Refuting Weak Anthropic Principle Arguments

[@theonetruechazz598]

Crazy how much the abbreviation WAP has changed in meaning since then.

[@filler7149]

Went from interest upon hearing that acronym to Vietnam flashbacks

[@GreatfulGert]

Glad I wasn’t the only one thinking it

[@maxalaintwo3578]

LMAOOOOOOOO

[@vicachcoup]

Good presentation. Many atheists think that arguments against theistic arguments are convincing merely because they are arguments against theism.

[@arunmoses2197]

So true!

[@OldManMontgomery]

I must agree.

[@JD-jl4yy]

Applies both ways

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, but as Martin Rees notes, the other configurations all produce the same results, the same outcome. There is only one configuration like ours. So the other outcomes have a much higher probability since they can result from several configurations.

[@juansamano8159]

You know, that is like surviving an execution by firing squad and saying “we really don’t…

[@christopherjohnson1873]

I think one of the main reasons some are so quick to dismiss this argument as just one of those other coincidences we see in life is that we can't internalize just how improbable it is that the conditions of the universe are such that life can exist. Despite the fact that we learned in math class that 10^60 is ten times 10^59, because we don't run into these kinds of numbers in the real world, we can't internalize it. The odds, for example, that the universe would get the low entropy needed such that life could exist by luck is 10^10^132 (a 1 with 10^132 zeroes; it's been proposed that there are around 10^80 atoms in the universe, so it would take around 10^52 universes of our size to contain those zeroes, if every zero was the size of an atom) to 1, as calculated by Roger Penrose. Even if you were to grant that maybe the entropy might be a little bit higher and still life could be supported, that won't even begin to cut into double exponent odds like 10^10^132.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

But thats irrelevant because here we are. The problem many have with statistics is that you need at least one occurrance to base the statistic on, it doesnt matter if it never happens again, it only needs to happen once. Besides that, physics is deterministic despite many claims to the contrary through misinformed readings of the observer effect. So our existence or tjust the existence of life would be an eventuality in the right circumstances, with luck being a hypothetical rouse of sorts.

[@nics4967]

@@nunyabisnass1141 If I sit down to play poker and the man I'm playing against gets delt a royal flush. The rational response is to think he cut a deal with the dealer not to shrug my shoulders and say must have been chance.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Nic S true. Now play that same game a million times, how improbable would it be after a million tries?

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Mr. Ben i t kinda is. We don't even know if its a coherent question to ask if the universe could exist with any other set of properties, or if the fundamental forces are emergent, contingent, or just inherent. So its an interesting question to ask if the universe and its laws could be different, but we just plain don't know. Entertaining it beyond a hypothetical exploration just doesnt make any sense due to the kinds of assumptions one would need to make.

[@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722]

@@nunyabisnass1141 It would still be improbable after a million tries because every try resets the improbability. This is like saying that, if I have a 25% chance to score a goal, I will always score a goal 1 in 4 times. Of course this is incorrect.

[@efraimshilongo]

I was skeptical about fine-tuning argument, and used this (WAP) as an excuse. Thanks for helping!

[@IhavenoeyebrowsTTV]

Lol wap

[@pyramid9530]

This comment hasn't aged well

[@webslinger527]

@@pyramid9530 how so the universe is still very finally tuned. Both the video and comment has Held up

[@pyramid9530]

@@webslinger527 there was a certain song made...

[@webslinger527]

@@pyramid9530 what is the song?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

And it agrees with what I just said, "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."

[@secretagentman5184]

Random fact: if gravity was stronger, the sun would collapse on itself. Yet, if the gravity was weaker, the sun would dissinagrate and expand from the nuclear explosions and dissolve into putter space.....Its a perfect balance.

[@elvancor]

We've observed unconscious self-regulating systems in nature.

[@raiderkizzo]

it's not a perfect balance. first, universe (something) exists. in order for universe to exist, there need to be constants so universe doesn't destroy itself or collapse instantly. All constants mean is something (universe) is existing through time, time is passing and something still exists. So because we exist through time, whatever we do, any action of the cosmos, is obviously going to behave according to the forces that already exist. It's not special. It just obeys forces because the forces already exist. If I shoot several arrows and one of my arrows hit a bullseye, you could say, wow, if he drew back the bow a little less or a little more, he would have missed the target. But he hit the target. A perfect balance. Nope, just forces at play. I think you're ascribing too much significance to things happening. If I plant an apple seed and water it enough, it will produce an apple tree and apples. The apples don't marvel at the miracle of their existence (maybe hey do :) because the apple seed is supposed to make apples. That's not special (unless everything is special, which defeats the purpose of the word). It just is. The apple seed is programmed, through time and conditions, to produce apple trees. And so the universe is programmed to produce black holes, planets, and occasionally, humans. It's not anything special. It just happens to do this because the universe exists, and it exists for a long time. Any universe that exists for a long time will probably produce something interesting. We happen to exist in a universe that produces us, among other things. I don't understand why this idea is so hard for people to think about. There is no evidence that we are special. Any system that has duration (exists for a period of time) is going to have structure. And that structure will have constants. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. And please understand, I'm not saying I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no intelligent designer. But there is no evidence for one, and the idea of an intelligent designer requires MUCH MORE evidence than the anthropic principle requires. The anthropic principle says basically, this universe exists, so it has constants, and this universe with these constants can produce, among other things, people. If the constants were different, then we wouldn't exist. So what's the big deal?

[@mr.mayonnaise2095]

@@raiderkizzo I'm too lazy too read that long comment, could ya sum it up in one sentence

[@nunyabisnass1141]

I've heard that before, and its demonstrabley false. Our sun can be a little more massive, or a little less massive and still acheive fusion. The balance is an emergent property of a stars mass and its fusable material. We know exactly what happens when a star is too massive, or has too little mass to sustain its own fusion, but there is a somewhat wide range of masses where the balance is sustainable over longer or shorter time periods.

[@thomasecker8897]

@@raiderkizzo While your argument seems sound, I would like to point out that it falls apart a bit after you make your archery analogy. While yes, there are many mathematical principles at play when you draw the bowstring after you nock the arrow, and then set it loose, the problem here is that for these mathematics to even be possible, they need an active agent(such as the archer in your example) to even begin to play out. Chalking up where the arrow hits on the target as merely a result of inanimate forces, rather than an active, animate agent putting those very forces to work, is sort of the same tactic as what IP explained in this video. It's merely a diversion tactic that is a shrug of the shoulders to avoid finding a coherent solution. Not to mention that if one were to follow through your arguments to its logical extreme, then there would be no point in doing anything, for the mathematics would seem to do the work itself. It's shallow and undermines every achievement in every field of research in the history of mankind.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

@Robbie Kay That is confusing a epistemic probability with a statistical probability. Robin Collins points out we only have one quantum theory and evolutionary history but that doesn't mean they are unlikely since we have nothing to compare them with. The other configurations are equally as likely, however, this is not the came with the outcomes. A universe that cannot get past elementary particles has a higher probability since many configurations can arrive at that outcome.

[@robbiekay8540]

I found your reply meaningless and trivial. For example, your "epistemic probability" somehow trumps statistical probability yet it is bare assertion and without any rigour. Our science can only tell us that the parameters we know of give rise to what we have, and tinkering with them changes the outcomes. This is a trivial fact of modelling. Our science has no capacity to inform us about other configurations of the parameters which may give rise to universes beyond our imagination which may be life permitting. Moreover, there is no guarantee that our science is ubiquitous in the sphere of possible universes.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Dismissing is not an argument. The fine tuning argument is based on epistemic probability, not a statistical, like evolution is. Simply dismissing it and once again ranting about how we need a statistical probability is not an argument. it is cop out.

[@robbiekay8540]

***** The FTA requires that fine tuning HAS occurred, and then delves into the epistemics. The FTA takes for granted that parameters which must necessarily account for the only option we have - ie. to explain the complexities of our universe - HAVE been fine tuned. No, they may have that appearance but there is nothing showing they were designed that way. Others may be willing to do the mental gymnastics on the FTA, but it is flawed at its roots and deserves to be dismissed on that basis.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Having the appearance of fine thing infers a fine tuner, as Leonard Susskind admits. It is about the best explanation, which is design.

[@robbiekay8540]

***** A best explanation would demand that there was actually an explanation. In fact you have no explanatory process at all. Not only that, you have to invent a designer. So al you really have is an appal to ignorance. As I said, appearances are not facts. The only fact that Susskind would be aware of in this instance is that we cannot find different parameters for our existence. So I shall also quote him,:"Nothing, determines the nature of our environment-except for the fact that we are here to ask the question!"

[@TheFaithfulApologist]

It's really a miracle how I stumbled on this channel some time ago, these video's are just amazing.

[@SimenSebastian]

Atheists claims this argument is no good and has been refuted, but I've never heard a good refutation of it or an alternative explanation of why the universe is so finely tuned for life.

[@rickwyant]

The Reasonable Christian and because we don't know that means a god? LOL

[@christopherheren3237]

Many have argued parallel universes. The issue in this whole discussion is one of method - many in the physics community recognize that the very nature of these necessary parallel universes means we cannot observe them in our own because the different universes don't interact at all (beyond I'm assuming the initial creative event from the collapse of potentials into reality - see the dual slit experiment for an explanation of what I'm getting at here). This has two benefits to arguments against design: 1. It is something material that science can either investigate or claim dominance over. 2. It is impersonal - science is almost entirely about depersonalizing something to make it a "thing." This is why similar evidence at the scene of a death would highly indicate murder rather than suicide...because when minds are known to exist, we treat the evidence HIGHLY differently. But science rarely likes to deal with minds as minds...hence the issue. Beyond multiple universes the usual argument against even WAP (which some theists hold) are that it is a tautology or "not useful in further investigations" (the second is idiotic as a complaint because what is true or not should be important...not how useful it is).

[@kyjo72682]

Universe = everything that exists, and can possibly exist. Observable universe = finite part of the Universe which contains the observer (you). Therefore, the observable part of the Universe always has the exact properties needed for the observer to exist.

[@sanjosemike3137]

Life cannot find a way when there is no universe. sanjosemike

[@elvancor]

Simen Sebastian Thoresen When about 99.999999...% of the universe is uninhabitable and the rest is threatened by asteroids and radiation, claiming that one of human's theistic gods has created it all for life to exist isn't exactly convincing. Stephen Hawking has made the point that the universe also appears to be finely tuned for black holes.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you, God Bless. I always appreciate the support.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is the thing, the fine thing argument is not just probability, but probability and what is produced.

[@noaht8592]

You can see how much it pains Richard Dawkins to say a theist is right on something

[@htoodoh5770]

Why?

[@noaht8592]

@@htoodoh5770 just the way he comes off, you can hear his shattered ego

[@htoodoh5770]

@@noaht8592 that amusing.

[@sfrgth457]

That's the demonic influence acting up as well...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

This is just semantics since when I say meaningful at that point I am referring to outcomes. We are speaking of what is produces as compared to what other configurations produce. If you are upset of wording, fine, but that doesn't refute what is actually being said.

[@signingsomething8560]

This was a nice video. The pacing was very agreeable and it doesn't suffer from the bad logical form found in some of your other uploads. There are some points toward the end when the tone is a tad too dismissive but overall it was really informative and inviting. I'd love to see you do other videos like this.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is actually quite simply, God is by definition a maximally great being, who is necessary and timeless. This can be seen in Leibniz's contingency argument. For that we see that God doesn't have a origin, He simply exists, without a past or future.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Are you serious? Okay, let me repeat myself, "we have evidence A (fine tuning), and what does it infer?"

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I see science as that which came out of natural philosophy. Yes, it is technically a philosophy, but not how our modern culture sees it, which is why I address it as so to avoid confusion.

[@JoelolTheTrollol]

Whew, what rigor you defend with! Seriously man, props to you. Your representation of all this is very analytic and precise. Well done.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

A non-inference is not an inference by definition. That is like saying, "You can consider a non-elephant a elephant." Also, drawing inference is done all the time. This is not something we only do with God.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yeah, see my series on the ontological argument, as I dealt with the omnipotent paradox.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

By meaningful we are tailing about the outcome. What is produced and if it is significant or affects reality in any way.

[@christopherjohnson1873]

WAP arguments are a joke. It's like a theist saying in response to the PoE, "Well, of course there's evil in the world; if there wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about it!". It's just transparently ridiculous and would be laughed off in ANY other context, but since it is an attempt to refute a theistic argument, it is accepted with open arms as a rational argument. It's just a candid admission that one doesn't have an answer. Many atheists just try to dismiss the argument by saying that why questions are just stupid and that we shouldn't be asking them. But then, we shouldn't be doing science, and all of the arguments atheists use about how we are using the products of science apply to the "why questions are stupid" argument. It is an attempt to keep someone from satisfying their curiosity, from following the truth.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is a good comparison :)

[@christopherjohnson1873]

***** Yeah, I think a theist should make a parody video about the "Weak Problem of Evil" to drive home the point.

[@learningsuper6785]

WAP = physicists having a brain seizure.

[@milkshakeplease4696]

scientists are the worst philosophers

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

And you realize even if this falls there are dozens of other arguments? This is one part of a cumulative case that is growing, like my newest video with the digital physics argument, which does affect our understanding of reality and science, since it argues for virtual reality theory.

[@jamesjameson5603]

The WAP is not an attempt to try to avoid finding an answer. It merely asserts that any answers you do find are of course going to be consistent with your ability to observe them. It is not possible for reality to be any other way. In the firing squad analogy, you merely find yourself alive without yet having investigated further. The surprise at being alive comes from the fact that reality as you interpret it is inconsistent with your continued existence. A lot of the curiosity comes precisely _because_ the WAP would lead you to believe that there is a natural explanation consistent with your ability to observe it, but you have not yet observed any "tuning" in your favor at all. Let's alter the analogy a bit. You are in front of a firing squad of 100 men with fully functional guns loaded with live rounds all aimed directly at your heart, each with a small chance to jam. They pull their triggers, but they all jam. If even a single gun had gone off, you would be dead. There is no evidence of outside interference. It is certainly amazing that every gun would jam, and it is difficult to contemplate, but with this knowledge, it is in no way surprising that you are alive to observe this fact. However unlikely, it happened. Is it more reasonable to assume that the guns jammed by natural chance, or to imagine that some unverifiable supernatural intelligence deliberately caused the guns to malfunction? If the WAP prevents anything, it is the need to leap to fantastical explanations just because we have observed unlikely variables that we don't fully comprehend. It doesn't discourage us from _trying_ to find answers at all.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

There is no evidence of physical necessity though. The issue still is there is no natural explanation. The evidence still infers something beyond the natural at that. But you have observed tuning in your behavior with the firing quad. They all missed. The odds of all the missing my accident is absurd, so there is more likely some order in there to direct their actions. Alternating the analogy doesn't change the argument, because it is just an analogy, not the actual argument.

[@jamesjameson5603]

***** The problem is that the analogy is a poor representation of the actual argument. It is grossly designed to mislead by taking well understood phenomenon like shooters and guns and setting up a finely tuned scenario that goes out of its way to eliminate natural explanation. It is intellectually dishonest. In your scenario, if we accept the missing itself as the "tuning" rather than an unlikelihood discovered by further investigation, the victim, having a full understanding of the situation, can only reasonably come to a conclusion of intelligence (or at the very least error on the part of intelligence). This is meant to lead the person you are using it against to believe that the same is true of the "fine tuning" argument, where we have a situation that is poorly understood, and the only option is to speculate fancifully. It's a bait and switch. In my version, an intelligence cannot be easily assumed or investigated without fanciful invention, much like the supposed "tuning" we see in real life. The WAP merely reminds us that there is no reason to assume that reality was intelligently "tuned" specifically for us without evidence. If such a thing hadn't happened, there would be nothing to discuss. You can dismiss the card argument all you like, but incredibly unlikely things _do_ happen, regardless of whether a complex series of events relies on their occurring. There are high random probabilities that _do_ lead to something meaningful from our perspective. For example, in the distant past, two animals met and bred, spawning a widely branching series of offspring and random mutation that would ultimately lead to the existence humanity. It is astronomically unlikely that this series of events would happen in precisely this way. Is this reason to infer that some supernatural intelligence guided those two specific animals together to mate? If you don't like evolution, then apply the same argument to any two human ancestors that ultimately led to you specifically as an individual. Is it right to assume that this has all been carefully ordered just because it's unlikely? If so, then free will is out the window, so any kind of judgmental God is automatically ruled out.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

James Jameson The point of the analogy is not to assume intelligence, it is to point out we do not confuse the outcome with the reason as to what caused the outcome. That is Leslie's point. So it appears you've taken the analogy out of context.

[@Plankeh]

Damn he hasn't responded in 3 years. Get fucked

[@desdenova1]

That makes the WAP a 'truism', does it not?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I did not manually inject it into them, that would be question begging if I did. 2, 3 and 4 are the same thing. 6 is pointless until one is offered. I then offered reasons 2 is bad.

[@Invictus131313]

The purpose of design *also* doesn't mean "end-user consumer preferences." The purpose of design, and design itself, are separate questions. An F-22 is obviously designed. For what purpose? Air superiority. The universe is obviously designed. For what purpose? The teleological argument doesn't touch that issue. But its a question we should definitely ask in light of our ability to care and suffer alongside one another. You said, "We only know of one configuration [for a universe]." Again, this phraseology implies that there *are* other configurations-- i.e. speculation. We want to avoid speculative arguments. Suppose the you're in a pitch black class room. You hear only your professor's voice say, "I'm going to roll six hundred dice. If they all land on sixes, then the lights will turn on and you can look at the dice. If they don't then the lights will remain off, and you will never be able to look at them." You hear the sound of the dice roll once (so you know for a fact that the dice were rolled at least once). The lights turn on. Sure enough, you see the dice all landed on "six." Our observing the fine-tuned universe is no different. We know the dice landed perfectly because we can see the dice landed perfectly-- the lights did, after all, "turn on." Else we wouldn't even be able to observe how finely tuned our universe is. This obviously means your professor designed the dice to fall that way-- so as to make the lights turn on. Could your professor have rolled the dice hundreds of thousands of other times without you hearing him do it? Until the lights finally came on? Sure. . . Is it reasonable to resort to speculative arguments? No. Speculation violates Occum's Razor. You'd conclude (reasonably) that the professor designed the dice to fall as they did.

[@TheFinalChapters]

You've got your Occam's Razor backwards. It is much more straightforward to assume there is a multiverse made up of countless universes, each with different properties, than to assume there is a god that has the power to create said multiverse.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

We do know the possible range. See the 5th link in the information section for the specifics. The burden is on the skeptic to show that life can come about another way. As of the best of our knowledge it cannot so the null hypothesis stands that life has to be carbon based. There are other theories, but they are not formal or have any empirical backing.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

LOL, yep! I was called a bigot and stupid today on my video on "the Ontological Argument" because I debunked his claim. I haven't laughed so much all week, LOL.

[@Tooinsecuretousemyrealname]

Atheists exist to give Christians something to laugh at. Change my mind

[@chubbyclub2502]

100% percent agree. I swear there's A Bible verse about that.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Your question has nothing to do with the fine-tuning of the universe, which is why I referred you to it. It is a bait and switch. Since you can't explain why the universe is so finely-tuned you try to argue something completely different, which has nothing to do with fine-tuning.

[@alexanderhorspool1906]

Ahh, those were simpler times... when one could use the abbreviation WAP and not bring to mind porneia...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

If you remember from the video, "boring consequences" is a result physicists speak of. See Rees quote. A boring consequence is that which produces the same result with different constants. You are interpreting boring as an appeal to emotion. but it actually stands for something physicists speak of.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you! Because some new atheists think they can get people to not watch theist videos by disliking them all and making people think they are terrible. An agnostic friend of mine said they are using a strategic down thumbing campaign. That is my take. It is also why I encourage people to not dislike videos, it is a stupid thing to do, expect in drastic measures.

[@darreljones8645]

I realize it's a little late to post something as pedantic as this, but the word "expect" should be "except". You'd be surprised how often I see these words confused in writing.

[@anthrophobe775]

As I understand it, the criterion for a "livable" universe is one that allows stars to form, and thus higher elements. If we vary one of the constants slightly, stars do not form. But - in computer simulation, if we vary all constants in discrete steps by ten orders of magnitude and try all the permutations and combinations, stars will form - if I recall correctly - about 30% of the time. If anyone's interested, I would track down the source...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I explain this in my series on the ontological argument, so see that. See my video, "Does God send people to hell?"

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, now you are getting it. It is inadequate to allow the outcome (of being there to witness being alive) to serve as the explanation (of why the universe produced life). That is the point of the analogy. That is begging the question: The universe has no intent, therefore it is pointless to assume it has intent. The question is did we come about by chance, or was there intent involved. If it is chance you have to hold to a multiverse, as Susskind points out, and my first video addresses that.

[@TheHatedAnonymous]

Hmm, 4 in 7 million isn't an impossibility. 1 in 10 to the power of 50 is an impossibility. So, that card argument isn't even logical... oooh atheists.

[@thishandleistaken1011]

Neither are impossibilities. Christtard detected.

[@Zoopie34256]

ok *tips fedora

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I go through this in my series on the ontological argument. Also, no because getting a card sequence like that is bound to happen because there are several hands being dealt. This is why some postulate a multiverse.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, I have subscribed. He does have great videos.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The anthropic principle is from the Greek, anthropos meaning human and says, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", or "the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[@ChannelMath]

I'm an atheist, but I want to congratulate you on one of the best presented set of arguments for design. I'm not sure that design is less likely an explanation than not design (although theism is another set of leaps altogether). Some thoughts: - it's possible that the fine-tuned constants are really mathematical or geometrical constants, like pi, but we just don't understand how they're derived from a simple GUT. I think when you say 'scientists admit there is no reason to believe' (no 'physical necessity', as you say), a more accurate statement would be 'scientists have no complete theory (yet) that explains the value of these constants". They are still looking. At first, we could not explain thunder even. give us more time. - Occam's razor is not a perfectly clear prescription, nor is there any reason to believe it is correct (as you are wont to point out for other assumptions), but if it is, I don't feel that assuming a designer God is less a violation of it than multiple universes

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thanks Well as Stephen Hawking said, "even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence. . . . So to come back to the question. . . Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically permitted location." So I don't think we can say they are still looking. That fact is none exist.

[@ChannelMath]

I can tell by the redactions in your quote that it was copied from one of a certain number of websites or books. Hopefully you are not reading William Lane Craig! It took a while to find a slightly more full quote, but it makes pretty clear that he is talking specifically about M-theory/string theory here: (although there is still one "..." before your quote!) "Does string the­ory, or M the­ory, pre­dict the dis­tinc­tive fea­tures of our uni­verse, like a spa­tially flat four dimen­sional expand­ing uni­verse with small fluc­tu­a­tions, and the stan­dard model of par­ti­cle physics?… M the­ory can­not pre­dict the para­me­ters of the stan­dard model… the para­me­ters can have any val­ues. So much for string the­ory pre­dict­ing the fine struc­ture con­stant… Even when we under­stand the ulti­mate the­ory, it won’t tell us much about how the uni­verse began. It can­not pre­dict the dimen­sions of space­time, the gauge group, or other para­me­ters of the low energy effec­tive the­ory… It won’t deter­mine how this energy is divided between con­ven­tional mat­ter, and a cos­mo­log­i­cal con­stant, or quin­tes­sence… So to come back to the ques­tion… Does string the­ory pre­dict the state of the uni­verse? The answer is that it does not. It allows a vast land­scape of pos­si­ble uni­verses, in which we occupy an anthrop­i­cally per­mit­ted location." Anyway, it's true that *of course* we cannot know everything about the universe, but I don't think your quote says any more than that (if that). Hawking has consistently talked about finding the GUT (whatever it reveals) and has spent his life doing so. I'd be careful about using Hawking, given that he's an avowed atheist has even pronounced all philosophy "dead" (which I disagree with),

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

ChannelMath That doesn't change the main point. A theory of everything will not produce a theory of physical necessity for fine tuning...

[@ChannelMath]

***** says who? (not hawking is my point)

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

ChannelMath Yeah, even when we have a ToE the fine tuning questions will not be solved by physical necessity, like "like a spa­tially flat four dimen­sional expand­ing uni­verse with small fluc­tu­a­tions, and the stan­dard model of par­ti­cle physics."

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

And all those universe all produce the same consequence, either a universe that just contains atoms or one that collapses back in on itself. So there is nothing unique about them and they all produce the same result. As I said in the video, it is not the high improbably constants, but the high improbable constants with the outcome.

[@FernandoVinny]

atheist faith is so irrational

[@SH-xx1en]

agree

[@stefanstancioiu7335]

Fernando Gonzaga Atheism is not a faith guys. It's just people who are too busy to try to understand all this. Vast majority of them will understand once explained calmly and logically. Stop looking down on them, it's not cool.

[@TheAverageJoe2014]

I'm an agnostic athiest, please don't bash me for taking the "I have no idea but find it hard to believe Christianity or the other religions have it right" position. I just don't know, and I think that is okay.

[@nadjeschdae.6711]

JoeYourAverageBro That all religions could be wrong has not much to do with the fine tuning argument because we have no clue who is behind the fine tuning.

[@TheAverageJoe2014]

I agree there seems to be fine tuning, BUT that doesn't mean that Yahweh or Allah did that. The explanation may be much much more interesting than that.

[@Invictus131313]

Speculating as to the notion of an infinite number of chances using *any* of the multi-verse theories-- violates Occum's Razor. Again. 1) I tell you *exactly* how dice have to fall in order for high-order, sentient life to come into existence. 2) I throw the dice 3) they land how I said they must-- You wouldn't posit a "Many Worlds" quantum interpretation of how the dice fell. You'd conclude the dice were loaded, or I used magnets-- you'd conclude the dice were DESIGNED to fall as I said.

[@RedBlackWhiteTv]

Why is claiming ignorance when we don't actually know the answer considered bad? Yes, your argument, as far as I can tell, demonstrates that we atheists don't have an explanation which doesn't butt heads with Occam's Razor, at least not yet. We are analogous the guy surviving and saying "I don't know why this happened." And yes, you have posited a decent explanation for the improbability of the constants which, in turn, allow life to exist. However, we've no mechanism with which to substantiate supernatural explanations. A designer explanation seems sensible, that I will concede. I have no beef with deism. But historically, jumping to the conclusion that "God did it" has proven ineffective. I feel like there's something important in this conversation that hasn't been discovered yet, and maybe 200 years down the road we'll know the answer. As of yet, all proven (I use the word loosely) explanations have been natural ones. Therefore, I don't wish to put my money on any explanation, no matter how sensible, unless I can substantiate it in some convincing way. My main point is that I think we're all missing something here; maybe there's a better explanation that we just haven't thought of yet.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Well, that is good. I do not think fine tuning gets to anything other than deism though, so i don't think we would disagree here.

[@RedBlackWhiteTv]

Well cool. This does peak my interest, as it's the first argument for a deity's existence I've heard that I don't know how to refute. These are the kind of things that I obsess over. In all honesty, I'm going to do my best to formulate a viable explanation for this. Perhaps the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is similar to the apparent design of life: explained through a bottom-up process similar to natural selection. I've already come up with a good-sounding explanation involving the nature of 1-dimensional singularities, but I feel that it has too many assumptions tied into it. If I come up with something good, you'll probably hear about it lol

[@RedBlackWhiteTv]

I know how to refute this fine-tuning argument: 1) We have no basis to assert that different physics would disallow life. It's an unknowable thing that is being asserted as true. 2) It's fallacious to see that our physics and life is improbable, assume improbability makes it special, then assume that specialness makes it intentional and therefore finely-tuned by an disembodied mind. There is no reason to think that we are significant in any way. All I see is ego-centrism rearing its ugly head. No, I still don't have an explanation, but there's really nothing to explain when we realize that "finely-tuned" is just another way of saying "as is".

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

RedBlackWhiteTv This is not true. It is not unknowable but based on rigorous physical calculations: arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf

[@RedBlackWhiteTv]

I'll have to spend some time going through that. However, I'll just grant it as true for the sake of argument. I still don't understand how we can go from "a universe could allow for the existence of organic life only under the particular set of parameters that we happen to have" to intentional fine-tuning. Fine-tuning implies that there was a mind intending for the outcome of organic life. But I still don't see why we are assuming that high improbability evidences an intention.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I thought you would say that, which is why I am coming to the conclusion I need to do a video on this. Dispute what you may think the size & age of the universe is essential for life. As Barrow & Tipler pointed out, a universe that would only containing the mass of our galaxy would only of existed for less than a month. So the size of the universe is necessary for life, as well as the age. As there needs to be enough time for stars to spread the elements needed for life. I hope that helps.

[@desdenova1]

"Why are we here? Because of God." - Teleological "Why are we here? Because we are here." - Anthropic Principle "What in the hell are you two blathering about? When are y'all gonna contribute to something constructive?" - Alder's Razor

[@Invictus131313]

To expound. The Cosmological Constant = 3.4 x 10^-122 Change this by one part in 10^119 and the universe can't make life. The multi-verse reasoner would conclude that this means there must be at least 10^118 universes in order to have a slightly less than 10% probability of a universe which can support life coming into existence by pure chance. Keep reducing the odds by using the other constants, and they will just conclude yet more universes must exist. . . all the way to infinite.

[@jonesgerard]

Very good video, it must suck to be the sort of atheist who has relied on science to dismiss God, the worm has turned. Science points at God.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

With that logic how do you know you are not seeing chance when purpose is there? The fine-tuning of the universe is not based on patterns by the way. Again, see my video, "The teleological argument (What is really says)". Chance is not always the default, except if you deny the principle of sufficient reason?

[@iiwha8082]

I still think that "I don't know" is a better answer.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is fine, however have you considered the implications of that: What Atheists Confuse It doesn't really offer a better inference or challenge theism. It is fine to say though.

[@iiwha8082]

I don't think it is entirely ridiculous to believe in a god (Largely for the reasons you stated), however I do find the Idea of a personal god to be improbable.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Why is that?

[@iiwha8082]

No evidence. Plus I was once a christian, I read large sections of the bible. I also used to think I heard the voice of God, but then realised it was the workings of my own mind.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Well then perhaps I can offer some food for thought: 06 - The Resurrection of Jesus by Tim McGrew 01 - Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy McGrew vimeo.com/10785299

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I would want to see your source please. As potholer54 always says, check the source. And also, I have to admit it has been a while since I made this video and my others. Where do I specifically mention the ratio of electrons to protons?

[@No-oneInParticular]

The appeal to a designer is an appeal to ignorance because even though you cloak it in the guise of "best possible explanation" it is in fact a conclusion based on bias towards your motive. If you lived before we knew how stars were created you would be saying that the only explanation for lights appearing in the night sky is that they must be being created by a god. It is just a matter of god of the gaps. Nothing more. "We do not know, best possible explanation is (not surprisingly) a being that can do absolutely everything I want him to be able to do."

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Ok, then all I need to say is you deny design as the best explanation "based on bias towards your motive." None of this offers a better inference or refuting the argument.

[@No-oneInParticular]

Just because I cannot give you an answer, does not automatically mean that your inference based on no evidence is correct.

[@No-oneInParticular]

Also, the difference is, I do not have a motive when all I do is look at evidence. Value of evidence is not a motive, or agenda, I should say.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

***** Right, but it also doesn't mean my inference is wrong either. And everyone has motives and agendas... David Hume reminds us, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Atheists are not immune to this and if you claim I am biased towards theism, I'll say you are biased towards atheism.

[@No-oneInParticular]

If by being "biased towards atheism" you mean: not inferring things that are unexplainable by definition in order to fill in a gap in my knowledge, then yes, I suppose I am.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, I have an entire series on this. See my series on the ontological argument. Oh and the coincidence thing. See my video, "the Teleological argument." The first link in the information section.

[@torbjornbengtsson342]

The weak anthropic principle does not answer the fine tuning question. It shows that the fine tuning question is subjective. The analogy with the firing squad is not a good one as the expected outcome of the firing squad is to hit, and a miss demands an explanation. In the case of a universe there is no expected outcome as we lack access to information of the creation of the constants of nature. We can however imagine an infinite number of hypothetical universes. Any of the imaginable configurations would have their own unique traits which they are finely tuned to create. Did it happen this way by chance or by design? Fine tuning does not suggest or provide an answer to that question as it would happen in any case. If universes were created over and over again with random configurations this universe would happen eventually. If universes were created by gods and they happened to like this style it would happen too. Proposing a god only moves the fine tuning question to the god. Why is he fine tuned to create this type of universe? By chance or by intelligent design?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, there is the obvious observation of a universe, and how it acts, what it is infers a designer. Simply saying it is all vague doesn't refute the best inference. You can not draw an inference but you haven't made a good argument that the one I have drawn is incorrect. No, you have put words in my mouth. The argument infers design. I rely on other arguments to get to the specifics of the Designer.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you, but that is how a deductively valid argument works, the conclusion is suppose to be in the premises. Stars existing beyond the cosmological horizon makes sense since we already know there are trillions of other stars, but how many universes do we know exist? PLus, as Robin Collins notes that just moves the fine tuning question up one level, because the multiverse would have it's own fine tuning issues.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Actually no, you are well within your rational right to say "there may be something else to explain this, I don't know". But then do not turn around and tell me I am wrong and the designer is not the best inference, because you have not offered a better inference. It is a question of logic. What is the most logical conclusion apart from what we may presently hope it to be?

[@Invictus131313]

The difference is no one is asking you to accept design *first* before proceeding with reason. You are accepting multiple universes *first* and *then* proceeding with reason. One ought only proceed to reason based upon what is *known* (the universe is fine-tuned). Your reasoning requires me to *first* accept that there are multiple universes for any of your reasoning to be valid-- a shaky premise-- since there is zero experimental evidence for ANY of the multi-verse theories.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, I ask "why" a river runs downhill. I'm not asking the river. This is the basis of the principle of sufficient reason. Everything has an explanation in itself or in an external cause. From fine-tuing since physical necessity is out the window we ask what is the external cause for the reason of it.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I go over this in “God's Hand Was NOT Forced”. The teleological argument never says life will arise everywhere, but that it will arise. My house is finely tuned for human life, but that doesn't mean I can survive in the furnace or water heater.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Philosophy, at its core, is essentially the study of 'what is there'. There are many ways of understanding what is there, which is why there are different branches.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

OK, this is also wrong. An argumentum ad ignorantiam is "lack of evidence to the contrary". It means that a argument is true because it hasn't been proven false (Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic). No one is saying that here. We are saying we have two valid options and which one is the best inference and makes the least ammount of assumptions? If you think there is another option then what is it?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

LOL, no I am not. I never said that. I just said "Any other configuration of constants could of come about." I am not arguing for other universes & you clearly are not getting that, so you're just continuing to assert that. Again, we are not talking about a process of fine-tuning, like finely-tuning a car. We are talking about the parameters that were set at the big bang, which gave us the unique universe we have. They were finely-tuned. What you are arguing has nothing to do with this point.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

1. We have metaphysical reasoning. One needs to show that Life Prohibiting Universes are necessarily not possible, which cannot be done. 2 Based on all best evidence we have, we know it isn't because of physical necessity. If that changes tomorrow, then the argument changes.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

And as Martin Rees says (and i quote in this video) this universe doesn't produce boring consequences like the rest of the configurations. The fact is the probability is not the only important issue. It is probability with the outcome. Other configurations are just as likely, but they only produce the same consequence. To focus on the probability alone is to miss the point.

[@noaht8592]

with a deck of cards you are always going to get a 1 in 7 million hand vs 7 million other 1 in 7 million hands, while with fine tuning a life permitting universe is a 1 in 7 million vs a 6,999,999/ 7 million outcome

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Oh my no. See the 5th link in the information section. Luke Barnes wrote a paper refuting Stenger. The universe has been finely-tuned. Stenger has made several fallacies that Barnes points out.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The analogy doesn't assume we have observed other firing squads prior to realizing we are alive. If we discover after that the reason is because the marksmen are really terrible shots then a reason has been found. With our universe we haven't done that so that aspect wouldn't compare. The math calculating the improbability does still stand to show the likely hood. If one day we find a universe generator then we change out understanding but that is not the best inference from the current evidence

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I, of course, am interested. However, Luke A. Barnes as responded to these estimates. See the 5th link in the information section. For example, he notes that it is incorrect to say the Probability Density Function (PDF) for a model parameter is uniform in log10x over the whole range. This drastically changes calculations.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Read the bottom of information section and stop mass commenting. You are still assuming it has to because of chance. Well, no sign of chance can be demonstrated, you are just assuming that is the case (Question Begging). The question is: does fine-tuning show intent or chance is more likely, and I address that in my first video. So you are doing exactly what you are accusing me - of assuming. You are just assuming chance instead.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Again, see the links in the information section under "Advanced Study of Fine Tuning".

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Seriously, just read the scientists: Barnes Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek, etc. They all say the universe is finely tuned. I am merely referring to experts. They used the phrase "fine-tuned". The question we now have before, as the atheist Weinberg says, we now have to pick between a benevolent designer or a multiverse.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Then you are completely missing the point. No one disputes any of that. Nothing in my video disputes that. We are drawing an inference to explain why this event came about, instead of the trillions upon trillions of other possibilities. Again, we have calculated the probability of our cosmological constant happening and it is 1 in 10^120. If you do not like that you then refute it, just dismissing it does nothing, because it is still the most rational conclusion. If that is your argument then...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

You missed my point. The outcome is essential, no one bothers to ask if the outcome produces a boring consequence. Each time the universe resulting in collapsing back in on itself (same outcome).

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

1 Do you have a better inference? Simply dismissing is not refuting. 2 No, that is what you do when you draw an inference, you take the data you do have and reach a conclusion. Simply calling it garbage is not an argument. 3. Then give me a reason. Simply dismissing is still not an argument.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, the Physicist Paul Davies, amongst others, have calculated that universes with slightly different constants with produce drastic changes and effectively change the entire structure of the universe to the point where no stars or organisms can form. Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind" is very good. You can click on the last links in the information section for articles and papers on fine-tuning.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, page 23 goes on to show that "there are vastly more ways of being dead". This is confirmed by the rest of the paper, as Barnes goes on. If it was a uniform distribution there would not be "vastly more ways of being dead". Instead, there would only be a vast amount of ways of being alive.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

1. The size of the universe is actually necessary for life. Barrow and Tipler pointed out that a universe containing the mass of our own galaxy would only of existed for less than a month, so we need a massive galaxy for the little life we know about so far. 2. Those possibilities are not actual existing universes though, as there is no observable data to confirm. Plus, they would all have to be finely-tuned since possibilities arise after the big bang and would be the same structured universe.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I am not basing it on earth, I am basing it on physics. If the universe was not finely tuned to the extreme precision it is, life could not exist. Do you have an physics that shows that a universe could of had minor variations in its finely-tuned constants and still exist as is? Paul Davies says otherwise. See this video.

[@Invictus131313]

The issue is not what we can "imagine" or "grasp." The issue is the starting point that we proceed to reason from. Do we choose to proceed in reasoning from what *is* known? That is-- our universe and the finely tuned constants that govern it? Or do we choose to proceed in reasoning from pure speculation? That is-- an infinite number of universes for which absolutely no evidence exists?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I am not arguing about fine-tuning on earth in my videos, so now you are arguing a bait and switch. I doubt we are alone in the universe and agree with Robin Collins. Again, this video argues for fine-tuning of the universe, not earth. Yes we can, natural theology has come about with a logical coherent proof of the ontology of God, which is not disputed about theologians. It is called the ontological argument.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Because you can argue the universe is finely tuned for the extension of life eventually. Most Christians would agree (Matthew 24:35), however, you are still saying the universe was finely tuned for life. It refutes nothing.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

1. The problem is, the physics doesn't say that. it says the odd our universe cold come about is 1 in10^120 or more if you combine the constants. There are far more life prohibiting possibilities and anything outside of that is speculation. 2. Well, yes, we do. We can see mathematically that the constants could of come about others way and I don't think I've found a philosopher or physicist who would disagree.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Because it has to be logical coherent in a metaphysical sense. You can appeal to epistemic uncertainty but that doesn't affect any metaphysical implications of what is reasonable and the best inference.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes there is, as Susskind says "[T]he up- and down-quarks are absurdly light. The fact that they are roughly twenty thousand times lighter than particles like the Z-boson ...needs an ex- planation. The Standard Model has not provided one." There is nothing in the Standard model that says the constants have to be the way they are. I have more quotes if needed? So they came about from chance or design, and design doesn't violate Occam's razor.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Well, as Martin Rees says, if it comes with a grand united theory then the fine-tuning question still result from that. Stephen Hawkings says, “even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of space-time, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence..."

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

There is no evidence that is the case and the mathematical calculations says otherwise. They are merely speculating about possibilities, but it cannot be mathematically realized. The multiverse will not change the fine-tuning argument. See the links in the information section.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The evidence is metaphysical implications & the standard model. Frank Wilzcek says "[W]e have no . . . compelling idea about the origin of the enormous number [mPl/me] = 2.4 × 1022." Lisa Randall says "[T]he universe seems to have two entirely different mass scales, and we don’t understand why they are so different." There is nothing within physics that says these are tuned to physical necessity, so it came from outside the universe. The burden is on you to show evidence of physical necessity.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, that is true it would explain fine-tuning. But know there are problem with a contracting universe. As Vilenkin says, a contracting universe would result in all sorts of messy singularities so you would never make it to the expanding phase. Also, it severely lacks empirical evidence, since there are no known physics to reverse to expansion and it is in fact speeding up, not slowing down.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

A maximally great being is timeless. If it popped into existence then it is bound by time and cannot create time because He doesn't exist at one moment then exists in the next. He exists in a state of timelessness (Aquinas). So He has no past, beginning, future or end.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The problem is the first one assumed the universe is necessary, which we know is false given the standard model of inflation. It is finite and an explanation is required from the outside, which is why some are postulating the multiverse. The mechanism (in a panentheist view) is the self-collapse of the wave function. /watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Again, I'm glad we can agree physical necessity is not an option. The question then is chance or design. Since chance is a violation of Occam's Razor because you have to assume all the order came together by luck, I argue Design makes more sense and is the better inference.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Showing there's nothing constraining shows they can vary. To argue for physical necessity you need physical evidence, if we are going to apply the proper methodology to the claim. You can't just say the SM is incomplete. That doesn't argue for physical necessity nor does it provide any evidence for it, as it is a positive claim. See the video you're commenting on. There are alternatives given there aren't constraints. The outcome we have doesn't make it the only outcome unless the SM said so.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

It is not about epistemic possibilities, but about the most rational metaphysical conclusion. You can argue random claims of possibility. I am only interested in the evidence we do have and where it points.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, I using the evidence to infer to a likely conclusion. Do not put words in mouth, and tell me what I am thinking. If you have a better inference then use it, otherwise it doesn't negate a designer. The anthropic principle is not a explanation of why we have the anthropic principle. The fact is we have the physical constants that allow for life, so why was nature so benevolent to allow for the the anthropic principle (to use Susskind's terms)? See Martin Rees quote in video.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Considering how much of the known universe we have seen, it is entirely possible there is life on other planets. However, regardless, a universe with the mass of only our own galaxy would only of existed for less than a month. So the size of the universe is necessary for life.

[@mouduge]

The conclusion must be deduced from the premises, not manually injected in them. Either 1) our universe was designed, or 2) it's just luck, or 3) there are in fact many universes with different constants, or 4) the constants are not constants, they vary across our universe, or 5, 6...) any other explanation yet to come. In short you said "the only possible explanations are 1&2, and 2's bad so 1". You mentioned 3 but mistreated it. You forgot 4. And there could be 5, 6... Nope, I don't buy it.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Again, out of context, the Anthropic Principle says we have to assume a life permitting region, it has nothing to do with why the life permitting region came about. How did the life permitting region come about? Did it "magically weaves its way" you are confusing the principle with the why it happened. Of course we assume the anthropic principle, but that doesn't explain why it had to happen this way. Keep reading Also, you're done excessively commenting and saying the same thing over and over.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yeah, my next video will be out in a few days and will address that. Again, the creation of God is not an effect of His ontology.