The Case Against Theism - Refuting the Fine-Tuning Argument

[@MatthewFearnley]

Thanks. I’ve not finished the video so far, but I think this is one of the most respectful and reasoned attacks I’ve heard of the Fine Tuning argument. I hope to finish watching soon, and if you would like (unless the final bit changes my mind), explain why I don’t think these particular objections really work. I think a lot of the difference potentially comes down to what we should hope to get out of the FTA.

[@frederickdebian370]

In general, it seems that positing a god as an explanation of anything is an epistemically naive move for TWO reasons: 1) the theist is creating an omni-cause or omni-explanation, meaning a cause that can being about *any* state of affairs you can ever possibly observe or conceive of. A cause that CAN make anything. 2) the theist is anthropocentric in their postulation of god's qualities, and so assumed what this cause WOULD do, which is consistent with anything that the theist might observe. So at the end of the day they just kick the can down the road, take the explanation problem a step back, by observing some phenomenon and postulating an explanation that amounts to nothing more than "Something so great that it COULD have brought it about, and something so great that it WOULD have brought it about, in precisely this way". Why a universe? Well clearly a universe-bringer-abouter, that wanted to make this human-facilitating one! Why moral laws? Well clearly a moral legislator that specifically wanted to make these moral laws that I personally like! As a hypothesis it's so bizzare, ad-hoc, and transparently anthropocentric.

[@eenkjet]

I agree. But your argument applies mostly to the omni-propertied Classical Theism. For instance a process theist subscribing to the FTA would not require the axiological and decretalist burden.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Neggers like you and James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Nijers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@frederickdebian370]

@@eenkjet Can you tell me about that position, I've never heard of it before

[@flowingafterglow629]

"1) the theist is creating an omni-cause or omni-explanation, meaning a cause that can being about any state of affairs you can ever possibly observe or conceive of. A cause that CAN make anything." Yep. The big problem with the whole "fine-tuning" argument for me is that an omni-god does not need to have anything fine-tuned for life to occur. So fine-tuning does not point to a creator omni, it more points to the idea that we are a consequence of it being fine-tuned, and if it weren't tuned this way, we wouldn't be here, and, so what? IOW, the universe wasn't fine-tuned for us to exist, but we exist in a way consistent with how its tuned. If the universe were different, then things would be different. Therefore, God exists. Right?

[@johnfeusi9233]

Excellent video! I've always been frustrated by the confidence that we *know* what would happen if the constants were varied. Your points about the double standards was a fresh take for me that I liked.I find it interesting that you didn't raise the selection bias objection though.

[@SedgeHermit]

Also the comical absurdity of God tweaking the laws of physics so that every last quantum iota is perfect, and you still have to take shits.

[@johnfeusi9233]

@@SedgeHermit lol

[@MatthewFearnley]

Just so people know, there is a response video available now by Apologetics Squared: "A SUBSTANTIVE Response to ‪@JamesFodor‬ on the Fine-Tuning Argument for God". I'll reply to my comment with a link, if YT lets me. Not sure if we'll see more responses, but I think it would be nice if there were, considering how well this argument is laid out, and how it focuses on less common objections, and how it actively invites people to engage with it.

[@jgone4856]

i've watched it. saw what i believe are issues with it. left some comments. expect a response from Fodor. would be interesting.

[@MatthewFearnley]

@@jgone4856 Sadly I'm not seeing any response from James in the comments. I wonder if he's seen it? I would hope to see a dialog with them both, I think they would both be up for it.

[@Venaloid]

Excellent conclusion. Fine-tuning God's attributes to make him very likely to create our universe is almost certainly what apologists are doing, making God's prior probability very low... I honestly hadn't put those two pieces together before. Well-explained!

[@MatthewFearnley]

I think the issue with Problem 1 is a delicate one. As I understand it, the objection is essentially, "maybe, if we think about other possible laws, there might be universes that are more 'broadly' tuned for life, i.e. life readily exists in universes with different laws." It sounds like this is being offered as speculation. Sort of a "reverse argument from ignorance". (Instead of the overstated "we don't know therefore naturalism is false", it's offering an optimistic "we don't know, therefore possibly naturalism is true".) I think the middle ground is closest to truth here. "We don't know, therefore naturalism currently looks unlikely. We might find evidence in the future that confirms it or makes it likely or disconfirms it entirely." An additional problem is that we are still in a finely tuned universe. If there exist broadly tuned universes, then it is still surprising that we find ourselves in a finely tuned universe. Either 1. the broadly tuned universes don't exist or aren't actually possible naturalistically, in which case, we're back where we started, stuck with the mystery of our improbable existence given naturalism. Or 2, other life-permitting laws exist, but also require fine tuning, in which case, we're also back where we started with the same mystery. Or 3, both broadly tuned and finely tuned universes are possible. In this case, we should expect to be in a broadly tuned universe, because that's where the vast majority of epistemically possible living observers will be. That still has the potential to be much more easily explained by a hypothesis that the universe's laws were intended to be this way. Even without being able to "imagine" what purpose different possible deities might have in doing so, it's still evidence against naturalism.

[@alexgustavsson5955]

That also assumes that the universe could have been different, which isn't a given. An argument in the form of 'if god were different, he would...' could be justifiably countered by a theist by 'what makes you think god could be different?'. I'd imagine most theists think that god could not have been any different, and arguments that assume such are fallacious at the onset. So what makes you think the universe could have been different? Which exposed knobs do you see that could have been turned? The constants themselves aren't such knobs, they're just observations of the current state of the universe, not indications that the state could have been different.

[@MatthewFearnley]

​@@alexgustavsson5955 "Maybe the universe couldn't be different from what it is" (i.e. "maybe the constants are ontologically necessary") is a very reasonable thing to suppose. For argument's sake, I'd even give that 50/50. But "Maybe the universe couldn't be any different from our life-permitting universe" (i.e. "maybe they are ontologically necessary AND in the narrow range that permits life") is not the same thing. The narrowness of the life-permitting ranges makes this unlikely. You understand this in the case of God. If we suppose that "there's a 50/50 chance that God couldn't have been any different from what he is", that obviously doesn't mean "there's a 50/50 chance that my understanding of God must be correct". Similarly, if we say "there's a 50/50 chance that the universe's constants couldn't have been different", that doesn't mean "there's a 50/50 chance that my worldview predicts this universe".

[@alexgustavsson5955]

@@MatthewFearnley I don't think giving an unobserved fact a 50% probability is being conservative or gracious, it's an error. An unobserved, never before measured, and possibly never will be measured phenomenon isn't appropriate to assign a probability to. Presume we assigned a probability of x% to some phenomenon, the only way we could correct the probability is by performing an observation and updating the %. When no observations are forthcoming an initial probability is useless. Something related, we colloquially say 'I have no confidence in A', but that's usually a shorthand for 'I have high confidence in not-A'. I'm making a different argument - that no level, no degree, no % of confidence (whether in A or not-A) is appropriate, because there's no follow-on measurements in view by which the confidence could itself eventually be tuned. Fundamentally, the fine-tuning argument presupposes the underlying probability distribution that 'generates' universes, like what you did when you said 50/50 (the assumption being that it's a uniform distribution, or similar enough to it, with regards to constants), but that assumption isn't supported by any observation, it is just an assumption. If you asked me which probability distribution for universe generation was appropriate, I'd have no answer, because I don't have any observations. Therefore, I consider no confidence (that is the negation of any probability distribution) to be the actual default stance. No knowledge, no observations, means no confidence is appropriate. Notice also, that the fine-tuning argument doesn't survive just any universe-generating probability distribution. If it's just a Dirac delta at our current universe, or a very narrow band with regards to constants around our current universe, then the fine-tuning argument is wrong, P(life|naturalism) would potentially be very high. So for the fine-tuning argument to have weight, there has to be the possibility of tuning (i.e. the universe could have been substantially different, and there are knobs to turn to make it a certain way), for which there is no data. Therefore proclaiming confidently which universes there could have been, even assuming a uniform distribution (as if that's just a default uncontroversial probability, like 50%) is erroneous.

[@MatthewFearnley]

​@@alexgustavsson5955 OK, so, here’s an honest question that I think might help get to the heart of this issue about whether the constants can change.. If we supposed the universe was naturalistic, and that the probability distribution was a Dirac Delta, where should we expect the spike in that distribution to lie? Do we have any reason to suppose that a life-permitting universe would be where the spike lies?

Can we use our knowledge of our own universe to inform what a naturalistic universe should look like, when we don’t know that our universe is naturalistic? To try and flip the question around, many arguments against theism, or specific religions, can be expressed as a doubt that God would create a world like the one we see. Can a theist use their knowledge of our universe to inform them about how a world would look if the deity/ies they believe in had created it?

[@alexgustavsson5955]

@@MatthewFearnley Yes, Sean Carroll went over this. Under theism, if humans are the pinnacle and purpose of creation, we wouldn't expect the vastness of space. We wouldn't expect random suffering under a loving god. We wouldn't expect too much 'tuning', just enough (the entropy in the early universe is way lower than it needed to be, by several orders of magnitude). You can look up his debate with Will Craig, where he lays out these points. Further, I just said that if you don't have observations of the universe-generating probability function, speculation is fundamentally unwarranted. My point with the Dirac delta, was that the fine-tuning argument doesn't survive just any probability distribution on constants. It needs to be of a certain type that don't include a high likelihood of our current universe, or similar universes, forming. I'm also saying, that we don't know what the underlying probability distribution even is. Given both of those points, that a) only a certain set of probability distributions works for the fine-tuning argument and b) we don't know what the actual distribution is, the fine-tuning argument has to presuppose the current universe to be unlikely when that's not whatsoever a given, and there's no actual route to uncovering how likely or unlikely our universe is.

[@rumraket38]

Excellent video James. I particularly appreciate the whole aspect on God's psychology and it's relationship to bayesianism. Most succinctly, by positing a divine fine-tuner, theists just transfer the low probability of the universe we see to a low probability of the God-explanation instead, leaving us with the same problem their "solution" is supposed to fix, a low probability.

[@CharlesPayet]

I love the sectioning that outlines how limited theists’ imagination is, and how they just hand-wave away any objections or attempts to quantify anything about their specific god beliefs.

[@MrGustavier]

Your equation at 32:00 is wrong. P(A|B)xP(B) is NOT P(B|A), but it is the probability of the intersection : P(A∩B).

[@stephenlesliebrown5959]

That is correct. Bayes' Theorem requires the right side of the equation as written by James to be divided by P(life-affirming). The expression first appears at 31:09 then at 31:40 he says, "There's a normalizing constant in there but we're just going to forget about that." Does he mean the missing P(life-affirming) as a divisor? If so he needs to also say that P(life-affirming) is a constant for the coming argument. In any case, if he invokes Bayes' Theorem he needs to write it as the textbooks show it and not use just a piece of it without better explanation.

[@dmreturns6485]

imho - The word "God" is really "I don't know" cosplaying as knowledge.

[@PhysiKarlz]

Christian wizards cosplay.

[@sebtanner4975]

Are multiverse theories the same?

[@PhysiKarlz]

@@sebtanner4975 No, because they are not asserted as the truth but at least can be used to make some predictions about our known universe. God-things have no explanatory, let alone predictive power. Not the same.

[@sebtanner4975]

@@PhysiKarlz What have they predicted? Do you really think they don't believe that some theories are true and there aren't religious theories that remain under question?

[@PhysiKarlz]

@@sebtanner4975 Many worlds makes the same predictions as the other mainline quantum theory interpretations. Those are all available on Wikipedia. I will not list them out here. And who is they? I don't understand your second sentence.

[@MatthewFearnley]

Problem 2, like Problem 1, feels like speculation. "Maybe it's possible this universe is broadly tuned for life, just the kind of universes and life forms we'd get change wildly depending on how some dials are turned." I don't know the science well enough, but I've not heard any atheistic scientists trying that route. It doesn't rule it out though. One potential issue here is that it only affects some of the fine tunings. Other chemistries might allow life, but still depend on a finely tuned expansion rate in order for stars and planets to form. Another potential issue, as with Problem 1, is that it might run into regions of "broadly tuned universes" that are dissimilar to our finely tuned one. Universes where regions of constants have broad freedom of movement while still producing life forms dissimilar to us, that are common across that region. If that happened, naturalism would lead us to expect a broadly tuned universe, and there would still be a lot of potential for other, non-naturalistic hypotheses to explain why we're in a finely tuned region.

[@ShouVertica]

Well this gets into a sort of unsubstantiated percentage for what fine tuning is though. It's fine tuned for _this_ much life, but is it _more_ fine tuned if the universe allowed for more life? 99.99999% of the universe is not hospitable to our type of life, is that fine tuned? If the only life could exist in the small island of Hawaii, is that fine-tuned? That's why measurements are important and the fine tuning argument has a long history of being against that because (any) form of measurements tend to give theism the chance to be wrong.

[@singingphysics9416]

wonderful video. so clear, especially the part about Bayesian probabilities

[@MatthewFearnley]

One problem with the way the Bayesian calculations are handled here, is it assumes that making a specific assumption on one side, will tend to lower the probability by a similar amount on the other side. Instead of compounding assumptions like "A universe creator would want life to exist", it's possible to take an existing monotheistic worldview, like Christianity or Islam, and simply build in the assumption that that worldview is true. The prior probability for one given worldview may vary greatly from another, but many such worldviews may guarantee the existence of a physical, life-permitting universe. The Fine Tuning argument, if it goes through, is evidence for these worldviews over naturalism. A naturalistic response to the premises of the Fine Tuning argument should be: "Oh, if these premises are true, it seems like it would have been very easy, given naturalism, for a universe not to permit any life". A monotheistic response would be more like: "Oh, that's cool. It doesn't disprove naturalism, and there may or may not be a deeper scientific reason for this fine tuning, but either way, there's no reason for me to doubt that God could and would have tuned the constants to any degree necessary."

[@alifleih]

I like these videos better than older ones. Having a PowerPoint-style presentation with arguments prepared ahead of time and a focus on what is on the slide makes us get more out of these videos. By the way, @JamesFodor, do you happen to be related to American philosopher Jerry Fodor?

[@JamesFodor]

No relation!

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Whoa! Finally a high-quality video on the fine-tuning argument! It mentions the best rebuttals to this apologetic non-sense. I'm including this one in my counter-apologetics playlist.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Nijers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

if you say so

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf What a brilliant rebuttal.

[@befkotze]

I'm sure James will be pleased to feature alongside such brilliant playlists as the one where a soon-to-be unlicensed psychologist discusses climate science

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

@@befkotze Yeah, let's just ignore the part where the psychologist invited real experts to interview them on this topic. After all, that's not an important detail at all!

[@criticalbasedtheory]

I debate fine tuning on my channel all the time and I am very impressed with your presentation here. Well researched and excellently communicated, you’ve definitely earned my sub

[@HillHugger]

Agreed Grayson and got my sub too. Coincidently it occurred to me I should make you aware of this vide,o, but found you already here. Got my sub too

[@DartNoobo]

Too lazy to watch. Did he discuss the point of life other than carbon based, and how terribly unlikely and inefficient it would be?

[@AsixA6]

@@DartNoobo How in the world would you know it would be ‘terribly unlikely’ or ‘inefficient’?

[@DartNoobo]

@@AsixA6 been discussed million times already. Even here on KZbin

[@AsixA6]

@@DartNoobo Then it should easy for you to explain, but we both know you’re full of sh1t.

[@yairrezek5967]

Very good, I especially appreciated your point on the Fixation on Constants, and the Lack of Imagination in regards to other ways God may achieve his goals. A related and, in my opinion, critical point that is often overlooked is that the "fine tuning argument" doesn't acually explain the fine-tuning! In that very little is offered to explain why God would create a universe with uniform laws of nature with cosntants in them and select the values suitable for life AND make the laws fine-tuned. Presumably almighty God can create uniformms laws of nature with constants in thiem and select values suitable for life AND make these laws not fine-tuned, i.e. that small changed in the constants will not significantly lower the prevalance of life. Why didn't he? I've yet to hear any version of the argument that even attempts to address this point, which is ironic as it's the crux of the argument. Luke Barnes usefully suggests thinking of naturalism as having a Lagrangian as the law of nature, under which assumption it is perhaps probable that fine-tuning would exist, i.e. that life-permitting universes would be rare in the space of combinations of constants. But under theism, even with all the leeway theists allow themselves (offloading to the prior, as you explain), there doesn't appear to be a reason for God to choose to create Lagrangian laws, and hence no real reason to create laws of nature that exhibit fine-tuning (rather than broad-tuning; if he even has a reason to have mathematical laws with constants in them at all).

[@copernicus99]

The best slide for me was 35:37. Very well explained!

[@EarnestApostate]

The double standard issue was the first thing I thought of when first faced with this. Given God, what would I expect? God lacks for nothing, so creation seems implausible. Thanks for the work you did on this.

[@Uryvichk]

More specifically, what would motivate such a God to create? What motivates anything? Isn't it a desire or want? What do you desire if you're perfectly satisfied? HOW do you formulate a desire at all? From what?

[@EarnestApostate]

@@Uryvichk Yes! Exactly.

[@blusheep2]

Why would you conclude that God lacks for nothing? I think that is the fault in your reasoning.

[@0The0Web0]

Great presentation on a crucial point that is often just skipped - holding theists to the same standards when assessing their claims

[@masondyck1871]

I had a lot of fun watching a very specific, accurate, high quality walkthrough of the fine tuning argument presented in a much more academic way than I think I've seen so far. Great video!

[@The_Quest_Taker]

Excellent video! Please make more videos in this format. I do have a criticism pertaining to Problem 2: Argument from Ignorance. It may be possible for life to exist in a wildly different universe, but it also may not be possible. The real question we must ask is how probable it is. Against the possibility, we have our extensive body of knowledge regarding all the life we have experienced so far. For the possibility, all we have is mere speculation. I do not see how it is unjustified to claim that life cannot survive in an alternate universe; this appears to be a sound inductive generalization to me. Why should I take the possibility of life in the alternate universe seriously when all our previous experience and knowledge of life suggests that it is not possible in such a universe? I have no evidence that it is possible in the alternate universe, just the bare possibility. Life in the alternate universe could be wildly different from the life we know, but we should expect it to resemble the life we know in certain ways, whether it be in structure, behavior, etc. If it doesn’t resemble the life we know in any relevant way, could we even refer to it as “life” at that point? Another thing I wanted to mention. You said that “We only even understand about 5% of the energy content of the universe in terms of what it is or how it interacts, are we really in a position to say what conditions life would need in a different universe with different sets of physical constants?” Indeed there is A LOT we do not understand or know about the universe. But this does not stop cosmologists from making justified claims and theories about the workings of the universe, such as the Big Bang Theory. You could make similar claims about how little we know with regards to the human brain, the human body, the oceans, etc. But this does not stop scientists from formulating justified claims and theories about these things. Unless one is willing to say that many of our scientific beliefs are unjustified, it seems one must admit that we can make justified claims and theories pertaining to things where what we don’t know vastly outweighs what we do know.

[@tuxino]

I'm not really knowledgeable about physics at the level where these constants are used, but in the parts of physics I do understand, any constants in the equations seem to me to not be properties of something in the universe, but rather artifacts of our own arbitrary choice of units and the scale of those units. As an example, try putting up a formula for how much energy in Joules, you would need to heat a liter of water by 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The resulting equation will have some constants, but change the formula to use Celsius instead, and those constants just disappear. Also, the apologists will often be amazed the the "precision" of those constants, saying that they have to accurate to a high number of decimals. In my view that is also just a matter of the units and scales. Let's say you want the distance from your current location to your front door, and you want the tolerance such that you're within reaching distance of the handle. Give the distance in lightyears, and you'll have to be quite precise to some number of decimals, but give it in centimeters, and suddenly you have a lot larger wiggle room.

[@oscargr_]

You are right that any single "constant" is arbitrary, and the numerical value depends on the way we choose units. But that doesn't mean the quantity or the physical property it describes, is any different when you change units. For example: the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s But it is also 186000 miles/second. The number doesn't affect the propagation. The "fine tuning" is about how all the quantities in the model relate to each other, not how the numbers relate to each other.

[@harlowcj]

Hey, didn't Luke Barnes comment on this a while back? I came here to find his username because i remembered that, but now his comment is gone?

[@Nathillien]

Great video. Additionally one question comes to mind: Why would an all knowing, all powerful... being, NEED to fine tune anything? This being would NEED to resort to fine tune ONLY if it is limited by how the nature works (laws of nature). But in that case it would not be all powerful. Some apologists might say it made these laws as well. This wouldn't change anything, it would mean; it restricted itself by making these laws and the result is the same - not all powerful - meaning not a god.

[@Freefall347]

From what I've seen, most of the more sophisticated or educated Christians view logic and rationality as being just as intrinsic to God as love, power, etc. Meaning none of them take the view that God can do completely irrational things like making 1+1=3 or making a square circle or the like. Which I think is a good thing; for one, if they did propose such a case, then they literally could not provide a rational argument for ANYTHING involving God, as God wouldn't have to make any kind of sense anyway. For another, there's really no reason to think that infinite power would allow for something as abstract as changing math anyway; being able to generate infinite matter into an infinite volume, fold space infinitely thin, explode infinite suns, etc, none of that would in even the most remote fashion affect the fact of 1+1=2. Even the ability to change the laws of physics to an arbitrary degree wouldn't have any affect on math itself.

[@MrCdepue]

The answer theologically is because the universe has purpose and once the purpose is complete the universe is discarded for a new one with seemingly radically different laws of physics. All you get from the bible is the current laws that govern the universe will remain in place until the purpose is fulllfilled

[@Lightbearer616]

Complexity proves no god. Why would a god create laws of the universe it has to obey? Clearly a universe without universal laws would require a god, just as a perfect time keeping watch without anything inside would require a god. That's why intelligent design isn't an intelligent theory.

[@harley6659]

Who said this being NEEDS to resort to fine tuning? What if He saw it fitting that they (laws, constants, etc) work together well?

[@martifingers]

I have thought along similar lines. The only argument I can see is that God did it like this as a sign to the faithful; of His existence. Or at least eventually they would when they jettisoned Biblical based knowledge for the science method that eventually produced the standard model etc. (It is striking that eg Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways don't mention anything about fine tuning so maybe theists would argue a variant of progressive revelation? ) In my view James' arguments make this a moot point regardless.

[@labbertubes]

2:32 - "life as we know it" is all the argument you need. The fine tuning argument is a tautology that says "if things were different, then things would be different". There is no necessity for us to exist, and there is not requirement for life to exist in anything closely resembling the scales at which we currently observe it. It could be vastly smaller/larger, slower/faster than anything we observe today - yet still be life as we could have it explained to us.

[@Dystisis]

>as we could have it explained to us. eh.....

[@DartNoobo]

It could faster/slower/bigger/smaller. Could it? How do you know? Are you a biologist? What kind? Do you have a degree in chemistry as well to back up your conclusions? Maybe you are right, I just wonder if you have any proof to your argument.

[@lormador8493]

do you agree with spinoza about determinism and probability??

[@bongomcgurk7363]

Excellent vid! Would love to see a theist trying to defend fine-tuning respond to this.

[@mr.preece8137]

We don’t need any argument this thorough to defeat the fine tuning argument. The creation of a life permitting universe is a one-time improbable event. The argument put forward by theists is essentially that improbable events are best described by predestination or Devine intervention rather than randomness. This is an argument that proves too much. All that is needed is an analogous argument to show the absurdity of this view. The probability that I would watch this video at 6:30 on a Saturday is highly unlikely on free will. The causal chain would stretch back to the decisions of my first ancestors, requiring all subsequent members of my lineage to make the exact decisions that they did to cause me to exist. Add in the chain of all of my life experience that led to me clicking on this video. The probability that I would watch this video at 6:30 on a Saturday is not very unlikely on determinism. Therefore, me watching this video is strong evidence of determinism. The point is, unlikely things happen all the time and it if you are going to attribute one of them to Devine intervention, why not all of them. Calvinism is feeling strong here.

[@MrGustavier]

U = finely tuned universe D = intelligent design A = additional hypothesis about the designer (supposed to improve the likelihood) The posterior probability that intelligent design be true given the finely tuned universe is equal to : P(D|U) = P(U|D)P(D)/P(U) = P(U&D)/P(U) And The posterior probability that intelligent design & additional hypothesis about the designer be true given the finely tuned universe is equal to : P(D&A|U) = P(U|D&A)P(D&A)/P(U) = P(U&D&A)/P(U) The theist wants to defend that the increase in likelihood P(U|D&A) from the added hypothesis about the designer (A) to the intelligent design hypothesis (D), does not correspond to an equivalent decrease in the prior probability of the D&A hypothesis P(D&A), and therefore that the new posterior P(D&A|U) is superior to the old one P(D|U). To check that we check that the ratio of posterior probabilities between the new (D&A) and old (D) hypotheses is superior to one... The ratio of posteriors is equal to : P(D&A|U)/P(D|U) = P(U&D&A)/P(U&D) = P(A|U&D) Therefore the ratio of posteriors is superior to one when P(A|U&D) > 1 Which is impossible, since a probability is never > 1. Therefore the posterior probability of the new hypothesis (D&A) can NEVER be greater than the posterior probability of the old hypothesis (D).

[@frogandspanner]

2:43 Place the brown circle elsewhere and one finds that the solution to which it leads is unlikely. It is only if one considers an outcome special that its low probability is an issue. It is absolutely certain - probability 1 - that there will be an outcome, and there _is_ an outcome. Once that outcome has taken place any attempt to use probability of that outcome to show it to be improbable is flawed. In such cases we can use probability before, but not after.

[@Lightbearer616]

I believe this subject is easily answered in one of two ways: 1. If Relativity holds true the universe will exist outside space time as energy before a universe (massless = nothing). Recent claims are that, in the quantum universe particles come into and out of existence constantly without a cause. The two combined shift from proving a natural universe could occur to why couldn't a natural universe occur. If a natural universe could occur form outside space time, it is inevitable, this universe would occur on one iteration of the Big Bang and given there's no time outside spacetime it would theoretically be instantaneous. No god and no fine tuning required. 2. If we accept there could be an infinite number of cosmological constants e.g. one from every black hole, again, our universe is inevitable. No god or fine tuning required.

[@otangelograsso1179]

The universe requires at least 468 parameters to be precisely adjusted to permit life. The cumulative odds ( considering the interdependencies) are one in 10^1576. Good luck explaining that without design, or even a multiverse.

[@blusheep2]

1. Quantum theory does not suggest that particles come into and out of existence constantly without a cause. The conservation of energy is still preserved so if a particle comes into existence here then a particle went out of existence there. Therefore, there is a connection and "cause" for the connection and balance of energies. Therefore, there is no argument for a universe coming into existence without a cause and outside of time. It is just imagination at this point. There is also a problem with this idea about something coming from nothing. Its just magic. So even a universe outside of time still needs a cause for its coming into existence. It might not be a temporal cause but a cause nonetheless. Relativity, also, doesn't suggest that the universe will exist outside of space/time. I think you are referring to the singularity but the singularity isn't a thing. Its a word we use to describe a time in the finite past when all space/time/matter(i.e. the universe) was curved/compressed to the infinite. "Infinity" is also not a number. Its just a word we use to represent an immeasurable series in one direction. So when you reduce the universe and curve or compress it to the infinite/immeasurable, you have "nothing." 2. Black holes don't create universes. Nor are there an infinite number of black holes. You must multiply assumption upon assumption to arrive at your conclusion.

[@Lightbearer616]

@@blusheep2 Can I suggest you bring yourself up to date before commenting.

[@Lightbearer616]

@@otangelograsso1179 Oh dear, you've been listening to theist channels for your scientific information. As usual, when you do that, you make yourself look like a joke. Re-read my comment. And don't forget, no one is saying you need our cosmological constant for life. Your key problem is there is nothing to support this as the only cosmological constant required to support life. We may have thought that 20 years ago but anyone telling you that today knows they are lying. Life doesn't even need to be carbon based. And, quite frankly no one knows exactly what is required for life. You've been fed sh#t by a theist, you look stupid and it serves you right.

[@blusheep2]

@@Lightbearer616 Can I suggest that if your going to accuse me of not being up to date you explain where I'm behind?

[@radscorpion8]

This is a very interesting argument I have not heard before. I think your point about what kind of psychology God could have is a good one. There could have been all sorts of creators which could be considered "necessary". Why specifically one that can create universes? Why one that can create universes with life in them? Theists need to make an argument for why only one of them is necessary otherwise they share the same problem with the atheist. Although, I would go a little bit further and argue that the fine-tuning argument is really just another God of the Gaps argument. The exactness of the universe for life is not really an argument for God, it is more that theists once again invoke God because they can't think of other arguments. In general this type of reasoning has been shown to be wrong numerous times throughout history. I think the chance of it being correct when discussing incredibly complex and potentially unknowable topics as how universes are created, is more than a little hopeful. It seems really quite arrogant in retrospect and naive to suppose we can make these sorts of sweeping assumptions about the foundational structures of reality, even outside our universe, and trust that we know enough about them to say that the constants (or their equations) are chosen based on a random die roll.

[@martifingers]

This is interesting and the notion of divine psychology seems to prompt two very different reactions from theists. On the one hand we have God as loving, desirous of our knowing him, willing to intervene in the physical world (albeit for seeming arbitrary reasons) with miracles etc. On the other God is beyond any consciousness entirely, the ground of the Universe and ultimately unknowable. For some of us I suppose this seems incoherent or more kindly , a mystery.

[@otangelograsso1179]

it could be all sort of creators, singular, or multiple. Thats not an argument against design.

[@IainDavies-z2l]

Fine tuning was necessary in the old TV tuners with valves, as the difference in thermal temperature would change the valves performance leading to drifting so a separate fine tuning ring would be provided around the main tunning knob. As transistor tunners then became the norm it wasn't really necessary for fine tuning as a lot of tuners then had an AFC automatic frequency control. Fine tunners are still found on SW radios as the spacing between stations is very small, so fine tuning is needed to segregate the programmes.

[@WalterHassell]

Hi James, I was wondering if you’d thought of any more potential objections to the EAAN since your discussion with Wade a couple years back?

[@goldenalt3166]

I think he stumbled upon most of the objections, but it wasn't very organized or concise. Could be a good topic for a short. Though, obviously any objection to EAAN will be a strawman since the argument is nonsense.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Nijers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@Lord_Stannis]

Him and Nathan have a Bad Apologetics episode on that if you haven’t seen it, although it’s almost 9 hours long.

[@WalterHassell]

@@Lord_Stannis Thanks I was aware of it but haven't seen it, do you know if it includes objections/thoughts that weren't included in the discussion with Wade? I had assumed not since it came out before James talked to Wade

[@joeblow8940]

Excellent! Thank you.

[@RustyWalker]

The issue I have with talking about fine-tuning the constants is that seems to suggest they're prescriptive, whereas the equations out of which they fall are descriptive. We look at interactions *that happen* and then derive constants. For any possible world, we'd do the same. We'd look at the interactions *that happen* and derive constants. Maybe space-time could be more resistant to the effects of mass. This is what alters the constant. The constant doesn't "order" space-time to be "stiffer " Maybe particles could have stronger attraction, so we derive a constant. But we only get that constant if that interaction succeeds. We don't get equations out of which different constants could fall if there is no interaction. We just don't get constants for universes that fail.

[@01Aigul]

It seems like another issue (and maybe I missed this in your presentation) is that we have no way of knowing if the constants could have been different. I would think that in computing P(life | standard model) you would need a probability distribution for each of the constants, and we just don't have those. Maybe there's some even more fundamental reason why the constants have to be exactly what they are, or at least very close. There's just not enough information to calculate that probability, so I don't see how you can compute the probability. Also, we don't know how many universes there are out there. If our universe is only one of many, then it might be that the probability of life emerging in any one universe is low, but the probability of life emerging in SOME universe is high. Granted, this requires the existence of lots of other universes and there might not be a lot of evidence for those ... but the theists are doing the same thing when they invoke god.

[@Lord_Stannis]

Great work, and importantly this seems very accessible as well.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Neggers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Nijers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@Psalm1968]

6:00 Possibilities of other arrangements a) do not explain the origin or existence of the verified and agreed-upon constants themselves, b) are not evidence _against_ the FTA but only hypothetical speculations, and c) do not explain why the physical world is even intelligible to us or why our mathematical formulations actually work in explaining the particle physics in the first place. Probabilities and unverified hypothetical arrangements of particles do not carry much of any epistemological or explanatory weight. It’s like trying to explain away the uniqueness of human life in the universe by postulating a multitude of as yet unknown alien species. Even if we discovered a multitude of alien beings or multiple universes at some future point, it would neither diminish our uniqueness as human beings, nor would it explain why we or any other life form exists. The initial objection you present is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that the possibility of other atomic arrangements of other life forms or universes provides a defeater for the FTA. It truth other worlds would only increase the amount of entities which would require naturalism to account for. Occam’s razor. Possibilities and hypotheticals are not arguments against nor are they evidence against the FTA.

[@-dazz-]

LOL. You have the reasoning skills of a fucking carrot. The fine tuning argument rests on the premise that these laws of physics we have are the only ones that could ever produce lifeforms, so the burden of proof is on you to show that your premise is true, and that means the mere possibility that other set of laws can do the same, debunks the FTA. Just like the mere possibility of aliens also debunks your argument for the uniqueness of human life. I don't expect you to get it, and I don't really care if you don't.

[@logicalliberty132]

nice video. James, could you please make a video responding to Jimmy Akin's recent video on the miracle of calanda? It seems pretty convincing, and I would like a skeptic's take on it. and you are great at this. thank you

[@andystewart9701]

Great points! Thanks for doing this one!

[@michaelpudney]

We were fine tuned culturally (mostly with a lack of imagination and thinking ability)so that it is easy for certain people to make an easy living from the idea of God.

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

So, what is your scientific explanation for the existence of the universe and the 4 fundamental forces that govern it?

[@somersetcace1]

This was a really well done video, though, I see a more fundamental problem with the fine tuning argument. It seems to imply that there is something about the present state of existence that is `objectively special.` In this case life on Earth. That had existence unfolded any differently, that it would somehow matter. There seems to be this unspoken and unsubstantiated premise that life on earth is SO special that the odds of us being here are too great to consider without a god. Something even more special, that has no explanation at all. It just is. You could sum up the argument by saying "If the universe did not unfold exactly as it did, the present would be different in direct proportion," which while true, is also irrelevant to anything. Except maybe human ego.

[@shassett79]

It's just Douglas Adam's puddle, really.

[@somersetcace1]

@@shassett79 Yep, pretty much.

[@DartNoobo]

Exactly, life on earth is absolutely normal and expected. No weird coincidences and rare events. Could you remind me the numbers, please?

[@MatthewFearnley]

While it's true that there are some factors that make Earth more well-suited to life than many other planets, the main Fine Tuning argument doesn't require anything to be special about human or earthly life. The existence of any kind of life - as opposed to no kinds of life - can be said to be objectively special. And - according to the Fine Tuning argument - unlikely to have arisen at all by chance. The puddle analogy doesn't necessarily fail, but it does presume the inevitable existence of some life somewhere. Which doesn't seem to be a given on naturalism, without presuming a particular kind of multiverse or something, in order to make life-permitting universes themselves inevitable.

[@ELPsteel]

Something important that i didn’t see addressed in the video - the cosmological constants provided here are calculated based on observation and can be replicated by anyone else who has access to scientific observation. How on earth do theists calculate the second point (“Probability of a deity creating the universe is not as low”)? There is no way to calculate a probability for something that we have no observable evidence or data on. Seems to me that theists haven’t calculated anything at all - they’ve just asserted that it’s more probable because that feels right to them. Gigantic argument from incredulity

[@Sui_Generis0]

Can timestamps be added?

[@TheVexar]

Will this finally get apologists to stop saying "It takes more faith to be an atheist"?

[@frederickdebian370]

I have don't have enough faith in apologists to hope for such a blessing

[@mybuddyphil8719]

I just use that as an opportunity to find a point of agreement, that faith is bad and we should try to have a little faith in our lives as possible.

[@archapmangcmg]

If apologists were honest, they would never say that. If apologists were honest, though, they would find new jobs.

[@eenkjet]

In my experience most apologists are not true theist/deists. They are motivated by their religious ideology and avoid the strongest arguments for God if they don't align with their religious commitments. Similarly most atheists are motivated by anti-religious/irreligious ideology and volley back their avoidant apologists carefully selected (religion friendly) arguments while not honestly engaging in natural ontology. IOW both are motivated by "a" faith.

[@goldenalt3166]

If they would just stop calling people "athiest" who don't meet their own definition of the word, that'd be a win. Then they could work out what "christian" means in reality.

[@KyleMeleonZ]

The concept of "fine-tuning an argument" itself is not something that can be debunked, as it’s a methodological process rather than a specific claim or theory. Fine-tuning simply refers to the practice of refining or adjusting an argument to make it more accurate or applicable.

[@RustyWalker]

It's always struck me by focusing on the constants and not the interactions that theists approach the problem backwards, not to mention if a theory of everything is possible, the probability under naturalism shifts dramatically towards, "expected."

[@eenkjet]

Ontologically, naturalism will always be violated due to special relativity and entanglement. Naturalism requires strong idealization to avoid occasionalism.

[@RustyWalker]

@@eenkjet Still a higher p than magic though by definition.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Neggers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Nijers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@eenkjet]

@@RustyWalker Right. But notice that "magic" (aka decretalism in classical theism) is the common theists idealization. Thus the naturalist idealizes physics to avoid occasionalism/teleology and the common theist idealizes God to avoid contingency. Those that idealize God wish for God to be the source of all including logic. Under that property, God should be able speak anything into existence. But we know this is false because God can't speak a five sides square into existence. Thus God is contingent upon mathematical platonism. Those that idealize physics wish for nature to allow for trial and error and local micro causal self organization. But we know this is false as absolute space and time do not exist and non-local realism is true. Evolution is fundamentally false and creation is fundamentally true (but not decretalist).

[@thinkgreatapethink]

Inserting God defeats the fine tuning argument. Either: Life requires constants that are finely tuned. God is alive. Therefore God cannot exist without these finely tuned constants. Or: God does not require any specific set of constants in order to exist. Therefore, life can exist regardless of the values of the constants.

[@martifingers]

That is very clever and I would love to see a theist respond.

[@_Z.K_]

You’re applying the premises of life onto God which is false. God is outside of creation, I.e. life.

[@Nai61a]

@@_Z.K_ "God is outside of creation." - How do you demonstrate this? How do you test that it is true?

[@snipecrossgg4397]

​@@Nai61aYou can't test something that isn't bound to aaterial reality. So many assumptions about how humans live are applied to God which doesn't make sense given that God according to most religions is not bound to the same laws of physics, time, or material reality.

[@_Z.K_]

@@snipecrossgg4397 well said

[@MatthewFearnley]

Well I’ve finished the video now, and I think the most significant issue is with Problem 3 (divine psychology/lack of imagination). This problem doesn’t actually connect with the Fine Tuning argument at all. It’s countering an unrelated argument - essentially, starting with a theological blank slate, no world religions, whether true or false - trying to work out what a supreme being would be like, and how likely he would be to create this universe. It doesn’t really connect with the FTA, because it’s difficult to make any predictions about whether this being would prefer a finely tuned or “broadly tuned” universe. It warrants discussion, but it’s not an objection to the FTA, as far as I can see. It stands or falls independently of it.

[@ShouVertica]

Well no, it's almost the entirety of the fine tuning argument. There isn't a reason for god to create, we know nothing about what this god wants to attribute it to the god, we are just taking a look at what _is_ and attributing it to the "wants" of a god. Except all the bad stuff. We don't give god the credit for that. (lol)

[@hiker-uy1bi]

If I had to take a position on this, my view is that the "fundamental constants" couldn't have been otherwise. In other words, they reflect necessary conditions of the universe. I can just stop there and don't have to posit any additionally expensive beliefs about gods and all their baggage. Saying "god did it" isn't more explanatory than saying "it's a necessary physical feature."

[@prophetrob]

Twinsies! I love you

[@Ansatz66]

Isn't that just a guess? Aren't you making bold sweeping proclamations about the universe that you can't really know, no better than theists with their many declarations about the natures of their gods?

[@pansepot1490]

⁠​⁠@@Ansatz66 no. Science itself is based on some fundamental assumptions eg that nature follows patterns we can study, describe and make reliable predictions upon (eg eclipses), that the laws of physics apply the same everywhere in the universe, etc. Those are assumptions but we hold them because observation so far has always confirmed their validity. On the other hand we have zero ground to accept the assumption that the “constants” of nature could be different. Nothing is offered in way of explanation either theoretical or empirical, just the naked assertion. If we accept naked assertions why do we need the fine tuning argument to begin with? We can just accept the existence of god.

[@nemdenemam9753]

​@@Ansatz66 if we know it 'no better than the theist' then its already enough show that the fine tuning argument doesnt necessarily lead to god. That means it cant be used to prove god.

[@hiker-uy1bi]

@@Ansatz66it’s a less expensive metaphysical position than the theistic metaphysical position. Your argument seems to be that we just shouldn’t engage in metaphysics, and that’s fine. If you have to take a metaphysical position, though, positing explantations that don’t require me to defend extra god things are better than ones that do.

[@graladue]

I always ask "how exactly can you demonstrate that tuning is possible at all?" .

[@blusheep2]

That is a different question.

[@graladue]

@@blusheep2 no it isn’t at all. You can’t discuss *fine* tuning unless you can show that *tuning* is possible at all. If these are the only possible characteristics a universe can have, then there is no fine tuning. No specially selected way. So, first you must show that the characteristics can possibly be changed. Then you have to show what ranges are possible. Then, whether or not life is possible across which parts of those ranges. Then, and only then, can you argue about how *this* universe is tuned and what it may imply.

[@blusheep2]

@@graladue "Fine Tuning" is just a title. It means that there is an appearance of design. As for logic, we are doing historical science. Meaning we are looking back further and further in time to the very beginning of the creation of our universe. This kind of science works backwards. What you are suggesting is that we have to have all the answers before we can make inferences and that just isn't rationally logical. It is a gross misunderstanding on how the science of the past works. So, no it doesn't have to be shown first that the universe can be tuned. The argument for "Fine Tuning" is the evidence that it was. That will lead to the next question "how." Now, you say that it must be shown that the values can be changed and what ranges are possible. This is better, if poorly worded. So lets address these concerns. 1) Life being possible across which parts of the ranges: This has been done and that is why we call it "Fine Tuned." Take the Cosmological Constant. It is believed to be fine tuned to the order of 1 in 10^120 places. If this constant varied by that much, there wouldn't be anything special about the universe for life to exist BUT... But.... If it was stronger the universe would collapse on itself to quickly for life to spark, and if it was weaker then the universe would expand so fast that galaxies and stars wouldn't form. If the nuclear force was a bit off, you couldn't get fusion in suns. Do you see? These constants allow for an environment that can support life. If they were different the universe still exists but not in a state that would allow for what is needed to maintain life. These numbers are already figured out. If they weren't, we wouldn't have the fine tuning argument. 2)They can be possibly changed: Here you need to question the theoretical physicists who work with math. According to the scientists in the field, these constants are arbitrary. Do you pick and choose which scientists to believe and if so which ones do you believe? Do you realize that Steven Hawkings wrote a book on his death bed trying to solve this "problem." Do you think your smarter then him? Do you think he isn't a credible source?

[@MatthewFearnley]

It might be expected given naturalism that tuning could be impossible, but it would be very unexpected for the laws of physics to necessarily entail specific values for the constants, that would happen to permit stars, planets and carbon. It would be surprising if you built a radio without a tuning dial, and no knowledge of radio station frequencies, and you found that it perfectly picked up a radio station when you turned it on.

[@graladue]

@@MatthewFearnley the analogy is flawed. You *know* that radios are tuned, that they can work across ranges of frequencies. We don’t know if any other universe is possible *at all* , let alone what the possible ranges for the physical properties are. We don’t have multiple universes to examine. We don’t know how they are formed or if they are formed. To assert that this one is special because it is “this way” is currently requires evidence for how things can change, why things can change, and how those changes affect outcomes. We don’t have any of that. Maybe universes happen naturally within boundaries, maybe they happen naturally such that all possibilities are tried, maybe this is the only one, maybe this is the only one possible, maybe ad infinititum. We don’t *know* .

[@cosme_fulanito695]

Ok, I'll simplify all this for you: 1. If Low Bar Bill defends an argument, then 2. It is a bad argument. Thanks.

[@benroberts2222]

Hey I finally found someone making a real ad hominem argument! (Still respectable as a joke)

[@jenst.]

As to min 24.00/25.00: I always wondered how theists justify the existence of heaven (and possible hell) under the condition of the existence of our universe. It seems reasonable to assume that heaven (i) is the place everyone ends up ultimately and eternally anyway and (ii) that I cannot "travel" there by means other than dying. So why does god not directly create everyone there or puts them in hell and sorts them out later? It seems very improbable under Theism that he needs (!) to create that third in-between space with measurable matter, constants and so on.

[@cokomishi]

Excellent video. I can believe this has so few views - great work!

[@MarkPatmos]

How do unguided, inanimate processes work as the entire explanation for our reality. Or do you have to have faith in inanimate processes alone as the only explanation?

[@sebtanner4975]

When you say, why does there doesn't have to be physical laws when God has complete control, what would our measurements show if this were the case? Would they be contradictory or nonsensical?

[@JohnCamacho]

Theists already believe in a God which means they already adhere to a particular narrative, so when thinking about fine tuning, they lack imagination because they need to stick to that narrative. Same with God's reputation and God's qualities. These things must be preserved in any suggested hypothesis.

[@guitarizard]

0:14 when you use force and Fields, I wish there were better terms because everyone thinks force fields like Star wars.

[@caiomateus4194]

Even if life is probable given other laws of nature or "equations" with different constants (plausibly it is not, considering the high specificity of the event "life"), the fact that it is unlikely given the real laws of nature is surprising enough (consider John Leslie's illustration of the fly on the wall). Fodor also ignores that there is an extension of fine-tuning to the laws of nature (from Robin Collins and Barnes himself). The second objection is so bad that it is not worth dwelling on. It is not possible for there to be life in any meaningful sense (ie, a stable, self-replicating, and preferably conscious system) in the overwhelming majority of universes, which is why no cosmologist takes seriously claims that fine-tuning does not exist. Fodor can go on calling vibrating atoms, gas clouds and black holes "life", while we can worry about something serious - for example, how to explain the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, which constitutes dark energy, or the finely-tuned adjustment of distribution of dark matter to the formation of galaxies. In third place, the existence of embodied life is a specific good in itself - meaning that it represents greater value than a world with God alone, even if that is a sufficient world. Fodor does not understand the difference between maximum value and sufficient value - so it is not compensated by beauty or the presence of disembodied life. Not only is this a plausible fact about this kind of being (since embodied life enjoys its own intuitively valuable characteristics, such as the reality of feelings and senses), but it is also expected given classical theism, according to which God desired and enjoyed creating life embodied, even though it had already created a beautiful universe in six days and its own angels. Likewise, expecting that God does not have a preference for a natural rather than a miraculous universe ignores the countless times this assumption has been called into question, by theists such as Thomas Aquinas (according to which it is possible for God, but inconvenient, to act in the world in a predominantly supernatural way, instead of ingeniously determining the secondary causes, maintaining the beauty and efficiency of its providence. Thus, the usefulness of a miracle does not exceed the need to prove its very reality). These are not extra ad hoc assumptions, but consequences of a clear understanding of God's superlative attributes. In the end, all of this Fodor's demand for a precise definition of prior probabilities demonstrates that he is the one with a double standard. Would he need to precisely determine the probability of a specific designer making a car, before inferring that a Hb20 scrap found in the desert was not the chance result of an unlikely reduction in sand entropy? Would anyone need to know the exact probabilities of extraterrestrial agents communicating with us, before inferring that an image obtained by James Webb of a constellation with the phrase "Greetings, Earthlings", was not the result of a random distribution of the big bang matter? Honestly, I don't see the sincerity in anyone claiming to have good objections in this video. Perhaps Manson's paper on the possibility of different psychophysical laws is the only interesting consideration, but I wonder what makes him think that different psychophysical laws would be possible in a naturalistic universe. Now, the idea that different psychophysical laws are possible only makes sense in creationist substance dualism (in physicalism, reductive or irreductive, in emergentist substance dualism and in hylemorphism or property dualism, psychophysical laws are determined by the material configuration. In this case, the possibility of loving electrons would imply the REALITY of loving electrons, which is ridiculous). But what would determine, in an atheistic universe, that these substances were associated with different bodies (such as electrons)? In fact, what would determine that these substances would be FUNCTIONALLY linked to simpler and more unstable bodies? All Manson has done thus far is offer a new fine-tuning argument to the theist: the fine-tuning of psychophysical laws. If it is said that it is impossible for there to be different psychophysical laws in atheism because, for some incomprehensible reason, natural laws determine psychophysical laws, then we return to the miracles objection. Surely God could sustain souls in bodies that don't naturally fit them and that would still be good, but how convenient would that be compared to a naturally functioning universe?

[@lukepoplawski3230]

Always struck me as the biggest case of confirmation bias you could fathom.

[@ablobofgarbage]

I think it would be interesting to take the fine tuning argument in the other direction; if this is the kind of universe that god would want to create, what does that imply about god? If god would be likely to create a universe with beings with free will, what does that imply about the kind of god he is? Maybe one day he got bored, so he temporarily turned off his omnipotence and created a universe with beings that had free will so that he could be surprised at what we would do, in other words: we are a reality television show for god.

[@MarkPatmos]

Unguided by a conscious mind, inanimate processes can’t fine-tune a universe. However you want to define God doesn’t change that.

[@user-pn8ke3kf5f]

But what about the fact that apologists seem to be fine tuned to pretend as if your an Nathan's content just doesn't exist? Surely that is evidence of something?

[@blamtasticful]

Great Presentation James. I really enjoyed it! Question, do you think it's a good move by the theist to argue that God is more likely to make a universe with conscious moral agents (because they have some sort of value) than naturalism regardless of the kind of universe he creates?

[@thinboxdictator6720]

Probability of god (assuming it's existence) is undefined, because it includes conscious choices and preferences,that we would have to assume. I'd say it's 1/infinity (if theist assumes god that can do everything in everyway and god decides what is even possible in that universe), that's why I think it's undefined at best. Under naturalism, there's weak anthropic principle (observers are possible only in universe(s) that supports them ),that I personally don't know how to get through it to any "designer" at all. Not with this vague talk. I don't know enough about relevant physics to give my estimated probability,but I'd say it's definitely Nonzero ( if you still mean universe "from scratch ")

[@thinboxdictator6720]

It should've been "probability of god creating anything"

[@blamtasticful]

@@thinboxdictator6720 Well I think God is commonly defined as all-good so I don't think it's a stretch to say an all good God is more inclined to create things with value. I would grant that said hypothesis on the whole is less simple, but I wouldn't deny that the evidence fits that hypothesis better than indifference.

[@thinboxdictator6720]

@@blamtasticful aren't "values" included in god's choice? this could be maybe Eurhyphro dilemma,but since we are playing with values of constants in physics,I don't see a problem with including " different values" too... what "values of values"? I don't know. I don't even know where we're getting data on range of constants in physics,so it probably doesn't matter anyway,since that is just "undefined". I just don't see how to use probability with "creator", without turning it to GIGO.

[@shassett79]

I've never been clear on what sort of god fine-tuning proponents are advocating? An omnipotent god ought to be able to make any sort of universe with any sort of life it desires. Concerns over things like fundamental constants or chemistry are for lesser beings trying to describe creation. Why bother making a universe at all? Why not just poof the Earth into existence, as is, with all life in whichever form god desired? You don't need a universe, or even a solar system for that. A god shouldn't need a star to keep things warm, right? Surely we're not proposing a god that created an entire universe before just kind of sitting around... _for fourteen billion years..._ waiting for abiogenesis to get going on a single planet, so it could sit around... _for another four billion years..._ waiting for humanity to arise and ponder the whole mess?

[@PROtoss987]

The Christian God as prescribed by particular interpretations of the Bible. No other conceptions of gods are relevant to the Christian.

[@Freefall347]

Just for the sake of pointing it out; for an eternal and infinite being, waiting around for 14 billion years, or 4 years, or 4 seconds, may as well all be the same span of time. Sometimes people use a similar argument along the lines of why would God care about watching people, when he could be looking at black holes and quasars and stuff, to which the answer is similar. God can not only look at all of those at the same time, but to an infinite being, a quasar and a human should be roughly equally insignificant. Your question about why such a being would create anything to begin with I am fully on board with though. If you think about it, before the creation event, the only thing that existed was God, meaning all of existence was perfect and pure in all ways. The act of creating ANYTHING that wasn't God by definition was a downgrade to existence. So yes, why would God create anything, given that it would logically necessitate making everything worse compared to himself?

[@PROtoss987]

@@Freefall347 What existed before God? And why can't God create another God?

[@DartNoobo]

God can make any sort of universe with any sort of constants to support any sort of life. It's just that these constants have to be fine tuned to support that sort of life.

[@grahamblack1961]

It's interesting that fine tuning isn't mentioned or even alluded to in genesis or in any other ancient creation myths. Theists only know about it because of secular empirical enquiry. It's supposed to be the ultimate clincher for the existence of God yet it's taken the human race at least 100 000 years to discover it.

[@TheLeonhamm]

In short, if using fine-tuning then it too needs to be .. fine-tuned; and that is the road to an infinitude of immeasurable quantities with ineffable qualities; or a hiding to nothing. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the evil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)

[@BillyHole-p5s]

Hey James, I liked the video and I agree that fine tuning isn’t a very good argument. However, I don’t agree with one of your major objections - the double standard of evidence for Theism vs Naturalism. Isn’t it basically tautological once you accept the conclusion of the fine tuning argument that whoever or whatever created the universe must be the type of creator that wants the type of universe that was created?

[@harlowcj]

I feel like the physics to God podcast cuts through most of these objections and questions. Even Mr. Barnes blog posts spend time addressing most of your first objections. And Trent Horn has long existing content that addresses most of your "lack of imagination" section and objections about what God is/is not likely to do, as do the physics to God guys. The fine tuning argument is still goated which is why you danced around it and attacked strawmen for 40 minutes. Just my two cents.

[@NN-wc7dl]

Excellent!

[@ethanmartin2781]

maybe there’s something i’m not understanding about fine tuning, but the fact that it’s still even a matter of debate boggles my mind. For me, the reason is precisely problem 1 in your video. In fact, i think you didn’t quite do this objection justice. Not only could have the equations “governing” the laws of physics been different, but we don’t even know if mathematics actually faithfully describes physical laws. Indeed, we only know that in our world, mathematics seems to model physical laws reasonably well. It’s possible that our laws of physics don’t obey any mathematics, or that there are unimaginably many different ways in which the universe could behave that is completely unintelligible by math or any other methods of human reasoning. I don’t see how the theist is allowed to fine tune the constants without considering/eliminating _all_ of these possibilities. Until a proponent of fine tuning addresses this, i think i will continue to find this a tired boring argument

[@martifingers]

I agree and it's interesting no theist (as far as I am aware) ever predicted this feature of God before science created the model. In this sense did they not piggy back on science's progress?

[@stephenlesliebrown5959]

"Fine-tuning"? No. I'm still wondering why all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent God could not have adjusted the 10^633,851,845,627,449 th significant digit of the electron charge to eliminate childhood cancer.

[@SNUGandSESOR]

Concerning Problem #3: If we find an ancient abandoned space station on the dark side of the moon, we don't have to know anything about alien psychology to conclude that it must have been the work of design rather than natural causes. If someone tried to argue that since we don't know why aliens would make a space station on the moon, and since we can actually think of millions of other things that they COULD have done instead, that therefore we don't know that P(space-station | aliens) > P(space-station | natural causes), I don't think anyone would take that very seriously. I feel similarly about problem #3.

[@gabri41200]

Only if we assume it is a space station in the first place. How would an alien space station even look like? They might look like rocks, with no regularity whatsoever. I feel like there is a fatal flaw in the mentality of intelligent design proponents. Since everything in the universe is intelligently designed (according to them), then we should immediately recognize everything as intelligently designed: sand, rocks, clouds, etc. But we only perceive intelligent design in structures with regular patterns, cause that's how humans construct things. So, if everything is intelligently designed, we clearly don't have the capability to identify intelligent design, only human design.

[@SNUGandSESOR]

@@gabri41200 Suppose it looks like a space station, but was made out of material not found on earth and covered with enough moon dust to suggest it had lain there longer than humans have walked upright. Then what? You still going to say that we can't infer intelligent design because alien space stations might look like rocks, so there's no reason to think that a space station that looks like a space station was made by aliens? "Since everything in the universe is intelligently designed (according to them), then we should immediately recognize everything as intelligently designed" well that doesn't follow at all. You can imagine a radio signal that appears to be random interference at first, but upon closer examination actually conveys a message. No reason whatsoever to assume that all intelligently designed things must bear immediately recognizable markings of intelligent design. The fact that there are some parts of the universe that do appear to bear the markings of intelligent design would be sufficient evidence to infer a designer. Typical ways of recognizing design are teleology and irreducible complexity.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

The fine tuning argument is so good thats why there is so much effort to refute it. The appearance of design is so obvious and everybody knows it.

[@JamesFodor]

Wouldn't this same logic indicate that atheism is true because of all the efforts of apologists to prove God exists?

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@JamesFodor Atheism only has denial no evidence it just says I dont believe.

[@stephenlesliebrown5959]

Sorry, that's the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[@rizdekd3912]

I agree that the argument from fine tuning is one of the more interesting arguments and I guess interesting is good. It actually uses scientifically recognizable facts that many can understand unlike, say, ontological arguments. The point is that appearance of design IS also so obvious...in God. And those of us who've thought it through know that and that's why it's not as convincing as others might think. It merely pushes the puzzle back a step and then asserts what COULD be asserted for the natural world...ie it is fine tuned either as a brute fact as the theists declares about God or there may be natural explanations for fine tuning such as the natural world is eternal and universes emerge from it...and in a natural selection way, only fine tuned universes survive and expand.

[@JohnCamacho]

What if God is an indifferent God and simply started the big bang without a care about whether there would be life in the universe or not?

[@marcorothley6039]

Absolutely great video, thanks a lot! One more point for me is the following: We have no idea how independent of each other the constants really are. We might just not be aware of underlying mechanisms that explain eg the particles' mass scale. Maybe if we had a better understanding we could actually calculate most of the constants from first principles. That could reduce the number of really independent constants vastly and thus the space of "possible" universes without life as we know it in them.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

How finely tuned must god’s nature be, such that he would create a universe and life like this instead of some other way?

[@oscargr_]

I will never understand how God is a mind without any complexity, or a complex mind without any fine tuning. But that's what I hear from apologists. I guess the rules are different in the supernatural.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@oscargr_ I think the key is to add “by definition” at the end of any fantastical unjustified claim. That turns their imagination into fact!

[@mxlexrd]

I liked your point on the contradiction between the idea that god is necessary to sustain the universe and the idea that god wouldn't create a universe that he had to constantly "poke". When it comes to stuffing all the assumptions into the priors, to the theist that isn't seen as a problem, since thats the type of god that they already believe in, and even for atheists that's they type of god they always see discussed in popular culture. One other response to fine tuning I often see is the idea that we don't know what the probability distribution over the constants is. Is that encompassed by your "problem 1" (constants vs laws)?

[@goldenalt3166]

Is it really the God we see? If He got the universe right on the first try, that would be the only thing He succeeded at.

[@eenkjet]

@mxlexrd One could also go with physicist Chris Ransford's approach wherein creation sustains God. “The universe does not need a Godhood at all to exist: it can exist by the simple agency of the known laws of physics. But the reverse may not be true: a Godhood may need a universe to exist. The gist of the argument, put into everyday rather than mathematical language, is that unless new actual reality is produced all the time from within an infinite pool of potential reality, then any Godhood would become trapped into stasis - a gilded cage of ‘been there, done that’ - unless new actualization occurs. The Godhood is everywhere and everywhen within an infinite metaverse: whatever it is, It’s been there, It’s done that, unless things change and transform and create new layers of actuality. If that did not happen, the Godhood would become akin to some kind of curator of a museum universe caught in infinite stasis. In such a universe, nothing new would ever happen in the multi-dimensional fullness of apparent time - a timeless, infinite, and well-known static universe. Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega point has been reached, and apex infinity Godhood has become encaged within a well known infinity. Unless reality itself is kept open-ended, so that new layers of reality keep being generated, and the Omega point is in fact an asymptote instead of a point. To enable that generation, an engine of creation of new materiality must exist. This generation must be able to happen - in other words, there must exist a mechanism, an engine whereby creation can occur. If the whole Universe accommodating a Godhood were suffused throughout with, say, only infinite godhood (and other infinite attributes), then nothing could ever happen: no work nor movement can be generated from an environment everywhere bathed in the same infinite quality - the same infinite this or that: there is a necessity for something less than infinite goodness, or than infinite this or that attribute, for Godhood to be in a position to not become restricted to a role of curator. To weave new reality from the fabric of that universe, some differentials, some crimps in the fabric are needed (which, incidentally, is exactly the second Law of Thermodynamics.) Have we just created a measure of evil? Yes, if we appropriately define ‘a measure of evil’ as anything less than infinite goodness. BEING CAUGHT IN PURE TIMELESSNESS AND IN UNCHANGEABLE MEMORIES OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPACETIME (THE FUTURE, THE PAST AND SPACE ITSELF, OF ANY DIMENSIONALITIES) WOULD AMOUNT TO A RELINQUISHING OF FULL GODHOOD. This is why the ‘Word’ may, occasionally, become ‘Flesh’, as the phrase goes, so that stasis be kept at bay. Stephen Hawking’s argument that probably no God exists because It definitely is not needed to create the Universe, has been squarely turned on its head, becoming that it is a perfect Godhood who would stand in need of a less than perfect Universe, rather than the other way around.”

[@eenkjet]

//atheists that's they type of god they always see discussed in popular culture// That would lead an atheist into category error, feeling if they rebut the common religious model they've affirmed their "God/gods do not exist". Instead, they'd be better described as anti-religious.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@eenkjet Um no, that's not anti- religious. In fact, disproving the common God model is a common religious practice among theists. Athiest tend to focus on the essential attributes of what would qualify as a God in their minds. The fact that theists are so willing to discard God's attributes to preserve their own arguments, baffles me.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make Nijers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@black6master]

I see quite paradox here, teists would have to( in correct particle set up ) admit abyogenesis, evolution etc, with keeping in mind there would be no classical creation at all..this would actually eliminate that......but rather there would need to be those mechanisms, with god actually not creating anything except for innitial state...

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

I never understood the attractiveness of this argument. Why would an all-powerful supernatural being need to fine-tune anything? He could just magic humans into existence and make a universe amenable to their existence and flourishing. Not sure that apologists know what all-powerful actually means.

[@benjoshuayip2520]

I have a bit of an issue with your very last point, the one about God also seemingly being fine-tuned. The God of Christianity (and probably many other religions) lies exactly within that tiny range that would be necessary for the creation of our world as we know it. This was established prior to any fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God. Therefore, when a Christian looks at the way God has to be seemingly fine-tuned to facilitate him creating the universe, he will see no problem with that - it’s what he has always believed in, and it actually supports his belief.

[@DanLyndon]

The thing is, if you are going to use this to argue for the existence of God - any god - you can't already start with the conclusion of which god it is.

[@benjoshuayip2520]

​@@DanLyndon But the Christian will not use his original conception of which God it is within the argument. Rather, he will conclude the argument independently of this conception, notice that it agrees with this conception, and this reinforces his belief. Fine tuning argument -> an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, creator God this reinforces the Christian's original belief in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, creator God (eg from Bible) Additionally, I don't think that the fine-tuning of God is comparable to the fine-tuning of the constants of the universe. The latter can be quantifiably measured to give an accurate range within which the constants must lie, but you can't really do this for the attributes of God. I don't think a list of 5 or however many attributes which God needs to have can compare with the tiny ranges in which the constants must lie.

[@ShouVertica]

The fine-tuning argument always irks me because theist have historically used this _exact_ logic to justify all the gods of every element, every concept, and even just geological stuff like volcanoes. >X Exist, therefore a god wanted it to be this way. >The volcano exist, therefore there must be a volcano god. >The ocean exist, therefore there must be a god of the ocean. >The universe exist, therefore there must be a god of the universe. It's only because theism has been pushed so far back that we are even humoring this nonsense.

[@timbertome2443]

Someone claiming that "life is a miracle," or "life could only come from God, not naturally," or some such, has implicitly, if not explicitly, undermined any *fine tuning* argument they may have had. To view life as a miracle is to admit that the universe isn't fine tuned and couldn't bring forth life on its own.

[@Reddles37]

If the universe was really fine-tuned for life then I would expect there to be a lot MORE life than there is. Life makes up less than one quadrillionth of the solar system by mass, not to mention the other 100 billion stars in the galaxy or all the other galaxies in the universe, or the fact that it took billions of years for us to evolve. That's like if a human engineer built a big machine that was completely sterile except for a single bacterium that showed up after it had been running for a few years, and then claimed the whole thing was fine tuned for that bacterium. Sounds more like a case of accidental contamination to me...

[@LifeStyleMindful]

Nice

[@drawn2myattention641]

Philosopher Hal Halvorson has an interesting objection to the FTA. We’re told God desires our kind of life, so first He presents us with a large opaque jar filled with marbles. If we draw a yellow marble, we get life: a white marble, we get nonlife. We draw a yellow marble, and are then shown that the remaining marbles are overwhelmingly white. Seems silly for a God who desires life so much to create a game rigged against life. (Unless he just wants to show off his magic powers.)

[@grahamblack1961]

Theistic arguments consist largely of verbal conjuring tricks and logical sleight of hand. One trick is to use a word with different meanings but stay ambiguous about which meaning you are using. The word life can mean biological life which is essentially highly complex chemistry. Life can also refer to our experience and all the things we do, theists will talk about the gift of life. When they say the universe is fine tuned for life they mean complicated chemistry, but they slipped in the word they use for our gift from God. When they call life a gift from God I don't think they mean DNA, they mean our experience of being human. But they smudge the meaning of the word life when they make the fine tuning argument. One thing they never answer is why would God want biological life, I don't think they like to answer that because it exposes the ambiguous way they are using the word life. If there is a God it means you can have life in the experiential sense of the word without biological life because God, if they exist, has a life but has no biology.

[@andreasplosky8516]

Considering the state of "creation" one can never assume a benevolent god. If there is a god, it is an evil, depraved, twisted thing.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

great presentation, however it got too technical for my artist brain and i quit near the end when the equations came out to play, i love what you do but religists are even worse at listening than i am, depending on what audience you are aiming for i can only say if you want religists to absorb any of this you need to use finger painting and cartoons to reach them?

[@pansepot1490]

As apologists audience is Christians, James’ audience is very nerdy atheists. ;)

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

The fine tuning argument sank in a puddle....

[@rizdekd3912]

I guess the puzzle for me is those who simultaneously use the fine tuning argument and then reject abiogenesis as if it's impossible. Why bother fine tuning the natural world so life can grow and thrive but not fine tune it enough to produce life naturally. OTOH, pointing out the problems and limitations with the fine tuning argument isn't really making a case against theism in general. To turn it around, it is perhaps as likely there is a god as not. It could even be that it didn't create the natural world. Perhaps both exist simultaneously...ie something that if we knew of its existence and its features/capabilities it would qualify as a god. Think 'Q continuum' from STNG. Q would meet many of the requirements to be called a god even if the stodgy theists wouldn't accept him and other members of the continuum as God. My personal answer to the argument from fine tuning is that perhaps nature exists eternally and produces universes...untold numbers of universes. IWO universes emerge from this eternal natural existence. And only universes with 'just so' parameters/constants CAN emerge. So all the universes nature produces are fine tuned. IOW it's a form of natural selection where only certain kinds of universes can emerge. If they don't have 'just so' properties, they are immediately reabsorbed back into this natural existence and another attempt is made. And since no time exists between attempts, one could say an infinite number of tries are possible. And since essentially an infinite number of universes can emerge, sooner or later even highly highly improbable events...like life arising naturally...will occur...almost inevitably. And when it does occur...there might evolve a sentient life form and whatdoyaknow,...here we are peering out at our universe thinking how very unlikely it is that we exist and that the universe just happens to suit us fine.

[@joshridinger3407]

fine tuning argument seems unfalsifiable since the probability of any possible world is 1 on the hypothesis of a god that wants to create that exact world. and if there is a god, the actual world is to the minutest detail the exact state of affairs that it wants to create. a creator god equally expains every possible state of affairs, including the infinite number of states of affairs where god creates nothing at all.

[@notionSlave]

I think it will make nnnNijers like James Fodor realize that there is negative evidence for a multiverse which we would expect if atheism was true, just random useless universes dead universes nothing going on for no reason at all side by side with ours.

[@existential_o]

This is somewhat similar to Malpass’ (I believe it originated with Malpass, but I’m not certain) Goldilocks Hypothesis Problem. This objection notes that P(L|T) being high will trade off to P(T) being quite low. For example, if it hails I could make up the same argument that states, “An omnipotent God caused the hail” to make P(H|T) high, but the P(T) will be very low because of issues like there’s no justified reason to infer a God makes it hail every time and these added on dispositions are obviously ad hoc. The theist will argue that T isn’t too broadly or narrowly defined to make T extremely improbable or ad hoc. Further, the theist will argue there’s antecedent reasons to think God would desire embodied moral agents prior to FTing, so it’s not as threatened by the possibility of being ad hoc like in the example of hail.

[@joshridinger3407]

@@existential_o yeah but the theist is just wrong. for one thing, 1. there's no reason to think god would desire the existence of moral agents. 2. there's no reason to think god would desire that such agents be enbodied (in christian mythology, angels are unembodied, but still moral agents, and they can control matter e.g. by speaking to or killing people). 3. that still doesn't help with fine tuning because there are infinite numbers of possible worlds containing embodied moral agents, including infinite numbers of possible worlds containing more and better moral agents than mere humans on one blue speck orbiting one slightly less tiny yellow speck in one tiny galaxy. for another, the arrogance of anthropomorphizing god aside, it's not clear that we're even truly moral agents. or that moral agents are even logically possible. embodied or not, to be seems to be a puppet of prior causation. even proponents of free will can't seem to describe it as anything other than random chance dictating agents' reasons and actions. there's no reason to think god would even create a world at all. there are infinite states of affairs in which only god exists. in fact that is the overwhelmingly most likely condition on theism, as god is defined as omnipotent, from which it follows that god is absolute and immutable, thus void of all care, desire, preference, want, reason, or choice. the mere existence of anything but god seems to then be, if anything, evidence that god does not exist.

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

Fine tuning argument: how to presuppose god with extra steps.

[@LS-kl6bj]

What is the prior probability that a astrophysicist who is a Christian will manipulate the laws and constants in such a fashion that he concludes that the fine-tuning argument supports the existence of God? Right around 100%.

[@BruteFactsPodcast]

@James Fodor If you're going to critique an argument shouldn't you have a good understanding of fallacies? Especially ones you accuse the argument of? 8:22 You claim that it's an "Argument from Ignorance", but an argument from Ignorance isn't arguing from a position of ignorance. The argument from ignorance goes "It's true because it hasn't been proven false" or vice versa "it's false because it hasn't been proven true".

[@JamesFodor]

'The argument from ignorance goes "It's true because it hasn't been proven false"' That's my point though.

[@BruteFactsPodcast]

@@JamesFodor I guess I misunderstood your point. Appreciate the clarification.

[@lewkor1529]

Why would an omnipotent God need a "recipe book" to make a cake? Why would an omni-God need a specific set of ingredients and a list of instructions to bring about a universe, life or a life-permitting universe? Every time I hear "fine-tuning", it feels like I am hearing "cookbook, set ingredients, list of instructions... " In reality, the fine-tuning argument constraints an alleged all-powerful God to operate within a pretty narrow range in order to bring about life... That is absurd and self-defeating. Why does God need to fine-tuned anything?

[@egoreremeev9969]

I think fine-tuning argument is mosty in favor of deism - a view that god just created the universe and that's it. It's like if the world was a simulation he presses the start. If Barnes that you quote is a deist, then it's okay that he says that god would have created a universe with laws so that he wouldn't need to "poke it" all the time (25:49), it's not an issue for a deist. Also dont equate all of theists, there are a multitude of viewpoints, that's an oversight on your side. Also that is, I think, kinda true that theists may manipulate odds in their favor. One can say that the space of "gods" is only the one that created our universe as it is, and in that case, if god does exist, then the probability of our universe as it is is 100%, hooray! But it's more of an ad-hoc argument, and thinking about what they may do, not what they actually done. Lack of imagination it may be, but in the end everyone needs to somehow plot the possibilities for god, as well for the reality. It's on the explainee (one that is hearing the explanation?) to accept these assumptions, and refuting everything because it does not cover the whole possibility is not good too. Physicists sometimes do not cover the whole range of possibilities, but they do get the job done. The problem with fine-tuning, I think, is on the probability side. One can show the picture and say: "Look, the region where atoms form is small!". Yeah, it may be "small", but who says that the probability distibution should be uniform in this case? I can change C -> 1/C or any other f(C) and say that this C' needs to have a uniform distribution - and in this parametrization region where atoms form would be infinite. Although, I think Craig in his book (one that I think coined or proposed fine-tuning argument) uses some kind of "observational probability", the idea of it is kinda interesting (check the book), but I don't know how to properly operate it. It's more or less if some idea represents itself in nature, then it is probable that the idea is true. He argued that physicists were hesitant to believe in atom theory at first, but when it was supported by a 40 experiments or so they took it as true. But don't know how that would work on universe scale, when it is laws that vary.

[@jonathanjrgensen6774]

you're goated as fuck