The Fine Tuning argument

[@dorothymccomb2244]

They fail to realize that the universe is not tailored to us, WE are tailored to it. Anything that wasn't, IS DEAD.

[@alext7074]

Yeah, but that makes too much sense...

[@dorothymccomb2244]

@@alext7074 They'd rather believe that they are the center of the universe.

[@damon22441]

Dead, or never had a chance to start.

[@thehellyousay]

Who was the tailor? We aren't fine-tuned to live any more than the universe is fine-tuned to let us live.

[@christophermonteith2774]

Not even the universe, the planet at best

[@Rallarberg]

If an omnipotent deity existed, the fine tuning argument would be moot anyways; that deity should be able to create life in _any_ universe.

[@impala359]

I couldn't stop spitting my beer out with the "sock, cannibalism, petroleum trampoline and proctology" comment. 😂

[@Raz.C]

Yeah, I too, had a hearty chuckle at the barely concealed euphemisms

[@frogandspanner]

I am British, and a schoolfriend of mine (late '60s) went on to become a dentist, moved to the Los Angeles, became dentist to the stars, wealthy, with a stable of cars. At a school reunion I asked him how he had coped, looking into people's mouths 8 hours a day; he replied "It could have been worse - I could have been a proctologist." The old ones are the best although it was the first time _I'd_ heard it - and it took a while to work out that he was using a 'Merkin term for a colorectal specialist.

[@discontinuedmodel232]

Reminds me of this: I had my annual check-up last week, and my doctor said he needed a sperm sample, a urine sample, a blood sample and a stool sample! 😕 I told him I was in hurry, and I just handed him my underwear. 😐

[@snookums68]

I don’t have a special sock. All my socks have probably been used for that purpose.

[@musicauthority674]

And the proctologist comment and the fact that Aron Ra would be the person to get males to be honest with themselves and admit to masterbation he basically makes it so they can't deny it bravo Aron Ra

[@EricGraham-h6s]

The Fine Tuning Argument Ain’t Nothing But the Intelligent Designer Argument in a “Tuxedo”.

[@AllHailDiskordia]

A painted on tuxedo🎉

[@EricGraham-h6s]

@@AllHailDiskordia Exactly

[@oscargr_]

The emperor has new clothes?

[@freddylubin]

I believe in god because of how my legs are EXACTLY the length needed to reach from my hips to the ground!

[@budd2nd]

lol 😂

[@josephrodriguez2780]

Not true your body is bigger on one side to than the other.

[@RetroBackslash]

Praise Mighty Zeus, maker of legs

[@markhackett2302]

@@josephrodriguez2780 Ah, but THAT sides' leg is the different size, so it still is finely tuned to go EXACTLY the right distance to the ground! PROVING his legs were fine tuned!!!!!

[@markhackett2302]

@@RetroBackslash Without legs you can't kick someone's behind! Talking of kicking a man when he's down, when CAN you kick him?

[@morganramsay7628]

If idle hands are the Devil's play things, idle minds are God's.

[@frozentspark2105]

Ooh I like that one! 👍

[@ganndeber1621]

The internet means I keep my hands VERY busy.

[@cbooth2004]

Very good.

[@noone3216]

Nice 😏

[@discontinuedmodel232]

Hmmm......good call!

[@stevendefeo8424]

This video should be played in schools everywhere

[@laurajarrell6187]

All Aron Ra science videos should be! Especially, his Phylogenetic ones. 🥰✌🏼

[@jamesmiller7457]

The "special" schools

[@yerghaizverot6441]

@@jamesmiller7457 By 'special schools', I'm assuming you mean the private religious schools that indoctrinate children with fairytales?

[@Scarletpooky]

Whenever I hear "Life wouldn't exist" my mind instantly replies "No, life as we currently know it wouldn't exist." We have little idea what other life might exist under different conditions.

[@andystokes8702]

The universe is not fine tuned to allow life as we know it to exist; life as we know it is fine tuned in order to survive in the environment that we occupy. If the laws of physics were slightly different life would also be different in order to fit the different environment.

[@skyinou]

Yep, that's all the "puddle in the hole" again...

[@christophermonteith2774]

Agreed

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

That's not necessarily true. First, the fine-tuning argument is not about the laws of physics being any different from what we currently know them to be. It's about slightly perturbing any one of about two dozen constants of nature with the current laws of physics in place. Let's disregard the fact that, as noted in this very video, the vast majority of the universe is inhospitable to life. We may eventually discover that life is more prevalent than we currently realize, but as far as we know, Earth is the only hospitable environment in which life is possible. Aside from that, perturbing certain constants such as the gravitational constant and the strength of the electromagnetic force would result in a universe in which mass-energy would be so diffuse, that stars and planets could not form. Slightly increasing the cosmological constant would also result in a universe in which stars and planets could not form. So if the vast majority of the universe that we currently observe is _almost_ entirely inhospitable to life, then a universe without concentrated mass-energy probably be worse. Slightly decreasing the cosmological constant would result in the universe completely collapsing shortly after the big bang. In that case, life would certainly be impossible. Having said all of that let me clarify that I think the analogy in second comment, that the hole was not formed to fit the puddle, is a strong point. I'm convinced by the evidence that we evolved from simple life forms as explained by the theory of evolution. Likewise, the big bang is the best explanation of how our universe evolved. I'm just trying to steelman "their" position. It annoys me to hell and back when the likes of Kent Hovind strawmans evolution. That's what "they" do!! It annoys me even worse when the likes of Ra strawmans their position by saying that "the universe is fine-tuned for life" and then proceeds to refute that claim by pointing out the fact that the vast majority of the universe is inhospitable to life.

[@andersgustafsson5533]

​​@@user-lb8qx8yl8k Yes, it is frustrating when people here misunderstand and strawman as much as the creationists. As far as we know, if some of the values of some of the physical constants were a bit different, atoms or stars could not have formed, and therefore not life as we know it. To use this apparent fine-tuning of the universe as an absolute proof that one or more deities created the universe is in my opinion quite a stretch, but at least the argument from a fine-tuned universe is not as bad as most of their other arguments ...

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

@@skyinou It goes something like this: The casual puddle might contemplate itself and say 'of course I fit this hole, I'm water- I'll fit any hole you put me in, it's nothing special' A more curious and informed puddle might think this through a little further, and realize that this apparently intuitive phenomena is only made possible by an excruciatingly narrow set of parameters that allow the right gravity, pressure, temperature, interaction of water and rock molecules not to mention spacetime itself. It might realize that there are an infinite number of combinations of these parameters that would NOT allow this phenomena to occur. It might then think, well it's still all chance because what would be the point of all this being created on purpose? before he gets swallowed up by a thirsty Moose :)

[@TWANDTW]

The fine tuning argument always remembers me the quote from Mark Twain: "If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin what what the tower was built for."

[@AlbertaGeek]

Going to say before even watching the video that whenever someone brings up the "fine tuning" argument, I instantly think of Douglas Adams' brilliant puddle analogy. Now on with the show!

[@doubtful_form]

I always flash to Hawkings. "Fine tuned to make black holes"

[@AlbertaGeek]

@@doubtful_form Another classic!

[@laurajarrell6187]

I was thinking of Adam's puddle, too!🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼

[@freddan6fly]

You beat me to the puddle analogy.

[@Psalm1968]

Why is the puddle analogy brilliant, do you think?

[@r.i.p.volodya]

The statistics you quoted on eggs, sperm, birth etc are GREAT!

[@freddan6fly]

And that only makes sense in a evolutionary perspective.

[@r.i.p.volodya]

@@freddan6fly Absolutely!

[@exoplanet11]

What Aron could also have pointed out is that, according to those who believe life starts at conception, the vast majority of abortions are performed by God. (fertilizations that failed to produce live birth). Try telling a woman with an ectopic pregnancy that her body and the reproductive process is perfectly designed.

[@johnhunter5724]

Do I really want to watch yet another "fine tuning" debunk? Yes, you definitely want to watch this novel approach. The final few seconds tie it all together beautifully. Congratulations on this one @AronRa, although for Sci fi fans, it is a bit of a kick in the old "DNA torpedo" sources.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

@@johnhunter5724 -- I'm a big fan of Ra. I once thought that Ken Hovind's video series "Lies in the Textbooks" was a gem!! Several years later, I stumbled across Ra's rebuttal of essentially every point that Hovind made. It didn't happen immediately, but I came to see that it is Ra's rebuttal that is the real gem. I learned quite a lot about evolution by listening to the likes of Ra and Gutsick Gibbon demolish creationist talking points. That said, I think Ra's fine-tuning debunk is weak. String theory is not a science in that it makes no prediction that can be tested. It's strictly mathematics. Ironically I briefly considered this very same idea as a rebuttal of the fine-tuning argument. But it's weak. That

[@johnhunter5724]

@user-lb8qx8yl8k I don't know enough about string theory to even pretend to know anything about it, maybe even less than that. I was referring more to the last segment, about reaching the nearest planet after 75,000 years etc.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

@@johnhunter5724 -- Aside from documentaries for laypeople I don't know much about it either.

[@KynMites]

I like darkmatter2424's argument. Fine tuning doesn't make it look like a god did it, it makes it look like this is the only way it could work. If a god did it, they should have been able to build it anyway they wanted, including in a way that doesn't make sense. A mechanic tunes an engine to get as close to the restrictions of physics as possible, not because only a mechanic could have made an engine fine tuned.

[@juanausensi499]

Well said. If God doesn't need atoms or energy or planets to exist, then we it stands to reason he could make other beings that didn't need any of those either. The fact that we can live only in a tiny spec on a enormous universe is evidence against a creator.

[@russriley3005]

I'm not a mechanic but I can tune my car for speed if I need. the same car, I can tune for high altitudes, fuel economy or even offroad. the point is what is ideal for you might not be ideal for me

[@tomjackson7755]

I like darkmatter2525's story about the extra dimensional alien that is our equivalent of a college student that was trying to make our equivalent of an adult beverage. Something went wrong and boom our universe is created. That story has just as much evidence as the christian story, none.

[@DustinKillyact]

​@BobbyBrewerswere atheist because we are 100% sure that there is no such thing as life after death... sounds like you think your a immortal god yourself

[@DustinKillyact]

@BobbyBrewers im 100% sure that I'm more man and more intelligent than you can comprehend or will ever be

[@uriituw]

“I can’t explain it, therefore it’s fine-tuned.”

[@StupidusMaximusTheFirst]

No, there's plenty of evidence the universe, our solar system and life are fine tuned to a degree.

[@cherylmillard2067]

Mind the gap, lol.

[@user-vt3vo1yd3v]

@@StupidusMaximusTheFirstNo, there is not. You just have zero understanding. Watch the actual video.

[@user-vt3vo1yd3v]

@@StupidusMaximusTheFirstSo God fined tuned things. ok, so first God made humans in a way to where an infinite number of conditions and universes would kill us, then he made a universe that didn’t follow those conditions so we would survive. That’s your belief. God made us broken, so he could make a cure? Sorry, NOPE. That is not logical. Evolution is why fine tuning appears. The earth was not designed for us, we evolved to live on the Earth.

[@uriituw]

@@StupidusMaximusTheFirst Name a single piece of evidence.

[@GrumpiestKevin]

Dunno if this guy does it but I love the paradox argument of “the universe is fine tuned, we’d be dead if anything were changed in the slightest!” and then “oh god sped up nuclear decay to make radio metric dating look so old!” I think that would change just a few physical constants. I assume speeding up evolution after Noah’s flood would also involve changing a few physical constants as well.

[@wiskadjak]

If radioactive decay were sped up like the creationists claim the Earth would be a ball of magma today due to all the heat released.

[@oscargr_]

There is no contradiction there, IF you include magical powers into your physics models.

[@darrennew8211]

@@oscargr_ If you include magic, there's no need to hypothesis a god. You can say "Magic caused it" without saying "God used magic to cause it."

[@AllHailDiskordia]

The puddle that thinks the hole it is in was made for it

[@TreeHairedGingerAle]

Yep. That's about the size of it

[@Starhawke_Gaming]

DON'T PANIC

[@freddan6fly]

@@Starhawke_Gaming Did you bring your towel?

[@Starhawke_Gaming]

@@freddan6fly - always. Especially on May 25th.

[@petyrkowalski9887]

Douglas Adams

[@r.i.p.volodya]

You might like to read Victor J. Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning". It really does take a Theoretical Physicist to outline what's wrong with the list of so-called 'fine-tuned constants.'

[@r.i.p.volodya]

@@michaelgordon18 Imagine what??

[@thehellyousay]

​@@r.i.p.volodyaimagine is what theoretical physicists do. Then they deconstruct what they've imagined to see if it can be applied to known physical models of reality successfully.

[@r.i.p.volodya]

@@thehellyousay Really? Have much experience of Theoretical Physicists do ya? Or really have you just been watching BIg Bang Theory??

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

The problem with the anthropic principle is that it's based exclusively on life as we currently understand it. Even if the physical laws were different, that does not mean that life in some other capacity wouldn't inevitably emerge.

[@discontinuedmodel232]

Exactly! But we only have one universe so we can't compare it to any other universes.

[@oscargr_]

The anthropic argument is based on a lack of child-like imagination on the one side, and too much observation bias on the other.

[@coloradoing9172]

Not really. We can pretty accurately theorize the threshold of change in which life is still possible, since we're not dealing with unknown physics. We're changing already known constants and things like the number of dimensions. If we try to add unknown physics to the mix then the discussion becomes entirely metaphysical and thus meaningless.

[@ominous-omnipresent-they]

​@@coloradoing9172 And that threshold isn't as precise as these charlatans pretend.

[@lnsflare1]

I just want one Fine Tuning advocate to show evidence that the universal constants could even be something other than they are in the first place.

[@juanausensi499]

You and me both.

[@samkj1953]

I can't be. If even one of those constants changed the universe would not exist

[@juanausensi499]

@@samkj1953 Untrue. It would be different, that's it.

[@uriituw]

That MRI example is better than the _Flatland_ analogy.

[@exoplanet11]

Just what I was thinking. A modern updating of Flatland.

[@satyasyasatyasya5746]

*"If the hole in the ground were any other shape, the puddle wouldn't fit! Ooohhh!"*

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

if gravity, pressure, temperature, molecular structure of water, not to mention the universal constants and spacetime itself were any different,... you would not have the phenomena of liquid filling a hole.

[@satyasyasatyasya5746]

@@SteveLomas-k6k *Me:* illustrates a fallacy with a metapor. *You:* uses that very same fallacy to... argue against the metaphor? Don't ever change, y'all. Adorable.

[@xenotype9349]

​@@satyasyasatyasya5746 Universal constants aren't a fallacy, dude

[@satyasyasatyasya5746]

@@xenotype9349 whooosh

[@xenotype9349]

@@satyasyasatyasya5746 Ohh, you're a redditor, got it.

[@laurajarrell6187]

Aron Ra, yay. I was just listening, in bed late at night, to GE and Paulogia on the line with two creationists! One used the kalam and this, ugh. The other, grand canyon and flood. So I recommended your series!! This came on so I jumped here. And wow it was worth it! 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼

[@NerdFestUK]

If you are a God, why do you need to fine tune at all? Surely you can set the parameters any way you want them?

[@uriituw]

An intelligent designer might be able to make a universe of ghosts-with no need of atoms.

[@stevenjohnson4190]

Indeed. And a being living on a non fine-tuned planet would still assume the planet was fine-tuned.

[@jackjackal1768]

@@stevenjohnson4190 Like all theists seem to think.

[@SacredOwl]

If Atheists are correct, we won't find out in the end.

[@adam2aces]

Oh but he did he set them just right on this planet 😆

[@heiyuall]

“DNA Torpedoes” would make a great band name. Punk, maybe.

[@spiritualiteathee1638]

The end of this video is brilliant. The 75000 year trip put things into perspective. It is one thing to be on one lucky planet, but getting to another inhabitable one is something else.

[@normative]

Sean Caroll does also make a version of this argument: That it’s bizarre to talk about a universe “tuned” for life when almost all of this inconceivably vast expanse is totally incompatible with organic life.

[@adam2aces]

Unfortunately creationists see this in their favor because Earth is special and it requires special tuning considering in contrast to all the rest of the universe which is devoid of life seemingly.

[@skevoid]

Started the video expecting that Dutko wouldn't know about the anthropic principle, instead he brings it up immediately and proceeds to declare loudly that he doesn't understand it AT ALL.

[@brenatevi]

Describing sperm as "DNA torpedoes" made me laugh.

[@flipperth1]

One of your best videos ever I think. Thank you.

[@toughenupfluffy7294]

Fine tuning implies a diddler. I mean, a fine tuner, a diddler of the Universe. A fine tunin' diddlin dude, a really big one inside of my own universal imagination. Prove me wrong, Hoss.

[@brassman7599]

Fine tuning: everything exists so perfectly to support life. Mass Extinctions: exists. Fine tuning is nothing more than circular logic.

[@louseveryann2181]

It is sheer arrogance.

[@Wolf.51.50]

Awesome video, Aron. Theists have no idea what they're talking about. They have no idea how ridiculous they sound when they say "the universe is fine tuned for life"🤦‍♂They're just regurgitating the same old christian anthropocentrism.👏👏👏❤

[@odess4sd4d]

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it"

[@TheZeroNeonix]

If you were instantly teleported to a random point in the universe, the chance of you surviving would essentially be 0%. The universe is far from fine-tuned.

[@Sergiu.antifascist]

we say universe has no fine tuned structure, but it has hyper-fine tuned structure. hyper-fine tuned integral is not zero

[@theoverreactor8731]

That's not what fine-tuning is. Fine-tuning just shows that the constants of the universe are fine-tuned within a narrow range for the possibility of life to even happen. This is to say that the Universe is fine-tuned for the building blocks and initial conditions that life requires. And the consensus of physicist believe in this btw.

[@Sergiu.antifascist]

@@theoverreactor8731 exactly, it is not fine tuned, it is hyper-fine tuned

[@TheZeroNeonix]

@@theoverreactor8731 - This is assuming that: A) The conditions could be anything other than what they are. B) Life could not adapt to other conditions. C) There are no possible conditions that would be better. We have one planet in our universe with life on it that we know of. One, out of the one-hundred billion estimated planets in the Milky Way galaxy. That doesn't sound very optimal to me. I'm not a god, but I could imagine universes that are much better suited for life.

[@theoverreactor8731]

@@TheZeroNeonix Well, some of these constants are so fine-tuned that the wide range of life-prohibiting values lead to planets, galaxies, and stars being unable to form compared to the life-permitting values (given what we know about theoretical physics). Meaning, there would be no life-seeding elements for life to even have the possibility to exist. Obviously, organisms can adapt to their environment, but they can't if there is no environment to adapt to lol

[@sphericalchess]

I have always imagined the multiverse as a pint of beer, with multiple universes, forming like the tiny gas bubbles, which grow and rise to the surface to pop.

[@Soapy-chan]

"Dear Skeptics, trust me, it's actually very totally indeedly logical to believe in made-up nonsense, misrepresentation and ignorance of science, a being that is somehow timeless and spaceless and still exists, a being that is all good and fine tunes the universe even though people unnecessarily suffer and 99.9% of space is uninhabitable. Why don't you just believe us, you guys?" I don't know, even he must be smart enough to understand why we don't believe it.

[@gregjones2289]

As good as it gets! Excellent video. Thanks again, Aron!!

[@AttentiveDragon]

As Arthur C. Clarke imagined in chapter 36 his novel 2010, any life under Europa’s frozen surface would be doomed in the long run. While the oases surrounding vents could lead to the development of life, and some of that might even brave the lightless voids between vents, that life was living in borrowed time. To quote: “It was also a doomed one. Not only were its energy sources sporadic and constantly shifting, but the tidal forces that drove them were steadily weakening. Even if they developed true intelligence, the Europans must perish with the final freezing of their world. They were trapped between fire and ice.”

[@starfishsystems]

Sort of like humans are on this planet when the sun becomes a red giant in about five billion years. No, what you're offering is a fallacy called Appeal to Consequences. You don't like the implications of an idea, therefore it cannot be true.

[@AttentiveDragon]

@@starfishsystems I'm not "offering" anything. Aron mentioned the possibility of life on Europa, and the struggles any such life would have to face. I mentioned a science fiction novel I'm fond of that happens to cover that subject. What "implications" of which "idea" are you accusing me of not liking?

[@condorboss3339]

I prefer the Fine Tuna argument, as described by Brian Dalton.

[@Bluebloods7]

Somebody is fishing for likes.

[@fingaljones2394]

That was a truly brilliant viddy. Thanx for your work Mr Ra.

[@wyldink1]

The Fine Tuning Argument: A tacit admission that God was forced to create life within a set of parameters. Who created those parameters he was forced to create within is presently unknown.

[@lnsflare1]

Those parameters were dictated to God by Godzilla, obviously.

[@wyldink1]

@@lnsflare1 After careful consideration, I have determined that this is accurate.

[@StupidusMaximusTheFirst]

If I wanna create replicating squares in a game engine, I might set some parameters for this myself. If I wanna create something else, I'll set different parameters for that myself.

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

​@@StupidusMaximusTheFirst Yes, but you set those parameters based upon a preexisting software framework that you didn't design. If you're god, then what does that make the guy who coded the game engine?

[@StupidusMaximusTheFirst]

@@alistairmaleficent8776 Maybe he did. Or they. I only brought this as an example, not to be taken literally. I suppose those concepts don't really apply as even those concepts are within this universe. God(s) would be something out of this universe.

[@glennhilton8597]

The moment you brought up the "special sock", that was it I was gone, I couldn't stop laughing and even listening to this at work.lol

[@2l84me8]

Life barely managed to adapt and survive on a tiny silver in a planet with 99% of all its inhabitants already gone extinct, all on a planet destined for heat death in a hostile and inhospitable universe. Some “fine tuning” right there.

[@thehellyousay]

never mind the fact that we have no way of knowing what different emergent physical laws would be like, let alone whether they would preclude life, only that they would most likely be incompatible with allowing our life as we know it, to exist.

[@VoidEmergentFox]

Different emergent physical laws could produce say, a void that produces a magical fox!

[@kellydalstok8900]

An all-powerful being should be able to create life under any circumstances,right.

[@g.m.2427]

Just imagine a whole universe filled with Russells teapots

[@thehellyousay]

​​@@g.m.2427that would still be of our universe. Again, we have no way of knowing what such a differently emergent universe would be like, not the least because we could not exist within it in order to observe it.

[@christophermonteith2774]

Exactly

[@mmeis2389]

Entropy or matter and energy has free-will??..kinda like quantum uncertainty?? . Is the efficiency of reproduction a measure of free-will, or our questioning mind of doubt. This drive to understand is just a gift with eyes ears skin and an amazing brain that thinks. All my 3+/- trillion cells working as one unit, with electronic thought patterns, ok now im back to dumbfounded and amazed. I helped my wife a little to create 2 girls. Amazing talks AronRa. May understanding be granted to you, and please keep shareing.

[@Tomato_Dragonzord]

And even our precious little space rock, on which we are allowed to live only on some non-watery parts of its crust, is SOOO finely tuned for life it was almost entirely wiped out only five times in its history, with _mere_ 99%+ species to have ever lived going extinct. And even our ancestors just barely avoided the same fate 800,000-900,000 years ago.

[@Sergiu.antifascist]

you just described extremely fine tuned

[@Tomato_Dragonzord]

@@Sergiu.antifascist What I described is either a world shaped by forces of nature or a world created by an utterly incompetent designer who just barely managed to get life to emerge and survive.

[@Sergiu.antifascist]

@@Tomato_Dragonzord indeed! as i said, EXTREMELY FINE TUNED. you must love god, because he definitely does not love you

[@Napalmthrower]

Can you prove to me that all happened

[@cjgt77]

"Petroleum trampoline" 😄 To me, the finely turned argument is actually one against a creator being, especially a perfect one. I would think an all powerful being wouldn't have to do all these work arounds to make life come about.

[@Midnight.Wisdom.]

That is exactly my thought.. Why rely on universal constants that need to be precise in order for a universe to exist when you are all-powerful? Unless there are rules that apply to even the almighty..

[@cjgt77]

@@Midnight.Wisdom. , yeap. Why would an all powerful god set limits for itself? The FT argument actually lends more credence to universe being the ultimate constant.

[@WintersunExtras]

Theists: "The result determined the preceding factors." Atheists: "Ah no, the preceding factors determined the result."

[@starfishsystems]

That really works. Religious thinking starts with a very ambitious, comprehensive, top-down "result" and then goes out looking for justification for it, cherry picking its evidence along the way. And after 5000 years it's still no closer to demonstrating the conclusion. It's a huge investment, and I'm sure one that's very hard to write off. But it's failed. Science looks at the "preceding factors." Well, it doesn't even presume that the data must consist of preceding factors at all. It's just data at first. What might it suggest, and how can we explore further? This is a very modest bottom-up strategy. We can make incremental progress with it, and gain genuine, immediate benefit from our successes. In science we can also learn from our failures, which a top-down approach is loathe to do, because it means abandoning the grand conclusion in which so much has been invested.

[@somersetcace1]

The argument plays well to theists because of the unspoken premise that life on Earth is SO special and amazing, that it had to be created by something even more special and amazing. It's human arrogance at its worst, but makes sense for people who also believe we were created in the image of a god, and are `inheritors of its kingdom,` whatever that means.

[@bf99ls]

Another awesome video. Maybe I missed them, but I spotted no cuts, so I assume this was a single take, like a lecture. The endless plane you referenced with life beyond our current knowledge is, of course, one of the many contradictory flat Earth hypotheses, where the Ice Wall that NASA, the UN, and penguins patrol, cannot be accessed by the uninitiated. You managed to mention it without sighing or smirking: quite an achievement. My favourite video of yours, along with the one on evolution.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

possibly one of my favorite video's from you

[@PhilosoShysGameChannel]

Thank you, Aron, for mentioning the nuclear pulse spacecraft! XD

[@steveaustin4118]

The trouble is when they say life they mean us, never allowing for any other type of life

[@davevallee7945]

The universe clearly was designed, not to make humans, but to make recliners. Since you can't get recliners until after you have humans, we are just a step along that path. It seems obvious. No universe like this one, no humans, no recliners. Ok, that aside. The fine tuning principle is based upon the premise that the designer was constrained to using the forces, and material available at the time. And that those constraints ended up forcing the designer to fine tune everything to an unimaginably fine degree in order to get something that around nine billion years later, at least on this planet, we would call human life. That's fine, if you're willing to invoke a designer that came along AFTER everything, in some absolute, and primordial sense (think infinity stones), had already been created, and then this bloke just puts it all together. Then of course you would need a greater god to make all the matter, and energy, and then the lesser god. The other side of that crazy coin is that there is a principle in engineering known by the acronym KISS. For those who don't wish to google, keep it simple stupid. The signature of a good engineer is that their design is both as simple, and reliable as it can be. Fine tuning informs us that the universe is the opposite to that.

[@TehEricAlmeida777]

That final line goes the hardest ive ever heard anything ever said

[@SerranoSalazar]

Fine tuning to have your own pancreas fuck itself up and give you diabetes. And no, that's not the only way you can get it 😅

[@herbieshine1312]

As always perfectly clear and concise. Thanks Edit: I love your shirt!

[@thefisherking78]

I don't know the probability of a universe being able to support life, and frankly I'm unimpressed by most of the efforts to calculate that probability because they all rely on unverifiable initial assumptions. But I do know, the probability of our being able to have this conversation in a universe capable of supporting life, as opposed to any other kind of universe, is 100% 😂

[@darkfalcon7856]

I'm also going to add on with the space ship that those conditions don't include space debris (random small (by our human standards) bits of meteorites), getting through the Oort Cloud, solar radiation, and black holes/magnetars that are ready to shred us to pieces.

[@Templetonq]

If it could be shown that there is NO other life in the universe, the theist will say, "See? We are special", and the atheist will say, "See? The universe was not made for life." If it could be shown that there IS other life in the universe, the theist will say, "See? The universe was made for life", and the atheist will say, "See? We are not special".

[@UninstallingWindows]

There is a cool movie, where the main characters explore the 1800s, and travel the oceans. Then, later, they discover that their whole lives were just illusions....VR Games, and they were actually on bord of a space ship, heading for a new colony. Wouldnt it be cool if one day, we woke up too, and some grumpy guy told us that its their turn to paly the VR game, and we have to start our shift of taking care of the ship :D

[@bulwinkle]

Let's face it, about 90% of the surface of our beautiful blue marble is uninhabitable by homo sapiens.

[@rayraygoreng6264]

Very powerful argument. Anyone else read "Three Body Problem"?

[@stevenbyers8747]

I don't see how the fine tuning argument gets you to a specific god.

[@christophermonteith2774]

It doesn't. It arguably gets you to a god, of some vague definition though

[@freddan6fly]

@@christophermonteith2774 How does it that? It gets to personal incredulity.

[@ElusiveEel]

it would get you to a god that cares about the people on this planet, which is more than any other apologetic can achieve even if their premises and logic were sound.

[@freddan6fly]

@@ElusiveEel How?

[@ElusiveEel]

@@freddan6fly Because the argument closes on the universe being designed by a god to facilitate life. Which would be even more true for intelligent life.

[@michaelmccoy1794]

"Guys, don't even pretend..." Aron says 🤣

[@damon22441]

Man, the proof that galaxies have collided is absolutely terrifying. Like, what could even be done about other planets hurtling at yours? It's beyond over.

[@Starhawke_Gaming]

@damon - Andromeda is closing in on the Milky Way. But don't worry too much, they are not expected to collide for another 4.5 billion years.

[@FrikInCasualMode]

Despite what scary images and animations want to impress on you, a galaxy is mostly an empty space. Collision of two galaxies is more akin to two fog banks merging together.

[@Starhawke_Gaming]

@@FrikInCasualMode - "more akin to two fog banks merging together" - a fine analogy for most of the universe, but it would be devastating to any solar system in those galaxies which have inhabited planets. The introduction of new gravity wells in close proximity (astronomically speaking) to the inhabited planets would impact the orbits of the planets, pulling them out of their native ellipticals and flinging them out where they freeze due to lack of energy from a sun, or pull them into a collision course with other planets or stars. So yes, for the most part this makes no difference in the universe, if you lived on one of the planets impacted, it would be more akin to a cosmic billiards game.

[@FrikInCasualMode]

@@Starhawke_Gaming No. FYI Every now an then a star in our Galaxy comes close to Solar System. Some of those encounters cause perturbations in Oort Cloud, sending comets towards the Sun. None of those encounters wiped out life on Earth. Space is big. Unbelievably big and mostly empty. We would have to be astronomically unlucky (pun intended) to be harmed by interaction with another star.

[@Starhawke_Gaming]

@@FrikInCasualMode - from what research I was able to find, yes there have been stars that came close to our solar system that have impacted the orbits of the planets, especially the outer planets, but that was early in the life cycle of our own solar system, prior to life on Earth, and may have been responsible for the planetoid striking Earth that eventually became our moon. And potentially responsible for the destruction of the planet that once occupied the orbit represented by the astroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. So I don't know where you are getting your information, but everything I can find shows that if another star traveled close to our solar system, it could be extremely devastating to life on Earth.

[@SandroWalach]

It's easy to be a pastor. It's hard to be a scientist. Religion give simple answers to simple questions. Science give complicated answers to complicated questions. God is a simple concept, the universe in not. That's why explaining why god can't be real is as simple as saying that he isn't. While the universe is so complicated that no religion in any of today's religions can even begin to explain it. They can't, because it's not simple.

[@AronRa]

"Religion give simple answers to simple questions. Science give complicated answers to complicated questions." I'm going to use that line in the next episode.

[@SandroWalach]

@@AronRa I'm honored! I've watched many of your videos over the years and I can't think of many other people, on youtube or not, that has had such dedication to bring understanding and curiosity to the world. You better give them hell, metaphorically hell that is, as there's no hell. But of all people, I think you already know that. Thank you for your work!

[@patelk464]

Religion pretends to answer difficult questions by making up an answer. Science leads to an answer that theists don't like or go down dead-ends.

[@subharmoniccicada612]

Just type in wikipedia : Slavery in the United States. Understand the two verses Genesis 9 : 26 the real owner of the land. Genesis 9 : 27 Wow : the word " God " is in there. instead May Satan expand Japeth territory. Poor Mexico

[@grosser73]

Arriving at this exo planet after thousands of years just to become the lunch of an alien T-Rex on the same day of arrival

[@matthiasklopke161]

Have you ever noticed that a cat has holes in its fur right where its eyes are? If those holes were arranged just a little differently, there would be no cats.

[@brianhurd3355]

I'd be eager to read the history told by those kids on Alpha Centauri B about why the ancestors had to leave Earth. I'd bet that at some point in the textbook there's a picture of Jim Inhofe using a snowball as a "gotcha!" prop in the US Senate. RIP Jim - your legacy crossed the stars.

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

An omnipotent creator g0d would have no need of fine tuning. Such a being could create a universe with any parameters he liked and use his omnipotence to hold it all together. Therefore, claiming a fine tuned universe is a tacit admission that the g0d that fine tuned it is not even close to being omnipotent.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

"Such a being could create a universe with any parameters he liked and use his omnipotence to hold it all together" he did...

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

@@SteveLomas-k6k You failed to understand my point. An all powerful creator g0d would not need to fine tune the speed of light in order enable the existence of carbon atoms in the universe. An all powerful creator could just make the carbon atoms exist regardless of the speed of light.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

@@holgerlubotzki3469 "Such a being could create a universe with any parameters he liked and use his omnipotence to hold it all together" Same again, he used the parameters he liked, not the parameters he 'needed' or that would appeal to a handful of athiests in the 21st C...

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

@@SteveLomas-k6k Yeah.. same again. Your g0d not powerful enough to hold the universe in existence with random physical constants. Which weak g0d exactly is it that you are claiming lacks the power to create a non fine tuned universe? Not the Hindu version, surely.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

​@@holgerlubotzki3469 Randomly acting physical constants would not constitute a universe, there would be no space-time for starters. If he were to constrain randomly acting constants into functional ones... they would no longer be randomly acting constants, would they? Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo).

[@exoplanet11]

Thanks so much for advancing this idea. I had not heard it presented before...though I thought of something similar years ago. The only scene in the movie CONTACT that I dislike is when Ellie Arroway says that if no other life exists in the universe, it would be "a waste of space". Such a comment vaguely implies a quasi-intelligent creator (so she would never have said it) and also overlooks the inherently 'wasteful' character of the natural world (when viewed from a utilitarian perspective). In addition to the examples Aron (oo)cited, we could mention all manner of sea turtles, oak tree acorns, pollen grains, etc. where seeds/zygotes fail to produce life. (Heck, even Jesus pointed this out in the Parable of the Sower). The fact that other organisms can make use of this waste does not mean that it is not waste. Even the non-living world is wasteful. Most rain falls right back into the ocean; most of the Sun's light never intercepts a planet, etc. If one wants to use the existance of life in the universe as evidence for a god, then the most plausible god would be one who desperately wanted NO living beings to exist, but screwed up on maybe 0.000001 % of the planets.

[@mattymoowhite]

Your model is missing the hydrogen scoop at the front to gather fuel An asteroid of appropriate size could be hollowed out rather than having to construct a craft big enough. A 6000 IQ AI could run the whole craft complete with holographic crewmates... As to your suggestion that there would be three of such craft, arc A, arc b and arc c, this is all sounding very familiar. To the visionary Arthur C. Clarke, I would add Douglas Adams and grant Naylor

[@jacobtorma2490]

very cool subject and very cool background. really got me thinking...

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

If there is a designer(s). One thing is certain. It ain't intelligent.

[@dragonfiremalus]

I wrote a fun little story about a generation ship taking hundreds of years to get to another system, only to get there and discover that FTL travel had been invented while they were in transit and they weren't even the first to get there.

[@bladerunner3314]

Fine tuned, eh? Try living in Death Valley without any support.

[@timtheskeptic1147]

It's actually quite pleasant there in the late fall and winter. But spring and summer are rough. Which is why my secret, self-sufficient, nuclear powered villain lair is underground.

[@Flockmeister]

Who told you about the special sock ? Was it my brother ? 😡

[@JJ-qo7th]

...imagine citing in defense of one's religion, the notion that we exist in a universe that we can observe...and calling upon the selection bias while pretending it's not a selection bias.

[@AndrewStoddard]

Marvel movies are fun, but people really need to realize that they are just fantasy.

[@IainDavies-z2l]

Yes, fine tuning was definitely a problem in 405 line days as each channel would have to be fine tuned when selected. As tuners became fully electronic the need for fine tuning was not needed as most had AFC.

[@waveman0]

the 'fine tuning' argument has always failed, our universe as far as it is concerned is tuned to produce quantum singularities, black holes and those are all that will be left at the end and then nothing at the heat death of this presentation.

[@DeconvertedMan]

If things were different... things would be different. Also its so amazing that the universe was gearing up for so long waiting and waiting for earth to be formed just for little old us.. well we took awhile to get here, but man that is all just so super mega amazing oohhh mywwwwwoororrdd. Also so cool how life is just everywhere in the universe like everywhere even in outer space itself and on the sun of all places! What?! ITS NOT OOOO. We are a puddle that's it. Its also amazing to me how anyone buys into the idea that god likes to play games with us, like oooo I'll hide myself but I'll drop hints.... but never enough hints so you can be sure, wouldn't want to spoil faith after all! This goes to my "god is a nitwit" argument that goes like this: p1: god is a nitwit.... and that's the whole argument.

[@IanM-id8or]

"Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth" - Eric Idle, the Galaxy Song

[@MrAlexandermartis]

Two of those ugly deep fishes are discussing the fine tuning argument. Fish 1: the pressure here is 100% optimal for our body. Our environment has the right level of darkness and temperature. Fish 2: True that! I can't believe having to live in other conditions. Our bodies will explode at lower pressure and we won't survive being exposed to lots of light, lots of oxygen and high temperatures like 80F. I can't imagine any other organism surviving those conditions...it is almost the whole world is fine tuned just for us.

[@frankpulmanns6685]

Not only are the constants not as restrictive as theists like to claim, the issue isn't the parameters themselves, it's the interplay between them that really matters. So even if they were that restrictive, well, let's say you can change gravity so the universe would collapse back in on itself. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I can change the expansion rate (which is the variable that has to overcome gravity) to compensate, and what do you know - you get a universe with not one but two constants that are different and nevertheless much the same universe.

[@johnboettcher1962]

“Fine Tuning” would be a good album name.

[@kriegmesserdclxvi2833]

The universe was fine tuned, but designing a sin resistant human brain was a bit of a challenge for Yahweh. Makes total sense.

[@missk1697]

And even if the universe WAS designed - what does that prove? That there is some vague force behind all of it that can be literally anything. Not much of an argument for Christianity.

[@darrennew8211]

It was actually designed for the aliens living on Alpha Centauri's planets, specifically for them by their god. We just happened to evolve.

[@dkazmer2]

Lot of THE PLANETS with Prof Brian Cox in this video

[@OmniphonProductions]

Ah, the Old Puddle Argument. It begins and ends with Creationist arrogance, as if to say, "A universe without _me_ isn't even a possibility worth considering." In truth, all life on _this_ planet (the only planet we know for sure has life) evolved in an ever-changing environment by adapting to the habitat(s) in which it found itself. If any significant thing about the appearance/formation of the universe had been different, _we_ would likely not exist, at least not as we do; maybe _no_ life would. However, that in no way means (by default) that no life _could_ exist, merely life as _we_ know it because _we_ evolved on _this_ planet in _this_ universe...both of which are vastly more heavily loaded with ways to _kill us_ than to sustain us.

[@crasssh00]

wellll....I WAS going to comment....but you said it all for me!! :P Thanks!! ^ALL OF THIS!!!

[@OmniphonProductions]

@@crasssh00 Well, in that case, you're welcome and/or I'm sorry. LOL

[@IanM-id8or]

If the universe is fine tuned for anything, it's black holes and empty space

[@gowdsake7103]

The fine tuning argument is so dumb it hurts 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is deadly to us

[@freddan6fly]

Actually I made a calculation on it. You have around 50 too few nines.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

And If it were any different, it would be 100% deadly to us.

[@avishevin1976]

@@SteveLomas-k6k It seems to me that the fallacy here is ascribing significance to life. Why does the accident of life being able to exist in this universe mean anything, never mind that it was intended? If the universe was inimical to life ever existing, would _that_ be intended? We wouldn't know because we wouldn't exist to be able to ponder the question.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

@@avishevin1976 I take your point, but I think you make mine also- we are the only means we know of, by which the universe is able to contemplate it's own existence. We are what makes the universe itself, self aware. Like security at a casino, you have to weigh up the odds of chance v the odds of cheating to determine if someone is counting cards. Each hand is just as improbable, it's the specific outcome of a hand that increases it's odds of existing by something other than chance.

[@avishevin1976]

@@SteveLomas-k6k If two or more outcomes are equally likely, then there's no special significance to whatever outcome happens to come about. If the parameters of this universe are equally as likely as one or more other combination of parameters, then there's no significance to the fact this one happened to be. If the parameters of this universe are more likely than any other combination, it was statistically inevitable that this universe would come to exist. Neither possibility requires entertaining the notion of fine tuning. Do you think I missed some other possibility?

[@darylwilliams7883]

The fine tuning argument, even among physicists and philosophers, is simply looking back in hindsight at the universe we just happened to find ourselves in and trying to find a 'reason' for it. There is no 'reason' for it, it just is.

[@theoverreactor8731]

how do you know there is no reason for it

[@jlankford]

Unfortunately Christians just say, the creation is inefficient because the devil is the prince of this earth and he has corrupted it.

[@tmanook]

Very interesting take.

[@TheRatzor]

Nowhere in the religious book even genesis does God say this creation was perfect, you could convince me with that fine tuning argument but as soon as you start preaching that a magic man stuff a bunch of animals in a boat is where you lose me

[@danij5055]

Yeah, God only said things were "Good" after each day until he created man, at which time he said it was "very good." Knowing how we'd mess everything up, he must have actually hated everything else 😅

[@lonewolfmtnz]

BTW, gravity is not a fundamental "force". It is a consequence/effect produced by the distortion (warping) of spacetime by mass

[@jonathonalsum9063]

First! Woo!

[@woody7652]

😸

[@icanbreathe9161]

Hush

[@MrCliffipoo]

🥳