Tim Maudlin - Fallacies in Fine-Tuning

What mistakes are made in the fine-tuning debate? Whether errors of fact, opinion, logic, or extrapolation, where are the pitfalls in fine-tuning? Is there really fine-tuning in nature, from fundamental physics to cosmology, and if so, how to perceive and explain them without falling foul of the fallacies?
BROWSE THE CLOSER TO TRUTH STORE: www.bonfire.com/store/closert...
- Limited time only. Taking orders from Nov 15 - Dec 5 2021.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on Fine-Tuning: bit.ly/3lrdbdI
Tim Maudlin is a philosopher of science and a Professor of Philosophy at New York University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is a non-physical principle needed for fine tuning?

[@continentalgin]

Earth has conditions favorable to biological evolution. Although astronomers have found somewhat 'Earth-like' planets far away, we don't yet have proof (available to the public, anyway) that humans could live comfortably anywhere else in the universe. So, the universe may be 99.999999% NOT fine tuned for us.

[@jimliu2560]

When astronomers say “Earth-Like”; all they mean is that it is Not a gas Giant. ....- it has Nothing to due with Life; Electromagnetic Sphere; plate-Teutonics; etc...all of which are essential for life... Mercury/ Mars/ Moon are Considered “Earth -Like” even thou they are completely Dead!!!

[@ottodetroit]

Well put. Thx

[@mitseraffej5812]

@You are correct But You are correct even without the But. At least the probability of you, I or any other individual witnessing the end of life on earth is somewhat low. Of course we all will witness the end of our own life which for all intent and purpose is the same thing to the individual. Life is but a hiccup of consciousness between oblivions and as far as I can tell the only purpose of life is procreation, having some fun, joy and avoiding suffering along the way is a bonus.

[@mitseraffej5812]

@You are correct But I take it you don’t expect to be whisked away in the rapture any time soon.

[@MrSanford65]

I can understand the argument against in the beginning, because in order to prove fine-tuning you would have to have an exact model of what would be the alternative. But on the other hand at some point measurement becomes subjective and so you could put any individual at the center of the universe using the right measurements . So with that being said with the whole universe bearing down on us -not going into excess is part of fine-tuning

[@kevinfisher7032]

Excellent video. I particularly liked how you approached the topic with a skeptical eye. I think any examination of the fine tuning problem leaves you with only three solution “buckets” (please correct me if you can think of others). 1. My what an astounding coincidence 2. Infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters 3. Purpose precedes creation. And as Sabine points out all three are more expressions of faith than actual science.

[@tracemiller9628]

I'm on the inside thinking outward. To verify my thinking is to be thinking from the complete outside, inward.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can always put forward possibilities from your point of view as questions and let others point out any fallacies, problems and difficulties with your point of view?

[@fearitselfpinball8912]

Maudlin is one of my favourite guests. Watching him makes me think that I care less about whether I concur with other people’s conclusions… i care but I want ‘the way they’ve thought it through’ to make some kind of sense to me.

[@evanjameson5437]

4:15 Robert has the best point

[@DrumDisciple1]

A few days a week he’s suspicious of the motivation to deal with fine tuning. But he finds time to believe in the MultiVerse Monday, Wednesday, and Friday

[@mylord9340]

The crucial point for me in regards to the fine tuning argument is whether the fine tuning argument leads to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, or Mormonism, etc. Even if the fine tuning argument suggests that there should be a "god" whether any of these religions comes from that "god" is an entirely different matter.

[@xenphoton5833]

1 God, many interpretations.

[@non_religious]

​@@xenphoton5833maybe all interpretations are wrong ..maybe we have no idea about the nature of God

[@sonamoo919]

Resorting to multiverse to account for fine tuning seems to be one of the most unprofessional and irresponsible even lazy answer.

[@anderslarsen4412]

Shoe-horning a God, and intelligent design, in as an explanation without any evidence, seems infinitely worse to me.

[@danielsayre3385]

Not having watched the conversation yet, I agree.

[@letstrytouserealscienceoka3564]

It isn't that anyone "resorts" to one of the hypotheses that lead to multiverses to account for what appears to some to be fine tuning, it is that the multiverses that result from hypotheses that seek to explain other things also account for the apparent fine tuning. In the end, there is no truly apparent fine tuning because there is no evidence of tuning at all. Tight ranges for what we have modeled as constants doesn't imply tuning, it doesn't even mean that these constants are even part of nature. The fine tuning argument relies on the notion that there are prescriptive laws and constants, something that has never been demonstrated to be the case. All we have evidence of is our own descriptive laws and constants, our mathematical models of objective reality. There is no evidence of fine tuning because there is no evidence of prescriptive laws or constants.

[@roqsteady5290]

But cosmologists are not even remotely doing that. If this religious nonsense did not exist at all, inflation theory and string theory would still be a thing, because they are possible explanations of the evidence we have currently. Naive arguments against multiverse from "common sense" are really just incredulity, the same kind of incredulity people would have had if you had told them about the hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundred of billions of stars in the middle ages.

[@Al-ji4gd]

@@anderslarsen4412 How the fuck is postulating an infinite number of universe popping into existence every infinitesimal fraction of a second worse than postulating God? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

[@bluelotus542]

Even the staunchest supporters of blind chance devoid of sense and purpose cannot avoid sense and purpose, for whatever they say makes sense to them and has the specific purpose to establish a certain belief.

[@ramaraksha01]

That's the 2 brain thing - your reptilian brain vs the neo-cortex

[@canwelook]

This is the same old tired false dichotomy that Christians have argued for aeons and has already been soundly debunked. It is NOT a matter of inteligent design OR blind chance like you claim. The universe simply has observable patterns, many of which we understand. E.g. Water flows DOWN hills - in predictable ways. It doesn't flow, down and sideways based on chance. And it doesn't need the hand of any god to push it there. No dichotomy involved.

[@HoraceTorysScaryStories]

Honest question: Why do physicists talk about multiverses, probabilities, etc. to try to "solve" the problem of fine tuning, when it's never been demonstrated there can be tuning at all? With a sample size of 1 universe, how do you have an argument from fine tuning if no one knows that the constants could have been different at all?

[@TactileTherapy]

By virtue of one's imagination and things being the way they are, it makes sense that people would postulate that fine-tuning is real even with the 1 sample size. You dont necessarily need more than one sample size to imagine things being different from they are. You do need more than one to prove it though

[@ItsEverythingElse]

Too busy to reply, I am going out to buy my first ever lottery ticket, which I am guaranteed to win.

[@ManiBalajiC]

you have a theory which suits very well with our current understanding on the universe which makes a very good predictions there might be another then whats the problem in thinking or having a investigation on it.

[@eyebee-sea4444]

Honest answer: because they don't know (yet) why the constants have the values they have. If they depend on some conditions, then they may have different values in other parts of the universe or in other universes where the conditions are different -> no fine tuning. Or they are not changeable because they can be derived from some deeper yet unknown principles -> no fine tuning. Either way, the question whether fine tuning or not is not a scientific one.

[@francesco5581]

If only a value could have been possible then would be already obvious the why. Why also have math and physic then ? Is not 0 and 1 ...is 0,0000008 in some cases.Thats why the multiverse theory to counter that.

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

Hello Dr Lawrence and all your great followers they have such great and intelligent debat. From Your humble Creator. philippe 😎

[@longcastle4863]

There may be multiple universes, but in all likelihood our universe itself is so mind blowingly large -- far beyond what anybody yet seems to be expressing -- that even here within our own universe there are a multitude of different patches of existence with different physics, different laws, different forces etc

[@lbo-private2748]

yes anyone who watches Star Trek would agree.

[@eksffa]

NTS 80/u - Penrosean Weyl curvature

[@markshipley6119]

Perhaps the correct term is self-tuning.

[@user-bk4pu9qn5n]

Where is all existence come from or how can nonexistence apear from nowhere in to nothing? Paradox inside paradox or anything we talk or think is irelevant dribble. ...

[@traildoggy]

Explaining why the snake's tail fits exactly into its own mouth.

[@anderslarsen4412]

Perfect!

[@gyozakeynsianism]

Here's another thought: is there something about the particular configuration of our universe that is a kind of Nash equilibrium? Game theory need not imply conscious minds (think: evolutionary biology), but an equilibrium where "choices" (conscious or not) tend to converge on one pattern or another. I wonder if physicists ever think of there being tradeoffs between different parameterizations, leading to what we would think of as a strategic environment? In any case, another wrinkle would be that if it's a Nash equilibrium we're in (and there are many found in nature), then we may not be in the "best" one at all! There may be nothing optimal or supreme about our particular universe.

[@tanveermajid6330]

What is Zero...

[@johnstebbins6262]

The question of fine tuning basically asks how it is that the constants of physics along with initial conditions could result in the extraordinary order that would be necessary to sustain life. Evolution does not explain it at all, not because evolution isn't true, but because right now it is way too low resolution. How is it possible that we've evolved from single cell organisms in barely more than half a billion years? Perhaps eventually we'll be able to model the process on a computer. But perhaps also we won't ever be able to do so. We have as yet found no full scientific explanation of how it could happen by chance without an Intelligent Designer. I agree that it's useless to assign a probability, but that just means that the possibility of intelligent design is not zero!

[@richardsylvanus2717]

I gave this video a thumbs up only because it had audio, unlike the previous video.

[@jimspatz9211]

who's working the camera? Simplify it.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

Great interview. The argument from not knowing the likelihood of this particular configuration of the universe reminds me of a (in my opinion bad!) argument for our universe being a simulation: If any civilization had the power to simulate an entire universe of the complexity of ours, then there are many, many simulations; in fact, many of the simulations will lead to civilizations that will be able to simulate an entire universe as complex as ours. So the number of simulated universes must be very large. So the odds are that we're in one of the simulated ones! The key is "odds are": How could we possibly know the likelihood of being in a simulated universe? Why would our baseline distribution be uniform (something like: 1 real universe for every billion simulated ones)? It's more of a trick of logic than a good argument IMHO.

[@Alex_Deam]

Yep, the probability distribution just isn't definable (it reminds me of the concept of Knightian uncertainty, which maybe you've heard of since you have 'Keynesian' in your name). And even more fundamentally than Maudlin's example of the real number line, is the space of all possible physical laws. Like, maybe a particular constant is "fine-tuned" relative to laws that "look like" the laws we have right now, but I can't even imagine all possible combinations of hypothetical laws (or simulations!), and I don't see how anyone could.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

@@Alex_Deam Very good point, and well put. I agree, it's even more basic than parameter values having an equal probability of being anywhere on the number line: we don't even know what all the possible parameters are, and even if we did we wouldn't know which combinations are feasible and which aren't. So pretending to have a decent prior belief about the possible distribution of outcomes is laughable!

[@ramaraksha01]

Universe doesn't have to be complex - who says it has to be? As they say the moon is not there if you are not looking at it - all the programmer has to do is to make us think there is something there, that's all Point is that we ourselves are getting to that point where we can simulate these universes - doesn't have to be like ours, just some thing that lives in our computer and thinks it is its real world, much like these guys who took an ant's nest that was about to be demolished, built a new nest using pipes and plastic boxes so that they could watch the ants and put the ants there - the ants happily adjusted to their new surroundings

[@gyozakeynsianism]

@@ramaraksha01 I'd argue we're nowhere near that point (the most sophisticated AI is a joke compared to even a baby's mind). And I think that misses the point. The argument is not that it's possible we're in a simulation, but that we're likely to be in one, which I think is a stretch for the reasons I mention.

[@ramaraksha01]

@@gyozakeynsianism Don't you have your math reversed? There can be billions of simulations but not that many real ones, unless Huge Everett(the guy who came up with the Multiverse idea) is right So if we let math be our guide, the most logical thing to assume would be that we ARE in a simulation The fact that we can't seem to run into any Aliens might also indicate that we are in a simulation, the kid didn't bother creating any other worlds

[@user-bk4pu9qn5n]

More clever we try to be ,more stupid we sound...

[@KaliFissure]

The fine tuning of Lambda is no doubt a topological feature of universe. If the universe was a singular connected whole. Neutron decay cosmology. The neutrons which invert at moment of neutron star collapse into black hole are transported from highest energy density conditions to lowest energy density points of space, deep voids. There they travel 14ish light minutes then decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. This decay from neutron to hydrogen includes a volume increase of 10^14 times. This is expansion. The amorphous hydrogen not having proper orbital electron can’t emit or absorb photons. This is part of dark matter. The hydrogen then follows usual evolution path to nebula to proto star to star until at some time in distant future once again that neutron is a at edge of event horizon Event horizons act like thermodynamic energy pressure release valves. Likely this is all done by topological means. Time is a compact dimension one single Planck second long. The universe is in synchrony which creates a hyperplane of the present. On this side of membrane is matter and the other antimatter. An inflow here is an outflow from there. Clockwise away here is counterclockwise towards there. This is why baryon asymmetry. Also why electron is 1/2 spin. It does one orbit on this apparent side as electron and then does orbit on the antimatter side.

[@magnusjonsson7303]

I think this is an 'is' and 'ought' problem; the universe is but ought not and therefore we search for a fine-tuner/agent/creator. Alan Watts put it like this: "The Godhead is never an object of its own knowledge. Just as a knife doesn't cut itself, fire doesn't burn itself, light doesn't illuminate itself. It's always an endless mystery to itself."

[@BecomingAPsych]

I think you misunderstand what philosophers mean by "ought".

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

YES fire Burn IT Self it's fire 😎

[@magnusjonsson7303]

@@BecomingAPsych I mean that 'purpose', 'meaning', 'god',... is derived from a fine-tuned universe as 'ought' is derived from 'is'.

[@BecomingAPsych]

@@magnusjonsson7303 The is/ought distinction, coined by Hume I believe, separates the world of facts from the world of morality, i.e., what humans are obliged to do. Remember Hume was no thiest. And surely theists would want the existence of their creator to be a fact rather than the product of human minds. Furthermore, a being than cannot act upon itself or know itself is hardly omnipotent or omniscient.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

He is absolutely right. A real countable infinity is an imaginary idea. It is a contradiction in terms. Infinity means uncountable. In an infinite quantity no matter how many you count there are still infinite left to count. You get nowhere by trying to count an infinity.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

It is important to note that the concept of multiverse need not be considered only as an alternative to fine tuning. Consider the possibility that particle sizes and, hence, the laws of their interactions are so arranged by nature that it is possible to discover the mechsnism how bodies are composed by analyzing the fine tuning events within a finite interval of space and make life permanent(=eternal, = immortal thereafter), yet in other finite intervals of such fine tuning the problem of mortality may still persist. Such finitely fine tuned space intervals must still be considered multiverses, and infinite number of them could still exist without any restriction on fine tuning, or the fact itself being only necessary to justify absence of fine tuning (or absence of god). And absence of god need not mean absence of fine tuning. Fine tuning as well as multivrrse could exist without justification or exclusion of one by the other. And without any resort to GOD. By the way, this finite interval fine tuning also provides an eternal purpose and valuable sequence of eternal meaningful activity: TO FIND AND ENABLE IMMORTALITY IN SUCH MORTAL INTERVALS. That would certainly be THE most meaningful eternal task for the human race on this earth. And if we come across other immortsls on the way they would certainly be glad to cooperate in this only imaginable meaningful task, as we would too.

[@mmccrownus2406]

Silly baseless conjecture

[@mykrahmaan3408]

@@mmccrownus2406 Provided all on this earth agree what you believe is the only "nonsilly acceptable base".

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

An infinite number of universes, that is stretching the realm of speculation beyond sensible. Enormous efforts to maitain the matierialist view of the Creation. Why is the appearace of design not as it appears

[@ManiBalajiC]

cause creator makes infinite regress ,doesnt make sense.

[@redgreen1500]

@@ManiBalajiC every explanation at this point seems to require we reach into infinity for our answers. Infinite mind, infinite regress, infinite multiverse, infinite inflation. Pick your infinity I suppose, just bear in mind that you have one when questioning the other guys infinity.

[@dongshengdi773]

You see Mathematics in nature But I see poetry. DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language. DNA sequences do not just possess “information” in the strictly mathematical sense described by pioneering information theorist Claude Shannon. Shannon related the amount of information in a sequence of symbols to the improbability of the sequence (and the reduction of uncertainty associated with it). But DNA base sequences do not just exhibit a mathematically measurable degree of improbability. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary dictionary sense of “alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect.” DNA base sequences convey instructions. They perform functions and produce specific effects. Thus, they not only possess “Shannon information,” but also what has been called “specified” or “functional information.”

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Guys keep out any basic principles in phiscs. They mind arent prepare show up consistence proof . They are so, baseless comments.

[@timhallas4275]

DNA contains no information. It is a machine, with billions of parts that function together, to build proteins. They know not what they do nor why. Nature is a blind watchmaker... a tinkerer, who doesn't have a product in mind, but may eventually invent something useful.... or not.

[@Wol747]

I really can’t see the problem. Assuming the physics is basically correct then we self evidently must be - MUST be - in a fine tuned reality. That doesn’t begin to answer any of the hard questions - but they have bugger-all to do with any “fine tuning” discussion. In my opinion this whole “question” is overthunk.

[@ronhudson3730]

Why do so many scientists of varying stripes constantly frame their research with the sub-text of disproving God? They are searching for the actual state, status and origins of the universe we live within. Finding the answers to those questions says nothing about God. If there is God then those mechanisms must then be the way God made everything happen.

[@sentientflower7891]

God solves no problem.

[@sentientflower7891]

@Lord Methane what is God and how did you determine that God exist and could do anything?

[@sentientflower7891]

@Lord Methane I have read the Bible, it is a record of the failure of the God idea.

[@tinetannies4637]

It's not that they are trying to disprove God, it's that their entire endeavor is to not simply place "Well....just because" as an answer to anything simply because they don't know or can't find that answer. And this is what the concept of "God" essentially is -- an answer that only works if you stop asking "Why?" Like....Why is there God? Where did God come from? How did this happen? Saying that "God simply is and always has been" only works if you don't ask the logical question "Why couldn't everything else simply have always been, then?" In short, "God" is not an answer to anything, God is only the acceptance of not asking questions. Some people are content with this, but this idea is antithetical to the essential basis of science as an endless exploration.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@Lord Methane He hasn't read it.

[@kraxmalism]

when i die, i want to spend the eternity in that idyllic place where they shot this video with Robert talking to all these physicists, cosmologists and philosophers. No need for creationists or 72 underage virgins

[@vjnt1star]

If the universe is fine tuned for anything it is for "empty space". There is so much of it and everything else (including us) is just in the way of having more empty space.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

There's no such thing as empty space.

[@margrietoregan828]

We live in a plasa-based universe - one dominated by electromagnetic forces ….. gravity is 40 orders of magnitude weaker …… & less effective

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for gravity etc.

[@davidrandell2224]

Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching the released object: gravity. Missed by ALL the greats past and present.So blind.

[@lbo-private2748]

This is silly. Of course there is design. The universe is fine tuned for sex, beer and rock and roll. It took some serious designing to pull that off. How many mutiverses will it take for a humunguous chicken to lay a fully evolved Ferrari right on my doorstep.

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm? Fine tuning? No problem......”Just strive to NOT ! fine tune going back in time to the Creating Singularity!!?” By chance back into 0.00000000000000000000000000? + million more zeros...no fine tuning there then! Na? Just get real....What more could FINE TUNING DO! To prove the point of Zero point! We obviously still require more Einstein’s! Already he was one in a few hundred billions!

[@jbreg2]

Did he say Darwin was right?

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

Who is, he?

[@anteodedi8937]

Yes, because he was.

[@genius1198]

Chickens and turkey .......who.....where......what......when.......how..........(WHY).......

[@ispamforfood]

You know, now that I really think about it, the fact that Dr Kuhn seeks so strongly to know all these answers down to the very nature of existence and "God" essentially reveals his desire to BE "God." *drops mic* 😛 Don't get me wrong, I definitely respect his search for answers to questions that are by their nature beyond current human understanding, but his questions are so deep and so all-encompassing that you can't deny that that search points to his wish to "know all there is to know," a property that only "God" could have. So the very creation of Closer to Truth has to be viewed as his desire to be God. Prove me wrong. 😜

[@ramaraksha01]

You mean like having aspirations, curiosity?

[@ramaraksha01]

@@realitycheck1231 Hinduism says, much like the ancient Greek religion, that we are God's Children, hence becoming like our Father/Mother is perfectly natural "Aham Brahmasmi" - I am God! or I aspire to be like God So we follow in the footsteps of God - God Rama said Tell the Truth and then Walk it! Christians & Muslims have reduced God down to a Master - bow to me, obey only me, serve only me and I will reward you

[@ramaraksha01]

@@realitycheck1231 If we view ourselves as True children of God then we are to be God-like, make our Father proud! That is basic Hinduism, Greek religion But religions like Christianity & Islam go the other way, we are sinners, damsels in distress, this life is too hard, we want to remain eternal helpless children & if we pray to X God down on our Knees on the ground, he will be pleased & GIVE us that good easy lazy life that prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/freeloaders live down here Sadly they will end up as lower life forms - such as Dogs - they will get their easy lazy life but at a cost

[@ramaraksha01]

@@realitycheck1231 Every child wants to follow in his/her parents footsteps - what Hinduism is saying is that we can aspire to be Gods - nothing to do with magic or miracle - we can do great things We can be the next Mozart, Einstein, Buddha The focus is on us Your focus is on the Master- praise him, see how great he is & then he will reward us A slave view with the ultimate goal being a reward - heaven - pleasures of the flesh for eternity

[@ramaraksha01]

@@realitycheck1231 salvation - run away from having to work for a living, be an adult stand on your own two feet, EARN a living, face the world & all its problems - climate change, poverty, covid19, health issues, retirement worries, drug wars, accidents We get to run away from all this, go hide in a Sugar Daddy land, be helpless children again & be kept in comfort for eternity! Hinduism teaches the very opposite of all this You can't run back to the womb, childhood The only way is to become a lower life animal like a dog

[@glenncurry3041]

"I've been interested in fine tuning for a long time to determine..." how I can twist this into my god grifting.... SAD! "I have an internal bias.." IOW confirmation bias driven by cognitive dissonance pain! At least you are aware enough to admit it! Now try bringing enough active cells together to internalize your failure and correct it! But then where will your cash come from?

[@Gzeroy]

What about the Radio Active Constant, which is 1.188962% of every element and isotope, sits on the top of the periodic table, and was responsible for life and intellect?

[@esorse]

A universal origin defined by zero Weyl curvature* encodes attributed non-negative space and time with categorical information, supporting a teleological perspective, but installing an effective hedge against god could improve the plausibility of a physical account for this. For instance, if a perception and reason focused epistemological specification is not adequate enough to rule out faith based god, then a flaw in the following argument may be sufficient to establish a falsifiable proposition. 'if the greatest being possible does not exist, then it is possible for a being greater than the greatest being possible to exist however, it is impossible for a being greater than the greatest being possible to exist therefore the greatest being possible exists' * "Sir Roger Penrose : Black Holes , Singularities, and Cyclic Cosmoology - Tencent WE Summit 2021", 11.44 s, KZbin.

[@khaderlander2429]

To keep it interesting God let's us explore all the potential possibilities. An all knowing God through his mercy will not burden us beyond our scope. The Lord of worlds has given us an observable universes as an instrument of knowledge to signify something else a sufficient cause of all causes. Relationship is a continuous affair and exploration if one has all the pieces of the jigsaw it takes time to put all the pieces together to have a coherent image. The cosmos are meaning set up in images and however understands this is among the people of discernment.

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

Hello Kader you got it down pack My freind. Not that complicated, at this point.right. But sûre when all this start was messy it's normal but as we go the eassies it be and more it make sence I guess. Sincères amitiés 😎

[@ia2625]

every goldilocks/fine tuning argument ive seen is refuted by the anthropic principle. we think this way of things was desired because this way of things happens to be. puddles thinking the holes they fill were made for them

[@handzar6402]

That's not a refutation, at all...

[@giorgirazmadze5102]

And this guy thinks Darvin explained how animals came to be 😁 Damn people are ignorant

[@anteodedi8937]

Yes you are one of them 😂

[@giorgirazmadze5102]

@@anteodedi8937 Why is that? 😊

[@brandonhodnett5420]

The multiverse in NO way disproves intelligent design, who created the multiverse and MOST importantly how did the laws that govern the multiverse come about? Intelligent design is the only rational explanation…laws cannot make themselves. Not to mention why anything at all exists in the first place.

[@kos-mos1127]

The multiverse is a problem of definitions. What physics really mean is there are multiple views of the Universe.

[@alexandersalamander]

I am not sure what you mean by ‘multiple views of the universe’

[@TactileTherapy]

no.

[@ManiBalajiC]

multiple views on universe happens inside not outside the universe.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@alexandersalamander Different view points of the same universe

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

Here's the issue in a nutshell - some people (usually non-experts like William Lane-Craig etc.) say things like: _'Since the chances of our universe being as finely balanced for life are so astronomically unlikely to have been as they happen to actually be we can only conclude that it's panned out the way because an intelligent tuner tuned all of the physical parameters to enable life to arrise in the way we can see that it has arrisen.'_ Now that might sound like a perfectly sound line of reasoning but actually there's not just one flaw within that conclusion but two very _big_ ones. The first flaw is that the arguement is self defeating because it states that something as immensly complex & finely balanced as the universe can't exist without something even more complex & extraordinary pre-existing which could do that i.e. a godlike creator since all creatioins need something more complex to create it. Pots are made by potters & horseshoes are made by blacksmiths since each is more complicated than their creations. If they weren't they couldn't create anything. _But there's the rub._ Any super intelligent god with extraordinary capabilities which are way more impressive than any physical phenomena seen within the universe could only have come about if it too had an even more extraordinary creator too & so would that creator & it's creator etc. etc. etc. so the problem never goes away, it only gets bigger & bigger & bigger. Now the likes of WLC try to side step this problem by saying that a god needs no creator because it has always existed but if a god can always exist then why can't the cosmos (including multverses) & if the cosmos can't always exist then why can a god? You can't have it _both_ ways! The second equally devistating flaw in all arguements for fine tuning are that they assume that the universe could have been _any_ different from the way it happens to be & we can't possibly know that even one atom could have been in a slightly different position to where we've found it. In principle it could have been different. Slightly different _or_ massively different sure, but we can't know that it could have been any of those ways if things are as they are precisely because the conditions which caused them to be _exactly_ that way were the one & only way it's possible for them to have been so no one can claim to know they could have been _any_ different at all unless of course they can show they may have been but no one ever can. How could they since no one can point to many other universes where things didn't turn out the way they did in _ours?_ Add to that the elephant in the room which very few people remember to mention _(& unless it was editted out, this guy also forgot to mention)_ there's no alternative to finding ourselves in a life supporting universe anyway because a universe which couldn't support life wouldn't have anyone within it to notice it's lack of life sustaining parameters so why should it be any _surprise_ that we find ourselves living in conditions where life _is_ supportable?

[@jareknowak8712]

First argument is wrong. Less complex object can create more complex object. Just look at life forms and evolution.

[@anderslarsen4412]

@@jareknowak8712 But if it is less complex, then it would no longer be "God", which is what religious people use to "explain" the creation of the universe.

[@matthewking4232]

fine tune my first comment

[@romliahmadabdulnadzir1607]

Undoubtedly, the gap between humans and the understanding of God's existence is very small. If we can bridge the gap, the truth will become commonplace. This is going to be a very big terrible change, breaking the ice and disagreeing with this common view, which will lead to the disappearance of the bad guys. The complexity of life, not nothing against something.

[@johnskujins8870]

It is 100% likely that we will find that the universe is fine tuned for us to exist. Any conscious being in any universe would find that to be true or else they wouldn't exist.

[@aaron2709]

Let the interesting conversation carry the scene. Stop with the dumb film-school idea the camera or what it's filming always has to be moving. The relentless zooming in/out + trucking is a constant, unnecessary distraction.

[@janklaas6885]

🇺🇳5:55

[@gijbuis]

Sure, understanding consciousness is the hard thing! But if consciousness is somehow 'not measurable' or not part of the physical world (mind and matter dichotomy) then there should be no difference between neural excitation patterns in the brain caused by a particular stimulus such as a pinprick and the neural excitation patterns in the brain caused by exactly the same pinprick when the subject is under anesthesia.

[@northernlight8857]

The argument from fine tuning never had much convincing power. It's mostly an argument from personal incredulity.

[@timhallas4275]

When anyone uses the phrase, the universe was made for us.... I like to remind them that 99.99999999999999999999% of the universe is instantaneously fatal to life.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Thais argumenta nerds axiom. They are unable figuret it out. Certainly the Not knows this scientif principles . Guys are so ignorant.

[@arifabd]

On the contrary, the arguments against fine tuning stems from Speculative hypotheses and incredulity.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

@@timhallas4275 Right. Not Universe are ,so 100% unknow. Phisch show up Universe proof is 100% hipotesy.

[@ggentry5189]

Arif A-Sure, but no one needs to argue against Fine Tuning since it is a speculative hypothesis itself that can’t demonstrated to be true

[@evanjameson5437]

when the scientists can't explain away fine tuning with facts or anything rationale, they fall back to more and more hypothesis..

[@anderslarsen4412]

And what do you fall back on? A "God of the gaps"?

[@dongshengdi773]

Why Darwin,s Evolution theory is not part of the design? We design Computers or robots or software that can evolve by themselves using AI . We recently have made a Self-replicating biological robot .

[@acetate909]

Because the word "design" implies a teleology and the mostly secular scientific community dismisses those kinds of explanations. According to modern scientific dogma the natural world has no meaning or purpose beyond reproduction of species. The crisis in cosmology and the dead end physics has found itself stuck in for decades hasn't humbled these people at all.

[@timhallas4275]

Self replicating machines? Like robots building robots? But all they do is run the program. They did not write it. Therefore they are not self replicating.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Correct . They are so certainly Not knows AI.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@acetate909 The dead end in physics is adding more dimensions to unifying physics.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@acetate909 No matter how many times your books of fairytales are proven wrong you guys never learned to be humble.

[@mathew4181]

*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human life and consciousness on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: Oxygen level • On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere • That precise figure is an Anthropic constant that make life in earth possible. • If oxygen were 25 percent fire would erept spontaneously • If it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate Carbon dioxide level • If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop, and we would all burnt up • If the level was lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis, and we would all suffocate _fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_ For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_

[@ManiBalajiC]

So you are okay to believe there is an entity or something powerful to exist forever , creates universe and designs everything but not have an thought to ask how would it be possible for anything to even attain all of power , have developed logical thoughts ,exist forever and creates idea for existence of life which has no meaning .creator would lead to infinite loop of creators and never an solution.

[@johannuys7914]

@@ManiBalajiC Yep. Explain one thing while creating a host of other questions. But there you go.

[@mockupguy3577]

Oh dear. Just Google oxygen levels before you write anything more.

[@mathew4181]

@@mockupguy3577 Yaa oxygen levels are 21 percent what's the problem

[@mockupguy3577]

@@mathew4181 , if you don’t get it I don’t think I can explain it to you in a reasonable amount of time. But % has varied between 15 and 30 %, think about what that means for your text.

[@markfischer3626]

First the conclusion you want emotionally, then make the facts fit that conclusion. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with a pair of scissors. The picture that emerges makes no sense. Fine tuning a basically flawed theory doesn't get you any closer to the truth. The more facts physicists and cosmologists observe about the universe the more they realize they don't understand it at its most basic level. They thought they understood it at the end of the 19th century. Then relativity and quantum mechanics blew their ideas to smithereens. They still have a very long way to go. Religion and philosophy offer no answers because they are irrational, self contained circular logic that has no connection with the observed facts and each one is as smug and self satisfied as the others.

[@eamonnmurphy5385]

You look at the world through the lense of your experience and we Christians ours. We believe in science but not in everything scientists declare; Love is real to us but not rational; consciousness is real but not rational; the origins of our universe are real but not rational. If there was no Christian God to contend with, I suggest you might allow the possibility of intelligent origins!

[@markfischer3626]

@@eamonnmurphy5385 It is impossible to prove a negative but so far in my 73 years of life with a strong background in many sciences I've seen no evidence to even suggest that god exists or that the universe was created by an intelligence of any type. It would be comforting for me to share your fantasy but my mind looks for evidence, facts to draw conclusions from. That's why I've been an atheist all my life and I won't be surprised to remain that way. If there is a god people like you say there is then he knows I'd never take the word of a man in a dress wearing a funny hat and carrying a book written just after the stone age. I know he wants to steal my money, my time and effort, and might try to send me off to fight his wars and get killed. The man in the dress hates women because they offer the customers something he can't compete with. She also wants my money, my time and effort but the last thing she wants is for me to go off to war and get killed. If anyone is going to kill me she wants to be the one to do it.

[@duquedupre]

@@markfischer3626 the stone age was around 2.6 millions years ago.

[@markfischer3626]

@@duquedupre according to Google the stone age ended around 2000 BC. Easy enough for you to verify it.

[@khaderlander2429]

How can you find God, when you have taken your ego as your god. Quran 6:108. 108. [Believers], do not revile those they call on beside God in case they, in their hostility and ignorance, revile God. To each community We make their own actions seem alluring, but in the end they will return to their Lord and He will inform them of all they did.

[@GBuckne]

..if life can't be concocted in a lab then how can Darwin's explanation be so readily excepted...

[@johannuys7914]

What's your hypothesis?

[@johnjay6370]

I know what your trying to say, but let's say your right and we are intelligently designed. Who is the designer, and is the designer God or just some other lifeform at a different level of existence? The issue I have is the god of the gaps. If science can't explain it, that does not mean it is from God. God should be more than just in the gaps!

[@mg0790]

I imagine there is a lot that can't be knocked up in a lab (yet) e.g. a nuclear fusion reactor but we know it exists

[@anderslarsen4412]

@GBuckne You're being ridiculous. Please show me the laboratory, where they had 5 billion years to (fail to) recreate life and evolution. Of course we haven't been able to do that (yet?). Just because we haven't been able to create a black hole, or a supernova in a lab on earth, doesn't mean they don't exist. Are you logically consistent? Would you say, that we should dismiss God, because we haven't been able to prove his existence in a lab?

[@CosmicHippopotamus]

Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t speak a lot to the origin of life (how the building blocks of life generated the first living organism), it is the origin of species (how the first living organisms developed into countless different species).

[@armchairgravy8224]

It's the cumulative effect of all of the fine tuning everywhere which boils my noodle. It's the gravitational constant and the fine structure constant and we live on a planet whose moon is just in the timeframe to create total solar eclipses. In statistics those ands are multiplicative, not additive. The sheer odds are utterly insane. The weak anthropic principle seems a flimsy shield against how unlikely our existence is.

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

@D.J. W this GOD whant to show IT Self but they dont whant Me to. Dr Lawrence and so many of Them refuse to talk to Me. I got every Night and Day attention from plane and hélicoptère turning arrond where I live and where I got. They also following Me with teinte Windows Truck. But as I approche they Burn tire like littel scary girls. That is been for so long belived Me They know Me. They dont whant Me on tv. Because guess what, every change or anythink I Do that You complaine that I dont Do, they know I did. An sûre They scare. Because I am in WAR with the élite. Watch the world you probably see what I Do one Day. Why that bullshit on UFO you think it's happening one Day juste like that blind men.😎

[@sentientflower7891]

The Fine Tuning argument is not valid because it is entirely speculative and beyond the reach of affirmation or refutation. But anyone who imagines that the Universe is Fine Tuned for life knows nothing of chemistry and biochemistry.

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

Yes, Eureka, you got that by Your Self. Thank you Now I know I am a fraud it's juste About ripping your Cash but Now call 911and send Me to jaill

[@Al-ji4gd]

Yeah, all those scientists and philosophers who think fine-tuning is real and a problem know nothing of chemistry and biochemistry. They're wrong but you're definitely right. huh? Pathetic.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@Al-ji4gd yes, they are wrong. The Fine Tuning argument is a prime example of the Desperation Argument for God. It is pure speculation at best and the worst sort of speculation given that the Universe is fine tuned to host lonely hydrogen atoms in cold dark empty sterile space rather than to host life on only one planet, temporarily. The Fine Tuning Argument is tantamount to claiming that Africa exist to host diamond mines. Diamonds mines certainly exist in Africa but not so much throughout 99.999% of Africa's existence. So maybe the existence of diamonds in Africa is incidental and the existence of mines is accidental. Not purposeful at all.

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

There is no such thing as fine tuned with the exception of the vacuum energy. All other constants could be changed by up to 20 to even 30% and life would still be possible. 30% wiggle room is NOT fine tuned.

[@timhallas4275]

Life was not created in harmony with it's environment. It adapts. We can survive in a vacuum, because we evolved the brain power to understand space and build a pressure suit. That is adaptation to a new environment. WE are the fine tuners.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Not exist suco multi Universe. 100 % phisch show it up is fallacies. Certainly it occur proof is out. Discussion concern ir or inflation are believes in ghost unicorn. Science Works so well when proof experience togheter. Guys are so ridiculus.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@timhallas4275 We can survive in the Vacuum unprotected for 15s before we boil from the inside out.

[@francesco5581]

we arent talking about life, we are talking about to have a complex universe. Something that would be impossible with some slightly different constant values

[@TheJoker-um9tp]

@@timhallas4275 adaption is harmony, just as skin tone adapts to its optimal colour for the environment. Life is finding its ideal type to thrive wherever it is.

[@kaladore1982]

Ah yes, hair. “Is there a brush to whom’st can use to comb thy hair” hmm, what’s that? We were not speaking upon thine subject? Ah yes, chaos forms thy expectation on which we are allowed to exist. Such a first world problem that we can not formeth a coherent form, because. . . Chaos needs no such explanation as we such see’ith… yes, yes… wait, what are we talking about? 🥱 Thank you, thank you. I can troll all day in this covitisious reality in which will be our filter amongst ourselves. Your welcome

[@glenncurry3041]

Sad tiny mind! That just because the multiverse would specify a very large, near infinite, number of universes. That your meganumerophobia kicks in and the best you can do is babble god did it as the less cognitive dissonance pain generator!

[@blengi]

Ultimately you can't invoke dumb probability as a reliably usable argument for some things. Sure Evolution seemingly utterly undermines arguments of design, but only up to a point where life - not necessarily biological either - is itself not capable of interfering in the process. That is, for argument's sake, if life is a natural abiogenic process you could in theory compute the chemical possibilities of its likely hood most anywhere. However, what would those probabilities represent relative to one instance of life achieving technological capability and intent of seeding entire galaxies with life? In this case those natural probabilities would be rendered insignificant, by a now new yet overwhelming intelligent process maximizing various outcomes in an essentially fine tuned way, well beyond dumb natural expectations. Going beyond that and the naïve limits of the observable universe into much more profound scenarios, with emergent entities beyond space and time notions, how much could their existence distort the spread of probabilities of what would be most likely in any potential scenario?

[@meta4101]

Fine Tuning ==> Multiverse is fundamentally based on a Bayesian Analysis.

[@markc4176]

Fine-tuning is just one in a whole category of arguments regarding information theory. A better person to interview would be a computer scientist.

[@clemsonalum98]

That’s like interviewing the burger flipper for growth strategy.

[@markc4176]

@@clemsonalum98 since computer science is akin to perfecting wrist movements over a hot grill…nice comparison.

[@mockupguy3577]

The biggest fallacy is giving our universe too much significance. Change something and we would have another equally unique universe with special “fine tuned” properties. Second critique is that it is very debatable if this universe is that suitable for life. Trillions of planets and one with life, not so fine tuned.

[@newche8772]

Occam's Razor definitely favors The God Hypothesis

[@sentientflower7891]

Which God?

[@newche8772]

@@sentientflower7891 A Creator

[@sentientflower7891]

@@newche8772 Krishna!

[@newche8772]

@@sentientflower7891 😁😁😁

[@mockupguy3577]

No. Ockham favours no fine tuning.

[@francesco5581]

IF he have to bring on the table the multiverse, something that is totally hypothetical, THEN fine-tuning is a reality. All the rest was a pathetic attempt to escape this obvious thing

[@ManiBalajiC]

multiverse isnt hypothetical we cant prove it yet , inflation theory gives an decent idea of it. there isnt much proof for existence for god/fine tuning other than your dumb idea of life on earth leaving trillions of planets..

[@francesco5581]

@@ManiBalajiC At the core is the same, even with the fairy tale of multiverses. You have still to ask yourself how a so perfect mechanism of multiverses (the cascade of energy that create them , the quantum mechanic that etc ..) can be the product of randomness from nothingness....

[@jellojiggle1]

He even evokes Darwin! rofl.

[@anteodedi8937]

Says the guy with his magic wizard fairytale, lol

[@francesco5581]

@@anteodedi8937 then you have to believe in an extreme lucky (out of any realistic possibility) chain of events and an even more incredible set up that allowed a complex universe. Is not less "magical" .

[@stevecoley8365]

X-Files. Fine Tuning The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) need to chip away their darkness and negative spaces (hate)...so that a positive image of good (god) emerges.

[@Ken00001010]

The so called "Fine Tuning" argument makes a fundamental "map v. territory" conceptual error. The models of reality developed by physicists are fined tuned to get the math to produce results that match measurements in reality, but that does not show that the reality is fine tuned. It is like saying that a river is very precisely positioned on the landscape because of how difficult it was to draw the line on our map of the territory. The models of physicists are only valid as they match reality, so speculating what would happen if they did not match reality removes any validity. If someone makes a claim of "Fine Tuning" ask: "Got evidence?"

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

No, Darwin didn't prove that all of that could happen on its own. Stop trying to slip those false assumptions in under your breath, hoping that no one notices. And, you ever notice how when cosmologists had to admit that the universe had a beginning from nothing that they immediately came up with the ridiculous multiverse theory? They'll keep moving the goalposts until the end of time.

[@anderslarsen4412]

It is infinitely better to think, learn, and improve, than it is to always be held back by fantasies of a magical sky daddy.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@@anderslarsen4412 It's better to keep an open mind. You might try that instead of sarcastically dismissing what you don't like.

[@anteodedi8937]

Yeah yeah I am sure you know more than cosmologists and biologists. Stop invoking your fairytales book everywhere.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@@anteodedi8937 So, we have to believe whatever any cosmologist and biologist tells us because we aren't one? If you want to be that naive, then that's up to you. I have heard the opinions of many. That's what one is supposed to do.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@ronaldmorgan7632 Don't believe it if you don't want but rejecting and criticizing what you don't understand and what is not your field of expertise, is simply Dunning-Kruger effect and you will just end up making ridiculous claims.

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

I have to admit tonigh I realy feels that I am not very good comunicator. I say the same in the pass but I start to belived it too mutch. I feel the more I try to helping you, I fond that I am loosing you. Are it's stronger this mess Up they did to basicly all of you. I swear the évidence are all there so mutch of you woke. And they try hard helping but is geting woarst. I am loosing so mutch off you the last few Weeks. I guess what You all call Evil, Azazel and so on I will have to talk about this subjet. I try to never get to it but honesty always win.😎

[@B.S...]

Souls are non-matter - Therefore souls are not contingent on the state of matter, either initial conditions or discrete physical constants. - Therefore the process of universal creation and evolution are a-moral and arbitrary.

[@paulomarcos9941]

Like in many other theories and explanations that want to put God out of the equation, the only solution science has is chance. Chance doesn't explain anything and is quite depressive and hopeless. God is not an explanation for the how but for the why and that is very encouraging and gives hope.

[@anderslarsen4412]

Why must an explanation not be depressing or hopeless? And why can it not involve "chance"? Why choose to shoe-horn in a "God of the gaps"? Are you actually looking for the real explanation, or are you looking for comfort?

[@caspermilquetoast411]

They always answer Robert's questions without providing the answers he needs - the Atheist in the foxhole. This man, other than suggesting that Kuhn hasn't thought things through, hasn't thought things through himself. I agree that the parameters we find for the fine tuning don't need to have come from a Creator simply because the odds are beyond astronomical for their existing in the first place, but you have to go much further. Further into the logic beyond beginning, which states that matter, energy and everything else must be created, as these cannot self create from a position of something beyond void. Only a 'who' can create a 'what'. This personal 'Who' has made the decision to create, and that's our current experience - God.

[@nelsonmandelamuntz7508]

Nonsense 🤣

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

We really technically don't even know the speed of light. We only know a two-way speed of light measurement. John 1:5 and the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not. For God's knowledge surpasses all understanding. Plus you know how there's a Arc in our brain that send signals? John 1:4 in him was life; and the life was the light of men. John 3:16 for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 th and this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[@chriswaters926]

We know the speed of light. Too much you tube science for you.

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

@@chriswaters926 so you know how to get the time things to line up huh and not get a reflectory measurement! So then that's two direction measurement not just a one-way direction measurement. Prove to me that you know the speed of light

[@anteodedi8937]

Lol you guys with your stupid verses 🤦😂

[@davidjayhalabecki438]

Fine tune the mind body spirit frequency. God is changeless. Humans change. The creators descend and bestow. The creatures ascend and contribute. Life is fine tuning.. and harmony is its tune.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

What does modern man of science look for when utilizing scientific methodology? Do they have a point of interest? Is it God, truth, understanding, wisdom, purpose, meaning, or seeking to know thy self -- I don't think anybody in the cult of science today knows what they're looking for, let alone what they're looking at, or who the one is looking from within, from that which is looked upon. I ask this because when I view art work, I never try to find a specific answer or a corporeal Truth. I go into art without ego, agenda, belief. All I can do is understand. I know the artwork has not manifested itself, there was an artificer. Even tho I know not the artificer, I can come to know of him through the artwork. Gnosis, knowledge, experience, knowing. I see the universe as the answer. Science as the medium for question. This is why science is not a proper belief, or deserves credence as a forefront of anything. Truly only a tool to be utilized by philosophers, theologians, metaphysicians -- one in the same, so seeking to understand, to know thy self. Empirical data is knowledge. When it is not cultivated properly you reap no Wisdom, thus there be no purpose, meaning, or nourishment. Men without this understanding is not worthy to listen to. God isn't what we think. We should seek to know however. Some think it's silly to think of a God. I think it's deplorable to not reckon God. Blessings to all folks. Blessing so that you find meaning, purpose, understanding, wisdom, empowerment, truth, sustenance, creativity, magic, spirit. God experiences him Self through us, we know our Self in God.

[@godthecreatoryhvh681]

Hello S3rava3lm. Thank you for this recongnition. I will explaine better. Your humble Creator philippe 😎

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

How can you say God just picks out a region how can't you say he didn't create the region I mean it says he created the Sun the Moon stars. In the book of Job God ask job who can lose the bands of Orion? Orion lost his head sure seems to look like this world is going, is losing its head, not following after God with belief in the Son of God who gave us salvation through belief and trust and repentance of sin. For Jesus Christ is God ,his statement to the Pharisees, before Abraham I am.

[@kos-mos1127]

Fine-tuning does not convince anyone because if we were not here there would be no one to ask the questions of fine-tuning.

[@mrschuyler]

Basically the anthropic principle.

[@mathew4181]

*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human life and consciousness on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: Oxygen level • On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere • That precise figure is an Anthropic constant that make life in earth possible. • If oxygen were 25 percent fire would erept spontaneously • If it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate Carbon dioxide level • If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop, and we would all burnt up • If the level was lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis, and we would all suffocate _fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_ For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_

[@kos-mos1127]

@@mrschuyler That is the reverse of the anthropic principle

[@ClayShentrup]

the correct argument against fine tuning is that there's no *computationally challenging goal*. for instance, suppose alice hands her son a math problem on a piece of paper and he responds, "17,375". if the note turns out to say, "pick a random number", dad has no reason to be impressed by his son's intelligence. whereas if the note says, "add 17,000 to 375", then the answer is evidence of a *bit of intelligence, because intentional addition is somewhat challenging. if instead the note says, "multiply 125 times 139" then that's evidence of a significant amount of intelligence. intelligence is relative to a *goal*, so to judge the intelligence of a particular outcome, you have to know what the goal was. we have no evidence god (even if there was one) had a goal of "creating a universe with life in it", thus there's no evidence that god is intelligent. THIS is the one right rebuttal to the fine tuning argument.

[@constructivecritique5191]

I find problems in all human designs, therefore according to atheist automobiles weren't designed!

[@ManiBalajiC]

Hey ,i think we are all designed but we have no idea how something has immense power , has logical thoughts all throught and exist forever . by your logic if something has a feature to it , it has to be designed by that way god has creator and its an infinite loop.

[@fatmaramadan6928]

Automobiles are constructed, there are no examples of an automobile appearing naturally . Living things procreate and evolve, there are no examples of a designed factory assembled living organism, big difference. Aa an atheists i do not believe automobiles are not designed. .....they exist and only exist by design, they do not procreate.

[@constructivecritique5191]

@@ManiBalajiC perhaps you logic needs more scrutiny. If we don't know how something could possibly be it means we don't know how it's possible. That's all. It is incredible I agree. That would be the reason people worship it.

[@constructivecritique5191]

@@fatmaramadan6928 wrong on both points. Cars are designed first and then assembled in factories. Livings things follow the blueprints in the main office. The cell. Then manufactured by following instruction from the DNA/ main office/ the original cells. You have no clue where the plans came from in either case do you?

[@fatmaramadan6928]

@@constructivecritique5191 I have no clue, therefore god?.....very weak. My answer: Natural processes. Unless you can present evidence your god created anything at all, or has any measurable effect on reality.

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

Where's the natural proof of Darwin's means? I sure haven't seen any. I've seen way more natural proof of God's word than any word man has spoke. There's way more evidence for the Bible than there is for evolution. Go ahead and think you can try to find tune it however you want but God's already got it finally tuned it's running right in tune with his word.

[@hecticnarcoleptic3160]

And then you woke up XD

[@jeremycrofutt7322]

@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 oh I've been awake. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:27‭-‬28 KJV And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Revelation 13:16‭-‬17 KJV And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of Lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. Revelation 17:12‭-‬18 KJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:1‭-‬8 KJV I think people that don't read the word of God need to wake up and read it.

[@evaadam3635]

The existence of an "Aware Almighty FINE-TUNER" is clearly the only logical choice of BELIEF as the Origin of the Universe with Conscious Beings, if you are a rational human being.. ..but if you had willfully chosen to be an irrational human being because you want to feel NO ACCOUNTABILITY for every evil you do, then you belong to the following questionable crowd : Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics are your kind of crowd who think that an "Unconscious Rocks or Unconscious Void", after being blown away by Big Bang to eternity, was able to consciously form a great idea to plan, gather and organize all the informations and data necessary to create a complex aware human being who is free to believe in the Supernatural God that has nothing to do with physics or material science. As I already warned, "Godlessness can lead to mental illness" because you are forcing your brain to believe something that is obviously IRRATIONAL, thus damaging your normal healthy mental processes. The fact that these Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics are now staring at Darwin's IGUANA as their Original Mama shows clear signs of brain deformity due to Godlessness.

[@fatmaramadan6928]

Can you present some conclussive, overwhelming evidence that will prove your god concept has any measurable effect on anything and is more than a concept in your imagination? God beliefs appear to be a mental disorder brought on by the fear of death and the wish to live on and never cease to exist...... Vanity.