Was the Universe Designed? - Philosophy Tube

[@stulosophy]

Look. Just because the Universe is almost entirely inhospitable to life as we know it means nothing. Maybe the Universe is so poorly designed because God got his degree in cosmological design from the University of Phoenix. Ever think about that?

[@PhilosophyTube]

The Drunken Philosopher Hume makes a similar point actually. But dat University of Phoenix Burn!

[@stulosophy]

harley martynec If the Universe were not almost entirely inhospitable to life -- as we know it -- we wouldn't need protection to travel about it. If we choose a spot in the Universe at random, the odds that it will be inhospitable to us are so high that you have better odds of winning the PowerBall lottery jackpot twice in a row than that spot being a livable space. And even if you're right that "the vast majority of ... systems have at least one planet similar to earth" (not even close, but for the sake of argument, let's say that's true), those are only a comparative few tiny points in the incredible vastness of the Universe. That's like saying in a thousand square kilometers of land, life can exist in one square millimeter of it and therefore the whole plot of land is not almost entirely inhospitable.

[@stulosophy]

harley martynec At what point did I say the Universe is flawed? The Universe simply is. Not sure what any of this has to do with my original comment though. I was simply referring to Olly's comments starting at 5:09 regarding "fine tuning" (particularly the part about most of the Universe being uninhabitable) and used it to take a shot at U of P. It's a joke. But you would've had to remember what Olly said at 5:09 to get it. Maybe you should give it another try :)

[@stulosophy]

harley martynec Except the Universe isn't designed. It was part of the joke. If the Universe were indeed designed, as the creationist I was pretending to be believes, it's a piss poor design. Thus the U of P crack. Having to explain it results in it losing all its meaning. Thanks for the buzz kill man.

[@TheShamansQuestion]

Go home; you're drunk

[@anmolt3840051]

The *fine-tuning* argument seems to me to be the ultimate case of *survivorship-bias*

[@directordissy2858]

Imagine saying that there's survivorship-bias and nothing more if a firing squad of 10^60 men shot at you and every single bullet missed.

[@HungryHungryShoggoth]

@@directordissy2858 imagine watching an entire philosophy video on this topic and STILL having such a poor understanding of it that you leave this comment. How do you know you were the only target? There could have been infinitely more targets than shooters, odds of surviving then seem a bit better don't they?

[@lynnclaywood4043]

Just to rework that metaphor a bit; imagine there's a firing squad of 10^60 men, and just as many targets, and you're one of the targets but you're wearing armor or hiding. Everyone who can withstand the fire lives.

[@marsgreekgod]

I do want to write a story where "god" the "Designer" doesn't know life exists, and gets freaked out once they found out it does

[@justsomecreatureofthisearth]

yeah, like the way penicillin was discovered. God was just having fun with molecules & such and this one time they left this planet they had used as playground unattended for a long while. When God later casually took a look, lo and behold: dinosaurs. God: WTFFFFFFFF?!? (after a few moments) Well, this shit is freaky, better destroy it. (sends an asteroid.) (God leaves again to play in some other corner of the Universe.) Dinosaurs die, mammals and proto-birds survive. Megafauna rises. (God comes back again.): What, they didn't all die? Some sturdy ass mothafuckas they are. Better send a bunch of ice ages, supervolcano eruptions, other meteorites & such. (God sets a timer for all that to happen and leaves.) Some species die, other rise, life goes on thriving. (Later God comes back): Still not dead? Oh, well. I may as well have fun with this. Let's see what happens if I give this one species very high intelligence, self awareness and high empathy so that they will have the need for an universally valid moral system to tell them right from wrong (which will be impossible), will be painfully aware of their own mortality, that's why they will also need a greater purpose (which will be illusory and the search of which will lead to major ex- and internal conflicts), and I'm gonna also make them very individualistic while also having the need for belonging to a group, so they have maximum chances to live their whole lives sad & unfulfilled.

[@cooldude123456789098]

One thing I've never been able to understand about the Fine Tuning Argument is how it just seems to be marveling at probability. If the values of the fundamental constants were different, reality would still exist; it would just be a very different reality than the one we experience now. This new reality might even prohibit life as we know it from existing, but it would still be a reality. So, even if there were innumerable other possible values that could have been assigned to these constants and they all had an equal likelihood of being assigned, assuming that a designer specifically set them in this way is akin to rolling a die, getting a six, assuming a designer specifically made it so that a six would come up. Edit: I suppose that this brings up the idea of determinism, and whether or not there is a being that determines how all outcomes will occur. In my view though, saying there is someone determining how random chance occurs is just replacing the word "probability" with the word "designer."

[@ewan.cartwright]

You deserve more subscribers; You're awesome!

[@JoeyHauschildt]

Consider Douglas Adams' puddle saying "This hole I live in is perfectly 'fine tuned' for me." It's a silly argument. You are "fine tuned" to live in the universe, not the other way around. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGnQe6VqmJtpmNU

[@TheF1nalResistance]

+Joey Hauschildt Yeah, and if you place any value whatsoever in the multiverse theory, then you can consider that there could be plenty of alternate universes (probably most of the other universes, actually) where gravity and all the other finely-tuned aspects of the universe could be slightly different as to end up as a "dud" universe and/or a universe that never succeeds in generating any life whatsoever. But, if that's the case then we know we would never be part of a conscious experience within such a universe, since that requires some sort of life-like perceivers to have. So, naturally, there is 0% chance of any experience occurring in a universe in which perception is not possible. We could ONLY be in one of the rare universes in which sentient life exists. If we're experiencing the stuff that we are, there is a 100% chance that we are in this universe, and only this universe. Does this mean god? Probably not.

[@caseyjasey4446]

wow watching these old videos now is a mega trip

[@osamakarkout]

Who said life is special in the first place?! Maybe had the fundamental constants been different something more special would arise. What do they mean by special anyway! Why do they think that being able to reproduce and having consciousness is more special than shining like stars or sucking everything like black holes? I bet if books for example could think some books would suggest that the universe was created so that humans arise and make them.

[@tobspinn]

Of course life and conscientiousness is more special than a rock for example. The human brain is the most complex thing we know of to this date in the whole universe. Being conscientious and observing the universe is epic...

[@osamakarkout]

+tobspinnkiller The brain might be the most complex thing. But that does not justify the question "how come is the universe just this way so that brains would form?"... Cuz otherwise had the universe been different there might be wormholes for example, the coolest thing... or smthn even cooler... or smthn just normal... or nthn, which is the simplest. How come the universe's constants are just right for a wormhole to form?, or for a brain or a rock or nthn at all? is a meaningless question.

[@ayingchanda]

Blackhole is not real. No proof.

[@tushartakku]

One thing I want to note is that I'm pretty sure that we know, at least in a heuristic sense, HOW life came into being: Miller's experiment explains how the primordial soup (the origin of which came from the composition of earth, which in turn can be explained by astrophysics of the formation of earth and the solar system) gave rise to amino acids, nucleic acids and more complex molecules. When you have ANY system that can replicate itself (for example, the primordial nucleic acids), you can simply start applying natural selection to create life out of the molecules. The nucleic acids, progressively get better as they integrate the replication machinery, programming machinery and other important molecules which make replication more efficient and encapsulate them into a membrane, which becomes a cell. Once you have a cell, we have a singular unit of life, and intelligent life can evolve from it through complex processes of natural selection.

[@Baud2Bits]

Great video. Glad that I got pointed this way.

[@Shangori]

Glad you subscribed so I got to see it in my activity list.

[@JCMcGee]

These videos are great...thanks for taking the time to make them and post them.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

-Was the Universe Designed? -Why do you say that? -Because it looks like it was designed. -This is not how we recognize design. End of conversation. So why this question(poisoning the well) still qualifies as a philosophical one? How can we expand our philosophy and come up with a wise claim about the word...by asking the same old question?

[@RPGgrenade]

My issue with the fine tuning argument was something I found in a book called "Fallacy of Fine Tuning" by Victor Stenger. And one of the major points he brings up is the universal constants, are, mostly speaking, force based. And because of that, it doesn't make sense to claim that the universe is so unlikely only because all of them HAVE to be that way. He explains that the lack of one fundamental force can be compensated if another one is increased, making just about the exact same outcome of forces on matter overall. This would be like saying that instead of the aces of heart from all 10 decks at random thing, it'd be more like instead, it'd be more like the total cards dealt merely have to add up to the number 25 or something. Which is a far GREATER scenario than their original one. and due to the infinitesimal amount of possibilties this can arise from (which is the real kick in the nuts to their argument), we'd end up with an infinite amount of viable universes amongst a greater, but still infinite amount of universes that aren't viable for life at all. But infinite part of an infinite is still infinite (according to mathematics), and that small change kinda unintuitively makes the liklihood nearly the same as the aforementioned decks of cards. Far greater than given credit for. But the problem is our sample size is just the one, so we don't have much grounds for claiming for certain that particular things show that a universe will have life or not. It's definitely an argument worth looking into, but in the end it's a god of the gaps argument and amounts to "I dunno and scientists don't know, therefore god", which is still the most annoying argument FOR a god that exists. It closes off ones mind to so many posibilities so quickly.

[@chriskeith5742]

It's called the inference to the best explanation. You don't need an explanation of the explanation to assume it is the best explanation. I don't need to know anything about the 'entity' that was responsible for the fine tuning of the universe to know this 'entity' played a role in its unique formation and thus our unique formation.

[@osamakarkout]

+Chris Keith Explaining must be in terms of something simpler and more known.

[@trevorbyrne4668]

But what you've done here sounds more like 'inference to the explanation that suits me best, or seems best to me'. In what way could your explanation be considered 'best'? Your explanation, as the dude below you alludes, sounds massively presumptive, and is massively vague. And you certainly do need to know something about an entity to know it's responsible for fine-tuning the universe: otherwise, you've not got any reason to assume it exists. What are its properties? If you have no knowledge of its properties, you have no knowledge of the 'entity', no way even of thinking about it in the first place. But you do think about it, so you already have assumed properties for it, one of which is that it is capable of (and did) fine tune the universe. Where did this knowledge come from, other than self-serving assumption, or wishful thinking?

[@trevorbyrne4668]

It seems bizarre to me to be able to claim to have no knowledge whatsoever about an undetected and undetectable (even indirectly) entity, and yet simultaneously to claim to 'know' of its existence, and, further, to contradictorily have knowledge about fundamental properties of this 'entity' (such as that it created the universe, or fine-tuned the universe, or helped do so).

[@StephenM02]

Very good sum-up of this argument.

[@chemistryguy]

"unless the designer wasn't very good" I chuckled. I never thought about the lack of hospitality in this universe as an argument against intelligent design. But it works very nicely. As for my beliefs, I want to be an atheist, but I admit that I'm agnostic. I blame my Catholic upbringing. I do sincerely hope that there is no deity in charge because the universe would make even less sense. To wit: I'd rather be hit by a rock falling off a ledge than to have someone intentionally throw it at me.

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

How are you defining atheists? All agnostics are atheists, although not all atheists are agnostics. Atheists being either someone who knows god doesn't exist (strong atheist), or someone who merely lacks a belief in god (weak atheist). That's a metaphysical position. Agnostics are people who claim we cannot know anything about god and therefore they are necessarily weak atheists as you cannot possess a belief about that which you know nothing of. Agnosticism is an epistemological position.

[@rooster9116]

Is "the designer wasn't very good" an actual argument though? As humans we design very inefficient machines everyday. Computers from the 1970s are huge, power consuming pieces of crap. They're very inefficient and poorly designed by today's standards, but no one argues they weren't "designed" though.

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

rooster9116 It's an argument against theism but not deism.

[@chemistryguy]

rooster9116 Are you saying God didn't create things perfect from the beginning? HEATHEN!!!!!

[@rooster9116]

chemistryguy I'm making the point that the "inhospitable regions" you're referring to are also necessary for life. There's a huge inhospitable gap of space between the Earth and the Sun. But without that gap, the Earth would be next to the sun and we'd all burn up. We also can't just simply fill that gap with air as gravity will condense all the air and we'll be in the same spot as we were before. The point is, no matter how you want to redefine the laws of physics, you can't generate a Universe that's hospitable to life everywhere. The laws which makes life possible in one region, kill life in another. A fish dies in air, and a human drowns in water.

[@yasha12isreal]

5:48 THANK YOU! that's what I want people to understand

[@MONOBLACKMAGIC]

It seams to me like the universe we live in can be only one of the below: 1) The universe is finite. This means that some parameters must have been set for it to exist, like for instance; what determined the total energy of the universe? 2) The universe is infinite. This means that no parameters where ever needed to be set for it to exist since every possible configuration on whatever scale will exist. Also some sidenotes: The first universe kind of requires a Deity (something to set the parameters) while the second one almost excludes the possibility. One could argue that we have to live in a finite universe since the "chances" of existing in such a complex world whould otherwise be abysmally small. But on the other hand if we did not live in such a complex world then we probably whouldnt be having these complex discussions.

[@raymondbigdog3745]

I just found this channel and i love it!!

[@saeedbaig4249]

I love the editing style of these videos, what with the references and pictures (the "Cosmos" from FairyGodParents and 'Get Lucky' ones killed me).

[@double_07]

Best use of that music ever! :D Also great videos!

[@cappsbriley]

My deterministic viewpoint aligns pretty well with the fine-tuning idea.

[@ewan.cartwright]

00:33 yay! Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy reference!

[@elderlyoogway]

Olly, your channel is just simply great o/

[@Mortebianca]

That last part was weak. A portrait of a woman is for the most part devoid of human features. Doesn't mean it's not a portrait of a woman, designed that way. "There's little life=/=No Life at all in design"

[@WretchedRapture]

"Home come animals? Checkmate, Atheists!" That was perfect. X]

[@aaa1e2r3]

02:25 That mad my day

[@Toosha3519]

This was one of your best

[@THUNKShow]

There are logical problems with the fine-tuning argument (excellent summary!), but astronomers & cosmologists have also been hard at work reducing the set of seemingly impossible coincidences with reasonable naturalistic explanations. (e.g. the recent discovery of polarized microwave background radiation pretty much confirms inflation theory, eliminating the fine tuning of gravity & the energy of the big bang.) The "not magic" column of the scoresheet continues to rack up points. "Magic" is going to have to make a hell of a comeback in the second half.

[@IliyanBobev]

Illidan was working on a project. He was searching for some insight about our universe, by calculating through alternative values for key physical constants. That wasn't new idea, people were thinking on the "fine tuning" of the cosmological constants for a while. However everyone was keeping the physical laws and tweaking only the values of key constants, while Illidan thought one should also flex some of the laws too. It's not that difficult to imagine an alternative universe. You just keep it simple -- take infinite flat space-time, and don't add any energy or mater. No big bang, no EM, weak, strong or gravity forces, and there you have it. An entirely new, stable universe. The difficult part is to find one, which evolves in complexity. It is not static, and yet it has sufficient lifespan to allow for complexity build up. He was currently working on a setup, where speed of light was thousand times less, there was negative curvature of local space of about 15 degrees, and creation and loss of energy was possible. Breaking the law of conservation of energy allowed for some interesting ideas, but also broke almost everything else in physics. It breaks equality, which meant that equations won't be valid. There could be no way to mathematically describe any phenomenon. Illidan was trying to add some partial restraint on the energy siphon, so the whole setup would become stable, yet remain flexible. Can't we just change math? Math is universal, but is it extra-universal? If we are trying to imagine a different universe, shouldn't we have a different math, that will fit it? I don't believe there is limit to the imagination capacity of the human brain, but is it possible that we are predisposed to develop specific math, that fits specifically our universe, while alternatives remain unveiled? Does the math, which lacks a concept of the number three, inexistent, or we just lack the perspective, to make it work? Math extends logic, so alternative math will require alternative logic. But logic is absolute - true, false and that's it. It's not like you could think as logical a system, where a proposition, besides true or false, could also have state of "truefalse" ;)

[@Kimpes]

just a correction. hercules is a half-god 3:35 :)

[@unvergebeneid]

Right and even the Greek gods didn't create the universe in their mythology. They weren't even the first gods. You'd have to go back two generations for that. But Greek cosmogony is a mess anyway.

[@MagnusThiHan]

Hercules is also a god, though? that's at least part of what his labours were about.

[@amellirizarry9503]

in the myth he became a god after dying

[@puddingball]

hahaha, lost it at the Darwin wrecking ball dubstep remix XD

[@CasualGraph]

Let me tell you, Charles Darwin was a serious party animal! (who evolved from slightly serious party animals stretching all the way back to a guy who found a disco ball on the street and started dancing)

[@bspl473]

William Lane Craig does a good job explaining questions that were brought up towards the latter half of the video especially when he’s defending the kalam cosmological argument.

[@MikiMaki76]

maybe the universe has no beginning, it is simply eternal and matter/energy has always been. that's a possibility.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+MikiMaki76 Not really, because if the past was infinitely long then, since infinity divided by anything is infinity, it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get to now, in which case we'd never have gotten to this point.

[@MikiMaki76]

+Philosophy Tube well, mathematics is a way of explaining how things work in reality, but you cannot decide what reality is, based on mathematics :-) it's just that our brain is tuned to our everyday experience and we find very hard if not impossible, to think about something that has no beginning nor end.

[@PhilosophyTube]

Indeed, and if we find it impossible then we can't believe it either.

[@MikiMaki76]

+Philosophy Tube but it is not impossible. there are many cosmological models, all mathematically correct, however they are not compatible one another. mathematics is a tool, useful to describe what had been observed and nothing more; infinite is an abstract concept in math, meaning as large/long/wide as you like.. it does not mean that nothing can never happen. real numbers are infinite, yet you can use them. the mathematical and the empirical concept of infinite are different things.

[@alextrusk1713]

+Philosophy Tube intelligent designers don't design people who need: eyeglasses, hearing aids and kidney dialysis machines. There are people that needs these things (i needs glasses) Therfore there is no intelligent designer

[@guylfe]

I will quickly address some of your points against the fine-tuning argument (partly because a badly timed refresh caused my much-longer comment to be erased and I really don't want to write it over). 1. Wherever the start of existence is, or whatever the natural state of existence that made it so that the universe HAS to be of those qualities - that natural state is STILL very lucky to us for making a very specific fine-tuned universe a necessity. The multiverse for example is a great theory to explain that very reason, but to me it's baffling that a multiverse just happens to exist. 2. I agree. The fine-tuning argument doesn't necessarily mean life, but if the forces were different there would have been no matter at all - whatever the "goal" of the universe is would not have been achievable. We could very well still be an accident, I don't discount that. 3. The designer, being completely out of any realm that we know of (whatever that means) in any way does not have to answer for questions which are valid for the realm of matter, which we know and understand(ish). For me an outside-of-existence-as-we-know-it cause for existence is essential, as limited as language is to describe such an idea (a being/realm beyond space and time and its direct "relatives") and our minds to comprehend such a notion, because I don't hold it to the same limits as I do existence. Everything in existence has a reason as far as I can tell, and that's why I hold the view that it needs a reason. And furthermore the fact that by chance existence leads to a fine-tuned universe for me says that existence as a whole is teleological. This is your strongest argument here that I disagree with, and I admittedly hold this view in a limited fashion, as "the lesser of two evils", or in this case unlikely reasonings, because the fact that there is anything at all in the first place seems to me implausible to say the least. 4. I will refer you to 2, and add that that certainly indeed isn't a reason to believe in any holy book. I completely agree with you there.

[@Managarmr420]

Its worse than you state, not only is the universe uninhabitable beyond earth but most of earth is uninhabitable.

[@AnstonMusic]

+Managarmr420 Stating that the whole universe beyond earth is uninhabitable is quite a harsh statement though!

[@Managarmr420]

Anston Music I'm not sure I used the phrasing "the whole universe". I just generalized, as a rule the universe beyond earth is not inhabitable.

[@AnstonMusic]

Managarmr420 Yep, as a percentage it's likely to be quite small.

[@Managarmr420]

Anston Music its nearly infinetaly small.

[@RichmondLasma]

+Managarmr420 hahahaha here goes. uninhabitable to who? if you mean the oceans there is fishes and whales in there the polar caps have bears and penguins the sky has birds and satelites. so exactly what do you mean?

[@calebharmon7404]

One argument I have heard against the need of a creator needing a creator is that something only needs a cause if it has a beginning. As I understand it, several groups of Atheists used this argument to explain the universes existence, before we knew the universe needed a beginning.

[@thebatmanover9000]

This Fine-Tuning is a naturalistic need. To me a god would not have to do this fine-tuning, it could put life on mercury or pluto if it wished to. Also even if there has to be a god to fine-tune the universe it would not falsify evolution or any other naturalistic process we do have evidence for.

[@MikeDrumsIt]

Philosophy Tube Can't believe I've only come across these videos - they're really helping spur my interest in philosophy. I'd love it if you could do a video about the simulation theory - that is, there is more chance that we are living a simulation than living a reality.

[@kevindahlke6042]

Another idea here is of The Anthropic Principle. To explain it briefly, if there existed a form of intelligent life that could only exist when your machine puts out one unlikely combination of random cards, then wouldn't that life tend to believe that those random cards must be special, that that they must have been specifically drawn for them? To extend the analogy, maybe the reason why the universe has all of its constants right for life is that we are living and must have existed with those constants. And maybe those constants are as random as drawn cards?

[@Zuzal66]

I like the idea of life forms being like mirrors. We are reflecting back to the universe our experiences and collectively it lives through us. A logical stretch I know, but, we could still be worshipping rocks for the rainfall.

[@RalphNC09]

I think it would make more sense to say that the universe was designed by an intelligent, sentient and all powerful being than to say it just popped into existence just because. That’s just me.

[@ericvilas]

You should have talked about the anthropic principle (if the universe didn't support life, then we wouldn't have been around to wonder why it doesn't in the first place) and the possible problems with that argument.

[@natepotvin]

The odds that the universe would turn out as it did are one in one. Maybe if you have ever looked around you may have noticed that the universe is exactly like it is. Out of this one universe that we have observed all one of them turned out to be exactly like it is. In other words, we can't add statistics to this argument, or at least not as the whole basis, because we don't have the data. Maybe for events that happen inside the universe multiple times, but the universe itself, has only had one happening that we can observe.

[@16tonw8]

I don't think I've seen a big criticism I have of the fine-tuning argument, so I'll say it here if (unlikely) anyone reads it. I've always seen comparisons like the "ace of hearts" one he mentioned containing one fatal flaw, that beings exist independent of the card dealing machine (or whatever other metaphor is used.) Yes, it's unlikely a card-dealing machine would deal you 10 aces of hearts randomly, but that's because the machine was created by us. We designed the machine to be random, so of course it's improbable that it (seemingly) wouldn't be. Because, unlike in these types of metaphors, our kind of life is created by the conditions of the universe, in the sense of arising from things that exist in the universe, then of course the universe would appear fine-tuned to our kind of life. The conditions in our universe created us, but we automatically turn around and assume that because the conditions that created us (e.g. right ratio of gravity to electromagnetism, etc.) look like they create us, then something must have designed them. There could have been uncountable universes before ours, but none of them could support life in which to observe the conditions that created them. Think about it this way, if you threw thousands of buckets full of 500 coins onto the ground, and then poured some sort of conscious, thinking liquid inside the piles that were created by each one. Wouldn't it be strange for the liquid inside of the one or two piles that formed a solid, groundbreaking boundary that could hold a liquid to assume that because the conditions that created it seem "fine-tuned" for it's existence, then some higher being must have designed the random arrangement of coins on the ground.

[@stevepittman3770]

The thing that always gets me about the 'the universe had to be this finely tuned for humans to arise' argument is that it gets the idea backwards. Humans are one result of a universe fine-tuned to a particular setting, and with some of the knobs turned to different settings, humans probably couldn't arise at all. It requires significantly less baggage to accept that humans are a result of the properties of the universe than to assume humans are the cause of those properties.

[@Sunset7557]

I noticed this commentary on the fine-tuning argument did not mention the multiverse hypothesis, which I thought was the main alternative to the idea of God designing one biophilic universe. Do you have any remarks about that hypothesis? Thanks.

[@montgomerypowers7205]

It always seemed to me that the fine tuned argument was looking at things backwards. It's not that it was fine tuned for us, but that we (organisms) simply arose as a derived property of the way things happen to work.

[@LovePeaceNappiness]

Very cool videos. Keep it up! Though you did not deal with the cosmological argument? Would like to hear your opinion on this as well.

[@FromRussiaWithLuv007]

Actually, if you consider Existence, it always had to exist right? It fits the basic criteria of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. And since we are a part of it, (Existence must be in totality or it would be the perfect existence) it does care for us.

[@MrPtrlix]

There are a few theories, hypotheses actually, linking entropy to biogenesis. It's pretty much like this: 1. In a closed system, concentrated energy disperses around the system. 2. After the Earth came to be, there were a lot of concentrated energy because of falling meteors, etc. 3. So, life happened due to entropy, because living organisms are really really entropic. They release so much energy in an unusable form. Also, one possible conclusion is if this is true, then living entities dont make up a natural kind.

[@Amy-zb6ph]

Biologically speaking, stuff like DNA simply wouldn't work any other way, which means that life as we know it could only exist in the way it does. Recently they did discover an organism that uses Arsenic instead of Phosphorous in its chemistry, but that's because all the elements in that column of the periodic table react in a similar way. Assuming we have discovered all the pertinent elements, things can only go together in certain ways based on the natural chemistry of those elements and that goes for literally everything in the universe. Anyone who has come to the conclusion that there is a creator did not get there by logical means alone. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it means that believing in a creator is not for everyone.

[@Zachmanable]

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around does it make a sound? From a physics perspective, if things only exist as a supposition of possibilities before we observe them (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), then for the universe to exist, it is constrained to have the exact parameters that allow life because these are the only parameters that can allow observation to take place.

[@Zachmanable]

MadHatterHimself Wasn't saying there was only one way for life to exist. Only that the set of pheasably existing universes must surely be universes that include life.

[@laurenpadron74]

I'm not religious, but I respect everyone's beliefs (peremptory remark). Now, you said how come the universe seems to be filled with destruction (something along those lines)? And how come it would cling onto one corner of the universe to have life? Isn't that just ethnocentrism (just like how we thought the sun went around the Earth until proven otherwise). For example, we say stars are dead, but what if all matter is alive, after all we're only judging things from our standard and not a creator's. We don't know if viruses are alive or dead... where does that leave us? And black holes eventually spit out everything they've sucked in after their life expectancy has expired. If the universe is so infinite and we can't imagine it... at least no one has yet then we can only estimate how many other lives there are and the possibilities. And if we're considering a thing/being that created everything and we consider that they're a bad designer... it's invalid because designers create things in their own view, so way may very well be perfect (in which case everything is good including what we see as bad to the thing/being's standard) or hideous to our designer. We may also be anything between that spectrum. There's no way to support one or the other because we look at the world from our mind's eye and not some (supposedly) omnipotent thing/being.

[@ericng-z]

I like to think about this question a lot and one of the interesting question I had is the definition of the word "Universe". Like you mentioned, if we are designed, are our designers also designed ? If you define the word "Universe" properly, you don't have to really answer that question. I like to also include the universe of the designer and their designers ... That way you can get even people who believe in designers(simulated world theory)/creators(religion) to participate in the philosophical discussion. Oh, and hope you discuss free will next =).

[@madhatterhimself181]

False. This way the only thing you've done is push the question backwards. Now the question is: "Who are the Designers of the Designers?" You've just changed the subject of the unknown to a 3x as big and confusing questions as the original one; The Universe. It serves no purpose to just put new branches of enormous mystery on top of the already enormous mystery. We are talking the entire: Floating Turtle on top of Floating Turtle on top of Floating Turtle. Turtle all the way down.

[@ericng-z]

MadHatterHimself Perhaps I am thinking the wrong way.

[@David-we3sb]

i like your balanced perspective it's refreshing. I think the universe was designed. Both to be awe inspiring and habitable,

[@freazeezy]

Could you do a longer version of this topic or a similar one? I don't really feel like I have anything to add to the conversation. It's such a dense well explored topic I don't know if I can ever bring anything new to it. It seems like humanity has been hacking away at this question since forever and we've made exactly zero progress on it. my vote for next week is do we have free will. It's always tough to choose, can't we eventually have both?

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

Actually we've finished making progress on it now. Quite clearly the teleological argument fails.

[@monev44]

I find a lot of problems with the finely tuned universe concept. [Continued] Second; even if we were to assign a probability to any configuration of the universe, the likelihood of any configuration occurring is related to the number of trials. In the example of the card dealing machine, the story is being told to us by a survivor. As far as he knows the odds of him surviving was 1 in 365Quintillion. (assuming I didn't hit a wrong button on the calculator) but what if he wasn't the only person put in the machine? how many people didn't survive? and how could someone who didn't survive tells us that they didn't survive? What If 600Quintillion people were put into the machine? At that rate it becomes more likely then not SOMEONE would survive. It just seemed unlikely from his point of view. Third; ... To be continued...

[@CounterPhilosopher]

Here is an argument for the existence of higher intelligence inherent in the universe. 1. A neuron is the holistic function of the combination of various organic compounds. 2. Human Consciousness is the holistic function of our neural networks. 3. [X] is the holistic function of the collective humanity on this planet and so on. 4. Therefore, by following the pattern of increasing complexity, we may arrive at a intelligent complexity equivalent to that of what one would consider to be God. The reasoning behind this argument is the idea that reality is hierarchical in nature. Atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, etc. The argument then is that the universal mind is one infinite fractal in which the human mind is a smaller reflection of its source intelligence. Which is basically infinite. In conclusion, the universe is not designed per say but our intelligence is likely to be derivative of a pure intelligence inherent in our reality.

[@thingonometry-1460]

(Disclaimer: I might me misunderstanding, buuuut) There is no reason that these holistic functions should go on forever. Sure, we have atoms and then cells and then organisms and then a collective consciousness, but maybe that's just where it stops. Besides, I am wary of the idea of an intrinsic hierarchy in the structure of nature. You can say that cells are something different from atoms (and practically I would agree) but they're still just made of atoms. And so are we. Maybe intelligence doesn't come from a higher level in this weird infinite fractal, but just something that arose from the mud.

[@ryansemple1547]

Please do "Do we have free will". I have been thinking about this A LOT lately and I personally believe in a form of "scientific predestination". I thought of this myself but the arguments have probably already been laid down by others. I'll explain it in the video if you make it and if the arguments used against free will are different from mine.

[@Neuroticmancer]

Also, idea for topic, if the universe has a beginning and an end, it must be cyclical right? Existence must always exist? Be must always be and have been and will be? To do otherwise goes against their definitions?

[@DThron]

If you put the 'machine that deals cards' concept a slightly different way, you can see the issue with it. Say there is a machine that deals cards, and instead of killing you unless it deals 10 aces, it wakes you up. The only universe you would experience is the one you would be conscious in -- so it is necessarily the one that dealt 10 aces. The fact that it didn't happen 25 billion times in a row before then doesn't get counted in the argument (you weren't aware of them)-- so you say "what are the chances of THAT?"

[@Atavist89]

The card-shuffling-killer-robot argument has another flaw: Yes, the guy is incredibly lucky, but if that proves that God influenced, how do we distinguish between luck and Devine intervention? I wouldn't assume that theists (and/or deists) would argue that me hitting a sixer in ludo is evidence for devine design (great band name btw). How little chance does it take for the event to be divinely influenced?

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

You'de be surprised. Some do.

[@Wiebejamin]

So, the card thing. You need an Ace out of every pile to or you die, right? Wrong. You need an Ace out of every pile to be alive in the first place. We CAN'T be alive in a universe that physically cannot support life. In other words, you need an Ace out of every pile to CHECK WHETHER WE HAVE ACES OR NOT. In that case, 100% of the time we will see that we got an Ace out of all four piles, because if we didn't, we factually would not be able to CHECK that we didn't. This is why this type of argument annoys me so much. Yeah, if everything were slightly different, life couldn't survive. But if everything were slightly different, we wouldn't be alive to say "Man if everything were slightly different we'd be able to live"

[@andrewvandermeer8231]

Darwin on a wrecking ball would make a compelling .gif! I really appreciate your videos Olly (Olly, right?), way to represent the thinkers out there. Clearly you know Christian theology to some degree, but I think, as a Christian, you represented our loneliness, per se, in the big, wide universe a bit different from how I would see it. I'm a nondenominational Christian, so what the Bible says goes, given some interpretation, and in Genesis it says that God created man in his own image, clearly suggesting that he cared for man above his other creations. God prioritized us, and gave us control over the beasts and the plants and such. Our solitary position as the intelligent life in the universe makes sense when you fit it into the mindset of God's deep desire to be in an active relationship with us. Now, if we were to discover life elsewhere in the universe, particularly intelligent life, that'd be a bit of a downer on my thought process, but if that should happen, then I'll openly admit that my interpretation is wrong. Until then, however, I think that God's creation of nature as it stands is another piece of evidence for his dedication to us, with part of the "telos" of the universe surrounding us being a testament to the indescribable size of God, along with the purpose of being the rest of all the matter involved in the various cosmological theories. None of that is really my own, but it is worthy of mention. Nathan Frankowski and Ben Stein did a well made (though clearly biased and possibly a tad innacurate?) documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" that covers some of the biogenisis bit, you should check it out. My vote for the next episode goes to free will.

[@davidlance17]

I believe the best way to determine the origin of life is to look at it from a different view point. If life CAN happen in the universe it WILL eventually somewhere out there. We just happen to be part of that random process.

[@d3m3nt3dmous3]

The Finely Tuned theory fails in the face of the Anthropic Principle, which basically says that of course we're here to observe this special type of universe, if the universe wasn't of that special type, nobody would be here to observe it. I think to refine the analogy of the machine that kills you if it doesn't spit out 10 Aces of Hearts, assume the machine can ONLY produce 10 Aces of Hearts. It checks the cards before it ejects them, and if they are not all Aces of Hearts, then the machine reshuffles until it happens. Still incredibly unlikely, but the only way it COULD happen is if it DOES happen. Yes, I know this video is 6 years old, I don't care =P

[@monev44]

I find a lot of problems with the finely tuned universe concept. First; calculating the probability of things happening that happened past is a false thought process. By definition the probability of something happening that has already happened is 100 percent. We us probability in our methods to predict the future because our set of initials states are not entirely known to us, but once we are preciving the event in hindsight we can determine through chain of causality that the initial states could have lead to no other final outcome. Second; ... To be continued...

[@paulsmart4672]

That's not a very compelling argument, and it doesn't at all address what people are talking about with these probability arguments. The probability of a thing that we know happened in the past happening in the past is 1. Sure. But no one cares. It *is* wrong thinking, but not that's not why it's wrong. Suppose I tell you I threw a fair 10 sided die 20 times to produce a number by recording the number revealed on the die each time I threw it and that number was 10000000000000000000. Alternatively, suppose I told you the number was 40825654018434896730. You probably wouldn't be skeptical in the second case, but you'd be nearly certain I was lying in the second case. But the odds of producing 10000000000000000000 as a result and the odds of producing 40825654018434896730 are exactly the same vanishingly small, virtually impossible number. You'd think the result of 10000000000000000000 was too unlikely to have occurred even though you say the probably of any past event is one. I had to get *some* result, right? And no matter what result I get, if I look back on it, its just as unlikely as 10000000000000000000, or 40825654018434896730, or any other possible value. The difference between those results is that one meant something *before* I rolled the dice and the other didn't. The question is: Did I get the one "special" value, or one of the innumerable ones that don't really mean anything? In cases where we're talking about the likelihood of any particular creature or trait to have evolved, people tend to assume that result is analogous to 10000000000000000000, but they're wrong. We could get *any* result out of a couple of billion years of evolution and look back on it and say "Look how unlikely this is!" Its analogous to rolling 40825654018434896730 and now knowing that of all the vanishingly unlikely outcomes this is the one that occurred declaring after the fact that the result was so unlikely it was virtually impossible and so it must not have happened. Or, if you think of it another way, it's difference between naming a 20 digit number then randomly generating that number in a single try vs just generating a random 20 digit number and expecting people to be impressed by how unlikely that number was. The idea that something like the evolution of any given creature is unlikely relies on the idea that 4 billion years ago random chance set out with that creature in mind as a goal. The mistake is imagining that it was a called shot when there was no call. But regarding *UNIVERSES* and initial states and how many possible initial states there were and how many of those states could potentially support life and so on, the problem is much, much simpler to understand: All the numbers are made up.

[@khgraywolf]

I see you, using the Tenchi Muyo opening music.

[@jacobrurez6721]

And lastly the rebuttal to any argument for theism that says ''Well which God?'' is simply a different question. It is not sufficient to get rid of any anthropic, teleological, cosmological etc. arguments at all. It simply asks another question which suits another discussion. To show christianity to be true you must first look at personal experience. Although experience cannot truly be proven, it should be expected to be common if Christianity is true as the Christian God is personal and makes many promises of miracles, revelations etc. This is the most important thing to look at when questioning ''Which God?'' and can also be directly asked to God. Seek and you will find. If you seek God he will not turn you down. Therefore personal experience should be counted as somewhat important. The second thing to look at is history. The history of Jesus Christ, his claims, his miracles, his followers, the claims made by witnesses etc. This is a whole other and large topic that can be looked into. For these reasons asking ''Well which god?'' is not a sufficient rebuttal but is instead simply a question.

[@lordseshomaru86]

what is your intro music? That is perfect video game music

[@minibiskit3580]

This was totally worth watching solely for Darwin on a wrecking ball.

[@AbhijeetBorkar]

One argument against Fine-Tuning is the evolution of Fundamental Constants over time. Astrophysicists have wondered whether the fundamental constants are truly constants or do they evolve with time. Technically they don't have to be constants. Some theories in particle physics do give fundamental constants evolving with time. The hypothesis is that the value of some dimensionless fundamental constants evolves over time. It's an area of active research right now, and there are few experimental/observational indications that this might be true. (No solid results yet.) [Read more here arxiv.org/abs/1004.5383]. The other, much well known argument against Fine-Tuning is the idea of Multiverses. The idea is that there are infinitely many Universes which have different fundamental constants that are dissimilar to what we have in our Universe. Some people even suggest that different parts of our 'actual' Universe (of which our 'observable' Universe is only a small part) may have different values of these constants. The problem with these two hypotheses is that they are untestable, and lie outside the realm of Science.

[@mjfredericktat2]

It is possible that the 4 faces on Mt. Rushmore are a product of wind and erosion. Counterintuitive as it may sound, theoretically it is possible, and given an unlimited amount of chances increases the odds to almost certainty......... This should be regarded as lunacy. To say "something intelligent is responsible" is a reasonable response. I may not know who did it, but that should not lead me to say "no one did it" as opposed to "someone did it". Theist lack comprehensive knowledge of the creator in the same way that scientist lack comprehensive knowledge of the physical world. Way more to say and I believe I can give an adequate response to several of your lines of questioning. Cool videos btw, Thank you.

[@Eon2641]

While that is true, we're talking about the concept that a god created the universe in order to support life. Considering the quality of the handiwork this doesn't seem to be the case, unless earth was a special project of theirs and the rest of the planets are little more than cosmic marbles to fill their collection. You'd think an all-powerful god would never screw up, and if they did there would be evidence to suggest that attempts were made. After all, if you make a mistake trying to carve mount rushmore the mountain would still be deformed in a way to indicate that carving was done and some design was being carried out. Is the rest of the universe just one big cover-up? Are we being trolled on a cosmological scale? If you're suggesting that God simply created the laws that govern the universe and everything just kind of sorted itself out then I don't really see the difference between thinking that's the case and thinking everything is random. Randomness creating life is just as logical as assuming there's a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing and is also our benevolent creator who just happened to put the universe the way it is now. And if the universe is truly infinite as it appears, then the randomness of it would HAVE to create life at some point. It is a forgone conclusion that if there is a chance, even a small one, of something happening then given infinite attempts it will eventually happen. The monkeys would eventually write Shakespeare, so to speak. I would love to hear of evidence of creation, I really would. I was raised catholic and it would make my mother very happy if I could honestly believe again, but the fact the odds are long is not sufficient evidence to suggest as much to me.

[@julia-mu1si]

How does one know an object has purpose if they have never seen it before?

[@danielferszt6521]

I have two questions to this... couldn't the hole universe be designed just to host life on earth or whatever number of worlds the designer wanted? And, as I heard that was a little to inefficient for a God, efficiency is a concept only known for a limited being... If I am all powerful, different levels of difficulty are all the same for me, and if I am eternal, time isn't any kind of factor either... What do you think?

[@lupita11alcantar]

This was an awesome video.

[@elfin2865]

1:12 Does this imply that we wouldn’t be able to identify the watch as a manmade object if a part were missing, or if it were broken, so it didn’t function..?

[@mocha9072]

The fine tuning argument puts the cart before the horse. If we couldn't exist in any other kind of universe, the universe we live in must necessarily be one in which we can exist.

[@harrypartridge512]

Could one counter to the argument that the universe seems very fine tuned also just be that we don't know what goes on outside the universe, and therefore there could have been like infinite possibilities, and therefore maybe we are just living in one of them

[@nfinn42]

did Olly or any commentator ever touch on the anthropic principle (sometimes called the Observer Effect) as a rebuttal to the fine tuning argument? that is to say, rather than saying "universes have to be this way", the anthropic principle says "sure, maybe universes could exist in ways which can't support life like us, but that's no reason to conclude that the odds are really long or that there must be design, because we don't actually know this is the only universe. There could be a vast number of universes which we cannot see or experience, some with life like us and some without. Indeed, perhaps life like us is staggeringly rare and most universes are barren. But *only those universes with life like us will have life like us in them to observe how rare that state of affairs is*. The universes without life like us will go unobserved, with no one around to take note of their commonness. only universes hospitable to life like us will "count". By this argument we come to the conclusion that the apparent rarity or fine tuning of the universe is sufficiently explained by the fact that *we are here observing it*; if it weren't such a hospitable universe we wouldn't be here to do so. Nonexistent people don't do philosophy. The only counterargument to this that I know of is to reject the multiple universes theory. And indeed it's impossible to prove, or disprove, alternate universes. it's hard to even nail down the concept. so some see this argument as a mere dodge. I'm curious to know what others think.

[@TheStanStanmanson]

One unanswered question for me is why organisms have the determination to reproduce. It seems life has a drive or a need to exist, but why. Darwin proves that life is set up to fight against the every changing environment in a struggle for existence. (PS. I am a believer of intelligent design, but I must avoid throwing in the argument of saying it must be God, simply because I don't know the answer)

[@sj19842]

reproduction is one of the requirements for evolution. when something is capable of making copies of itself, natural selection kicks in and starts sorting out the organisms which aren't best adapting to their environments. so evolution doesn't start until we get a life form that can make copies of itself, which presumably took millions of years.

[@alexanderreynolds9705]

+Stan Stanmanson You have the wrong conception of the proliferation of life. If organisms didn't reproduce, there wouldn't be any to witness. It's not that they have _determination_ to reproduce, it's instead that the only ones we find reproduce, because if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to find them. In other words, if a bunch of different organisms are produced but only one of them reproduces, of course we'll only find the one that reproduces since the others would shortly stop existing. Darwin's argument isn't that life is actually set up *to adapt* but that things that *don't* adapt die, so we're only left with things that have adapted. The key idea to natural selection is just that. If you ask the question (and one did, back then), `why does the so-and-so bird have a beak perfectly sized to eat this seed in this particular environment?' Previously, one would simply answer that it was created to thrive in its environment. Of course an intelligent designer wouldn't put a bird with a beak suited to open tiny seeds in a jungle that only has large seeds. But this is post hoc, and it's not what actually conforms to reality. In fact, we can see that birds with varying sizes of beaks are born, and those that don't have beaks that conform to their surroundings just simply die. Over long periods of time this drives changes to favor particular mutations due to environmental conditions. The better, not answered question, is how did the _first_ reproducing organism come about?

[@SockTaters]

+Stan Stanmanson This is perfectly consistent with evolution. If there is a population in which some organisms are driven (genetically) to reproduce, they will reproduce more than the organisms that don't, so after several (or maybe only one) generation, all members of the population will be genetically driven to reproduce. Hope this helps :D

[@kylecasserole2712]

Perhaps it's evolutionarily (not entirely sure if that's a word) beneficial to not die out and instead continue to survive through the process of reproduction. At least that's how I see it, feel free to correct me.

[@LuwukaW]

Who's to say that if the properties of the universe were different than there wouldn't be life? Couldn't life arise in a different form? It might be totally unrecognizable to what we call life. If the properties of a universe are different, couldn't the properties for life be different in that universe? Sure, it wouldn't make sense here, but it would in the universe it's meant to.

[@petersmythe6462]

Well, most importantly, WE are fine-tuned to the universe. Specifically our little section of it. If, for example, gravity were marginally weaker and the threshold for star formation and such were changed, that would make us highly unlikely, but there is no guarantee or even necessarily great probability that this results in a sterile universe. There are limits, but it is less about the limits placed on us and more about the ones placed on life as a system. I don't think we are anywhere NEAR understanding the limits of what conditions life can form in regarding things like laws of physics.

[@whalingwithishmael7751]

What if we said the universe had cycles and could go through each cycle in a finite amount of time. Then we could say that the universe has is infinite, but it allows this moment in time to be because we are just one point on the cycle. Right? +Philosophy Tube

[@whitfitzgerald638]

Another flaw with "God" as a result of fine tuning is that in order to assert the significance of the universal constants in producing humanity, you'd have to presuppose a human value, which most people get from the God they have yet to prove.

[@RastafarianPilgrim]

If you're gonna do an episode on free will next week, will it include a definition of free will? If so, I'm all for it!

[@RunningRiotRaiden]

If the universe was designed then the designer lives outside of the universe. Including Time, Space and Matter. If God lives outside of time space and matter then he is not affected by time and thus doesn't need to have a beginning. This is because in order to have a beginning you need to have time and since God is not affected by time, he does not have a beginning.

[@duranduran3454]

Wow!! Your comment is perfect!!! You answered a question that I have been wondering since I can remember. Thanks!!!!!!

[@goktrenks]

What does it even mean to say something isn't affected by time?What do you mean by time?

[@keithrobben1183]

Does the universe exist within time, or does time exist within the universe? Food for thought.

[@TwistedMetel97]

This just brings up a point that Olie made in the video. If God doesn't need to be made by something else, then why can't the universe exist without needing anything to create it?

[@AbhishekPatel-gb6ni]

Well, I imagine the argument could be made since the universe operates by a strict mechanism of cause and effect, the universe would require some kind of cause to create the effect of existence. Or perhaps it could just be turtles all the way down :)

[@evelinaaquafina5630]

If we suppose that time is infinite and matter is finite then matter can arrange itself into every possible combination, and some of those combinations might work together in a way that appears to serve a purpose. If thats too mind-boggling then imagine a computer generating random strings of words for an infinite amount of time - in an actually infinite timeline the computer will turn out every combination of words that is possible, and necessarily at least one of those combinations might be the entire works of shakespeare, or this comment in full. If the computer generated the sentence "the cat sat on the mat" then there is no reason to suppose that just because we can make sense of or give meaning to that particular string of words, that there was anything more meaningful to its creation than a simple process of random selection. Similarly, matter that, given an infinite amount of time, has organised itself into the stars that we see in our constellations and this particular combination appears to us to be in some sort of neat order. But this doesn't mean that our constellations were designed. (Of course, this argument rests on the fact of matter being in self-sufficient motion but there is no a priori reason to suppose this isn't the case)

[@gordontubbs]

The universe ought not need maximal habitability or the flourishing of life in order for us to deem it's Design-worthiness. The fact that we are alive and can ponder existentialism means the universe is habitable and is survivable. We are also unaware of life beyond our solar system, and so to make any claim regarding life in the universe is based on ignorance not fact. The Mind of God by Paul Davies is a great read that covers a lot of this.

[@monev44]

I find a lot of problems with the finely tuned universe concept. [Continued] Third; saying our universe is finely turned for us is extremely egotistical. We exist in the form we do precisely because that is the form of life that can arise in the universe we have. It could be equally possible that a universe could have arisen where carbon biased life was impossible, but silicon biased life was. Would intelligent life in such a universe ponder the odds of a universe so apparently tailored for life? Just because our universe has live as we know it, doesn't mean that's the ONLY kind of universe that can have life. Is it rational for a giraffe to say, "Isn't it amazing these tress are tall enought for me to reach with my long neck better then other animals? they must be made just for us!" Or for a whale to say, "isn't it convenient that water density is just right for our songs to carry for miles and miles? It must be that way just for us!"

[@Brklyn-dd9yo]

"I loved the comments but it was a platonic love" XD Btw speaking about biogenesis have you ever come across Dr. Stephen Meyers book "Signature in the Cell"? What do you think about it?

[@TheRussianGiraffe13]

What if god was a fundamental force that is acting upon physical matter? And this explains quotes in religious books of god being closer than you think and stuff like god is controlling you such as allowing you to walk or move your arm. This would Then mean god is energy. Therefore is someone said "god created us all" aren't they technically right? not implying god is a supernatural being with vast intelligence

[@PhilosophyTube]

***** I'm not sure how you'd go about providing evidence for that... Plus, while it sounds nice, it's not actually theism, so theists wouldn't be on your side.

[@driss1808]

the strongest counterargumnt to the fine tuning argument is that if the Universe was diffrent, we would not be there to observe it

[@ikeeprunningandrunning6375]

i think the thing that created the universe is an evolving being(like a human learning from his experiences) so that's why things are like it is in this universe

[@timetuner]

I don't think the natural world was designed, but I like to think of natural complexity or life as subtle forces or tendencies of the world. I probably just don't have an adequate understanding of microbiology, but I can't wrap my head around how primordial RNA could come to self-replicate, form complex molecules other than itself, and preserve these features over time. On a related note, my favorite rebuttal to the argument from design is still to ask why the watchmaker couldn't be a bunch of eggplants.

[@OsefKincaid]

This video is a good part of why the people (mostly online) who insist that agnostics should identify as atheists are offensively wrong. It's pretty obvious that "I don't know" isn't the same answer as "God", but it should be pretty obvious that it's not the same as "no God" either. And if you want to argue that most atheists don't exactly say "no God" but some sort of "I haven't seen proof so I don't believe", then these people shouldn't accept to be associated with the (so-called) minority of people who actually do say "No God", since that's a completely different answer and a completely different approach to the question.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

The anthropic principle suffers because it assumes that of all possible "vacua" our universe was "dealt" one by chance. This assumes that there is a process that assigns a vacuum state to a universe, that it must be essentially random and that the entire set of possible vacuum states is large. We are not justified in believing any of these premises. Therefore we cannot rely on the fact that we can exist to infer that the universe is fine-tuned. If this universe was larger than about 13.5 billion light-years at the time of reionisation, then it will be impossible to infer the existence of different vacuum states from direct astronomical observation - experimental evidence for such a theory must be produced in the laboratory. This means that if for example "bubble universes" exist then they are likely to never be observed by astronomy. However that does not rule them out. Therefore, multiple vacuum states may have been realised; we can only occupy one of these in which we can exist; it will be very difficult (if not impossible) to infer the existence of any others. Until such a time (when the possibility of different universes has been addressed), we will not be in a position to say if the universe is fine-tuned. There is also the following, fairly compelling, argument against creation: Creation requires action Action requires a past to be defined Action cannot be defined at the moment of creation Therefore a creation moment is contradictory. In other words "creation" is an atemporal event, but it is nonsensical to think of "atemporal events". I do however believe that it is possible to argue against the above, so I'd be happy to hear of people's ideas on that. Both the "free will" and "alternate realities" topics are interesting. I still would have preferred to listen about aesthetics instead of design though. Oh and "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

[@kendallchaos]

People are always so narrow minded when talking about life on other planets, they think all extra terrestrials need conditions like ours but there was a documentary on tv a few years ago about how life on planets that would kill us is possible (such as evolving to breath methane rather then oxygen