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

[@johnstarrett7754]

The fourth reason is this: the universe exists, and the constants are what they are because that is what we measured and calculated. There is no way things could have been different because there is no "could have been". There is only this.

[@Aiething]

@@johnstarrett7754 Imagine Newton explaining the fall of the apple by (that's just what we measure and that's how the universe works and it couldn't be otherwise)

[@briansmith3791]

Yes, the universe is the way it is due to the inherent values of the Constants. How those values came about, we don't know. We have observable evidence for one universe which appears fine-tuned for Life. My view has been that a Mind set up the universe in order that intelligent Life/consciousness/new information might come about. If those qualities came about due to unknown random events, that's a strange coincidence.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

And in that case, all of our scientific measurements, calculations and conclusions were locked in at the dawn of time whether or not they are utterly delusional.

[@tonicogsf]

Yes. It’s like saying: if everyone’s red was actually yellow, and everyone’s yellow was actually blue (and so on), we would all be seeing everything differently! But yeah, all the relations between colors would be different, and that would be the way it is. What I’m also questioning is this idea that - if gravity was just a bit different, everything would collapse. Well, maybe it would if everything else remained the same, but they probably wouldn’t be the same since “necessity” really is the best word to describe the way things just are, and maybe all the laws of physics and meta laws of the universe are dependent of each other (like colors) and things would still exist but they would be different. Do we really know if this combination of parameters are the only possible combination for a universe to existe? How do we even know that? (And maybe a physicist could explain this better to me)

[@familiarstranger9617]

that would be necessity

[@TimCrinion]

So nice to see a conversation on the internet where one side does not just straw-man or mock their opponents.

[@columbo5173]

they're both atheists

[@infrnlmssh9719]

They aren't opponents, though. Might have something to do with it.

[@TimCrinion]

​@infrnlmssh9719 but they are discussing an argument that they do not agree with

[@taranmellacheruvu2504]

@@infrnlmssh9719 The “opponent” is the person who they’re talking *about* : one who poses the fine-tuning argument

[@infrnlmssh9719]

@@taranmellacheruvu2504 The other guy said something different. Like I said. Their conversation is like listening to someone argue what is the best food in the world: Pizza with cheese or Pizza with sauce.

[@robinharwood5044]

Alex grew the moustache to prove that God is not merciful.

[@williampark4585]

That doesn't make sense.

[@robinharwood5044]

@@williampark4585 A merciful God would not have subjected us to such a sight.

[@tayne0525]

@@robinharwood5044😭😭😭 dont do him like that

[@Maximum7077]

It doesn't look bad .

[@RabidLeech1]

@@robinharwood5044Dang bro ima Christian but this is seriously making me rethink my worldview💀😭

[@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.)

[@hamnchee]

The sentient puddle thinks the hole in the sidewalk was finely tuned to his shape.

[@briansmith3791]

Adams' puddle analogy is really the Anthropic Principle, which says that a universe with intelligent Life will appear fine-tuned for Life. That's THIS universe, there is zero observable evidence for any other...and probably never will be.

[@davidblack4426]

What is the purpose of being so absolutely reductionist that you make literally nothing of the whole endeavor of science, as the understanding of grounding principles for existence? When you reach this level of cope, you need to get a real job.

[@hamnchee]

@@davidblack4426 I got no idea what you're talking about.

[@broncosboy000]

​@@davidblack4426it's not reductionist, it only appears reductionist because we're willing to look at the big picture enough to see that the thousands of steps we've taken thus far might only equate to a mile on a thousand mile journey. It's makes sense to sensationalize our experiences; it makes us feel good about ourselves. What atheists are saying is that we still have meaning through not knowing, whereas the religious attempt to claim knowing because a group of people 2000 years ago said so.

[@davidblack4426]

@@broncosboy000 Please explain the difference between an ideology appearing vs being? And be sure to use a phrase like, "it makes 'sense' to be 'sensationalist'," - you know, like how our consciousness relies on senses as a baseline for knowledge of existence. I'm not trying to be rude. It made me chuckle. I'm a very big-picture guy myself, with enough of a grasp on chemistry and physics and the math of gravity to really appreciate the Dunning-Kruger effect. I have a lot of gaps to fill before I'm satisfied. But from a purely pragmatic perspective, what actual good does it do you to approach that event horizon of nihilism, in embracing the pale blue dot weltanschauung? I don't know if I agree with those who say atheism requires great faith, but certainly most are stuck in their concretizing left brain. And as you say, 'being satisfied in not knowing' is much more of a defining quality of an agnostic. A great many religious people are intellectually grounded AND embrace a healthy humility of unknowing. But to say "we all are gods" or that "we all are space dust" are not practical stances for growth in areas not dominated by intellectual elitism. Areas like Art, Culture, and Love.

[@ninjaTyj]

The most frustrating thing about this argument to me is that people seem to presume a near zero chance for an event where there is literally no way to determine statistics or probability. Then they proceed to treat that near 0% chance as the exact same thing as a 0% chance while either missing or ignoring the fact that their logic suggests that literally any other State of affairs would have the exact same near 0% chance of occurring (which ultimately means that The same argument works for any/all States of affairs). Then after all of that, They insert their personal hypothesis for how this "impossible" thing that they cannot investigate could have happened (usually while arguing that their hypothesis Is more likely than any other hypothesis despite there being no evidence or testing done to show that their hypothesis is even possible, let alone more likely). And then they treat their uneducated guess (and by uneducated I don't mean stupid, I mean literally uninformed because there is no possible way for them to be informed about this topic) as valid as established facts Strong enough for them to build other ideas onto.

[@scp170190]

agreed. people who talk about the fine-tuning and how things are so perfectly made for us etc etc are just demonstrating their ignorance of the context and timeframe in which we exist. Conditions on earth, and for earth, were not *at all* conducive to human life for 99.9% of its existence thus far. As well as the fact that it is a terribly human, and in most cases hard-coded, error to consider everything from our own narrow perspective. To look at something that *is* and deduce that it therefore must have been 'created' or 'made/designed' is actually ridiculous. To believe that you know, absolutely, the truth about the universe, based on the couple of years you've been alive and a 'holy' book you subscribe to is the pinnacle of human hubris.

[@Daniel-ti4yw]

i think you misunderstood something: the argument is not, that the universe is so special because it is in this certain „beautiful“ way but that life would not be possible in any other way of the universe’s existence. that’s how we know that the chance of existence of life is indeed very significantly low - what points to a creator. And what do you mean by „determine statistics or probability“? I mean we know that life wouldn’t be possible with different circumstances (for example the gravitational constant or the electric load of a proton). But i agree that this argument is not 100 % convincing considering the possibility for multiverses.

[@robberlin2230]

@@ninjaTyj what would be clear evidence for a creator in your eyes?

[@ninjaTyj]

@@Daniel-ti4yw i believe you've misunderstood what i said. I was not trying to insinuate that the argument was about beauty. For starters, There is literally no viable way to test and verify different universal constants because there's no way to change the universal constants. Valid scientific experiments require independent and dependent variables. But since there 's no way to vary the constants, there's no way to have any variables in any tests we do (which essentially just means that it's impossible to do science to validate possibility of life life in other universes.) Heck we don't even have any concrete reasons to believe that that it is even possible to change the constants let alone what things would be like if we changed them. Who's to say that life wouldn't take a different shape and have different characteristics in a different universe with different constants? Even if we Grant the unsubstantiated idea that life as we currently understand it could not survive a universe with different constants, There's no way to verify that life couldn't simply work fundamentally differently in those universes. There's also the problem of the fact that if we Grant the premise that the constants could be changed to be anything, we must also Grant the premise that they could be changed so drastically that our current understanding of physics and math simply do not work the same in those different universes. Even within our own universe there examples of scenarios where our physics break down (planck) So we DO know for sure that it is possible for the values of the constants to become so far away from our current values that there's literally no justification for saying that anything is possible or impossible in those universes. It's also notable that there are technically, mathematically speaking, more "possible" permutations of the constants that do not work with our current math and physics then there are ones where we could reasonably use our own physics to guess what would happen in them. This, of course, naturally means that even if the entire argument was granted, it could still logically follow that there could be infinitely more possible universes with life than there are ones without life (which would ultimately mean that would actually be more likely than not for there to be a stable universe with life. This is also ALL besides the fact that it is also false to think that an "all powerful god" wouldn't be able to make life fit within any universe regardless of the constants. God can do whatever he wants so Even from a purely theistic perspective, there's no justification for the idea that life could not be possible in any other universe. Again, if we're granting that, the constants could be changed, there's no reason not to Grant the idea that the conditions for life itself couldn't be changed to fit any possible universes. If we're granting the idea that the constants can be changed, why not Grant the idea that the conditions for a stable universe can't be changed? BTW, there is a mathematical formula for determining statistical probability. Its P=N/T where P= probability N= number of favorable outcomes And T= total number of outcomes. If you can't determine both N and T, there is LITERALLY no way to calculate P.

[@ninjaTyj]

@@robberlin2230 if the creator came to me and magically put information into my brain that would be evidence. Something novel, something i couldn't simply hallucinate and something no one else knows. Something like the correct answer to a famously unsolved math problem that i don't even know about or specific And accurate information about the future or something like that. That would be evidence, especially if i could tell that they used magic to communicate with me (so like if they did it by tapping my head and i instantly knew the answer to the problem). Essentially, need to be something that could not have a naturalistic explanation. (NOTE: In this context, "could not" is not The same as "does not." It can't just be something I can't explain, it has to be something where I CAN understand/explain why it's impossible to explain it using naturalistic methods.)

[@simondonohoe1221]

Fine tuning is nonsense, if conditions were different then what exists would be different. The fact that we exist doesn’t make this a perfect universe, it just makes it preferable for humanity to have adapted within .

[@andrewp979]

This seems so obvious to me. Something about a sentient puddle thinking a pothole was fine tuned for it...

[@bellumthirio139]

@@andrewp979fine tuning concerns the possible existence of potholes at all

[@bellumthirio139]

And if the universes where human life is possible are extremely unlikely, we might infer to something tuning the physical constants. Note that if you want to appeal to ignorances of the form: if stars or atoms couldn’t form, other stuff would form, which would allow for complex life to emerge, I would say there’s no evidence supporting this position, and there’s no reason to think an omnipotent God (note many Christian’s don’t take Him as omnipotent) could somehow bludgeon logic into allowing for human existence in the absence of atoms being allowed to form

[@simondonohoe1221]

@@bellumthirio139 interesting to see you assume god is a he ! 😂 did god make men in his own image or did men make god in their own image.

[@bellumthirio139]

@ I write in the tradition of Christianity, which inherits God’s ‘maleness’ from early polytheistic Judaism. As in, Ywhw was a male god, like Zeus, who then became the only God, and the tradition of referring to him as male was not dropped by later Jews, and consequently not by Christians.

[@Sled-Dog]

Love the conversation, and I love this topic. My main issue w/ Fine-Tuning is that it seems to be primarily used to point to the Christian notion of God. I have never found this compelling. If God is all-powerful and designed the universe from scratch, then after “lighting the touch-paper”, there should be no need of further intervention. The Christian idea that God constantly intervenes and is needed to continually sustain the existence of the universe seems to defeat the idea of a fine-tuned universe instantly. If my watch needed frequent repairs while simultaneously requiring the maker to literally be present at every moment to keep it from falling apart, I would find myself a better watch-maker.

[@jirskyrjenkins1959]

I believe Hitchens once referred to god as "bumbling". As to design something with so much death, carnage, failure and flaw.

[@zachbeall6810]

Maybe God wanted to create a type of universe that requires intervention. He obviously created a very strange universe. Why did he make everything material? No idea. Maybe something about the way he wanted to make things requires intervention by necessity. Maybe it's naive for us to think we can understand the reasons he does things.

[@justinamos9223]

Our realities need us to be present to be continuously creating it "now" "now" "now". Maybe the universe is something like that to god

[@darrennew8211]

Easy answer: How do you know the universe wasn't created for the benefit of the aliens over in the Andromeda galaxy and god never even gave us a thought?

[@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.

[@scottrentz1]

We're the water in the bowl, wondering why we're the exact same shape of the bowl

[@malusisoko7030]

Why is there no life on the sun or in mercury, seems like this water can not take the shape on any bowl that is out there, trillions of them.

[@liaminblue9984]

i love the similar puddle in the hole quote from douglas adams

[@scottrentz1]

@liaminblue9984 I'm not familiar with the line, but i have read HGTTG. It might have effected my thought. I was expecting people to compare it to the Bruce Lee quote.

[@scottrentz1]

@liaminblue9984 just read it. He said it better.

[@matiascollado9926]

You won't believe how this blew my mind

[@hylkevanderwerff]

I feel like part of this could be disproved by rolling a metaphorical dice with infinity sides, and then to claim only after reading the number it landed on, that it must have been rigged to land on that number, since the chance to land on a specific number would be 1/∞, therefore it would be basically impossible to land on the specific number it landed on. Yet it couldn't have landed on any other number since it has already happened, and probability has therefore become irrelevant.

[@starstenaal527]

I like the metaphor. I think what is missing though is the fact that, if the dice landed on any other side, there would be no conscious observers to be aware of this incredibly small chance. if the constants were just slightly off, we wouldn't have atoms nor stars. life of any kind would be unthinkable in such scenario. that's why the argument is powerful. It's asking, what is more plausible, winning a lottery where the odds against you are infinitely high, or was there a deliberate tuning behind the constellation we observe.

[@chasevergari3669]

1. Infinity is not a number. By definition, no die can have an infinite number of sides. 2. Let’s say a die had just a crazy high number of sides, like 10^10M. The issue then is that the probability of landing on a side where an observer existed is extraordinary low. 3. Let’s say you did land on a side with an observer. It’s far more like the observer would be the product of a Boltzmann Brain. 4. Even if you get past all of the aforementioned, you have now raised the question of how the die was created.

[@JonCookeBridge]

@@chasevergari3669 The probability the universe can sustain an observer ‘given an observer exists’ is 1.

[@chasevergari3669]

@@JonCookeBridge This is like saying the probability the Circle K team in Cottonwood will win the 1.2 billion Megamillions Jackpot from the last week in December is 1, because they actually won. We don’t do probabilities in retrospect.

[@123unknownsoldier126]

Even if you want to accept there was only every one universe (no multiverse or primordial superposition or whatever) and the constants of the universe all came to be purely by chance, I still think you could make a reasonable argument that fine tuning is an illusion. if we grant that the constants could have been any which way, ultimately the one universe that exists must have some set of constants. Therefore, our universe was just as probable as any other potential combination of constants and the only difference is we just have consciousness and the ability to discuss how strange it is that we happen to be alive despite the seeming randomness. In reality, the capacity for conscious experience is just one aspect of the universe and it only FEELS special because we are conscious. There’s no mystery about why the universe didn’t immediately collapse in on itself even though that outcome was just as likely.

[@vyli1]

not to mention that those constants are just result of human mathematical models of the universe. And while certainly those models are extremely useful at making extremely precise predictions about the world, it does not mean that the constants are real. Precision of these constants goes to infinity in both direction. With mathematics we could either be infinitely precise about these constants or infinitely imprecise. It's us humans that put significance into the values and number of decimal places in our equations but at the end of the day, numbers are made up by us, scales and units at which we do measurements are made up by us. We could certainly come up with units, where these constants are not as fine tuned and our equations would still work, it would just maybe be bit less practical computationally. Who is to say, that our choices in practicality of computation mean that this is the real representation of the universe.

[@zachbeall6810]

A multiverse also requires a fine tuner. And the whole argument is if anything was slightly different life would not be possible. It's only in this configuration that life is possible. There's no way any life could have evolved otherwise.

[@ddmannion]

The concise atheist's position: I May know the answer but, if I do not, I am unwilling to make one up from scratch and call it truth.

[@JoaoCosta-ly1sw]

They seem pretty certain that the universe came from nothing, morality is relative and life has no meaning.

[@Wierdmonkey6]

Isn’t that the agnostic position? The atheist declares there was no designer which is its own truth statement.

[@robbie5181]

@@Wierdmonkey6 Correction: they claim they know we cant know on current information. Its a rejection of the truth statement presented by theism.

[@dma8657]

That is the skeptic’s position. A particular atheist may not be a skeptic.

[@greterpriffin5719]

@@Wierdmonkey6Agnostic is a subcategory rather than its own. You can be an agnostic atheist or a Gnostic atheist (same on the theist side). MOST atheists are more on the agnostic side-more than willing to not make explicit claims of certainty about the supernatural.

[@Morjensful]

Chance is an umbrella term that implies chaotic true randomness. That will basically swipe non-random processes that happen by themselves under the rug as if they don’t exist. Like evolution for example, or emergent properties of molecules, the formation of complex molecules through the death of stars etc. The fine-tuning argument is tricky due to the fact that we don’t consider non-random processes in our language. Since religious arguments are based on semantics mostly, you can see why one would be in a difficult spot. Not only do you need to educate and explain novel ideas to a hostile crowd, you need to use these unfamiliar ideas in the argument if you want to base it on scientific observation. I think the best rebuttal to fine-tuning is Douglas Adam’s tale of the self-aware puddle..

[@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.

[@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.

[@merlinquark5659]

As a Christian and a physicist, really enjoyed this video, keep up the good content!

[@4XTP5]

You’re neither

[@Imperiumrex-xj4dw]

Who the heck are you to decide what someone is and isn't? Get a life, really.​@@4XTP5

[@arc4859]

@@4XTP5Tip that fedora a little harder

[@Nyghl0]

They are diametrically opposed though... One starts with empirical evidence and builds a narrative from that, the other starts from a narrative and fits empirical evidence to it. When you're one, you're not being the other. So presumably if you claim both, then the inherent contradiction prevents you from being either, fedora or no.

[@arc4859]

@@Nyghl0 You misunderstand the point of religion. Religion and science are supposed to be complementary to each other. Where science is the how, religion tends to be the why. Science can’t give you morals or tell you why you’re here, but religion can.

[@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 😂

[@McNimy]

I think they are both handsome!

[@kimmeallay5043]

​@@tyemaddog Okay theo von watcher

[@tyemaddog]

@@kimmeallay5043 nah. It's always been interesting watching the evolution of Alex. One of his first videos he said he had a dream about being in a plane crash and he was praying, and now almost full circle

[@chokin78]

Excellent episode, kudos to both of you

[@jaxm3715]

One of the arguments I've heard in favor of why someone believes God would "fine tune" the universe to such narrow constraints, is so "it seems so implausible that these things would happen without outside intervention, that people come to the conclusion there must've been some sort of intelligent designer" (aka "this mystery will point people to the potential existence of a Creator")

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

That argument applies to God as well. What explains why God’s desires were finely tuned to create the universe as it exists? There are an infinite number of possible worlds God could’ve created, so it’s implausible that God would create the current universe without his desires being “fine tuned” by some sort of intelligent designer.

[@gorditoramsay]

​@@frederickfairlieesq5316you can't "fine tune" someone's free will. People can make decisions but the universe can only follow its own exact laws. Comparing the chance of God making the universe to the chance of the universe existing on its own is just wrong.

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

@@gorditoramsay Think of it like this: The god worldview and the not god worldview both contain brute contingencies. In this context, “brute” means “no explanation” and “contingency” means “true in some, but not all, possible worlds.” A theist looks at all the possible universes that could’ve existed and says that there must be an explanation for why we find ourselves in the current universe rather than some other kind of universe. The atheist says there is no explanation for why the universe exists in its current form. The atheist is saying the universe that exists is a brute contingency. In other words, the universe could’ve been different (contingent) without an explanation (brute) for why the universe is the way it is. A theist looks at this explanation and demands an explanation for why we find ourselves in a “finely tuned” universe. They posit a god as the explanation. The problem is that this only pushes the brute contingency back one step. You said God has free will which means God could’ve created a different universe. That means the universe we find ourselves in is contingent (true in some but not all possible worlds). What explains why God created this world rather than any of the other possible worlds? Well, there is no explanation. If there was an explanation then the universe God created would be necessary. If the current universe is necessary then it’s no longer contingent and God no longer has free will. So you cannot use the fine tuning argument to escape the brute contingency. All it does is add one more thing (god) that requires an explanation. You end up with an infinite regress of explanations. The atheist arrests the infinite regress of brute contingencies at the level of the universe. The theist arrests the infinite regress of brute contingencies at the level of God. Because the atheist view has one less thing that requires an explanation, it is more likely to be true than the theistic view.

[@gorditoramsay]

@@frederickfairlieesq5316 I understand what you're saying but you're ignoring one big thing. God doesn't cause an infinite regress. God has always existed. He wasn't created at the beginning of time he CREATED time. He is outside of our universe which means he isn't limited by the 4th dimension (time). God by definition can't have a cause because he is defined as the uncaused cause. (Not the full definition of God but it's part of it.) Also, I agree with you that the universe was not necessary. God created the universe because he loved us before we existed and he wanted us to exist. But that doesn't mean God doesn't have free will. Everything you do is for a purpose, big or small. If you study for a test, your purpose is to pass it. If you make a doodle in the corner of a paper, your purpose is your bored or you want to relax. Something can have a purpose but that doesn't mean it's necessary.

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

@@gorditoramsay if you’re interested in understanding the infinite regress objection to the fine tuning argument, you can search on KZbin for a debate on fine tuning between Jack Angstreich and Alessandro123. It’s about 45 minutes long, but it explains the objection much better than I can. If you listen and come up with a way to refute it, I’m keen to hear your explanation.

[@Direwolf1771]

You can’t just throw “chance” out the window as a reason. “But the odds are so small…” How. Do. You. Know? And even if they are, so what? The odds of them being anything would be equally low, one configuration had to be it and this is what we got.

[@adamlewishomes1112]

Chance isn't a cause. How does the word "chance" mean casual?

[@adamlewishomes1112]

Causal

[@neuralsoup]

The odds of this happening? 100%, because it happened and we are here lol

[@melluzi]

Unlike odds it happened the way Genesis describes it, like Earth was created first, then all the plants and only then the Sun and the rest of the universe. Unless photosynthesis is for some reason excluded from fine tuning concept?

[@Direwolf1771]

@@melluzi Reparse your sentences and get back to us. Not sure which side of the debate you’re even on.

[@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".

[@thomassouthern807]

There is a sort of inverse anthropic principle that says we see the natural laws that we see because of the kind of observers we are, and so we see only how reality relates to us as observers. But even before unpacking the implications of that, there was a paper published recently that challenged the idea that the universe, as we observe it, is really fine-tuned.

[@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 ! 😅

[@7erudite.]

Even if God is plausible because of seemingly intelligent design of universe.That God is certainly not the kind of God these holy books have.

[@hehoopintv7832]

@7erudite. based on what evidence

[@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.

[@astrocaleb]

The multiverse was not specifically hypothesized to explain fine-tuning. As a matter of fact, there are many different types of hypothesized multiverse models. Such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, an inflationary multiverse, and so on. Granted, not all multiverse theories could explain fine-tuning, but some can. As of right now, the evidence is inconclusive.

[@arc4859]

I would propose a different explanation for number 4. The atheist has to explain why the universe is balanced on knife’s edge, because logically it shouldn’t be. It’s directly contradictory to the atheist worldview. For the theist, there’s nothing contradicting about that. Having something balance on a knife’s edge doesn’t make God’s existence less likely. As everyone who’s ever used the argument believes, it makes it more likely. We don’t have to know God’s reasoning. That doesn’t make it any less plausible. For all we know, God balanced the universe on a knife as material evidence of His existence for when society progressed to the point we’re at now.

[@mememaster695]

@arc4859 How is the universe being "on a knife's edge" contradictory to the atheist worldview? I'm an atheist, and I see no contradiction. As far as I see it, the universe isn't balanced on a knife's edge. We are. If the forces of the universe were even slightly different, the universe would be different. Maybe stars wouldn't form. Maybe atoms wouldn't exist. Certainly, life as we know it wouldn't exist. However, something else probably would. This concept of the knife's edge, in my opinion, comes from a classic flaw in human thinking that considers humanity the goal. Creationists make this mistake when talking about evolution. They perceive humanity as the goal of evolution rather than humanity simply being what evolution ended up with. The same way, the universe is not finely tuned to allow for our specific form of life to exist, our specific form of life exists because the universe happens to be a certain way. If the universe was different, there may be a completely different species that we would barely recognise as life, and they might make the same arguments about how the universe is finely tuned to allow for their existence.

[@Sirrus-Adam]

Nice set of thought experiments... well reasoned and honest. There is a book that answers most of them, but being atheists, I doubt they'd read it -> the Urantia Book.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@Sirrus-Adam]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 - Actually, no mortal can be in the presence of God on the Central Isle of Paradise, it being outside time and space and all. But all mortals have a spirit fragment of our Divine Father-friend indwelling their minds, which makes all of us in the presence of a part of God. That you think I need to repent of my sins without knowing me, is insulting. I love Jesus just fine as I know from personal experience that our Father does too. I have already accepted my sonship with God, and am excited to be already working on my ascension career, which will take me to "heaven" a.k.a. the Mansion Worlds, and on to the center of our universe, then on into our Superuniverse, then the Central Universe of Havona, then to Paradise. See you there! :-)

[@oswaldol731]

10:37 what?

[@mikelipinski7615]

Wot*

[@Itsaplatypuse]

Wot*

[@Jason_Abadi]

U wut m8?

[@TheRABIDdude]

Ahhhh I came to the comments to pin this exact time point for a joke and I see yours already here at the top. You beat me to it 😅

[@CptBerns]

I think the fine tuning argument is the weakest of all theistic arguments. It basically comes down to "You won the Euromillions jackpot. There's only one chance in 140 million that you came up with the winning combination. Therefor you must have cheated!"

[@justinjones5281]

Beyond time and space the chances that person decided to gamble in that 1/140000000 chance is definitely magical.

[@mythmarshmallo1590]

I see it like a one side strength test error. Is it possible these numbers could be different? If gravity is the curvature in spacetime, could a different gravitational constant even exist? We don’t have any other examples, so pointing to the possibility of something that we cannot claim to know just doesn’t hold any water.

[@conilynnegastador2560]

There's a multiverse of chance that those moustache might not exist.

[@northernbrother1258]

Just like calling the universe creation implies a creator, doesn't fine tuning similarly beg the question? "Tuning" implies a "tuner."

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@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.

[@Jack-z1z]

I don't think you understand the fine-tuning argument, given your response. Saying that human beings have evolved to fit our environment simply isn't relevant to the fine-tuning argument. The fine-tuning argument isn't about humans, or any other particular life form. The fine-tuning argument is about the universe, and how it's values must be set to an extremely precise degree for any life, of any kind, to exist anywhere. The question is then: What is the best explanation of the fact that the universe is life-permitting instead of life-prohibiting, given that there are many, many ways for the universe to be life-prohibiting, and very few ways for the universe to be life-permitting. You don't answer the question "Why is the universe life-permitting instead of life-prohibiting" by saying "human beings have evolved to suit our environment".

[@mitsaoriginal8630]

Its almost like your saying that humans are more fundamental than the weak and nuclear force? You have made a non-sequitur.

[@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…

[@omariwashington2570]

That's not the argument, the argument is that the constants being different wouldn't lead to a universe where life could exist, it's kind of like saying "if my grandfather didn't make my mom I wouldn't exist"

[@RenLapislazuli]

I think that this rebuttal is implicitly relying on a multiple universe hypothesis, which makes it really bad. Multiple universe hypothesis should only be used as a counter argument against theism. Basically saying: "there are about 100 billion different explanations for fine tuning, and there is no justification for choose any one of them over any other", and the multi universe is just an example of one of those 100 billion different explanations. However, as a stand alone hypothesis, multi universe is really just a crutch. It doesn't hold any ground, it has zero supporting evidence, and in general, is not great

[@TheRed02151]

The problem with this train of an argument is that is relies on the fact that our universe and ourselves do in fact exist, but we can only question its “rarity” because we’re here. In the infinite other scenarios, it doesn’t exist and we never get to question it. But Christian’s will still rebut “you can’t expect me to believe that this is all by chance”. But as far as we know, it is.

[@ThomasMathewVTarak]

Yes but the point is the choice. One chooses to believe that something so improbable is true because they don't like the alternative. And another chooses to believe in the supernatural because they don't like the alternative.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

I personally think we need justification for existence itself, if you believe you exist, that's fine but how do you justify your existence But before that one has to justify knowledge

[@kevlingcustomtitantrons9375]

​@ThomasMathewVTarak it's not that atheists don't like the alternative. It's that there's no evidence for the alternative so why should they believe it?

[@dext1352]

​@ThomasMathewVTarak we could come to the agreement that neither side knows, but at least one is actively trying to explain it with evidence while the other is satisfied with the simplistic answer of a creator God

[@ThomasMathewVTarak]

@@dext1352 no I don't think that's true. One side believes in a law giver and looks to understand the laws given and marvels when they do understand such laws and how they work. The pursuit of science and nature isnt an exclusively atheistic domain. The other side has to first explain why they can even trust in their experience and rationality and further why then universe is even supposed to follow any laws as opposed to being arbitrarily functioning. Until then one has to live on a number of assumptions (or faith) and then do the explaining

[@KaAlKyGood]

This felt less like an argument and more like two friends just talking.

[@localblackman427]

Well it's not an argument. They're responding to an argument

[@KaAlKyGood]

@localblackman427 Yeah, I realized they were both atheists later. I misread the video as "Atheist Responds to..."

[@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

[@5-Volt]

"Simply finding a pattern or consistency doesn't mean it was set up by something or governed by something." True, but it doesn't mean that it _wasn't_ or _couldn't have been_ either.

[@dominoz2997]

@@5-Volt exactly my point 😊 it needs further evidence to actually demonstrate; the burden of proof then is on the person who says it’s more, which is not the agnostic atheist, but the theist (as its said to be God). To suggest it doesn’t (which I acknowledge you didn’t, but this is just to clarify), confuses correlation with causation!

[@dominoz2997]

@@japexican007 you can’t say “according to atheism”… atheism isn’t a belief system. You also can’t say “according to scientists” because you misunderstand and mischaracterise the current science. Who says chance has anything to do with it? What if this is the only way to do it? You also didn’t read my comment very well - these aren’t behests! There’s no evidence to say it was ever manually adjusted (or aligned) to be this way. These are simply consistencies we can measure. Any further inference is conjecture. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it means you need to have evidence that it was tweaked. In other words, even if a God does exist in some form, that doesn’t prove he even invented the universe! 😊 tried to explain it in a couple different ways in the hope you’d read at least one of the properly!

[@5-Volt]

@@dominoz2997 Yeah, I don't understand why Theists use fine tuning to justify their god concept. It is much more of a Deistic or Pantheistic argument. I think a lot of Atheists make the mistake of trying to apply Theistic attributes of a god to all god concepts. It's a much bigger claim to say "the constants of the universe were established & influenced by THIS god" than to say "the constants of the universe were established &/or influenced by _something_ "

[@willardstaton]

Fine tuning for what? For the universe or humans to exist? The universe does not care about us or itself, we are not the end product of the universe, and the universe could have existed or not, or just be different.. and none of this necessitates a deity

[@briansmith3791]

The underlying structure, the Physical Constants, appear fine-tuned for Life, meaning if their values were even slightly different, the conditions for Life would not exist. We have observable evidence for one universe with the inherent Physical Constants.

[@thembnkosi5291]

My maan!!👊🤝

[@valleydoofer]

@@briansmith3791if the universe is fine tuned for life, why are not able to find any other life outside of earth? Even on our own planet there are parts that are incredibly inhospitable such as the poles and deserts.

[@briansmith3791]

@@valleydoofer It's the underlying structure, the Physical Constants, that appear fine-tuned for Life. If the values were even slightly different, the conditions for Life would not exist. We have no idea how widespread Life is, or is not, in the universe. You're confusing the universal fine-tuning argument with Creationism/ ID.

[@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.

[@theriveroffaith852]

Arguing against hope, will always win the battle, but will always lose the war.

[@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj]

What annoys me about arguments made for or against “Gods” existence is that seldom do people making these arguments ever define what a “god” is. Without a definition of the word “god” it’s impossible for any argument to establish that a god does or doesn’t exist, or even to establish that a god most likely does or doesn’t exist.

[@l.m.5709]

It's pretty clear that they are not talking about a specific god but rather about a creator

[@zachbeall6810]

The fine tuning argument is an argument for a designer and nothing else. Do you believe the universe had a designer?

[@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj]

@ No, I do not.

[@zachbeall6810]

@@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj then how do you explain the apparent fine tuning? From what I understand if it was even slightly different, life would be impossible everywhere in the universe. Based on the evidence we have so far.

[@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj]

@@zachbeall6810 Well, haven’t you heard the counter arguments before? String theory predicts that there is likely a multiverse meaning that our universe may be only one of countless other universes, possibly infinite universes. So if there are enough universes with differing constants then we could expect that at least one would happen to get it right by chance. And if that is the case, it would be no coincidence that we find ourselves in the universe that happened to get it right because most likely any universe that has no life would not have anything with a brain or sensory organs, so most likely in any universe in which there is no life there would be no consciousness, therefore explaining why we happen to find ourselves existing in one of the few if not the only universe that allows for life. Plus, if there were a “designer” to our universe, you would need to explain why this designer is itself set up so well that it could design a universe and as of yet no one can explain that.

[@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?

[@piercemchugh4509]

Fine Tuning Argument. The argument that never goes away no matter how many times you debunk it.

[@mikeygROCNY]

It’s never been debunked. It’s still around because it’s by ever been refuted. There’s no chance it was luck.

[@piercemchugh4509]

@@mikeygROCNY I could debunk it in one sentence. It's premises are non scientific presumptions.

[@piercemchugh4509]

@@mikeygROCNY Fine Tuning Argument In a Nutshell: Christian: We need to figure out the origin of humanity and the universe. Matter and energy. Atheist: Why? Christian: because it's impossible for things to just exist without an origin! Atheist: Hmm. Christian: I got it! Atheist: Yeah? Christian: It was God! Atheist: But how did God come to be? Christian: He just exists with no origin! Flawless Christian Logic.

[@mannythegrandfather2291]

@@piercemchugh4509 Lmao this is such a straw man and a terrible one at that

[@BobFam-xl8eo]

​@@piercemchugh4509 that's what you call debunk in a sentence?? Science cannot provide an answer for everything. And it's common sense to know The universe and the world was made by a Creator. If one says "you can't just assume that" doesn't mean it has been refuted.

[@christopherg1288]

Glad to hear Alex talk about this. I’d love to hear more on this topic and read more about it myself. It’s an extremely compelling argument imo

[@gungaloscrungalo8925]

The idea that a god who can literally speak the universe into existence, who can say "let there be..." and create the cosmos, would need to "fine tune" anything is just ridiculously stupid.

[@joshyman221]

Not really… the universe we exist in is governed by rules. These are the laws created such that we can live our lives the way we do. For example, gravity is the parameter it is such that our lives are the way the way they are. God, if He exists, choose these values such that, with omniscient foresight, the experience of our lives we have would be this way.

[@AaronJoeMauma]

@@joshyman221 Right, but then again, you're now saying God is limited to creating our lives by certain rules and requirements. Would you say, then, that God would be incapable of creating our world without abiding by certain parameters (gravity, nuclear force, etc.). For example, would he be able to create a world identical to our own, but instead of relying on nature's natural forces, instead just rely on his innate, omniscient power? This might sound confusing, but what I'm trying to get at is this: If God is omniscient, then shouldn't he be able to replicate our universe but such that it doesn't have the same fundamental forces? Or is it limited by these constraints existence?

[@billmartin3561]

God can do what he pleases, including creating a fine tuned universe. He can do this for the single reason to have this argument and point people with an open heart to him. There is nothing ridiculous about it.

[@nlf-xk6ox]

​@@billmartin3561 There is something ridiculous about it if his reasonings would be "I can do whatever I want" and "people can use fine tuning as an argument to bring people to me" 1. As far as I am aware the God of the three big religions claiming to be abrahamic doesn't do anything because he can, but because it serves a purpose. The purpose being love/mercy, the good, and justice. So "he can do as he pleases" turns into "he can do as he pleases confined by purposefulness & usefulness according to his own values" So that doesn't explain why he would fine tune, and actually is an unconvinced position of viewing fine tuning as something God would do. This alone would need convincing why fine tuning would fit in these constraints of doing. As for the second point, I still haven't found an idea or argument that has personally convinced me as of why God is - to put it cynically I admit - playing hide and seek with us? Why is the best predictor for religious position where you grew up and what religion your parents are? Does God have less ways to get to those unable to afford education on theology? Or rather, do those unable to afford education on theology have less ways to get to God, the right God? That also seems like a weak point to me, which just throws up even more difficult questions to answer for. But if you could take the time and respond, I would be curious as I believe I would probably be happyier if I believed in a God, whether there ultimately is one or not, I just haven't been able to bring myself to it.

[@hehoopintv7832]

The idea of fine-tuning doesn’t imply that God needs to 'fix' anything or that He’s limited in power. It actually reflects intentionality and precision. Just because God can create the universe through His word doesn’t mean He couldn’t choose to establish it with finely-tuned laws that allow life to flourish. Fine-tuning shows God’s wisdom in designing a universe with order and purpose, not random chaos. Creating something instantaneously and designing it with specific, meaningful parameters are not contradictory-they show the depth of God’s power and wisdom.

[@benjamintrevino325]

Yes! The fine tuning argument proves the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe!

[@dawgpost90]

*tips fedora*

[@beorntwit711]

Douglas Adams had it best: imagine if water in a glass wondered how come the glass fits it so perfectly.

[@briansmith3791]

Adams' puddle analogy is the Anthropic Principle, which, in effect, says a universe with intelligent Life will appear fine-tuned for Life. THIS is that universe. We have zero observable evidence for any other...and never will have as we can't get outside the universe to observe anything. "Our conclusion is that the fundamental properties of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for Life"-physicists Lewis and Barnes ( A Fortunate Universe). One fine-tuned universe points to a creator of sorts.

[@beorntwit711]

@@briansmith3791 yes, except this takes the 'fortune' out of the picture. We could only ever observe (some) fine tuning from a universe that allows life. So the chances of life being in a non-fine tuned universe are basically zero, regardless of design. Which is similar to what we have in our universe: there's overwhelming amount of stuff that doesn't support life, so the fine tuning is a relative term.

[@briansmith3791]

@@beorntwit711 Where are you getting these 'other' universes from? They're only an idea with zero observable evidence. We have to deal with what's in hand, not made-up stuff. And it's the structure, the Physical Constants, which appear fine-tuned, not the universe in general, that is governed by the Laws of Physics. If the Constants were even slightly different, the conditions for Life would not exist. The universal fine-tuning argument rests on observable scientific evidence, not imaginings.

[@briansmith3791]

@@beorntwit711 Where are you getting these ‘other’ universes from? They’re only an idea with zero observable evidence. We have to deal with what we know, not made-up stuff. And it’s the structure, the Physical Constants, which appear fine-tuned, not the universe in general, that is governed by the Laws of Physics.If the Constants were even slightly different, the conditions for Life would not exist.

[@beorntwit711]

​@@briansmith3791 they are an explanatory model for the observed evidence. The evidence simply isn't sufficient to narrow this down for physicists to reach a consensus. Such is the nature of the field. But they DON'T HAVE TO exist for this to undermine the fine-tuning argument. Firstly, because there's no evidence for fine-tuning, either. There is just a fact that this universe supports life of a certain kind (specifically, one that can think about this universe). To privilege fine-tuning over other explanations, you'd need evidence for it (and not against it, which is what the observation of the majority of OUR universe suggests). You'd need to come up with a reason why saying 'life might exist in other forms' in other (un/imaginable) universes, is less probable than (observedly wasteful, bad) fine-tuning. There is none.

[@vyli1]

The other huge point about this fine tuning is, that it completely misunderstands how these numbers are even calculated. We get these values because we work with units that we have selected for ourselves. If we would were to work with different units, then also these constants would have different values and depending on our scales, there would also be a different wiggle room in how fine tuned these constants are. It is just that mathematicians have selected to work with units that are comfortable to them for calculation purposes. But that does not mean that this is the preferred way of performing these calculations from the perspective of the universe. Just because something is comfortable for us it doesn't mean all those other mathematical systems and unit choices that lead to mathematically equivalent results albeit in different units are necessarily the description of the nature of the universe. Universe doesn't know any constants, these constants are just human models for trying to predict the behavior of the universe.

[@zachbeall6810]

I don't understand your point about units. why does it matter what units we use. whatever units you use, if they were a tiny bit different the conditions for life would be non existent. at least according to scientific consensus.

[@vyli1]

​@@zachbeall6810 first of all it is not a scientific consensus, that conditions for life would be non-existent with tiny changes to the constants. There is scientific literature and actual studies that show universes with completely different values of constants that allow for complex enough chemistry for life to occur. Second, the point about units is, that the precision scale is arbitrary. You're talking about changing constants by 'tiny bit'. But that's tiny bit relative to the numbers that we're calculating with. The scale that we use is from the perspective of the universe arbitrary. We can choose infinitely precise or infinitely imprecise scale. For example we could base our mathematics so that the value of some measurement that currently yields a value 1*10^99999999 could be 1. Or 1*10^9999999999999999 could be 1. The scale is arbitrary. Therefore by changing the scale at which we are looking at things a thing can be perceive a huge change or a small change. 1 km is a huge distance for an ant, but is nothing compared to the size of the universe. For an ant a devation by 500 meters is a 50% deviation. At the scale of the size of the universe 500m is a deviation by incredibly small value. I said that the choice of units and scale is arbitrary. Well that's not completely true. It is not arbitrary. It's selected because of ease of computation. It's easy to use those equations made for those scales for our everyday purposes and it was easy to come up with those equations using the familiar set of units. But that's just human choice. The universe doesn't have a preferred scale to use in equations. I hope it's easier to understand what I mean when talking about how arbitrary the choice of units is. Basically when somebody says "a small change to the constant changes how the universe behaves", the question is, "small relative to WHAT? maybe it's not a small change, maybe it is an extreme change and we're just not operating at precise enough scales to understand how huge of a change it is".

[@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.

[@RickPayton-r9d]

1. The observable universe is finite, but all evidence points to an infinitely large universe. 2. If the constants can have different values, they could be different in other (unobservable) places in the universe. 2.1 Just because the constants seem consistent for our region since the big bang, doesn't mean they couldn't be set much earlier or that they might change tomorrow. 3. In an infinitely large universe, all values can happen. 4. We are in the region where values can support us.

[@HandledToaster2]

What a laughable take, every scientist in the history of science would be embarrassed to read this comment, each point is more absurd than the last!

[@abelhgds]

@@HandledToaster2 yeah lol

[@samsam-y3l9l]

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?

[@samsam-y3l9l]

@@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.

[@samsam-y3l9l]

@@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]

@@samsam-y3l9l 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.

[@tykinn]

I think fine tuning could be an inevitable effect of vacuum pressure. All forces involved together in a vacuum seem like they should always collapse into a balancing point.

[@ghiath6434]

Even as an atheist, I have conceded that no serious, honest rebuttal exists for the fine tuning argument. If you want to defend your beliefs, do it via different means.

[@RoninTF2011]

...fine tuning is not even an argument. Its a post hoc rationalization

[@uploaderfourteen]

Fine tuning is an observed fact. The arguments relate to attempts to explain the observed fact by different means.

[@RoninTF2011]

@@uploaderfourteen no, the constants we know of, are observed facts. "Fine tuning" is just a post hoc rationalization of these facts

[@Giantcrabz]

PBS Space Time covered it quite well

[@kayyhrf]

gotta love watching 2 nerds geek over philosophical topics

[@HarryNicNicholas]

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

[@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.

[@SawBlade11]

You’re most likely an adult man using the word icky… cmon man

[@baonemogomotsi7138]

A god by definition is a mythical being given human attributes

[@appledough3843]

Feeling icky shouldn’t be a disqualifer

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@appledough3843 I mean I don't know how truth can exist if all that exists is the material world?

[@justinjones5281]

5:52. Things have to be hard in order to learn the preciousness of life itself. I feel this place we have is perfect

[@jjkthebest]

The fine tuning argument always seemed rather nonsensical to me.

[@briansmith3791]

You haven't heard the universal fine-tuning argument then :) It's not Creationism or ID. We have observable evidence for one universe which appears fine-tuned for Life. The argument precludes any physical interference in the universe ruling out all Religious Gods.

[@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.

[@GaliscesGaming]

Woah you make a lot of big assumptions here. I was going to touch on every point, but I think I just want to talk about one of your last points. You say that supernatural events are, by definition, impossible. How do you make that claim? Possible/impossible are pretty complex topics, pretty much anything you can think of is "possible" as long as it isn't logically contradictory or something like that. There's nothing logically contradictory about God existing, and therefore nothing logically contradictory about God (defined in the Christian sense as an all knowing all powerful omnipresent being) exercising His power by performing supernatural acts. Demonstrate how any of that is "impossible". Not highly improbable, but actually impossible as in you can prove that it cannot or could not ever be.

[@htrayford122]

@@GaliscesGaming fair enough, here’s how I arrived at the idea that God’s existence is impossible. I’ll state up front that there is a distinction between that position and saying “God does not exist”. All things which obey the natural laws are, in principle, possible. These things are also “natural”. Because they are possible they all occur with probability greater than zero. All things which do not obey the natural laws are impossible, this is what it means to violate the natural laws. These things are “supernatural” and occur with zero probability. I assumed God is a supernatural being. Therefore, God’s existence is impossible. Things which occur despite being impossible are supernatural. So if God exists despite that being impossible, it would be confirmation of God’s supernatural-ness. If supernatural things occur, they do so despite being impossible. This is why claiming we should prefer the more probable explanation and concluding that explanation is the fine tuning of the universe by a supernatural being is internally inconsistent. It is also why evidence that the universe cannot exist as observed would be so much stronger evidence of God’s existence than what we actually have.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@htrayford122 How would you steelman the argument since you think it's weak?

[@htrayford122]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 ​​⁠When I say the argument is weak, I don’t mean that I find it unconvincing, though I do find it unconvincing. What I mean is that a proponent of the argument must implicitly acknowledge that the universe COULD exist without God, and then argue why they believe it doesn’t. A strong argument for God would be one that argues that God exists because the universe could not exist without God. All of which is to say that I think steel-manning the fine tuning argument is a good process for a different problem

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

I see what you’re getting at. Here's a refined version: We live and act every day as though fine-tuning is a reality. We're naive to believe we know the universe’s "constants" and "laws" with precision, and yet we have no ultimate justification for these assumptions. If the universe isn’t finely tuned, then much of science and mathematics becomes wishful thinking. The same reasoning used to dismiss fine-tuning should also dismantle science and math, but somehow people are comfortable thinking we know the exact gravitational pull, the strong and weak forces, etc., down to precise numbers. In truth, it’s more of a delusion, grounded in unproven assumptions, than some grandiose "search for truth" that some people wish to push it as

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Arguing that the constants of the universe could have been otherwise is stupid af

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

Why so?

[@ExistenceUniversity]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 Because they are what they are because the are that always and forever. The universe cannot cease to be, it must be. The universe will be something, to be something is to have an identity. Identity is not magic, its based on the somethingness. The somethingness cannot change. The universe is eternal because the universe is the way it MUST be. The "constants" are just our measure of the somethingness.

[@XertoLabuschagne777]

Bro really said: it is what it is

[@ExistenceUniversity]

@@XertoLabuschagne777 As opposed to what? It is what it isn't? It isn't what it is? It can become that which it cannot be?

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@ExistenceUniversity ​ @ExistenceUniversity In defense of this argument I'll point out that it's more so asking why are the sets of things the way they are rather than another way, for example I can conceive of having 3 hands What the argument is aiming to get at is, why are the set of things this way rather than another even if the universe is eternal that still doesn't answer why the sets of things that are in the universe, are the way they are rather than another way Also if the universe is eternal and we are made up of just the universe (matter and energy, wouldn't that call into question why the universe is eternal but we aren't (seems to suggest that we are maybe more than just matter and energy)

[@discovery_uncharted]

The answer to the mystery the guy asked about is simple, we can look to proteins to see the exact same problem. Amino acids are “finely tuned” to make proteins, and they are extremely extremely rare. The same is true of universes, there are many many possibilities but they are similarly also rare. Therefore God works within the laws of logic

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@discovery_uncharted]

@ I am a Christian

[@GaliscesGaming]

Hey Alex, Christian here. You asked around the 8-minute mark why God would have created the universe with such strict requirements. One possible answer is that He may have done so to point us to Him. As a Christian, I believe that everything He does is done at least in part to point us to Him. The Bible even says that the heavens declare the glory of God and that His invisible attributes and power are seen in that which is visible. I believe that this idea is encapsulated in that sentiment. The universe might have such strict restrictions to direct us toward the idea that all of this isn't plausible without Him.

[@Vanix9696]

It's funny to imagine a god thinking "I'll create an incomprehensibly large physical space, populate 0.000000000000000000000000001% of it with my special creation, and then hide, that way they can see how big it is and realize I'm there even though I'm hiding and could easily reveal myself!"

[@GaliscesGaming]

@@Vanix9696 The Biblical answer to this is that we're blinded and corrupted by our sin, and even if we wanted to see God, seeing Him in our current state would kill us.

[@Mourour]

The concept you explain is so small and petty, and ultimately a non- sequitur. ​@@GaliscesGaming

[@GaliscesGaming]

@@Mourour It's petty that God wanted to provide hints of His existence? You'd rather if God existed that He just leave nothing and actually be totally absent as atheists always claim He is now?

[@Mourour]

@@GaliscesGaming No, I wasn't suggesting that hinting to his existence is petty (but the hints are pretty shit aren't they?) , I am referring to the whole concept of the gods which man have created to attempt at explaining nature and existence. Whilst the universe and our existence is enigmatic, I find the obviously man-made stories of the burning bush, a couple eating an evil fruit that casts sin on all humans, vicarious redemption etc as very small and petty concepts. The universe is far more grand in scale than those that wrote the Bible could ever imagine. The stories of the bible demean the magisty, beauty and complexity of the actual universe that we come to understand more and more each day, and never requires a god to explain its properties or mechanisms.

[@MasterSpade]

The "Fine Tuning Argument" is nothing more than = 1. Argument from Ignorance 2. God of the Gaps Besides, if they want to say that the more complex something is, the more it NEEDS a "Creator/Designer", then just think... a god type being would be THE most complex thing EVER!!! So according to their "Logic", it needs a Designer the most! If it doesn't, then neither does the Cosmos.

[@ronrolfsen3977]

Indeed. Also pretty confused why apparently so many atheist seems to think this is something that need to be answered. It is simply not something we know. We only know this universe. For all we know there might be endless amount of universes out there in all "shapes and sizes" and one being like out is inevitable. There might be trillions in the same configuration. It is just an unfalsifiable claim and I am confused why this claim is the one we should take serious.

[@Decimaster321]

The universe isn't finely tuned for life, it's almost uniformly hostile to life. The universe is finely tuned for empty space

[@isaacthorpe4726]

I’m not educated enough, but would the argument of entropy and the eventual heat death of the universe be a good rebuttal to the fine tuning; we only exist in the chaos of a very small amount of cosmic time where the universe will be fine tuned to support life. I know Christian’s could argue that the rapture would happen before the heat death comes into play. Looking for the internets wisdom to expand upon this argument.

[@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?

[@Bencub46]

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.

[@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]

​@@Bencub46Not 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]

@@Bencub46 It's finely tuned for life in 1/10000000000000000000000000000th of the universe? Seems like a poor rebuttal.

[@Anthony-vm9gz]

This argument seems structurally similar to the following: "If this engine was fine tuned, then why not replace this crankshaft with carburetor? If it really is fine tuned, it should work, right?"

[@LouisKlokkk]

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

[@Paytondaffron]

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.

[@VerganoMike]

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

[@Paytondaffron]

How do I get connection to this woman you speak about!!?

[@Traderbear]

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

[@beorntwit711]

The universe isn't 'common sense'. Every single bit of understanding we have now happened in spite of human imagination, not because of it. It happened because our imagination had to stretch to its absolute wildest (by geniuses) to incorporate the weird facts science kept digging up. If it was 'common sense', then we would have had correct understanding of the universe since early campfires of primitive humans. Instead we had 2500 years of philosophy absolutely fail to uncover how the universe works, and we only got this far by following evidence. Try telling a medieval person how big our galaxy is, or that Earth is 4.6b years old. Its preposterous, and that's why no one thought of it... until evidence demanded it.

[@baonemogomotsi7138]

At least the multiverse has a basis if one universe. There's no basis for even assuming a god exists 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@japexican007]

@@baonemogomotsi7138now move the goal post and say No evidence for God while happily accepting no evidence for the multiverse

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@baonemogomotsi7138 The multiverse has a basis, how?

[@baonemogomotsi7138]

@keitumetsemodipa3012 You see one planet with life. You hypothesise that maybe another one may exist. You live in one universe. You can hypothesise that another may exist. Based on the verifiable fact that both of these exist. Hypothesising that gods exist? With what verifiable fact/evidence? See what I mean q

[@chaosryans]

Fine tuning is like saying "this hole fits this puddle of water very well, it must have been made for this water" obviously the stuff shaped around the situation it exists in.

[@RustyWalker]

4. self-referential. The constants describe the universe as it is. Constants don't emerge in universes that failed because they're derived from formulae used to describe how a universe *is* and formulae are created by intelligent agents making observations. The facts that the equations describe may exist without observers though. Thus, the question is what is it that the equations are describing and could those processes or relationships have been different, rather than asking if the constants could have been different. With gravity, it's not the gravitational constant that would be tuned differently. It's that space-time and mass would interact differently such that a different constant emerges from the maths that describes that. What could happen differently in that relationship between space-time and mass? What mechanisms would drive that? It's *AFTER* that that you ask what value for the constant *WOULD* emerge.

[@simthembilelusu8855]

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

[@jamesn0va]

Gravity is the least fine tuned force. It could be over a billion times stronger and chemistry would still exist

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@noahpearson2190]

yeah but its also just the universe we live in. the fact that life exists and that we can consciously percieve ourselves is also incredible rare, but it happened in this universe, and we don't know why, we just live with it. meaning that according to chance, everything thats ever happened isn't luck, or rare, it was and is the definite case for what was going to happen.

[@Weneedcarlsaganback]

Precisely. In universes where we don’t exist we cannot ask these questions. It is inevitable that the constants are ”tuned” as they are in the universe where we do. It therefore doesn’t make sense to argue the ”fine tuning” probability in context of life in this universe. It seems it would have to be this way in order for us to arrive at this moment in existence. However many times you spawn a universe, with different constants, the one we exist in will have this exact configuration 100% of the time.

[@thatherton]

Is it really fine tuned though? There are black holes and stars blowing up all over the place

[@smilyle]

The presence or absence of other universes doesn’t change the logical structure or internal coherence of this one. If fine-tuning is understood as the necessary configuration for a stable, complex universe like ours, then the question becomes one of understanding why these constants are internally consistent rather than why they’re “unlikely” compared to hypothetical alternatives. Whether or not there are other universes, we observe this universe with its specific constants that make life possible. Introducing multiple universes as an explanation, like in the multiverse theory, might provide a statistical backdrop, but it doesn’t directly address the fundamental coherence that makes this particular universe “work.” The constants here can be viewed as the requirements for a stable universe rather than random values selected from a larger

[@austin3789]

There are all kinds of parameters that that can be considered fine tuned, but the one most interesting is the low entropy state of the universe and the even lower state of the early universe since entropy is itself probabilistic and having universal low entropy especially have a "big bang" is highly and objectively improbable.

[@happyguy5165]

It seems there could be a myriad of reasons that God could create a universe with laws such that “if the constants of these laws were different then life/stars/etc would not exist.” Perhaps one is that there is beauty in this (either God finds this idea subjectively beautiful or there is actual objective beauty in it). One could simply be that there are innumerable ways that God could create life and it is somewhat arbitrary which He chooses, though the fact we may expect him to benevolently create life still renders the probability of it existing higher than it would be than on naturalism. Whether a builder uses a hammer with a wooden handle or a metal handle to construct a house may be an arbitrary choice but if I see a house, I know it is designed. To make the point so am making clearer: I woke up in a room and realised there were dials that needed ridiculously precise values to avoid a toxic gas filling it, I would infer that there was a mind that designed the room for my survival. There are a myriad of different ways it could have been constructed for my survival (maybe the dials could have a wider range that would allow my survival etc) but the fact it was so precisely constructed to ensure my survival would lead me to infer someone intended for that to be the case.

[@ScottSavageTechnoScavenger]

When struggling to maintain my faith (back when I had any) this argument worked (for me) against God. Here is the way I heard it stated in church: Anything that is fine-tuned cannot exist without a creator who is capable of doing the fine-tuning. Here is the way I heard it in my head: A creator who is capable of doing the fine-tuning is necessarily MORE fine-tuned and more complex than what he is fine-tuning. Therefore - God cannot exist without a creator. So ... while the question is good - squishing a god in as the answer only moves the question without answering it. The church's response to my objection was "God has always been". Which I heard as: "Fine-tuning and complexity CAN exist without a creator. " Thus the original question is answered without the need of inserting a God.

[@rujotheone]

That is a false premise. The creator can be more complex but doesn't have to be fine tuned.

[@ScottSavageTechnoScavenger]

@@rujotheone That is a common reply. Before I reply - I should point out that my comment kept saying "To Me" which means that I am not speaking in terms of absolute reality. Instead, I am speaking to the state of MY mind and how I comprehend the question of the existence of any kind of gods. (Yours or any one of the thousands that have been proposed by men through history) So, if you want to engage me you need to do so in terms that would convince a person who is currently unconvinced that any kind of god exists ... specifically the one that you believe is real. So ... your idea is that "God" (assuming that you mean the god described in the Bible) is just a simple little thing that somehow has the immense complexity to create something as large and complex as the universe and everything in it - but isn't "fine-tuned" Well ... that doesn't fix the problem. The problem (as stated by believers) is that something complex cannot exist without a creator. Even if "God" is just a simple little thing the complexity problem still applies to "God". If you want to assert special pleading and say that "God" is somehow exempt from the problem by saying that "God" is the only uncreated thing, then it STILL is a declaration that something complex CAN exist without a creator - thereby nullifying the problem for the universe existing. In other words ... You need to explain WHY one complex thing can exist without a creator while another one cannot. And you need to do it in a way that doesn't require blind faith. Because right now ... (to me) your hit-and-run answer says that the people who believe in "God" refuse to consider the problem themselves. Therefore... Once again.... it is the believers that convince me that gods are not real.

[@rujotheone]

@ScottSavageTechnoScavenger Firstly, the universe is complex and finetuned but I asserted that God is complex BUT NOT finetuned. This means that the universe and God are not in the same category of complex things. You are equivocating two objects just because they share a property and I am not even going to go into different levels of complexity. The way I am even using complexity is not the best word tbh. Secondly, two different uncreated things cannot exist side by side. Any differentiation means aprior action which means those objects were created. You can say there are many complex things around but only one of these can be uncreated

[@ScottSavageTechnoScavenger]

@@rujotheone "but I asserted that God is complex BUT NOT fine-tuned" I mentioned that. Aperaltly you didn't bother to read before reacting. (Why am I not surprised?) "two different uncreated things cannot exist side by side. " Well ... THAT is a blind faith assertion! What I am looking for is something that can convince me that gods (any god) exist without asking me to take a giant leap of faith. Tell me WHY two different uncreated things cannot exist side by side. Now ... as you contrive an answer ... you should keep in mind that one could look in the Bible and read that the other gods mentioned in the Old Testament exist side by side with Yahway without any mention of Yahway creating them. (Baal, Asherah, Molech, Dagon, Chemosh, Ishtar, Tammuz, Bel, Nebo) So, as it stands right now it appears that you are just repeating the preachers without actually understanding the reasons. Which is not doing a lot to convince me. In fact, it is going in the opposite direction.

[@rujotheone]

@ScottSavageTechnoScavenger I repeated for emphasis because you were conflating two objects sharing a property with sameness. I gave a proof that two different uncreated things cannot exist side by side because differentiation implies that a previous action(force) caused separation. You accuse of not reading but you skipped my proof. Metaphysical discussions can only be done based on available evidence and reason. Asking for something that can convince you about something things that existed before the universe is not something our current technology can give and may never be able to give. The Bible doesn't have to state that God created Baal, created Asherah etc before we know He did because anyone deep in scripture knows that YAHWEH created all things. Yes even before the New Testament. There are thousands of gods that people have worshipped and those are are the ones recorded. Do you expect the Bible to state that YAHWEH created A, YAHWEH created B, YAHWEH created C.. when a single statement will suffice?

[@gneissnicebaby]

For me it's just a matter of what's energetically favorable according to the laws of physics as we presently know them. It's like asking why did that grain of sand come to "rest" in 1 spot for millions of years? Because that's the position and state that is presently most energetically favorable for that grain of sand. It just is. So what?

[@ReturnGoodforEvil]

A recent paper was published on this topic, showing that there are values we could substitute for the universal constant that would make life much more likely. So this has sort of been dispensed with just in the last couple of months.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@ReturnGoodforEvil]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 This is a goddamn lie.

[@JohnJohnson-ew3vz]

I havent watched this video yet, but is it possible that life adapted to the constants, rather than the constants are finely tuned to support life? Just a thought

[@ianhausler331]

An engineer constructing a bridge also put parts together that would never find each other by pure chance. An author puts letters and phrases together to form a book, which would never appear in this constelation together. In bith cases the designed product is wanted and serve a purpose. These seem to be good objections against Alexes point, saying that because its improbable its not designed, as gid would design everything more stable.

[@ianhausler331]

God*

[@MasterPeibol]

So, as I see it, we don't even know if this constants CAN have other values. We only have one universe to compare, and the constants are what they are. But, even if they can have other values, and they have those values by chance, we cannot even know if this is a one-off event or if it has had an infinite amount of chances to occur (or somewhere in between). Because the only way the fine-tuning argument even works in this case is if the number of events is 1 or near 1. But if not, the chance will tend to go to 100% as we reach infinite events.

[@RIK0-1]

The fine tuning argument is based on a misunderstanding, in my opinion. Any range of numbers has an INFINITE amount of numbers between them. Saying that the universe would collapse in on itself if gravity were x amount stronger only is impressive if x is ZERO. Any other value means there are infinite possible subdivisions of x where the universe does not collapse in on itself. It's a perspective game, if I say the constant has to be between 5 and 8 it's a lot less impressive that if the constant has to between 0.005 and 0.008, but it doesn't have anything to do with probabilities AT ALL

[@akanay22]

I think the necessity argument is pretty solid too. How do we know that asking for a universe with a different gravitational constant for example is even possible? How do we know that this is not like asking for something to fly without leaving the ground? The concept of a universe might not be as flexible as we think it is. It might be that, we're not living in a universe with gravity but the term "universe" already has to come with the concept of gravity.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.

[@BobMonsen]

I prefer the Douglas Adams story of the pond that wakes up, and discovers that the hole it's laying in appears uncannily well fitted to it's shape, and thus concludes that the hole must have been created explicitly to fit it.

[@ReudiKnights]

Hi Alex, at 5:54 you mentioned one possibility of a purpose for the universe being so precisely constructed (the purpose being for mankind and it's evolution), and then further questioned "why it would balanced on such a knife edge" considering it's purpose. My immediate response to that, would be that: The reason for it's "knife edge fine tuning" is because the purpose is not "for mankind" at all (in the sense that, the universe's purpose is not for the physical evolution of human kind anyway). I do believe I have some very valid points in regards to this topic, and some very valid points in regards to the existence of god (not being what people might typically think of as "god"), and would love to discuss them with you, and possibly make a video. Ultimately, if my points are completely absurd, ridiculous and essentially flawed, then the content made of our discussion would be educational for me, and good content for you. Feel free to contact me if you're interested, and also feel free to explore my channel to gage an insight into my views on certain matters. Either way, thank you for your content.

[@estebanbarbalarga4776]

Admitting you don’t know and being comfortable with that is something atheism and science have in common. It’s the need to explain everything or rather the human-centric demand that all be explained that appears to bring gods in to existence. The fine tuning argument is very confusing for a scientist as it arises from this need to explain.

[@jah-lil]

As a Christian myself, I just want to say I respect the humility of his stance. W convo

[@chekitatheanimatedskeptic6314]

Another thing to ask is: what constraints are considered when you think of endless possible results? And one of the important factors is time/number of attempts. However unlikely anything seem to be in a finite scale becomes not only possible, but common in infinite scale. If you think abput how much time it would be needed for A UNIVERSE to be exactly as it is, such as not collapsing during it's expansion, doesnt deny the possibility of a zillion universes having collapsed before it became a "corrected universe" so to speak. We also dont know how it would look in terms of data to know if such "attempts" of existence of the universe happened or no. We can more or less determine the age of the universe as we know it to be around 14 billion years, but not if anything precluded it by a gazillion years, as such, it makes no sense to think it is implausible or improbable to exist inside that interval.

[@yo-Rowe]

As far as we know, everything is the laws of physics acting upon existing energy and matter. That is not random chance and there is there is no indication anything was tuned. Just saying the universe finely is tuned at all is begging the question and there is no reason to consider it a possibility. The innumeracy is ignorance. The key to math is asking the correct questions. We know the chances that the universe is the way it is and how to calculate it. It is precisely 1:1. That is 100%. As far as we know, due to the laws of physics, it could not be any other way. The same odds as the temperature water comes to a boil at. Also the same for the chance of life on earth. The odds are 1:1. If we find a planet or a universe with a different outcome, the odds drop to 1:2, or 50%. That is the correct equation. Fine tuning isn’t an argument, it an unsubstantiated premise that has no evidence to warrant consideration. We know that two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule make water. The question why ends at the physics. Going beyond that assumes for no reason that there was an objective when one isn’t evident or necessary. The balance is also not “on a razors edge” - that’s another false premise. We don’t know that it could be any other way nor do we know the range of states that would permit an existence. But we do know the existing state is one of entropy. The universe is in imbalance. That is a lack of finesse if tuning was involved. But why, but why, but why is an infinite path you can ask, but there doesn’t need to be a “reason” for the brute facts - it’s a childish argument.

[@lauramann8275]

Think about the logic you're using to have this conversation. How would a mindless, undirected, and random process produce logic?

[@jrcuartz1829]

easy 3-step rebuttal to universal fine tuning for life: 1.) fine tuned compared which other universe? - we dont even know if there is another universe or how many to compare if it is fine tuned or not 2.) compared to whoch moment in time or which part in space? - is it finely tuned or broadly tuned as to compare to which time in this universe or which part of the universe? we cant even observe all the timelines of our own universe or all of its areas to say that it is finely tuned or not 3.) fine tuning actually refutes an omnipotent god - if life cannot arise in a certain location like a middle of a black hole or the core of stars, that means the creator of this universe has a "minus 1" factor, and that disqualifies it as being truly omnipotent

[@HandledToaster2]

Wtf? 1. Not compared to any other universe, but compared to the fact that slightly altering any of over 100 parameters of creation renders the impossibility of life. 2. What? There are no multiple timelines. And we can't observe literally every single plank-lenth of the universe, but we don't need to do that to make a reasonable conclusion. That's like saying we can't comfirm all protons have a constant mass because we haven't checked every single proton in the universe. 3. Toughness of life has nothing to do with omnipotence of God, that conclusion doesn't follow at all

[@jrcuartz1829]

@@HandledToaster2 1.) recent scientific research says otherwise. "But the equations of stellar structure may have more solutions than most people realize. “Stars can continue to operate with substantial variations in the fundamental constants,” says Adams, whose work is featured in the report. “Moreover, if a particular astrophysical process becomes inoperable, then (often) another process can take its place to help provide energy for the universe.” meaning those over 100 parameters are not that accurate or as finely tuned as once thought, as newer discoveries in astrophysics have discovered that the universe is ever-adapting too. slightly altering some aspects of the universe may NOT render impossibility of life. so, science debunks you on this, the universe is not aas finely tuned as you think it is. 2.) yes there are. that is the PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. you dont know if in the past these parameters and amounts are necessary for life, that changed in the present, that may change in the future. you relying too much on the constant mass of protons is exactly the downfall of your conclusion, as more recent discoveries have made that unreasonable. again, reiterating #1, the universe can actually make adjustments if something is amiss, and if you got over 100 parameters, a couple of those you will cross out from the equation soon. 3.) yes it does! if the universe is "fine-tuned" for life, that means it has to be precisely made in a precise location, with a precise amounts of stuff, just for life to flourish, and life cannot exist anywhere in the universe, like the center of a black hole or the core of a neutron star, then there is a limit or restriction the creator of this universe have. a "minus one" factor a.k.a. "omnipotent BUT {__insert impotency here__}" disqualifies that creator as TRULY omnibenevolent for it has limitations and/or restrictions it could not violate. and fine tuning refutes such omnipotence.

[@tear728]

Once again, like all the boneheaded and narrow-minded atheists, they are assuming that the constraints of the system were not chosen by God. If he chose a set of constraints to serve as the basis for the reality that is created, it follows that God could CHOOSE to operate within those constraints conditionally, even if he didn't need to. All games exist only as a set of constraints. We created chess to play chess, not checkers. If we changed the constraints of chess - which we have absolute, omnipotent power to do so - then the game would cease to be chess as we know it. There would no longer be a point in playing it if we didn't play by the rules we invented. You have not provided a logical closure for your arguments but you pretend that you have.

[@HandledToaster2]

@@jrcuartz1829 I encourage you to look up the fine tuning argument in detail to see what I mean. I don't think this research is talking about the same subject, and even if I'm wrong, I wouldn't trust "random recent study" over the most influential scientists of all time who all agree on the fine-tuning. But more importantly, I am very confused about the third point. If I die in a black hole, that has nothing to do with God's omnipotence. Him not designing me to be absolutely immortal anywhere in the universe is completely detached from the idea of omnipotence. It just means He didn't choose that ability for us. He is not incapable of that. That's like saying because someone is vegan it somehow makes it impossible for them to eat meat. Obviously it's possible, they just choose not to. God designed the universe with intricate and predictable rules. It's difficult surviving in a black hole because he wanted it to be that way, we're not designed to go there. I don't understand how you can say "God didn't do X, therefore God can't do X"

[@jrcuartz1829]

@@HandledToaster2 again, the fine tuning of the universe has been highly contested even prior to our more recent discovery of adapting parameters of this universe. for you to say or even just imply that most influential scientists of all time all agree to fine tuning is A LIE. 2nd. if you cannot survive in a black hole, if god cannot put you in locations where we could not have evolved as a species, that means he has limitations and restrictions. a truly omnipotent being should have no restrictions. if he designed humans or at least life not to survive inside black holes, that is him having restrictions in himself.

[@markwaters5779]

Great conversation. If I may take a fork in the road, the self-undermining dimension of the argument from reason that you mentioned has implications for the debate between free will and determinism. Hard determinism seems self-undermining to me. If my reasoning is determined by material processes over which I have no influence, how can I trust the conclusions of my own reasoning processes (the conclusion of determinism, for example)? I raised this question (among several others) in an email to Robert Sapolsky at Stanford after he wrote Determined. His responses were clear and expressed in a kind, respectful manner. I respect him. But he didn’t seem to be aware of the implications of the self-undermining issue related to determinism. What are your thoughts?

[@donthesitatebegin9283]

Yeah, these radical Eliminativists remind me of what Heraclitus said about Pythagoras and his school of metaphysics: "Much learning; artful knavery".

[@Sled-Dog]

@markwaters5779 I am not a Determinist, but I did read Sapolsky’s book. It is unclear to me how your question makes Determinism self-undermining. Just because the process of calculation is determined, why does that make it untrustworthy? A complex calculation executed by a computer can be fully repeatable and perfectly accurate even though the computer had no part in writing the program code. Am I misunderstanding your position?

[@markwaters5779]

@@Sled-Dog Sorry for the delayed response. I just now saw this comment. I’m not saying that the calculations are untrustworthy, per se, whether determined or not. I’m saying that if my reasoning process is determined and my self-evaluation of my reasoning process is determined, then how do I have any grounding to assess the veracity of the results of my reasoning (whether the calculations themselves are accurate or not)? My self-evaluation or assessment of the accuracy of that reasoning process is also determined and probably has more to do with natural selection than with objective reasoning (natural selection, according to Sapolsky’s logic, was also determined). The grounding of my reasoning was determined when the Big Bang set the universe in motion. To state it differently, if determinism is true, then Sapolsky’s affirmation and my denial of determinism are both determined. If either of us change our minds, that too is already determined. Who is to say whether Sapolsky’s reasoning process or mine (both of which are determined) is accurate? The reasoning process of the external person assessing Sapolsky and me is also determined and has been since the Big Bang. Since Sapolsky and I disagree, then the truth or falsehood of determined reasoning is not assured. One of us has to be wrong. If I am wrong, then determinism led to me being wrong. It was determinism, not truly engaged reasoning, that got me here.

[@graysonhoward1562]

Alex is doing some of the best work in uniting Christians and Atheists I think. There’s this constant low brow fight that’s been going on for about 20 years on the internet that was completely unnecessary and unproductive. We all care about this debate, and want to find the truth, and there’s never been a need for name calling and straw man debate.

[@RyanApplegatePhD]

I think a useful "middle case" to consider that can guide thinking is to ask "Why is DNA the way genetics is encoded, versus some other encoding?" DNA is arguably less fine tuned than the universe and I think it's quite plausible to consider viable alternatives to DNA. If you can reason toward why DNA is the molecular language of life, you will likely run into relevant lines of thinking that are extendable to the fine tuning discussion, viz. even if there were other encoding schemes for DNA (which mRNA was likely one in the past before DNA took over), eventually DNA "won" in terms of prevalence across life. Before leaping to fine tuning, you could look at cosmic inflation and how it is necessary to get the CMB we see where there is global uniformity but still local variation that is only possible under a very particular kind of rapid expansion that cosmic inflation provides. So now turning to fine tuning, it could be that there are multiple values of the parameters (G, h, c, etc) that could describe some kind of universe, but under another aspect of the universe (like cosmic inflation) it turns out that if you uniformly sampled from the parameters values, the resulting durations of the universes created is dominated by a very narrow range of values. This is slightly different than requiring all the universes exist in parallel. It's also the case that the values of the parameters can inform the need for things like cosmic inflation in the first place, meaning it's only under the observations within this universe that the "best" theory to describe the universe we are in has fine tuning in the first place.

[@flashystorm]

The fact of the matter is, that for a universe to exist with us in it in this form, it has these parameters. There could be many other kinds of parameters for other times and spaces that would allow for consciousness but we don't have the tools to understand how. But to conclude that it is too unlikely for a combination to result in a space-time other than exactly ours given the vastness of time and of space (and whatever it is allows for those things) is attributing way too much confidence in an framework that we have no reason to believe is necessary.

[@josephschmidt6535]

I've been mulling over really understanding the fine tuning argument myself and think it's helpful to separate it into extra-universal (outside our universe) and intra-universal (inside our universe) fine tuning. The extra-universal arguments (i.e. imagine if gravity was stronger by 10^-25) seem to fall into the hypothetical scenarios where we have no sense of probabilities. We are using our best equations of how laws of physics operate in this universe, changing some constant, then simulating how things would change in an alternate universe. For all we know if gravity is changed by 0.0001% there may be some mechanism that adjusts it to be a more stable value. I'm not too convinced, or perhaps don't understand these as well. Now the intra-universal arguments are where the fun starts. Our sample size is other stars, galaxies, planets, etc. and thus we have some way to make probabilisitic arguments. The usual train of thought I've seen is that our planet/solar system seems to be unique amongst all other systems. Now to bring in the knife's edge stability, our system seems to be on a knife's edge if we only consider an incomplete view of it (i.e. only consider Earth orbiting the sun and the planet quickly descends into chaos). As we discover other planets, we compare to our own and find our solar system has many "failsafe" mechanisms to balance this knife's edge (i.e. gas giants for asteroids, moon stabilizing earth's rotation, being placed in the galactic arm's sweet spot to not get cooked by radiation). So, yes, in some sense there's a knife's edge but there seems to be all these mechanisms keep the system in balance. To finish that thought off, I like the imagery of different galaxies/systems as rock piles where higher piles are more "complex" in a sense. If I want make the tallest pile I could make a mound of rocks (similar to making a system more stable from the video), but I could also try to balance several rocks on top of each other 1 by 1. This 1 by 1 stack of rocks would surely look impressive and have more "wonder" (even more so if there are balancing mechanisms to keep it upright) than a big pile of rocks. Not the best analogy but something my brain conjured up. Let me know what you all think of these.

[@willmt9728]

One of the arguments I find most interesting regarding the fine tune argument and question of why God would constrict himself to the laws of nature is the principle of consistency. For by working within the laws of nature God is able to illustrate and affirm the intelligibility and reliability of the universe, allowing humanity to better comprehend through study, nature and it’s patterns as a way of fostering appreciation for the divine creation.

[@InformantNet]

Why would a omnipotent universe creator create a universe that has to be fine tuned?

[@JackKapral]

I'm an it engineer, but for long time i've placed my interests in physics and astronomy, i've even tried to apply to university, to study physics and astronomy, but ultimately chose a different path (a better choice ;D), but i thought of this many times. People who think on this based on philosophical standpoint can wonder and doubt, treating this as a really good argument, but people who lean on the naturalistic / physics point of view will tell You this: the constants haven't been picked and chosen, so the universe can be as it is, but this universe evolved in that way, because with that particular set of constants, it was possible. Like: why the tree trunk is (more or less) round, not square? Because the round shape is the most stable and efficient. The tree didn't choose to be round. It just is. And the background of this train of thinking, in my opinion, is very basic human need of seeking purpose in the world. But the fact that something has a cause (and effect) does not imply purpose. Also the question isn't that well asked: what if, for example, gravity would be a little bit stronger, but also other forces, that "oppose" gravity, would be that much stronger, to compensate? Wouldn't that allow the universe to exists? Are we really asking question: can the universe exist with different constants? Or perhaps: would the universe exist in the same form (and produce conscious life, able to ask that question) if they were different? And if they were, then what? That also renders the "universe wouldn't exist with different constants" statement pointless and false, cause we essentially don't know whether any other universe wouldn't exist, because we know that probability of "our" universe (with "our" constants) existing is 100% - because we are here.

[@davidkong8493]

Physical constants are based on the system measurement. The Gravitational constant in meters is not the same as the gravitational constant inches or in feet. So the number itself really isn’t find tuned to any particular number. It’s just the way interactions occur in nature