Fine-tuning is Simply a Good Argument

[@TruthUnites]

The number at 13:32 is supposed to be 10^(10^123), not (10^10)^123.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Doesn’t that make it even bigger? Like 10^1230?

[@bobleroe3859]

Wonderfully helpful, thanks. I remember a rabbi said, "The big-bang theory may be valid, but we theists insist there was a Big-Banger."

[@LeonSkum-z8w]

You can claim there is, even insist there is, but you can never provide scientific evidence in support of that claim.

[@bobleroe3859]

@@LeonSkum-z8w Just as there is scientific evidence in support of atheism.

[@colinmichaelis3379]

Another great apologetics video, Gavin. I am teaching a series of apologetics classes to high schoolers and next week I will cover both the cosmological argument and universe’s fine tuning. This video’s arrival was timely. As always, you provide insights and perspectives that are so helpful. I love the clarity and depth of your videos on all topics. Looking forward to more - please keep them coming.

[@ChristianTrinity411]

The intersection of science and Christian faith is the area that is most interesting to me, and I also believe that the greatest amount of pushback to Christianity today comes from a place of assumed secularism/naturalism, so definitely keep it up, looking forward to what you bring to the conversation, always appreciate you brother✝️

[@dimitritsirmpas4784]

I agree! It's also interesting that the basic premise of the multi-verse is that we are assuming an infinite amount of unobservable universes/entities to show how absurd it is to believe in one unobservable Creator...

[@ILootStandingStill]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@dimitritsirmpas4784Thats not why the multiverse gets posited in these discussions. It’s just a natural alternative that suggests we don’t currently know enough about our 1 observable universe to conclude that its set of physical constants are the only ones that are life permitting. Fine tuning starts with the assumption that it must be the product of a supernatural creator.

[@dimitritsirmpas4784]

⁠@@ILootStandingStillare you sure about that? Cause it’s pretty much universally agreed upon that any slight difference in the physical, chemical or mathematical makeup of the universe would’ve resulted in an uninhabitable universe. The multiverse theory just says that there is an infinite amount of universes so it’s unavoidable that there would be at least one with livable conditions. This argument doesn’t hold against honest scrutiny so it’s understandable that people try to muddy the waters when it comes to what’s actually being argued

[@ILootStandingStill]

@ Yes, I’m sure. No, that is not universally agreed upon, only a select few theists/creationists believe that. We have no idea what’s possible given different constants, our current understanding of life might not exist, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility of other life permitting constants. Think of it as a room full of dials that control all the constants, if you tweak/turn 1 dial it could render all life uninhabitable, but if you turn/tweak a combination of other dials it could find another sweet spot that allows for some form of life again. The FTA is just a glorified god of the gaps fallacy. No, the multiverse theory doesn’t posit that. If that’s the case then it would also follow that there’s at least 1 universe in which a god/designer exists, which isn’t the case. The multiverse theory (in this context) is simply used to highlight that we don’t have anything to compare our universe to, so assuming that ours is the ONLY one that a) exists and b) permits life, is incorrect. At one point humanity didn’t know about other continents, then about other planets, then about other galaxies and so on. The multiverse theory doesn’t assert that there IS an infinite amount of universes in which any and everything is possible, its just used to highlight how little we currently understand about our universe and even the constants that hold it together, so asserting what is and isn’t possible based on our current level of understanding is fallacious. I agree, the FTA doesn’t hold against honest scrutiny, it relies on the scientific and logical illiteracy of those it’s targeted at.

[@dimitritsirmpas4784]

@ you misunderstood me. It’s the multiverse theory, not the FTA theory, that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny

[@ryanprosper88]

It's Canada Day, a holiday, and Gavin uploaded. Great day indeed

[@stephenbailey9969]

If we understand that God is sustaining existence right here and now, from the quantum fields to particles appearing and disappearing to atoms and molecules and organisms and planets and galaxies, and that nothing would exist without the order in which he holds all things, then the 'fine tuning' discussion becomes an opening to rational persuasion. For believers, it is a reminder that from the mind of God to existent physical reality is but a whisper of Word and Breath.

[@american1911]

Watching your videos is like when I was young listening to my Dad after dinner and learning new Ideas. I vote yes keep making videos on science, philosophy, church history etc. most importantly, thank you.

[@jmfwest]

Great presentation Dr. Ortlund, looking forward to the deeper fine tuning video as well. I do hope you continue making theological videos, but the apologetic one’s are important as well and awesome to watch.

[@my-spinning-wheel]

Get in touch with Alex Oconner!!! That would be a delight. But it would have to be a ten hour episode :) hello from an Eastern Orthodox in California

[@bkind2every1now93]

This would be amazing

[@MrSeedi76]

Please, no. O'Connor and his lame ideas don't need more of a platform than he already has. Ever since O'Connor decided to become "Hitchens junior" he became unbearable. He's lying for his religion (atheism), ignoring history, repeating the nonsense about Christianity that was made up during the French revolution, etc. Dr. Ortlund shouldn't waste his time with this child.

[@svensvenforkedbeard170]

​@@MrSeedi76Doesn't your response seem uncharitable to you given how charitable Dr.Ortlund is with other's work? And why would Dr. Ortlund be "wasting his time" when he has before shared clips of or made references to Mr. O'Connor? We don't have to agree with someone and can still rejoice in companionship with them, or in engaging with them.

[@KevinSmith-nf4py]

Just wanted to say, I want more apologetics!!!! I also love the theology! It’s all great! Thank you for what you are doing! And I also wanna see you talking with Alex O’Connor!

[@ikemeitz5287]

Great video! It hadn't occurred to me that the feeling you get laying in a meadow and thinking "this has to have some purpose" is linked to the fine-tuning argument!

[@Roescoe]

Experiences of beauty and awe are pretty much the fine-tuning argument colloquially. something like "Why is music so beautiful" Or "the sky is majestic tonight"

[@tategarrett3042]

Please more of everything! I love your Sola Scriptura defences and work on Protestant-Ecclesial issues but this is also wonderful and useful. Keep up the great work!

[@stefanosbir3958]

For Protestants, Ecclesiology tends to be a weak spot. I appreciate how he brings light to this.

[@Narikku]

God bless you, Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for all your hard work.

[@MarkAtherton-bf4pq]

Very well done. Thank you.

[@noelsardar5023]

Gavin; thanks for a great analysis. I agree with you 100% as I use these ideas during evangelism. I’m a doctor and I think these arguments are a really sore point for the atheistic world view. Just want to encourage you!! God bless you!

[@5BBassist4Christ]

As a musician/cellist and someone who works with machinery, the Fine Tuning Argument is particularly resonate with me. A universe by chance is like finding a five thousand year old cello buried in the desert that is so perfectly in tune, that even the greatest musician in the world would leave the intonation alone for fear of messing it up. A universe without an incredibly detailed designer would be like finding an ancient machine that puts labels on a bottle, and you can still run a bottle through it and it will drop the label perfectly where it belongs. If the universe depended on me equally tuning my cello or setting the eye of the labeller with equal precision, then we are all doomed.

[@amu7379]

I love what you said above the "too much math" objection. I find it to be true too for the contingency argument which some people often complain about how overly complicated its terminology and logic is, but really it is just a rigorous defence for academic purposes of the idea of "why there is something rather than nothing" as said by Leibniz.

[@cosmicnomad8575]

The Contingency Argument is my favorite

[@WaterCat5]

The too much math objection actually is important because of how it coincides with divine hiddenness. Simply put, if God wants everyone to have sufficient information to believe in him, it makes no sense to require us to have this much specialized knowledge. This argument should not be required to think the Christian God exists, and the fact people hang so much hope on it is actually evidence that their God doesn't exist.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

​@@WaterCat5This pre supposes the only valid argument for God or way to know Him is fine tuning especially in its most complex forms. Gavin would argue the definition of God alone is enough to prove Him. This is not an argument for Christianity but theism.

[@benrex7775]

I think that is basically the weakest objection. Because all those arguments can be made on a much more intuitive level. And then somebody comes along and says it is not rigurous enough. Once you make it rigurous for them they complain that the argument is to complicex and a relational God wouldn't make it that way. It is true that most people don't convert based on reading trough the rigurous version of the argument. But many more convert based on the simplified version. And if there is a rigurous defense backing it up then that is seen as a confirmation of the simplified version.

[@amu7379]

@@WaterCat5 Right but what Gavin said in the video is that these arguments for God are really just more academically rigorous defences of very common sense intuitions by lay people when in a more formal setting. I do think divine hiddenness is a serious objection to Christianity but I don't think the fact that complicated philosophical arguments exist in the literature adds anything more to it.

[@nelidascott6917]

Thank you. You are now officially my favourite apologist! 😊 Your presentation and arguments are always balanced, well-researched and Scripture centred ❤ AND yes, please make more content like this, adding philosophical views and other perspectives. You are very good communicator and I can digest this easily coming from you. Huge thanks again!!!

[@johnny.musician]

Re your request as ‘do we want more of this?’, I vote yes. My faith is holistic, not specifically centred on one field, eg, apologetics. So yes, please.

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

KEEP GOING, we need apologetics now more than ever. I think one of my Atheist friends is finally starting to get "it". I have been using scanning electron microscopic pictures to show the beauty of design and many people like it.

[@vincentfrizell7055]

I’m in a class called Biofluid Thermology, which is essentially the engineering of the human. My professor who is either not religious or a cultural Catholic continues to say when looking at all these incredibly complex biological mechanisms “If you believe in God then you know why this is so perfect”

[@davidhenderson6255]

Great Video. Thank you!

[@MaM-qg3dk]

Great video, Dr Ortlund! Interested in more on the topic

[@14016EG]

I ate this video up! I'm a huge nerd when it comes to these deep, apologetic videos. Many objections to these arguments can be intimidating, so having a well-read and gentle apologist like you tackle them is incredibly encouraging to me. Thanks for putting so much work into these, Gavin!

[@radscorpion8]

The reality is atheists have dealt with these objections for many years now, and I believe the consensus is essentially that fine-tuning is a god of the gaps argument, which is a well-known and often invoked fallacy used by theists to prove the existence of a God. Because if you think about what is being said carefully, it is not that the constants on their own provide clear evidence pointing to a God, in the same way that say, experiments can clearly demonstrate the wave-nature of light in the double-slit experiment. What is being said is that, because we can't understand the mechanism by which something would come about naturally (including through some random selection process that has yet to be explained), that therefore the only remaining explanation is some form of theism. But this type of explanation has been used for many centuries, especially in ancient times. When we didn't understand the origin of lightning, people simply attributed it to a God or Gods - like Zeus or Poseidon. This is called "god of the gaps" - broadly speaking, that whenever you don't have a natural explanation for something, you (1) Assume that something like your God is real and exists (2) Assume that this God is the only remaining explanation and (3) Conclude therefore that this God is the cause of the phenomena being observed. The reason why it is a fallacy, is simply because we don't understand how something works, does not mean that we therefore get to infer or claim that (1) a God exists. This does not follow logically, in any way, from our lack of understanding of some phenomenon. The common view here is that - well what else could it be? Aren't we forced to consider this as the only remaining option (i.e. step (2))? And this is where the theist is simply wrong. The reality is we have no way of expecting that our human brain is even capable in the first place of comprehending the universe in its entirety - and that includes its origins. And beyond that, even if we were to make this assumption (which is quite arrogant if you think about it, especially considering how often theists are ready to admit that they can't comprehend the mind of God - but the origins of the universe? We have that nailed down :P) - even if we were to assume we can comprehend all the possible reasons for the universe beginning, we have no guarantee that we won't discover new and compelling reasons tens of thousands of years from now as our scientific knowledge grows. And that is ignoring the present ideas we DO have, such as the parallel universe or multiverse hypothesis. And finally regarding his "Occam's Razor" counter to such an idea, there are a few things to note. First of all, the God itself seems to be admittedly incomprehensible to theists. So therefore, how would it make any sense to say that we can compare God to any other phenomenon, in terms of complexity, when you don't understand or can't comprehend God's complexity? Secondly, the use of Occam's Razor is simply wrong. We don't apply it to random hypotheses in an effort to determine which one is more likely to be true. This is because we have no idea, a priori, whether nature prefers complex or simple theories. Mathematical physicists are often derided because they spend too much time with beautiful looking theories, which nonetheless, have no real-world evidence for their existence. And its the same thing here. It doesn't matter if your explanation is simpler, it matters whether or not there is evidence in its favour. IF you do have evidence for God or for parallel universes, then sure, you can choose the simpler one if that evidence supports both theories. But until then, no, Occam's Razor is NOT a way to decide what is true about our universe all on its own. Occam's Razor is routinely misused by many religious philosophers in this way, and unfortunately, many secular philosophers as well. So from that perspective, the God hypothesis - to the extent it can even be considered one since many of its inner workings are essentially unknowable and magical in nature - doesn't really prevail over the parallel worlds hypothesis. Both of them are valid considerations, and that is sufficient to refute fine-tuning as a definitive proof for God, because so long as there are alternatives, we shouldn't just be assuming that the only other explanation we can think of (theism) is the correct one (although I have proven this faulty above anyway).

[@SeanusAurelius]

​@@radscorpion8 You can make absolutely any abductive or inductive argument for God into a god of the gaps argument though, it's too facile a response. You could have a situation where 80% of known facts point at God and still call the conclusion that God exists a god of the gaps argument. If "god of the gaps" is to be a criticism that has weight, it needs to be defined such that it can't be applied to any evidential argument no matter how good. It ought to be only applied to an argument where someone is blindly pointing at something from which they have little or no basis for any sort of probabilistic assessment at all and then arguing that it shows God exists. In the case of fine tuning the best evidence we have is that the probability of the universe having the constants it does are 1 in 10 to 100+; that's a positive assessment of probability. Could it be mistaken? Yes. But is it both sound and based on the best data that we have? Also yes. There's also the matter that the multiverse hypothesis posits supernatural - that is something governed laws not of the nature of our universe - entities in the service of a naturalistic explanation. It's not so much Occams Razor as pointing out that you're blatantly adopting a faith position just to avoid God.

[@douglaswise6797]

​@@radscorpion8 Why is this gem in a reply? You should repost on the main comment thread.

[@Roescoe]

​@@radscorpion8 " like Zeus or Poseidon" I'm guessing you haven't heard John Lenox's response. The God of the Bible as an explanation is not like Zeus or Poseidon. It's a "why" not a "how" "incomprehensible" is different from simplicity. God as a singular being is much simpler than multiple somehow disparate, but connected "universes" which can't rightly be called such as they are related to each other in that their constants stem from a source. (There's also the issue that the source is almost exactly God, once again)

[@seanoconnor5311]

@@radscorpion8 Bump. The point is that this gap turned out to be 10^(huge) than hypothesised.

[@perilouspete]

Definitely interested in you doing more content like this!

Thanks, Gavin, for the superb video and yes, please do more of this kind. I think addressing "the religion of science" is the key apologetic front of today.

[@ryanparris1021]

Awesome video. And yes to your question at the end, I do want you to make more videos like this. This high-level stuff needs to be put simply to be accessible to a pea brain such as myself so thank you very much.

[@MarkWCorbett1]

This is a helpful video. I agree that the fine-tuning argument is a very strong argument for the existence of God. May God use this video for good and may He continue to bless Gavin and bless many people through Gavin's ministry.

[@jrose93]

This was incredible.

[@beerad_98]

I appreciate that you have diversity in your channel. Limiting your self to solely a defense of Protestant theology would be a disservice to your gifts and your passion for knowledge at all intersections with faith. Interacting with atheists, Catholics, Orthodox, I'd even be interested you doing some light branching into religions outside of Christendom.

[@stefanosbir3958]

I think it would be best if he focus on what he does best: church history and theology.

[@MetalThrashinDad]

Oh man this was awesome. These are the territory’s I often find myself in and when I wasn’t a believer found myself arguing. This video hit DIFFERENT thank you 🙏

[@VickersJon]

I’m so excited for your upcoming videos. Thank you sir!

[@danpahlau16]

I find I'm a little more hit or miss with the apologetic videos as opposed to theology videos, but that's probably to be expected if you are creating a library of content for many different kinds of people who are searching for discussion and answers to their most pressing questions. Really enjoyed this one!

[@stephencramm1354]

Love the quick new intro and right into the action!

[@BasicsGolf]

Thank you for your work, brother. Your metaphors and analogies hold great value for any Christians to be ready to present a good reason for our faith. 1 Pet 3:15-16

[@Ransom747]

Great video! I'm very interested in these apologetic videos. I'm definitely looking forward to next week's video. Good work Gavin

[@jty1999]

Fascinating, thank you Dr. Ortlund

[@freddymansour4881]

you’re great at everything you choose to cover so i won’t say stick to sola scriptura lol, but my favorite videos are definitely the ones with a historical theology focus. i just feel like it’s more rare to find good content in that area

[@cinsc556]

I think this is very interesting. I've been following this and similar developments for years. More, please!

[@tjflash60]

Very good presentation. I appreciate the variety in the subjects that you discuss. Thanks.

[@ottovonbaden6353]

Ooo, new opening graphic! Nifty. Will have to watch the full video later.

[@matthewbond5055]

Great video! Keep doing content like this!

[@finley4915]

Thank you Gavin! I will support and watch your videos regardless of the topic. I very much enjoy these deeper dives into apologetic and philosophical subjects.

[@Luuuuan]

As someone who studies chemistry, this argument is something veeery useful when you know more about the complexity of our universe

[@SeanusAurelius]

I'm a former chemist and the question of abiogenesis (e.g. how did DNA come about, given that it statistically it simply cannot come about by chance / similar questions re the intracellular machinery that replicates it/cell walls) quite compelling. At the very least it made me realise atheists are lying or mistaken when they claim that theirs is not a faith position. You actually see explicit appeals to faith that some sort of RNA / peptide explanation will be found one day because scientists are good at finding things. It's also good for sorting out atheists who are just copy pasting things about evolution from those who can actually debate objections. Same for fine tuning.

[@Luuuuan]

@@SeanusAurelius they say we have a "God of the gaps" but it seems they have the "science of the gaps" 😂

[@MarcMarvels]

@@Luuuuan”time of the gaps”, or better yet, “chance of the gaps”

[@thomasrutledge5941]

​@@SeanusAureliusWhat degree(s) do you have in Chemistry, and from where? The appeals from ignorance that you're making are not consistent with an actual scientist keeping to their field of expertise.

[@Reclaimer77]

​@@SeanusAureliusNobody says it came about "by chance". You idiots keep arguing against a straw man. It came about by chemistry and natural forces. It's not "random" or "by chance". Also you can't even say HOW god did it either. So how can you say which is more probable?

[@barry.anderberg]

Awesome, please keep them coming!

[@ewo00]

I do enjoy the theological focused videos, and the discussions of church history, but I look forward to seeing more like this as well!

[@knuerr]

Always a good, “go to”. Thanks for great videos.

[@THECHARGEwithDennisMetzler]

Wow! That was superb!

[@KlickSipYT]

Love your apologetics videos!! Please keep making them!

[@jerrysweany278]

I love your content Gavin. Thank you for putting in all the effort. One "ISSUE" I would love to see you address is the Church Fathers on homosexuality. So many progressives articulating an absence or silence of the "Fathers" on this.

[@cbrooks97]

Yes, more like this.

[@JohnMark61355]

Yes, I would like more videos on this topic.

[@MelonAdv]

These types of videos are great. All of the videos you do are helpful! Would love more videos on apologetics, as well as defenses for Protestantism

[@lexingtonthelion5478]

Please do more videos like this. Studying philosophy and science helped to develop my interest in the Trinity, so it would be very helpful for someone like me to hear you talk about how theology, science, and philosophy overlap.

[@CrownOfThornss]

Great video, Gavin!

[@MACHO_CHICO]

I’m sympathetic to objection 1 after watching some of Phil Halper’s videos on the topic, particularly his response to Phillip Goff and Luke Barnes. At a certain point, the dialogue gets to such a high level of complexity, talking about probability theory and other factors that it becomes nearly impossible for a layman like myself to evaluate the strength of the arguments. It’s especially difficult when there are multiple physicists and philosophers objecting to the argument as they of course have actual authority on the topic which I’m unqualified to refute.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I like the music analogy best as well. It sounds like Tolkien’s creation story in the Silmarilion.

[@theepitomeministry]

I love these kinds of videos, Dr. Ortlund. The Protestantism stuff is obviously great as well, but natural theology is a subject near and dear to my heart. The design argument is, in my opinion, the strongest indicator that there is a God. I can't think of a convincing atheistic alternative. I also think Paley's version of the argument is much stronger than people give it credit for. I think his version needs to be revived, but also, I loved that analogy with the instrument. So good!

[@harrygarris6921]

I think we can go even broader than thinking about design to simply thinking about constraints, because everything in the universe is bound by them. This strongly points to theism because constraints are a form of information and order neither of which we can really explain how such things can arise randomly.

[@jtbasener1810]

It often seems interesting that atheists would accuse theists of being too fantastical when the multiverse itself seems like something out of science fiction. It is at once a source of great distress and great humor that I see so much discussion on this topic boiling down to a debate between the fantasy enthusiasts and the science fiction nerds. Ironic observations aside, I really appreciate your video! I love both science and philosophy and when the two intersect, I know I can hear the angels sing! I will never cease to be astounded by the fine-tuning argument. Great work, Dr. Ortlund.

[@CollinBoSmith]

I’m interested in this stuff and would like to see more!

[@ChristianCombatives]

I agree that this seems to be the most rationally compelling argument, while I feel that the necessity of God for objective morality to exist is often the most emotionally compelling. And in either case, we can never underestimate the stubbornness of humans to resist a good argument, and in the case of faith, resist the Holy Spirit. But even when these arguments do not help in presenting the truth of Christianity (and they often do help), they are also a help as a comfort to believers that Christianity is a coherent, rational, and obvious truth.

[@dri-fit9712]

Great video. One interesting question that too appears to stand in need of explanation is our inclination to see design in natural objects, or as Barrett calls it, our “Hyperagency Detection Device” (HADD). It aligns very smoothly with what Islam teaches to be the “fitrah”, i.e., our natural inclination and desire to recognise and worship God. Belief in God thus appears to he hardwired into our cognition. And overturning any of our foundational intuitions ought to meet a high evidentiary bar, which flips the burden of proof onto the atheist.

[@andyjones1982]

I think the machinery of life is an even more persuasive argument, and more "real" to most people. But the fine-tuning argument certainly has its uses. An atheist once tried to persuade me that the water cycle is a machine driven by solar power, but that it occurs naturally without design. I could have responded angrily at the preposterous idea that the water cycle is "a machine". Instead I questioned the idea that it is not designed (maybe not so finely tuned as other things but definitely special): you see the water molecule is unique in that it is much lighter than air, but liquifies at much higher temperatures (because of hydrogen bonding), so it takes only small shifts in temperature for it to switch between rising high in the atmosphere, or forming clouds and then rain. In contrast methane has similar weight but even on cold moons, methane doesn't form clouds and complex weather; it only forms mist. These properties are determined by the same physical constants that work so many other miracles in the universe.

[@trentberry4081]

Thanks for the video. This said I have never understood these theists who put so much weight behind the fine-tuning argument- only to then just suspend all of these physical laws when miracles are performed. If these miracles- all of which defy the laws and rules of the universe that are supposedly so fine tuned…then it turns out this fine tuning isn’t so important after all, and therefore not really indicative of anything. Let’s add to this the fact that it’s beyond egoistic to think the universe was designed with life in mind, especially since almost 100 percent of the universe is completely hostile to and uninhabitable by life. It’s more likely that life is an accident or a junk byproduct. But thanks for the video, always good to hear calm and professional attempts at explanations!

[@theodorerogers5809]

Fantastic video! These videos are very helpful for me and personally I prefer them more than Catholic/Protestant videos (although I enjoy both)

[@JohnMark61355]

Thank you. Belief in a Creator is apparent to me based on the fine tuning and similar arguments. It is more difficult though for me to believe the Bible is the “inerrant word of God” and is our best insight into the nature of God. The people who wrote the Bible had no idea of all that is behind the fine tuning argument and focused on many issues that seem unlikely a concern of God (e.g., women speaking in church).

[@issaavedra]

I like the transcendental argument as a "fine-tuning" argument for abstract categories.

[@asherburns6818]

If you keep addressing these scientific-type topics, I’d love to see some content focused on defending theism/Christianity against deism.

[@postpunkjustin]

Great video, thanks for posting it. I do think the multiverse explanation deserves at least a bit more credit given its usefulness outside of cosmology-specifically, it provides a very straightforward interpretation of the quantum wave function. In that sense, both explanations seem to support one another, even though they explain different phenomena.

[@mike16apha16]

i like these type of vids keep it up

[@PlaylistWatching1234]

Number 4 is very similar to the old Douglas Adams parable of the puddle: "This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

[@whatsinaname691]

Except objection 4 is actually well-thought out

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

Great video!

[@joshuahaddow3194]

Thanks for the video Gavin I'm exicted to watch it! I was wondering if you were at all planning to do a video on how to approach supposed contradictions specifically in the gospels' resurrection accounts?

[@Lightborn1311]

I like videos on these philosophical topics. Honestly I think the Moral Argument is right up there with Fine Tuning. In my opinion the existence of God is entirely moral, because if there were zero moral implications tied to the existence of God, no one would have any reason to object to His existence.

[@VeNeRaGe]

I would prefer for you to do both apologetics and defending protestantism. Maybe one video of apologetics, one video of defending protestantism (doing a video on confessing your sins to the priest, for example).

[@epicgamerman420]

not all protestants are against pastoral confession

[@JonathonPHaney]

​@@epicgamerman420I would agree, in that I myself think that it is generally a good thing for Christians to confess their sins to thier pastors and fellows, but the big difference is when this practice starts being seen as the primary way to recieve that forgiveness from God rather than asking him directlt

[@mikebuckley46]

Pope Gavin’s all over this one go Gav 😊

[@glstka5710]

27:18 Unnecessary Complexity - When my mom did our genealogy, whenever she found an ancestor that raised the question of who their parents were which made more complexity. Wouldn't be more simple to posit that we just split like amoebas? Or maybe we just accidentally sprang into existence from all the stuff in our house. This of course is ridiculous. This also works against the "Who designed the Designer" argument. Just because and answer causes more questions in my mind doesn't mean that the answer is wrong.

[@IndianaBrunner]

Man sad 😢 Gavin drops new video 😮 Man happy 😏 Repeat 🔂

[@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15]

that outro song goes hard

[@thomasrutledge5941]

Some counter apologists speak of: "The Gavin Ortlund School of Weaponized Niceness." =D This might be better outro music. "ATLiens - Tantra (Official Audio)" kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWnJpHeBnduFpqssi=5nYpbUEGHry6AfPc

[@unexpectedTrajectory]

I think Boltzmann Brains is a very strong tool for making someone with a world view/cosmology susceptible to it stop and go, "Oh, maybe I should rethink my cosmology..." Unfortunately, I think it's too hard for most people to grasp to be very useful. But if you are talking to someone who will get it, it's useful to know about and might help shake someone up epistemically.

[@charlesking9120]

More videos like this!

[@Pacemasterx]

Do both philosophy and theology please!

[@josephheyrman5514]

As a young adult who has recently become a more devout Catholic and feels that I have done my best to sincerely seek out, consider, and understand my protestant brother and sister's truth claims -I'd appreciate that you stick to more of the protestant apologetics type things as I feel like there are a fair number of good YT channels / videos on the arguments for the existence of God / philosophy. Could just be my algorithm but feel that I have genuinely tried to seek out protestant channels but have not come across many protestant apologists of your depth and delivery.

[@endygonewild2899]

Great video

[@benrex7775]

Your approach to those topics like the finetuning argument is different than mine. So I would like to see more videos on it to see a new perspective.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

The classical theistic interpretation of quantum physics offered by Nigel Cundy is one of the most powerful arguments for Christianity there is

[@michaelkistner6286]

Given the absence of plausible alternative explanations (and yes I'm aware of the multiverse hypothesis) a rational inquirer is well within their epistemic rights to believe in a Creator who may or may not be the God of theism.

[@HarrisonMiller_G]

About 1--15 years ago I was really into apologetics, and that got me into the philosophy of science and questions of epistemology. Initially I liked the fine-tuning argument, but I grew to dislike it. My practice was always to see if I could think of questions and would negate it, and I came to feel like there were some assumptions inherent in the argument that it could not address. I could be completely wrong, so please tell me if I am, but it seems to me that the argument begins with human conscious life as we know it now. Then takes that, assuming it to be the only kind of life conscious life that is possible. Therefore, the conditions that make this particular kind of life possible must be the only conditions that would produce any consciousness whatsoever. But, what bothered me about this is the assumption that evolution would or could not produce life/conscious life adapted to other conditions. That is, the conditions we need as conscious beings of our kind are very specific, but why assume that we are the only possible iteration of conscious life possible? But, as you said, this isn't about evolution, but about the conditions for a habitable universe of any kind. But, then, God himself could make any universe he wanted and it would not have to be this one with these particularly exacting conditions. From that vantage point, too, it seems to me that, unless God made it so fragile on purpose so as to be evidence for design, I have a hard time seeing how or why just the mathematical unlikelihood of the conditions we have here is any more evidence for God than if it was extremely likely that life would obtain in our universe? Why, that is, is the very minute likelihood of life in our universe evidence of a designer? A Lot of accidents are very unlikely, but they still happen. But, why should we think that God was bound by such exacting constraints? Does that make sense? I mean, why wouldn't God create a universe that was less fragile than ours? Maybe these are silly thoughts, but I never found an answer to them. I don't see how unlikelihood equals 'strong' evidence in this case. I might be evidence, but I don't see it as strong or powerful. I find that Lewis/Plantinga's argument from reason/consciousness as presenting the best evidence for God, and, though I am not a presup guy, the Transcendental argument is a very powerful argument. Arguments for the impossibility of the contrary work the best and are most persuasive if they are articulated clearly. C.S. Lewis's argument is better than Planinga's for that reason.

[@thomasrutledge5941]

It sounds like science may be leading you into Taoism. It often has that effect. Good.

[@DanielNotates]

Funny thought for the “watch in the woods” is that the level of complexity of the watch pales in comparison to the trees surrounding the observer, or the observer himself :) I know that’s kind of the point

[@Mark-cd2wf]

“If there are other universes, they would have different laws of physics. They would therefore never overlap with ours and be impossible to detect.” Albert Einstein “The multiverse hypothesis is not a scientific attempt to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, rather it is a desperate metaphysical attempt to explain it away.” Me

[@djsarg7451]

He also said anyone in this one can never measure any other one.

[@TerryTrowbridge]

Occam’s beard… 🤣🤣🤣

[@jordanlamkin4118]

@TruthUnites You asked if we the commenters want more of this kind of content. I enjoy these kinds of videos discussing apologetic arguments and science/faith intersection, as well as the theology videos. I would also be interested in your insight more broadly, especially on controversial topics since, in my view, you have historically had very balanced, nuanced and well-researched opinions. But I don't think you should listen to what I want you to do or what any other commenter wants you to do. Make whatever content God is calling you toward or is most needed for advancing His kingdom.

[@RangerRyke]

If we ignore the fact that we don’t know if the variables could be any different than what they are and accept fine tuning, you are still left with an indifferent designer at best. Life evolves through mutation and death that has a 99% failure rate. If there is a designer they choose death and suffering as the catalyst to design life with no efficient trajectory.

[@MatthewFearnley]

An indifferent designer probably would have created no life at all. An omnipotent designer wouldn’t be put off by an “inefficient” trajectory, particularly if it allowed for a universe that was governed by consistent natural laws.

[@Eternal_Hope_Q]

What if you don't believe that you have a designer who cares enough to create basic 'families' of creatures and allow (via heterozygosity) each 'family' to adapt to it's environment through natural selection such as we can still observe?

[@cosmicnomad8575]

I tend to prefer more metaphysical arguments like the Contingency Argument or Aquinas’ Five Ways, those are what personally convince me. But the fine-tuning argument is pretty cool.

[@galaxyn3214]

Do more videos on cosmological philosophy!

[@landlubbber]

Despite believing it, I've never been too impressed with the fine tuning argument because we'd need a sample size larger than 1 to say something like "we couldn't exist without these constants being such and such", because we actually don't know what forms of life could or could not exist under those conditions. There may be far, far more to the picture than the constants we know of, and we can't know the effects of changing them

[@geraldbritton8118]

We can calculate the effects of changing them. Those calculations Show that if only one of those fundamental constants would change my minuscule amount, the nuclear Physics would not work. Chemistry would not work and Gavin couldn't have made this video. Is it possible that some other set of constants could sustain some other kind of life? Well I suppose anything's possible! Is it reasonable and rational to believe that? For me at least somebody would have to show me the math. It shows that a different set of physical constants would indeed lead to a different kind of life. But as I understand it, no one can show mathematically any physical process that leads to the life we find in our own Galaxy at least not scientifically reproducible process. So I'm rather inclined to think there can be only one such that m

[@wadejnelson]

was hoping you would mention Thomas Nagel, his treatment by his fellow atheists said a lot about their herd mentality

[@GloriaExelcisDeo]

Relying on the multiverse has a core error that is difficult to tackle. Even beyond fine tuning, if you are arguing for the *origins* of the universe along with fine tuning, multiverse hypothesis just creates an infinite amount of new universes to attempt to argue the origins of, it is sufficiently self defeating.

[@danielboone8256]

Looking at the time stamps before watching it and it’s a shame I don’t see the electrons in love objection there.

[@windyearle]

Would love to see a video about how we can practically love God when he is sovereign over - and indeed the cause of - our pain. And I find the book of Job no help at all - the end of that book is just "shut up Job, you don't know anything", followed by "they comforted him for all the evil the Lord brought upon him". How do we love and trust God when he's not answering prayer and he's bringing great hardship into our lives? I know that's the mature Christian attitude that we should have - and that I greatly desire - I just don't know how to get there. And yes, I have seen your sermon on suffering, it was very moving.

[@bitsmore6265]

as in?! the book of Job did not awe you about pain? interesting... brother the main explanation of pain on earth is the cross. your pain is true, it's valid. but there is hope. yes there is pain but we know when we look at the cross that God is not indifferent with our pain. we are assured that He knows. and we are comforted knowing that He is a good God. hope this helps.

[@SacredCuriosity]

Consider the eternal perspective. I believe God has indeed decreed sovereignly to allow pain and suffering. In the context of our eternal life with Christ, our temporal suffering will serve to only greater magnify our joy, as it has given us a frame of reference for what it is to lack all that heaven is. For example, those who keenly feel distance from God here on earth, and don't get to feel his presence as almost palpable when they need it most, will find all the sweeter his closeness when God lives amongst us in his new creation. For those who have experienced hunger, food is all the more delicious. If God alleviates our suffering here, he is to be praised for prefiguring our ressurection life and bodies. If he allows it (even causes it) he is to be praised as our suffering now will allow us to experience the joy of the opposite on an eternal infinite scale. Far more, I believe, than our peers that didn't suffer in whatever particular way: see the sermon on the mount. Remember as well that the garden contained the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not the knowledge of only evil. If we never knew suffering, our perception would externally exist in a state of benign neutrality. God is able to use the fall, what Satan intended for evil, for good. Because of the vanishingly short existence in which we gain a frame of reference for sin/suffering/death, we (although the sum of our earthly life might well be suffering) will be able to personally experience a far more glorious eternal life ahead in Christ than we otherwise would have.

[@adrianpandur6181]

Maybe it is helpful when you experience suffering or great hardship you pray to God for guidance, what does God want from this particular suffering, does He want you to learn something or does He want you to be a more mature Christian from it, and help you to have His perspective on things. Prayers can also sometimes not be answered for a number of things, we can't always know why. But first we need to carefully examine our prayers, did you ask that out of your needs or because of your own selfish reasons. There is a lot of cause why God does not answer our prayers, sometimes we just can't know about them.

[@WaterCat5]

Why would you trust something that hurts and ignores you? Just straight up doesn't seem loving.