you are very cheritable to opposing arguments and that's great to see

Keep in mind that the standard probability measurement of fine tuning is merely based on imagination. We have no observable evidence of other universes. It might make sense more aesthetically and easier to think about tuning constants in math laws compared to a more esoteric probability of god; but this doesn’t make it any more valid. Neither is there any more evidence that we should attach a uniform prior distribution across all finite values any more than attaching a uniform distribution over gods. Why should they be in separate sample spaces anyways? Why shouldn’t both theistic and non theistic events be part of the same sample space of outcomes? Probability in general is a mental construct anyways arguably. It doesn’t really have any ontological significance and is based upon the idea of counterfactuals which is by definition privy to subjective imagination

You’re using scientific evidence of laws being universally generalized to argue for an infinite god being more probable yet seem to be ignoring the same scientific evidence that all agents that we’ve come across (humans/animals/etc) are severely limited and do have a certain arbitrary amount of knowledge/power/etc rather than anywhere close to an infinite amount. You can’t have it both ways Good video by the way. You pay a lot of attention to detail and make better videos than most of the philosophers on KZbin

Majesty of reason had a good video on arguments from god ranking

You claim that neither hypothesis has a probabilistic edge when it comes to the laws of nature, but this is false, Naturalism entails that “If there are conscious beings, then they are physically embodied” and therefore given the existence of conscious agents on Naturalism it is logically entailed that these conscious agents are physically embodied, and therefore Naturalism entails law structures that allow for the existence of physically embodied conscious agents, the God Hypothesis makes no such prediction since the existence of conscious agents on the God Hypothesis can take immaterial forms, reality could be idealist, or conscious agents could be connected to physical entities in many ways that don't require physical embodiment, since god can endow souls with any power to interact with physical entities without requiring physical embodiment, therefore you cannot just build in the law structures into the background. As for the point made by Callum Miller, when it comes to the protons example, it doesn't seem to me that there is a good analogy between attributing a property to all protons, and attributing an infinite degreed property to God, one is about attributing a property to a single particular, and the other is about attributing the same property across all particulars of the same type, anyways appeal to scientific induction wouldn’t get you anywhere in my opinion since it don’t think probability is what justifies induction rather i think John Norton's theory of material induction is what’s right, and if that is the case then Callum Miller can’t make use of induction to justify his claim that omni properties for god are more likely.

Animal and human suffering is a very convincing argument for Naturalism. The scary thing is that a lot of the suffering is inflicted by us and because we don't see it, it makes it easier. If we farmed and ate humans, it would be openly accepted that this is torturous, but it isn't because we rely on animals for nutrition. So we are in a parasitic situation in which there is literally no light at the end of the tunnel, we feed off the animals and their suffering is inevitable. We convince ourselves in various ways they don't have consciousness, but it is just a lie to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Halal meat is even worse, so there is no difference in religious or non-religious people's ability to contribute to this.

If torturing someone for fun doesn’t represent perfect morality, then why god does it? Terminal diseases are torture for those suffering from them and their loved ones, why is the reason god put them through that instead of just a non painful way of passing away? Medical science came up with non painful death methods, that god couldn’t? Disease existed long before humans, so this isn’t a result of modern human activity.

The constants are either fixed at natural existence, or they're fixed at God. Remember, God is eternal/timeless (functionally the same for this context), so neither god, nor anything external, had a say in what kind of God we find ourselves living under. If the theist complains that the natural state could have gave us an infinite number of possible physical constants, the atheist can similarly complain that god' could have been infinitely varied. On the necessity hypothesis, both theories bottom out in terms of explanatory virtue. The fine tuning argument for theism assumes both that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life, and that there was a libertarian choice made by a god who was pre-programmed to desire to create life permitting universes. Therefore, the theist is just postulating one additional necessity to explain a later necessity. That adds an additional commitment to theism. Am I missing something?

I know you guys discussed different arguments in this video, but what are your favorite ones, Miles?

How old is the universe? 13.79B years old. What is that measured from? The BEGINNING!

From the description of this video; "....as explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life." No such fine-tuning exists, so no such explanation is needed, from either side. It is like asking; "which best explain the Garfleblarst and it's foundation of all religions?".

Listen please, the atheist logical fallacy is censored. Why would anyone censor an idea? The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Spinoza was right. Thank you.

Dr Luke claims that varying the constants is not special for the fine tuning argument, but i would claim that it is, because the argument only succeeds if we believe that varying the constants is a good way to survey the set of possible universes, the proponent of the fine tuning arguments owes us a reason to believe that the sample of possible universes surveyed by varying the constants is representative of the set of all possible universes including ones with different laws structures, failing to do that; the premise that there is fine tuning fails. a good article on this "Naturalism, Fine-Tuning, and Flies" by Aron Lucas

Underrated channel

This is a fantastic interview. Miles did a good job.

That was a nice presentation with some new thoughts I haven’t considered before. I will have to think about these issues more as the week goes on

How many more tier list videos are people gonna do

The argument is not that it's a bad explanation because God has to be fine tuned. The argument is that you have an intolerable regress by parity of reasoning or at some point you have to look at other virtues because if you accept that the universe appears finely tuned (which I don't know why anyone would accept at all. It certainly doesn't appear that way to me) why wouldn't that just be the terminal case? It's a dilemma. Either infinite regress of designers or appearance of fine tuning is insufficient to warrant the inference.

Pls have a conversation with David Deutsch who refutes Bayesian epistemology completely and Dr. Scott Berman for Platonism. Pretty interesting channel!!

here is a similar objection, the appeal to a designer is fine tuned in this sense, that the designer intended this exact universe when creating when there are many possible alternatives open to the designer, note that your appeal to human designer explanations doesn't work here as we have all sorts of background knowledge that narrows down the possibilities for what we think human designers would do, we could make the designer hypothesis less specific but then we lose our ability of making the design hypothesis predict this universe, or a universe sufficiently similar, and it would open way more possibilities that would make it even with naturalism relative to predictiveness ala Graham Oppy's points

One more thing. Humans and presumably aliens if they exist would both be created from simpler evolutionary processes as Dawkins points out. God doesn’t have a creator, so it seems more untenable to believe in immense complexity without simpler origins. So I’m still not sure why this objection is considered weak

When did anyone ever demonstrate that god was a possible, much less plausible explanation? As far as I can tell the likelihood of god creating a universe is 0 because as far as I can tell he doesn't actually exist, and the possibility of something that doesn't exist is creating something is 0.

If I could maybe reframe the argument. Theists will point out that the intrinsic probability of the cosmological constants being simply a brute fact that requires no further explanation is extremely low. This is why they will say that the universe needs a finetuner. However, i think the problem also occurs with the God hypothesis. Theists are claiming there's this being with the desire to set the cosmological constants to what they are. On top of that, this being has the power to do whatever it desires. However, Wouldn't this desire also have an extremely low intrinsic probability? Therefore, wouldn't this desire also require an explanation? I'm aware that there are theists that try to explain the creation of the universe from God's divinely simple attributes. However, the best I have seen is that an all-loving God would want to create life in general. However, that doesn't explain the reason for the specific constants we see. I can imagine a variety of different universes teaming with life. So in exchange for increasing the intrinsic probability of the theory, I think they greatly lowered the theoretical probability of the constants being what they are. God could have chosen to make the universe however he wanted. Does this make sense? Or am I missing something

Wow I was not expecting a video about my comment. Appreciate your willingness to respond. The difference between humans and god is, as I said in the comment, we already know humans exist. Even alien civilizations are presumed to originate from similar processes that create humans. So in both the case of humans and aliens, we have some *apriori* evidence of their existence. God is a completely different kind of entity and we have no apriori evidence of his existence, so we can’t refer to ordinary experience. When objectors say that god would be just as fine tuned (an objection espoused by very smart people like David Deutsch as well so would hardly call it silly), they don’t mean it in the same sense that the universe is. The objection is moreso: what’s “more” improbable? The universe being fine tuned by chance or God’s very existence? And given God’s attributes and high levels of specified complexity, one might even argue that god is more “improbable” and THAT is why the inference doesn’t seem to work in my eyes. Sure, god is not a physical being, but one can imagine infinitely many types of beings or alternative forms of reality without god. After all, we are doing the same with the fine tuning of the universe. We merely imagine how the universe looks like with different constants. In both cases, these alternative forms of reality are merely in our imagination. We can’t observe them. Interestingly, Richard Carrier also makes a very similar point, so he can probably highlight this in more detail when you interview him!

Is this guy gay?

Have you read Spinoza? Do you understand Spinoza's God?. Spinoza understood God exists, I understand God exists and you can understand. To understand God exists you have to understand the atheist logical fallacy. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheists misreason "sky daddy doesn't exist therefore god doesn’t exist, and all the arguments that point to the existence of god have to be wrong". To understand God exists you have to understand the kalam cosmological argument: what has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that created what has a beginning of existence exists. Did you understand why God exists? God exists because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude!. If you pay attention you will realize atheists and religious people defend an idea without any arguments. The horrible reality that atheists and religious people sell doesn't exist!. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I am trying to overcome an unjust censorship. Thank you.

Part of the fine tuning argument insists that because the natural world is so fine tuned, the only option is a creator for that fine tuning. So if you accept that god can be fine tuned then you are undermining the fine tuning argument because you are admitting that fine tuning does not necessitate a creator for that fine tuning. As for asserting that god is simple, you also undermine the fine tuning argument because you are admitting that simple things can create more complex things, and therefore fine tuning doesn't necessitate a designer.

If you want to have an interesting conversation with someone around the idea of god being fine tuned and requiring an explanation, you should get hold of TJump and talk to him.

4:00 I’m going to guess it was Ed Feser. He uses that example in Chapter 1 of his 5 proofs book.

This was great. Appreciated you bring Prof. Manson on. If you're interested in another good critic of the argument, I'd recommend reaching out to Aron Lucas, who is the author of the paper _Naturalism, Fine-Tuning, and Flies_ which I'd highly recommend.

I prefer contingency means dependency... conceivability is a bad way for metaphysics

Are you an agnostic?