Atheists Respond to The Fine Tuning Argument for God

Watch the full episode: • 9 Questions Atheists C...
To support my work and get early access to videos, ad-free, visit / alexoc
Main channel: / @cosmicskeptic

[@DavidBrown-ts2us]

As Hitch also said, if you get as far as deism all your work is still in front of you. God creating the universe is very different to the God that answers prayers and so on.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

How so, wouldn't deism just have all the same issues that Atheism has, I mean to say God exists runs into the fundamental problem of knowledge, how do we know God exists, much less how do we know that it is true that God exists or that truth even exists

[@SDSwampert]

That's just the starting point, and that's what Hitchens failed to acknowledge. Christians, specifically, but most theists also, only take these arguments so far as to argue for the existence of a God with certain qualities (powerful, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal), and it is from there that we can then make a case, given other evidence, for the God in whom we believe.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

​@@SDSwampert I think this is a big mistake looking back because it just feeds more into the reductionist view of "theism" why would anyone argue for a God they don't believe in I argue for the Triune God not a generic God, I argue for repentance and believing in the gospel not some generic uncaused first cause or unmoved mover it doesn't give someone the credence to be a Christian / Muslim / Jew etc

[@SDSwampert]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 I get that, but for a lot of people the big hiccup is whether or not God actually exists in the first place, and if we can appeal to people's sense of logic, reason and probability, it can hopefully bring more people to Christ.

[@calibribody6776]

Indeed. It's one thing to conclude that there is a Creator. It is then another thing to conclude the precise nature of said Creator. Take Christianity for example. Whether or not one finds the arguments for a Creator compelling, they then have to form arguments for the validity of all the claims within the Bible. Now you have a Creator, you have to prove things such as: Jesus rising from the dead, Jesus being God, God being benevolent, Heaven and Hell existing, The Exodus, and the list continues. You have to then make arguments as to why Christianity and not Islam or even Judaism. Now to be sure, the arguments for the Creator's natures do exist in plenty. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there are more arguments for the nature of the supernatural than arguments for its existence. Nevertheless it is a requirement if your intention is to convince someone of God's existence through reason(as natural theology and the various arguments for God attempt to do.)

[@sordidknifeparty]

The argument from design goes like this: 1. We know that complex systems ( like watches ) have designers. 2. Nature contains complex systems, even more complex than watches 3. Therefore, nature must have a designer. For me this argument fails to be sound. The very first premise says that complex systems indicate a designer, but the most complex things we know of, by orders of magnitude of complexity, are the very natural systems we're arguing about. It is wrong therefore to say that when we see a complex system we know it to have a designer, since the only things that we are certain that have designers are far far less complex than the things in question. In order to make the first premise sound, you could change it like this: 1. Systems beneath a certain level of complexity have sometimes been observed to have a designer. 2. Nature contains many systems which are orders of magnitude more complex than the limit mentioned in (1). 3. Therefore, since no person has ever observed an intelligent designer for any system as complex as mentioned in (2), and since a natural explanation for the proposed complexity exists, we are not justified in claiming the existence of an intelligent designer for complex natural systems.

[@MarcusW8]

Indeed. Idk why this isn't brought up more. It's so obvious

[@japexican007]

You’re assuming that nature doesn’t have a designer while using nature to undermine the argument of concluding a designer How odd Aka computers are complex therefore computers must have a designer You: how odd since the only things I know that are complex that don’t have a designer are computers

[@MarcusW8]

@@japexican007 no, you got it backwards. The theist is the one claiming 99,99999% of the rest of the universe is designed because they've identified that 0,00001% is designed. Which, of course, is absurdly stupid.

[@BDnevernind]

​@@japexican007You are entirely misunderstanding.

[@flyingbird4219]

​@@japexican007Ce n'est pas tout ce qu'il affirme ! 😅

[@htrayford122]

I think there are three responses to the fine tuning argument: 1. It is a weak argument for god 2. It claims knowledge from ignorance 3. It is self contradictory 1. The fine tuning argument admits there is a naturalistic explanation but chooses a supernatural one instead. A strong argument for god would occur if we found it was impossible for the fundamental constants to take the values we observe they have. 2. General relativity and quantum mechanics are incredibly successful in their respective magesteria, but don’t play nicely together. This strongly suggests there is a more fundamental theory. That theory might provide an explanation for why ther fundamental constants exist, why they have the values we observe, and what range of values each could take. There is also growing evidence that the cosmological constant may have had a different value in the past. If we can’t even say that the fundamental constants of the universe are fundamental or constant, how can we claim to know the probability that they would take on the observed values? Not knowing is not a justification for knowledge. 2. The fine tuning argument posits a very low probability for all the constants taking on life supporting values at the same time. An unstated assumption is that higher probability events should be preferred over lower probability events, but then the argument asks us to discard a very low probability explanation in favor of an impossible one. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, ones that occur with probability zero. No matter how low the probability of all of the constants taking on the observed values, it is definitively greater than zero.

[@johannmatthee5727]

Just some thoughts on the questions you asked: 1.) What do we mean when we say things could have been different? Our intuitions do not work in those conditions? Throughout the video there is some appeal to Hume and the limits of our experience and what we find possible/intuitive, and how this does not track very well with things so far out of our general experience, like the initial conditions of the universe. However, when the claim is made that the initial conditions of the universe could have been different, what is being claimed has, as far as I understand it, little to do with our intuition or understanding of modal possibility. The idea is more that there are other ways the initial constants could have been without violating any of the known mathematical and physical constraints placed on the initial conditions. It has little to do with intuition and more to do with what is mathematically possible. (I understand that that is a sense of possibility and intuition, although it is more systematic and thorough) 2.) Hume's alternative of Chance or the modern day Multiverse. I think it is important to note that the modern day idea of a cosmological multiverse is not well defined in current physics (although God is also not well defined in modern physics), and it appears to me, to be only formulated as a response to the theistic hypothesis. Although I do believe that the point of the multiverse is to pose as a materialist alternative to the theistic hypothesis, but with the current science there is little reason to suspect that it meats its requirements. Therefore, both hypotheses (theism and the multiverse) hold the same amount of empirical support. That is, both explain the data equally well, and there should therefore be other metrics of measuring which hypothesis comes on top. 3.) How do we define a probability space? A common objection to the theistic hypothesis for the fine-tuning of the universe is how we should calculate the probabilities, since without a rigorous formulation of probability theory when it comes to infinite probability spaces, we are still working with our own subjective intuitions. A possible response is that, for most, if not all (I am not sure of this), we do know an effective range of values that they can take. And we know from the range that they can take, only a extremely small fraction is life-permitting.Therefore, we can construct a likelihood ration that demonstrates that probabilisticaly speaking theism dominates over naturalism, or at least design dominates over chance. 4.) Balanced on a knives edge for theist's and atheists It is true, that we can ask, under the theistic hypothesis, why life is so fine-tuned. What should be considered is that when we consider two competing hypotheses that that one that overs a better explanation should be preferred above the other. The point being, that theism have other resources, such as beauty or display of intelligence as explanatory factors to bee considered, where naturalism does not, and is only left with chance. 5.) What about the things that ground God, like logic, or meta-laws of the universe? This is a very interesting question. There are, as far as I know, a few possible accounts of how things like logic or other necessary truths are in fact grounded in God's nature, his essence, and flow from him through is will into his creative and sustaining act. That is, God, if he exists, is orderly, and therefore when he creates he creates with order. On the face of it, this fits well with theism, since it defines what is fundamental and unchanging into Gods nature, which theists believe to be fundamental and unchanging, thus reducing the theists ontology and increasing its explanatory power and simplicity. This is all just my thinking, and there might be numerous errors.

[@mememaster695]

If I'm understanding your fourth point right, you're saying that where the naturalistic and theistic arguments clash, the theistic argument should be favoured because it has more talking points, such as the existence of beauty or intelligence. I would argue that these things are irrelevant to the validity of the argument. Theists love to bring up things like beauty, or love, or intelligence as evidence of design, and I find those things wholly irrelevant. They are easily explained from a naturalistic point of view as products of evolution. We find certain things beautiful because it is advantageous to be naturally attracted to things like blooming flowers, that indicate the presence of healthy and possibly fruiting plants in the area, and intelligence is an adaptation that allows for long term planning, giving us an advantage in hunts and resistance to famine. I don't think any aspect of the human experience can really be used as evidence for design.

[@johannmatthee5727]

@@mememaster695 Thank you for your response. I understand that these things can have naturalistic explanations, but that is assuming naturalism is true. The point is this, we have 2 theories, each if it were true would contain its own ontology. That is, given theism is true, God would exist and given naturalism is true God would not exist. Of course, there are a lot of other things that would exist under theism, then under naturalism, because theism has a larger ontology (which includes immaterial substances, agent causation etc.) In short, different theories entail that different things exist. When we consider empirical data, such as fine-tuning, we have 2 (although there may be more) theories that attempt to explain the data. Each theory brings to the table its own ontology. Now theism holds that intelligence is not only reducible to evolutionary adaptive behavior, but might also be intrinsic properties of immaterial minds. And this is perfectly find, because it is entail by theism. While under naturalism intelligence would be as you defined it. And is it true to say that if theism is true, then x is the case, and if naturalism is true then y is the case. With this understood, theist can appeal to intelligence and beauty, as understood in the bounds of their theory, as possible explanations for some phenomena. Just as we appeal to the negative charge of an electron as an explanation for why it attracts positive charges. We believe given the theory of atoms, that electrons do in fact possess such properties. So saying that theism entails beauty and intelligence as objective or immaterial properties, is just stating what is believed to exist given theism is true. When considering the argument, we must consider which ontology explains the empirical data the best. Theist can appeal to beauty or intelligence, as they conceive of it, because they believe theism entails it. Just as theist, like naturalist, believe that naturalist cannot appeal to such thing because they do not exist under naturalism. I hope that answers the question.

[@Traderbear]

We should believe in a multiverse but not God. Hmmm 🤔

[@Seraphina-r1v]

Love when these two make content. Joe's smile is very contagious.

[@tyemaddog]

To reaffirm their nonsense worldview ;)

[@momgo6533]

@@tyemaddogalex has episodes with people from other worldviews you know 😂

[@CheCheDaWaff]

Anyone claiming that the constants of nature are unlikely has to explain what probability distribution they're basing that off of and why. They can't.

[@JustSomeGuy12341]

I think the probability distribution you seek comes from our background knowledge that explosions are generally chaotic and disordered. The idea that our existence depended on an explosion not being too large and forceful, and not too small leads to the conclusion the explosion was fine tuned. Marry this with the fact that the explosion so harmonizes with other constants like nuclear force and gravity that appear to be independent, we have something akin to an explosion producing a house made of toothpicks. I think that’s the background probability distribution most of us work within, and helps explain the force of the argument.

[@BDnevernind]

​​​@@JustSomeGuy12341The Big Bang is not an explosion but an inflation/expansion. What you're talking about is an explosion of matter into a space filled with matter or at least space already constrained by the laws we are discussing. Big Bang cosmology assumes the event is defining the meta laws at the same "time" as it is confirming to them. I think this still upholds the precariousness of the process, but you have to argue it without reference to explosions or how explosions occur at this known point in the original inflation and ongoing expansion.

[@GrantH2606]

@@JustSomeGuy12341 The Big Bang wasn't that kind of explosion, it was an expansion of space

[@calebr7199]

@@JustSomeGuy12341 The big bang was not an explosion. Explosions involve rapid expansions of energy and matter outward, but energy and matter did not explode out of someting, it was space itself expanding. Also what do you mean by "harmonize with other constants?" I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that.

[@SDSwampert]

​@@BDnevernind the point still stands, we're just kind of getting into the minutiae here. Explosion or expansion, the image they evoke is the same. One just starts with matter, and the other doesn't.

[@Oopdie6721]

The argument about fine-tuning isn’t necessarily that the universe is finely tuned for us, but rather that humans have adapted to the existing laws of physics, chemistry, and the universe. Like water conforming to the shape of its container, humans have adapted to the conditions and circumstances of our environment. It’s not surprising that we are shaped the way we are, as survival necessitated that we evolve in alignment with the universe’s forces. This doesn’t mean the universe was fine-tuned, per se; it means we evolved to exist in its chaos. Our ability to perceive and exist in this world stems from adapting to the conditions around us, and our survival is a result of this process. Additionally, it’s important to consider the role of necessity in this argument. As human beings, we can be quite narcissistic, often forgetting that it’s our brains that shape our understanding of the world. Our brains interact with objects and create the sense of order we perceive. However, the way we view the universe might not be how it truly is or how other beings might perceive it. What seems orderly to us may appear chaotic to others, much like how one person can make sense of a messy room while others see only disorder. This cognitive adaptation highlights that we see order in chaos because we are a part of the universe, not because the universe is inherently structured for us. shoutout to chatgpt for refining this argument for me

[@cmac369]

Didn't Alex say if it wasn't so finely tuned the universe would collapse in on itself?

[@briansmith3791]

The universal fine-tuning argument refutes all Religion and its Gods. Physicists say there is observable evidence for one universe which appears fine-tuned for Life. 'God' didn't create humans, it created a System. We are a result of emergent unguided processes, such as evolution by natural selection and 'Nature' etc, which arose from within that System. God didn't make us special, evolution did. And we ARE special.

[@briansmith3791]

The universal fine-tuning argument refutes all Religion and its Gods. Physicists say there is observable evidence for one universe which appears fine-tuned for Life. That points to a creator. 'God' didn't create humans, it created a System. We are a result of emergent unguided processes, such as evolution be natural selection, Nature etc, which arose from that System. God didn't make us special, evolution did. And we ARE special.

[@NathanColvin]

The rebuttal to the fine tuning argument that I like is that, if there is any fine-tuning, it undermines the claim that the universe was created by an all powerful, all knowing God. An omnipotent God wouldn’t require any particular set of environmental conditions or physical constants in order to create or support life - so, if God exists, the laws of physics are irrelevant to the question of whether or not life can exist. On the other hand, if life is a purely a consequence of physics and chemistry, then of course we should expect that life will only be supported when & where physics & chemistry allow for its existence.

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

Edit: "if life is a consequence of physics and chemistry, then of course we should only expect that life will be supported WHEN AND WHERE physics and chemistry exist" And in order to make such a statement one must believe there are other universes. Lol, congratulations you're a theist and your 'god' is a universe producing agent that you believe exists with absolutely no evidence.

[@NathanColvin]

@@jacobostapowicz8188 There’s literally nothing in my post that either states or implies that other universes exist. Try reading it again.

[@thebelmont1995]

​@@jacobostapowicz8188 No. Nothing in his premise states anything about a god or creator or other universes. Lol.

[@Greenlight_711]

I never understood why people would think this is a good objection. The argument is very straightforward. Based on what we know from physics, the epistemic probability of getting a life permitting universe on Naturalism is vanishingly small and is arguably not vanishingly small given Theism. Therefore fine tuning is evidence for Theism over Naturalism. I take laws of nature to be just our descriptions of the regularities of physical reality. I don't see anything which would indicate that these laws would somehow be constraints on what God could or could not do.

[@NathanColvin]

@@Greenlight_711 On theism, the probability of getting a life permitting universe should always be 1, assuming that God wants life to exist. So, on theism, environmental conditions are irrelevant to the question of whether or not life can exist. But the fine tuning argument is predicated on the idea that life REQUIRES certain environmental conditions in order to exist - on theism, that isn’t true. That’s only true under naturalism.

[@jlhistory]

Showed this to my Mormon friend who believes that God is constrained by the universe and bound by universal morality and he loved it

[@japexican007]

So Mormons believe God is constrained by his creation, how does that work logically?

[@tom-e1w]

I don't understand why people seem to think that god wouldn't choose to have a fine tuned universe, why not? It seems like you're attributing human characteristics to him which would make that feel icky

[@GrandAnt]

Nothing is fine-tuned. Religion and god are literally for stupid people. It's man-made and obvious. The understanding of the universe is relatively new and being explored. Unknown does not equal god unless god is a question mark. Childhood stories from idiot parents is not a reason to believe in god. They should be raised better with intellectual property.

[@frede1905]

In physics/cosmology, the topic of "fine tuning" comes up now and then. It is sometimes used as a hint that the contemporary model may be missing something crucial. It doesn't demonstrate that the model is wrong or self contradictory or anything, only a possible hint that it may be incomplete. Hence, the way to solve it is to refine the model. I don't see "fine tuning" as a plausible theological argument at all, simply because it doesn't explain anything. If you want to "explain" or resolve a fine tuning problem, you have to present a precise physical mechanism for how the values of the parameters/constants seemed to get values within such such a tight range, and present ways of testing this new, refined model. Cosmologists have already done this a few times. For instance, the flatness problem is a well known "fine tuning" problem, and is resolved in models with cosmic inflation. No serious cosmologist would bring up "God" in a discussion about fine tuning, again because that holds no explanatory power and is also entirely unfalsifiable.

[@dominoz2997]

I’ve just started the video!!! Here’s my take before getting into it! The laws of physics aren’t behests or commandments, but patterns and consistencies. They’re discoveries, not inventions. The fine tuning argument forgets this. Simply finding a pattern or consistency doesn’t mean it was set by anyone, governed by anything, nor does it means it can change. The only thing we know is that it is a pattern we’ve found and it can be used in other calculations to predict things.

[@japexican007]

Yes, we’re discovering God, but according to atheism you’re discovering how random chance somehow perfectly aligned to produce some fine tuning

[@bass1c]

6:19 All the videos from Phil Halper's channel tend to do it for me - firstly the properly produced rebuttals of (in this case) fine tuning, or also the kalam cosmological argument, but secondly their responses or further comments in their podcast (the Sci-Phi show i think). Especially with regards to the produced ones, they get some genuine leading physicists in on the conversation. The main conclusions are also things Sean Carroll touched on in a debate with William Lane Craig, many of which are mentioned in the video, but to summarise: 1. There is no set upon model on which to base a construction of the universe, so how can one ever probablistically claim what model is more likely? Sure, we can invent all sorts of models and even if the majority are boltzmann brain situations (for reference - meaning it's more likely a single brain just fluctuates into existence than a universe like ours) we can't investigate all infinite number of possibilities, so this is no indication on the actual probabilities. More significantly, we don't even understand incredibly relevant things within our universe, let alone outside. For example Alex vaguely refers to "gravitational constants" in this video, but without a theory of quantum gravity how can we discuss the probability of such constants occurring in a universe, which from our observations was tiny towards its "beginning"? And say we get a theory of quantum gravity: the way science is verified is through experiment, but we cannot verify stuff that is outside of our universe. The idea of just "slightly altering" a constant is just non-sensical - a (somewhat unlikely) theory of quantum gravity isn't necessarily gonna help determine much outside the universe we understand. What limits, what range can we put on any physical constant??? Numbers can be very misleading when used right (or wrong, I guess). And this is coming from an agnostic who probably believes in a god (though more out of personal experience and desire, as opposed to arguments like these which I just think would surely miss the point should a god exist). 2. If you take Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, parallel universes pretty much sorts you out. 3. Is the universe even finely tuned for life? What even is a good definition of life? We have theories about its origin on Earth but no one has any agreed upon conditions for life anyways. What if, for example, it was finely tuned for black holes? (this a genuine concept, with some interesing implications - again see Phil Halper's video, where it mentions a sort of natural selection of black holes) 4. If a god exists, why does anything need to be finely tuned (for life)? An all powerful god could make some (incomprehensible to us) life exist with no other requirements. In this case life fits the universe, not the other way around as the fine tuning argument implies? On a somewhat related note to the last point, all of these physics-based arguments for god just do not do it for me, as someone who still chooses (in whatever sense of free will I have) to believe in some sort of god. If a god wanted to make near certain evidence of their existence, they don't go about making debatable fine tuning cases. Whatever god could exist appears to have chosen not to make it crystal clear to modern day humanity, and perhaps that is the integral part of the human experience. So putting forward an argument from fine tuning or saying that we can't have "come from nothing" (the latter quote which I can't really agree with anyways since "from" implies time-based sequential causation) without design and suggesting it's compelling evidence doesn't make sense - to put it another way, if such arguments for god were as compelling as some theists suggest, why would it be up for debate?

[@mindlander]

If science is so compelling, why is it up for debate?

[@hehoopintv7832]

The fact that arguments like fine-tuning are debated doesn't diminish their value. Many profound truths-such as free will, consciousness, or the origin of the universe-are subject to debate because they deal with deep, complex topics. Fine-tuning provides a rational basis for belief in an intelligent designer. The fine-tuning argument isn't about proving God with absolute certainty in a way that removes all room for doubt. Additionally, God’s purpose may not be to overwhelm people with undeniable proof but to allow individuals to seek Him through reason, faith, and experience. The evidence God provides may be "sufficient but not coercive"-enough to encourage belief without eliminating free will or personal exploration. The idea that something can't come from nothing is a foundational concept in both philosophy and cosmology. The principle doesn't require time-based sequential causation. It’s about the metaphysical impossibility of pure nothingness giving rise to existence, which supports the need for an uncaused cause, often understood as God. Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas have long argued that there must be an uncaused cause or necessary being that explains why anything exists at all, which leads to the conclusion of a transcendent source, often understood as God. As for your point about God's hiddeness. I would love to get indepth. If God’s existence were undeniably obvious-like a constant physical presence or force that couldn’t be ignored-it could potentially remove or diminish human autonomy and free will. People might feel coerced into belief or obedience, not because they genuinely want to explore or embrace the idea of God, but because they feel there’s no other choice. I can give you an example. Imagine if every time someone did something wrong, lightning immediately struck, or a voice from the sky scolded them. This wouldn't leave room for personal growth, moral reflection, or the ability to freely choose to do good. People would act out of fear of punishment rather than out of genuine moral or spiritual conviction. In human relationships for example love and trust are most meaningful when they are freely chosen, not forced. Similarly, a relationship with God might hold greater value if it’s based on a personal choice to believe rather than being driven by undeniable, overwhelming evidence.

[@simthembilelusu8855]

Thoroughly engrossing, you guys are so smart 👏 ❤🙌.

[@samnavona]

Actually the fine tuning is against the god hypothesis: the all capable all powerful “absolute “ should not need spl conditions to create,doesn’t need certain balance for things to exist .

[@BibleArticulate]

Or is evidence that there is an all capable all powerful absolute creator?

[@samnavona]

@@BibleArticulate You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen).

[@jinsil.v212]

Yea but then you're missing the point that these special conditions were set by God in the first place. The laws themselves that make it possible for matter to come into existence and have life function the way it does required certain fine tuned laws which have their source in God.

[@samnavona]

@@jinsil.v212 NO YOU MISSING THE POINT, first : this “laws” stop working for example in the planck length or in a black hole… Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. For example:Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

[@jinsil.v212]

@@samnavona Oh yea? Who is selecting then? And for what? Evolution without an agent/intelligence behind is completely impossible. Who exactly is making decisions in your atheist worldview? What exactly prompts a molecule to form a connection (by accident!) which is then deemed useful? Does the molecule know what it's supposed to do? Does it have the infinite knowledge about the universe stored inside? How does it even begin to realize that its accidental connection is now useful for something? You can't have evolution without an omniscient evaluator. Evolution is a mechanism, not an agent. You need both for life to happen. And btw, I have studied the theory of evolution plenty. It's also based on fraudulent 'evidence' to support its theory btw. People who spout Godless evolution never actually think through the actual implications of it.

[@jtapia0]

The refutation is quite simple 1) There is no experimental indicator that determines whether a complex system has a designer (a "being" outside the system) or not (i.e. the system simply evolved). 2) Furthermore, the very concept of "complexity" is subjective. 3) If logical deduction is required to determine the existence of a designer based on the "complexity" of a system, it must be ruled out that the same system could not have evolved naturally (for example randomly) from another previous system (less "complex"). Ignorance about this does not constitute evidence. 4) If it is invoked that the previous "complexity" also has an "objective" granted by the supposed "designer" (which would be to sustain life for theists), positive cases must be demonstrated (which would be the present universe according to theists) and negative cases. The latter have never been proven by believers in God.

[@TheSlave69]

If someone says that the universe is fine tuned for us, then they are implying that they have seen a universe that was not fine tuned for us. Just ask them to show us this other universe.

[@theman12833]

they might say "those universes dont exist" , i ask them why pain dominates all sentience if it was fine tuned for us

[@japexican007]

@@theman12833interesting how the Bible answers this since everything good comes from God, since we’re in a construct at arms length of God well then that makes perfect sense that you feel more pain than good

[@theman12833]

@@japexican007 i have no clue what youre trying to convey

[@wolfdwarf]

@@theman12833 God is good. Distance from God is bad. We are distant from God. So pain/bad exists for us. ¯\__(ツ)__/¯

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@japexican007it's interesting that in your book god says he is the creator of evil and all things, including evil come through him. Also interesting how it's just "bible says bible is true".

[@sordidknifeparty]

Because they are not finely tuned at all. They are consequential to the geometry of the universe. And the same exact way that Pi isn't precisely tuned to create circles, it is simply the case that the circumference divided by the diameter equals exactly pi, and if P were different by even one one trillionth of a percent, you wouldn't be able to produce true circles. The theist seems to imagine a primordial Universe in which none of the laws of physics or physical constants have been yet defined, and then through an act of will they are defined. It is far far more likely, that the bare existence of the universe, and its innate geometry, forced all the constants to be what they are the very instant the universe was created, and couldn't have made them any other way. It is because of those fundamental and innate rules and values that life was able to evolve, not that the laws were created arbitrarily with life in mind

[@supermandefender]

Why are atheists constantly special pleading when it comes to the fine tuning argument? On one hand you use the puddle analogy for naturalism but then dismiss the puddle analogy when we're talking about the Fine Tuning.

[@lotsofstuff9645]

I have a few problems with any of these arguments. Firstly I don’t think the “laws” of the universe are actually laws. We have theories of mathematical models we can use to predict what something like gravity might do in certain situations. But I don’t think things such as the gravitational constant are real things that exist outside of our model. There is no magic number sitting out there that someone has noted down for our universe. But my biggest issue is when people treat design of a universe being a possible option that we can consider. Unless I am missing something we are not aware that it is possible for anyone or anything to be capable of creating a universe. As far as we are aware creating universes isn’t a possible thing that exists. Surely before we start generating a hypothesis that maybe our universe is created by some intentioned intelligent agent of some sort we would at least need to know that is a possibility. We know we can “create” things by rearranging matter in to different things that we then give a new name. But as far as creating new energy or creating universes… that’s not a thing as far as we’re aware. You might as well be asking what’s the best way to extract juice from the concept of hope.

[@cmac369]

Seems a little silly, doesn't it? So, before you start positing God as the creator of the universe, you want to find out if it's even possible to create a universe? Let's say you found there's no way to create a universe, then what?

[@nehamotwani6477]

I believe that on a personal level of inquiry, an open minded individual got a better chance of understanding these existential and religious questions by simply considering all the religious and philosophical ideas that humans have come up with throughout the world, in the light of logic, and then putting ones believe in the common ground of all these ideas if one is able to decipher that. Atleast that should be the way to go.

[@aidanbalac]

I think the rebuttal is much simpler than described in the video. If the claim is that the constants being different wouldn’t lead to a universe, then we wouldn’t exist to observe them. They’re necessarily such that a universe by which we came to exist, exists. It’s like saying “if I didn’t exist then my parents wouldn’t be my parents”. Like yes, but what have you accomplished with that loop -de-loop of logic…

[@SzymonAdamus]

I dont understand why chanse is viewed as ludicrous? Why? There are many things in the universe that are governed by the same, insane level of chance. Even our existense is one of them (both evolutionary, asteroid hitting earth 66 mln year ago, or just the combination of sperm and egg). It seems ludicrous for us only because we are horrible in accepting this level of chance and randomness. It doesnt meen it's not possible. It just mean that we are not well equipped to think that way.

[@Eliza-rg4vw]

It is comparatively ludicrous. It could be compared to finding writing in the sand. On the one hand, perfectly feasible for it to have happened by chance. On the other hand, we already know people do write in the sand. Which explanation seems more likely then? Probably the person writing in the sand. Again, coulda been chance, but by comparison, well maybe not.

[@matthewadams1674]

​@@Eliza-rg4vwNow imagine someone who didn't know that found writing in the sand. That's the situation we're in with the universe, except we don't even know if the constants of the universe can be different in the first place.

[@BDnevernind]

​@@Eliza-rg4vwThis is an exaggerated analogy. It's more like finding thoudands or millions of fractals that fit what seems to be the only pattern in which they could be aligned. Orders of magnitude more complex than what we've seen from nature, but not meeting some already existing template. You still get people saying the Golden Ratio is evidence of God, so it's no surprise that alleged fine tuning gets the same treatment.

[@CyreniTheMage]

@@Eliza-rg4vw I don't think that analogy is good precisely because we know people write in the sand. We don't know of anyone who makes universes.

[@SDSwampert]

​@@CyreniTheMage you could use anything for that analogy in that case. What if you showed a watch to an indigenous group who was so far removed from society that they did not have written language or written numbers, no leather, no metal, no glass, none of the components they have access to. Do you think they would come to the conclusion that the watch was a result of chance? Or that someone invented it?

[@ArshikaTowers]

I am curious how people know that the cosmological constants can be anything other than what they are. Stating if gravity was stronger or weaker, than this would happen. Ok, how do you know I can be anything other than what it is?

[@vojtechsubrta6810]

Great point. I am not expert, but these constants just descirbe the universe. The only universe we can observe, is the universe we exist in. Why do you even bring up other possible universes, if the only universe we know is this one. We live in this universe, so there is no point in thinking about other universes, which we dont even know could exist. Anyway, great comment.

[@Emperorhirohito19272]

@@vojtechsubrta6810 I rarely see this point and I think it’s a really good one. We seem to assume that these constants are prescriptive, as if they exist immaterially and force material reality to obey them. How do we know they don’t just describe the material world?

[@vojtechsubrta6810]

@@Emperorhirohito19272 thanks, i also wonder, why people dont bring this up often. Whats your stance on this problem? Do you think the universe is finely tunes for life or the opposite? :)

[@jherandsoleil6335]

Because there’s other planets with other gravitational effects which have been measured

[@vojtechsubrta6810]

@@jherandsoleil6335 yeah but the gravitational constant is still the same everywhere. The planets have different masses, which makes gravitational force different

[@russellcook8735]

I think Rupert Sheldrake has uncovered that these constants are NOT actually constant. The measurements vary over time and place, but they are called "constants" to make it simpler.

[@hehoopintv7832]

The fact that arguments like fine-tuning are debated doesn't diminish their value. Many profound truths-such as free will, consciousness, or the origin of the universe-are subject to debate because they deal with deep, complex topics. Fine-tuning provides a rational basis for belief in an intelligent designer. The fine-tuning argument isn't about proving God with absolute certainty in a way that removes all room for doubt. Additionally, God’s purpose may not be to overwhelm people with undeniable proof but to allow individuals to seek Him through reason, faith, and experience. The evidence God provides may be "sufficient but not coercive"-enough to encourage belief without eliminating free will or personal exploration. The idea that something can't come from nothing is a foundational concept in both philosophy and cosmology. The principle doesn't require time-based sequential causation. It’s about the metaphysical impossibility of pure nothingness giving rise to existence, which supports the need for an uncaused cause, often understood as God. Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas have long argued that there must be an uncaused cause or necessary being that explains why anything exists at all, which leads to the conclusion of a transcendent source, often understood as God. As for your point about God's hiddeness. I would love to get in depth with this topic. If God’s existence were undeniably obvious-like a constant physical presence or force that couldn’t be ignored-it could potentially remove or diminish human autonomy and free will. People might feel coerced into belief or obedience, not because they genuinely want to explore or embrace the idea of God, but because they feel there’s no other choice. I can give you an example. Imagine if every time someone did something wrong, lightning immediately struck, or a voice from the sky scolded them. This wouldn't leave room for personal growth, moral reflection, or the ability to freely choose to do good. People would act out of fear of punishment rather than out of genuine moral or spiritual conviction. In human relationships for example love and trust are most meaningful when they are freely chosen, not forced. Similarly, a relationship with God might hold greater value if it’s based on a personal choice to believe rather than being driven by undeniable, overwhelming evidence.

[@thegoatleo]

👏

[@Logical.Psychopath]

No, it does not, and here is why: >This argument is not valid or sound. Elaboration: - Theists assume that the universe can be tuned. How quaint! - Theists claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life. (Incorrect, elaborated after-surprise, surprise!) - Theists assume that the universe can be different from what it is now. Quite the imaginative leap! - Theists assume that the universe we live in is the only one that can support life or there would be no life. Talk about a *false dichotomy*, which is a logical fallacy. - Theists assume that the probability of this universe is low with assumptions that it can even exist in any other form and with *ZERO* statistical data. Newsflash: we’ve never observed the birth of the universe or any other universe, assuming there’s more than one. - Theists assume that the universe is tuned by something supernatural, rather than natural. Because, of course, *magic* is a much more reasonable explanation! - Theists assume that the universe is tuned by an entity rather than something not alive, or a mechanism, process, or something similar. How delightfully simplistic! - Theists assume not only that the fine-tuning is done by something supernatural (already an enormous assumption) but that this was a supernatural entity. Good luck with that! - Theists assume that this entity can even exist. Just a little hurdle there, right? - Theists assume that this entity can fine-tune the universe. Because who wouldn’t want to play God, right? - Theists assume that this entity wants to tune the universe. How generous of them! - Theists assume that this entity actually did tune the universe. Because, you know, it's not like there's any evidence to back that up. - (ANY natural assumption one can come up with is ultimately more likely and actually PLAUSIBLE, unlike ANY magic, let alone the magical sky daddy they cling to.) - Theists assume that we do not live in a multiverse and that our universe is just one of many. Apparently, their imagination has limits! - Theists assume that we do not live in a simulation created by other natural beings. Because who would ever think outside the box, right? - You get the point... (AND, if all of those assumptions theists make up there aren’t enough, theists then argue for a specific god, of which all have been debunked; so even more assumptions and unsupported, disproven claims after this failed attempt at reasoning). ... I can go on about how MANY assumptions theists are making. They are violating *Occam’s Razor* MASSIVELY and are committing at least one logical fallacy (false dichotomy). >*And this universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.* We can live only on this tiny percentage of land on this ocean-dominated rock in this one solar system, in this one galaxy, surrounded by 2 trillion galaxies. If theists were to be randomly teleported ANYwhere in the universe, the chance of them not dying INSTANTLY or in a few seconds without a MASSIVE amount of ADVANCED technology is *0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(ad near infinitum)1%.* So their only claim among the sea of assumptions is flat-out incorrect.

[@RobH-o4n]

My take on the argument from design. It seems that many theists are to eager to assume (and many atheists are to willing to grant) that theism constitutes a sufficient explanation for the apparently designed universe. There does seem to be, at least, a general recognition that it’s not enough for a proposal to be merely sufficient to explain a given fact. It must also be necessary. .i.e. It must be that all alternative counter proposals can be shown to be problematic or inferior. The argument then becomes all about theistic attempts to try and undermine alternative atheistic explanations for apparent design like multiverse theories, impersonal creative forces, naturally occurring order producing processes, ect. Those debates are all good and well but I don’t think enough attention is paid to the question of whether theism actually holds up on its own merits as a sufficient explanation for design, let alone, how well its explanatory power compares to the various alternative atheistic proposals. I think the theist has problems on this front that are not usually addressed. Here’s my take. There are three logically exhaustive conceptions of God that are relevant to this discussion. (1) God is complex and metaphysically contingent. (2) God is complex yet metaphysically necessary. (3) God is a simple being. I’ll discuss each in turn. Why the design argument fails for a god that is complex and metaphysical contingent. The argument from design hinges upon the theist’s assertion that entities exhibiting organized complexity or needing to satisfy finely tuned parameters should not just be accepted as brute facts. It then identifies our universe as just such an entity. It then proposes an explanation, justified on the basis of an analogy, suggesting that the universe must be the product of intelligence because it exhibits clear indications of design similar to the design evident in the invention of an intelligent human creator. To see why this argument is self defeating, one need simply to recognize that only a finely tuned and special kind of creator god would likely be sufficient to the task of creating a finely tuned universe and then one need only to realize that such a god cannot be accepted as a brute fact according to the theist’s own assertion. To elaborate: If God is even just minimally sufficient to create the universe, it would seem that the mind of God would need to contain a perfectly accurate and exhaustively detailed model of the universe as God cannot create a given universe if she doesn’t know the defining details that describe its state. This would seem to entail that the mind of God would need to contain as much information content as that which describes the universe. In order for God’s mind to contain the necessary information content to enable the intelligent creation of a universe like ours, the mind of God would need to satisfy the same list of special characteristics and finely tuned parameters as that which a life friendly universe must satisfy. For every way in which the universe could have been different, there would exist a corresponding way in which the mind of God could have been different. The sample space of logically possible creator deities would arguably seem to be at least as large as the sample space of logically possible universes and furthermore the subset of deities whose characteristics would make them capable/inclined to create life friendly universes would arguably be just as restrictive as the subset of possible life friendly universes. Only a special god satisfying a peculiar combination of special characteristics would likely be sufficient to the task of creating such a peculiar universe as this. If finely tuned metaphysical constructs cannot exist as brute facts but require further explanation (the theist's assertion, not mine), then this would apply with equal force to a finely tuned god as it would to a finely tuned universe, and consequently, the design argument becomes self refuting. It simply is not obvious how any probabilistic or explanatory advantage is obtained by replacing the universe with a god who just happens to be up to the task of creating it. If the design argument does not work for a god that is complex and contingent, the theist’s only options are to deny either God’s complexity or God’s contingency. Why the design argument fails for a god that is complex yet metaphysically necessary. Theists will sometimes try to side step the aforementioned point by arguing that God is, in some logical or metaphysical sense, “a necessary being" and only a metaphysically contingent god would be subject to the aforementioned critique. If God is metaphysically necessary, regarding both her properties and her existence, then any apparent fine tuning of her properties would be illusory. My response to this would be to point out that only a valid ontological argument should compel one to think that God exists necessarily and no valid ontological argument has ever been presented. The theist could always simply assume that God exists necessarily without having a good argument to justify this assertion but then the atheist could employ the same trick and simply assume that the universe itself (or any preferred cause/explanation for our universe’s existence/design other than a personal creator) simply exists necessarily and be done with it. God can be replaced with literally any model/theory that might explain the fact of our universe’s existence, and even if said model seems to require finely tuned properties, if it can be posited to be “metaphysically necessary”, then problem solved (or, more accurately, sidestepped). If the theist can simply declare/define something as necessary so to avoid having to explain its improbable peculiarities (and do so without proof) then the atheist may as well employ the same cop out. The only recourse I can imagine that the theist might use to answer this point is to posit that only entities possessing “personhood” might reasonably have the property of being “necessary”. Without any argument to support such a notion, this is obviously nothing more than special pleading. Falling back on God's "necessity" to avoid having to deal with her seeming need for finely tuned and improbable characteristics changes the entire structure of the design argument so that God’s “necessity” is what's actually doing all the work in the argument, not God’s intelligence or even personhood. God’s necessity becomes the most logically prior fact that explains everything else. God’s intelligent mind (and whatever else it might account for) is just an entailment of God’s metaphysical necessity. God’s intelligent mind is no longer the primary thing doing the explaining but it rather becomes part of that which is being explained by the more prior fact of God’s necessity. Recap: The design argument is self defeating when applied to a metaphysically contingent god. To conceive of God as a necessary being “fixes” this issue but a necessary god is nothing more than a baseless assumption without a sound ontological argument. If metaphysical necessity is going to be merely assumed, it can be used to “explain” the apparent fine tuning of any model, not just theism. Finally, If the design argument must be conjoined to a sound ontological argument so the assertion of God’s necessity is actually supported, this obviously renders the design argument superfluous. Why the design argument fails for a god whose description is simple. Another tactic theists often use to sidestep God’s seeming need for finely tuned characteristics is to posit that God is a simple being. I would dispute that a simple god could create the universe as God cannot be simpler than the content of her mind and God’s mind cannot be simpler than the universe as God’s mind must contain the universe (or at least, a perfect model of it). If the pattern of information content that describes a construct’s state is the proper indicator of its complexity and the mind of God contains all the information content embodied in the universe (and then some), then God cannot be simple unless the universe is also simple and the design argument requires that the universe is not simple. Also, the teleological argument is usually understood as an argument from analogy. For starters, arguments from analogy are a typically weak form of argumentation. Even a compelling analogy can do little more than suggest what the right model/theory might be. Analogies can never demonstrate anything. That not withstanding, an analogy between the creative process of a simple god vs a human inventor cannot be anything but dubious. Human inventors can create complex things only by virtue of the fact that humans are extremely complex constructs themselves. A human creator’s creative ability is inextricably tied to the complexity of their body and, most especially, their brain. If God can somehow create complex things without being complex herself, the process by which she does this would have to be radically dissimilar to the process by which humans create which greatly undermines the analogy. A simple God, a complex yet necessary God, and complex, contingent God would, taken together, seem to constitute a logically exhaustive set of possible theistic conceptions. If all are all found to be problematic, then there would seem to be nothing left on which the theist can hang his hat regarding the sufficiency of theism for providing a satisfying explanation for apparent design in our universe. In conclusion: Not only is there little reason to think that God is the comparatively best explanation for design, there is good reason to think that God, even just on her own merits, is actually a bad explanation for design. I don’t claim to know what the right explanation is for the apparent design of our universe but I’m fairly confident it isn’t theism.

[@TheDragonageorigins]

The fine-tuning argument isnt meant to be all exhaustive or the defining evidence to anything. It doesnt inherently define God

[@SDSwampert]

God self-identifies as a he, actually. You're intentionally misgendering him.

[@hehoopintv7832]

The design argument does not assume that God is metaphysically contingent. In fact, classical theism posits God as a necessary being precisely because the contingent nature of the universe requires an ultimate explanation.The precise values of the physical constants we observe could have been different, so they are contingent. The design argument suggests that this contingency points to an intelligent cause that is non-contingent.The design argument shows that the best explanation for this fine-tuning is an intelligent, necessary cause (God), not random chance or physical necessity. As for the teleological anology argument. While the teleological argument uses analogies to illustrate design, it’s not dependent on them. The observation of order, complexity, and purpose in the universe points to an intelligent cause, even if God’s method of creation is different from human invention. The analogy is used to highlight the principle of design, not to equate God’s creative process with human invention. I'll also touch up on your God simplicity point. Divine simplicity doesn't mean God lacks depth or intelligence. It means that God isn’t composed of parts or reliant on contingent processes like human minds or physical entities. In human minds, knowledge is processed in parts or steps-through thoughts, emotions, memory, etc.-but God’s mind operates differently. God’s knowledge is immediate and unified, not pieced together through a sequence of mental events like ours. God’s mind doesn't have to mirror the complexity of the universe to create it. God’s knowledge of the universe is simple and immediate.God exists outside of time and space. The complexity we observe in the universe doesn’t imply that God is complex; rather, it reflects God's ability to create ordered, intricate systems without needing to be composed of parts or contingent processes. God can create and sustain the complex universe without Himself being complex. God’s knowledge and power are direct, not dependent on a complex structure like human minds.Think of a musician who can play a symphony from memory. The symphony itself is complex, but the musician doesn’t need to be made up of all the notes and parts of the symphony. Instead, they contain the knowledge and skill to create and perform it seamlessly. Similarly, God can create and sustain the complex universe without Himself being complex. God’s knowledge and power are direct, not dependent on a complex structure like human minds. I also disagree when you say that God is a "bad explanation" for design and that alternatives like physical necessity or chance are more plausible. The idea of physical necessity suggests that the universe had to be the way it is, and there were no other possibilities for the values of physical constants. However, there is no scientific or logical evidence to support this idea. Physics shows that the constants in the universe (like the gravitational constant, the charge of an electron, etc.) could have been different. These constants are not dictated by any deeper physical laws that demand they be precisely what they are. If physical necessity were true, we would expect to see some evidence that the universe could not have been otherwise. But instead, what we observe is a universe that could have taken on a wide range of values for its physical constants, only a tiny fraction of which would allow life to exist. This points away from necessity and toward contingency-meaning there’s no inherent reason the universe had to be the way it is. The alternative of chance claims that the universe’s constants were just randomly set, and it happens to be the case that they allow life. However, the odds of this happening by chance are astronomically low. Imagine you’re rolling a die with trillions of sides, and you need to roll the exact right number for life to exist. The probability of hitting the right number by chance is so small that most scientists and philosophers reject this as a viable explanation. Some people argue for the existence of multiple or infinite universes (the multiverse), where each universe has different constants, and we just happen to live in the one where everything is "just right." However, the multiverse hypothesis itself lacks empirical evidence and creates further complications-it doesn’t explain where the multiverse came from or why any universe would be finely tuned at all. Theism posits that the universe was designed by an intelligent being (God) who purposefully created the conditions necessary for life. This fits well with the observation that the universe’s constants seem fine-tuned-precisely set to allow life to exist. Rather than resorting to speculative alternatives like necessity or chance, theism offers a straightforward explanation: design reflects intentionality and purpose. The universe could have been different-it could have had different constants or not allowed life at all. Theism explains why this particular universe exists (as opposed to others) by pointing to an intelligent designer who chose these specific conditions for a purpose. Contingent realities point toward a necessary being who can explain why those contingent realities exist in the first place. Theism does not claim to have every answer or remove all mystery, but it provides a rational and coherent framework for understanding the universe’s fine-tuning. An intelligent cause (God) is a better fit for the observable data than random chance or unsupported claims of necessity. Theism, by contrast, offers a coherent explanation. The fine-tuning of the universe for life suggests intentionality and purpose-hallmarks of intelligent design. God, as a necessary being, explains the existence of contingent realities like the universe, which could have been different. Rather than positing random chance or unsupported necessity, theism provides a rational explanation for the fine-tuning we observe: an intelligent, purposeful designer brought the universe into being with life in mind.

[@RobH-o4n]

@@hehoopintv7832 Thanks for the thoughtful response: I pulled some of your quotes for rejoinder. “The design argument does not assume that God is metaphysically contingent. In fact, classical theism posits God as a necessary being precisely because the contingent nature of the universe requires an ultimate explanation.” I included the category of a complex and contingent god for the sake of logical completeness. I also wanted to highlight the obvious problems that the design argument would face if God were contingent and that the assumption of God’s necessity is used to “fix” these issues. Also, not everyone who believes in intelligent design is necessarily a classical theist. Whether or not the contingent nature of the universe entails the need for an ultimate explanation is contentious. Some would argue that the principle of sufficient reason demands the existence of a necessary being of some sort but the most straightforward and natural articulations of PSR have counterintuitive implications like modal collapse. Also, even if a necessary being of some sort is required, further argument is needed to justify the conclusion that said necessary being must possess the property of personhood. In any case, these points probably belong more to a discussion about the cosmological argument. “While the teleological argument uses analogies to illustrate design, it's not dependent on them.” I would have to disagree here. Without the analogy component, the design argument amounts to a very interesting observation followed by a non sequitur. The argument makes the observation that the universe appears to be finely tuned. It then makes the assertion that this apparent fine tuning demands an explanation. It then argues that God likely is this explanation and the argument given for why God is the best explanation is where the analogy comes in. Without the analogy the argument would amount to something like: The universe is finely tuned and needs an explanation. Therefore God because… sure. Furthermore, the only intelligent creators that we have any experience with or conception of are human beings. Human beings are complex and can only create complex things by virtue of their own complexity. We both agree that if God’s creative process was the same as that of a human being, the design argument would not work. I won’t claim that it is, a priori, impossible for a simple being to create a finely tuned and complex thing but it must at least be the case that the the process by which a simple god creates a complex thing would need to be radically dissimilar to the one and only intelligence driven, complexity creating process that we understand or have any knowledge of. And that destroys your analogy and your argument is a non sequitur without the analogy. The process by which a simple being creates complex things would therefore be something that we have no experience with, do not remotely understand and have no analogy for. Why then, would anyone insist that this process/phenomenon that we do not understand and that is a complete mystery box to us, is clearly the best explanation for apparent design. “God's mind doesn't have to mirror the complexity of the universe to create it.” The complexity of a thing is a function of the information content that describes it. If God possesses a mind and God’s mind contains a specific body of content and included in that body of content is a perfectly accurate and exhaustively detailed model of the universe, then God would necessarily be described by at least as much information as that which describes the universe. I find this point difficult to argue with. The points you make deny this conclusion but they do little to challenge its central logic. Some of your points lead me to think that you think God cannot be complex because God is not physical. I have heard others defend this contention as well. Of course, you can always ensure that God is not complex by making “physicality” a defining requirement in the definition of the word “complexity”. That would be a bit of a cheat and, more importantly, it misses the point. The number of elements a construct contains and the number details and properties those elements satisfy and the number of relationships between the various elements basically determines the complexity of said construct. A perfectly accurate and exhaustive detailed model of the universe existing in the mental landscape of God’s mind is mathematically isomorphic to the physical universe to which it corresponds, in terms of elements, parameters, relationships and patterns. They would both be defined by the same list of finely tuned parameters and they would both have in common all the same ways in which they each could presumably have been different. They would both contain the same amount of information. One does exist in a mental landscape and the other, a physical landscape but I fail to see how this distinction helps you. In every way that seems important, they are equally complex. This complexity must transfer to God as God cannot be simpler than the content of his own mind. As an aside, it’s difficult for me to believe that a particular universe is metaphysically contingent, but a creator deity with just the right combination of attributes to be the ideal creator of said universe is metaphysically necessary. Why wouldn’t a god be as contingent as the admittedly contingent universe to which his creative attributes are appropriately tailored. There are other things we could say on the whole issue of complexity and some rabbit holes we could go down, like “information compression” and “Kolmogorov complexity” but the basic point is that it’s difficult to think that any thing or being could contain the complex pattern of information that describes the universe without being complex itself. “If physical necessity were true, we would expect to see some evidence that the universe could not have been otherwise” If a thing is unlikely to be necessary when there would seem to be ways in which said thing could have been different, why can’t we apply that logic to disembodied creator deities. I can imagine all manor of different kinds of disembodied minds. I can imagine at least as many disembodied minds as I can imagine different kinds of universes. I can imagine an infinite variety of disembodied deities with minds that were filled with endless possible patterns of random, useless nonsense who consequently, would be incapable of creating anything. If being able to imagine lots of ways the universe could have been different is a good reason to reject the universe as a metaphysically necessary being then is being able to imagine lots of ways God could have been different a good reason to reject God as a metaphysically necessary being? You can always overcome this kind of objection by defining God the way you want him to be and then simply assume God, as defined, to exist necessarily. Without a sound ontological argument, assuming that God exists necessarily is all you get to do. If you can just assume that God exists necessarily without any supporting argument and in spite of the fact that it at least seems like he could have been different, I may as well make similar assumptions about the universe itself or whatever preferred model or explanation for the universe I might favor. The mere positing of metaphysical necessity can “explain” the apparent fine tuning of any model. That this tactic is only available to theism is special pleading.

[@hehoopintv7832]

@RobH-o4n 1. Imagination vs. Metaphysical Necessity Just because we can imagine various possible versions of the universe, or even different conceptions of God, doesn't undermine the idea that God or the universe is metaphysically necessary. The imagination is limitless, but metaphysical necessity deals with what must exist in every possible world. In other words, just because we can conceive of something doesn’t mean it’s metaphysically plausible. The concept of God as a necessary being posits that God’s existence is required to avoid an infinite regress of contingent causes. God’s necessity is rooted in the idea that something must exist that does not depend on anything else for its existence. Simply imagining alternatives does not negate this logical conclusion. --- 2. Special Pleading Misunderstanding There’s often an accusation of special pleading, suggesting that assuming God as the answer to fine-tuning without scrutinizing the necessity of God is unjustified. However, this overlooks the distinction between a contingent and a necessary being. The fine-tuning argument addresses the contingency of the universe-why the universe’s physical constants are so precisely calibrated to support life. God, as a metaphysically necessary being, is not contingent and doesn’t require an external explanation. Theism posits that God, by His nature, is the ultimate, self-sufficient cause. Special pleading occurs when you exempt something from needing justification without reason. But God, in classical theism, is not arbitrarily exempted-He is posited as the necessary being who explains the contingent nature of everything else. This isn’t special pleading, but rather a reasoned conclusion from the evidence. --- 3. The Ontological Argument for God's Necessity It’s often claimed that theists simply define God into existence, as if this is an assumption without sufficient support. This reflects a misunderstanding of the ontological argument, which claims that God is a maximally great being. Part of being maximally great is existing necessarily, meaning that God exists in every possible world. This isn’t an arbitrary definition but a conclusion derived from the concept of maximal greatness itself. By defining God as necessarily existent, we are not merely assuming His existence but deducing it from His very nature. The focus on imagination and alternatives does not engage with the rigorous ontological grounding that the concept of God provides. --- 4. Misconception of Fine-Tuning The fine-tuning argument is often dismissed by suggesting that any number of metaphysical necessities could explain the precise calibration of the universe’s constants. However, the fine-tuning argument specifically refers to the extraordinary precision of these constants, which seem calibrated to permit life. While it’s possible to posit alternative explanations like multiverses or brute facts, these explanations often either introduce speculative assumptions without evidence or fail to explain why the constants are so finely tuned. Theism offers an explanation grounded in a purposeful, intelligent being (God) who designs the universe with intentionality. This isn’t an appeal to special pleading but rather a more coherent explanation than chance or randomness. The fine-tuning points to a purposeful cause, and theism makes the best sense of this evidence by positing a designer. --- 5. Imagining Alternate Deities Doesn’t Refute Necessity It’s sometimes argued that if we can imagine different conceptions of God, this undermines the notion of a necessary God. However, this misses the point of metaphysical necessity. God, as traditionally defined, is a maximally great being, meaning He is not contingent or subject to change. The ability to conceive of alternatives doesn’t refute the argument for God's necessity, just as imagining different laws of nature doesn’t change the fact that our universe operates under specific laws. The argument for God’s necessity rests on philosophical reasoning, not merely our ability to conceive of other possibilities. The ontological framework supporting God’s necessity remains logically sound despite imaginative alternatives. --- 6. Addressing the Critique of Fine-Tuning Tactics It’s often claimed that theists use the concept of metaphysical necessity as a tactic to “explain away” the fine-tuning of the universe, and that this constitutes special pleading. However, this critique misunderstands the nature of the fine-tuning argument. The fine-tuning argument notes the astonishing precision of the universe’s constants, and rather than invoking chance or randomness, it posits a designer. The idea that only theism uses metaphysical necessity is incorrect because other alternative explanations like multiverses or brute facts also rely on speculative assumptions. The difference is that theism provides a grounded explanation with purpose, whereas alternatives often invoke randomness or lack intentionality. Theism’s explanation doesn’t rest on special pleading but on offering a coherent and comprehensive account of the data. --- In summary, the objections that often arise regarding metaphysical necessity, special pleading, and the fine-tuning argument involve misunderstandings. Theism provides a philosophically robust explanation for the existence of the universe and its fine-tuning, grounded in the nature of God as a necessary being. Alternative explanations fail to provide the same explanatory depth or rely on speculative assumptions without the intentionality or purpose that theism offers.

[@davecannabis]

and then theres the puddle analogy " ohh this is a lovely spot look how the edges of the ground fit my puddleness so well , if it was any different it wouldnt fit , it must be designed just for me"

[@nickrr5234]

I've never understood why people have a problem accepting a multiverse. We know that our universe exists. We don't know how it came into existence, but we know that it did. Having accepted this, why would someone assume that it has to be the only one? There's no other phenomenon where something is observed and you then conclude that it has to be unique. In fact, if you posit that our universe is unique, you should be giving a good reason why this is the case. If a reason can't be provided then the default assumption should be that other universes exist. The proposal that our universe was created or designed is clearly irrelevant unless it can shown why such a powerful entity exists in the first place.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

Thank you, Enlightenment era! Finally, we can recognize that if there is no intentionality, intelligibility, purpose, rationality, or predictability in our universe, then engaging in scientific inquiry becomes absurd. If we dismiss the foundations of design, we simultaneously undermine the very essence of science. The same reasoning that negates design also undermines language, mathematics, and the act of doing anything at all. Without a coherent framework that supports our understanding of the universe, the act of twiddling sticks together and scribbling equations on a board becomes nothing more than an exercise in futility. If we can't account for the principles that govern these activities, then what value do they truly hold? Are these activities being pursued for fun? Even the notion that doing these things could be enjoyable is undermined if we reject the idea of design. By assuming that engaging in a particular action will yield a specific outcome-like enjoying an experiment or a scientific inquiry-you are inherently presupposing that the universe operates in a coherent manner. However, if there is truly no design or underlying order, how can we claim that action 𝑋 X will lead to result 𝑌 Y? This contradiction exposes the fallacy in asserting that we can engage meaningfully with the universe while simultaneously denying its rational structure.

[@7inrain]

_"Thank you, Enlightenment era! Finally, we can recognize that if there is no intentionality, intelligibility, purpose, rationality, or predictability in our universe, then engaging in scientific inquiry becomes absurd."_ LOL, I rarely heard such an effed up misrepresentation of what the enlightenment is about. Why should we need intentionality or purpose in the universe itself in order to conduct science? Intelligibility and predictability is enough, as science shows us time and time again. _"The same reasoning that negates design also undermines language, mathematics, and the act of doing anything at all."_ That's a load of horse manure. Just because we humans can act intentionally doesn't mean there is an invisible designer in the sky for the universe. How galaxies formed, how stars produced the heavier elements needed for life, how planets formed that could host life... all this is governed by natural laws, not by a celestial dictator who urgently needed some two-legged and bare-skinned animals with bigger brains in order to worship him.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@7inrain So intelligibility and predictability is divorced from an agent that made things that way? Intentionality is the thing in question so to say "just because humans can act intentionally" is missing the thing in question, which is intentionality itself I'm guessing you also think "laws" are divorced from lawmakers? Idk where you're getting your information about God's intention, very strange conception of God you got there

[@michaelbuick6995]

But God would contradict the rational structure of the universe. Apparently he is using his magical powers to constantly dick around with physics. A miracle is by definition a magical suspension of the laws of material reality.

[@7inrain]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 _"So intelligibility and predictability is divorced from an agent that made things that way?"_ As long as you don't have sufficient evidence for the agent's existence you don't have a divorce and you don't have an argument. _"Idk where you're getting your information about God's intention, very strange conception of God you got there"_ I don't have any concept of God as I haven't seen any indication that he exists.

[@Chosidchosid770]

I'm curious Alex if you have given any thought to the reoccurring theme that much of the difference between an atheist and theist is merely the "by my lights" intuitions at the bottoms of various questions? Might this perhaps be philosophy's limitation on finding truth? And might it perhaps be argued that changing ones character and perceptions and thereby his intutions, is the better way of grasping or perceiving the obviousness of various arguments? Could it, in fact, be better for a theist to claim that there is indeed wisdom in living a g-dly life in order to perceive him? Granted, doesn't this seem to indicate that a person cannot trust himself to decide these questions (based on philosophical inquiry) since the very person judging is biased therby affecting his perception of the case? How are we to proceed?

[@thelyghter7927]

Best atheist discussion ever. Like a lot the tranquility and zero animosity of these two guys.

[@TestTubeGirl]

I don't understand how we know how many options there are and just how many options there are where life is possible. Basically, I don't understand how we know it's "fine tuned" when we don't know what the other options are.

[@simonhibbs887]

There's a common claim that particular questions 'demand an answer' put forward by some theists. Willam Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne say this for example. The implication, or even outright claim sometimes, is that having an answer (e.g. god did it) is inherently superior to not having an answer. It's a bit exasperating to even have to respond to this, yet it comes up all the time. An answer is only superior to not having an answer if that answer is accurate. If it isn't, it's just an obstacle to the impulse to investigate further, and having an open mind to find out the real answer. In some cases having an answer that's technically incorrect but still usefully predictive can be an advantage. Newtonian mechanics was a lot better than what we had before, even if Relativity is more accurate, and there may be an even better answer than that. Nevertheless we at least need some confidence that a provisional answer is correct in some respects, and the god of the gaps argument has proved to be so woefully, wildly, hilariously wrong or useless so many times, that sort of undermines it's credibility.

[@Yarp-y]

There is absolutely no general principle that says if some small aspect of something were changed, and that change would lead to catastrophe, then that system is designed. The world is filled with examples systems that can survive small changes that were not designed, and vice-versa.

[@aiya5777]

all the changes that happened and will ever happen are predetermined already from the BigBang, or myb even prior to that and so on ad infinitum the universe couldn't have been another way, it's predetermined for You to be born in the modern age and commenting on yt you're as inevitable as thanos

[@sordidknifeparty]

Alex asks what would even mean for an omnipotent God to be constrained by things like the strength of gravity or the strength of the strong nuclear force. One possible explanation for this can be demonstrated with an analogy. Imagine you have in front of you a piece of paper and you're holding a pen. Now you can choose to draw anything you want on that paper, anything at all. It could be a regular shape, it could be irregular, etc the only limit is your imagination. That said, the moment you choose to make a circle on that page you are committed to the constant, Pi. Again, you could have drawn anything you wanted, but if you choose to draw a circle Pi will emerge without fail because of the geometry of the circle. It could be the same way with an omnipotent creator. He could have chosen to create any kind of universe with any kind of laws, but as soon as he decided on what type of universe we were going to be in, one which He chose to be governed by logical principles, like pi all the other constant set themselves by logical necessity. He could have created any universe, but he chose to create ours, and ours follows these laws of physics, and because he wants the universe to remain rational, he follows the laws that he set, not because he has to but because he wants to. In this way a being can be omnipotent and yet still choose to constrain itself logically within a particular creation, and therefore be constrained in the values that the constants of that Universe take

[@PaulRezaei]

This is one of the first times in recent history that I think Alex misses the mark. He normally does a very good job of describing opposition to atheism but surprisingly he seems to misunderstand the argument from design here and also the argument of grounding of things like logic and morality. Still fun to watch and still feels like a genuine exploration for truth.

[@BDnevernind]

Can you give it a better shot? Also isnt fine tuning somewhat different from design or are they just two names for the exact same argument? Genuinely curious.

[@PaulRezaei]

@@BDnevernind Good question. The argument from design simply says that our reality appears to be designed. Design implies a designer. Fine tuning speaks specifically of the natural laws like gravity and nuclear weak forces that appear to be designed. As far a me giving it a better shot, I’m not sure I could. Actually, I definitely could represent the argument better and give a different way to combat it other than what was discussed in this vid. I’m a theist and even though Alex and I have different understandings, I enjoy watching him because he understands the theist’s position better than most.

[@kgsws]

@@PaulRezaei _our reality appears to be designed_ I see this repeated very often. I wonder, how does our reality actually appear to be designed?

[@BDnevernind]

@@PaulRezaei Ah ok thanks for that response. I am an atheist who finds fine tuning to be a really interesting argument for deism, but for me it really doesn't help the case for a creator agent that interacts with Earthlings. I see cosmic self sufficiency and deistic creation taking up nearly the entire probability space. The design argument that uses examples like wrist watches never suggests the designer can thereafter affect the watch's function.

[@PaulRezaei]

⁠@@BDnevernindnice. I really respect people who are in your position of considering deism because it tells me there is a more honest evaluation of the facts happening. @kgsws I would ask that question to Alex or any other serious atheist philosopher as they all agree it at least appears to be designed. That doesn’t mean it is of course.

[@bleedingthroat8665]

Why is by chance so unlikely, we don’t know how many „failed“ universes came before ours.

[@Pedanta]

Problem is we have no evidence (and arguably some good evidence to the contrary) that there were any "previous attempts" As far as we are aware, there has only ever been one attempt at a universe and it is this one. You're very welcome to put forward hypotheses about other attempts, but these would be put forward without evidence.

[@thelyghter7927]

Not only that, we HAVE evidence that there is no Before before the Big Bang

[@hehoopintv7832]

The idea of many 'failed' universes comes from the multiverse hypothesis, but that’s speculative since we don’t have evidence of other universes. Even if multiple universes exist, it doesn’t explain why our specific universe is fine-tuned for life. Just multiplying universes to explain away fine-tuning violates Occam's Razor, which suggests the simplest explanation is usually the best.

[@eetuaalto7214]

@@hehoopintv7832 It doesn't really matter if other universes exist or not because this universe necessarily has to be suitable for conscious life to emerge so we can be here to ponder this question. The problem doesn't exist in other universes that do not have such conditions and we have this solution in a universe that is suitable. Also the way I understand it is reality is a term which encompasses more than the universe does which in itself suggests other universe don't have to exist to us in order to be real though there is no way to verify if these definitions genuinely make sense.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Atheists are so fascinating. They are willing to accept the idea of billions of billions of universes popping into existence out of nothing with their own random combination of parameters for absolutely no reason until the “right” one is created than simply admitting they have no reasonable answer to the fine tuning argument. Man, the amount of faith atheists must have is unimaginable.

[@cm60854]

There's a guy called Ocean Keltoi who tackles some of the better arguments for and against religion from a polytheistic perspective. Would love to hear you guys way in on that

[@tubpete]

There are more than three possibilities. Chance, necessity, plan and evolution. If the universe exists, it found the right equation. Like the way a bubble rises to the surface. The fact we are here is owing to the evolution of the universe to a fine tuned phenomena. All other outcomes are not known to us because they cannot give life to us. Just a thought

[@MatthewBrowning-c9p]

for fine tuning I tend to think that theist are begging the question when they refer to these universal constants as being laws that "govern" the universe, when they're really just our way of *describing* what the universe does and how it functions. If they were different they wouldn't be the same (and potentially we wouldn't be here to observe them) so it just is what it is. If you want to ask *why* the constants are the way they are but you can't or won't explain why *god* has the attributes he has then you're just engaging in special pleading. Ultimately they're all just swimming around in Douglas Adams' puddle.

[@davidspencer343]

"I dont understand the most complicated and difficult things to understand about the universe. There for magic is obviously the answer"

[@theowarner]

So the way to best deal with this argument is to imagine a fish who argues that if the ocean were slightly more salty, no fish could live it. We really don't know much about what would happen if the universe were different... after all, we're just fish.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

So the Gods that created the Universe are also so very highly Finely Tuned as to create this state of the Universe as we see it... I fail to see how this solves a Fine Tuning issue; it only makes the problem worse.

[@nineteenninetyfive]

Ask anyone who is impressed by the fine tuning argument whether they are surprised all fish are found in water. It's what people said about the earth until we realised there were countless lifeless planets. In short, if there is a necessary constant, then of course every universe which continues to exist must have that constant. We don't know how many proto-universes were aborted because the constant was other than perfect. We also don't know that a universe couldn't exist if the constant was different because we only have one universe to examine. In other words it's a terrible terrible argument.

[@akajefe]

This isn't really a rebuttal, but fine tuning doesn't bother too much because the laws of physics in the world that we live in are not at all intuitive and there is a lot that we don't know. I think descriptions of different universes with foreign laws should be distrusted.

[@vladimirimp]

I haven’t heard this argument before - a designer has a style. Take Jonny Ives and his Apple products or Stella McCartney and her fashion designs; they have signature elements and an expert might easily identify that ‘that is a Stella McCartney’. So assuming that God designed a finely tuned universe we would expect similar fine tuning in everything else he made. And yet look at the redundancy and error in nature. Look at the obsolete genes, mutation leading to disease and infertility. Look at the 99% and more of all species that have died out. I think if we’re trying to claim there’s a designer of the universe who also designed life on Earth the evidence suggests otherwise.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

problem there is are the numbers aren't precise at all, they are a variety of values for different phenomena, you can tweak a lot of them quite a way before we all keel over dead. what everyone misses is saying life is "bzillions to one against" god's odds of life - if that's what he wants and not just toilet rolls - should be 1:1 not bzillions to one. god would coarse tune if he wants life. why would anyone make their goal almost unobtainable?

[@uppahyoursy6598]

Atheists seem to have a blind spot for teleos as in purpose, like Hume wrote(not verbatim): How he just couldn't understand how his consciousness could will things to happen to other parts of his body like willing your fingers to move. Yes, things would have to move in a certain way (like the fine tuning ) for it to work. From as above so below type of perspective you could say God willed us into existence for a reason a purpose and everything, even the actual universe we're living in with the finely tuned aspects wasn't designed by God just like how the muscles etc work to make you move your finger isn't part of your intent, God's intent would be if you believe Teilhard de Chardin, to bring the Cosmic Christ into existence

[@michaelbuick6995]

It's not a blindspot. There's just no evidence for it. Theists seem to do the inverse they use the fact that they are perceiving agency as proof of agency, even though phenomena such as pareidolia are well known.

[@russellcook8735]

Also, I feel Alex has kind of exhausted the atheism vs monotheism discussions. (Yes, a single omnipotent creator God, who is also the ground of being, who also one time gave us some rules to follow, is a difficult concept to defend.) Maybe move on to some different metaphysical systems? Hindu/Buddhist metaphysics is pretty interesting for a start.

[@AK33M]

It doesn't matter how low the probability is. The universe has existed for billions of years. At some point, that low probability event will inevitably occur.

[@Chevsilverado]

I believe this can be answered by saying it’s due to necessity, in a few different ways. First of all, who’s to say that these values could be different in the first place? Is there a random number generator arbitrarily assigning fundamental forces to particles? The second way is that maybe these constants could be different in another universe. You could say that there are an infinite number of alternate universes which either exist for a fraction of a second or exist in a state of complete disorder with random energy everywhere. If there’s an infinite number of universes there’s an infinite number that are stable, and we obviously cannot exist in an unstable universe. Or, instead of infinite universes, the Big Bang is the start of our universe in a continuum of universes that existed far into the past. Obviously we necessarily exist in one of the stable universes, and that is not unlikely. Maybe before our universe there was an infinite amount of time where these constants could somehow emerge to create stable atoms. Maybe the constants are a product of the start of our universe, not the prerequisite. There’s so much talk about “fine tuning” these fundamental forces and most people don’t even understand what these forces are. The idea that gravity can’t be a hair off is actually false. Gravitational interactions between particles is extraordinarily minimal and it’s an emergent property. Sure, it may mean earth as we know it probably does not exist, but that doesn’t mean there cannot be any earth like planets. This applies to fundamental forces too, people way overexaggerate how exact they need to be to have stable atoms. Changes would result in an entirely different universe, perhaps with different chemistry a physics, but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be stable and host life. To back my claims up with some actual physics, according to Stanford the true limit to differences in these constants is 50% for the strong nuclear force and 10x for the weak nuclear force before chemistry doesn’t work. The cosmological constant has multiple orders of magnitude leeway. I’m no physicist so I cannot verify these claims but I’ve seen similar things discussed. This is all referring to life and physics as we know it. Who’s to say there isn’t a completely different set of constants that are WAY off of what we have, while still supporting life in a way we cannot imagine. This is assuming that constants are random numbers with no further backing, but it’s entirely possible these constants must be what they are due to some underlying framework that’s unknown to us. No matter what the real nature of our universe is, there’s so many ways to refute this argument that have at very minimum the same amount of credibility as claiming there’s a creator. And who’s to say that creator would be a Christian god?

[@ninjametroid175]

Great conversation. Fine tuning is not necessarily evidence of God constrained to meta-parameters. It could easily be a proof of craftsmanship and skill, such as a blade worker capable of a trademark precision. A flex, if you will.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

problem there is the se numbers aren't precise at all, they are a variety of values for different phenomena, you can tweak a lot of them quite a way before we all keel over dead. what everyone misses is saying life is "bzillions to one against" god's odds of life - if that's what he wants and not just toilet rolls - should be 1:1 not bzillions to one. god would coarse tune if he wants life. why would anyone make their goal almost unobtainable?

[@bradpalmer8473]

Gotta be honest, I find the fine-tuning argument to be the WORST argument for god? Am I the only one? I think it's pretty easily countered by the "Puddle Analogy" argument so eloquently described by Douglas Adams. We just think everything is a perfect fit because we look at the relationship from the wrong perspective. Plus the "chance" argument actually seems pretty plausible to me, we don't have any way to measure the number of possible "failed" or "different" universes that may or may not have existed before or during the lifetime of our universe, so ruling out "chance" isn't really an option if you're being intellectually honest. Sure, you can't rule it IN either, but I'd say Occam's Razor does seem to point more towards chance than "magical sky-daddy".

[@Ben-oc3fg]

I am sure this argument has been answered. But could one not argue that only in a fine tuned universe things that could perceive its meaning could exist. So isn't it sort of circular in that way. What would be the counter to that from a theist? Seriously curious.

[@russell6011]

Precision is a matter of degree in reference to an arbitrary reference and smuggles in the assumption of being able to dial in the precision. IE: its only "fine tuned" in reference to what humans can machine to. If a ball rolls down a 1cm slope and a planet moves 10 billions miles in its arc path. Was the ball rolling path fine tuned in reference to the planetary movement? No its all just the physical requirements of the system. These "fine tuned" values are just what was naturally necessary for the system to operate as it does for us to evolve to the level to observe it. The decimal value of a result is just the mathematical languages used to describe that event. 1.0 cm is exactly as precise as 10^-1000000 cm. Just one is bigger than the other. We just have a problem, as humans, being able to create something as small as 10^-1000000 cm. Also, this universe is our only data point with zero data on the process of how universes are formed. IE: coin flipping. We know the physics that goes into flipping a coin and we know all the possible results of the process. So we can "fine tune" for heads or tails or just not being able to flip the coin or just throwing the coin away and destroying it. We have no idea what the processes are for determining the coin flip process of how universes are made. We have no idea of the number of sides of the coin flip that can come up from the attempt to create universes. So you can't assume fine tuning at all when you cant justify at all that the process of creating universes is tunable.

[@kayleighhrf]

gotta love watching 2 nerds geek over philosophical topics

[@HarryNicNicholas]

grown men talking about santa claus. gets me every time.

[@thinboxdictator6720]

he said that it was the best apologists got,it doesn't mean it's nowhere near good (or that it bothered him).

[@im2randomghgh]

We can only exist under very particular parameters, true, but do we know how long matter existed in a hot dense state for, prior to the big bang? To the extent time could even exist in that state, the duration of the existence of everything may very well be in proportion to its likelihood.

[@Oscar-ek2jx]

If the universe wasnt perfect then we wouldn't be here, we wouldnt be able to ask this question, and therefore, the universe is required to be perfect for consciousness.

[@torbjornkallstrom2316]

The fine tuning argument is an argument for multiverse theory, if anything. If there's only one universe, then why THIS universe?

[@MarcusW8]

The "fine tuning argument" isn't really an argument at all. It's merely pointing out the truism that 'if things were different, things would've been different' followed by hand-waving. It's so utterly dumb...

[@Pharaoh126]

You don’t understand the argument. It’s not saying things would have been different it’s saying there wouldn’t be a universe or life at all

[@crowderpiano]

To me, I am worried it is potentially a post-hoc argument for our existence, though on this question I am coming from a point of necessity. To me, this means that the conditions of my existence were built up through years of decision-like processes.

[@ronrolfsen3977]

​@@Pharaoh126 I guess I also do not understand the argument. You just described something different, but claim you are not saying things would have been different.

[@im2randomghgh]

Think of it this way: if you're arguing that, for example, a small change to the gravitational constant would have prevented the formation of stars and planets, that's true using the current characteristics of stars and planets. If stars and planets had different characteristics, they might be perfectly capable of forming under a different gravitational constant. That's why this is considered to amount to "if things were different, they'd be different"​@@Pharaoh126

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@Pharaoh126 if you're designing a universe, and you're also designing it's inhabitants, why do you need to fine tune anything? just make them compatible.

[@lakkakka]

I really like the gnostic take. It would explain why life is so rotten. And the gnostic stories are just awesome compared to regular christians.

[@briansmith3791]

I like a lot of Gnosticism too. The designation of an evil demiurge as the creator of this world, was simply the gnostics' attempt to explain suffering, while still believing in a Loving God. Today the universal fine-tuning explains the continued existence of suffering and why a creator cannot physically interfere in the universe to stop it. We have observable evidence for one universe which appears fine-tuned for Life. That points to a non-interfering creator.

[@Logical.Psychopath]

>This argument is not valid or sound. Elaboration: - Theists assume that the universe can be tuned. How quaint! - Theists claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life. (Incorrect, elaborated after-surprise, surprise!) - Theists assume that the universe can be different from what it is now. Quite the imaginative leap! - Theists assume that the universe we live in is the only one that can support life or there would be no life. Talk about a *false dichotomy*, which is a logical fallacy. - Theists assume that the probability of this universe is low with assumptions that it can even exist in any other form and with *ZERO* statistical data. Newsflash: we’ve never observed the birth of the universe or any other universe, assuming there’s more than one. - Theists assume that the universe is tuned by something supernatural, rather than natural. Because, of course, *magic* is a much more reasonable explanation! - Theists assume that the universe is tuned by an entity rather than something not alive, or a mechanism, process, or something similar. How delightfully simplistic! - Theists assume not only that the fine-tuning is done by something supernatural (already an enormous assumption) but that this was a supernatural entity. Good luck with that! - Theists assume that this entity can even exist. Just a little hurdle there, right? - Theists assume that this entity can fine-tune the universe. Because who wouldn’t want to play God, right? - Theists assume that this entity wants to tune the universe. How generous of them! - Theists assume that this entity actually did tune the universe. Because, you know, it's not like there's any evidence to back that up. - (ANY natural assumption one can come up with is ultimately more likely and actually PLAUSIBLE, unlike ANY magic, let alone the magical sky daddy they cling to.) - Theists assume that we do not live in a multiverse and that our universe is just one of many. Apparently, their imagination has limits! - Theists assume that we do not live in a simulation created by other natural beings. Because who would ever think outside the box, right? - You get the point... (AND, if all of those assumptions theists make up there aren’t enough, theists then argue for a specific god, of which all have been debunked; so even more assumptions and unsupported, disproven claims after this failed attempt at reasoning). ... I can go on about how MANY assumptions theists are making. They are violating *Occam’s Razor* MASSIVELY and are committing at least one logical fallacy (false dichotomy). >*And this universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.* We can live only on this tiny percentage of land on this ocean-dominated rock in this one solar system, in this one galaxy, surrounded by 2 trillion galaxies. If theists were to be randomly teleported ANYwhere in the universe, the chance of them not dying INSTANTLY or in a few seconds without a MASSIVE amount of ADVANCED technology is *0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(ad near infinitum)1%.* So their only claim among the sea of assumptions is flat-out incorrect.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

15 minutes to basically admit atheists have no idea of how to reasonably respond to the fine tuning argument.

[@JohnBaran-kw5jf]

Why not just have weekly debates with Trent Horn? You and Horn are the best representatives of your respective ideologies. Picking on someone who clearly has a lower power level is not wrong, but it is an easy win.

[@Mohammad-Darwish]

Think of this, you assume the universe tuning are static and have always been like that. What if the laws of nature.....evolve ......in relation of the universe.... U assume that the laws if nature are fixed, static, and deterministic....what if its the opposite...

[@mobatyoutube]

The argument from "fine tuning" is an argument from ignorance. We don't know why the constants are what they are. That should be the end of the discussion for now.

[@thoughtsaboutnothing8776]

Necessity is the best call I think. Try to Imagine a universe where the relation between a line and the half circumference of a circle produced by it is not Pi eg not 3.14... but something different. It seems impossible right? It defies logic. Why cant there be a fundamental reason necessitating the strength of gravity to be what it is in the same manner?

[@kennethgee2004]

oh no it is way more tuned than that. The cosmological constant is 10^-23 in magnitude and it cannot be varied by more than 1% so you are looking at 10^-25. A billionth is only 10^-12. We are talking like 1 billionth of 1 billionth. This is just one of many such physical constants that are defined in nature.

[@gaithouri]

this fine tuning .. its weird for me.. check this thought.. its maybe stupid .. but i have to say it.. how do we know about the fine tuning is fine tuning ? we know this through the equations we have developed to describe the forces we see at work in the universe.. se .. when we plug some other values to the equations, then the equations go crazy.. lets say the values were a bit different in the actual universe .. then we would develop equations to describe that other universe.. to which, equations if we would put other values, those equations would go crazy too so that would be a fine tuned universe too.. wouldnt it ? is the fine tuning concept a big misunderstanding ? .... i dont know what im talking about.. but theere.....

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

If we are made in God's image, then it follows that we have access to certain capacities that reflect the divine mind, such as reason, logic, and the ability to grasp universal, non-contingent truths. But if we are not made in God's image-if we are just finite beings in a contingent, ever-changing universe-then how could we possibly access or even conceive of immutable knowledge, like the proposition "God exists" or "God does not exist"? These propositions aren’t just statements of fact-they imply something non-contingent, something that doesn't change and isn't dependent on temporal, finite factors. The human mind is contingent, finite, and constantly changing. How, then, can it grasp something infinite and immutable unless it bears some reflection of the divine? Knowledge, by definition, involves the ability to access non-changing, universal truths, yet everything about the human mind is subject to change. So if knowledge is real, and if we can indeed grasp these kinds of universal truths, then there must be something in us-our rational capacities, our nature as beings made in God's image-that allows us to transcend our finite limitations. Without that divine image, or without grounding our ability to know in something beyond ourselves, knowledge itself becomes incoherent. If the mind is merely a product of contingent, finite processes, then truth would shift with time, and there would be no such thing as fixed, universal knowledge. This leads to an even more fundamental question: Can non-personal entities know things or possess knowledge? Knowledge requires intentionality, rationality, and the capacity for abstract reasoning-all characteristics of personal beings. So, without acknowledging some kind of divine mind or image, even the existence of knowledge becomes hard to justify.

[@gaithouri]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 i think this is irrelevant and also false

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@gaithouri What's you justification? Or do you think unjustified beliefs are ok?

[@idesel]

I listen to people who have dedicated their entire lifes to studying such topics, not apologists who even misquote such people. I'm not sure wjat an all powerful god needs to tune, he apparently created everything from nothing, what is he tuning against? Any value should do with his unlimited power.

[@harrisonbennett7122]

I don't see the problem, why question if the constants could be different or whatever? They just are what they are.

[@stunningkruger]

to use our intuition is to be in tuition with who or what? i think Alex is moving toward a position of being a Gnostic agnostic. why is it that the wise have many whys? great discussion guys. 👍 Gnosis Genesis Kenosis

[@future-ui2be]

finally we see this. When Alex said "Imagine the immaterial creator God is constrained by universal constances *before* the creation of the universe, like what?" *But* Alex himself in another video made a similar argument to Dr. Craig by saying "What if before the big bang, only this universe could come into being out of nothing, because of a certain property it has?" So it's clear thhat the same kind of paradox can be unthinkable to Alex, but possible to Alex if it supports atheism.

[@drsatan9617]

You clearly don't know what a paradox is

[@future-ui2be]

@@drsatan9617 the paradox is in the fact that the properties of the universe have to exist in order to constrain other things from coming into existence. Patadox, contradiction idk. At least with God you can say the properties of the universe already existed as an idea in the mind of God before he created them. But universe ex nihilo doesnt have that.

[@drsatan9617]

@@future-ui2be that's not a paradox. The universe literally means all space and matter considered as a whole No one says that the universe began to exist ex nihilo

[@pogadol]

why is it not necessity though? cancelling the necessity arguement kinda seem like gamblers falacy to me.

[@dantessmith7334]

Cancelling the designer argument seems like cognitive bias. Some things are OccamsRazor and much easier just to accept there is a designer.

[@japexican007]

Why couldn’t we all be SpongeBob heads saying mine mine mine every single second

[@pogadol]

@@japexican007 i guess if we were that we wouldnt find it as odd.

[@japexican007]

@@pogadolso is it a necessity or is it possible we could’ve been a species with only one arm? Only one leg, why are two legs necessary?, why is there only life in this planet and not every other planet if evolution is prone to life

[@DURRAKUKSI]

Can it be possible that the Designer was just playing dice or experimenting things, and probably isn't even aware about earth, since universe is vast lol ?

[@fetB]

8:40 i think very likely otherwise you would need someone to interfere with it.

[@BreatheManually]

If you give that the universe is fine tuned, fine tuned for what, human life? Without the premise of the religions, the universe can be fine tuned for a multitude of things. For example, the world could be fine tuned for evil. Since life/free will/sentience is necessary for evil, they just so happened to be a byproduct.

[@paulthompson9668]

The fine tuning argument presumes the possibility of tuning. Who says the constants of the universe are tunable?

[@jinsil.v212]

You're misunderstanding. God doesn't tune it after the fact. It was created in a fine tuned way, with all things perfectly adjusted (and yes, abiding by constants which have their origin in God) from the start to make life possible.

[@paulthompson9668]

@@jinsil.v212 First of all, who's to say it was created. And second, who's to say the constants could be anything other than what they are?

[@jinsil.v212]

@@paulthompson9668 (you meant to say: who's to say the constants *couldn't* be anything other..." right?) If the constants were different, it would reflect in reality. Reality would be different, since it's a direct result of the constants being at work. What you could ask is, why are things the way they are. Because scientifically, the material universe is known to have a beginning. Hence it has to have been created. Simple cause and effect. 'Created' because you can't get something from nothing.

[@handsoap2120]

@@jinsil.v212There is literally no scientific theory that suggests the “creation of something from nothing”

[@aiya5777]

the universe is inherently chaotic so yea, at some point in time, law and order were added by the tuner to make the universe less chaotic

[@HarryNicNicholas]

if you're designing a universe, and you're also designing it's inhabitants, why do you need to fine tune anything? just make them compatible.

[@mach7479]

Are we saying a god couldn’t design a universe without these constants? It’s really bizarre to link design with infinite flexibility to the lack of flexibility in the current universe.

[@davidspencer343]

The mustache is growing on me.... wait no... its growing on him. Im still distressed by it

[@mmoreno7137]

So it must have a designer because the odds of it happening by chance are so long. Why are we assuming that the odds against random chance are greater than the odds of an eternal perfect immaterial being that for some unknown reason created everything? I admit we can't calculate either odds but the ones that seem to be less likely to me don't involve randomness.

[@lurch666]

' I admit we can't calculate either odds' So you can't know one is less likely than the other can you? Given the current evidence no deity created this universe. So currently the evidence says the odds of this universe happening is 1 in 1.

[@jinsil.v212]

@@lurch666 That's just absurd. It also shows that the term God is always misunderstood by atheists. What exactly is so hard about believing in the immaterial or eternal? Only if you don't actually realize what is meant by these concepts, would you think so. Math is eternal and immaterial. Love is. Consiousness is. These are real and everybody accepts that. Only when it comes to God, does it somehow not register that God is to be understood in the exact same way. God is NOT a floating being in the air that can ever be measured. It's a term describing several attributes which are eternal, unchanging, immaterial and have personality and intentionality/will. By definition. And these attributes don't exist as a state of matter. Which is why they can't be measured by scientific methods. (You also cannot measure math or love, can you? Yet it is real)

[@lurch666]

@@jinsil.v212 'What exactly is so hard about believing in the immaterial or eternal?' Lack of evidence. There's evidence for math,love and consciousness. No evidence for any deity. 'eternal, unchanging, immaterial and have personality and intentionality/will.' How do you know all this about a deity that's immaterial,that doesn't exist as a state of matter?

[@misterocain]

So we are saying that God designed the Universe in the only possible way? That would make God a discoverer rather than a creator/designer. Surely a god could design a universe(s) in many different ways. Actually, i'd like to know to what end the fine tuning is for. Is it for mankind or some other purpose?

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

It’s not that God was "forced" to design the universe in one specific way, but rather that the universe reflects God’s intentionality and unchanging nature. In Christianity, the fine-tuning serves a purpose-creation exists to behold God's glory and to enter into eternal communion with Him. Saying that God could’ve designed the universe in any number of arbitrary ways suggests a contingent God, which contradicts Christian theology. God’s will is not arbitrary; it reflects His perfect and unchanging nature. So, the fine-tuning is about more than just mankind-it’s part of God’s greater plan for all creation.

[@patrickthomas2119]

so the only answer to the fine tuning problem is play definition games and redefine what counts as logical justifications? That is a terrible counter argument. I would say a better counter argument to the fine tuning is the fact we look at it in retrospective; it only appears this way because we are seeing it from our relative perspective and looking backwards. @10:00 I don't agree with Alex's protest to the idea of an infinite external God being constrained by natural laws. If the being was bound* by parameters it defined for itself (such as needing to be logically consistent and not creating paradoxes) then a God limiting itself to operate within natural parameters when interacting with Nature would not only be a valid argument but also logically sound. Personally if I was to believe in a God it would not be one that creates the laws of nature and then proceeds to piss all over them when it feels like it.

[@timandmonica]

If a creator/creators create something that only works when it's balanced on a razor's edge, but any deviation in any way would make the whole thing fall apart, what does that tell us about the quality of the engineering? For that matter, how do we know they are only intelligent enough to create AI, then after AI being around for a hundred years, it taught them how to create a universe. So they are the creators, but not all-powerful. Not even smart enough to make a universe on their own, actually.

[@LouisKlokkk]

I’m favoured only God knows how much I praise Him, $130k every 4weeks I now have a big mansion and happy family!

[@ExcitedDolphins-sr5xz]

How did you do it? Do explain please 😯 My family have been into series of sufferings lately

[@LouisKlokkk]

All thanks to Christina Ann Tucker

[@LouisKlokkk]

After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.

[@csjohns4]

I do know Christina A. Tucker, I also have even become successful....

[@Ilovemyselfdespitemyself]

Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Christina Ann Tucker.

[@MrKfmaster]

Easy, we don’t know if it could’ve even been different

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

9:38 Yes, God has constraints, entropy! At least I believe so,, The bigger question is how God overcame the problem of creating individuals outside of Himself? How do you make a separate entity beside yourself?

[@MrMorale96]

The bible often paints God to be an artist and one thing thats true about em is that they love do things that are extremely close to impossible. God making the universe with such precision is nothing shocking.

[@kristianwichmann9996]

The anthropic argument is also a common response. Btw, the fineness of the tuning sounds exaggerated.

[@creednex]

Thee ontological argument is just vibes. The universe just feels like it's created.and beingg completelyy serious

[@peterwright5311]

If they think the universe is fine tuned. Ask them if they'd be like to be teleported to a random coordinate somewhere in the known universe. If it really is intelligently designed to support human life, they'll be fine, right?

[@francubric9941]

This is a bad response. The point of the fine tuning argument is that, the universe is so finely tuned for life on earth not in outer space or on the sun. It is like saying, your house is not build for you to live in, because if you jump out of the window you will die.

[@xav4391]

No it’s not. Everything in a house is designed to make living easier or better. The roof protects you from the elements at and so do the walls, any tables let you put stuff on them and work etc cupboards let you store things The universe is not like this. If you removed the entire rest of the universe, except for the solar system, almost nothing would change, we would still live. That’s the argument being made, 99.99999999% of the universe is not fine tuned for us, so what makes us think the .0000001% is?

[@BDnevernind]

Yeah i don't buy fine tuning but this is not how to thwart it. This refutes the.Biblical God but not the idea of a fine tuner per se, since the argument ie about fine tuning not for life but for existence.

[@multi-milliondollarmike5127]

​@@francubric9941Not exactly. It's the premise that the universe is finely tuned for life. Problem is that most of the universe is chaotic and random, so life on earth has to be considered an anomoly from the rng factors of the universe. But theists don't think about that.

[@peterwright5311]

@@francubric9941 It's finely tuned for life in 1/10000000000000000000000000000th of the universe? Seems like a poor rebuttal.

[@im2old4this2]

The multiverse explain it. Perhaps an infinite number of universes are attempted and the ones where the constants of the respective universes work together continue. Ours is one of those.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

This implies agency, purpose and intent unless you believe non persons can "attempt" infinite number of universes, which also implies categories, value judgements, expression of said value judgements etc but unless of course you think non persons can differentiate between "making a universe that is not like a universe that was made previously" or the judgment of a "universe being unlike any other made before" this implies personhood but again unless you believe that a non personal being is capable of things that persons can be / have then power to you It's like "it's not a person but it does everything a person does"

[@im2old4this2]

“Attempt” may be the wrong word. Does a nuclear reaction have intention? Of course not. So something like that happens and, as very “time,” however that may exist outside our universe, creates an infinite number of “universe” outcomes, some of which continue longer than others. Our universe is expected to end at some point. Why should we think this is the only one?

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

The nuclear reaction example doesn't quite work in this context. When you say a nuclear reaction doesn't have intent, you're making a vacuous statement. Intentions are inherently tied to agency; they require a being capable of exercising that agency. A nuclear reaction, being an event rather than an agent, cannot possess intentions-it merely follows the laws of physics. Regarding your second point, it seems you’re suggesting that there may be other universes, which is a possibility some theories propose. However, I'm not entirely clear on how this notion connects to the argument about design. The existence of multiple universes doesn't inherently negate the possibility that our universe exhibits design or intentionality. In fact, if there are other universes, the question remains: what accounts for their existence? The design we observe in our universe might suggest a designer, regardless of whether other universes exist.

[@im2old4this2]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 My argument is that intention and agency are not needed in an eternal multiverse existence. No God. No design. Energy that may form universe “bubbles” like ours and other,s each with their own fundamental laws

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

The term "forming" suggests intention and design, attributes typically associated with personal agency. When you describe energy that may create universe "bubbles," it implies a process of delineation and distinction that seems inherently personal. It’s interesting to note that when you attempt to explain these concepts non-personally, the language often leads back to personal attributes. This pattern suggests that even in an eternal multiverse scenario, explanations still hint at agency or intention. Could it be that the concepts we use to describe such processes are inherently tied to our understanding of personal attributes?

[@mrjayz94]

Theists have no ground to stand on here. If we were talking about a generic (deist) creator, this would be a fine conversation. But if we are talking about the specific God of the Bible, they have to explain why the creator of the universe has a personal, emotional relationship with an evolved species of primate in one area of one planet, among billions of galaxies, each containing billions of planets (within the observable Universe alone) and cares what days of the week you work on/what you do while naked/insert other arbitrary commandments. After they’ve done explaining that, they have to now address the problems with the Bible itself which include scientific inaccuracies, logical fallacies, geo-historical discrepancies, canonical contradictions, moral inconsistencies, mythological similarities, man-made changes, unsubstantiated doctrines, theological presuppositions, disputed canonisation, ever-changing heresy, polytheistic origins, failed prophecy, literary forgeries, post-hoc rationalisations, dependancy on decades-old translated oral testimonials and the fact that the books of the Bible are written by various, fallible authors.

[@japexican007]

Atheists when it comes to God: no thanks I’ll take science Atheism when it comes to science discovery of how fine tuned our structure is No thanks we just don’t know No thanks that’s just how it has to be Just because it’s fine tuned doesn’t mean your God did it

[@7inrain]

"I don't know." is a perfectly valid answer if you don't know. And it is much more valid than the theistic "There's my preferred invisible man in the sky who dunnit all. Evidence? Nah, we don't need that!"

[@aroemaliuged4776]

Fine tuning is fine it meets the fine religious Who are obviously fine people

[@aroemaliuged4776]

Chris hitchens was in a car once😂 For the post hitchens guy😂 Ok boy