The Argument for God Atheists Fear the Most

[@GallandOlivier]

I disagree with those atheists. As I was once one I must say that the morality argument was far more convincing and played a huge part in my conversion

[@DominikĎurkovský]

IMO the Transcendental Argument might be the best one as most of the objections I've seen to it have Been pretty bad

[@GallandOlivier]

@@DominikĎurkovský If it is the one that refers to the existence of logic I agree it Can be very persuasive but I still think the morality argument is more instinctive because every one encounters moral dilemma on a daily basis. Especially when submitted to foreign wars, genocide or murder, morality is everywhere whereas the use or logic and reason is much more intellectual and in general people are not used to even question the existence of logic as it is their axiom/faith.

[@conspiracy1914]

its a different argument for everyone as I see it.

[@GallandOlivier]

@@conspiracy1914 Fair enough !

[@jhoughjr1]

As a formet atheist also, i dont think fine tuning is that solid. We cant really say what is moat likely or not as far as an indicator of design. Often it feels we are surprised by something but what alternative would we expect? God is a choice not a measurement. It was actually abstract ideas that leqd me to faith.

[@Voxis_23456]

As a non-believer, I think the argument from the existence of consciousness is probably the strongest. Consciousness is extremely hard to explain from a scientific pov.

[@aidanya1336]

For me this puts them in the same bucket. They claim something science can't explain, therefor god.

[@Voxis_23456]

@aidanya1336 Agreed, I can at least see science eventually being able to explain consciousness, I don't see it ever explaining the fine-tuning or how the universe came into being. This is because we can't know what happened before the universe began because science didn't exist before the universe did.

[@aidanya1336]

@Voxis_23456 maybe, but there is a chance we find that all these different parameters are all derived from each other. Which can bring it down to only 1. We might not be able to find out why that one is the way it is. But fine tuning is pretty dead by than.

[@DeepKnight-nr6vo]

its not that hard. cognitively neurons travel inside different part of brain function but, belivers is more like cowards amydala which only posess emotion with lack of logic.

[@YouTubedoesntneedhandles]

@@DeepKnight-nr6voAmygdala*

[@toeknee5565]

Pray for eachother, believers and skeptics. We are all His.

[@fij715]

Doubt is the work of Satan.

[@jackieo8693]

Or pre His

[@Hospitaller1099]

Amen!

[@zimpoooooo]

I'm not.

[@toeknee5565]

@@zimpoooooo praying for you.

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

I think its pretty wild that the new counter to fine tuning involves apparently biting the bullet on physical dualism. Bye, materialism.

[@macroglossumstellatarum3068]

Which leaves then vulnerable to an argument from the basis of morality

[@DigitalGnosis]

Who is saying this?

[@moleratcon]

Yeah, also the idea of a necessary entity that created and fine-tuned the universe. Materialism is officially dead at this point.

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

@@DigitalGnosis "Psychophysical" laws are universal laws referring to the set of laws that govern two discrete types of phenomena: material things and minds. So, the gentleman proposing the "electrons in love" thought experiment is relying on materialism being false.

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

​@@misterkittyandfriends1441 under the empirical materialism most atheism prides itself upon yes, it has to presume an unobserved set of conditions that are contrary to what we have actually observed from physics.

[@bman5257]

The reason they think that’s the strongest is because the New Atheists were ignoramouses that didn’t understand Classical Theism. They don’t understand the basic definition of God and still imagine him as a contingent god like Zeus or Poseidon. You need to understand classical theism or God as pure act for St. Thomas’ or Aristotle’s arguments to make sense.

[@juliuslinus]

Charity is a virtue ;) These are bright people, if they don't understand classical theism (which most people don't) it's probably because they haven't been introduced to it properly. For that, I place the blame on the shoulders of academia, which has systematically excluded such thought in favor of STEM, which provides more grant funding to university.

[@anthonyzav3769]

Problem is in the OT testament he acts EXACTLY like Zeus. Read the Book of Samuel - Israelite generals are literally having conversations with him about military strategy via magical devices like the Urim Thummin.

[@Onlyafool172]

​​​​@@anthonyzav3769okay you misunderstood what the original argument said, they dont realize that we believe that God is identical to existence (not bound by time), not a singurality that is born out of caos, like zeus, how God acts is irrelevant to the point presented, the distinction of both is not because of morality, bur simply that one exists in time while the other is what time naturally flows from, which is the basis for classical theism

[@redbepis4600]

Almost like that's how he was originally written and new views are mere retcons. Christianity didn't pop out of nowhere. We remember your history

[@josephvictory9536]

@@juliuslinus Charity is a good approach for most, but the new Atheist's actively lie in bad faith. For example when Dawkins and ilk questioned the existence of the person Jesus. For them it was all political. People who followed Hitler were ignoramuses but you arent likely to go to hell just for supporting a candidate. Otherwise everyone democrat in the USA would go to hell because democrat position on abortion. Being atheist on the other hand is a one way ticket.

[@ethancoppel]

There is something comedic to me that I don't find the fine-tuning argument rather strong, despite being Christian, while atheists claim it as the best argument.

[@calmite]

Possibly due from an information issue

[@jd3jefferson556]

It's what convinced me to look deeper in the existence of God when I was an atheist

[@hydraph4843]

Yeah, not all atheists will agree it is. It seems like a lot of channels do, but I'm an agnostic atheist, but I actually think it's not one of the better arguments. I think things like personal experiences are probably better

[@patrickthomas2119]

@@hydraph4843 personal experiences is just anecdotal evidence which by any objective measurement is among the weakest forms of evidence. Sure they can provide an emotional response but if you are person that is not easily swayed by emotional appeals then an argument from personal experience is going to be remarkably uncompelling.

[@youngKOkid1]

The argument from motion and argument from contingency are the strongest arguments.

[@landonpontius2478]

but we have NO IDEA what the actual probability is for Fine Tuning? Someone please correct me but there seems to be a big jump from "these constants wouldn't support life (as we know it) if they were altered a very small amount" to "and that means they're proportionally improbable." It's a very interesting thing to discuss but it's purely speculation until we actually know what sets those constants (if we ever do).

[@jofsky9066]

@@landonpontius2478 no correction needed, you are right, we currently have no idea whether the constants are necessary, random or set by something. This is the reason why I personally find this argument to be annoying at the very least and aggravating at worst. Essentially the argument for fine tunning is: -correctly stating that the constants are fine tuned, -saying they could be random (with no justification or support) -coming up with a big scary number (with no justification or support) -filling this self created probabilistic hole in our understanding with God

[@landonpontius2478]

@@jofsky9066 well said. I even think using the term "finely tuned" is a bit dishonest. The constants do appear to be "precise" or "necessary" in some sense but using "tuned" smuggles in so much theistic intuition.

[@PawelLachowicz.]

yep, since we can live on the worst tuned universe - it's pretty random and chaotic. How many other universes do we know to compare? Or maybe there's no other possible values of for those constants? Or maybe there are billions possibilities and billions form of matter we can't even imagine - since we know so little about matter in this universe?

[@Unclenate1000]

You are correct it is completely an assumption that they could be any different much less how different they need to be for this to apply

[@enderwiggen3638]

The constants have been individually studied and variations of their values is known to be detrimental. The atheists look for something scientific to prove or disprove God. That’s a dangerous approach as God isn’t a part of our universe and is not subject to the laws within it.

[@eyevan8080]

Another masterpiece, Trent. Can't wait for Alex O' Connors' response. An epic battle between 2 intelligent men is awaited.

[@Oneocna]

Its not. You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil. Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design"

[@YeeterSkeeter-uw4mu]

@@Oneocnabased and true

[@TheDragonageorigins]

​@@Oneocnafine tuning makes no mention or claim of evil and suffering. Its two completely separate entities

[@FuddlyDud]

@@Oneocna Well, this conflates 2 different things: 1) The constants and governing systems of our universe. 2) Humanity’s free will in choosing evil, thus the world again being made to correspond with this. We even get basically this distinction in the Genesis story where the world is made and is good, but is changed when Adam and Eve choose knowledge of good and evil. So, I’d say it’s not ignorant, but a straightforward distinction found in a Christian’s Scriptures. Thoughts? :)

[@harlowcj]

​@@FuddlyDudThe crazy thing is, Adam and Eve already had knowledge of good and evil simply by virtue of having knowledge of the Good. They were sold an empty lie. Just like materialists today.

[@IsMort_Ex]

I appreciate Trent mogging everyone in the thumbnail. It’s so real.

[@ddrse]

Trent may eventually come out.

[@serpo9797]

Mister Horn, I am very thankful for your guidance. You have helped to answer so many of the questions I had on my journey towards joining the Catholic church. You are very well appreciated, Sir. Thank you

[@chriscrilly8807]

Another mind lost to gobbledigook

[@Gaethereal]

Hi, I'm an atheist. I was recommended this by youtube out of the blue. As a self proclaimed layman, I don't find Sinababu's hypothesis or your refutation to be that good, as they seem to be going past the core argument of fine tuning and attributing agency unfounded, by matter or by God. And whilst I can't say as to intent, I think it's ranked high amongst atheists because it's logically deceiving rather than its soundness. However, this was a well put together video, and I do hope you make more. It'd be cool to hear more about this from those who would have more understanding than I. If anyone read this long comment, ty.

[@DaveJohnson-d7i]

Guys like you who respectfully lay out your objections instead of throwing a fit are very refreshing

[@CarrieLaffs]

I considered myself an atheist searching for Truth until searching for the Truth led to the Truth being revealed to me.... No one appeared to me in a vision, I heard no audible voice, but ...I began to SEE everything for what it actually is. I could not admit there was a God bc to do that would be to validate the fact that we stand before a righteous and holy God who will one day pour out his final wrath and judgment on us whether we believe it or not. Faith , which is evidence of things unseen, not "I've decided to think God is real bc I feel like it" , comes to us by hearing . Bc , believe me, I was not looking for evidence to prove the God of the Bible . But once you starting getting hit with the wisdom of God .... there's no way I could ever deny Him ...

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

The worst part of the argument is the assumption we know enough to put percentages on the likelihood of how things turned out during the history of the universe. We don't even know if there was a beginning of the universe.

[@brucelansberg5485]

@@CarrieLaffs _"Faith , which is evidence of things unseen, not "I've decided to think God is real bc I feel like it" , comes to us by hearing . Bc , believe me, I was not looking for evidence to prove the God of the Bible . But once you starting getting hit with the wisdom of God .... there's no way I could ever deny Him ..."_ Now change te word "god" for or "chemtrails" and see what happens. Faith is NOT evidence of anything other than the concept you have faith in. It's nothing more than a figment of the imagination. Sorry mate, but faith being evidence of anything else, well, it just sounds a bit out of touch.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@CarrieLaffsto me, this just seems like another way of saying “atheists are liars” at the end

[@Emcron]

as a Catholic who has an amateur interest in astrophysics, I like this argument best.

[@maxmaximus2608]

As an atheist with the same interest, I agree. It just doesn’t convince me since I believe that we lack the fundamental understanding of what reality actually is. And therefore all attempts to determine probabilities are somewhat meaningless in my opinion.

[@bradydeboer4694]

Alex O'Connor doesn't belong in the thumbnail; he has said, on multiple occasions, that he doesn't find the fine-tuning argument very compelling-he finds the contingency argument better

[@ldd4043]

Also recently he had stated consciousness, and the scientific lack of understanding of consciousness, is a better argument for God.

[@ryanevans2655]

This makes sense, because he has more of a philosophy/theology background, not a physics/science background.

[@TheAnimeAtheist]

@@ryanevans2655 Even then physics and science can't yet explain what causes conciousness and awareness beyond just the ability to respond to stimuli. This isn't to say there isn't a naturalistic explanation, but we don't even have an idea as is. All we know right now is that it's somehow associated with the brain and brain states, that's it.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

@@ldd4043 which is by itself a telling statement about the quality of all these arguments for god. If Someone like Alex, who probably knows and understands all the common arguments for god and tries to steelman every single one of them as much as possible, thinks that an argument that can be broken down to: "we don't know therefore god", is the best one, then the arguments for god must be really bad.

[@voskresenie-]

​​@@TgfkaTrichter can you imagine any argument for the existence of God that couldn't be reframed as 'we don't know, therefore God'? I don't mean actually real proofs, I mean even in some hypothetical. Like if God came down from the sky, said, 'I'm God btw', and whisked us off to heaven. 'Well, I don't know how that happened, and God is the only explanation that makes any sense, but maybe it's just something else we don't know.' Anything that could possibly prove God's existence could be explained as 'well, it's either that God is real, or something else that we don't know'. That's how literally every proof that isn't mathematically precise works, ie every single proof outside of the fields of math, computer science, and logic.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I saw the thumbnail and thought "nooo I wanna know" and then you said it in the first 10 seconds and merited all time off purgatory (maybe idk) :P

[@kze24]

I'm a Protestant, so I don't believe in purgatory, but to me, it was kind of obvious that it was fine tuning in the thumbnail.

[@voxdea5269]

when the atheist was daring Trent to ask God to tell him the content of the letter, I remember when satan was tempting Jesus in the desert. asking Jesus to ask God to order his angels to save Jesus when he jumps off the top of temple. goosebumps.

[@call-to-christ]

Thought that as well! Deuteronomy 4:16, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

[@Burt1038]

it's also disingenuous, because if Trent did indeed tell him the content of the letter, the atheist would simply accuse Trent of having foreknowledge of the dare and cheating.

[@herroyung857]

@@Burt1038 This is a baseless assumption of yours. If you assume the atheist was a good-faith actor and that he made sure no one could know the contents of the letter but himself, he would certainly lean more towards the theistic position if Trent told him precisely what was in the letter. I would lean more towards the theistic position if there were verifiable accounts of people with their heads severed walking around the next day like nothing happened, or if amputees regrew their limbs overnight, or if children around the globe just stopped getting bone cancer out of the blue.

[@ryana1787]

Reminds me of 1 kings 18, where God has no problem being tested.

[@RedRoosterRoman]

It's true we cannot know for sure. BUT- there are hints in a person's attitude how good faith they are.... Often it is quite clear that they are biased against God (Not judging, I am bias for God 🤷‍♂️ but it is what it is) There are numerous other preternatural possibilities- And some that could not be disproven. Like Hinduism. Trent guessing right could be just a manifestation of brahmin as part of the cosmic drama 🤷‍♂️ Even the Pharisees had evidence of miracles. Fr some people; one miracle is enough. For others, some seemingly preternatural occurrence is enough. Others, as I suspect this atheist would become... Would simply keep requesting signs till it was no longer "faith" but "facts". But God demands faith. Faith is a special sort of love. ​@@herroyung857

[@Hfxnn]

for me the best argument is in the moral sphere. cause when i was an atheist i realized that the logical conclusion of my worldview at the time was moral relativism. and in all honesty i couldn’t look at something like the holocaust and not say it’s objectively wrong.

[@fujikokun]

Other than personal experience, I think this is what penetrates for most converts.

[@Oneocna]

You still are a moral relativist You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil. Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design" Basically you are asserting a position (good or evil) relative to an event in the world (the metal in the watch)

[@jaycefields756]

This one really moved me too. Once I realized (as an atheist) that nothing objectively matters and there was no such thing as right or wrong it was too much to handle. I knew deep down that right and wrong did exist and that evil was real. It wasn’t too much longer after that when I became a believer

[@williamthompson4761]

@@Oneocna God DID create a perfect world. Humans F----ed it up.

[@redbepis4600]

then why did god let it happen? Actually let me rephrase. Why did god knowingly set of a chain of events that he knew was guaranteed to lead to it?

[@patrickthomas2119]

For myself as someone that formerly identified as an atheist (I would not call myself a true believer but more a reluctant agnostic theist) it was not fine tuning alone that gave me pause; but a cumulation* of many aspects of reality that seem to operate under convenient behavior; especially at a sub atomic level but then countered against the likelihood that these conveniences all would exist by mere chance. As an atheist that prided myself on being as objectively skeptical as I could, the idea of randomness being behind these conveniences (quarks behavior, the constants, formation of hydrogen given presence of muons, origin of life, emergence of consciousness etc) then it is an even bigger miracle than a man raising from the dead. It is not that I found the fine tuning argument convenience; but the lack of tuning or guidance just seems a less likely possibility. Edit: the type of near mockery alternative explanations that Neil Sinhababu comes up with here is yet another reason I disassociated from atheism. These types of arguments (string 'theory', steady state theory, any cyclic universe theories, and this bit of nonsense about 'Electrons in love') are all based on absolutely nothing scientific and are nothing more then unobservable speculations and maybe some theoretical mathematics thrown in to try to act as some kind of 'proof'. They come up with these explanations to try to disprove God, but what they do is change nothing about the ability to create the laws of physics and the universe, instead they just try to deny that the 'creator' has a will. I find the argument that the universe was sparked by 'forces that exist outside of time, space, and the laws of nature' indistinguishable from the argument that the 'forces' are the product of a mind.

[@haitaelpastor976]

Keep in mind that God, being omnipotent, can make anything in any way he wants. Those constants, for him, are arbitrary. If he wanted those constants to have different values and still support the formation of stellar bodies, life, or whatever... he could have done so, and the result would not change. By arguing that "those constants are very precise and fine tuned", you're denying God's omnipotence. You're unadvertedly stating that God was not to choose the value of those constants, but that they couldn't be otherwise. What does that mean? God was bound to FOLLOW RULES. And who created those rules? If other being above him, he's not omnipotent. If it was God himself, again, the values of those constants are really arbitrary, and its exact values don't matter.

[@patrickthomas2119]

@@haitaelpastor976 I do not agree, God (if one does exist) would have things like logic and reason as innate characteristics; which means that even as omnipotent would not be able to create logical impossibilities and paradoxes. Your protest in itself is a paradox. This is like saying "Can God sin? if no, then he is not all powerful and can not do anything and therefor is not God. If God can sin, then he is by his own definition an imperfect being and cannot be all powerful and therefor is not God". the conclusion does not follow the premise. What is more likely if a God exists is that creation is what it is because it is literally impossible to be any other way. God would have to violate one of his own characteristics in order to create a universe/reality capable of impossibilities and paradoxes. Such as sentient protons.

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@patrickthomas2119 Why are sentient protons an impossibility or paradox? If they are, why is it that there could be no other way? From where did those rules come? Did God create those rules and by doing so he made himself not omnipotent?

[@patrickthomas2119]

@@haitaelpastor976 that is a complex question fallacy. What we know of reality and how minds work; sentience in a sub atomic particle is not possible. You might as well ask "why is the sky green in the multiverse equivalent of earth". asking absurd questions does not invalidate the premise. And you can also ask the "why god did it this way and not that way" indefinitely; where the goal is not to actually understand but to make excuses to make your own opinion feel more validated. On the question of rules; you are asking it is in the wrong direction; if logic and reason are innate to the God character, it means that it didn't create or follow those rules as things to be followed, it simply IS those things. What this would mean is; God cannot do things that are contradictory to its own nature. not because it is a rule but because it would contradict itself; thus making it a paradox. You are trying to demand an answer to a paradoxical problem you have created.

[@CelticSpiritsCoven]

@@haitaelpastor976 God is the alpha and the omega. Nothing came before him. Not even the rules that operate the universe- because he allowed them to by the power of his holy spirit. God is a certain nature, and he doesn't do things that are against his nature. God gave you free will, and you are the one who makes their own actions and thoughts.

[@asrieldreemur1875]

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity" Romans 1:20 DRA

[@Shoomer1988]

Why should I care what a book with talking donkeys says?

[@chriscrilly8807]

Book containing talking snakes, walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding five thousand on five loaves and two fishes! You expect us to take such a book seriously?

[@MillionthUsername]

@@Shoomer1988 Because you believe you are a talking ape. And not only a talking ape, but a talking ape that "evolved" out of goo.

[@Shoomer1988]

@@MillionthUsername You do get that humans coined the term 'ape'? Right? That means humans decided what the ape means. Humans decided that the word ape includes us. It's not complicated. Oh, and evolution does not say we evolved out of goo. But hey, if you want to believe the completely plausible idea that a magic space wizard made a man of clay and a woman out of one of his ribs then have at it.

[@MillionthUsername]

@@Shoomer1988 "You do get that humans coined the term 'ape'? Right? That means humans decided what the ape means. Humans decided that the word ape includes us. It's not complicated." So you are not a talking ape? "Oh, and evolution does not say we evolved out of goo." I didn't say "evolution says" but that YOU believe that. Don't you believe that? The goo came before the cell in your belief, did it not? Use whatever word you like, but didn't the cell which eventually became the talking ape derive from the goo?

[@RuruRuru145]

Christopher Hitchens' voice is so fine tuned so that it only comes through my left speaker lol Good video btw

[@smart_joey_4179]

Same lol

[@ThisDonut]

Thats hilarious. I had only my right earbud in and heard nothing lol

[@HarryNicNicholas]

is that a joke of some sort?

[@herroyung857]

Terrible video. It doesn't address the biggest objection to fine tuning: why assume that the constants came into existence from a cosmic dice roll? Yes, when you plug different numbers into an equation, it yields universes that cannot produce life. This is not evidence that those different numbers are even possible, since we can only observe our current set of constants. There is no evidence that the constants could be anything else at all; we have a single universe with a single set of constants, and no other observations.

[@e_out]

I was listening with just one earbud and for a good 10 or 15 seconds thought "wow that's crazy, he had no response at all!"

[@Being_Joe]

God is not a genie, he is not here to grant our wishes.

[@seanpierce9386]

Using God to explain a thing is granting our wish to explain the thing. God of the gaps is wishful thinking. Also, read Matthew 7:7-12.

[@darrennew8211]

If god wants you to believe in him but refuses to provide any evidence at all that would convince you, then he's doing a really poor job.

[@haitaelpastor976]

Then why worship him?

[@Being_Joe]

@@haitaelpastor976 if not Him then what do you worship? Money, women, your job, your dog? We all worship something if you realize it or not. Me me me is a childish mindset. Don't stay a child. I was close to atheism but because of my life experience I am a strong believer. I don't know if I can really explain my reasons but I know now that this life would be much different if it was dictated by my inferior mind. Praise be to Lord Jesus Christ.

[@theblackspark2644]

​@darrennew8211 There is a lot of evidence. People are just too stubborn to see it.

[@call-to-christ]

4:50 Haha, "do not put the Lord your God to the test" (Deuteronomy 6:16)

[@jm329]

Except for Gideon.

[@Nemo12417]

​@@jm329and Elijah.

[@Tinesthia]

@@Nemo12417 Elijah is my favorite example. I think most Christians know that their God would be just as silent as Ba’al during such a test and would call it evil to be treated like Ba’als prophets were.

[@1970Phoenix]

Another cafetaria Christian cherry-picking the verses that support his narrative while ignoring the ones that directly contradict it.

[@MillionthUsername]

@@1970Phoenix What cherry-picking? What verses say that God is obliged to respond to dares, commands, tests from men?

[@uverpro3598]

“Electrons in Love” would be a cool name for a song.

[@chernobylcoleslaw6698]

Sounds like a minor '80s hit! 😂

[@uverpro3598]

@@chernobylcoleslaw6698 My thoughts exactly! I spent like 20 mins singing a synthpop song in my head.

[@roman727]

i will protest every video till Trent Fine Tunes and Brings Mafia Trent back lol

[@TheClapped]

Is that a character he had in older videos lol?

[@Malygosblues]

He's gonna make you an apologetic you can't refute

[@roman727]

@@Malygosblues HAHAHA

[@kze24]

Are you going to protest the lack of Mafia Trent until you become Protestant?

[@roman727]

@TheClapped kzbin.infoUgkx9Bf2HdOliXySAdemwBqIjYCIIe0rOpV_?si=Y4dVhAZy3VhIdLnI

[@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009]

What converted me is actually the issue of Moral Subjectivism, the instant I realised that, without religion, our own human morality is subjective, I found that religion is the ONLY way to objectivify morality. If you don't see why Moral Subjectivity is bad, simply go and read up on Egoism and then make an actual argument that an Egoist would actually listen to and be unable to refute without the use of any Religion. Effectively speaking, what converted me was not the question of IF, but the question of WHY, what purpose does it serve us, and once I found that purpose, I embraced it like a frightened hound to their master.

[@YSFmemories]

This is the issue that sent me deep into depression and made life colorless. How can so many people defend evil and degeneracy and then claim that good people are bigoted or lack compassion? What would be the meaning of life if there isnt objective value and goodness? But wanting something to be true and it actually being true are two different things.

[@lixiaoyu1067]

In fact what kept me from religion is the issue of Moral subjectivism... When I was younger, I always looking for objective morality, I was looking for that one ultimate view that tells me what is right and wrong, but I then realized that my morality was shaped by a lot of different things and beliefs, those things are all very subjective. Not only subjective, but also constantly changing throughout the years. The most recent experience is I realized how deeply my morality was shaped by patriotism. Never thought about it before, but somehow now I felt like my tax dollars became more important than people's life in some other countries. When I was younger, when I didn't need to pay tax, I never give it much of a thought. Life is life, and we cannot put a money value on life. I believed that. But it is extremely hard to act based on a general religion term such as 'all life are created equal'. If foreign life can be saved using my tax dollar, they are certainly not worth saving. It makes strong arguments if we are debating, but in real life and real money, it will not work.

[@YSFmemories]

@@lixiaoyu1067 你是中国人?

[@Bill_Garthright]

_"I found that religion is the ONLY way to objectivify morality."_ Really? How, exactly? I don't understand how a religion - or a god - would get you there. PS. If I understand you correctly, it's not that you found good evidence that a god was real, but just that the idea of subjective morality _scared_ you? Well, that's honest, at least. But it hardly seems to be a good reason to believe that something exists in reality. Then again, wishful-thinking is a powerful motivator, huh? Unfortunately, I care about the truth.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@YSFmemories _"What would be the meaning of life if there isnt objective value and goodness?"_ You're right that wanting something to be true doesn't mean that it really _is_ true. Indeed, we should be even more cautious in that case. But why would you assume that there _is_ a "meaning of life." After all, "meaning" _is_ subjective. It depends on a thinking, feeling creature, and what has meaning to me might not have meaning to you. And "value" is _obviously_ subjective. Trade would be impossible if we didn't value goods in different amounts. We sell what we value less to buy what we value more. (And yes, we tend to value friends and family more than complete strangers.) However, I don't mean to dismiss your feelings of depression. Not at all. But please note that there might be a medical issue there. Just in case, be sure to discuss that with your doctor if you're still feeling that way. Life is too short to suffer unnecessarily. I wish you well!

[@Konxovar0]

I didn't know what the "Electrons in Love" argument was, but I had heard that it was a devastating argument against Fine Tuning. I came away from that thinking, "What? How on earth is this supposed to be a good argument? There are so many false or unbacked assumptions with so many possible responses."

[@patrickthomas2119]

the idea behind it, I think, is that it is almost supposed to be almost a mockery and get christians to recognize that the arguments for God and fine tuning are also false or backed by assumptions. Like most arguments against the existence of a creator with a mind, they are only arguments against claims of theism and not really arguments for claims of atheism. Atheism by design is a critical perspective that scrutinizes the claims of any and all religious thought and demands to be convinced for claims they don't agree with. The part i find annoying about this (as someone that used to identify as an atheist) is atheist do not hold their own claims and positions to the same scrutiny. It is all attacking others and never self reflecting. This is one of the reasons I stopped identifying as an atheist some time ago.

[@Boundless_Border]

I'm curious what false or unbacked assumptions you see within the argument. While I understand it may not be compelling, there doesn't appear to be much to support.

[@Konxovar0]

@@Boundless_Border The argument assumes that the world we live in is mind-unfriendly, because not everything has a mind, and that just because God didn't create the world one way He must not have created it the way it actually is. Even if God could have created the world with more minds with such simple bodies, why is that superior to the amount of minds there are with the complexity of bodies that we have? I certainly don't think it is.

[@Boundless_Border]

@Konxovar0 The first assumption is a premise of the FTA. So you confused me a bit since I couldn't tell which argument you were criticizing. The argument doesn't assume that a god doesn't create the world with the follow up conclusion that a god couldn't create the world. The argument doesn't propose that simple bodies are superior. The argument is trying to show that simple bodies are compatible with types of worlds the proposed god could make. Which you seem to be somewhat in board with. Thanks for sharing what you took issue with.

[@charlesdarwin180]

Whatever the improbability of having something supernatural exist is way more improbable than life on earth's improbability.

[@1970Phoenix]

I look forward to seeing your calculations justifying these relative probabilities.

[@charlesdarwin180]

@@1970Phoenix No calculations necessary. There isn't a single event that has affimative evidence to have supernatural origin.

[@1970Phoenix]

@@charlesdarwin180 I misread your comment - I agree with you.

[@edwardvan5808]

Take a look at the occult. It's for real.

[@Awaifn]

What exactly makes the idea of the supernatural so unbelievable?

[@shassett79]

The funny thing about the fine-tuning argument is that it seems to overlook the reality that an omnipotent god could cause life to exist under any set of circumstances, and certainly wouldn't be constrained to work within a single, highly-specific set of physical constants.

[@Bill_Garthright]

Yup. We live where it is possible for us to live naturally. We evolved where it was possible for us to evolve naturally. But if an all-powerful god actually existed, he wouldn't have that limitation. We could live in the vacuum of space or in the heart of a sun - anywhere, really, since his magic would make it possible. Funny how gods never do anything that would actually require a god to exist, isn't it?

[@shassett79]

@@Bill_Garthright I feel like the one property we can reasonably assign to gods is their apparent desire to make it seem like they don't exist. Maybe they're just shy?

[@gabrielm1180]

this argument is against the notion of an chaotic meaningless universe.

[@shassett79]

@@gabrielm1180 Right. So what's the justification for the presupposition that all other permutations of physical constants would necessarily lead to a chaotic and meaningless universe?

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@shassett79 _"Maybe they're just shy?"_ Sure seems like it, huh? I mean, what _else_ could it be, right? :)

[@rageofheaven]

"The Argument for God Atheists Fear the Most" It's usually the argument given at the sword.

[@standard-user-name]

Why do you think that's specific to theists ?

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

@@standard-user-name probably due to the sheer amount of theists who were holding the swords across all of Europe for centuries.

[@scottneusen9601]

​@@standard-user-nameCause theists have things like crusades and there has never been a war to spread atheism.

[@standard-user-name]

@@scottneusen9601 Wait, do you think the Crusades are a bad thing lol ? The Crusades were a defensive war against Islamic aggression. They won miraculously, like when a couple dozen Spaniards took down the entire Aztec empire. The Middle East and North Africa were Christian for centuries until Muslims stole it all. Church Fathers like Saint Augustinian came from them. If the Crusades weren't called, Europe would be the same. Even calling for a defensive war like the first Crusades was difficult for the Church to do, because of the whole Christian ethics thing. It's from these considerations we even have concepts like "Just War Theory". Islam doesn't have the same problem though, as Islamic ethics is to subjugate the world, violently or otherwise.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@standard-user-namethe 4th was a fucking nightmare, what are you talking about?

[@SharedPhilosophy]

11:31 this is where I take issue with this rebuttal for the electrons in love argument. "Imagining these electrons, doeasn't mean that this state of affairs could actually happen." I respond exactly the same way to the fine-tuning argument. Just because we can imagine that the universe could be nothing, or never harbor life, doesn't mean this state of affairs can actually happen, as far as we know this may be the only option the universe in its laws. Great video, though. Your videos are definitely among my favorites when it comes to theistic arguments and the discussion surrounding God's existence.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

I think there is a big difference. With electrons in love we are imagining an entirely new kind of being existing, a conscious particle. In contrast, imagining the value of the constants being different is just a difference in degree. It's like the difference between imagining a world where fish swim 5% faster and a world where fish can talk. The former seems at least a little more possible. And even if the constants couldn't be different, the situation is still weird. It's like walking into a room with 80 million combinations on a thermostat and only 100 degrees are life sustaining. Suppose the thermostat for some reason is stuck in that range and can't be changed. It's very strange it just happens to be stuck (i.e. couldn't be any different) in the life permitting range. And thanks for the kind words!

[@herroyung857]

@@TheCounselofTrent It is not strange at all that it happens to be stuck in the life permitting range. The only reason that it seems strange is that you're subconsciously treating the other ranges on the thermostat as being remotely plausible, which is precisely the assumption that the "unchangeable constants" perspective denies. Just because we can fiddle with numbers in an equation, it doesn't lend an iota of evidence to the idea that the universe's constants could be anything aside from what they are now. Our imagination is not evidence of anything at all. All we can observe is a single set of constants, and given this observation, it is completely irrational to assume any other constants are possible until we have evidence of this. Human intuition is fundamentally flawed when used to evaluate the universe as a whole.

[@twalrus9833]

​@@herroyung857 We also have no evidence that the climate of the earth can be any different than what it is right now. But we trust climate scientists who make models based on hypothetical past scenarios. To deny the possibility of different past human behavior that effects the climate means you deny any alternative timelines/universes as well as free will. We can come to conclusions in hypotheticals even though we ourselves cannot make that situation happen. Maybe, it is *necessary* that free will doesn't exist and the universal constants must *necessarily* be what they are and humans must *necessarily* be the only known beings with high level consciousness. But I'd much rather have one necessary thing than the many random conditions that must be untouchable.

[@herroyung857]

@@twalrus9833 You are comparing phenomena we observe within the universe to phenomena outside of the universe. From our past observations of the Earth's climate, we can easily derive future observations. This is science. We discover patterns within our observations of the universe, and we seek mechanisms and frameworks that explain and predict those patterns. What is not science is extending our assumptions and intuitions derived from the universe to outside of the universe, if that's a concept that even makes sense. All that we can observe is our universe, so how can you possibly make any assumptions on what alternate universes might be? Any analogies involving observations of our universe simply fail. Phenomena we observe on Earth do not translate to phenomena that may or may not exist separate from our universe. Why? Because there is no evidence that there is anything other than our universe, while there is boatloads of evidence regarding the state of affairs of Earth. I will repeat myself once more. Intuitions derived from our observations of our universe do not apply to speculations on phenomena outside of our universe, because we have never observed anything outside of our universe and therefore have nothing with which to develop an intuition. "But I'd much rather have one necessary thing than the many random conditions that must be untouchable." First, no one is saying that the random conditions are untouchable. We are saying that given the current evidence, arguments in support of God are fundamentally flawed and irrational. And until proven otherwise, it is unreasonable to simply assume that the universe could be any other way, and then to use this bald assertion as an argument for God. Second, the way you're framing this "necessary" rhetoric is objectionable. I am not defending a "necessary" universe or a "necessary" cosmos/multiverse containing the universe. I am simply pointing out that the most honest position is "I don't know yet" and it's irrational to choose the "necessary" God over the other claims when you cannot demonstrate that God is more probable.

[@zebo6162]

@@herroyung857 I appreciate your desire for evidence, but as you say human intuition can never be enough to "prove" anything outside the observable universe in the same way that we can "prove" phenomena here on Earth. This is because the scientific method was created with certain fundamental principles in mind, and one of these was that it only applies to the physical and natural world. This is why there are different "kinds" of knowledge; the kind that the scientific method produces is empirical, whereas the kinds of philosophical knowledge being discussed here is fundamentally different. I don't understand, then, why you require or even expect empirical knowledge (that is, knowledge based on observation) when you admit there isn't a way to acquire this knowledge in the first place, as you can't observe outside the universe? See, the crux of your original reply is that there is an unproven assumption those making the fine-tuning argument are making, and that is that the physical constants we see in the universe COULD be different. In your eyes, since there is no evidence the constants COULD be different, the argument is thus "flawed", "irrational", etc. While it is true we can't PROVE the constants could be different, and thus the argument is contingent on the constants being able to be different, I want to point out again that we are not talking about empirical knowledge, and thus the burden of proof is not on those making the fine-tuning argument to prove this to be the case. Rather, it becomes a subjective evaluation of how "reasonable" it is for these constants to possibly be different, as opposed to the subjective evaluation of how "reasonable" it is for these constants to be necessary. In my opinion the former seems much more reasonable, but if to you the latter seems more compelling, that's fine, but you would then need to DEFEND that point. Simply saying "you can't prove yours definitively with empirical evidence" is a non-starter because we will never be able to do that (since we ourselves lack the perspecive that an omnipotent Being would), and to then call anyone making either argument "irrational" seems silly. TL;DR I think you misunderstand the kind of knowledge that is being discussed, and that causes you to see a necessary but unproven precondition in a philosophical argument and think the entire thing is "irrational" to argue in the first place.

[@TheCatholicNerd]

7:15 as to the envelope thing, they already have Moses and the prophets, if they don't believe because of them, or because Jesus rose from the dead, they're not going to believe because of a magic trick as you said.

[@Nemo12417]

@@TheCatholicNerd - Thomas believed specifically because he was granted evidence on demand. Even Jesus, who was furious at him for critical thinking instead of faith, acknowledged this. - if people won't believe the words of an old book, they won't believe miracles. Pick one. Where was the Bible wrong?

[@Soundbrigade]

@@Nemo12417Was it ever right?!

[@newglof9558]

The most convincing argument against atheism: P1: Atheism is gay P2: Being gay is wrong C: Atheism is wrong

[@Anglicanism_go_brr_JLY]

Brilliant

[@kze24]

Athiests fear this commenter above all else

[@wp5875]

Hilarious if facetiousness but I suspect this is what you believe.

[@mouikafa-qn1gn]

😂😂

[@Isaac_L..]

I'm not sure if I'm laughing with you or laughing at you, but I'm laughing all the same.

[@claudio-1896]

I am a [protestant] Christian, and Trent Horn is one of my favorites, more eloquent and effective apologists these days. Thank you for your work, brother!

[@thelongbow141]

Here's another argument against fine-tuning that I rarely see: just because the physical constants appear to be incredibly precise does NOT necessarily imply that the *chances* of them being that way are equally small.

[@nics4967]

They need not be equally small. Chance is an improbable theory for a precise state of affairs or even a moderately precise state. A shed is not as precise as a F-35. Chance is not a good explanation for a shed.

[@Boundless_Border]

​@@nics4967 A snowflake is a "precise" state of affairs. Do you think there is a snowflake maker god?

[@nics4967]

@Boundless_Border you seem to be bringing up a side matter as to what we can conclude from precision. The objection that x may just be precise not very precise is not a very good one to x not being caused by intelligence. By precise, you mean snowflakes are "held to low tolerance in manufacture" that would seem at least close to saying they are designed. If you are saying they are designed, I'm not the one saying there is intelligence behind their being you are.

[@nics4967]

@@Boundless_Border all these 3 definitions of precise from Merriam-Webster seem to talk of intelligence. "1 : adapted for extremely accurate measurement or operation 2 : held to low tolerance in manufacture 3 : marked by precision of execution" Do you have a definition in mind that doesn't?

[@nics4967]

@Boundless_Border is a snowflake of the same real moral significance as a human being?

[@highgrounder]

Not the entire universe is hospitable to life. Just step out onto the moon without a space suit and see what happens. The universe is a myriad of different environments that each have their own shot at producing life, and when one gambles enough he eventually wins. We happen to be on Earth because Earth had the environment that was suited for life best that we know of. Statistically speaking, it’s practically impossible that the Grand Canyon exists in any one location on Earth, but Earth has so many locations that the Grand Canyon does exist, and it exists there thanks to the natural environment that molded it. In the incredible vastness of the universe with its billions of planets and dwarf planets and so forth, something was likely going to be hospitable, especially given the incredibly long amount of time to create the necessary conditions. TLDR: It’s not just one universe with one chance, it’s billions of planets with billions of chances

[@Bill_Garthright]

_"it’s billions of planets with billions of chances"_ Indeed, even _that_ is a gross underestimate, huh? It's more like sextillions of planets with sextillions of chances. I don't care _how_ low a chance might be, it's probably likely to happen with that many opportunities.

[@brucelansberg5485]

@@Bill_Garthright If Trent would have had sextillion guesses to what was written inside the envelope, I'm pretty sure he would have guessed correctly in the end. It's a flaw in his reasoning he overlooked.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@brucelansberg5485 One of many. :)

[@travismorgado114]

The problem with the fine tuning argument is that it pre-supposes so many things, how can we prove that the universe could've been any other way? How do we know life is contingent on these fine tunings? How do we know the universe is contingent on these tunings? How do we know that the fine tuning of the universe requires a supernatural creator?

[@0live0wire0]

TAG all the way, baby. Fine-tuning sounds convincing but I could brush it off easily if I assume a skeptical worldview. At best all it proves is a deistic clockmaker god who wounded up the initial mechanism and disappeared from the world.

[@MythicKeaton]

Personally, I find the cosmological argument more convincing than the fine tuning one. Just because it feels like the skeptic has more wiggle room to hand wave away the notion of God being the explanation of fine tuning by presuppossing some (currently not known) naturalistic law, compared to the cosmological one where it feels like the skeptic is more cornered into believing that God is the best explanation. Considering that before the universe, there is no nature for the skeptic to draw or presuppose a naturalistic law from.

[@andyfisher2403]

I love your content. I miss the longer episodes, rebuttals, dialogues, debates, etc.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

We are currently raising funds to host more in-person dialogues and debates. And hopefully we will do some more rebuttals soon.

[@3miL_2012]

Seeing them crash the atheist podcast is priceless haha

[@chriscrilly8807]

Why?

[@jimurban5367]

The “probabilities” like the ten-royal-flushes one are purely speculative, as we have no idea about the total possible number of combinations of values that the fundamental constants could have taken on. Heck, can you demonstrate that there is even one possible combination of values besides the one we know? If not, then you have no argument.

[@bridgetgress]

Yes we do. We have tons of other planets that don't meet the conditions to support life. Why did ANY of them develop in this way?

[@jimurban5367]

@@bridgetgress The Argument from Fine-Tuning deals with the values of the fundamental constants of physics: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the gravitational constant, and electromagnetism. It does not deal with the conditions of Earth compared to the conditions of other planets. That said, we know very little about the life-supporting capability of the overwhelming majority of planets in the universe, which means we don’t know the denominator nor the numerator in the probability calculation of (number of planets that can support life)/(total number of planets).

[@bridgetgress]

@@jimurban5367 Are you an astrophysicist

[@billwilliams7285]

Agreed, to day we don't know is perfectly acceptable. Which is why research is on going. To just attribute this supposed fine tuning to a God and stop looking for reasons, os just another example of the tree from the garden! It is deeply rooted in theists this teaching, it keeps them in check, through fear! The one emotion to control all that allow this emotion to control them! This has been known from 1000s of years, and it is still relevant today! Only now, it is ordinary people instilling this fear and spreading it. For the purpose of togetherness.

[@Mish844]

@@jimurban5367 moreover, people seem to forget that with each planet being statistically independent from others, scale of the universe works against this argument, since 1% is not an intuitively scary probability when I have million tries.

[@Reignor99]

Thankyou for stating its the "fine-tuning argument" in the first 15 seconds. For this you have gained a like and comment from a non-believer.

[@killianmiller6107]

In line with the intelligent design argument (fine tuning), I’m also fond of the intelligibility argument. Basically this argues from one of the axioms that make science possible and effective: the fact the universe is well ordered and understandable, allowing us to observe the patterns that make the universe work. We would not expect this intelligibility given the universe originated from random chance. Even the concept of a multiverse or an infinitely repeating universe that expands and retracts needs a way of explaining why this patterned state of affairs exists. This makes most sense given an intelligent creator, the same way we can know a book with an intelligent story and setting written in it was made by an author. When scientists explain phenomena with natural laws, they may say “God didn’t do it because there’s a natural explanation” but they forget how these natural explanations themselves would have their origin in God’s design. This relates to another argument I think I made myself (as someone who studied product design), observing that the way things are is kind of arbitrary, it didn’t have to be the case that humans have 2 arms instead of 4, or that grass is green instead of purple, or that we live on a sphere instead of a disc, or that trees don’t make oxygen but flugelhorns do. From my experience designing things, you often have to make arbitrary choices as to how something looks or functions, rarely if ever is there only one way to create something (though there can be better or worse ways). So I would reason that in observing how the way things are in nature isn’t necessary, they demand something (necessary itself) that arbitrated on how _this_ is the way it will be.

[@danieljakes5949]

Oddly enough, I have the exact same arguments for God. Still bothers me how maleness and femaleness could arise without an intentional agent behind it.

[@Bill_Garthright]

_"We would not expect this intelligibility given the universe originated from random chance."_ Why not? After all, we evolved _in this universe._ We evolved to understand, at least in part, the environment we evolved in, because that was a survival advantage. Note that we don't _know_ if the universe originated from random chance. And, obviously, "random chance" isn't the same thing as "unplanned," either. But if a god actually existed, then how could we expect that everything would continue the way we've come to expect? After all, according to most theists, they think that their god can do anything - literally *anything* - any time he likes, for no reason we would necessarily be able to determine. How would we be able to predict that? We couldn't. Indeed, most theists - of nearly _every_ religion - think that their god _does_ do that stuff. Everyone who believes in miracles thinks so. So the argument should be the exact opposite of what you claim, shouldn't it? Shouldn't that be evidence that your god _isn't_ real? _"it didn’t have to be the case that humans have 2 arms instead of 4"_ Yes, you're right, but only if a god exists. _If_ a creator god exists, then you're absolutely right. But if all gods are simply imaginary, then it's obvious why human beings have only two arms, rather than four. It's not a puzzle at all. An all-powerful creator god could do anything he liked. It wouldn't even have to make _sense,_ he could still do it. That's what "all-powerful" _means_ when it comes to a creator god. Heck, he could make some people have four useful arms _now,_ if he wanted. Magic can do anything at all, and all on God's mere whim. But we have two arms, instead of four, because we evolved from creatures with four limbs. And evolution is not magic. It's a natural process that works with what already exists. _That's_ why we don't have four arms. Again, it's not a mystery. And the only way we might get a human with four arms is if there's a glitch in the natural process of reproduction (like the two-headed animals which show up sometimes). _Or_ if a god is real and decides that's what he wants. Again, your argument seems exactly backwards, doesn't it? If anything, it's an argument for gods *not* being real. PS. Have you ever heard of the panda's thumb? It's one example among many - in human beings, too - which show that life _wasn't_ intelligently designed. After all, _good_ design could potentially be explained by either a god or by the natural process of evolution. Both explain good 'design.' But _bad_ design, non-optimal design, silly design - Rube Goldberg type stuff which would be stupid to actually design - only makes sense through natural, unplanned evolution. Now, obviously, we don't need good evidence that life _wasn't_ intelligently designed, as long as there's no good evidence that it _was._ But we do have that evidence, nonetheless - _lots_ of it. (The human eye is just another example among many.)

[@killianmiller6107]

Oh hi Bill Yeah yeah we developed in this particular universe, things would be different in different worlds, so what, the intelligibility argument (and my arbitrariness argument) works for any universe that has certain arbitrary patterns that govern it. Again, ask why is it the case that “this” is the state of affairs that allows something like evolution which brings about 2-armed humans? I already said you can point to natural processes that brought about this state of affairs, that doesn’t mean God did not create those exact processes. Besides, you really don’t argue for the necessity of humans (ie all mammals) having 2 fore limbs other than their legs. Surely it’s possible certain events could have affected the way evolution developed such that mammals have 4 fore limbs. This goes to demonstrate the arbitrariness of this state of affairs, which suggests an arbiter with power and intent to choose the way the world is going to be. I’m assuming by “unplanned” you mean that natural laws just exist and don’t need outside intelligent influence to cause things to happen. Still, that only pushes the question back, you haven’t answered what is the origin of these laws (because they aren’t necessary, they are arbitrary). Without an intelligent designer, the only other option I’m aware of is random chance. I’m sure you heard the clarification that God can do anything that’s not logically contradictory (ie square circles). He could indeed create things we couldn’t comprehend, but it makes more sense that he would create things we could comprehend (given his intent to create us with a desire for understanding in the first place). Furthermore, just because you have the power to do something doesn’t mean you are bound to do it. God could pop into existence a flugelhorn that creates oxygen out of CO2 when you blow in it, but why would he? I don’t think theists would actually say God does things for no reason, because there’s always some intent behind a created thing. He’s already created things the way he wanted (and scripture mentions him resting from his creative work); imagine God being like “oops let me change this real quick, no reason, just cause.” That actually poses a harder problem for theists than what you think is an objection. Miracles are interesting since critics will say they violate the laws of nature (ie God’s very own laws). For one this assumes the laws are necessary (instead of being arbitrated by a creator), and for another it assumes miracles _violate_ natural law. God can have good reason to do a miracle when it brings about a good (meaning it’s not for “no reason”), like curing an illness that the human body is not naturally disposed to cure, by suspending/surpassing the law that states the body can’t fix certain health problems on its own. And it’s possible because God’s supernatural authority overpowers nature. Miracles are _above_ nature, not contrary to it. And I would say extraordinary miracles do happen (also ordinary miracles where natural things just happen to occur at the best time). I have no idea why you would think God not doing something crazy on a whim means he doesn’t exist. PS, Trent already addressed that intelligent design doesn’t automatically claim optimal design, thus vestigial structures don’t disprove theism. Besides, pandas thumbs do serve a function in grabbing things. But again, it’s as if you think theistic creation means God just pops creatures into being without any process or connection to other creatures. The very paradigm of evolution itself where we have creatures trying to survive and pass on their genes to adapt to environments over generations, this paradigm is itself arbitrary and demands an arbiter. Why shouldn’t it be the case that creatures live forever, constantly adapting their own DNA to their environment without having to mate and hope their offspring do better?

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@killianmiller6107 _"I already said you can point to natural processes that brought about this state of affairs, that doesn’t mean God did not create those exact processes."_ True. But it also doesn't mean that your god - or any god - _did_ create those processes. Or that any god is even real. _"Surely it’s possible certain events could have affected the way evolution developed such that mammals have 4 fore limbs."_ Not really - not mammals, at least, because four limbs were probably set before that. But at _some_ point, yes. After all, not all animals have four limbs. I'm not following your argument, though. _"This goes to demonstrate the arbitrariness of this state of affairs, which suggests an arbiter with power and intent to choose the way the world is going to be."_ I'm not sure if you and I agree on what "arbitrary" means, but why would that "suggest" anything like that? I see absolutely no connection there. And again, it wasn't "arbitrary" for human beings. _Or_ for mammals. Natural processes must work with what they've _got._ Evolution starts with what _is._ A magical designer wouldn't have that limitation. _"Still, that only pushes the question back, you haven’t answered what is the origin of these laws (because they aren’t necessary, they are arbitrary)."_ I'm quite willing to admit when I don't know something. (I wish _theists_ were as willing to admit that!) But why do you claim that those laws are "arbitrary"? How would _you_ know that? Besides, even if they _could_ have been some other way - and we have no idea if that's true or not - so what? "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." It really doesn't. _"I don’t think theists would actually say God does things for no reason, because there’s always some intent behind a created thing."_ You've never heard "God works in mysterious ways"? It's been my experience that theists claim all sorts of diverse, contradictory 'reasons' for things, unless they can't make up an answer they find appealing, in which case it's always "God works in mysterious ways." _"For one this assumes the laws are necessary (instead of being arbitrated by a creator)"_ There you go. You said it yourself. Earlier, you claimed that the natural laws _aren't_ necessary, but that seems to be only because you want them to have been created by your god. You're not providing any good evidence that your claims are true, you're just making claims based on what you _want_ to be true (i.e. your god), aren't you? _"And I would say extraordinary miracles do happen"_ There you go. Then you _can't_ rely on the universe being "well ordered and understandable," as you put it, because - according to _you_ - your god does "miracles" whenever he wants. Those of us who _don't_ believe in a magical being interfering whenever he wants are the ones who can expect the universe to go on as we've always experienced it to be, without magical interference. If things change, we'll have to change our minds. But we have no good reason to _expect_ 'miracles.' You do. _"pandas thumbs do serve a function in grabbing things."_ So what? This has nothing to do with "serving a function." It's about the abundant evidence that living things _weren't_ planned. The human eye serves a function, too. But only a complete idiot would design an eye with a blind spot right in the middle of it (an _unnecessary_ blind spot, as cephalopod eyes demonstrate quite clearly). _"The very paradigm of evolution itself where we have creatures trying to survive and pass on their genes to adapt to environments over generations, this paradigm is itself arbitrary and demands an arbiter."_ *Evidence?* _"Why shouldn’t it be the case that creatures live forever, constantly adapting their own DNA to their environment without having to mate and hope their offspring do better?"_ You tell me. Why didn't "God" do it that way? He would have avoided causing unnecessary suffering to billions, no, _trillions,_ of living things. Because, again, a god _could_ do that. A god _would_ be able to plan ahead. Nature can't. A god _would_ see the results of his horrific plan. Nature can't plan _at all._ And any kind of half-way decent god wouldn't want to cause such an _immense_ amount of unnecessary suffering, not just to human beings but to every other sentient creature. Nature can't feel, can't think, can't do anything deliberately. A god _could,_ if the god actually existed. (Of course, an imaginary god can't do any of that stuff, either.) Thanks for the reply!

[@velkyn1]

that fails miserably too. In the Christian universe, the universe isn't well ordered and understandable. Your god makes it incoherent and unpredictable with its supposed miracles and interference.

[@Isaac_L..]

As an atheist the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is easily the single biggest challange to my current beliefs. Ultimately though I think theres other explinations aside from theism that can explain fine tuning (deism, simulation theory, pan theism, etc.) which are all cumulatively just as or more likely than theism to me. I also think that the probability of fine tuning given theism is grossly overestimated by theists (I still think its relatively high but not a near certainty as most theists take as a given). Still a very strong arguement for theism nonetheless.

[@jm329]

It isn’t.

[@velkyn1]

why since there is no evdience for it at all? It's notable how these cultists claim "fine tuning" shows that their god exists, but when shown how this god's supposed "design" fails hilariously, they have to make excuses for this god.

[@Soundbrigade]

Look at it this way: Fine tuning is a cardboard box you will use to pack things into. In order to maximize you pack your stuff in the most optimal way. If that box had other dimensions, you had it packed in another way. The the cosmic constants had been slightly different, the Universe had looked different. Now it happens to be that an electron has this charge, Plancks constant has this value etc. The fine tuning argument is much like god of the gaps argument.

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

Exactly but theists do not think outside of the box when it comes to what could be the explanation of fine-tuning, they automatically think God had to do it. It is simple it’s admit you do not know like the rest of us.

[@stevewalker9870]

I have a good counterargument, the universe is very huge and very old, and yet we see no signs of life anywhere else, the fine-tuning argument would be compelling if the universe was teeming with life, but it's not, we're the only ones, and that accounts for the improbability of the formation of life There's also survivorship bias, we exist because everything lined up just right, if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to think about this This video also completely misunderstands the electrons-in-love concept by focusing in on that one example, the point is that life could look very very different from us, why are we carbon-based multi-cellular beings instead of something else? The answer is simple: Because that's the only thing that worked here, and we're only able to contemplate these things *because* it worked

[@criticalthinker8007]

So how did you calculate the probability that the universe was fine tune? How did you calculate the probality of other options? How did you calculate the probability that a super natural being could even exist?

[@ZyroZoro]

I'm an atheist. I also think the fine-tuning argument is the best argument for the existence of God. However, I still find problems with it, which I will list below. 1. How do we know it's even possible for the physical constants to be any different? It might be the case that these are the only values they can have. 2. If it is possible for the physical constants to be different, how do we know how different they can possibly be? Perhaps the universe as we know it wouldn't be possible if they were different by 1 part in 10^1000, but what if it's only possible for them to be different by 1 part in 10^100000? 3. Say it's possible for the constants to have a wide range of values (so that objection #2 isn't a problem). How do we know what the probability is for any of those values? Perhaps it's extraordinarily unlikely for them to take on values outside of what they currently are. Mathematically speaking, how do we know the probability distribution is flat instead of highly clustered around certain values? 4. Theists don't seem to like this objection, but what if there is a multiverse? Then we would just happen to be in one if the universes where it's possible to live. I don't see this as terribly unlikely. Throughout history our view of reality has continually expanded. We discovered more continents, then more planets, then more stars with their own solar systems, then more galaxies. And we didn't just discover more of them, but we discovered there are an unimaginable number of them. So I don't see why discovering that there are more universes would be preposterous. 5. Say it is possible for the physical constants to be wildly different. How do we know that those different values wouldn't give rise to a different kind of universe with different kinds of life? This is essentially Douglas Adams' puddle analogy. (You should look it up if you're not familiar, it's a neat analogy.) 6. What if it's possible for not only the physical constants to take on other values, but for there to be other physical constants themselves? If that's possible, there's no telling what would be possible given all the different interactions that these different physical constants would have. For example, it might have been possible to have another constant acting on the force of gravity instead of just the gravitational constant. It also might have been possible to not have had the force of gravity at all, and to have a different force with a different physical constant.

[@Boundless_Border]

I will add two notes that to your list. 1. The fact that if you vary several of the constants at once this will result in a different scope of values for life as we know it to exist while not being within the already established ranges. So it isn't quite that you have to roll X amount of 5s but you can roll a combination of 6s and 4s as well and end up with the same result. 2. As it is the form of the equations that gives rise to the constants. It doesn't make sense to manipulate the constants while holding the equations the constants arose from to be fixed. This is much like precisely calibrating an equation to match the data and someone coming along and saying "well if you change one of the coefficients the data won't align with the equation anymore."

[@ZyroZoro]

@@Boundless_Border Those are good points as well!

[@therese6447]

Look up Father Mark Spitzer.....he has great arguments using science and mathematics that show the existence of God as the intelligent designer

[@ВАЛЕРИНиколов-и9у]

Probably is not the best argument.

[@Voxis_23456]

I think there are several problems with the fine tuning argument: 1. It assumes that the universes' constant values (such as gravity, the speed of light, protons being lighter than neutrons) have a dial that can be turned and aren't just inherent parts of the universe. 2. An argument can be made for a malevolent God, a God that tried to make the universe as hostile as possible to life that even if the universes values were changed, even a little bit, life would cease to exsist. 3. It assumes that if God exists, he couldn't create life in any other possible universe where these values are different. If God can create life in other possible universes than this argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life is null

[@IowaRonin]

This is exactly the argument I bring up when my atheist acquaintances talk about aliens. They say it's arrogant to not believe in aliens because of the size of the universe, and then use math and odds to support their claim.

[@darrennew8211]

Except the universe is a count of one. We know of many many stars in the universe, but only one universe. Trying to generalize a probability distribution for the value of a constant is absurd.

[@TheSergio1021]

Atheists: "There's no way aliens aren't real" Also atheists: "God for sure isnt real"

[@frei6833]

Incredibly dumb joke, that dumb that I even don't know where to start. It has been estimated that there are around 7×10²³ planets in the universe. Do you even understand how big that number is? How can you not think that there is a small probability of some extraterrestrial life existing? To me, the fact that you prefer to believe in an all loving god (but clearly does not give a shite when a 10 year old kid is about to die to cancer) is ridiculous and absurd. @TheSergio1021

[@frei6833]

Your friends are doing what should be done, logic and math and not some fantasy book written in an era when people still believed in flat earth.

[@herroyung857]

@@darrennew8211 Somehow, all of these smug theists missed this fundamental flaw with the fine tuning argument. We can only observe a single set of constants, and it is completely irrational to assume other values for these constants are possible until we have evidence.

[@dilamotamire6870]

As an atheist, I think of fine-tuning argument as arguing "if my green plant wasn't green, it wouldn't be green."

[@stickyrubb]

Exactly. It is like the puddle argument. A puddle that thinks that the hole it's in was made perfectly for him is like a theist thinking the universe was made for them to live in. When it obviously is the other way around, we evolved to live in our environment. If our environment was different, we would have evolved differently, or we wouldn't be here at all to ponder these questions.

[@pmg567]

@@stickyrubb in other words the survivor ship bias

[@stickyrubb]

@@pmg567 Yes!

[@AJCavalier]

@@stickyrubbAlthough I don’t disagree with your argument, you’re completely missing the point of the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument proposes that the chances that we live in a universe that permits the existence of life is so low, that God is a more likely explanation. Your argument that ‘we evolved to live in this universe’ doesn’t really work here because you have to accept the pretence that life will 100% come about. What if we didn’t evolve to live in this universe, that is to say, what if life didn’t happen at all (it’s not like it has to or that the universe must in some way allow it) and yet we are here. I think that’s more so the argument that the video is getting at.

[@pedro_6120]

​@@AJCavalier the problem with the argument is that it says that the odds of having habitable zones are incredibly low but it doesn't take into consideration that the universe is absolutely masive. It's kinda like saying 1% is a small percentage, but when you roll 100 times, the odds of landing that 1% are very high. Also, life adapts to its environment, so having the "perfect requirements" is not evidence for this since life adapts to what it has acces to so the "perfect requirements" aren't the same for everyone.

[@newglof9558]

I thought you were for sure going to say the cosmological arguments, though many atheists (even well-known ones) falsely believe that "who made God" is a competent rebuttal.

[@TheAnimeAtheist]

the point to replies like that is to point out that even if the "infinite regression" must have an end point, it's special pleading to declare it must be at any specific god.

[@sidwhiting665]

@@TheAnimeAtheist Right, so before we specify which god is THEE God, we have to get past the point of "there is no god." Can't put the cart in front of the horse and expect to have a reasonable conversation.

[@smidlee7747]

@@TheAnimeAtheist Not when the end point of life, reason and consciousness is NOT naturalism or materialism. The most logical conclusion is reason, life and consciousness came out of eternity.

[@newglof9558]

​@@TheAnimeAtheist​you guys consistently misunderstand that God in an Abrahamic sense is not equivocal to "the gods" or "a god" in a pagan sense.

[@TheAnimeAtheist]

@@newglof9558 And the abrahamic god doesn't prove christianity, you still have judism and islam to distinguish from.

[@ReasonOrDogma]

I think the strongest objection to the fine tuning argument is it's key premise that it's unlikely the parameters have the values that they do. In actuality we have no idea what range of values the parameters could have. The second strongest objection is that if there WERE some mechanism that chose the parameters, we could know nothing about it except that it would be at least as complicated as the universe, and hence itself possess at least as many free parameters as does the universe, leading to the same fine-tuning question and infinite regress.

[@ji8044]

Why would an atheist fear anything supernatural? We're not the ones with the "loving God" who likes to condemn people to eternal torture.

[@standard-user-name]

God's nature demands justice but His person desires mercy. You have free will. Align it with God or not. Your choices will be respected.

[@extrage3061]

@@standard-user-name "Respected" our choice is literally either become a slave to god and his servant or be tortured for ALL ETERNITY. Nice fucking choice man. Not to mention, he allows slavery, genocide and rape. But yeah lets cover all that up :D

[@austinjd2193]

​@@standard-user-name You have free will, but you better use it exactly the way God wants you to or you are going to hell. Really sounds free huh?

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@austinjd2193 Yeah, funny, isn't it? Of course, he has no good evidence any of that is true, anyway. It's just a completely unsupported claim. But even their _claims_ make no sense.

[@fernandodeoliveiradasilva4991]

@@austinjd2193 You have free will, but you better use it exactly the way the law wants you to or you are going to jail. Really sounds free huh?

[@Charmanber]

The transcendental argument is the best argument, honestly.

[@newglof9558]

It's powerful for people who are generally unfamiliar with philosophy. But I always found transcendental/presuppositionalism to be both philosophically and theologically problematic.

[@bruno9764]

Why?

[@Oneocna]

it is really bad is god limited by logic or is god not limited by logic and therefore can create a rock he cant lift and limit himself

[@jaycefields756]

@@Oneocna well isn’t God making a rock too heavy for Him to lift the same as Him making a square with 3 sides or a bachelor who is married? It’s impossible in a very particular way.

[@stephengray1344]

@@Oneocna God has created plenty of rocks that are so large that the concept of lifting them is incoherent (the moon being one obvious example of this).

[@callac]

There are actually several problems with the "fine-tuning" argument. First, we don't have other universes to compare the percentage of each element in this universe needed for life to exist. Second, most places in this universe would end our lives instantly, so saying that this universe has the "perfect conditions for life" seems to me to be at least ironic or sarcastic. And lastly, it would imply that this supposedly "omnipotent" god that you guys believe in needs very specific conditions to generate life. Which would diminish his omnipotence quite a bit.

[@Vakore]

5:48-6:50 addresses your second issue. I never really thought about the fine-tuning argument much so I can't really address the other points, though I fel lt like the second half of the video touched upon them. I'm probably going to look into this argument a bit more. Maybe you could too? Idk

[@scottguitar8168]

I am an atheist but also agnostic, meaning while I don't yet have a path to form a belief that a god does exist, I don't know if any gods do exist. I also find the fine tuning argument to be one of the better arguments but the reason I find all of the arguments to be subpar is that they are based on our ignorance, not what we can actually know to have a better understanding. Something like aerodynamics is not based on our ignorance, there are testable principles that lead one to a better understanding and know of its existence. Even something like the God particle gave us reasons to suspect it was there before we actually discovered it. I simply don't find anything like that where there is an expectation to find a God that isn't tied to emotions or subpar reasoning. I realize this doesn't mean that no Gods exist but it seems like we only have superficial reasons so far for believing this.

[@UnderWaterExploring]

why specifically do you find the fine tuning argument one of the better ones?

[@scottguitar8168]

@@UnderWaterExploring I think because the other arguments are easier to actually debunk with something. The fine tuning argument, while still based on our ignorance, doesn't really have a something to come back with due to our ignorance. We can certainly imagine natural causes for the constants, which is why I don't think atheists view this argument good enough to sway them.

[@ElationInStellation]

While I agree with you for the most part, I think, for me, the fact that the god of the gaps argument supplements the other arguments because we may not know things now but there are a lot of things we figured out that used to be exclusively in the divine realm.

[@scottguitar8168]

@@ElationInStellation I am not completely sure what you mean about figuring things out that used to be exclusively in the divine realm? Do you mean like asserting Gods were responsible for lightning and thunder before we learned the natural causes or something else?

[@ElationInStellation]

@@scottguitar8168 Yes.

[@SacredReason]

GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY. HALLELUJAH. AMEN.

[@stickyrubb]

ALL HAIL THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER, IT WILL BLESS US WITH ITS SAUCE. BOW DOWN TO THE FLYING ALLMIGHTY CREATOR. RAMEN.

[@chriscrilly8807]

Glory be.....give us a break, Troll!

[@AlamarianJ]

I find it strange so many atheists regard the fine tuning argument so highly when I think it sucks. If that was the best argument for God, I’d still be agnostic. We don’t know what the possible values of the cosmological constants are. We don’t have a clue. So how can we know how improbable the universe is? We can’t. Argument dead. The moral argument, argument from contingency and from motion, even the ontological argument, all seem much sounder to me.

[@Tinesthia]

I wouldn’t say they rate it highly. Just less terrible and taking more thought then some of the other travesties that apologists call arguments.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

I always find it interesting that the fine tuning argument is rarely the argument that theists bring up as being the argument they find most convincing, yet it's the one that atheists tend to say is the best argument for God's existence. Don't really know what to make of it, though.

[@maciejpieczula631]

Perhaps it is because athiests want physical proof, and this argument is the one that comes closest.

[@maciejpieczula631]

Perhaps it is because atheists want physical proof, and this is the argument that comes closest.

[@TheAnimeAtheist]

@@maciejpieczula631 It's because they respond to the most common arguments by theists, who by in large, don't really use this argument.

[@Oneocna]

Its a bad argument and theist know it. You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil. Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design"

[@imadmoussa1998]

@@Oneocna This makes no sense You're mixing up 2 arguments fine-tuning and intelligent design No one is arguing the universe is finetuned for life What people argue is the the constants of the universe is fine-tuned

[@JohnHenrysaysHi]

You are in my KZbin Mount Rushmore of All Time Favorites! Prayed for you and your family and everyone here in my Rosary this morning. Hope you and yours have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed week, Trent!

[@chriscrilly8807]

Saccharin silly religious mumbo jumbo. Prayer (and a bus ticket) will get you downtown.

[@JohnHenrysaysHi]

​@@chriscrilly8807 Thanks for sharing your philosophy compared to mine, Chris!

[@liaminblue9984]

“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. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” - Douglas Adams

[@blankspace2891]

Trent have you heard about the psychophysical harmony argument?

[@spencerd8504]

I would appreciate if anyone could simplify the psychophysical harmony argument in layman terms if possible?

[@velkyn1]

it's dualism, the same baseless lies that christians use all of the time.

[@Truck_Kun_Driver]

I think the simplest objection to the fine tuning argument is to simply steelman the opposite: Yes, we're the only lucky player who scored 10 wins in a row, with perfect cards. We're only here and wondering about it because we're the only ones who made it.

[@BalthasarCarduelis]

I think that the simplest objection is that of course the laws of this or that constant sit within this or that finely tuned band of values because if the values were different then the constants would simply be different. Of course the water is vase shaped, if it was in a toilet then it would be toilet shaped.

[@stephengray1344]

The "we're only here and wondering about it because we're the only ones who made it" response isn't actually very simple because it assumes the existence of a massive number of universes all with slightly different physical laws. And we have absolutely no evidence at all for the existence of even one other universe, let alone the large number it would need to bring the probability of one of them being life-permitting up high enough that it isn't surprising.

[@EricThomas1996]

All you have to do to dismantle that steel man is to question whether "infinite universe" theory is even plausible. "Of course we can wonder about it since we're in the right universe" requires infinite universes to be a legitimate reality. There is no evidential proof that infinity exists beyond human numerical concepts. There are some very strong minds that will tell you that infinity in the real world is like a "square circle" - it doesn't exist. For example, supposedly you can cut a piece of paper into infinite pieces if you have an infinitely small knife. This only exists in theoretical mathematics where you can divide integers. In reality, the piece of paper has finite mass and volume that cannot be divided infinitely. So this "we're just lucky to be in the right universe" falls apart once you show that there is no evidence at all that other universes exist anyways, and no logical way to deduce they exist either.

[@gregory7406]

The problem is that its not 10 wins in a row, its millions upon millions in a row. That’s mathematically impossible

[@redbepis4600]

A simple example of survivorship bias. Wonderfully put

[@roblemeire9441]

I also had developed a version of the fly-argument, but till now never heard someone else formulating it. Glad I found it here, because it's better formulated as I could do.

[@randomusername2761]

You left out the even more shocking concession from Dawkins in that same episode of the Justin Brierly podcast. When Justin asked him why he still rejected the argument, he stumbled and said that he could be convinced to be a deist but Jesus Christ and at that stuff was nothing to do with it. He raised no objection to the argument other than something that the argument does not attempt to prove. And yet, during an interview with Cosmic Skeptic, he said that he thought there to be 'no good arguments'.

[@Oneocna]

He could be a pantheist

[@michaelpryor78]

I believe Dawkins actually claims nowadays to be an agnostic who leans strongly towards atheism rather than an outright atheist.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@michaelpryor78 Personally, I don't give a crap what Richard Dawkins thinks. After all, he's not the atheist pope or anything. Heh, heh. Heck, I was an atheist before I'd ever _heard_ of him. But I thought I'd point out that "agnostic" and "atheist" aren't contradictory. Indeed, I'd say they're complementary. I consider myself to be an "agnostic atheist." That's because I don't believe in a god or gods (atheist), but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary (agnostic). And although I don't know - and don't care - I suspect that Dawkins would readily agree with that.

[@newglof9558]

​@@Bill_Garthrightfalse. Agnostic atheism is a nonsensical term that means nothing. People who use it fundamentally misunderstand the nature of belief, knowledge, and the relationship between the two. If you have justified true belief that God exists, you're a theist. If you have justified true belief that God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you do not have justified true belief, you are an agnostic.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@newglof9558 _"If you have justified true belief that God exists, you're a theist."_ Heh, heh. So you're saying that there _are_ no theists? That's a bold claim. Or are you saying that you _do_ have "justified true belief that God exists"? That's also a bold claim. Either way, it's just a claim. Can you back it up with *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking? Oh, and I don't give a crap what you think about the labels I use to describe my position. If you don't like the labels, then ignore the labels and address the position I stated above: I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary.

[@PossibleTango]

This argument will not convince anyone that actually thinks about it. It's an argument from ignorance, can also be a false dilemma, and you could argue it invokes anthropic bias.

[@gabrielm1180]

para ser justo, o ajuste fino não precisa envolver antropocentrismo; há versões do argumento dizendo que o próprio universo entraria em colapso se as constantes fossem um pouco diferentes.

[@aasalata]

It's quite literally the opposite of an argument for ignorance, there's no dilemma involved, and it's not even necessarily anthropic in nature because fine tuning is implied by any complex chemical structure, let alone sentient living being. You just actively don't want to be convinced.

[@PossibleTango]

@aasalata I would prefer there being an all loving God instead of nothing. Your attempt to refute me is weak and clouded by bias.

[@aasalata]

@@PossibleTango I'm arguing there's nothing to refute, though. As I said, claiming fine tuning is an argument from ignorance is just bizarre, considering the point of the argument is that we know there are many fine-tuned aspects that we can observe through science for which the best explanation is just design. The false-dilemma point is also puzzling given no dilemma is being presented at all, and as I said fine tuning being implied by the existance of any complex chemical structure makes the anthropic part of your point weird to the least as well. tldr you are just saying things.

[@jofsky9066]

@@aasalata the anthropic part of OP's claim is wrong. However you are missing the false dilemma that is present: "The constanst are fine tuned, either by incredibly small odds, so small you can't even imagine how small they are or they were set by a designer." This is a false dilemma. 1. You can easily disregard the probabilistic part of the argument: -you can't appeal to small probability if you don't know what the probability is -just because the values are fine tuned it doesn't mean they could have been different -there is some evidence allowing for speculation that only one number has to have a set value and even then that number could be arbitrary and still permit everything to happen 2. God doesn't have to be the answer: -the constants could be a necessary part of the universe and reality without a need to change them -there are other valid proposals rather than God: mutliverse, a cyclical nature of the universe, necessary realms of mathematics or quantum fluctuations So the argument is set on a false premise (probability) and pushes one explanation as "better" with no justification

[@tmbarry]

The odds of the universe existing is 100%.

[@DrB_BigBlueBox]

That‘s true in any conceivable universe.

[@MultipleGrievance]

Solid argument. The only thing I would change is your beginning analogy. I realize you're probably keeping it simple, but The idea of winning ten poker hands in a row, all with royal flushes, doesn't really capture the odds of the fine tuning argument. It's more like hundreds of thousands of winning poker hands with the same royal flush. It might even be higher. I once heard a scientist describe it as finding a needle in a haystack, the size of Texas.

[@Oneocna]

Its not. You cant believe in the fine tuning argument (teleological argument) and believe that there's suffering and evil in the world. Whatever explanation you come up with for god allowing evil (theodicy) is an argument from ignorance since god finely tuned all things in the universe include natural and human evil. Its like saying "I believe in a perfect watchmaker who made this perfect watch" and an atheist says "What about that chunk of metal in the metal that blocks the gears" and your response is "Oh I agree that that part is bad and can be better and the perfect watchmaker could and would make it better but since I don't know him i'm going to guess why that imperfect metal was placed there instead of assuming its part of the perfect design"

[@MultipleGrievance]

@@Oneocna It's not what....? Finely tuned?

[@MultipleGrievance]

@Oneocna First of all, fine tuning is not actually an argument. It's a recognition of the tolerances with which our universe holds itself together. Acknowledging those scientific realities has nothing to do with suffering and evil in the world. Both simply are.

[@Oneocna]

@@MultipleGrievance not a good argument

[@Oneocna]

@@MultipleGrievance it’s incorrect to assert that the universe could very. When someone spins a slot machine or rolls dice we know there are other options. When we see universal constants there’s no way to prove they could vary. That’s why they are CONSTANTS

[@jayluss]

I also didn’t find the fine tuning argument the most threatening as an atheist. The moral argument for sure. Of course we live in a universe that happens to have a planet that supports life because we couldn’t exist and wouldn’t be able to observe it otherwise.

[@PercyTinglish]

You find the moral argument threatening?

[@JB-cd8eb]

I agree, that's always my thought. The only way we could be talking is if the conditions were right for life, no matter how likely or unlikely that is. Morality on the other hand could almost singularly keep me convinced

[@PercyTinglish]

@@JB-cd8eb that seems to be misunderstanding the argument

[@ozzman282]

Seems to me the odds of a magic sky king coming into existence are also about zero. Even accepting that premise, it doesn't prove which sky king it is.

[@ben0298]

Fine tuning alone is an interesting and thought-provoking argument for God's existence. However, logical positions in isolation will probably not be enough to convince somebody to believe. A sceptic/truth seeker would need to experience some kind of supernatural experience/feeling of God's presence to fully accept him in my opinion.

[@awediomusic2137]

For me cosmic skeptic lost all credibility. I just finished watching a debate of his where he presented himself as an open minded “non resistant non believer”. I then watched a video of his on republicanism in the UK (being against monarchy) in which he deridingly said “a God that doesn’t exist”. Just bs. He’s trying to convert people, he’s not actually a genuine and honest enquirer who struggles with the notion of God.

[@stickyrubb]

I don't think he ever said he 'struggled'. He is a logical thinker who has concluded that for him, the evidence points towards no gods existing. Which is what all of reality points towards.

[@newglof9558]

They never are.

[@thetheatreguy9853]

I struggle to see how we can make any claims about the probability or likelihood of our universe existing in this particular way when we have literally no idea what sort of external constraints (if any) govern what causes a universe to come into being. It is possible, perhaps, that the universe could have only existed in this particular way, but once again, since we have no data, all we can really do is speculate how likely a universe like this is.

[@blusheep2]

This is something to ask the physicists. In short, I believe it comes down to the way they work their calculations. To get a universe does not require the constants to be arranged a certain way. Universes can exist regardless of the values. As far as they can tell, there are no constraints.

[@undolf4097]

Why is Pascal’s wager F tier to the new atheists?

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

If I had to guess, I'd say that at least part of the reason is that it doesn't really work unless you have some other independent reason to think that the Christian God exists. It isn't prima facie obvious that Christianity and Atheism are the only two live options and even ignoring weird hypothetical "gods" like the god that would prefer you not to worship him and would torture anyone who does for all eternity, there's examples like Islam which (at least according to some) are just as exclusive as Christianity. If picking the wrong god can give you hell anyway, then that changes the game theory of the different choices.

[@undolf4097]

@@Chicken_of_Bristol Thank you! You would have to combine that wager with some compelling argument for another “god” anyway so I see how that makes the wager alone not a very useful argument

[@Charlotte_Martel]

​@@Chicken_of_BristolThank you for presenting the issue of false dichotomy. There is also the issue of whether one can force himself to truly believe in something that he is not convinced of simply due to threats. Remember, for the Christian god, it's not enough to go through the motions. One must truly believe. The Wager ignores that problem.

[@vicqruiz3537]

Because it implies that God can be conned by the simulation of belief.

[@newglof9558]

​@@Chicken_of_Bristolyou realize that Muslims and Christians (and Jews) orient their worship toward the same God, right ? My fellow Catholics don't like hearing this. You guys also understand worship in such a ridiculously narrow sense.

[@GregoryUnger]

The fine-tuning argument is nonsense. Who is to say the universe could have been different than it is? It may have been logically necessary for it to be that way. Even God can't make 25 not be a square number. And if it is necessary that the universe exists that way, then why is a God needed?

[@theboombody]

Maybe nothing at all is needed. It's a nihilistic viewpoint, but who can prove it wrong?

[@redirectthepath]

You have some idea of what God is capable of. Just because mere flesh and machine cannot solve a problem doesn't mean the creator can't.

[@Sreerags5959]

​@@redirectthepath Or he can't. You don't know for sure, do you?

[@redirectthepath]

@Sreerags5959 yeah you're right I don't really know. But being all powerful he should be able to solve things that are paradoxical.

[@Sreerags5959]

@@redirectthepath I mean, there really is no way to know. If he is real, then the paradoxes are real, and as long as he exits, the paradoxes too, will exist. Can he, or can he not, change the status quo? Forget about whether he is capable of it or not, does he even KNOW if he can do it? In the end, only the questions remain.

[@JohnHenrysaysHi]

6:20 Fine-Tuning= Fine-Tuning is a neutral term. It just means that of all the possible values of the constants in the laws of physics, the range that are life permitting are really really small.

[@darrennew8211]

How do you know what the possible values are? What are all the possible values for Pi? What are all the possible values for the fine structure constant? How do you know those are fundamentally different?

[@LailokenScathach]

Reverse engineering anything makes it look incredible. The odds of that ball bouncing several times and landing in that exact spot is 10 million to 1.

[@standard-user-name]

The odds for the universe not just existing but being able to support life are much smaller than that.

[@santiagogaliano1020]

intriguing ≠ convincing. argument ≠ evidence.

[@Spoiler_Alertist]

scientific theory ≠ fact

[@santiagogaliano1020]

@@Spoiler_Alertist true. Scientific theory = the best model to explain observable reality. Like gravity

[@Thrillzrobloxbedwars]

Yes but arguments are the presentation of evidence conveyed in objection that can constitute as evidence if not disproved.

[@santiagogaliano1020]

@@Thrillzrobloxbedwars well, no. there are a LOT of arguments in favor of the existence of Aliens, for example.. and they´re not evidence just because ther´re not disproved

[@santiagogaliano1020]

@@Thrillzrobloxbedwars well, no. there are a lot of valid arguments in favor of the existence of Aliens, for example... and those are not evidence of the existence of aliens just because they are not disproved

[@AgnosticThinker]

5:33 "Chance is improbable" thats literally a definition for chance, just because its improbable doesnt mean its improbable

[@silverfire01]

I agree it can be chance when you look at the size of just the visible universe- about 94 billion light years wide and the number of planets and stars so could be very well be hit and miss when it comes to liveable planets and life being created. Thats even though we dont know how exactly life was kicked off which is yet to be discovered.

[@njhoepner]

The main problem (among many) with "Fine Tuning" is that it relies on probability, and we don't have sufficient information to determine the probability of the constants being what they are. It could be one in a million, or one in ten trillion, or one...we don't know and can't know. And without that probability case, the fine tuning argument crumbles into nothing.

[@AgnosticThinker]

@njhoepner and I think we have to think about what we define "life" as, there could be other non-carbon life out there

[@njhoepner]

@@AgnosticThinker There is also that. According to christian claims, god is not life as we know it, therefore there is no reason to fine-tune for life as we know it, nor is there any reason to restrict our thinking to a universe that could support life as we know it. AND there's no reason to presume a priori that life as we know it is the only possibility.

[@LtDeadeye]

One objection that’s new ‘to me’ is this: If the universe is defined as all space time and matter and the universe is finely tuned then we’ve never seen anything that hasn’t been finely tuned. So we’ve no standard against which to judge whether or not anything at all is finely tuned or not.

[@BerishaFatian]

We don't need a standard, through science we see that life in the universe wouldn't exist if the universr weren't fine tuned.

[@LtDeadeye]

@@BerishaFatian But to categorize something as finely tuned begs the question if we cannot know what fine tuned even is. And how can we know what it is if we have no standard by which to judge?

[@tomasbarsvary938]

Exactly. Don’t find the argument convincing at all and I’m a devout Catholic.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

​​@@LtDeadeye okay, but that argued assumes we have to see anything in the first place, the universe could have just been dead. Ur implicitly assuming pan-psychism.

[@catcans]

​@@LtDeadeyelook at the "Goldilocks" situation our planet is in. Look at the insane "coincidence" that allows full eclipses to exist. How water behaves vs how it should chemically. Look at highly constructed scientific processes like the Krebs Cycle that are perfectly balanced.

[@bustopher5837]

Your not converting any atheist to Christianity with fine tuning tbh.

[@Seanph25]

Objectively false tbh.

[@robertgroen2197]

great content again Trent!

[@texican95682]

This argument has been refuted already. Certainly with so many billions of years of existence and the building blocks available, life would develop sooner or later. And this argument only applies because WE as humans need these necessary conditions. If the universe had a different set of constants, life could still appear, but not as how we currently see it.

[@darrennew8211]

We as humans don't need it. Jesus already said we have eternal life. And that's obviously not happening in the universe with the current constants. So the fine tuning everyone is using as evidence is not even necessary for human existence.

[@stevied3400]

“Lots of time passing” isn’t a refutation by any means. Time doesn’t make the impossible possible.

[@renjithjoseph7135]

You've bypassed the entire point. It's the fact that the parameters permit the "building blocks" to exist. You're a step out of tune

[@darrennew8211]

@@renjithjoseph7135 So how do you know the parameters could have different values? How do you know the constants are the same everywhere in the universe? How do you explain the fact that god picked them, other than just saying "magic," which applies whether a god did it or not. Why do you think the god who created the earth in six days is the same god who created the big bang 14 billion years ago? Do you realize that by arguing for the fine tuning argument, one is arguing against the existence of original sin and the biblical accounts of god's authority?

[@ConservativeMirror]

It took ~9 billion years for life to appear on this planet, and ~13 billion years for humans to appear. This universe was not designed for life. But even if you think it was, you have to show that you are right. There could be other explanations.

[@jhoughjr1]

Well it sures seems not designed for non life.

[@stevenvegh7964]

I’m not sure saying that atheists “fear” an argument for the existence of God is fair. I could be wrong but I think most atheists are fine if a God exists they just haven’t seen sufficient evidence. The only reason they would be afraid is if they believed the deity had nefarious intentions toward them.

[@chucklindenberg1093]

I am a nominal atheist at best and honestly modern atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris have completely turned me against the "neorelgious" atheism that is so very popular today. I am really far more agnostic than atheistic, but I don't ever pretend that my conception of a God being if that being were to exist would obey anyone let alone a believer in that being simply to prove to me that the being of God does in fact exist. This is pure narcisim and just immaturity being demonstrated on the debate stage 4:23. Also yeah I have to agree the fine tuning argument is probably the best argument for the existence of a creator god being.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

Seriously? If a god demands worship from you, why would it be narcissistic to ask for proof for its existence?

[@herroyung857]

Fine tuning is bunk. We can plug in different numbers into an equation, and most sets of these numbers yield a universe where life cannot exist. This is not evidence that any sets of constants (aside from the single one we observe) are remotely possible. We can only observe one set of constants. Why is it reasonable to assume that more than one set of constants can exist, when there's precisely zero evidence of this aside from our ability to plug numbers into an equation?

[@chucklindenberg1093]

@@herroyung857 Sure when was the last time you created a universe?

[@chucklindenberg1093]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 .It is frankly weird to me, that you actually think you should get to require or make any demands of a god, of God or of gods. If you believe you are equivalent to a god then honestly just say so....

[@herroyung857]

@@chucklindenberg1093 I'm not the one making any speculative claims on how our universe came to be, so it doesn't matter that I haven't created a universe. The point is that fine tuning is a terrible argument for god. For fine tuning to be of any support to deism, it must be based on rationalization of evidence. If there is no evidence of other constants, you cannot rationally conclude that our current set of constants is improbable. There is no evidence of other constants being possible, and there's only evidence of our current set of constants being possible. Therefore, fine tuning falls apart.

There is no “fine tuning” and you have no argument….

[@wungabunga]

It’s not even required. If you look out of the window and don’t infer God, you are a lunatic.

[@theboombody]

I think it's harder for atheists to argue that nihilism is wrong. I mean, nothing about nihilism contradicts the materialistic universe at all. But I imagine most atheists aren't nihilists. If they were, they wouldn't care about whether religion is true or not, and most of them really care about that.

[@beniron5807]

Says who? As an atheist I have never had anyone instigate conversation or wish to understand how I see the world. Everyone constantly tries to tell me who I am, what I think, and blah blah blah. The dumb argument Atheist= Nihilist is equally exhausting. The “atheist” they use to portray atheist (as if we are some form of religion 😹, we aren’t and we don’t really know each other) are generally attention seeking Narccisists. They keep saying “most atheist but that is pure bull. Someone who simply does not believe in a god is not someone you can find or lump into a group they themselves aren’t a part of. We simply do not believe and you do realize when you openly admit you don’t believe in god, you get branded as immoral or weird ext ext. There is little need to share it and it is safer to simply avoid religion and religious conversations all 2gether. This is all crap, speaking for a group of people that isn’t even a group. Pure stupidity

[@Silver77cyn]

I’m not sure why Christians keep saying this Universe is fine tuned for life, when the vast majority is outright hostile to it.

[@BoringDad88]

Because there is life and we're in the universe. We also have no idea how common life is. I understand what you mean, but the language used isn't the point. Arguing semantics isn't an argument.

[@SethEdwards-hq9pm]

The universe is hostile to life, but in it exists the earth which is full of life. That's the point.

[@Silver77cyn]

@@BoringDad88 Ok, but just because life exists doesn’t mean our universe was made for it, even if we find life in abundance on other planets, the vast majority of the universe is still completely uninhabited for life, which would mean life doesn’t exist because it was made for it, but in spite of it.

[@Silver77cyn]

@@SethEdwards-hq9pm Ok, so if most of the universe in hostile to life, what makes you think it was meant for us? Even here in Earth there are very few places we could even live in. Some places are too cold, or too hot, and the oceans are not even an option even thought they cover 3/5ths of the planet, how is even this planet meant for us?

[@BoringDad88]

@@Silver77cyn I'm not quite understanding why "fine tuned for life to exist" makes you think it has to be abundant. I'll try an analogy, this is only to explain the semantics, not anything else: The race car was fine tuned to fit a spark plug and allow it to work. You wouldn't say "yeah, but anywhere else it wouldn't work, therefore it's not fine tuned to fit the spark plug." And I'm fairly sure that "fine tuned" was used in the watchmaker's argument. They're both a teleological argument, so the term may have been copied over.

[@fhblake04]

Christ is King.

[@chriscrilly8807]

King of the idiots who believe in him.

[@extrage3061]

Nah.

[@joeshabe]

the Bible is fake: the exodus never happened; the gospels weren't written by the apostles; the Revelation is about Nero and not Satan. Jesus was just a charismatic sect leader, just like Muhammad. they weren't gods or divine.

[@brucelansberg5485]

I thought Elvis was?

[@arcticpangolin3090]

Until the idea that the universes constants could have been different, the argument is dead in the water. It’s a hypothetical built on an undemonstrated assumption. Additionally, even though you try to present the argument as non circular, it is. Because the argument starts with the end, life, and works backwards to establish a probability. This requires assuming this as a goal to reach and is thus begging the question. Remove this assumption and we just have an outcome equally as likely as literally any other hypothetical outcome.

[@Voxis_23456]

Very true

[@manny4012]

We need Trent and Alex to have another conversation. I hope the studio is almost done for guests to come in. Trent you got a shoutout from Alex on the Iced Coffee Hour podcast yesterday.

[@rickelijah4270]

As an Cristian, I have to be honest here. But if there are Infinitely cances for humans to exist. Then the chance of hitting that is then also possible.

[@Idishrkdmd]

Aquinas challenged this quite well. If the universe is infinite then being and non-being exist both in infinity since existence can not come from non-existence it is overused and therefore nothing could exist at the first time in an infinite time scale.

[@amu7379]

The fine-tuning argument isn't at the top of my list because of other considerations (mostly because I don't think it brings us to the classical theistic conception of God), but I don't think that's a good reason to reject it. If someone drew 10 royal flushes in a row it is reasonable to believe that he is cheating because you can compare the probability of drawing 10 royal flushes under the cheating hypothesis to that of the randomness hypothesis.

[@christopherneedham9584]

There aren't infinite chances considering that the universe had a beginning.

[@gregory7406]

@@Idishrkdmdi don’t understand.. can you explain?

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@christopherneedham9584 Unless this is just one universe among the infinite universes in a never ending cycle of birth and death.

[@KoldLogic]

It's amazing. You are saying in the last part of the video especially, what would be a better world to create ...truly amazing that u know that because our human minds think anything else would be boring.

[@catmatism]

So far, the imaginary friend of theists refuse to appear to help theists prove itself while theists argue and argue.

[@sketchartist1964]

Actually God already did that, it's in the scriptures.

[@Unclenate1000]

@@sketchartist1964allegedly, long before we’re born and passed on by debated hearsay, youd think he’d take note of that and supplement his appearance and explanation to people, just to be sure. In fact, the logical and easy thing to do would be to just show up to literally every person who has ever lived, since after all its allegedly everyone he cares about and wants saved. Maybe there’s actually be a fighting chance if he was smart enough to do that. (If he were real of course. Not doing this shows hes not)

[@Unclenate1000]

I find this to be the most damning point, at least for the christian omni-god. But instead we just get BS excuses as replies to this argument

[@sketchartist1964]

@@Unclenate1000 Not true for Christians who believe God revealed himself in the form of a human being called Jesus who proved his power via many miracles.

[@joeshabe]

@@sketchartist1964 the Bible is fake: the exodus never happened; the gospels weren't written by the apostles; the Revelation is about Nero and not Satan. Jesus was just a charismatic sect leader, just like Muhammad. they weren't gods or divine.

[@greengandalf9116]

There are lots of problems with the fine-tuning argument, but the simplest is this: the physical constants could be necessary for the existence of any universe.

[@franciscosilvestre6914]

This is not addressing the argument, however. No matter how many universes there may be, you would still need God for it to have any uniformity. Otherwise, you would be arguing for a chance, self sufficient universe, where chaos and disorder were the main forces, that was created X billion of years ago yet ( *for some odd reason* ) favored us out of all the species in it. Not to mention the simple matter of how lucky you would have to be for chaos and disorder to be the author to order and uniformity.

[@greengandalf9116]

@@franciscosilvestre6914 your comment is irrelevant to both the fine-tuning argument and my comment. The physical constants being necessary means they *could not* be anything else than what they currently are. There is no tuning possible in this world.

[@kze24]

​@@greengandalf9116There is no scientific evidence to suggest that the physical constants couldn't be different than what they are.

[@greengandalf9116]

@@kze24 there is also no scientific evidence to suggest they could be different. It's a question that is entirely up in the air.

[@tgstudio85]

@@franciscosilvestre6914 Oh so please do tell me, how do you know, that physical constants could be any different then they are? How do you compare that? Compare them to what exactly?

[@Marlon044]

Where is the debate from is there a video link? The one with the envelope written question.

[@stevenhoyt]

The backfire of the Fine-tuning argument: 1) If God exists and created the universe to be life-prone, then the probability of life in the universe would be very high. 2) But the probability of life in the universe is extremely low. 3) So, either God does not exist or God did not create the universe to be life-prone.

[@HoytHavaro-kk8eh]

That argument needs some fine tuning. If,and,then,but,so either or. Is going to fall on its face all day long. You’re granting God the power to create the universe, assuming it’s prone to life, rather than uniquely permitting. And taking the existence of life, away from Gods creative power, and reducing the chance of life in a God created inverse down to a probability. Scarecrows are losing their jobs to all the straw men you just created. You can do better!

[@stevenhoyt]

@@HoytHavaro-kk8eh ... what a series of ridiculous things to say. the FTA is a philosophical argument relying on probabilities. the FTA relies on the truth of (2). your only rational objection can be to (1) if you endorse the FTA. so if god wanted a universe that resulted in life-producing, then why did god create a universe where the probability of life is near zero. that is, the FTA *entails* that: Pr(N|G^K) = Pr(N|K) = M(K) ≈ 0 and given that (1) would imply: Pr(N|G^K) < Pr(N|K*) where N is a "nice universe" (the kind that the FTA is concerned about), G is god, M is some measuring function that operates on background information K that yields a value near zero. if god aimed at creating a life-producing universe, then according to the FTA, the odds he gave himself are nearly 0 and were god genuinely aimed at life-producing universes, then he would have done a better job at fine tuning using better odds-producing background information, K*. but in that case, the FTA is self-defeating too in that the more probable life is given M(Kn) -- all possible life-contingent conditions), then the less obvious the intuitive draw of the FTA. that is, the less probable life is, then the less likely god fine tuned anything, any the more probable, the less reason there is to give and subjective credence to the FTA. but you don't understand the OP, so i don't suspect you'll understand an explanation either. cheers.

[@velkyn1]

@@HoytHavaro-kk8eh so, when we find other life, then your imaginary god fails and your cult is worthless.

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

Premise 1 is flawed and 2 which follows it is thusly flawed. It fails in the false dichotomy it is dependent upon, God could easily create a universe such that probability of life is low but controlled. In the same way humans can control the results of low probability events. Because this is conceivable the argument fails.

[@stevenhoyt]

@@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867 ... (2) must be accepted if you accept the FTA. (1) has nothing to do with "being flaweded" or "flawing" any other premises. that's not how valid arguments work. the logic just is MT. it's not "flawed". if you think (1) is false, then you have to deny the A) reason the universe is supposedly finely tuned is because god exists and finely tuned it, or B) that god would want to create a universe where life more readily arises and any tuning would reflect the truth of the antecedent; the more tuning narrows the odds to zero, then the less plausible the antecedent, but the more tuning ensures the probability of life (making the antecedent more plausible), the less the FTA intuitively works. but the fact is the probability of life in this world is determined only by some measuring function and background information that yields a value of nearly zero. why would god make a universe where life is probabilistically nearly impossible, if life-having universes is what god is after? but whatever the probability, it doesn't objectively change whether god is part of the probability calculations or not. the probability, if we accept (2) is nearly zero, and the FTA requires (2) to get its feet off the ground. see halvorson's "theological critique of the fine-tuning argument."

[@PeterBoggs]

"If you were playing poker and the dealer told you he was gonna deal you 10 royal flushes in a row and then you were dealt 10 royal flushes in a row, you would?..." "Deny the existence of poker dealers and then conclude I'm the luckiest man in the world, why?"

[@zimpoooooo]

I would say I don't understand how it happened. How could you know enough to answer otherwise? Unless you already made your mind up from the start.

[@benpettit7604]

Nice Lutheran Satire reference there! The History Channel Detectives video was hilarious.

[@redbepis4600]

blatant false equivalence. Analogies are not facts

[@haitaelpastor976]

The thing is we can see and know poker dealers, and many of us may be so.

[@PeterBoggs]

@@redbepis4600 Are you just using terms you saw someone use on reddit once without understanding them yourself, or are you a bot with a particularly out of date learning algorithm?

[@twalrus9833]

Adding on to the counter-rebuttal: If you accept the idea that anything including, such as electrons, can be conscious, then consciousness itself would be fine tuned. Either we are incredibly lucky such that only a hyper-complex arrangement of elementary particles can attain consciousness, or consciousness is itself fine tuned for some reason or another. That reason could be what you mentioned in that it allows for higher and more meaningful forms of love.

[@Bill_Garthright]

And higher and more meaningful forms of hate, too. And a _far_ greater capacity for self-deception. :)

[@awreckingball]

"Rather than the universe being perfectly designed for us, it is we who are perfectly adapted to the universe. Life has arisen and flourished not because the cosmos was crafted with us in mind, but because the environmental conditions shaped what we are. In essence, we fit the universe not because it was made for us, but because we have evolved precisely to fit it."

[@smidlee7747]

Since you are part of the natural world that statement refutes itself. It's complete nonsense as it questions the very cognitive faculties who came to that conclusion. If naturalism is true then all your thoughts are nothing more than brain farts. "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." Max Planck

[@johndeighan2495]

This is a strawman rebuttal. The fine tuning argument doesn’t rest on the idea that the universe is a perfect fit for human life or was made with us in mind.

[@Charlotte_Martel]

💯. Excellent quote and echoed my exact thoughts every time that I hear this argument.

[@Max-ju6be]

Yeah that’s a load of nonsense. If the strength of gravity or speed of light were any different stars wouldn’t form and life would never develop.

[@ulysses7653]

@@Max-ju6be That's an assumption. We only have a sample size of 1, because we are only aware of one universe. It is not impossible for things to develop differently under different constants or situations.

[@politicsisstupidandannoyin269]

The teleological argument concludes with "there could be a designer" rather than directly asserting "therefore, God exists."