The Fine-Tuning Argument Discussion: James vs Otangelo

[@DigitalGnosis]

37:36 I really like Otangelo's response here as it highlights 1) That he doesn't understand the inferences present in his own argument that he thinks is a good/succesful one 2) He doesn't understand the objections being raised at all 3) He has a broken epistemology that reaches for copium reasons before seeking clarity and understanding of objections in the pursuit of truth 4) That he isn't even close to an adequate rebuttal of these counter-arguments 5) That he actually concedes all of the premises present in the counter-arguments (and just doesn't understand that he does)

[@notionSlave]

DigitalGnosis is so triggered that God exists that he became gay.

[@DigitalGnosis]

​@@notionSlaveTrueeeeeee

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@notionSlave Just because he is gay doesn’t mean that he is wrong.

[@NessieJapan]

Fodor showed amazing patience and charity.

[@silkavenger]

Fine tuning has to be the dumbest argument.

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

Good to see otangelo is still alive and well. A little less good to see he hasn’t learned anything from his past conversations

[@LeightonBacon]

I love the face james does after about 10 seconds of each Otangelo response when it become apparent Otangelo has completely misunderstood the question 😂

[@HarryNicNicholas]

james shows remarkable restraint ans waits patiently for otangelo to stop talking tripe before answering, i was pleased at the one time james interrupted otangleo a few words in, even james isn't _THAT_ patient. lol.

[@xjoseywales]

I've heard Otangelo a few times and so at first I thought James must have been REALLY bored to talk to this guy, but I respect the reason he gave at the start. It's very nice of him to take a long term commenter seriously even though he's way out of his league. To me the whole argument doesn't even get off the ground because there is no reason to think God would want a physical universe in the first place. Why not just make other disembodied minds?

[@stephengibbins8661]

We are disembodied minds. We just don't recognise this fact.

[@methodbanana2676]

Some sound life advice: distrust people who repeatedly use your name when speaking to you.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i tend to agree.

[@youarevictoria4981]

props for taking him seriously. His initial position can sound solid, but then he builds a house of cards that we have seen from him many times in the past. There is a cognitive blockage that he cannot seem to overcome.

[@trevorlunn8442]

The irony of Otangelo's 'imagined designer causal argumentation' concurrent with his 'inconceivable probabilities' never fails to intrigue...

[@DigitalGnosis]

43:00 Contra Otangelo's claim that theoretical physicists have established that different physical universes are not life permitting. 1) There isn't consensus on this. 2) We're talking about highly speculative theoretical physics based on all kinds of philosophical assumptions (IMO similar to metaphysics and isn't particularly epistemically sound). And the killer 3) The relevant sense of life here is physically realised carbon-based life. So even if it is correct that our universe is fine tuned for that kind of life, it literally doesn't matter or make the argument success because the relevant reference class is life broadly conceived.

[@830toAwesome]

I cannot believe Otangelo is still going at it.

[@nacasius]

Too Far Gone

[@HarryNicNicholas]

well, he sounds like he's convinced by the science, until he starts talking about god and then it's clear that he has this fantasy that god is otangleo's buddy, i mean rebekah from bread of life LITERALLY is in love with jesus, and otangelo is like that too, it's clear he is so besotted with the love of god that he HAS to fit EVERYTHING around that, hence his numerous lists of 60 things that prove god. he's insane in a mild harmless way, but insane.

[@ceedubya4634]

Thick as a brick.

[@NessieJapan]

"But we got the combo right on the first try...!"

[@Ugeen-Huge-Jeans]

I am fortunate to be able to listen to otangelo in english and in german. I can’t decide which is worse.

[@upplastica9855]

Show you do better !

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@upplastica9855 It would be a bigger challenge to do it worse.😂

[@suntorytimes1]

@@upplastica9855 Oh, a personal attack, how clever!

[@ezbody]

German? Didn't he say that he was Swiss Cheese on Italian Pizza baked in Brazil?

[@BigDongWong]

Trying to reason with ontangelo is like trying to reason with a rock.

[@HillHugger]

That's being generous

[@olexalex8874]

Otangelo likes to answer other questions than the ones being asked.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

he also likes to not listen to what people say to him to.

[@DigitalGnosis]

37:36 Otangelo: The problem is you're dealing with hypotheses, hypotheticals and imagination whereas Im dealing with ReAlItY 38:49 Otangelo: If you imagine a lock with just five options for each number then you have 10^5 options for codes to unlock the key and the options available for God creating a universe are exactly like this combinatorial problem AND creating life is exactly analogous to a combinatorial lock! hehe - I love this

[@HarryNicNicholas]

and he assumes you have to try ONE combination at a time, when the reality is that nature is trying thousands of combinations in parallel.

[@NessieJapan]

@@HarryNicNicholas Or even one combination at a time over an infinite timespan.

[@frogandspanner]

I have just posted this on Phil Harper's channel: Fine tuning: Probability is about predicting the likelihood of an outcome from a starting point. It is not a means of determining how likely an outcome is after it is the outcome. From an initial condition there may be many possible outcomes, but what is certain is that there will be an outcome . While that outcome might, at the initial state, have had a tiny probability of a future existence that is irrelevant when it does exist. Let us assume a googol of possible outcomes, each equally probable from an initial condition, then each is highly improbable - 1 in 10^-100. Yet one outcome is certain - 1 in 1. It is only if we attach a special significance to the outcome that some might inappropriately apply probability backwards to try to say the outcome was improbable and so must have been owing to an external influences. That argument would equally, and equally incorrectly, be applied to each and every possible outcome. There is no such thing as fine tuning.

[@MrGustavier]

Is it me or Otangelo systematically fails to address the point brought up by James ?

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

It's NOT you.

[@upplastica9855]

It is you.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@upplastica9855 nah. otangelo never answers the question asked, it's the religists playbook. when you have nothing, ask a question instead of answering one - koukl tactics.

[@suntorytimes1]

@@HarryNicNicholas Though I’m not really sure he understands the questions he’s asked, to me he seems genuinely misguided.

[@NessieJapan]

For the combination lock analogy, why are we saying the person got the right combo on the first try? If we analogize to universe creation, there could be infinite tries, in which case it's inevitable that we would eventually get the right combo.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

Then you would need universe generator. Where did THAT come from?

[@ChristerAnd]

Why am I not convinced by the number of years Ontangelo has studied this topic? How many years will it take for him to understand James' objection, cause apparently he doesn't...

[@suntorytimes1]

@@ChristerAnd I don’t know, one very slow person could indeed take years to make very few steps.

[@APRENDERDESENHANDO]

He has "studied" using ChatGPT 😂

[@APRENDERDESENHANDO]

The comments are roasting Otangelo at a higher heat than coal in a brazilian barbecue 😄

[@HarryNicNicholas]

so, the only way to test if souls are suitable for heaven is for an immaterial being to create material beings so they can become immaterial beings which the chief immaterial being then burns as punishment for failing the test. all this requires subatomic robots of course. and burning immaterial stuff is punishment. all makes total sense.

[@uninspired3583]

Very intuitive

[@bengreen171]

' I can imagine a world where you can pick up soup with a fork. 'you can't pick up soup with a fork' - yeah, but what if soup was fundamentally different. 'then it wouldn't be soup' - it wouldn't be a fork either' ......'you can't pick up soup with a fork though'

[@HarryNicNicholas]

this is a game that eric berne calls "yes, but..."

[@bengreen171]

@@HarryNicNicholas it's the only game Otangelo knows how to play.

[@rolandwatts3218]

A good discussion. I struggle enough to understand the universe I am aware of, a universe of mind, matter. logic, maths etc., without introducing Otangelo's ideas of God, Satan, angels, demons, heaven, hell and sin. I doubt that Otangelo understands the universe of mind, matter, logic, maths etc, any more than I do. But now he introduces a complete new supernatural realm, which surely he has no idea about.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

We have Gods revelation, the Bible.... So there is THAT.

[@vex1669]

We have Gods revelation, the Bhagavad Gita... so there is THAT.

[@ezbody]

Yey, Broken Record is back.

[@dancinswords]

Any event becomes more likely if you assume a being intentionally caused it. Therefor we should assume every occurrence _is_ intentional. Every death is a murder, every stubbed toe a prank played by some malevolent spirit, every misplaced wallet was stolen by a goblin, every flower blossom the work of a fairy, and on, and on, and on

[@dr.h8r]

Oh I see you’re a masochist now

[@thedude882]

Apologetics squared made a substantive response, would you consider having a discussion with the guy?

[@MatthewFearnley]

I asked him this a while ago. He said he’s reached out to him, but from what I’ve read on Squared’s posts, he doesn’t have a lot of free time currently. I hope it can happen at some point.

[@AsixA6]

‘Substantive’ is doing a lot of work there.

[@MatthewFearnley]

@@AsixA6 it shouldn’t been controversial that his response was substantive, even for people who disagree with it.

[@AsixA6]

@@MatthewFearnley Just because you think it is substantiative, doesn’t mean it is.

[@MatthewFearnley]

@@AsixA6 Do you think it's insubstantive? If so, can you explain why?

[@stevegreen243]

Question... (which I'm sure has been asked and answered numerous times) Q? Why would an all-powerful, super-intelligent being, "have to" fine tune a Universe "it" created, just to make it suitable for life? Q? Why not just make it suitable for life from the get go... without any fine tuning? Q? Is it 'cos us humans think we're special and/or this being thinks we're special? Like the Geocentric model?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

is it five or six times james had to explain we have the outcome and we're trying to work backwards from it? cos in all this excitement, i lost count and i gotstas know.

[@bluecce]

The problem is that he is assuming a magical entity of some sort that just is taken for granted that it exists. We do that all the time is science fiction and fantasy books and shows. And we can take for granted that such and such exists without explanation Because those are just fiction stories and we all know that. but he is expect us to do that with something he is claiming exists in reality, something that he expects us to organize our lives around. And when it is expected that we believe and follow rules of how to live based on that entity then just assuming it is not good enough. And that's all he has and then he just argues for why he Believes it has to be that way. But someone's "has to" does not always end up being an "it is". He can tell us all day all the math and what we observe but that is not showing us a designer itself.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

oh i see. Chance is your hero on the block. Awesome.

[@uninspired3583]

Starting only with what we know about the initial conditions of this universe, i would like otengelo to explain how life is possible. If he can't do it for this universe, he can't say what is or isn't possible with other initial parameters either.

[@allekatrase3751]

Otangelo is a waste of time. He just goes down his dialogue tree and never updates it. He's still using things like "statistical impossibility" and taking things out of context. He got banned from several call in shows because he doesn't respond appropriately, won't follow lines of logic and won't update his arguments when they're shown to be incorrect. Good on you for making the effort, but he's a lost cause.

[@allekatrase3751]

He's citing Borel's law as evidence that something wouldn't happen. That's just... No. It was a rule of thumb heuristic, not an actual scientific law. I'm sure this has been pointed out to him and he's still using it.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@allekatrase3751 Well, yeah. There is always a chance. Even if its 1 in 10^'1577 to have a life permitting universe, and 1 in 10^722000 when we talk about the smallest possible life form with one of the smallest genomes for a freeliving cell ( P.Ubique). Congratualtions for your astronomical faith. I am unable to have such faith.

[@vejeke]

Otangelo, what you said is clearly a defence mechanism. Face it, you developed the need to believe in a god, everything else is secondary. That's why people complain so much that reasoning with you is impossible, because even if they explain to exhaustion the flaws in your reasoning, you will keep repeating them over and over again as long as that need is there. As Sagan said ‘You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe’.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@vejeke what reasoning flaw ?

[@AsixA6]

No, Otangelo, there is NOT always a chance. As a determinist, there is no such thing as ‘chance’. If determinism is true, then there is ZERO chance the values of the constants could have been different. Also, the values of the constants are EXACTLY the values I’d expect if naturalism is true.

[@rolandwatts3218]

In reply to my comment about Otangelo having to understand both this realm and another supernatural realm, Otangelo wrote:- "We have Gods revelation, the Bible.... So there is THAT." My counter will not stick no matter how often I try to make it stick. So I am posting it here:- "Only if you are correct Otangelo. If it is God's revelation then, given all the differences and arguing between Christians, it's a confusing revelation."

[@Mykahaia]

Are we not done with the fine-tuning argument yet?

[@scottwills8539]

Otangelo isn't smart enough or honest enough to argue this subject.

[@LateNight-zeit]

When ever an apologist brings up the cosmological constant as evidence for a fine tuned universe, I question to myself why they don't bring up the Astronomical Unit. If their argument is that the universe is fine-tuned based on the presence of life(us), then the AU is a much stronger number that directly addresses the presence of people on Earth. If the AU fell outside of what we observe, life on this planet would not exists as it does. I suspect the reason they don't is that the AU is just the distance from the sun to the earth, and it's not mystical enough for them. They are science fetishists and the AU isn't sexy enough.

[@benroberts2222]

I think they've moved on from claiming fine tuning of the earth-sun distance for a few pragmatic reasons: 1 the earth-sun distance is not as critical as we used to think 2 the distance varies over time due to tidal interactions with the sun slowing earth's rotation 3 we know of many extrasolar planets so even if life required a specific distance for the habitable zone, there are many planetary systems out there and only one is required at the right distance to satisfy life's requirements

[@LateNight-zeit]

I could grant all this, yet. The same justifications used for the cosmological constant as evidence for the fine-tuned universe apply to the Astronomical Unit. IF the distance between the earth and sun fell outside a specific range, then life as we observe on earth becomes impossible. That holds for both measurements. Fact is this is much stronger evidence since the lay person could verify that life doesn't survive on our steller neighbors, Venus and Mars. As far as exoplanets are concerned they fall under the same conditions, outside the goldilocks zone. The CC requires abit more education to understand, which the apologist dishonestly uses to mystify the concept. It's just Einstein's math, no god required.

[@benroberts2222]

@@LateNight-zeit we have found exoplanets within the habitable zones of their parent stars. There is nothing in the theistic hypothesis that says God would want to create life on our planet specifically; just that he wants a universe with life in it somewhere. So if earth were outside the habitable zone, it's probable (see Drake equation) that life would find itself on some other planet pondering the same question. The cosmological fine tuning arguments sidestep this problem because we only have one universe we know of. I also partially agree with you that talking about advanced physics/cosmology makes it easier to hoodwink people who don't know much about these subjects.

[@LateNight-zeit]

@@benroberts2222 Learn something new everyday. Thank you. The theist could pivot and assert that life, as we observe on earth, hasn't been discovered on these exoplanets much as it hasn't been discovered elsewhere in our solar system. "We know and can verify that life exists on earth and not our neighbors." There is also nothing in the theistic hypothesis that says god won't want to create life on our planet specifically. Or in other words, god could just want life to arise on earth specifically and in a certain manner. It isn't a well thought-out hypothesis. The lack of comparable universes makes the cosmological constant a weaker source of evidence, there is no Venus CC or Mars CC to verify. At the end of the day, it's just math, the range is a product of many generations of scientists who actually fine-tune the measurement. God is not in the lab looking over their work.

[@DigitalGnosis]

Thanks Otangelo for obliterating this atheists attempts to resist the self-evident facts of creation. Doing the Lords work.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

Romans 1. 19-22. The apostle Paul sends greetings from heaven :=P

[@DigitalGnosis]

​@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcomSo thats where he is! I always wonder why he doesnt return my calls

[@josephtnied]

Is there anything fine tuning arguments do better than cosmological arguments? I feel like they're similar categories, share the same strengths/weaknesses, but one is just easier to layout and more convincing (cosmological arguments)

[@HarryNicNicholas]

did otangelo give us the odds of there being a god? cos he keeps saying it _must_ be a designer, he _must_ have some numbers on the likelihood of the christian god. why would a god need to fine tune when he is making both humans and the universe that has to be tuned for them, why isn't otangelo arguing that humans are fine tuned for the universe? he's implying humans can only be made in one way. and otangelo keeps assuming _his_ god is the designer when there are plenty of designers that could exist that are not his god. maybe it _is_ designed, but what are the odds it's otangelo's god?

[@rembrandt972ify]

I'm going to write a biography, Otangelo: Proof humans can be dumber than a puddle.

[@upplastica9855]

Because he is exposing a point that comes out of the be something logical: there must be a God!

[@suntorytimes1]

@@upplastica9855So, there is a god because there is a god. What a fine, very logical, argument /s

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@rembrandt972ify first there has to be a fine-tuned universe where a puddle can fit in... zz...

[@AsixA6]

@OtangeloBlockedMeBecausHeCan’tCompete No, if your imaginary friend weren’t just imaginary, a universe wouldn’t have to be ‘fine tuned’ at all. That’s why the constants being the values they are, isn’t evidence of your gawd.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

All this nonsense about fine tuning falls down, because as far as universes go, we're stuck with a sample size of only one! This Otangelo guy just babbles word salad.

[@CroElectroStile]

I think Jonathan McLatchie would be a better interlocutor for you when it comes to this kind of argumentation (fine-tuning, intelligent design)

[@xz0938]

James,,,, why did you do this?

[@PercyTinglish]

With Otangelo it's seemingly impossible to tell if he's constantly in apologist mode, dishonesty dodging questions, or if he genuinely doesn't have the capacity to engage in the conversation.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

1:32:00 this is otangelo's problem, as james says we have no idea what motivates a designer or who that designer might be, all we have is the result, but otangelo insists it's _his_ designer doing it, with nothing to support that part. okay it might even be intelligent design, but how does he know it's his god? the bible says nothing about irreducible complexity or how DNA works.

[@FeliciaByNature]

Ick I've heard enough Otangelo on BreakfastTaco's channel to know he's basically just as dishonest as Gary. He sticks to a script, and only a script he's not there to have an actual conversation.

[@JerryPenna]

When I think of otenaglo I think back to his dishonesty to justify his god belief, either with the Turin shroud, abiogenesis or quote mining. My best example of his dishonesty is when he was on answers in atheism. When cryspercas9 asked him to read from a paper otangelo sited. Crypercas9 asked him to read the next sentence and he refused to read that next sentence stating “I already got what I wanted”. He’s so desperate to justify his beliefs that he will be completely dishonest. Otangelo reeks of dishonesty.

[@cajunqueen5125]

I'd luv-luv to be here 5B yrs from now, when our sun expands and fries Earth into a dead dry husk. "Hey how do you like your fine-tuning NOW?"

[@nullverba856]

Otangelo is the Rich Kotite of apologetics.

[@MarcusW8]

I don't understand why people entertain an argument that breaks down to the meaningless truism that "if things were different things would've been different".

[@brianalmeida1964]

Oh no, not Otangelo! I have had the misfortune of interacting with him in the past. He is such a disingenuous interlocutor who unfortunately thinks he understands more than he actually does. When he is called out or proved wrong, he refuses to acknowledge it and immediately moves on to a totally unconnected subject! He's a waste of time! He actually boasted on a Facebook page that he was going to prove Evolution false and that would prove god's existence. Somehow he failed to understand that disproving Evolution does not in any way prove a god's existence!😂

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

i feel so sorry for you - not !!

[@BubbaF0wpend]

Have Oatey's arguments EVER convinced ANYONE to become a believer? What a waste of life.

[@LS-kl6bj]

Fine tuning? A two-word refutation is "salt water." Ninety-six percent of the earth's water is salt water. Yet most life on earth needs fresh water; in fact, there are severe shortages of fresh water in a good number of third-world countries. All this salt water on earth doesn't seem designed for most life at all.

[@sciencesaves]

Otangelo is absolutely insufferable