monsters, the actual God ect. all exist in this world since they only need to be logicaly consistent. That's a very interesting idea indeed.
no everything that is physically possible but maybe unicorns and gods aren't physically possible.
But there are infinite different kinds of physical laws. The only thing each system needs is logical consistency. I don't know how universe creative aliens can not be consistent God-like ?
@@jaskitstepkit7153 depends on your definition of God if its an immaterial mind then such aliens would not count as God's . Also in the multiverse scenario we entertain the laws don't change only thr values of the constants do
@@PhilHalper1
Which laws can stay un-effected in all the universes? Constants make up a good amount of our physics.
@@PhilHalper1 In what way is God not physically possible?
Thank you very much, this excellent work!
You are welcome
"I don't know"
There I saved you an hour
Ahhh the wait is killing meeeee !!! Next time add Dr. Eric Smith !! ☺️
who is he?
@@PhilHalper1 For your "Origen of Life" video (if it comes) ruclips.net/video/0cwvj0XBKlE/видео.html
I’m looking forward to this !
let me know what you thin when it comes out
This is a fantastic video; I loved every second of it.
thanks very much
How is fine tuning compatible with omnipotence? I wonder how Jesus walked on water? Did he fine tune the local laws of gravity or did he fine tune his mass to zero or did he just use his omnipotent power to will his freedom from the constraints of gravity?
As a catholic I was raised to believe the soul is life and eternal. So how would the soul be contingent on universal initial conditions and physical constants? What fine tuning is required for the existence of angels?
The fine tuning argument is DOA. It is utterly contrived from the misuse of scientific data much more so than the theories positing a multiverse.
interesting points, let us know what you think of the film when it comes out
24:30 it makes no sense that god necessarily wouldn't be constrained by physics. Depends on your diety of choice i suppose but as an atheist examining fine tuning it strikes me as a DM designing a game. Sure God's powerful, but it kinda defeats God's whole point if the rules are broken.
What strikes me is how humble actual physicists and philosophers of physics are, even theists. Especially when compared to the monumental arrogance apologists with absolutely no relevant expertise exude.
I never understood this fine tuning for life argument: at least 99% of the universe is extremely hostile for life.
You are not alone
I always got the impression it was more about fundamental physics, like you tweak a value here and particles can't stick together, or you tweak a value there and the universe has way too much energy to settle into the one we exist in. I've always interpreted the argument to be more about reality itself, rather than life. Or so the logic goes; without the physical reality we have, we can't imagine how any life could exist.
@@WaxPaper do you expect to find yourself in a universe not tuned for life? the whole thing is pointless from every angle
@@Grinsekatze113 No, I expect to find myself in one tuned for life. Although some would call that an anthropic fallacy, I still think it's obviously the best view we can ever hope to have. But I don't agree that it's pointless to talk about it. People have been asking this question since before you and I were born. Theists aren't the only ones who invoke it. Atheists disagree with each other on this issue as well. It can be framed as a theological question, but it's not exclusively theological.
@@WaxPaper well said. it is a theological argument. Id just take it a step further and say this is creationism, ken ham style. you know it baffles me that americans fall for it over and over.
It was great but much more philosophical than scientific. Towards the end however scientific evidence for and against fine tuning became interesting with the discussion on the multiverse. Overall a nice attempt again
thanks
A Multiverse would be a way to circumvent the fine tuning argument, the issue with multiverse theory from Hawking is that you need universe generating mechanisms that would need to be finely tuned to spew out these multipleverses, then youd be back to where you started. Id ditch the multiverse thing and all the science is pointing to a finite universe anyway that had a beginning so youd have to construct an argument against the fine tuning argument from that prospective only. although the value of a constant indeed does not correlate with its probability distribution. the only way to explain the value of the constant without purpose or deliberate intent is to distribute probability in order to explain the value. rather than someone put that value there not needing any probabilities or any rolls of any dice.. so in other words the values cant be explained by design because you cant assign probability but the only way to explain the value without intelligent design is to assign probability. its self defeating. weve never observed other universes where they take on different values we havent observed repeated trials of universes created by the same processes to see different values but you want multiple verses of different values to explain the values of constants we see in the real world.its self defeating
Nothing cannot create something.
For nothing is truly not anything and something can only be something. for only something could create something out of nothing and that something could only be omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent that isn't effected by something or anything let alone by time space or matter. in order to argue from the prospective of nothing creating something from itself you need probability and multi verses to arrive at the values we are all seeing, so you need multiple chances . One can tryt and explain this away go for it .. but I argue that non sense remains nonsense even if its spoken by world famous scientists like Hawking
"A world-renowned physicist once said: 'In a library, there are 1000 books, but one of them is not from this world, the physics book!'"
🙂🙂🙂🙂
our friend justin brierly isn't interested in science or maths though, this isn't a science or maths video he's presenting, it's a recruitment video for religion, a religion that has no evidence itself.
hes trying to persuade people the his beliefs are right, thats a fair thing to do , I just think hes wrong
@@PhilHalper1 You THINK he's wrong or you KNOW he's wrong? I'm with HarryNicholas in spirit; I think Brierly is wilfully ignoring what he knows to be the truth re the die.
@@Nai61a I know Justin personally. Hrs a good guy I just disagree with him. We are all subject to confirmation bias
The Bronze Age is over... God is dead... The age of AGI is coming and with it an order of magnitude greater intelligence and transhuman evolution.
Well done Phil, a convincing presentation.
thanks what is AGI?
@@PhilHalper1 Adjusted gross income... I forgot.
@@PhilHalper1 Artificial general intelligence (AGI) - The ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can.
Maybe God announced Himself to the Jews. Yet continues to exist.
@@wulphstein God is not exist.
Christian here, but enjoyed the video.
thanks, Hans Halvorson who features heavily as a critic of the argument and also A Christian
I love these videos of scientists debunking pseudoscience, but I feel stupid for not fully understanding the theories and stuff 😅😅😅😅
thanks. Have you seen the follow-up video? i might help
@@PhilHalper1 Ohhh, I didnt.
Would you share the link please ?
@@Henok-qn6nc actually why don't you check out the whole channel I think you ll fine a lot of material you'll like ruclips.net/channel/UCtOgKmAM4MeFu-jd-HB3_cg
Now that we've established that Intelligent Design is true...
You and your imagination. There's no one else here like you. I'm heading to another science video where you aren't.
Reading Victor Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning" years ago led me to suspect that Fine Tuning was nothing more than a re-hash of Intelligent Design arguments in an Astrophysical setting. This video reinforced my suspicion in that regard.
Unfortunately Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and similar pseudo-scientific arguments resonate strongly with the general public. They need to be firmly deconstructed with more videos like this one.
ALL of the criticisms of Fine Tuning are completely based on intolerance and bigotry toward religion. None of the atheist arguments are based on science. Even the "watch maker argument" is called a fallacy, but the reasons why are not explained well (because it's a fraudulent argument).
@@wulphstein According to your pseudo logic this is a good argument.
Plants are living things
You are a living being
Plants are plants
You are a plant.
This presentation would have been a lot more useful if it started with someone knowledgeable laying out clearly and with precision what the fine tuning argument is and why it makes so much sense to some people. How can you argue against something with so much confusion around it?
Considering the fact that we find amino acids pretty much everywhere we look, including on asteroids, then it seems to suggest that the emergence of life is inevitable and a "trivial outcome" of the expansion of the universe. That would suggest the fine tuning argument is rather pointless.
I think the fine-tuning argument is a case of apophenia - when a person sees meaning and connections in patterns where there possibly aren't any.
It's more like you have to have a certain level andof intelligence and common sense before you can think for yourself accurately.
@@wulphstein FT argument doesn't appeal to common sense. FT proponents think they see meaning and agency intent in the numbers of the constants.
@@christaylor6574 If you've ever done engineering work, failure to fine tune means production turns out unusable products. Failure to fine tune means that life can't exist.
@@wulphstein Except if God exists then that's not true. God could create an immaterial universe of only souls which doesn't require fine-tuning for life because, well - souls don't require finely-tuned physical constants to exist.
Another error in the FT reasoning.
@@christaylor6574 I'm not talking about a Spirit world. I'm talking about the physical world. It has to be constructed properly, which God did.
Penrose: "We don't know enough about life"
Sigh. Sorry Roger, but no, we know enough about life to reasonably conclude that no life (of any kind) would be possible in a hydrogen-only universe, or a universe where Maxwell's laws applied at the subatomic scale, or a universe that collapsed back on itself 2 plank seconds after its origin, or a universe that expanded so rapidly that elements are separated by light years of empty space
I recommend the philosophical book on fine-tuning arguments by Jason Waller. He adresses many of the arguments in this video and reaches a different conclusion. An interview: Dr. Jason Waller, Is the Fine-tuning reason to believe in God?
RUclips · TJump
08.01.2020
16:00 Aha, so is this where the title of the channel came from?
Yes
@@PhilHalper1 Nice. Thank you.
Nobody can possibly prove the Universe could have actually been any different. To claim it definitely could have been different is just assuming the conclusion that what we see is however improbable they assume it to be.
we discuss this in the film
All you have to do is play around with the hydrogen wave function energy equation to get other values for the physics constants. It is a bit of a puzzle to work out, but it's not impossible.
@@wulphstein you can't prove those values are actually possible though, that's the point I was making. You can make up new values all you want, but you can't verify that they're applicable to reality.
@@prophetrob But you can tell how it would effect the universe. You would figure out pretty quickly that hydrogen atoms were emitting gamma rays. Right?
@@prophetrob Either you don't trust the equation or you don't trust algebra. Which is it?
I am curious as to what the criticisms would be of the fine tuning argument. Your response to the Kalam was pretty good but maybe that's just because I find causal finitism to be false given my version of the diffusion principle (that God at no point in time would cease from creation). But fine tuning is a whole different ballgame. The best objection I've seen is the electrons in love one, everything else is bad (e.g. multiverse, selection effect objections etc.)
I'm also wondering if you will be responding to Craig's version of the FTA or the bayesian ones from those like Luke Barnes. Personally I think the FTA just becomes a sort of psychophysical harmony argument given the electrons in love objection.
Since you are including Sean Carroll in here about what are the relevant explanatory factors that contribute to what is and what is not a good explanation of fine tuning.
From what I've seen of Carroll his criteria of what a "good explanation" is supposed to be is just completely misguided. If explanation guides confirmation then how does naturalism as a hypothesize make any meaningful predictions about what would be fine tuned or not?
He also ignores that the axiological dimension is crucial when doing any sort of epistemological confirmation
This gives us the probability function as P(E|T) = P(E) and P(~E) situated within a higher order explanatory framework (axiology)
E being the proposition that the observation has an identifiable positive feature. Richard Swinburne has what I think is the best formulation of what we ought to expect from God's actions. That His actions will always be directed toward some good and will never act toward some bad. Thus, whatever we identify as the handiwork of God, only obtains because God apprehended its goodness. This gives us what can be called the axiological relevance thesis (ART).
ART: For any O, theism predicts O iff a relation of axiological relevance connects propositions about theism to propositions about O.
What guides our understanding of theistic confirmation is its relevance to axiology. Naturalism is axiologically indifferent (indifference hypothesis) as it doesn't act towards what is axiologically relevant.
This gives us the comparative statement P(O|T&E) > P(O|O-naturalism)
O-naturalism does not have a claim to E since ART only holds for theism. Furthermore, theism is always antecedently epistemically friendly towards the existence of value-states than O-naturalism since the kind "natural" is neutral with respect to value-states.
Fine tuning has axiological relevance since it produces creatures like us with valuable states. Naturalism is value indifferent and so doesn't produce any sort predictions about value states.
Theism narrows the space of expected value states, within the total spectrum possible. Naturalism doesn’t narrow the space at all-inside the space where there are beings like us with value. What we observe falls into the space inside theism’s narrowing. From this it follows deductively that fine tuning (or I prefer psychophysical harmony) confirms theism over naturalism. Any talk about "why God couldn't do it this other way" is completely irrelevant.
Just my quick thoughts. I need to watch the documentary of course!
thank for your thoughts, let us know what you think afterwards
tl;dr
but if god has to turn the dials to "just so" whose laws of physics is he using?
Would like to know your thoughts now
The designers of online computer games have to obey computer code. How is that different from an Intelligent Designer deciding what the constants should be?
@@wulphstein An intelligent designer doesn't depend on constants, what would he do, especially constants that we would be better off without, also why would a designer tune the universe for life in the first place, do you realize that is an unproven assumption?
Without time stamps I can't cite this suitably, but Sean Carroll says (my timeline suggest approx 44 minutes in) "... you don't postulate a multiverse, that's not what you do, that's just a mistake, they're getting it wrong. What you postulate are laws of Physics that give rise to a multeyeverse." A corollary is as much an axiom as its logical precursor, so the multiverse _is_ a postulate with the same/smaller domain as the precursor axioms/postulates, hence the multiverse is a postulate. (Any non redundant axiom reduces the domain of discourse).
[Aside: A theory has a domain of applicability. Newton's theory of gravitation has a domain, which is quite large, but it has limits - we do not assume that it extends indefinitely - we tested its limits and found it wanting. When we can test the multiverse it will have some credibility: let us call it a domain of credibility; at present that domain is tiny. A goal of many Physicists is an indefinite domain, but a goal should not be a gaol.]
If you arrive at an infinitely large multiverse with a few assumptions, you don't have an infinite number of assumptions, but those few, very simply.
The fine tuning argument is a differential prediction. The alignment of all of the physical constants for life is predicted in a universe with a telos for life, but not in a naturalist model. There's a lot of post hoc rationalizing going on here.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib I think you missed my point. That the constants are finely tuned for life is consistent with and predicted from the theory that the universe has a telos for life. One would never predict fine-tuning from a naturalist model. That's why all we hear in the video is post-hoc rationalizing.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib My position's consistent. The only reason why fine tuning is a topic of conversation is because it appears to be very inconsistent with what we would expect from naturalism. This isn't really controversial.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Thanks for laying that out for me. I get where you're coming from a lot better. You think fine-tuners are making mountains out of mole hills, are just jumping to conclusions. Maybe some of them are. I can't speak for them. What I personally find very odd and interesting about the values of the constants is that it only takes minute deviations of any one of them to upset the whole apple cart. That's fucking weird! There's nothing in naturalism that would predict this. The findings appear more in line with a teleological universe, which isn't an illogical theory. This is my inference to the best explanation. I hope that helps you get where I'm coming from.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib it sounds like you're asking me to prove that it's logically impossible for fine tuning to exist in a deterministic, natural universe. Is that right? I'm not certain you understand my argument, because if you did you wouldn't be making these types of objections.
Always interesting to see Craig and his ilk displaying as loose & selective a grasp on cosmology and physics and biology as they have on philosophy. Why, again, do people think these people are so clever and authoritative?
Craig is a good debater, he prepares well and has convincing sounding argument to those that dont know better.
@@PhilHalper1 I know better. What does Craig get wrong? You can argue over the interpretation of a physical theory, this is not the same as misunderstanding, failing to grasp a theory or of course flat out lying. I do not know if CARLO ROVELLI, A C GRAYLING, LARRY KRAUSS, A W MOORE are pathological liars or just pig ignorant but all have been caught out with making HUGE false claims about philosophy, mathematics and physics. Craig does not engage in these types of distortions.
@@PhilHalper1 From your Kalam video with Craigs response. This is, after Larry Krauss' fake e-mail from Vilenken, the most egregious nonsence on the Kalam ever uttered.
CARLO ROVELLI: Well, cosmological time is a fake. Why? Because matter, gravity slows time so inside the galaxy clocks go slower than outside. Point is there are many different clocks in the universe which they don't agree with one another and there are many times in the universe which don't agree with one another. The idea of the cosmological time is just one arbitrary definition of an average, but I can give a different definition of it.
Response: For shame! Rovelli knows that the slowing of clocks in a gravitational field has absolutely nothing to do with the time parameter that measures the duration of the universe. Cosmic time is not arbitrary but charts the evolution of hyper-surfaces of homogeneity.
"It's not a big problem get over it"
There is a million times more evidence of God and Jesus than there is of a multiverse. ruclips.net/video/vuA1Z3Jz7A4/видео.html
@@wulphstein
Nothing about the multiverse being the case or not lends itself to arguments about god(s).
Care to offer some of this vast evidence you have for the existence of your god?
Oh and I'm not going to watch your video, you can make the case for it's existence here if you are actually able.
@@tdsdave ruclips.net/video/xx2Dw7TO8bY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/KO5HrmrbgsA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/WFCvkkDSfIU/видео.html You asked.
@@wulphstein
So you can't defend your position ? Why should I go watching a list of videos , either offer the evidence yourself or stop spamming me.
I've got really tired of lazy theists who don't even understand their own arguments.
@@tdsdave I hear you. I don't like to watch videos when a simple explanation would be better. But you did ask for evidence. There is a tonne of near death experience and out of body evidence that proves that we are a soul inhabiting a body. Furthermore, the biological cell is just too complicated to be able to happen by accident. So, I gave you evidence; but in your limited wisdom, you ignored it. I can't learn for you.
This is a terrific way to engage with philosophical ideas . The effort behind this comprehensive, subtle and balanced presentation is obviously immense and of immense public benefit.
I am sorry to say the contrast with apologists use of the argument is striking as it would suggest something close to intellectual deception on their part. Or maybe self deception?
Thanks, the aim of the video is not to be balanced though but to present a reply to the fine tuning argument.
No fine tuning means that the physics constants can be unsuitable for chemistry. No chemistry means no DNA. No DNA means no life. No life means no evolution. No evolution means no humans to talk about whether or not the universe is fine tuned or not. If there is self deception, it is on the part of atheists.
@@wulphstein Long disputed, try better.
Some day, programmers will program AI to argue why it doesn't believe in Intelligent Design.
Sean Carroll is so damn cogent!
Sean Carroll is God.
yes hes one of the best science communicators there is
@@PhilHalper1 *cough* Flat Earth reasoning *cough*
Haha......Sean Carroll was debunked many years ago....
43:00 Good video but what's up with this background music? It's used through out there video😅😅
Why would an all powerful god need to fine tune at all? Couldn't it create the universe to contain life, regardless of the constants in play? Fine tuning implies a lack of omnipotence.
we make this point in the video
@PhilHalper1 Yeah I only heard it after I commented. It's a good point I think.
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” 😂😂😂
Seems to me that either outcome is astonishing and demands explanation.
If it is possible that the constants could have been different, but are exactly as they are to allow an intelligent life permitting universe, that's astonishing points towards a fine tuner.
If the constants couldn't be different, but are exactly right to allow intelligent life in this universe, that's even more astonishing and points towards design.
What you've basically said is that the fine-tuning doesn't matter, , if its unlikely God, if its not unlikely still God. Thats telling.
@@PhilHalper1
It's that the constants are right for intelligent life that is telling.
@@andrewdouglas1963 how could they be otherwise under naturalism. Under theism, they don't have to be as God can create via miracles,s so I agree that Naturlism precist life permitting constants, theism doesn't. A win for naturalism.
@@PhilHalper1
Yes under theism, God can do miracles but I'm sure even with God, there would be compromises to be made so that everything works as intended.
Take the mouth for example. Some people say it's a really bad design to have the airway and throat in the same orifice.
But it's actually very efficient.
Using one orifice to eat, breath, talk and swallow is far more efficient than using 2 or more systems.
But the compromise is on occasions food may go down the wrong way.
I usually ask people who say this is a bad design, what they would do to improve it.
Unsurprisingly no one ever comes up with any better suggestions.
So like the mouth, the cosmological constants maybe had to have the exact values they have for everything to work as intended with some compromises.
@@PhilHalper1 "how could they be otherwise under naturalism" - much more easily than they could permit life like ours!
If naturalism is true, it is surprising that we exist at all.
Stating the opinion that the "observed fine tuning" is improbable is stating an opinion based upon ignorance, as it could just as easily be not just probable, but always happens. Meanwhile, how probable is it that gods evolved enough to the point where they could start making universes?
This is great! Thank you so much ❤🙏
your welcome
Fantastic video! Very well done, thank you!
you are welcome
A fair debate implies simultaneous confrontation of experts with different or opposite opinions, not multiple and longlasting interventions of the same position.
@@paolochinellato2721 do you make the same comment on videos where you only hear advocates of the fine tuning argument?
@@PhilHalper1 Show me one, please.
@@paolochinellato2721 ruclips.net/video/yy6kaDaeDT8/видео.html
@@PhilHalper1 A 4’30” clip of a single person vs 1hour video of many people repeating more or less the same argument. The main supporter of God’s existence based on fine tuning theory is Stephen Meyer who is interviewed by neutral or skeptical blogger (like Joe Rogan) alone or in a meeting with other experts with different views (like in Fiesole conversations).
@@paolochinellato2721 you didnt answer the question. Have you commented on video where people only advocate for fine tuning and complained they were one sided?
The whole thing is fine tune, it does not matter who did it or who did not do it, it is extremely well fine-tuned.
A far better word for fine-tuned is self-consistency. This means everything must hang together. It has nothing to do with life. There are molecules that are vibrating at the rate of 10 to the 10 per second, that is the level of the fine-tuning. That is 10 to the 10 opportunities to mess up every second and that is everywhere. Not only is that everywhere, it is repeated independently on different levels.
People take the concept out of context so they can talk about God or they can feel awesome. All those multiverse ideas people are throwing around are the possibilities, no limits, but this is the only one that can hang together at the level required to make a cosmos. All kinds of strange objects do appear, they are seen in particle accelerators, for 10 to the minus 18th of a second sometimes. That is the level of their consistency. That is going on all the time. Time really has nothing to do with it, it is just a manner of speaking.
There is nothing more complicated than life. Fine tuning has EVERYTHING to do with life. The fact that we are all here physically should be an obvious clue that we were created. There is no sane and rational argument that we could exist without Intelligent Design.
There is no fine tuning. You got that from scientists who need to tune theories and math to match observations. The term has been essentially hijacked and means nothing without a creator and a beginning and the assumption that a universe could be any other way.
@@pjaworek6793 The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God. The physical universe is engineered by God.
@@wulphstein LOL. I've listened to many fine tuned debates, there is nothing in it, no prima facie requirement.
Design! Everything that exists must have design, design does not start at life. This is just another version of, we are at the center of the cosmos.
It's the way we use the word intelligence, it's misleading. Intelligence deals with particulars. Some people believe there is nothing beyond that but that is because they cannot see, not because there is nothing to "see". Bear in mind, the words of one great master, " he who has eyes to see, let him see". If you have been trained and practiced in the solutions to quadratic equations, when you see one, sometimes the solution just appears, you can "see" it. Many people, equally or more intelligent will not be able to "see".
@@pjaworek6793 I go a little further and say, it is exactly tuned.
Please make more videos. Anything. I love it!
The bullshit factory will comply.
@@wulphstein The only reason any of us skeptics respond to you is for the contrast that some readers may enjoy.
@@pjaworek6793 you certainly don't refute my Intelligent Design arguments. That must mean they are good arguments. Intelligent Design must be true. 🤗😇
@@wulphstein No one cares about intelligent design, much less than it's successor, fine tuning.
There's no one serious unless scamming others, that cares about a rational argument for an entirely faith based 'activity' of personal belief and 'worship'. This is all about your feelings. We don't care in this case; your "argument" is in our territory. It's irrelevant and destroys itself. Clear on our different positions, atheists and theists? Hmm?
@@pjaworek6793 you still haven't defended the so called watch maker fallacy. So it must be the watchmaker God.
My car's license plate reads 187KNV: the odds of that happening by chance is astronomically unlikely, as there are ten Arabic numerals (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and 26 Greek/Roman letters. My license plate therefore shows that the Motor Vehicle Department is God.
Dr.JustIsWrong
@georgbenad4436 "has your keyboard frozen"
Nope. YT won't let me post a reply.
I rarely laughed so much about your excuse. You are a true inspiration. If you were to say 'I cannot provide you with a scientific explanation,' you would be on the same level as the WHO, and this would not be a shame. As Lenin once said: 'Learn, learn, and learn again.'"😂😂😂
The odds of rolling a number sequence with 70 dice is 1: 1
That was a very interesting video! I thoroughly enjoyed it! :D
Next thing they will be debunking consciousness. I think therefore I am not.
I see you didnt address a single argument in the video , did you even watch it>?
@@PhilHalper1
I don’t have to address any single argument to give my overall reaction to it. What is it about fine tuning that bothers them so much? It is obviously fine tuned otherwise we would not be here in the Goldilocks zone in relation to the sun with oxygen and all that is necessary for life. Randomness is a possibility but even a Rolls Royce coming together by randomness is hard to imagine.
@@ALavin-en1kr If you think the only options are chance or design then you didn't watch the film or you didn't understand it
4:52 Justin have ever heard of a lucky streak?
I was excited for this and it delivered.
thanks
This argument seems similar to me to those statements about the sizes of the early universe, compared to what?
Beautiful! Thank you.
thanks
The universe isn't fine-tuned. Life is adapted to the universe, and a more complex, more mathematically sophisticated universe that can't support anything we would call life can be simulated. Nevertheless, given that most of the universe is too hot, too cold or too radioactive to support life and that in our s solar system alone only one planet out of eight can support life, fine tuning is nonsense.
Any unsolicited comment whatsoever will bring on effective blockage of the user.
Go ahead and block me if you like, but here is an atheist who converted back to Christianity because of science. ruclips.net/video/OMBQwGzn_TE/видео.html
What's the probability of there being anything at all to begin with...? We just don't know.
(FWIW, I am a theist, but just find the fine-tuning argument to be, ahem, less than compelling. Any search for physical evidence of the Divine is, I suspect, a fool's errand. Regnum deus intra vos est, after all.)
This series is amazing.
thanks
It certainly depends on how you define such an entity. To a start you need to forget all these scriptures of a personal entity. And you are still left with: who or what created this entity. And you are back to square. And from a scientific view how to falsify it. As Caroll mentions known one knows if we could have lived in a universe with different constants. So in a sense it is waste of time unless it is a philosophical class. It’s not science
i the description we defined God as the omni God of modern theism. Granted there could be other conceptions of God and we do talk about Gnosticism in the video but in a 1 hour film we have to keep things simple to some extent.
I understand the dilemma. But faith is not a faith as soon the slightest evidence exists to support any claims. So as long you can’t falsify or prove that claim. Due to the scientific method it isn’t science. If we move to philosophy then it is an enormous subject. But still there is no limit for what claim one can do. Because the paradox of evidence. I don’t find faith interesting besides history and philosophy. ( culture ) but I’m doing science- and Bertrand Russell, C. Hitchens, Dawkins and others have been working for the truth and not what we believe. What is next Aliens! Visiting earth- if people claim that they must accept so many things before it sounds possible. And frankly most don’t even know what these things are. People are allowed to believe in whatever they want. But when it becomes an overbuilding to our democracy. Then it’s a problem. For our democracy. There is a reason why the highest educated people are the ones who are most atheistic. Or agnostic as I am. Not like 50/50 - 99.999 - 0.001 . I don’t want to offend anyone but this is how I feel is the best approach.