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."

[@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.

[@delbert372]

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✝️

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@ryanprosper88]

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

[@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!

[@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!!!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@josephfritz2299]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@Narikku]

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

[@MarkAtherton-bf4pq]

Very well done. Thank you.

[@MaM-qg3dk]

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

[@cinsc556]

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

[@perilouspete]

Definitely interested in you doing more content like this!

[@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!

[@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

[@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

[@cbrooks97]

Yes, more like this.

[@MetalThrashinPietist]

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 🙏

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@theodorerogers5809]

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

[@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.

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.

[@tjflash60]

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

[@THECHARGEwithDennisMetzler]

Wow! That was superb!

[@Ransom747]

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

[@ottovonbaden6353]

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

[@jty1999]

Fascinating, thank you Dr. Ortlund

[@VickersJon]

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

[@stephencramm1354]

Love the quick new intro and right into the action!

[@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.

[@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!

[@ogloc6308]

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

[@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.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

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

[@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

[@Sages_Dad]

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

[@matthewbond5055]

Great video! Keep doing content like this!

[@SamLoser2]

I find Alex’s wording of the “Too much math” interesting because personally I am somewhat moved by this in more than an intellectual way. I know I’m probably a weird one, but when I look at things like Fine-Tuning, Math, information, and other transcendentals like logic and reason, I’m moved by the way these immaterial things seem integral to the foundation of the Universe. In contrast to the existential dread I’d feel under materialist atheism, where my mind and thoughts are accidental and superfluous byproducts of chemical reactions, I find such peace and joy in the fact that the very essence of reality appears to depend on something that is like me, a mind, rather than me being a quirk of the universe.

[@CrownOfThornss]

Well said:)

[@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!

[@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.

[@knuerr]

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

[@Brito3287]

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

[@TerryTrowbridge]

Occam’s beard… 🤣🤣🤣

[@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.

[@SaucyDog420]

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

[@barry.anderberg]

Awesome, please keep them coming!

[@JohnMark61355]

Yes, I would like more videos on this topic.

[@KlickSipYT]

Love your apologetics videos!! Please keep making them!

[@CollinBoSmith]

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

[@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.

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

Great video!

[@mike16apha16]

i like these type of vids keep it up

[@CrownOfThornss]

Great video, Gavin!

[@endygonewild2899]

Great video

[@jtbasener8740]

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.

[@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.

[@jungle_run]

The problem I have with multiverse theory is the abuse of mathematics, statistics, and the human psyche. Inflationary theory required a wave function to explain how you can have a "random" universe generator. However, the actual mathematicians and physicists working on that realized the ultimate problem with this. If the boundary of that wave function was unlimited, meaning ANY universe could exist, the number of universes would actually be infinite. This is a problem, because it makes something highly improbable literally and mathematically impossible rather than possible. This is because any finite set of acceptable numbers washed in a sea of infinity becomes infinitely impossible, because to find the probability we divide the number of acceptable number ranges by the total set, which in this case would be infinite. Once you realize you'll have to divide by infinity(which you can't, infinity isn't a number meaning you can't perform mathematical functions on it) having inifinite possible universes becomes a bane rather than a boon. They knew this, which is why they actually constricted(albeit artifically) their wave function to a range of "acceptable" possibilities. This allows you to have a finite number, albeit still a very large number of them. However, this step actually increases the complexity of the explanation and puts it behind the God hypothesis and it can only win out if it has greater explanatory power, which it doesn't(in my opinion of course). Even then, you still have to deal with the fine-tuning argument because then you have to compare the magnificently improbable numbers to the number of possible universes in the constricted model. No matter how you do it you either have to constrict the range to make comparison possible, thus making the theory open to scrutiny, which is uncomfortable, or you have something infinite that becomes not much different from the God hypothesis and/or dissolving itself in a sea of infinity. This is where the abuse of the human psyche comes in. The official theories use one tactic, while the colloquial arguments(this even includes high level discourse in debates) rely on the other even if by inference. You see, they'll switch back and forth if you point this out to them, saying its not infinite, but their actual arguments presume infinite possibilities which is the only way they can convince people to intuit that the gargantuan(and understatement) improbabilities can be overcome. This is by abusing people's misunderstanding about infinity, namely that it is a number. Since infinity is not something we can actually understand in its entirety, we usually think of it as the number line continuing on without ending. However, if you look at infinity, you can't even see the number line, all of it drowns in the infinite sea.

[@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

[@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).

[@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.

[@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?

[@mikebuckley46]

Pope Gavin’s all over this one go Gav 😊

[@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.

[@charlesking9120]

More videos like this!

[@kimmyswan]

Objections: 1. This is a God of the gaps argument. According to big bang cosmology, our instantiation of space time “started”expanding from a hot dense state. We know THAT the universe is expanding and we know HOW the universe formed (including our galaxy, solar system and planet). What we don’t know (the gap in our knowledge), is WHY the laws of physics (in our universe) are conducive to life. 2. Why would an all powerful God need to fine tune anything? 3. The “Fine-tuning” argument for God is limited in its explanatory power. Multiverse theories (and there are many) on the other hand, attempt to explain WHY the laws of physics are so exact through testable measurement and observation. Also, what’s stopping the theist from moving the goal post once theoretical physical cosmology has an answer? For example, theists could simply argue that God created the multiverse. Or that the parameters are fixed because God wanted them to be. This, in turn would place the “fine-tuning” argument for God’s existence on the shelf together with virtually all of the other teleological explanations.

[@HearGodsWord]

1. It's not a God of the gaps argument. 2. An all powerful God is capable of fine tuning. 3. Fine tuning is a better argument than the multiverse.

[@kimmyswan]

@@HearGodsWord Can you elaborate more. Assertions are unhelpful.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@kimmyswan it is what it is. I wasn't convinced by your 3 points for the 3 reasons I gave. Well have to agree to disagree.

[@Pacemasterx]

Do both philosophy and theology please!

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@issaavedra]

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

[@letrewiarz]

I'm a theist (a Catholic to be exact), but I don't like this argument and I think that objection number 4 is really a death blow. Physical constans have to have some values. It really is like a lottery, where there will be a winning number. Since we have 0 knowledge on their prior probability, we have no reason to assume that one set of values is more probable than another. So the set of values that allow us to exist is no less probable than any other - meaning we can't deduce a creator from this fact alone. Your response to this objection to this argument works only if we assume, that the existence of humans is somehow a state desired by the Universe, as if its trying to produce life. If this was the case, then the argument would work, because then we would have a situation, where there is a "correct" and "incorrect" state of the Universe and the incorrect state is much more likely. However, the Universe is not a machine that is intended to produce humans (I'm not rejecting teleology here, it's just that it doesn't seem like the Universe has creation of humans as its natural telos - if you even can call the Universe a being that has a nature and telos). If we never existed, the Universe would be just fine. Therefore, there are only two ways you can assign this purpose: 1. A Creator, that creates the world so that humans have the place to live in. This is the conclusion you try to prove by the fine-tuning argument, so you can't assume it to defend the argument. 2. Human preference - it's obvious that we prefer the Universe to be the way it is, but what we prefer has no impact on what is the correct state of the world. So I would say that this is just like a lottery. Of course that when you buy a lottery ticket, you think of it as "I have 1% chance to get this right" and if you actually win, you are happy and may even think that God made it so just for you. However, objectively speaking, your number was just as probable as any other and the fact that you won, while very impactful for your life, doesn't prove in any way that God has to exist to produce this effect.

[@TruthUnites]

Do you find it relevant that even Dawkins and Mackie and most atheists concede this is not a good response? If you won the lottery ten times in a row, wouldn't this provoke wonder at whether it was rigged?

[@Capt.Fail.]

I think it’s less so that this is even a “rare” state - we have no reason to believe we understand any of the probabilities involved at all. Yes, the numbers are very precise, but we don’t know (to my knowledge, anyways) if they could even be any different than they are, let alone what the probability distribution of the parameters is if they can vary. That is to say, as the line I believe Oppy takes is, the conditions of the universe can simply be assumed to have been necessary. There’s no reason to believe that there is some varying, random degree of accuracy that the parameters just happened to fall within - they just are that way. You can object to that, but God doesn’t help. He simply is necessary as well. You’d have to defend why God can simply be necessary but the fundamentals of the universe are not, which is a completely separate argument.

[@letrewiarz]

@@TruthUnites I don't know much about Mackie, but I can say that considering Dawkins's treatment of Aquinas's five ways, I don't hold his opinions in high regard. I agree however, that if indeed the majority of atheists don't consider this a good response, then this is relevant, even if not an argument in itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the specific argument Dawkins refers to is the man at the firing squad. I would say that it suffers from the same problem that I'm mentioned in my comment - teleology. The marksmen specifically aim at the man with intention to kill and therefore it is improbable that all of them would miss their target. However, to apply it for the fine-tuning, we would need to prove that the Universe aims at creation of humans, which I don't think you can do without assuming a creator. As to your second question, yes, if I won the lottery ten times in a row, this would not only provoke wonder, but it would be a really strong proof that it's rigged. The problem here is, that as far as we know, creation of the Universe with its physical constants was a one-time event. If we had a "reset the Universe" buton we could press multiple times and most of the time got this small window that allows for life to exist, then I would concede that this would be good evidence for the existence of God.

[@dri-fit9712]

From your point of view, me winning the lottery may not be proof of God’s existence, as I am a number like any other. Yet from my point of view, it does need an explanation. Randomness, is to assert that something doesn’t need an explanation, so it won’t cut it.

[@Rand0mPeon]

I’m a Christian too, and my problem with the fine-tuning argument is that all the talk about the odds and comparing it to a lottery miss one thing. The whole discussion _assumes_ that the universe’s constants could have been different and that we ‘beat’ the odds by landing on an universe whose constants allows life to be possible, but it’s just that, an assumption. For all we know, the constants aren’t what they are because of luck, but because these are the _only_ constants that _can_ be. Not necessarily saying the constants themselves are necessary, but they might be determined by something necessary that would _always_ make the constants as they are. If it wasn’t a lottery, all the arguments both in favor and against the result of the lottery fall flat. As far as I know, we have no empirical evidence even suggesting that the laws of physics could have been anything but what they are. All we have are hypotheticals and speculations that they could have been, but no observations of anything that would be in favor of such hypotheticals. Until we crack a few more secrets of the universe and discover something that would relate to the subject, the fine-tuning argument boils down to saying nothing, on nothing.

[@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.

[@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

[@asherburns6818]

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

[@billymunce4602]

I Actually believe your response to the multiverse argument to be quite strong. In epistemic philosophy there is a well held belief by many that for one to have knowledge, one cannot have epistemic luck involved in their justification. This is demonstrated in the Gettier problem of the Many that states: You stand in front of a field containing 100 cows, 99 cows in this field are fake, they look smell and sound identical to a real cow and are indistinguishable from a real cow. There is however one real cow in the field and it just so happens to be the cow standing closest to you. From this information you make the following inference; Claim A: This field contains many creatures that appear to be cows, Claim B: This creature in front of me must be a cow. Under the normal tripartite definition of knowledge as a justified true belief (JTB) one would say that you do in fact know B. However it seems irresponsible to say that you know B as it is only by chance that it is true. If you had been standing in a different position with a fake cow in front of you B would be false. Thus most would agree that it is irresponsible to say that you know B as your claim is built upon epistemic luck. In the same vain I believe the multiverse argument relies heavily on epistemic luck. Of course not in the same manner as the Gettier problem of The Many but in a similar way it relies on certain probabilistic factors for it to be true and certain theories in physics that have yet to proved true. Meanwhile the Theistic argument as you suggest revolves around a simple answer to the data. While from a purely logical point of view it is still probabilistic I hold it to be less so than the multiverse theory as it does not require additional probabilistic factors such as string theory or even the inifite probability of this universe coming to be in a multiverse scenario. In my experience there is no way to fully eliminate epistemic luck, (Decartes certainly tried) one can however minimise it and as such I think it prudent to rely on an explanation with minimised epistemic luck. Love your work, praying for your ministry.

[@galaxyn3214]

Do more videos on cosmological philosophy!

[@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.

[@zeph99]

The world needs you to study philosophy!!

[@adam7402]

I have a degree physics and work as a particle accelerator engineer and I don't prefer the fine tuning argument either. It makes little sense to me why one would look at the rules of the creation to discern the existence of a creator. The creator is not bound by those rules, our good Lord does us a favor by adhering to our rules most of the time. But then there's miracles, and what do you make of that? It's analogous to a game of monopoly where the thimble and the race car are debating the existence of a higher being. They might discern that all created beings must exist on the array of properties that exist in the game. Arguing for the existence of a higher being based on our experiences of our fundamental rules just make little sense to me.

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

I find it interesting, and if you find it interesting too, then why not talk about it? Either way, keep up the great work. :)

[@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.

[@bitsmore6265]

sir Gavin, fine tuning is an interesting insight, but the cross, it is the power of God.

[@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.

[@tactfulrogue]

The presups built into a materialistic world view is a house of cards built on faith.

[@JonathanRedden-wh6un]

The genetic code requires a code maker just as a computer programme requires a programmer. This is Stephen Meyer’s argument. Blessings from uk.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

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