Dr. Collins and I spoke for almost two hours on God, evidence, evil, the resurrection, and more. Watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/fXBGvNc2mvU/v-deo.htmlsi=q6zG98enWo-lynKb
@@impositon the contrary, he just gave up debating in many points, and also didn't provide good arguments at all. His basic point was "well just cause it feels true and right for myself" And I'm like... why are you in the room even?! Many times alex was analyzing and debunking the statements or thoughts in the bible, and he was faced with the first hand response of: "well you are coming at it with a skeptical and doubtful point of view" Man... I couldn't believe what I heard! Well that's what we're there for ! This is not a church. This is a conversation, discussion, debate, about the topic. He should tackle and challenge them! Most importantly if he can and if there are really points to be doubtful of. Which there are many, in the Bible. I was really disappointed to how he handled that conversation.
Hey Alex was just curious, but what's the argument here? I think you might be thinking too hard and confusing yourself. God can create as many universes and creations as He wishes, I mean we have angels in the Bible and many cases of NDE's on this world that explain (roughly with 97% consistent accuracy to their experiences iirc) the characteristics of the dimension in the afterlife. Which I would assume are bound by completely different laws then the ones we currently experience ourselves. (they explained being able to feel colors for example) I could personally see it as our universe being just one living painting/book in God's creations, and with this painting in particular He decided to use a certain structure to determine order within it. But your question is "well why couldn't God have used a different structure?" I mean He could have but it would no longer be the same painting. But regardless I hope you find Christ someday before you die man, so I can meet you in Heaven
How could he, because Alex's objections had nothing to do with the fine tuning argument, which Collins was here to present and defend. But he gamely tried to follow him along after he realized Alex just accepted the fine tuning argument itself and was going straight to what can be known about the intelligence responsible.
@@harlowcjthe fine tuning isn’t really an argument. It’s just a conjecture that can never be proven (right or wrong) since it appeals to an entity that can never be tested. What is amazing is the amount of people claiming they know anything at all about this “creator”, his desires, capabilities, wants….
@@harlowcj I think Alex's response was the most logical response to Collins' points. I don't see how anything he said had nothing to do with fine tuning?
@@plavyn Again, the one has nothing to do with the other. And the fine tuning argument most certainly is an argument. My favorite formulation is Luke Barnes's paper A Reasonable Little Question.
This is a perfect example of the fact that intelligence and achievement in one highly specialized field does not necessarily transfer to other fields. The more intelligent the person, the better equipped they tend to be to hide their bias from their own view.
Then, you are looking at purposeless macroscopic scale objects, not atoms and water molecules. You do not find it remarkable that hydrogen transmits and recieves quanta at 20+ specific wavelengths, changing its internal state, like abacus beads, with each push from outside? Are atoms precise? No random process creates precision unless the parts which come together are highly precise.
@@glenliesegang233 "No random process creates precision" ...you should have stopped there. Then again, you seem bedazzled by purposeful atoms and water molecules. 🤣
And they say atheists are arrogant. Yet this gentelman knows what God preferes, how is he like, what he thinks, his decisions and so on. In reality we do not have such an intimate knowledge about fellow human beings even if we are living with them for decades.
As a Christian I think Collins would argue that the knowledge of God's plans and purposes is revealed in the Bible and ultimately in the one it points to - Jesus Christ. If I believe Jesus is the one who is able to reveal God uniquely to us (and it turns out that he really is) - then a) Christians can speak of God who reveals and talk about those things that are revealed without being arrogant. b) Atheists who ignore that revelation may not be so humble as they imagined. The issue in this case comes down to the identity of the one who claims to uniquely reveal God to us.
@@andrewpatterson9647 God / Magic did it is never a good answer as it doesnt increase our knowledge and with that increase our opportunities. You never think putting a lighting rod on your roof is a good idea to protect your home when you believe that thunder and lightning is the wrath of God.
Collins seems to have a lot information about the characteristics and desires of a God that supposedly exists completely outside of existence as we otherwise know it. Talk about fine tuning, I find it absolutely incredible the way our conception of God just so happens to fit the boundaries of our scientific knowledge and evolve to ensure that remains so. It's like our concept of God was created by a thinking being to serve a particular purpose..............
It's like a "science of the gaps" argument... But you have to admit, it's amazing how puddles all over Christendom and beyond fit exactly into their potholes. Suspiciously finely tuned so probably god-based.
No you still have to explain how things come into being. You are overly romanticizing why people believe. Not why things exist. Whereas religious people are trying to see if science can even properly and definitively conclude why things exist with the best science we have. And so far, the best science we have, doesn't explain why things come into being without a creator. For example the laws of physics or matter. Don't make the conversation about why people believe. Hash out why things are.
@@williamrosario8534 "You don't get laws, constants or efficiency from random chance." Yes, you do. You said it yourself - it is a matter of experience.
There is a delicious irony to the atheist idea of God having been simply created by an individual or group (usually for the purpose of control). You'd have thought that a more Darwinan conception of the way that religion has emerged throughout humanity's existence would be a better fit with the enlightened, rational image cultivated by atheists themselves.
the mathematical equivalent of ... alex: why couldn't god make 1+1= 3? Collins: Well 1+1 doesn't equal 3. Alex: yea but then god would make sense if 1+1 =2 and so I'm just going to keep prodding you to say 1+1=3 because atheism This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning you can get when a philosopher talks to an actual scientist
Btw hasn't it historically been the polar opposite, where life just is S0OOO PROBABLE that it must have been created by putting human spirit inside a clay figure? When since we knew nothing in beginning of mankind where life was still seen as some kind of gift from heavens. Like... I don't think atheists existed back in that time, arguing that "Oh see how probable the life is... clearly God didn't make it." Like nothing in that argumentation makes sense. You can just say "God makes this argument more logical" and you could apply to everything, well besides image of Jesus appearing in Dog's anus.
you guys are f****** stupid and Alex's point is also stupid.... he did answer it directly... God could have made things anyway he wanted and he made them the way he did and now we are living inside of that.
@@tpstrat14 Don't they discuss this exact point at 17:23 and Alex answers it? Alex asks Francis "Do you view the comsological constants as laws of logic because if you do then it's the same as 1 + 1 = 3 and I'll concede the point. But it's doesn't seem like they are." And Francis seems to for the most part agree that they're not. I'm guessing one of the reasons being that we can't imagine a world where 1 + 1 = 3 but we can imagine one with different constants. Francis even paints a possible scenario multiple times. It would be a universe where particles are all flying away from each other or they all come together in one big mass. So I think even Francis disagrees with your argument.
Collins's answer was spot on. The constants themselves are not tantamount to laws of logic. They only become tantamount to laws of logic if you take it as given that physics is governed by laws that are described by mathematical equations. Once you have a set of equations, then changing the constants *necessarily* changes how that universe will operate. God could not change the gravitational constant, all else remaining equal, and yet have gravity work the same way as before. That would violate the very definition of the gravitational constant. So Alex is perfectly justified to say the values of the constants are a constraint, at least within the context of a lawful universe (which is why Collins kept returning to that point). But I don't think it undermines the argument at all.
I’m genuinely unsure if Collins was truly misunderstanding Alex or acting like he was misunderstanding in an attempt to wear out Alex’s patience so that he would move on. This is the strongest argument against fine tuning I’ve ever heard.
@@dac3298we know that at least one universe exists so it isn't inconceivable that there could be more existing either temporarily or physically adjacent to our own. But we can't claim to know that a single god exists with anywhere near the same certainty that we can claim that the universe exists. So I'd say reaching for a creator to explain fine tuning is a far bigger stretch than allowing for the anthropic principle. Both are unscientific in that they are currently (and possibly indefinitely) unverifiable, but one seems to be much less possible to imagine verifying than the other.
@@JoshWiniberg The 'anthropic principle' isn't scientific at all, it's a philosophical viewpoint. Hard to make any concrete conclusion from this. 'Reaching for a creator' is a bit much. If you were to stumble upon an arrangement of pebbles that spelt 'HELP! I'm lost' - would you really be 'reaching' to state that it was a designed and intentional message. The hallmarks for an intelligent design are far more distinct in the universe than the pebble example.
@@some-other-time I don't think he is smart (anymore). It seems like that all his thoughts are memorized and recalled, rather than actively engaging with the point that is right now made through thinking.
He understood it. He's smart enough to realize Alex was trying to box him into a corner which would force him to admit God is less remarkable that he's advertised to be and cunningly dodged answering.
Wasn’t his question why did God make this universe the way that it is? Alex then answers his own question that it’s more reasonable to assume the gnostics point of view. I mean this question evokes a very opinion-based answer and that is what he is given.
Exactly! The very premise of fine tuning is begging the question. There is no indication that tuning was involved in anything, nor a reason it would be. Particularly when the laws of physics are evident and don't require anything more to explain how matter behaves. Fine tuning doesn't even have an alternative hypothesis, it just an unfalsifiable baseless assertion.
@@r.svispute4558what Is matter? What is a quark? These are just names we've given to phenomena we observe. Our laws are just our best way of describing that phenomena. We can never know what's really happening.
Yeah Collin’s couldn’t seem to grasp that he can’t argue fine tuning if he’s advocating for a all powerful god that doesn’t need to “tune” the universe to make it exist
Brah, you guys get off on hypotheticals and masquerade it as an intelligent debate. Once you realize that tactic is a complete waste of time, you would actually progress in engaging the facts at hand.
No. He doesn't. And he (Francis) is one of the most highly respected scientists out there. As Dawkins said, 'imagine what religion can do to the average mind'.
If you’re struggling with doubt and dissonance, Doubt isn’t failure. It’s not a lack of integrity or a betrayal of your beliefs. Doubt is what happens when the reality of your life doesn’t align with the ideas you’ve been told to hold. That’s not weakness-that’s honesty. Do not mistake self-neglect for humility, and do not think that undermining your rationality is faithfulness. If the things you’re being taught to believe routinely require you to ignore your own experiences, instincts, or feelings, you should push back.
@SelvesteHenrik Beautifully said. I’ve faced similar challenges, mistaking a lack of faith for weakness, and confusing self neglect, in the shape of not standing up for my ideals, with humility. I’m grateful and feel great relief to have moved through and beyond that. The pursuit of truth feels so much healthier and more liberating, compared to submitting to belief and pressure. You've expressed it really accurately. I imagine you’ve gone through a similar transformation yourself.
@PeaceFrog1 I’m glad you also had that experience. It’s quite something to be able to engage both the world and oneself with open-ended curiosity. Life becomes a real adventure then. All the best to you 🍀
@@SelvesteHenrik Street Epistemology has been immensely helpful for that. And an aspect of the Buddha's teaching: the advice to understand for oneself and to clearly distinguish between knowing and believing. I can still have world views, assumptions and hypotheses, but recognizing them as such - and not as the truth (which they may or may not eventually turn out to be) - makes a huge difference in how I identify with and cling to them. The loss of perceived certainty was quite scary, uncomfortable and disorienting, but now it actually appears much safer to acknowledge uncertainty. It even seems to be a prerequisite for finding truth.
this response misses the point. the puddle has no explanation as to why pot holes even are capable of existing, why not a universe where gravity is too strong, too weak for pot holes to ever even form? so many variables perfectly aligned to allow for a universe in which pot holes can form, when if any of them happened to be different, no pot hole and no puddle could ever exist
You've once again missed the point. Your assuming there are exterior rules, in this case how a liquid takes on the shape of the container. Assuming there are reasons to the universe existing this way just pushes the issue back in ridiculous fashion, like assuming a multiverse explains the unlikelihood of our situation any better. The whole concept of God is that he is the first, the prime mover.
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'-Douglas Adams
For a smart guy, Collins sure can’t grasp concepts that contradict his feelings. I watched most of this debate, and Collin’s couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge/understand Alex’s arguments, then he presented incredulity and his feelings as the rebuttals. It just shows how one can be brilliant in some areas, but not so much in others.
@@dac3298it wasn't a non sequitur. He was using hypothetical scenarios in an attempt to understand Collins' point. The fine tuning argument is complete nonsense.
We see only the biblical accounts that God numerous times humbles himself and limits himself towards his creation. I think the fact most people can’t fathom the term humble and apply that to God is a bit silly. I think it’s more incredible that a creator would humble himself towards his creation rather than hold himself higher in pride.
@tb8766 More special pleading gibberish... How utterly unsurprising that a theist will just fill in the blanks with whatever they think works instead of facing how reality is.
@ 🤨 do you even think with a brain? What did I say that was gibberish 😂 I think you need to sort out your arrogance before you try have an open conversation.
@ the reality is that our universe operates the way it does. It doesn’t operate in “oh but why couldn’t have God done this” this is an emotional issue not a logical one. Face reality and you see the only plausible solution is God. You as an atheist have no solution. Please try to give me one.
You go first. You never answered how you can know any of what a theist claims. I give you an easy starting point before we ever get to knowing the mind of a god... You claim a God exists. How do you know that?
Indeed why should we be impressed by the mere fact we exist. And every time we study and analyse quantum mechanics let’s ignore the fact it suggests the universe has been designed and engineered. And let’s mention passages from religious scripture because god has to be defined, limited and narrated by the religious sects.
@@angusmcculloch6653 Because it contradicts the idea that God is an all-knowing, omnipotent being.. Why would God think or feel anything if God knows (created) the outcomes of everything already?
Your words are death to the "Fine tuning" argument. You're completely correct. The place where life evolved is the one place where it was possible according to the preconditions of structure and physics. Amazing that shade falls just where the trees grow.
You must realize how moronic it is to think that because most of the universe is not inhabited by life that the universe is not fine tuned for life? Most of an atom is empty space, the fact that life exists at all suggests it is fine tuned to occupy that one specific region of space not the other way around
@zrakonthekrakon494 Id think it's more moronic to suggest a universe is fine tuned for life when the vast majority of the discovered universe cannot support life. How can 1 known planet with an abundance of life ever prove the statement "the universe is fine tuned for life". You must think earth is half the universe
Argh... Francis literally starts by referring to equations "governing the behavior of matter and energy". Physics models are descriptive models! To claim otherwise is begging the question.
When he says that the equations govern the behavior, what he means is short-hand for the equations describe phenomena that govern the behavior of matter and energy. Like, you can write an equation that describes how a ball rolls down a ramp. It's describing it even if it's not an equation for quantum gravity. It's "governing" it in the sense that it can effectively predict it as though the outcome were mandated. It's sloppy language, not necessarily sloppy thought.
@@danielkirienko1701 Yeah, I'm not going to say it's impossible that he mis-spoke. But making a mistake like that with his scientific background, seems rather a stretch. So I'm not going to attempt to read his mind to imagine he meant something different than he said. You quite easily found the correct word, when you said the equation describes the balls movement. there is no need for "shorthand". In this context where the relationship of theology and science is central, the meaning of that word is not insignificant or irrelevant. I'm not going to say that a smart scientist never uses language that sloppy or inaccurate, but it's pretty embarrassing when they do.
It has always seemed somewhat disingenuous to me when people derive any sort of probability from the notion that the gravitational constant or expansion etc. have to be exactly what they are. Besides the fact that we do not know the actual probability of them being different (perhaps they cannot be anything other than what they are), it's also possible for those constants to be intrinsically linked somehow. So a stronger gravity force would be counteracted by other forces that are also stronger. To extract any kind of probability from this is just ludicrous.
Not just the extraction of probability is ludicrous, the whole vocabulary is highly suggestive and anti-scientific. The neutral way to present the problem would be something like this (and Collins more or less did that in the beginning, when describing the problem): "There are a number of constants in our current understanding of the natural laws, whose values have an unknown origin. We don't know why those values are what we measure them to be. We know that even small changes to one or more of those values would have a large impact on how the universe as a whole would have developed. It looks like the values have to be what they are with great precision, in order to enable the universe as we see it, and we have no idea why." To use the word "tuning" already suggests an act, and implies an actor, and it also suggests that the values are in fact tunable, i.e. different values would be possible. Even worse is to talk about "intelligence", which presupposes not just an actor, but also properties of such an actor that look like human traits. Nothing of this sort is scientifically appropriate. And when associating this with "God" things get out of whack entirely, because the unavoidable effect on the audience is that they link the scientific problem with the God of a specific religion, which is totally arbitrary and unwarranted. At that point it is effectively propaganda. It is obvious to me that it is anthropocentrism that has gotten the better of Collins, and of many others with him. The vocabulary and the associated ideology is completely dominated by human-centric thinking. The picture that is being invoked is that of a superhuman tuner with basically human traits, except for the power needed to do this tweaking. A God that is made in our image. No wonder Collins almost effortlessly crosses from science into religion, and apparently has no second thoughts about that. I call that a breakdown of his scientific ethos. We are being led down the garden path.
@@stefanheinzmann7319 "We got these constants" "yup" "We don't know how to connect them" "With current theories? Nope. But we also know our theories are wrong in a few ways." "OK, so for 100% certain there's only one universe (made by an intelligent god) or infinite ones" "What."
it's importance (apparent fine tuning) comes from it's context - a context that many elements in our universe (a reasonable observer would imagine) show signs of design and intent. Thus the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, takes on increased meaning given so many other aspects are at the bounds of near-impossibility to have happened by chance - the human cell, a massively complex, stable living ecosystem, the big-bang happening. A reasonable observer could well concede that all this suggests design and intent. 'Fine tuning' is like seeing 10 purple cars in succession driving past, being astonished - and then the 11th purple car drives past. The prior 10 purple cars are 'the context' and the 11th car is 'fine tuning'.
@@dac3298 Or, you find out there's a factory down the road that just did a run of purple cars. This is the puddle being astonished that the hole in the concrete was created to exactly fit its dimensions. We have no idea if there's a link between these constants, such that there's no possibility of them being anything different. We have no idea how physics would actually work were any of them different. We don't even have a theory that defines the structure of elementary particles or describes quantum gravity. We have no idea if one massive star could have something like life inside of it - just not life as we know it. We end up with "if these things were different, which may be impossible, things would be different." Very weak. It's god of the gaps all over again.
The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God states that the universe is so precisely adjusted for the emergence of life that this cannot be a coincidence, and thus points to a conscious Designer. However, there are several reasons why this argument can be considered a fallacy: ► Incorrect use of probabilistic reasoning: The fine-tuning argument assumes that the probability of a universe with life is very small and that this “improbability” proves that there must be a designer. This is problematic because we have no proper frame of reference for how likely or unlikely our universe is compared to other possible universes. After all, we know of no alternative universes with which to compare. As a result, it is difficult to conclude that our cosmic parameters are “too coincidental” to exist without conscious guidance. ► Assumed outcome as evidence: The fine-tuning argument looks at the existing situation (a universe with life) and then reasons backward that this situation must have had an intention. This involves confusing effect and cause. Just as a manhole cover fits exactly on the manhole, it is not necessarily the case that the hole and the cover were designed with a specific purpose to fit perfectly together; rather, we simply exist in a universe suitable for our existence. Thus, there is a selection bias: we can only observe the existence of life in a universe that allows life. ► Alternative explanations are ignored: The fine-tuning argument puts forward design as the only logical explanation for the observed physical constants. However, there are theoretical alternatives, such as the multiverse concept, in which countless universes exist with different parameters. If an innumerable number of universes exist, it is not unlikely that at least one is suitable for life, without the involvement of a conscious Designer. Ignoring these alternatives unjustly narrows the space for naturalistic explanations. ► Rhetorical trick: The term “fine-tuning” itself is loaded, as it hints at a “fine-tuner” rather than just describing the observed conditions.
I don't understand your logic. For example, I enter into a craft. It happen it could fly. It happens all the control and variable set in a condition that it could fly. I mean i have not check all other possible crafts. But I am pretty sure it was designed. Not necessary by a god though, but definitely not by chance.
@@Jocky8807 The Watchmaker's Argument states that like finding a watch implies a watchmaker, the complexity in nature implies a divine designer. Your aircraft example follows this same logic. However, this argument fails for several reasons: False analogy: We understand aircraft design and can study failed versions, but have no reference for "failed universes." Infinite regress: If complex things need designers, who designed the designer? Evolution explains: Natural processes can create complexity without conscious design. Imperfect design: Nature shows many inefficient "designs" better explained by evolution. Selective focus: The argument ignores chaotic/destructive aspects of nature. Order ≠ design: Complex patterns can emerge naturally (like snowflakes). Additionally, unlike human designers who work within natural laws, the fine-tuning argument concerns these fundamental laws themselves, making it an invalid comparison.
@coertvisser9120 Good arguments. Several counterpoint though. 🙏 #1. False analogy. We don't need to study false universe. If you enter a strange building on Mars, u just know it was build and not natural. No need to study if the alien have build thousand building and failed. And why this new one is "made" and not natural. #2. Infinite regress. I also don't need to know. If I found a watch, it only imply watchmaker. That is it. I don't need to know how he is made etc. I don't want to say this is God or we need to worship any green alien. I just say the watch was made and not natural. 🙏 #3. Evolution explain. This is false. I don't think nature can make a watch on a beach. If you think so. Show me. Any complex mechanisms could not be made naturally. Even a word "I love you" on a beach, we would immediately assume it was not natural. 🙏 #4. Imperfect design. That is the point of fine tuning. It was so precise, it does not show any inefficientcy. Even Christopher Hitchens said it is the most difficult argument for God to counter. I don't go as far to a god. And need to worship anything. I just assume it was made. 🙏
@@Jocky8807 Your response shifts between different types of complexity (watches, buildings, biological systems, cosmic constants) as if they're all comparable, but they're fundamentally different: ►If we found a building on Mars, we can identify it as "designed" because we have clear reference points: we understand construction principles, can compare it with natural Mars formations, and recognize intentional design features. However, with the universe's fundamental laws, we lack any such reference points: we have no other universes to compare with, can't look "behind" these laws to see how they formed, and cannot determine what "designed" versus "natural" means at this level. ►The logical problem of infinite regress can't be dismissed - it's central to the argument's validity. If complexity requires a creator, this applies to all complexity. ►Evolution doesn't claim watches emerge spontaneously - that's a strawman. It explains how biological complexity develops gradually through natural selection, a fundamentally different process from human design. ►Regarding fine-tuning: You've switched from biological systems (which do show imperfections) to cosmic constants - a different discussion entirely. Hitchens referred to the argument's rhetorical force, not its logical validity. The core issue is that we can't apply our intuitions about human-made objects to fundamentally different natural processes and systems. I appreciate the discussion but would like to conclude it here. While these philosophical questions are fascinating, experience shows that such fundamental differences in perspective rarely resolve through further debate.
@@Jocky8807 Your response shifts between different types of complexity (watches, buildings, biological systems, cosmic constants) as if they're all comparable, but they're fundamentally different: ► If we found a building on Mars, we can identify it as "designed" because we have clear reference points: we understand construction principles, can compare it with natural Mars formations, and recognize intentional design features. However, with the universe's fundamental laws, we lack any such reference points: we have no other universes to compare with, can't look "behind" these laws to see how they formed, and cannot determine what "designed" versus "natural" means at this level. ► The logical problem of infinite regress can't be dismissed - it's central to the argument's validity. If complexity requires a creator, this applies to all complexity. ► Evolution doesn't claim watches emerge spontaneously - that's a strawman. It explains how biological complexity develops gradually through natural selection, a fundamentally different process from human design. ► Regarding fine-tuning: You've switched from biological systems (which do show imperfections) to cosmic constants - a different discussion entirely. Hitchens referred to the argument's rhetorical force, not its logical validity. The core issue is that we can't apply our intuitions about human-made objects to fundamentally different natural processes and systems. I appreciate the discussion but would like to conclude it here. While these philosophical questions are fascinating, experience shows that such fundamental differences in perspective rarely resolve through further debate.
One problem with the fine tuning argument is that it implies the constants could have been different, that other values are possible. But we have no evidence which suggests this. We have no other universe with which to compare ours. Ours is the only one we know. Before I can accept that the universe is fine tuned, I need something which points to some metaphysical control panel with dials or sliders which can be manipulated by any intelligence at all. I think this argument begs the question in that it presupposes a metaphysical creator in the first place. If we accept that the reality of our universe is a brute fact, then no creator is needed. Everything formed through natural processes. Just as so many things which were attributed to some supernatural force before have been shown to happen naturally within the constraints of physics, the same can be said for the formation of the current state of the universe. Sure, we can speculate on what "caused" the expansion of the universe, but we have no way of knowing what preceded the Big Bang, or whether that is even a coherent question, given that spacetime started with it. Christians talk about their god being outside of time and the physical universe. How does one know that? How can one know anything beyond the physical universe? I've never heard a believer present an argument that didn't start with their conclusion. Or, we don't know, therefore god. As if that explained anything at all.
It a very compelling argument when we look the history of deity arguments they gradually move further and further away until we now are at the point where god concepts can only exist at the very birth of the universe beyond space and time
@@Gumpmachine1 Bible has always said in the beginning, God created heaven and earth. That has always been the birth of the universe. Christians during the scientific revolution believed the laws of the universe were created by God, hence they can be understood because we have he mind of God. Therefore, the believe has been for a long time that God created the scientific laws and the universe had a beginning.
@@benmlee Logic dictates no such thing. Such a creator could have ended itself, or integrated in the universe, or become the universe. If your starting premise is creation ex nihilo, you've already broken the law of identity (and probably logic per se, by assuming nihil is coherent). From a contradiction, anything follows.
Well, he is perhaps not equipped to answer it fully. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a good answer, just that he doesn’t have it, or hasn’t thought it out thoroughly.
@timothym2241 That is true. I hate to say people are full of shit, because I'm obviously not a mind reader. However, I've had the unfortunate experience to learn a lot about liars in my life. One thing I do know is that you'll never get understanding out of somebody who knows they are full of shit. There's a reason they are immune to logic and reason. It's not because they don't understand or that you aren't giving a good argument. This is my own personal opinion. Again I'm not a mind reader, but I think he realized that logically leads to God not being all-powerful. That's why he was dodging. He knew if he accepted it, he would lose ground on his entire scam. It also means that fine tuning isn't actually that unique, which sorta makes the whole argument fall apart.
@@timothym2241Yes but if that would be the case, the way he answered the questions and argued his position wouldnt be exactly genuine. I'd even say he's borderline acting deceptively. There's no shame in admitting that you are not equipped for wherever the discussion is headed and try keep it in the confines of what you're able to argue for/against. Dodging the question out of pride is not the way to go.
@@wMerlinw The question wasn't relevant. O'Connor using the metaverse was just an escape from reality. The reality is we have a universe that looks remarkably like it was designed.
I find it extremely admirable Alex, without condescension, engage in the discussion, not because he is gregarious or altruistic, but because he realise that his opponents are sincere and serious people. I think his attitude towards them is almost more convincing than his arguments.
@@poo934So all of those examples are of life as we know it with the basis of a single kind of biochemistry. The universe as we know it allows for life as we know it. That doesn’t mean it’s fine tuned for life to exist, considering the fragility of life and how volatile the universe tends to be.
@@nicodemusedwards6931 the whole point is that this "fine-tuning" of the universe is also what lead to us existing. Therefore the universe is fine-tuned for us as well. This is the same sort of thing with contridictions in the Bible, where I ask, "What would you believe if it were the opposite?" If there were no contradictions, you'd say they copied off each other, if the universe was easy to live in, you'd say it was obvious we'd pop up without a God. The universe being nice to us has nothing to do with the arguement, which is that it isn't trival that we exist.
Even as the level of education of your opponents rises, they still end up making their side looke silly when they obviously hit a roadblock of cognitive dissonance when their apriori beliefs simply cannot parse your theoretical challenges. Thanks Alex, you are the unstoppable force that breaks objects that think themselves unmovable. Cheers from Czechia. :)
Alex's argument didn't even make any sense...God is constrained by the parameters of the universe? That's like asking if a bicycle maker is constrained by his choices of design to make his bikes. He himself isn't constrained to make a bike, but if he does, he has to make certain design choices, like having 2 wheels, to make it a bike. God creating the universe is the same. And he could make a different bike with a different design, but the bike (universe) we're talking about has this particular design, so talking about other kinds of universes is fine, but a bit of a red herring.
@@Knightfall21 I agree with you, I just think Collins was the one setting these constraints. The issues Alex is raising hardly seem that difficult to answer from a Christian perspective. Man is primarily spiritual, the physical is just an environment God has placed us to interact in. Its like we are gamers but have to play Fortnite. Fortnite has constraints, but the game developer can easily create another game for gamers to engage.
This entire conversation revolves on what a particular person considers "boring" or "interesting"... This is the literal definition of "i want the universe to be designed my way"... Theres no arguing with these people...
"God wants something interesting." Why shoehorn god into everything? How does 'something is extremely unlikely' lead to 'there must be a creator' and ultimately lead to 'the creator is above and beyond all and wants something interesting'
Not only that, but this creator apparently accepts limitations on his omnipotence in order to have personal relationship with us. And we know that because it says so in a dubious looking book.
Alex, I think the point you're making at the very beginning is the strongest there is in opposition to the fine tuning argument. If the premise is that the only way this universe could exist is if all of the necessary physical influences were dialed in this very specific way, then it eliminates the potential for an all-powerful being. It could be said that the creator of the universe is the most intelligent and most powerful being perhaps, but the option of an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator is eliminated when only one functional manifestation of this universe is possible. To put it another way, all things cannot be possible if there is only one possibility. I could dip deeper into the possibility that the fine tuning argument holds water if those making the argument would acknowledge the limitations that this argument places on their supposed Creator.
Defining anything into existence with omnis will always cause logical problems. Collins played dumb over and over when he knew what you were getting at. How disingenuous
I totally think that he understands exactly where you are leading him but doesn't want to go there because it absolutely negates the very concept of the fine tuning argument.
As a physicist, my response to this argument is who says these constants can change? Maths is prescriptive, it's just us affixing a language we understand to the phenomena we observe. Just because we can imagine the speed of light being 0.0001 higher than it is, doesn't mean that can actually occur, or that it even makes sense to suggest.
@jeffg4570 they don't have to be this way, they just are what they are. The values are what we adhere to them in order to describe them. I think I'm starting to understand the argument a bit better now though.
so wait, Collins argument regarding the gravitational constant is, if you changed one number, then life wouldn't exist? That's like saying my cell phone weighs 26 grams, if it didn't weight 26 grams it wouldn't be my cell phone. Therefore God exists. Um, no. We simply DISCOVERED what the constant IS! We put a number to it. By default it has to be SOMETHING! So because it's an actual number God exists? What??
The argument isn’t just “this constant has a value, so God exists.” The point is that the value of the gravitational constant (and other constants) is extraordinarily precise. If it were even slightly different, life wouldn’t exist, and neither would stars, planets, or complex chemistry. The fine-tuning argument asks whether this remarkable precision is better explained by chance, necessity, or design. Saying “it has to be something” doesn’t address why it’s specifically life-permitting rather than one of the infinitely more likely life-prohibiting values.
@@robertrowingboat7808 I think its better explained by chance than an omnipotent god who could create the universe without any constants at all or isnt all powerful
No.. his argument is that the components of the “cell phone” are so perfectly aligned and interconnected that it’s far more reasonable to conclude it was intentionally designed that way. By contrast, your perspective (and that of many atheists) suggests it’s more likely that every part of the cell phone was spilt out of a bucket and landed together in the only precise way required for it to function…all by chance.
@@robertrowingboat7808 What evidence is there that the gravitational constant could be any other value than what it is? precision implies that it is somehow special, but that's from our perspective that the existence of life is important. Also its an argument from ignorance that if we have no better explanation, then an immortal made it happen by magic.
6:59 “oh I think he could create any material world” moves to “wanted” when he fucks up. Now you get the problem with the argument and you move the goal post. The universe can be any possible way and *that* would be the standard of finely tuned, but because it’s *this* way, you believe that a god made this purposeful intervention from outside of the fabric of space time for the sake that YOU believe it would be the most “interesting”. Absolutely bizarre string of things to say. 12:24 you don’t think that particles just flying about is interesting? So do you buy into the heat death of the universe? Regardless, everything literally is particles just flying around - we give it context and meaning where there is none.
@ You would need to elaborate how. As I see it, the line of questioning was taking an avenue to get Francis to speak on whether God could have made the universe any other than way than this one, which would sort of put holes in “fine tuning”. There was nothing absurd on Alex’s part because he couldn’t even get the ball rolling with Francis’ non answers
@@ghoulish6125 It was absurd as he had to use a fictional idea with zero scientific evidence (the metaverse) to diminish the 'fine tuning' argument. In fact, the philosophical motivation to develop the idea of 'a metaverse' is suspect to begin with. It reminds me of a childish way of arguing - by abstracting into extreme hypotheticals and keeping a straight face.
@ you do realize that looking at anything, including any part of “tuning” in the universe and saying “God did that” is more absurd than discussing hypotheticals trying to address that, right? I literally laughed when you said “fictional idea” as if the concept of any god isn’t just that.
I did my PhD thesis in chemical engineering on the use of ab initio calculations to model chemical reactions. I know a little bit about this business with fundamental constants. Even though availability of computing power has improved substantially over the last 25 years, the underlying problem hasn't changed. When I modeled my chemical reactions, I think the maximum number of atoms I had in the simulation at any given time was about 40. This is because the amount of time needed to solve these equations increases rapidly with the number of electrons whose wavefunctions have to be calculated. It's at least on the order of n^3, and possibly as high as n^6. Beyond a certain size, the amount of time required to simulate a large system no longer fits within a human timeframe. Life, even in its simplest forms, is pretty big. Much bigger than 40 atoms. Using ab initio calculations to demonstrate that life in *this* universe is indeed possible would be a computationally impossible task. And that's even given the fact that we *know* that life in this universe is possible, and we know what it looks like. In other universes, with other values for its physical constants, we don't. We know it doesn't look like life in this universe, because life here obeys *our* physical laws, but we don't care about that. We're looking for things that metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce, etc. in a universe with different physical laws, with absolutely zero prior knowledge about what form it might take. The fine tuning argument boils down to, if the laws of our universe were slightly different, then life in our universe that is based on those laws wouldn't exist. Yes, and?
Yes. We wouldn't exist if we couldn't exist. All the universes where things couldn't work, didn't work. We are in one that did. Why is this so hard to understand.
It’s a pretty easy answer and it’s valid. But, as I come to live more I just realize we don’t know shit, so why should I just assume this was all an accident or rather that the universe does not posses some quality that I cannot certain of, that allows it to have some sense of willpower. Again, it is completely a valid argument. But causes me doubt in the same way believing in maybe Collin’s vision of God causes me doubt. I feel like the answer is somewhere in between, because universe itself existing and consciousness being an integral property of it is already magical and supernatural, so even if that’s all that exists it’s still something that is rather divine for lack of a better word and that we just can’t fully understand because science has limits because what we can measure has limits
@@MVRDERRXSOCIETYY16 Because you cannot create an experience, it can only accompany reality. Proteins cannot touch ideas or experiences, and there is nothing in the neuron that points to that, neither does electrical energy. In this view a rock is conscious too, but it’s not in the format of a brain so it isn’t organized. If you believe then then the whole universe is God, so I don’t really see the different between that and believing in God except maybe believing he doesn’t actually actively do anything. But I would argue that willpower has no reason exist within a brain either, so what’s to say the field itself cannot have some level of willpower.
@CosmicSkeptic At 18:50 "God is interested in Nature following Order" 1- *Whose Order?* Isn't God the one in charge of setting the Order? 2- *The Very Idea of a Miracle is the claim that God can and has (Multiple Times) changed the "Fine-Tuned" parameters of the Universe without any detectable consequence or change to the "Order" for Nature to follow*
I've always thought the argument for god's existence begs the same questions as it attempts to answer. For instance, god is used as an explaination for what created the universe, but then surely you need to explain what created god. And if you say god is allowed to have always existed, then why can't that be true of the universe, thus negating the need to use God as an explaination in the first place? "We need to explain the origin of thing A" "That's easy, just say thing B made it" "But what about the origin of thing B?" "Er...Don't worry about that" And in this scenario, surely an intelligent creator creates more questions than a multiverse, since you could imagine the later being due to physics. But to use an intelligent being as the creator make you think "where did this intelligence/being come from?"
Why isn’t it just that fundamental constants, as we define them, are the only way existence can be. Just because I call something a variable it doesn’t mean that it is therefore alterable. Example: if I define the width of your head is “w” at any time “t” that doesn’t mean that your head can be any other dimension at that time.
Right. Variables are just tools used to build models. And even if they were real in any material way we don't know what their prior probability distribution could be.
I'm a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, and Alex would do very well there. Our God has Laws and constraints that are part of the natural world. Else why would Jesus have to die.
@ yeah Mormons get around some of these objections. I think this is why Philip Goff thinks God is limited. Mormonism has other issues for me like its epistemic incongruence with second temple Judaism.
That question about a creator being constrained by the constants when making the universe is such a great question. Collins immediately went to the standard formulation (that the constants act on god), but this formulation (that they constrain his creative power) highlighted an important contradiction that forced Collins to show how little science has to do with his argument.
"That question about a creator being constrained by the constants when making the universe is such a great question. " Authors can answer the question. When you are making up an imaginary person or entity you can set any parameters you choose .
It’s actually a weak response from Alex. If the scientist says “yes it constrains god”, then what does Alex say? Many (most?) conceptions about God suggest that God is constrained, at least in some way. Alex’s response presupposes the versions of god that are absolutely unconstrained, which is a bit of a strawman here.
@@hackerj23 Constrained by what is logically possible, but that is different and was addressed in the clip. To say God is similarly constrained by the constants with respect to what he can create, it's a direct challenge to the omnipotence (or maximally powerful) property of god claimed by most theists (including Collins). So if the theist wants to say, "yeah, he's constrained by the constants too", he's just delivered a significantly weakened conception of god. It also opens up the question about what else constrains god, if he's constrained by the constants where do they come from and why would a creator be needed at all?
Right? And he tries to frame it right from the start as a "fairly recent realization"😂. This argument is as old as the religion. It's the exact bit of flawed reasoning that produced a god claim in the first place
God exsisted before humans. So yes, God would exist before the human mind to create an "illution" of God, because he created us, and exsisted before us
Pretty sure they mean that god doesn’t actually exist because it’s just an idea humans have formed to describe the origins and ascribing meaning to our existence.
Just because we have a descriptive way to describe this phenomenon, that doesn’t mean it can’t be prescriptive either. We can predict planetary motion among multitudes of other things with math. On top of that these phenomenons are mathematically related to each other. So the only reason they are descriptive is due to the fact that, we don’t know the full suite of physics to describe every aspect of it in our universe. We only know parts and those parts we know are descriptive and prescriptive to our knowledge the rules don’t change.
@tbracerplays Where is the prescriptive part? For it to prescriptive you'd need an agent prescribing the laws of physics, and all you said is we see planets move. For physics to be prescriptive in the way Francis implies with his language, like in the way our human laws are prescriptive, you'd need an agent behind these laws of physics. Without just assuming agency, where are you getting that?? I never said it CANT be prescriptive either, just that at this moment we don't see any agency behind it, it's just patterns we are describing, descriptive. And saying we see planets move is still just descriptive.
@@Enaccul I’m not arguing for Francis to be clear. I don’t think everything he said comes across properly. The reason why there is some prescriptive nature to these laws is that they would’ve had to exist before the Big Bang for the matter that makes up the universe to adhere to them. Gravity would have to exist as a rule in order for the singularity to end up how it is now. Not only do we see planets move, but we know how they will move hundreds to thousands of years depending on the data. That my friend is prescriptive because we can predict that with such accuracy.
It is amazing to see and hear, how constraint Francis Collins is by his believe in God. And all the assumptions about what God wants or is interested in, I don't see the point of them in a discussion like this.
@samuelrogers8358 I suppose the way I view it is that the only reason we exist is because everything happened to be perfect or that life evolved from the conditions that happened to exist, not that it was perfectly created in order for us to exist.
@@somethingcool0808 right, but in both of your scenarios, the conditions that happened to exist that allow life to form, that still seems incredibly unlikely, seeing as that the universe could easily exist in a way in which gravity was too strong to allow the formation of complex structures (e.g. solar systems, planets, galaxies etc.) and yet we live in a universe where these structures do in fact exist, so why would that be the case
12:15 Oh, I'm so relieved that Dr. Collins can't imagine why his god would want to create a universe that Collins finds uninteresting. Well, that settles the matter of divine motives, doesn't it? Let's calculate our probabilities based on that.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Christian: I know for a FACT my god is real! Atheist: Please show me your evidence? Christian: I'm TELLING you it's true! What more do you need?
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Correction: Christian : I know my Redeemer lives. Atheist: I don't believe you because I know everything and don't know your Redeemer. Some atheist don't just want to claim they don't know God but want to claim NO ONE can know God.
@@smidlee7747 Christian: I know for a fact that God exists. Atheist. I don't believe you. Christian: Therefore ... ? Atheist: I reject your claim. Theist: Yes - that was implied in "I don't believe you." Anything else ? Would you perhaps care to make a counter claim? FUN FACTS: 1/ Atheists have zero evidence that God does not exist. 2/ Atheists have zero evidence that *_evidence_* for God's existence does not exist.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 AD hominem, and no, you're wrong. When somebody does something completely antithetical to what they supposedly spent their entire life doing, it make you suspect that they were never sincere or competent. It would be like the Pope suddenly claiming to care about children after spending his entire life working for an organisation that abuses them.
No. I am bad at math, but good at law. If I pretended to be good at math, that would impugn my humility and my understanding of my limitations, not my knowledge of case law and legal method.
16:01 "they might have been otherwise" breaks the whole fine tuning argument. It's crazy how hard a time he has wrapping his head around the thought. The order objection is completely besides the point. Especially since you repeated it multiple times, that the universe would just be as it is right now.
@@hedvigkarpati7834 Because the whole point of the fine tuning argument is that we are astronomically lucky having the one and only possible set of constants, which couldn't be any other way even at the 7th decimal place, or otherwise life as we know it, the entire universe really, wouldn't exist. Therefore, it must have been made that way. If we open the door for different possible sets of constants, the likelihood becomes higher, and the power of personal incredulity, which the fine tuning argument caries, fades away.
@@biedl86 It doesn't break it. In this reality this is the case that things need to be a certain way for life to exist. God could have created a different reality where things would have to be a different way for life to exist, or where things would not have to be any specific way for life to exist. But He didn't. He created this reality. There is only one reality.
@@biedl86I’m not quite convinced that’s true. I appreciate how Alex grapples with this and would love to get to talk it out with someone who sees it his way. Wouldn’t you agree there are more ways to be ugly than beautiful? More ways to be bad than good? More ways to spread falsehood or lies than get to the truth? Similarly, there are many more ways the universe could be pointless nothingness vs permitting for life, beauty, goodness and intelligibility. Thus it is surprising that the universe is in fact balanced on a “knife’s edge” to use Alex’s phrase. I don’t think it’s a challenge to God’s omnipotence to say he operates within a smaller realm of potential physical levers that create that intelligible, life permitting, world with the potential for beauty that could be “interesting”, to beat that term down one more time lol. The point is, by definition to create something intelligible with physical laws governing it, forces have to have some consistent nature to them. Gravity for example has to have some range of possible manifestations with consistent effects, and of course there are many potential magnitudes of those effects that could have led to pointlessness, vs the knife’s edge of magnitudes that could create a world like what we have found ourselves in. Why God would choose a physical universe like this to house us in, only He would know, but I resonate with the intimations that there’s beauty in the improbability, ordered chaos present and discoverable intelligibility of its laws for minds like ourselves (that are made in His image to in part admire and contribute to this creation). Gravity being two times stronger, with everything else equal, would be unintelligible to us just like 2+2=5, so it does seem more like a choice for intelligibility and internal consistency vs some limitation in His potential power that Alex suggests.
Feels like he heard someone say these constants are so finely tuned that nothing could exist without them, and fully believed it without fully understanding it
Can someone explain how we could possibly know that it is unlikely that the constant would be as they are because as a mathematician I can’t imagine how you could possibly calculate the probability of the constants of the universe being the way they are without looking at other universes?
The incredible perfection of the so-called created universe matched with the hopeless imperfections of the similarly created life forms and the suffering they all endure from their horrible design flaws. Really?
@@crazyprayingmantis5596I guess because love is the highest form of relationship with God and for it to exist there needs to have free will, thus the possibility for corruption needs to exist
No, they can, just by very very small degrees. Scientific constants are closer to ranges, and theyre meant to be, because we cant observe the entire universe at once, and there are several places we know of where scientific laws break down.
There are two types of "changing" here: varying across time or space, or being able to have always had a different value from the one we've measured. The first type indicates our equations are wrong and what appeared to look like a constant isn't a constant. There's no evidence the second type has ever happened - we sometimes refine a previous measurement with better experiments, but there's always the assumption that the constant we're trying to measure has a fixed but unknown value. Our measurements have the range, not the constant. Plus, we only know of places where what we think are scientific laws break down. If a scientific law breaks down, it's not a law and we need a better one.
@@gurun8071 do you mean there is uncertainty about the true value of the constants? Or that there is certainty that the same value does not apply everywhere? Anyway, I think the point of the comment above is that we don't know how universes are built and how constants are "chosen". Therefore, saying "they could have had any other values, so there must be an intention behind" isn't a complete argument, as we don't really know if they could have had any values outside of the value/range of values we actually observe.
I am flabbergasted that from the pages of the Bible comes this? What an astonishing leap. From a crude little assembly of stories from human history, some possibly true, others utterly fantastical, we are transported to an explanaition of life, God, the universe, and everything within. The human imagination is truly unfettered.
Watch the discussion. He addresses that exact argument. It's not a logical contradiction like a square circle is. That's by definition a contradiction. Alex is asking for different physics, which were apparently entirely created by God and should be entirely malleable, even to use considering I can imagine the equations being different but can't imagine a square circle
If you’re only arguing for theism, why can’t you have a God who is not all powerful? Does it contradict the idea of what God is fundamentally or is that something which is defined by religion.
Also on the idea that the evil demiurge created the material world, I find this really interesting, but I think its wrong to think of this as a more probable situation, it seems to me that the only reason it is more probable is that you’re trying to infer a characteristic of God or the demiurge to make one argument seem more probable. This is why both the demiurge argument, but also the argument that God found it “interesting”, I think are a bit funky. So idk if im missing something
Mr Collins must believes in a personal God, as he knows what he can do, his motivations, his emotions, his thought, in fact it looks like God is a version of Mr Collins living outside time and space that can do anything, but has human emotions and desires. God is effectively human with a very complex brain who can control the material world, but choses not to since it's inception. And if God is a personal God, then there are millions of Gods with different desires and emotions.
@ how can someone examine something outside space and time? Francis Collins starts with presumption that his god is real, that’s a fallacy and should be eliminated from any argument! He also committed god of the gaps, black and white etc. I don’t understand why Alex don’t point it out during the conversation all his falacies!
So God apparently finds this universe "interesting", but does nothing about the 25,000 people who die everyday of preventable issues, most of them children ? Evidence of absence in my view.
The BIBLE is NOT the source of LIES, tricks, and deceits but the source of TRUTHS about GOD and JESUST CHRIST and the UNBIBLICAL teachings and doctrines about "hellfire", "Armageddon", "Trinity", "God doesn't exist", "afterlife", "immortality of the souls", "rapture", and "reincarnation" are all false, not true, nothing but LIES, tricks, and deceits that bring dishonor, disgrace, shame, and will definitely cause the downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS of Atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions while LOVING, KIND, RESPECTFUL, and SUBMISSIVE persons on earth who rejected Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, all Religions as worthless and useless and willingly submit instead to the authority of Jesus Christ in their obedience to what's written in Matthew 28: 18 will definitely bring themselves honor and the Sovereign GOD's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4 and the teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26 are the guarantee that all the LOVING, KIND, RESPECTFUL, and SUBMISSIVE persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others will all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of GOD and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Sovereign GOD's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
The Fine Tuning Argument: "Life, and by extension, our very minds, are delicate things that depend on the constants of nature being very precise values. The only explanation? An obscenely complex mind that is not subject to the same reasoning because I said so, who twiddled the knobs by himself, using magic (which obviously needs no further explanation). He also hates gay people, loves you but might eternally torment you, and by the way, could really use some of your money".
i like how after spending 15 minutes unknowingly advocating that his god is not omnipotent, he does the unjustified leap from “a god is necessary for the universe to exist” to “God is Love ❤”
I really wish an astrophysicist would come on one of these to provide a counterpoint. There are some big assumptions in these calculations and some good honest debate that isn't just philosophy. I mean, we talk about dark energy in this and the cosmological constant, but that is very much up for debate. Sometimes, it feels like fine tuning raps back around to god of the gaps.
"If God doesn't exist, then where does lightning come from? Checkmate atheists." "If God doesn't exist, then where does fine tuning come from? Checkmate atheists." God of the gaps indeed. Word for word.
Best way I've heard this said is like this. "If we found ourself in a universe where life was impossible, that would be better evidence of a God." If God MUST choose specific parameters, he's not omnipotent.
@@Husseskanal It shows that the fine tuning argument doesn't demonstrate what theists imagine it demonstrates. If both of the following demonstrate that a god exists, then the question is very clearly loaded, not fit for the purpose of demonstrating god: - A fine tuned universe with humans shows god exists because it is so unlikely that it would be this particular way - A non-tuned universe with humans shows god exists because humans in it would not be possible absent miracles
My advice to everyone for the end of 2024 is to read book: Your Life Your Game Keezano🙌🏼📚I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and success. God bless, Amen🙏
Something exists because nothing is impossible. Otherwise there would be nothing not something. But even nothing is something, thereby rendering the entire question paradoxical.
If time itself began at the Big Bang, then there is no "before" that point, so the universe has thus always existed (ie. for as long as time existed). Thus there was never a time for "nothingness" to exist. Also, to say "nothingness" exists (ie. moment to moment, second after second passing, etc) still requires time to exist. But time is interconnected with space and doesn't really exist separate from it, based on current understanding. One can't exist without the other, they are intertwined together as spacetime. The only things that can be said to have the property of existence or existing, require time to exist, but time brings space along with it, and thus nothingness can't be said to "exist" or even possibly exist.
@@Quanthefather big bang was not the beginning of entropy, it is also not singular - the universe expands and contracts cyclically ( according to what we know so far ). this is to say that there was a 'before' the Big Bang
The only type of creator that must have a fine-tuned environment to create anything is a creator that is bound by physical phenomena. This is not the god described by most religions presented to me.
please expand. Right now it looks like you're assuming that creator "God", require a "fine-tuned environment to create anything". Where do you get that he requires that?
this still doesn't answer the fine tuned argument from the athiest perspective, the theist doesn't have to suggest that god couldn't make the universe any other way, the fine tuning argument just highlights that the way the universe IS would suggest some sort of tuning specifically for the eventual formation of complex structures and environments for life to exist
@mathiasebbesen8695 I do not understand your question. Let me ask you a clarifying question. For human life to exist, does it require a finely tuned universe?
@@cmack17 That's difficult to answer. I'm not sure. One thing im sure, and that is that this universe didnt just created itself. Every action has something triggering it, for it to happend. Matter and energy doesnt just appear. But if, againt all odds, the universe created itself. And the Big Bang happend randomly, we all know that an explotion leads to caos. And explotion defenetly doesnt lead to order and design. Or even life for that instance. The odds are in the favor of theist. Theres more likley that this universe was created by an intellegent mind, and was the results of an guided prosess. And the facts are, we live in a fine-tuned universe. And that to me, suggest that there is a designer. (God)
@@poo934 One thing im sure, and that is that this universe didnt just created itself. Every action has something triggering it, for it to happend. Matter and energy doesnt just appear. But if, againt all odds, the universe created itself. And the Big Bang happend randomly, we all know that an explotion leads to caos. And explotion defenetly doesnt lead to order and design. Or even life for that instance. The odds are in the favor of theist. Theres more likley that this universe was created by an intellegent mind, and was the results of an guided prosess. And the facts are, we live in a fine-tuned universe. And that to me, suggest that there is a designer. (God) Reply
The gravitational constant is not nearly as precisely required as he presents. You could change that decimal place by 1 in both directions and it wouldn't make any measurable difference. There's actually a huge range in a lot of the parameters for life to exist. It's not nearly as narrow as apologists like this guy like to present.
So, the universe could not possibly have come about naturally but our magic god just appeared magically. Our magic god then is able to magically create this universe which is only going to be interesting to me if it include humans. Somehow all the rest of the universe is not interesting. So, why would our magic god only consider our universe to be interesting if it contained complex life?
Great point. My vision (for a stand up routine, maybe): God was sitting on his throne for, well, forever going back in time. After a few billion earth years he finally jumped up and said "Damn this is boring! I need some playthings to mess around with..." A perfect being would have no need for anything as far as I can figure, so no creation of anything would have been necessary. Either that, or God isn't the perfect being Christians argue for...
@@dac3298 Because it starts with the assumption that the universe is "tuned" (based off argument from incredulity) and uses that as evidence of a creator. That's begging the question. We have no reason to think the universe was tuned at all, finely or otherwise. We have no reason to think the constants of physics could have had any other value.
@@joeturner9692 There's already a weight of evidence to support the view that the universe has a designer. The universe has a finite age, and had a beginning - suggesting that other modes of life exist outside the space-time realm. The formation of the living cell required hundreds of simultaneous technologies to emerge instantaneously etc. The 'fine-tuning' argument is not the lynch-pin and therefore begs for nothing. Therefore, It's churlish to state that this is 'begging the question'. The issue of a designer is already scientifically credible, and this is just another of many supporting ideas.
@@dac3298 "There's already a weight of evidence to support the view that the universe has a designer." I mean zero is a weight, sure. "The universe has a finite age, and had a beginning - suggesting that other modes of life exist outside the space-time realm." That doesn't follow logically. The universe could easily be all that has ever existed or ever will. "The formation of the living cell required hundreds of simultaneous technologies to emerge instantaneously etc." Not true at all. F in biology. "The 'fine-tuning' argument is not the lynch-pin and therefore begs for nothing." Not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Fine-tuning clearly pre-supposes a creator. In reality, we have no reason to think the universe was "tuned" at all, finely or otherwise. "The issue of a designer is already scientifically credible, and this is just another of many supporting ideas." It's not. Creationism is not science; it's science-denialism.
If you’re saying the universe is the only thing that could ever exist, then you ruin your own theory about the origin. If the universe is all there is then it shouldn’t have an origin at all… You sir have an F in biology we know how to build quantum computers and yet don’t know how to create the simplest living thing from scratch. So are you telling me if I left all the materials for a quantum computer in an air-tight lab for BILLIONS of years it would assemble itself a function?! That’s essentially what chemical evolution suggests. If it’s so easy to have simple life then we would create it already. We know that if certain constants and scientific laws didn’t exist or work the same the universe wouldn’t exist in the complexity it is now. For that matter in many cases not exist at all.
Imagine saying "I just think that a supernatural explanation is more likely than a naturalistic explanation" even though we have trillions of examples of naturalistic explanations and absolutely 0 for supernatural explanations. Theists are simply incredible. 🤦🏾♂️
People used to think the earth was fine tuned for our existence - gravity just right, distance from the sun just right, moon steadies the tilt of the earth, air pressure just right, etc, etc. But it is obvious that the earth is not adapted for us. We are adapted to the earth, that just by chance happens to be suitable for life like us.
… Alex, you can outdo a great scientist like Frances Collins with one hand tied behind your back. You constantly amaze me how knowledgeable and well prepared you are. And you’re still so young.
I watched the full debate, and noted that you made the point that Mark was the earliest Gospel. Then Matthew copied Marks. Verbatim. So my point is this; Knowing that each Gospel author just copied each other, and Mark being the earliest. We cannot make the claim that they are four independent accounts. All we have is one source; Marks Gospel. Placing Jesus on Earth, with elaborate allegorical tales. And the rest just copied his. Updating it, or adding bits that reflected their changing agenda. Knowing this, points the finger at the author of Mark. Didn’t he just make it up? Prior to this, Paul’s letters, and 1 Clement, Hebrews, only speak of a revelatory being. Known only through revelations and scripture.
This is exactly what happens when you start with a conclusion and have to ignore everything we learn about the question that doesn't match up with your baseless assertion.
I think Alex needed to think through his arguments more. It was in-coherent how he replied. I suppose that's what happens when you lift someone else's arguments.
Dr. Collins and I spoke for almost two hours on God, evidence, evil, the resurrection, and more. Watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/fXBGvNc2mvU/v-deo.htmlsi=q6zG98enWo-lynKb
Fantastic guest
Learned allot
@@impositon the contrary, he just gave up debating in many points, and also didn't provide good arguments at all.
His basic point was "well just cause it feels true and right for myself"
And I'm like... why are you in the room even?!
Many times alex was analyzing and debunking the statements or thoughts in the bible, and he was faced with the first hand response of: "well you are coming at it with a skeptical and doubtful point of view"
Man... I couldn't believe what I heard!
Well that's what we're there for !
This is not a church. This is a conversation, discussion, debate, about the topic. He should tackle and challenge them! Most importantly if he can and if there are really points to be doubtful of.
Which there are many, in the Bible.
I was really disappointed to how he handled that conversation.
Hey Alex was just curious, but what's the argument here? I think you might be thinking too hard and confusing yourself.
God can create as many universes and creations as He wishes, I mean we have angels in the Bible and many cases of NDE's on this world that explain (roughly with 97% consistent accuracy to their experiences iirc) the characteristics of the dimension in the afterlife. Which I would assume are bound by completely different laws then the ones we currently experience ourselves. (they explained being able to feel colors for example)
I could personally see it as our universe being just one living painting/book in God's creations, and with this painting in particular He decided to use a certain structure to determine order within it. But your question is "well why couldn't God have used a different structure?" I mean He could have but it would no longer be the same painting.
But regardless I hope you find Christ someday before you die man, so I can meet you in Heaven
Psalm 14:1
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
"spoke for almost two hours on God, evidence, evil, the resurrection"
What evidence do you have for any of those things?
Dr. Collins: "I think i see where you're going..."
Narrator: Dr. Collins did not, in fact, see where Alex was going.
😂😂
How could he, because Alex's objections had nothing to do with the fine tuning argument, which Collins was here to present and defend. But he gamely tried to follow him along after he realized Alex just accepted the fine tuning argument itself and was going straight to what can be known about the intelligence responsible.
@@harlowcjthe fine tuning isn’t really an argument. It’s just a conjecture that can never be proven (right or wrong) since it appeals to an entity that can never be tested. What is amazing is the amount of people claiming they know anything at all about this “creator”, his desires, capabilities, wants….
@@harlowcj I think Alex's response was the most logical response to Collins' points. I don't see how anything he said had nothing to do with fine tuning?
@@plavyn Again, the one has nothing to do with the other. And the fine tuning argument most certainly is an argument. My favorite formulation is Luke Barnes's paper A Reasonable Little Question.
'Interesting' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Heavy lifting is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
@TheFloridaBro well, doesn't it always?
@@richardbradley1532 hmmm...interesting
wouldn't God want to create a universe with a set of laws so his creations can understand the world around them?
@@fatmanbatman9374 people got along fine not understanding the laws of nature for millions of years. Luckily for god(s).
This is a perfect example of the fact that intelligence and achievement in one highly specialized field does not necessarily transfer to other fields. The more intelligent the person, the better equipped they tend to be to hide their bias from their own view.
Interesting how this applies to both Alex and Francis. Unless, you are biased too..?
@@FortYeah Except that alex is specialised within the domain of discussion... philosophy. Francis is a scientist, not a philosopher.
Lol I wonder if you got vaccinated
@@ssmmsmit222I don’t wonder if you are an imbecile or not.
@@ssmmsmit222 Why would you wonder that? Where's the overlap??
I forget where I heard this, but I love it - “If the universe if fine tuned for anything, it’s the creation of black holes.”
Then, you are looking at purposeless macroscopic scale objects, not atoms and water molecules.
You do not find it remarkable that hydrogen transmits and recieves quanta at 20+ specific wavelengths, changing its internal state, like abacus beads, with each push from outside?
Are atoms precise?
No random process creates precision unless the parts which come together are highly precise.
@@glenliesegang233 "No random process creates precision" ...you should have stopped there. Then again, you seem bedazzled by purposeful atoms and water molecules. 🤣
@@glenliesegang233 Does "not random" equal "designed"?
@@glenliesegang233 Are you Jordan Peterson in disguise? Or is this a " I am not a physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn" situation?
I think it was Stephen Hawking
And they say atheists are arrogant. Yet this gentelman knows what God preferes, how is he like, what he thinks, his decisions and so on. In reality we do not have such an intimate knowledge about fellow human beings even if we are living with them for decades.
Right, but when it needs to be God will be equally "mysterious" dependent upon the need to win or dodge an argument.
Yeah, as soon as you start saying you know what god wants you're rationalizing.
exactly, the level of delusion in true believers knows no bounds.
As a Christian I think Collins would argue that the knowledge of God's plans and purposes is revealed in the Bible and ultimately in the one it points to - Jesus Christ. If I believe Jesus is the one who is able to reveal God uniquely to us (and it turns out that he really is) - then a) Christians can speak of God who reveals and talk about those things that are revealed without being arrogant. b) Atheists who ignore that revelation may not be so humble as they imagined. The issue in this case comes down to the identity of the one who claims to uniquely reveal God to us.
@@andrewpatterson9647 God / Magic did it is never a good answer as it doesnt increase our knowledge and with that increase our opportunities. You never think putting a lighting rod on your roof is a good idea to protect your home when you believe that thunder and lightning is the wrath of God.
Collins seems to have a lot information about the characteristics and desires of a God that supposedly exists completely outside of existence as we otherwise know it. Talk about fine tuning, I find it absolutely incredible the way our conception of God just so happens to fit the boundaries of our scientific knowledge and evolve to ensure that remains so. It's like our concept of God was created by a thinking being to serve a particular purpose..............
It's like a "science of the gaps" argument...
But you have to admit, it's amazing how puddles all over Christendom and beyond fit exactly into their potholes. Suspiciously finely tuned so probably god-based.
@@The-Selfish-Meme It's simply a matter of every day life experience. You don't get laws, constants or efficiency from random chance.
No you still have to explain how things come into being. You are overly romanticizing why people believe. Not why things exist. Whereas religious people are trying to see if science can even properly and definitively conclude why things exist with the best science we have. And so far, the best science we have, doesn't explain why things come into being without a creator. For example the laws of physics or matter. Don't make the conversation about why people believe. Hash out why things are.
@@williamrosario8534
"You don't get laws, constants or efficiency from random chance."
Yes, you do.
You said it yourself - it is a matter of experience.
There is a delicious irony to the atheist idea of God having been simply created by an individual or group (usually for the purpose of control). You'd have thought that a more Darwinan conception of the way that religion has emerged throughout humanity's existence would be a better fit with the enlightened, rational image cultivated by atheists themselves.
Collins: "I think I see what you mean"
*Proceeds to not see what Alex means.
the mathematical equivalent of ...
alex: why couldn't god make 1+1= 3?
Collins: Well 1+1 doesn't equal 3.
Alex: yea but then god would make sense if 1+1 =2 and so I'm just going to keep prodding you to say 1+1=3 because atheism
This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning you can get when a philosopher talks to an actual scientist
Btw hasn't it historically been the polar opposite, where life just is S0OOO PROBABLE that it must have been created by putting human spirit inside a clay figure? When since we knew nothing in beginning of mankind where life was still seen as some kind of gift from heavens.
Like... I don't think atheists existed back in that time, arguing that "Oh see how probable the life is... clearly God didn't make it."
Like nothing in that argumentation makes sense. You can just say "God makes this argument more logical" and you could apply to everything, well besides image of Jesus appearing in Dog's anus.
you guys are f****** stupid and Alex's point is also stupid.... he did answer it directly... God could have made things anyway he wanted and he made them the way he did and now we are living inside of that.
@@tpstrat14 Don't they discuss this exact point at 17:23 and Alex answers it? Alex asks Francis "Do you view the comsological constants as laws of logic because if you do then it's the same as 1 + 1 = 3 and I'll concede the point. But it's doesn't seem like they are." And Francis seems to for the most part agree that they're not.
I'm guessing one of the reasons being that we can't imagine a world where 1 + 1 = 3 but we can imagine one with different constants. Francis even paints a possible scenario multiple times. It would be a universe where particles are all flying away from each other or they all come together in one big mass.
So I think even Francis disagrees with your argument.
Collins's answer was spot on. The constants themselves are not tantamount to laws of logic. They only become tantamount to laws of logic if you take it as given that physics is governed by laws that are described by mathematical equations. Once you have a set of equations, then changing the constants *necessarily* changes how that universe will operate. God could not change the gravitational constant, all else remaining equal, and yet have gravity work the same way as before. That would violate the very definition of the gravitational constant.
So Alex is perfectly justified to say the values of the constants are a constraint, at least within the context of a lawful universe (which is why Collins kept returning to that point). But I don't think it undermines the argument at all.
I’m genuinely unsure if Collins was truly misunderstanding Alex or acting like he was misunderstanding in an attempt to wear out Alex’s patience so that he would move on. This is the strongest argument against fine tuning I’ve ever heard.
I didn't think this was a good argument against fine-tuning. Using the metaverse is a bit desperate.
@@dac3298we know that at least one universe exists so it isn't inconceivable that there could be more existing either temporarily or physically adjacent to our own. But we can't claim to know that a single god exists with anywhere near the same certainty that we can claim that the universe exists. So I'd say reaching for a creator to explain fine tuning is a far bigger stretch than allowing for the anthropic principle. Both are unscientific in that they are currently (and possibly indefinitely) unverifiable, but one seems to be much less possible to imagine verifying than the other.
@@JoshWiniberg The 'anthropic principle' isn't scientific at all, it's a philosophical viewpoint. Hard to make any concrete conclusion from this.
'Reaching for a creator' is a bit much. If you were to stumble upon an arrangement of pebbles that spelt 'HELP! I'm lost' - would you really be 'reaching' to state that it was a designed and intentional message. The hallmarks for an intelligent design are far more distinct in the universe than the pebble example.
How didn't he understand the question even after this whole discussion is kinda impressive
It was astounding. He's obviously a smart man, but this exposes how the god idea can infect one's thinking.
@@some-other-time I don't think he is smart (anymore). It seems like that all his thoughts are memorized and recalled, rather than actively engaging with the point that is right now made through thinking.
He understood it. He's smart enough to realize Alex was trying to box him into a corner which would force him to admit God is less remarkable that he's advertised to be and cunningly dodged answering.
@@lineridergod I dont think he REALLY got the point
Wasn’t his question why did God make this universe the way that it is? Alex then answers his own question that it’s more reasonable to assume the gnostics point of view. I mean this question evokes a very opinion-based answer and that is what he is given.
Sheesh. It’s not a bunch of rules governing the behavior of matter. It’s a bunch of equations that have been deduced describing how matter behaves.
Both is true though - to make sense of our world
Matter behaves under the rules that govern it
Exactly! The very premise of fine tuning is begging the question. There is no indication that tuning was involved in anything, nor a reason it would be. Particularly when the laws of physics are evident and don't require anything more to explain how matter behaves. Fine tuning doesn't even have an alternative hypothesis, it just an unfalsifiable baseless assertion.
@@r.svispute4558what Is matter? What is a quark? These are just names we've given to phenomena we observe. Our laws are just our best way of describing that phenomena. We can never know what's really happening.
@@r.svispute4558 This assumes that the rules exist independently of the matter. I see now reason to think this is true.
Alex it’s very possible these guests don’t understand hypotheticals. Your patience is unmatched
*Don't want to.
Yeah Collin’s couldn’t seem to grasp that he can’t argue fine tuning if he’s advocating for a all powerful god that doesn’t need to “tune” the universe to make it exist
@@Gumpmachine1yea you literally can?
Brah, you guys get off on hypotheticals and masquerade it as an intelligent debate. Once you realize that tactic is a complete waste of time, you would actually progress in engaging the facts at hand.
No. He doesn't. And he (Francis) is one of the most highly respected scientists out there. As Dawkins said, 'imagine what religion can do to the average mind'.
How did this conversation go back and forth for 20 minutes and Francis still doesn’t even understand the question? Just, wow.
If you’re struggling with doubt and dissonance,
Doubt isn’t failure. It’s not a lack of integrity or a betrayal of your beliefs. Doubt is what happens when the reality of your life doesn’t align with the ideas you’ve been told to hold. That’s not weakness-that’s honesty.
Do not mistake self-neglect for humility, and do not think that undermining your rationality is faithfulness.
If the things you’re being taught to believe routinely require you to ignore your own experiences, instincts, or feelings, you should push back.
Absolutely correct.
Well said. I think ignoring evidence and facts is as detrimental as ignoring feeling or instincts.
@SelvesteHenrik
Beautifully said. I’ve faced similar challenges, mistaking a lack of faith for weakness, and confusing self neglect, in the shape of not standing up for my ideals, with humility. I’m grateful and feel great relief to have moved through and beyond that. The pursuit of truth feels so much healthier and more liberating, compared to submitting to belief and pressure.
You've expressed it really accurately. I imagine you’ve gone through a similar transformation yourself.
@PeaceFrog1 I’m glad you also had that experience. It’s quite something to be able to engage both the world and oneself with open-ended curiosity. Life becomes a real adventure then. All the best to you 🍀
@@SelvesteHenrik
Street Epistemology has been immensely helpful for that.
And an aspect of the Buddha's teaching: the advice to understand for oneself and to clearly distinguish between knowing and believing.
I can still have world views, assumptions and hypotheses, but recognizing them as such - and not as the truth (which they may or may not eventually turn out to be) - makes a huge difference in how I identify with and cling to them.
The loss of perceived certainty was quite scary, uncomfortable and disorienting, but now it actually appears much safer to acknowledge uncertainty. It even seems to be a prerequisite for finding truth.
The puddle believes the pot hole was intentionally designed. How else does it fit so perfectly into the hole?
this response misses the point. the puddle has no explanation as to why pot holes even are capable of existing, why not a universe where gravity is too strong, too weak for pot holes to ever even form? so many variables perfectly aligned to allow for a universe in which pot holes can form, when if any of them happened to be different, no pot hole and no puddle could ever exist
@@poo934it's a metaphor
You've once again missed the point. Your assuming there are exterior rules, in this case how a liquid takes on the shape of the container. Assuming there are reasons to the universe existing this way just pushes the issue back in ridiculous fashion, like assuming a multiverse explains the unlikelihood of our situation any better. The whole concept of God is that he is the first, the prime mover.
Brilliant
@@dogsandyoga1743 yes im aware of that, it is however a metaphor that doesn't actually address the fine tuning argument
When this guy realises the glasses he is wearing perfectly fit the bridge of his nose, it's going to blow his mind ...
True because they are working backwards but from their own starting point.
It might even lead him to the absurd conclusion that someone designed those glasses to fit the human face
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'-Douglas Adams
@@SquishypuffDaveexactly that would be so absurd wouldn’t it?!….
@SquishypuffDave No, you have it backwards. It was the human face that was perfectly designed to fit the glasses! 😂
For a smart guy, Collins sure can’t grasp concepts that contradict his feelings.
I watched most of this debate, and Collin’s couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge/understand Alex’s arguments, then he presented incredulity and his feelings as the rebuttals.
It just shows how one can be brilliant in some areas, but not so much in others.
Alex couldn't grapple with the real issue to went to a BS non-sequitur about a fictional metaverse as he had no answer to the actual issue at stake.
What is Alex argument?
I have trouble getting his point.
Really? He was quite easy to understand @@Jocky8807
@@dac3298it wasn't a non sequitur. He was using hypothetical scenarios in an attempt to understand Collins' point. The fine tuning argument is complete nonsense.
Just because u think fine-tune argument is nonsense it doesn't mean is nonsense @@nakkadu
Every answer given to Alex was special pleading. "God chooses..." "God is..." "God wants...".
How can he know any of this?
We see only the biblical accounts that God numerous times humbles himself and limits himself towards his creation. I think the fact most people can’t fathom the term humble and apply that to God is a bit silly. I think it’s more incredible that a creator would humble himself towards his creation rather than hold himself higher in pride.
@tb8766 More special pleading gibberish... How utterly unsurprising that a theist will just fill in the blanks with whatever they think works instead of facing how reality is.
@ 🤨 do you even think with a brain? What did I say that was gibberish 😂 I think you need to sort out your arrogance before you try have an open conversation.
@ the reality is that our universe operates the way it does. It doesn’t operate in “oh but why couldn’t have God done this” this is an emotional issue not a logical one. Face reality and you see the only plausible solution is God. You as an atheist have no solution. Please try to give me one.
You go first. You never answered how you can know any of what a theist claims.
I give you an easy starting point before we ever get to knowing the mind of a god... You claim a God exists. How do you know that?
'God exists outside of time and space' can be re-written: 'God exists nowhere and never.'
Indeed why should we be impressed by the mere fact we exist. And every time we study and analyse quantum mechanics let’s ignore the fact it suggests the universe has been designed and engineered. And let’s mention passages from religious scripture because god has to be defined, limited and narrated by the religious sects.
Whoever you are, your brain is working really well.@reveivl
The scientist exist outside of the petri dish where his bacteria mingles..
@@NeonSlime-uu5kt the scientist exist in time and space, right?
This is soooo wrong bruh. Very wrong.
Any time any human being starts off with ‘God thinks…’ or ‘God wants…’ you know something is wrong.
How so?
@@angusmcculloch6653 Human beings by definition can't know what God wants or thinks. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.
Because how on Earth does a single human know what God the supposed creator of everything wants?
@@angusmcculloch6653 Because it contradicts the idea that God is an all-knowing, omnipotent being.. Why would God think or feel anything if God knows (created) the outcomes of everything already?
@@_sirfroggy_ We can use abuctive reasoning and historical evidence in scripture. If you believe the latter isn't valid, that's you.
He seems like a great conversation partner. Very patient and understanding, a bit like Alex.
Alex is lovely, his eyes are kind also.
Fine tuning: the universe was specially designed for life!
Known Universe: 99.99999999999999…% dead.
And that it took 13.8 Billion odd years to get to the 'end product' God desired...alone makes the argument suspect.
Your words are death to the "Fine tuning" argument. You're completely correct.
The place where life evolved is the one place where it was possible according to the preconditions of structure and physics. Amazing that shade falls just where the trees grow.
And everything that's alive is made up of the dead.
You must realize how moronic it is to think that because most of the universe is not inhabited by life that the universe is not fine tuned for life? Most of an atom is empty space, the fact that life exists at all suggests it is fine tuned to occupy that one specific region of space not the other way around
@zrakonthekrakon494 Id think it's more moronic to suggest a universe is fine tuned for life when the vast majority of the discovered universe cannot support life. How can 1 known planet with an abundance of life ever prove the statement "the universe is fine tuned for life". You must think earth is half the universe
Argh... Francis literally starts by referring to equations "governing the behavior of matter and energy".
Physics models are descriptive models!
To claim otherwise is begging the question.
When he says that the equations govern the behavior, what he means is short-hand for the equations describe phenomena that govern the behavior of matter and energy. Like, you can write an equation that describes how a ball rolls down a ramp. It's describing it even if it's not an equation for quantum gravity. It's "governing" it in the sense that it can effectively predict it as though the outcome were mandated.
It's sloppy language, not necessarily sloppy thought.
@@danielkirienko1701 Yeah, I'm not going to say it's impossible that he mis-spoke. But making a mistake like that with his scientific background, seems rather a stretch.
So I'm not going to attempt to read his mind to imagine he meant something different than he said.
You quite easily found the correct word, when you said the equation describes the balls movement. there is no need for "shorthand". In this context where the relationship of theology and science is central, the meaning of that word is not insignificant or irrelevant.
I'm not going to say that a smart scientist never uses language that sloppy or inaccurate, but it's pretty embarrassing when they do.
It has always seemed somewhat disingenuous to me when people derive any sort of probability from the notion that the gravitational constant or expansion etc. have to be exactly what they are. Besides the fact that we do not know the actual probability of them being different (perhaps they cannot be anything other than what they are), it's also possible for those constants to be intrinsically linked somehow. So a stronger gravity force would be counteracted by other forces that are also stronger. To extract any kind of probability from this is just ludicrous.
Not just the extraction of probability is ludicrous, the whole vocabulary is highly suggestive and anti-scientific.
The neutral way to present the problem would be something like this (and Collins more or less did that in the beginning, when describing the problem):
"There are a number of constants in our current understanding of the natural laws, whose values have an unknown origin. We don't know why those values are what we measure them to be. We know that even small changes to one or more of those values would have a large impact on how the universe as a whole would have developed. It looks like the values have to be what they are with great precision, in order to enable the universe as we see it, and we have no idea why."
To use the word "tuning" already suggests an act, and implies an actor, and it also suggests that the values are in fact tunable, i.e. different values would be possible. Even worse is to talk about "intelligence", which presupposes not just an actor, but also properties of such an actor that look like human traits. Nothing of this sort is scientifically appropriate. And when associating this with "God" things get out of whack entirely, because the unavoidable effect on the audience is that they link the scientific problem with the God of a specific religion, which is totally arbitrary and unwarranted. At that point it is effectively propaganda.
It is obvious to me that it is anthropocentrism that has gotten the better of Collins, and of many others with him. The vocabulary and the associated ideology is completely dominated by human-centric thinking. The picture that is being invoked is that of a superhuman tuner with basically human traits, except for the power needed to do this tweaking. A God that is made in our image.
No wonder Collins almost effortlessly crosses from science into religion, and apparently has no second thoughts about that. I call that a breakdown of his scientific ethos. We are being led down the garden path.
@@stefanheinzmann7319 exactly, just like calling the universe "creation" implies a creator, "fine-tuned" implies a fine tuner.
@@stefanheinzmann7319 "We got these constants"
"yup"
"We don't know how to connect them"
"With current theories? Nope. But we also know our theories are wrong in a few ways."
"OK, so for 100% certain there's only one universe (made by an intelligent god) or infinite ones"
"What."
it's importance (apparent fine tuning) comes from it's context - a context that many elements in our universe (a reasonable observer would imagine) show signs of design and intent. Thus the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, takes on increased meaning given so many other aspects are at the bounds of near-impossibility to have happened by chance - the human cell, a massively complex, stable living ecosystem, the big-bang happening. A reasonable observer could well concede that all this suggests design and intent. 'Fine tuning' is like seeing 10 purple cars in succession driving past, being astonished - and then the 11th purple car drives past. The prior 10 purple cars are 'the context' and the 11th car is 'fine tuning'.
@@dac3298 Or, you find out there's a factory down the road that just did a run of purple cars.
This is the puddle being astonished that the hole in the concrete was created to exactly fit its dimensions.
We have no idea if there's a link between these constants, such that there's no possibility of them being anything different.
We have no idea how physics would actually work were any of them different. We don't even have a theory that defines the structure of elementary particles or describes quantum gravity. We have no idea if one massive star could have something like life inside of it - just not life as we know it.
We end up with "if these things were different, which may be impossible, things would be different." Very weak.
It's god of the gaps all over again.
The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God states that the universe is so precisely adjusted for the emergence of life that this cannot be a coincidence, and thus points to a conscious Designer. However, there are several reasons why this argument can be considered a fallacy:
► Incorrect use of probabilistic reasoning: The fine-tuning argument assumes that the probability of a universe with life is very small and that this “improbability” proves that there must be a designer. This is problematic because we have no proper frame of reference for how likely or unlikely our universe is compared to other possible universes. After all, we know of no alternative universes with which to compare. As a result, it is difficult to conclude that our cosmic parameters are “too coincidental” to exist without conscious guidance.
► Assumed outcome as evidence: The fine-tuning argument looks at the existing situation (a universe with life) and then reasons backward that this situation must have had an intention. This involves confusing effect and cause. Just as a manhole cover fits exactly on the manhole, it is not necessarily the case that the hole and the cover were designed with a specific purpose to fit perfectly together; rather, we simply exist in a universe suitable for our existence. Thus, there is a selection bias: we can only observe the existence of life in a universe that allows life.
► Alternative explanations are ignored: The fine-tuning argument puts forward design as the only logical explanation for the observed physical constants. However, there are theoretical alternatives, such as the multiverse concept, in which countless universes exist with different parameters. If an innumerable number of universes exist, it is not unlikely that at least one is suitable for life, without the involvement of a conscious Designer. Ignoring these alternatives unjustly narrows the space for naturalistic explanations.
► Rhetorical trick: The term “fine-tuning” itself is loaded, as it hints at a “fine-tuner” rather than just describing the observed conditions.
I don't understand your logic.
For example, I enter into a craft. It happen it could fly. It happens all the control and variable set in a condition that it could fly.
I mean i have not check all other possible crafts. But I am pretty sure it was designed. Not necessary by a god though, but definitely not by chance.
@@Jocky8807 The Watchmaker's Argument states that like finding a watch implies a watchmaker, the complexity in nature implies a divine designer. Your aircraft example follows this same logic. However, this argument fails for several reasons:
False analogy: We understand aircraft design and can study failed versions, but have no reference for "failed universes."
Infinite regress: If complex things need designers, who designed the designer?
Evolution explains: Natural processes can create complexity without conscious design.
Imperfect design: Nature shows many inefficient "designs" better explained by evolution.
Selective focus: The argument ignores chaotic/destructive aspects of nature.
Order ≠ design: Complex patterns can emerge naturally (like snowflakes).
Additionally, unlike human designers who work within natural laws, the fine-tuning argument concerns these fundamental laws themselves, making it an invalid comparison.
@coertvisser9120
Good arguments. Several counterpoint though. 🙏
#1. False analogy. We don't need to study false universe. If you enter a strange building on Mars, u just know it was build and not natural. No need to study if the alien have build thousand building and failed. And why this new one is "made" and not natural.
#2. Infinite regress. I also don't need to know. If I found a watch, it only imply watchmaker. That is it. I don't need to know how he is made etc. I don't want to say this is God or we need to worship any green alien. I just say the watch was made and not natural. 🙏
#3. Evolution explain. This is false. I don't think nature can make a watch on a beach. If you think so. Show me. Any complex mechanisms could not be made naturally. Even a word "I love you" on a beach, we would immediately assume it was not natural. 🙏
#4. Imperfect design. That is the point of fine tuning. It was so precise, it does not show any inefficientcy. Even Christopher Hitchens said it is the most difficult argument for God to counter. I don't go as far to a god. And need to worship anything. I just assume it was made. 🙏
@@Jocky8807 Your response shifts between different types of complexity (watches, buildings, biological systems, cosmic constants) as if they're all comparable, but they're fundamentally different:
►If we found a building on Mars, we can identify it as "designed" because we have clear reference points: we understand construction principles, can compare it with natural Mars formations, and recognize intentional design features. However, with the universe's fundamental laws, we lack any such reference points: we have no other universes to compare with, can't look "behind" these laws to see how they formed, and cannot determine what "designed" versus "natural" means at this level.
►The logical problem of infinite regress can't be dismissed - it's central to the argument's validity. If complexity requires a creator, this applies to all complexity.
►Evolution doesn't claim watches emerge spontaneously - that's a strawman. It explains how biological complexity develops gradually through natural selection, a fundamentally different process from human design.
►Regarding fine-tuning: You've switched from biological systems (which do show imperfections) to cosmic constants - a different discussion entirely. Hitchens referred to the argument's rhetorical force, not its logical validity.
The core issue is that we can't apply our intuitions about human-made objects to fundamentally different natural processes and systems.
I appreciate the discussion but would like to conclude it here. While these philosophical questions are fascinating, experience shows that such fundamental differences in perspective rarely resolve through further debate.
@@Jocky8807 Your response shifts between different types of complexity (watches, buildings, biological systems, cosmic constants) as if they're all comparable, but they're fundamentally different:
► If we found a building on Mars, we can identify it as "designed" because we have clear reference points: we understand construction principles, can compare it with natural Mars formations, and recognize intentional design features. However, with the universe's fundamental laws, we lack any such reference points: we have no other universes to compare with, can't look "behind" these laws to see how they formed, and cannot determine what "designed" versus "natural" means at this level.
► The logical problem of infinite regress can't be dismissed - it's central to the argument's validity. If complexity requires a creator, this applies to all complexity.
► Evolution doesn't claim watches emerge spontaneously - that's a strawman. It explains how biological complexity develops gradually through natural selection, a fundamentally different process from human design.
► Regarding fine-tuning: You've switched from biological systems (which do show imperfections) to cosmic constants - a different discussion entirely. Hitchens referred to the argument's rhetorical force, not its logical validity.
The core issue is that we can't apply our intuitions about human-made objects to fundamentally different natural processes and systems.
I appreciate the discussion but would like to conclude it here. While these philosophical questions are fascinating, experience shows that such fundamental differences in perspective rarely resolve through further debate.
One problem with the fine tuning argument is that it implies the constants could have been different, that other values are possible. But we have no evidence which suggests this. We have no other universe with which to compare ours. Ours is the only one we know. Before I can accept that the universe is fine tuned, I need something which points to some metaphysical control panel with dials or sliders which can be manipulated by any intelligence at all.
I think this argument begs the question in that it presupposes a metaphysical creator in the first place. If we accept that the reality of our universe is a brute fact, then no creator is needed. Everything formed through natural processes. Just as so many things which were attributed to some supernatural force before have been shown to happen naturally within the constraints of physics, the same can be said for the formation of the current state of the universe. Sure, we can speculate on what "caused" the expansion of the universe, but we have no way of knowing what preceded the Big Bang, or whether that is even a coherent question, given that spacetime started with it.
Christians talk about their god being outside of time and the physical universe. How does one know that? How can one know anything beyond the physical universe? I've never heard a believer present an argument that didn't start with their conclusion. Or, we don't know, therefore god. As if that explained anything at all.
If you say the universe is created, then logic dictates the creator is outside the universe. Not sure why that is controversial.
It a very compelling argument when we look the history of deity arguments they gradually move further and further away until we now are at the point where god concepts can only exist at the very birth of the universe beyond space and time
Exactly
@@Gumpmachine1 Bible has always said in the beginning, God created heaven and earth. That has always been the birth of the universe.
Christians during the scientific revolution believed the laws of the universe were created by God, hence they can be understood because we have he mind of God.
Therefore, the believe has been for a long time that God created the scientific laws and the universe had a beginning.
@@benmlee Logic dictates no such thing. Such a creator could have ended itself, or integrated in the universe, or become the universe. If your starting premise is creation ex nihilo, you've already broken the law of identity (and probably logic per se, by assuming nihil is coherent).
From a contradiction, anything follows.
God damn it, why is it so hard for Francis to understand such a simple point that Alex is trying to make??? Less talking, more thinking Francis!
Because his livelihood depends on him not understanding it
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Collins is a biochemist. How does his livelihood depend on not understanding Alex's point?
maybe because Alex was incoherent. I'm still not sure what he was driving at? Can you explain?
because it is non-sense?
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I think it's more his heavenlyhood that depends on it. And probably his marriage..
Took him about 10 minutes to understand the question and then five minutes to dodge it.
Well, he is perhaps not equipped to answer it fully. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a good answer, just that he doesn’t have it, or hasn’t thought it out thoroughly.
collins never managed to understand the question. the only thing we learned here is that he is an imbecile.
@timothym2241 That is true. I hate to say people are full of shit, because I'm obviously not a mind reader. However, I've had the unfortunate experience to learn a lot about liars in my life. One thing I do know is that you'll never get understanding out of somebody who knows they are full of shit. There's a reason they are immune to logic and reason. It's not because they don't understand or that you aren't giving a good argument.
This is my own personal opinion. Again I'm not a mind reader, but I think he realized that logically leads to God not being all-powerful. That's why he was dodging. He knew if he accepted it, he would lose ground on his entire scam. It also means that fine tuning isn't actually that unique, which sorta makes the whole argument fall apart.
@@timothym2241Yes but if that would be the case, the way he answered the questions and argued his position wouldnt be exactly genuine. I'd even say he's borderline acting deceptively.
There's no shame in admitting that you are not equipped for wherever the discussion is headed and try keep it in the confines of what you're able to argue for/against. Dodging the question out of pride is not the way to go.
@@wMerlinw The question wasn't relevant. O'Connor using the metaverse was just an escape from reality. The reality is we have a universe that looks remarkably like it was designed.
I find it extremely admirable Alex, without condescension, engage in the discussion, not because he is gregarious or altruistic, but because he realise that his opponents are sincere and serious people. I think his attitude towards them is almost more convincing than his arguments.
The Universe isn’t *fine tuned* for Life. Life is *moderately tuned* for the Universe.
Even go so far as to say it's poorly tuned. Life is as far as we know only possible on a single planet lmao
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Examples
@@poo934So all of those examples are of life as we know it with the basis of a single kind of biochemistry. The universe as we know it allows for life as we know it. That doesn’t mean it’s fine tuned for life to exist, considering the fragility of life and how volatile the universe tends to be.
@@nicodemusedwards6931 physics is not volatile. or at least we've never observed it to be volatile. so, I think it's a bit crazy if you claim it is.
@@nicodemusedwards6931 the whole point is that this "fine-tuning" of the universe is also what lead to us existing. Therefore the universe is fine-tuned for us as well. This is the same sort of thing with contridictions in the Bible, where I ask, "What would you believe if it were the opposite?" If there were no contradictions, you'd say they copied off each other, if the universe was easy to live in, you'd say it was obvious we'd pop up without a God. The universe being nice to us has nothing to do with the arguement, which is that it isn't trival that we exist.
"I think I see where you're going." *says something showing he didn't understand*
Even as the level of education of your opponents rises, they still end up making their side looke silly when they obviously hit a roadblock of cognitive dissonance when their apriori beliefs simply cannot parse your theoretical challenges. Thanks Alex, you are the unstoppable force that breaks objects that think themselves unmovable. Cheers from Czechia. :)
perfectly stated
What exactly did Alex give to Collins that was such a hard challenge and that Collins didn’t respond well with?
Someone didn't pay attention. What challenge did Alex bring forth? All he did was try to put constraints on God lol.
Alex's argument didn't even make any sense...God is constrained by the parameters of the universe? That's like asking if a bicycle maker is constrained by his choices of design to make his bikes. He himself isn't constrained to make a bike, but if he does, he has to make certain design choices, like having 2 wheels, to make it a bike. God creating the universe is the same.
And he could make a different bike with a different design, but the bike (universe) we're talking about has this particular design, so talking about other kinds of universes is fine, but a bit of a red herring.
@@Knightfall21 I agree with you, I just think Collins was the one setting these constraints. The issues Alex is raising hardly seem that difficult to answer from a Christian perspective. Man is primarily spiritual, the physical is just an environment God has placed us to interact in. Its like we are gamers but have to play Fortnite. Fortnite has constraints, but the game developer can easily create another game for gamers to engage.
This entire conversation revolves on what a particular person considers "boring" or "interesting"... This is the literal definition of "i want the universe to be designed my way"...
Theres no arguing with these people...
"God wants something interesting."
Why shoehorn god into everything? How does 'something is extremely unlikely' lead to 'there must be a creator' and ultimately lead to 'the creator is above and beyond all and wants something interesting'
Not only that, but this creator apparently accepts limitations on his omnipotence in order to have personal relationship with us. And we know that because it says so in a dubious looking book.
He’s flirting dangerously close to a type of confirmation bias
I love the way he says "mayzhure"
It's endearing yeah
I read this comment before watching and thought I would hate it.... but I kinda like it... it's pretty good.
when was this said?
Edt: 4:05
He has a very unusual accent. I don't recognize it.
Alex O’Connor try not to talk about Gnosticism challenge: failed
I did feel that was a bit of a convoluted way of making the point.
It's because it is closer to the truth
@NOBODY-zq3itweirdly a lot of the Gnostic gospels make many Old Testament stories a lot more cohesive.
Lmao
They do make a lot of sense 🤷♂️
Alex, I think the point you're making at the very beginning is the strongest there is in opposition to the fine tuning argument. If the premise is that the only way this universe could exist is if all of the necessary physical influences were dialed in this very specific way, then it eliminates the potential for an all-powerful being. It could be said that the creator of the universe is the most intelligent and most powerful being perhaps, but the option of an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator is eliminated when only one functional manifestation of this universe is possible. To put it another way, all things cannot be possible if there is only one possibility. I could dip deeper into the possibility that the fine tuning argument holds water if those making the argument would acknowledge the limitations that this argument places on their supposed Creator.
Defining anything into existence with omnis will always cause logical problems.
Collins played dumb over and over when he knew what you were getting at. How disingenuous
I totally think that he understands exactly where you are leading him but doesn't want to go there because it absolutely negates the very concept of the fine tuning argument.
or implies a gnostic theology
A video on how to get stuck on one single point, a very strange point, and I'm amazed Collins was unable to understand the question
As a physicist, my response to this argument is who says these constants can change? Maths is prescriptive, it's just us affixing a language we understand to the phenomena we observe. Just because we can imagine the speed of light being 0.0001 higher than it is, doesn't mean that can actually occur, or that it even makes sense to suggest.
So you’re saying these values just had to be this way and it’s just a coincidence that these values are consistent with life?
@jeffg4570 they don't have to be this way, they just are what they are. The values are what we adhere to them in order to describe them. I think I'm starting to understand the argument a bit better now though.
so wait, Collins argument regarding the gravitational constant is, if you changed one number, then life wouldn't exist? That's like saying my cell phone weighs 26 grams, if it didn't weight 26 grams it wouldn't be my cell phone. Therefore God exists. Um, no. We simply DISCOVERED what the constant IS! We put a number to it. By default it has to be SOMETHING! So because it's an actual number God exists? What??
The argument isn’t just “this constant has a value, so God exists.” The point is that the value of the gravitational constant (and other constants) is extraordinarily precise. If it were even slightly different, life wouldn’t exist, and neither would stars, planets, or complex chemistry. The fine-tuning argument asks whether this remarkable precision is better explained by chance, necessity, or design. Saying “it has to be something” doesn’t address why it’s specifically life-permitting rather than one of the infinitely more likely life-prohibiting values.
@@robertrowingboat7808 I think its better explained by chance than an omnipotent god who could create the universe without any constants at all or isnt all powerful
No.. his argument is that the components of the “cell phone” are so perfectly aligned and interconnected that it’s far more reasonable to conclude it was intentionally designed that way. By contrast, your perspective (and that of many atheists) suggests it’s more likely that every part of the cell phone was spilt out of a bucket and landed together in the only precise way required for it to function…all by chance.
@@robertrowingboat7808 What evidence is there that the gravitational constant could be any other value than what it is? precision implies that it is somehow special, but that's from our perspective that the existence of life is important.
Also its an argument from ignorance that if we have no better explanation, then an immortal made it happen by magic.
@@robertrowingboat7808that only works if you make the assumption that outcomes like life are important
5:48 is where you can stop taking someone even remotely seriously. He’s literally speaking on behalf of a deity. Absolute joke.
6:59 “oh I think he could create any material world” moves to “wanted” when he fucks up.
Now you get the problem with the argument and you move the goal post. The universe can be any possible way and *that* would be the standard of finely tuned, but because it’s *this* way, you believe that a god made this purposeful intervention from outside of the fabric of space time for the sake that YOU believe it would be the most “interesting”. Absolutely bizarre string of things to say.
12:24 you don’t think that particles just flying about is interesting? So do you buy into the heat death of the universe? Regardless, everything literally is particles just flying around - we give it context and meaning where there is none.
The whole line of questioning was absurd at this point, to be fair.
@ You would need to elaborate how. As I see it, the line of questioning was taking an avenue to get Francis to speak on whether God could have made the universe any other than way than this one, which would sort of put holes in “fine tuning”. There was nothing absurd on Alex’s part because he couldn’t even get the ball rolling with Francis’ non answers
@@ghoulish6125 It was absurd as he had to use a fictional idea with zero scientific evidence (the metaverse) to diminish the 'fine tuning' argument. In fact, the philosophical motivation to develop the idea of 'a metaverse' is suspect to begin with. It reminds me of a childish way of arguing - by abstracting into extreme hypotheticals and keeping a straight face.
@ you do realize that looking at anything, including any part of “tuning” in the universe and saying “God did that” is more absurd than discussing hypotheticals trying to address that, right?
I literally laughed when you said “fictional idea” as if the concept of any god isn’t just that.
I did my PhD thesis in chemical engineering on the use of ab initio calculations to model chemical reactions. I know a little bit about this business with fundamental constants. Even though availability of computing power has improved substantially over the last 25 years, the underlying problem hasn't changed.
When I modeled my chemical reactions, I think the maximum number of atoms I had in the simulation at any given time was about 40. This is because the amount of time needed to solve these equations increases rapidly with the number of electrons whose wavefunctions have to be calculated. It's at least on the order of n^3, and possibly as high as n^6. Beyond a certain size, the amount of time required to simulate a large system no longer fits within a human timeframe.
Life, even in its simplest forms, is pretty big. Much bigger than 40 atoms. Using ab initio calculations to demonstrate that life in *this* universe is indeed possible would be a computationally impossible task. And that's even given the fact that we *know* that life in this universe is possible, and we know what it looks like.
In other universes, with other values for its physical constants, we don't. We know it doesn't look like life in this universe, because life here obeys *our* physical laws, but we don't care about that. We're looking for things that metabolize, grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce, etc. in a universe with different physical laws, with absolutely zero prior knowledge about what form it might take.
The fine tuning argument boils down to, if the laws of our universe were slightly different, then life in our universe that is based on those laws wouldn't exist. Yes, and?
Yes. We wouldn't exist if we couldn't exist. All the universes where things couldn't work, didn't work. We are in one that did. Why is this so hard to understand.
So God failed to keep the other universes working? What are you saying?
It’s a pretty easy answer and it’s valid. But, as I come to live more I just realize we don’t know shit, so why should I just assume this was all an accident or rather that the universe does not posses some quality that I cannot certain of, that allows it to have some sense of willpower. Again, it is completely a valid argument. But causes me doubt in the same way believing in maybe Collin’s vision of God causes me doubt. I feel like the answer is somewhere in between, because universe itself existing and consciousness being an integral property of it is already magical and supernatural, so even if that’s all that exists it’s still something that is rather divine for lack of a better word and that we just can’t fully understand because science has limits because what we can measure has limits
@@GaryRitt How is consciousness integral for the universe?
@@MVRDERRXSOCIETYY16 Because you cannot create an experience, it can only accompany reality. Proteins cannot touch ideas or experiences, and there is nothing in the neuron that points to that, neither does electrical energy. In this view a rock is conscious too, but it’s not in the format of a brain so it isn’t organized.
If you believe then then the whole universe is God, so I don’t really see the different between that and believing in God except maybe believing he doesn’t actually actively do anything. But I would argue that willpower has no reason exist within a brain either, so what’s to say the field itself cannot have some level of willpower.
@@MVRDERRXSOCIETYY16 It’s an integral PART of the universe, not integral for it to exist. It doesn’t need to be conscious at all to exist as it does
@CosmicSkeptic
At 18:50 "God is interested in Nature following Order"
1- *Whose Order?* Isn't God the one in charge of setting the Order?
2- *The Very Idea of a Miracle is the claim that God can and has (Multiple Times) changed the "Fine-Tuned" parameters of the Universe without any detectable consequence or change to the "Order" for Nature to follow*
Great question Alex. Francis was stumped. He offered nothing intelligent in response.
the question from Alex was incoherent. I'm still not sure what he was driving at.
I've always thought the argument for god's existence begs the same questions as it attempts to answer. For instance, god is used as an explaination for what created the universe, but then surely you need to explain what created god. And if you say god is allowed to have always existed, then why can't that be true of the universe, thus negating the need to use God as an explaination in the first place?
"We need to explain the origin of thing A"
"That's easy, just say thing B made it"
"But what about the origin of thing B?"
"Er...Don't worry about that"
And in this scenario, surely an intelligent creator creates more questions than a multiverse, since you could imagine the later being due to physics. But to use an intelligent being as the creator make you think "where did this intelligence/being come from?"
Why isn’t it just that fundamental constants, as we define them, are the only way existence can be. Just because I call something a variable it doesn’t mean that it is therefore alterable. Example: if I define the width of your head is “w” at any time “t” that doesn’t mean that your head can be any other dimension at that time.
Right. Variables are just tools used to build models. And even if they were real in any material way we don't know what their prior probability distribution could be.
Alex making me question my faith… lol 😅 - thanks Alex for being such a great thinker. We need you! ❤
I'm a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, and Alex would do very well there. Our God has Laws and constraints that are part of the natural world. Else why would Jesus have to die.
@ yeah Mormons get around some of these objections. I think this is why Philip Goff thinks God is limited. Mormonism has other issues for me like its epistemic incongruence with second temple Judaism.
@@rebelresource what is the inconsistent aspect?
@@clearstonewindows Much of the content in the sacred texts completely contradict the historical Jesus.
@@rebelresource I'm not aware of much history of Jesus outside historical texts. Just a few writers like Josephus.
I'm not sure I understand
That question about a creator being constrained by the constants when making the universe is such a great question. Collins immediately went to the standard formulation (that the constants act on god), but this formulation (that they constrain his creative power) highlighted an important contradiction that forced Collins to show how little science has to do with his argument.
"That question about a creator being constrained by the constants when making the universe is such a great question. "
Authors can answer the question. When you are making up an imaginary person or entity you can set any parameters you choose .
Can the creator get inside his own petri dish of creation and mingle around? I say no.
We didn't get here by accident.
It’s actually a weak response from Alex. If the scientist says “yes it constrains god”, then what does Alex say? Many (most?) conceptions about God suggest that God is constrained, at least in some way. Alex’s response presupposes the versions of god that are absolutely unconstrained, which is a bit of a strawman here.
@@NeonSlime-uu5kt if not then he isn't an omnipotent god at the very least
@@hackerj23 Constrained by what is logically possible, but that is different and was addressed in the clip. To say God is similarly constrained by the constants with respect to what he can create, it's a direct challenge to the omnipotence (or maximally powerful) property of god claimed by most theists (including Collins).
So if the theist wants to say, "yeah, he's constrained by the constants too", he's just delivered a significantly weakened conception of god. It also opens up the question about what else constrains god, if he's constrained by the constants where do they come from and why would a creator be needed at all?
What's the point of hypotheticals if the hypothetical is way too unlikely. It's just mental gymnastics at the point. Collins was on point in this one.
This guy is using such aged talking points. No one says nothing except creationists. No one says uncaused cause except creationists.
What?
Right? And he tries to frame it right from the start as a "fairly recent realization"😂. This argument is as old as the religion. It's the exact bit of flawed reasoning that produced a god claim in the first place
@@theintelligentmilkjug944Nobody thinks the universe "came from nothing".
That's kind of an indictment on your worldview.
I see you do not study philosophy, you sir just ousted yourself as a non-intellectual. Good job. 🤝🏽
God wouldn’t exist as an idea without us, that’s why he is constrained by the universal laws
that doesn't make sense. Since God created Universe, He exists outside of the universe therefore is not constrained by the universal laws
God exsisted before humans. So yes, God would exist before the human mind to create an "illution" of God, because he created us, and exsisted before us
Pretty sure they mean that god doesn’t actually exist because it’s just an idea humans have formed to describe the origins and ascribing meaning to our existence.
@@dmorcos001The guy is implying that god is a human creation, which makes perfect sense logically. Maybe you disagree, but logically-wise, it stands.
@@domenico26752, the concept of God is not meant to be human made. If he uses a false premise that doesn't make him right at all.
Is someone going to tell him that laws of the univserse are descriptive not prescriptive...
Just because we have a descriptive way to describe this phenomenon, that doesn’t mean it can’t be prescriptive either.
We can predict planetary motion among multitudes of other things with math. On top of that these phenomenons are mathematically related to each other.
So the only reason they are descriptive is due to the fact that, we don’t know the full suite of physics to describe every aspect of it in our universe. We only know parts and those parts we know are descriptive and prescriptive to our knowledge the rules don’t change.
@tbracerplays Where is the prescriptive part? For it to prescriptive you'd need an agent prescribing the laws of physics, and all you said is we see planets move.
For physics to be prescriptive in the way Francis implies with his language, like in the way our human laws are prescriptive, you'd need an agent behind these laws of physics. Without just assuming agency, where are you getting that??
I never said it CANT be prescriptive either, just that at this moment we don't see any agency behind it, it's just patterns we are describing, descriptive. And saying we see planets move is still just descriptive.
@@Enaccul I’m not arguing for Francis to be clear. I don’t think everything he said comes across properly.
The reason why there is some prescriptive nature to these laws is that they would’ve had to exist before the Big Bang for the matter that makes up the universe to adhere to them. Gravity would have to exist as a rule in order for the singularity to end up how it is now.
Not only do we see planets move, but we know how they will move hundreds to thousands of years depending on the data. That my friend is prescriptive because we can predict that with such accuracy.
I am constantly amazed at how powerless Christians portray their all-powerful God to be.
I am constantly amazed at how stupid portray their to be.
It's because the gaps science has left that they can hide their god in keep getting smaller.
@@dac3298baada boom.
As a Christian I reject the Fine Tune argument. God has no limits.
It is amazing to see and hear, how constraint Francis Collins is by his believe in God. And all the assumptions about what God wants or is interested in, I don't see the point of them in a discussion like this.
I’ve always hated this argument. If it wasn’t the perfect conditions for life, we wouldn’t be here.
Yes, that's the argument. What's your point?
@samuelrogers8358 I suppose the way I view it is that the only reason we exist is because everything happened to be perfect or that life evolved from the conditions that happened to exist, not that it was perfectly created in order for us to exist.
@@somethingcool0808 right, but in both of your scenarios, the conditions that happened to exist that allow life to form, that still seems incredibly unlikely, seeing as that the universe could easily exist in a way in which gravity was too strong to allow the formation of complex structures (e.g. solar systems, planets, galaxies etc.) and yet we live in a universe where these structures do in fact exist, so why would that be the case
And it isn't even perfect. 99.9999999% of the universe isn't suitable for life.
@@poo934"this seems incredibly unlikely, therefore a magic sky wizard who hates when you masturbate did it"
Damn, well why didn't you just say so?
12:15 Oh, I'm so relieved that Dr. Collins can't imagine why his god would want to create a universe that Collins finds uninteresting. Well, that settles the matter of divine motives, doesn't it? Let's calculate our probabilities based on that.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Christian: I know for a FACT my god is real!
Atheist: Please show me your evidence?
Christian: I'm TELLING you it's true! What more do you need?
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Correction:
Christian : I know my Redeemer lives.
Atheist: I don't believe you because I know everything and don't know your Redeemer.
Some atheist don't just want to claim they don't know God but want to claim NO ONE can know God.
@@smidlee7747 Christian: I know for a fact that God exists. Atheist. I don't believe you. Christian: Therefore ... ? Atheist: I reject your claim. Theist: Yes - that was implied in "I don't believe you." Anything else ? Would you perhaps care to make a counter claim? FUN FACTS: 1/ Atheists have zero evidence that God does not exist. 2/ Atheists have zero evidence that *_evidence_* for God's existence does not exist.
I can't believe it took Dr. Collins so long to understand Alex's question.
"The fine-tuning of the universe" is a myth. The 'fineness' of the parameters is not nearly so fine as those lot claim.
Wheres your proof of this?
Collins undermined his entire achievements in his primary field, and made me wonder how much of his achievements were actually thanks to other people.
As hominem because you don’t want to give credit to a Christian, this is common amongst atheists
@@zrakonthekrakon494 No. It is an obvious observation based on the arguments this guy presents.
@@zrakonthekrakon494 AD hominem, and no, you're wrong. When somebody does something completely antithetical to what they supposedly spent their entire life doing, it make you suspect that they were never sincere or competent.
It would be like the Pope suddenly claiming to care about children after spending his entire life working for an organisation that abuses them.
No. I am bad at math, but good at law. If I pretended to be good at math, that would impugn my humility and my understanding of my limitations, not my knowledge of case law and legal method.
@@j8000 This is not simply about the ability to add numbers, but to think rationally.
16:01 "they might have been otherwise" breaks the whole fine tuning argument. It's crazy how hard a time he has wrapping his head around the thought. The order objection is completely besides the point. Especially since you repeated it multiple times, that the universe would just be as it is right now.
Why would it break it?
@@hedvigkarpati7834 Because the whole point of the fine tuning argument is that we are astronomically lucky having the one and only possible set of constants, which couldn't be any other way even at the 7th decimal place, or otherwise life as we know it, the entire universe really, wouldn't exist. Therefore, it must have been made that way.
If we open the door for different possible sets of constants, the likelihood becomes higher, and the power of personal incredulity, which the fine tuning argument caries, fades away.
@@biedl86 It doesn't break it. In this reality this is the case that things need to be a certain way for life to exist. God could have created a different reality where things would have to be a different way for life to exist, or where things would not have to be any specific way for life to exist. But He didn't. He created this reality. There is only one reality.
@@biedl86I’m not quite convinced that’s true. I appreciate how Alex grapples with this and would love to get to talk it out with someone who sees it his way. Wouldn’t you agree there are more ways to be ugly than beautiful? More ways to be bad than good? More ways to spread falsehood or lies than get to the truth? Similarly, there are many more ways the universe could be pointless nothingness vs permitting for life, beauty, goodness and intelligibility. Thus it is surprising that the universe is in fact balanced on a “knife’s edge” to use Alex’s phrase. I don’t think it’s a challenge to God’s omnipotence to say he operates within a smaller realm of potential physical levers that create that intelligible, life permitting, world with the potential for beauty that could be “interesting”, to beat that term down one more time lol. The point is, by definition to create something intelligible with physical laws governing it, forces have to have some consistent nature to them. Gravity for example has to have some range of possible manifestations with consistent effects, and of course there are many potential magnitudes of those effects that could have led to pointlessness, vs the knife’s edge of magnitudes that could create a world like what we have found ourselves in. Why God would choose a physical universe like this to house us in, only He would know, but I resonate with the intimations that there’s beauty in the improbability, ordered chaos present and discoverable intelligibility of its laws for minds like ourselves (that are made in His image to in part admire and contribute to this creation). Gravity being two times stronger, with everything else equal, would be unintelligible to us just like 2+2=5, so it does seem more like a choice for intelligibility and internal consistency vs some limitation in His potential power that Alex suggests.
Feels like he heard someone say these constants are so finely tuned that nothing could exist without them, and fully believed it without fully understanding it
Can someone explain how we could possibly know that it is unlikely that the constant would be as they are because as a mathematician I can’t imagine how you could possibly calculate the probability of the constants of the universe being the way they are without looking at other universes?
The incredible perfection of the so-called created universe matched with the hopeless imperfections of the similarly created life forms and the suffering they all endure from their horrible design flaws. Really?
That's not what I see. "Adam fell that men might be and Men are that they might have joy"
@@clearstonewindows
Why couldn't your all knowing all powerful God create a world that couldn't be corrupted?
@@crazyprayingmantis5596I guess because love is the highest form of relationship with God and for it to exist there needs to have free will, thus the possibility for corruption needs to exist
Tired of this line of thinking. Children born with aids NEED to exist apparently! There is nothing more evil than this!!
@@oggolbat7932 If you didn't have free will, how would you even know?
You need to presuppose that the constants CAN change and, as far as we know, they can't.
I don't think this can be debated at all
No, they can, just by very very small degrees.
Scientific constants are closer to ranges, and theyre meant to be, because we cant observe the entire universe at once, and there are several places we know of where scientific laws break down.
There are two types of "changing" here: varying across time or space, or being able to have always had a different value from the one we've measured. The first type indicates our equations are wrong and what appeared to look like a constant isn't a constant. There's no evidence the second type has ever happened - we sometimes refine a previous measurement with better experiments, but there's always the assumption that the constant we're trying to measure has a fixed but unknown value.
Our measurements have the range, not the constant. Plus, we only know of places where what we think are scientific laws break down. If a scientific law breaks down, it's not a law and we need a better one.
@@gurun8071 do you mean there is uncertainty about the true value of the constants? Or that there is certainty that the same value does not apply everywhere?
Anyway, I think the point of the comment above is that we don't know how universes are built and how constants are "chosen". Therefore, saying "they could have had any other values, so there must be an intention behind" isn't a complete argument, as we don't really know if they could have had any values outside of the value/range of values we actually observe.
I am flabbergasted that from the pages of the Bible comes this? What an astonishing leap. From a crude little assembly of stories from human history, some possibly true, others utterly fantastical, we are transported to an explanaition of life, God, the universe, and everything within. The human imagination is truly unfettered.
7:49 No Alex God is not constrained. He created parameters. You are asking, Why could he not have created a square circle.
Watch the discussion. He addresses that exact argument. It's not a logical contradiction like a square circle is. That's by definition a contradiction. Alex is asking for different physics, which were apparently entirely created by God and should be entirely malleable, even to use considering I can imagine the equations being different but can't imagine a square circle
A square circle can be easily drawn in a curved geometry spacetime.
If you’re only arguing for theism, why can’t you have a God who is not all powerful? Does it contradict the idea of what God is fundamentally or is that something which is defined by religion.
Also on the idea that the evil demiurge created the material world, I find this really interesting, but I think its wrong to think of this as a more probable situation, it seems to me that the only reason it is more probable is that you’re trying to infer a characteristic of God or the demiurge to make one argument seem more probable. This is why both the demiurge argument, but also the argument that God found it “interesting”, I think are a bit funky. So idk if im missing something
Francis Colins was able to use as many falacies as possible in 19 min! 😂
Mr Collins must believes in a personal God, as he knows what he can do, his motivations, his emotions, his thought, in fact it looks like God is a version of Mr Collins living outside time and space that can do anything, but has human emotions and desires. God is effectively human with a very complex brain who can control the material world, but choses not to since it's inception. And if God is a personal God, then there are millions of Gods with different desires and emotions.
@ how can someone examine something outside space and time? Francis Collins starts with presumption that his god is real, that’s a fallacy and should be eliminated from any argument! He also committed god of the gaps, black and white etc. I don’t understand why Alex don’t point it out during the conversation all his falacies!
So God apparently finds this universe "interesting", but does nothing about the 25,000 people who die everyday of preventable issues, most of them children ? Evidence of absence in my view.
The BIBLE is NOT the source of LIES, tricks, and deceits
but
the source of TRUTHS about GOD and JESUST CHRIST
and
the UNBIBLICAL teachings and doctrines about "hellfire", "Armageddon", "Trinity", "God doesn't exist", "afterlife", "immortality of the souls", "rapture", and "reincarnation"
are
all false, not true, nothing but LIES, tricks, and deceits
that
bring dishonor, disgrace, shame, and will definitely cause the downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS
of
Atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
while
LOVING, KIND, RESPECTFUL, and SUBMISSIVE persons on earth
who
rejected Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, all Religions as worthless and useless
and
willingly submit instead to the authority of Jesus Christ in their obedience to what's written in Matthew 28: 18
will
definitely bring themselves honor and the Sovereign GOD's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4
and
the teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26 are the guarantee
that
all the LOVING, KIND, RESPECTFUL, and SUBMISSIVE persons on earth
who
died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others
will
all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD"
and
fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of GOD and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Sovereign GOD's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
LMAO!! Indeed, what kind of entity is this? Certainly, not one that is worthy of anything, let alone our "worship".
Never heard this angle, and implications - it's brilliant.
I guess it proves Odin is real!
The Fine Tuning Argument: "Life, and by extension, our very minds, are delicate things that depend on the constants of nature being very precise values. The only explanation? An obscenely complex mind that is not subject to the same reasoning because I said so, who twiddled the knobs by himself, using magic (which obviously needs no further explanation). He also hates gay people, loves you but might eternally torment you, and by the way, could really use some of your money".
You should name your Mustache 'Francis'
😂
i like how after spending 15 minutes unknowingly advocating that his god is not omnipotent, he does the unjustified leap from “a god is necessary for the universe to exist” to “God is Love ❤”
It is amazing that a fully grown adult is mentally able to talk this way without being in a padded cell.
I really wish an astrophysicist would come on one of these to provide a counterpoint. There are some big assumptions in these calculations and some good honest debate that isn't just philosophy. I mean, we talk about dark energy in this and the cosmological constant, but that is very much up for debate. Sometimes, it feels like fine tuning raps back around to god of the gaps.
"If God doesn't exist, then where does lightning come from? Checkmate atheists."
"If God doesn't exist, then where does fine tuning come from? Checkmate atheists."
God of the gaps indeed. Word for word.
Best way I've heard this said is like this. "If we found ourself in a universe where life was impossible, that would be better evidence of a God." If God MUST choose specific parameters, he's not omnipotent.
Bingo
I don’t get why this disapproves a creator at all.
@@Husseskanal Who said it does?
@@Reepecheep Ok, what is the argument supposed to allude to?
@@Husseskanal It shows that the fine tuning argument doesn't demonstrate what theists imagine it demonstrates.
If both of the following demonstrate that a god exists, then the question is very clearly loaded, not fit for the purpose of demonstrating god:
- A fine tuned universe with humans shows god exists because it is so unlikely that it would be this particular way
- A non-tuned universe with humans shows god exists because humans in it would not be possible absent miracles
Religion: “We don’t know so therefore God did it.”
Science: “We don’t know so let’s find out.”
More likely
We don't know , so now we won't beleive
@@ItzArnavKashyapwe don’t know so we find out but we still don’t believe in delusion
Why was it so short would have loved to see a longer version of this discussion
The whole conversation is posted here on UA-cam. Do a search for Alex O'Connor and Dr. Francis Collins.
My advice to everyone for the end of 2024 is to read book: Your Life Your Game Keezano🙌🏼📚I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and success. God bless, Amen🙏
l totally agree Mariana
Interpretation... " Make believe makes me feel better!! "
Does it have the proof?
How about you read His Dark Materials Series by Philip Pullman? It will show what Alex was talking about.
@@billguthrie2218 Yes, pretty much.
What exactly are you referring to when you use the word God?
How is it that there is something rather than nothing? But just as mind blowing, If there were nothing, how is it that nothing could be?
Something exists because nothing is impossible. Otherwise there would be nothing not something. But even nothing is something, thereby rendering the entire question paradoxical.
@@Mythikal_demigoat Truth is indeed paradoxical . . . and isn't.
If time itself began at the Big Bang, then there is no "before" that point, so the universe has thus always existed (ie. for as long as time existed). Thus there was never a time for "nothingness" to exist.
Also, to say "nothingness" exists (ie. moment to moment, second after second passing, etc) still requires time to exist. But time is interconnected with space and doesn't really exist separate from it, based on current understanding. One can't exist without the other, they are intertwined together as spacetime. The only things that can be said to have the property of existence or existing, require time to exist, but time brings space along with it, and thus nothingness can't be said to "exist" or even possibly exist.
@Mythikal_demigoat how do you figure nothing is something? Seems like nothing, by definition, is not something
@@Quanthefather big bang was not the beginning of entropy, it is also not singular - the universe expands and contracts cyclically ( according to what we know so far ). this is to say that there was a 'before' the Big Bang
Francis Collins should be questioned about his management decisions at NIH, not fawned over about his thoughts on whatever.
It’s out of topic but I’m putting out a petition for Alex to sing a song for his 1 million subscribers!
🤣🤣🤣🤣14:21 ٖFrancis Collins is confused now what to say. How to save God's free will and Fine Tuning argument at a time.
😂😂😂
It's getting frustrating
The only type of creator that must have a fine-tuned environment to create anything is a creator that is bound by physical phenomena.
This is not the god described by most religions presented to me.
please expand. Right now it looks like you're assuming that creator "God", require a "fine-tuned environment to create anything". Where do you get that he requires that?
this still doesn't answer the fine tuned argument from the athiest perspective, the theist doesn't have to suggest that god couldn't make the universe any other way, the fine tuning argument just highlights that the way the universe IS would suggest some sort of tuning specifically for the eventual formation of complex structures and environments for life to exist
@mathiasebbesen8695
I do not understand your question. Let me ask you a clarifying question.
For human life to exist, does it require a finely tuned universe?
@@cmack17 That's difficult to answer. I'm not sure. One thing im sure, and that is that this universe didnt just created itself. Every action has something triggering it, for it to happend. Matter and energy doesnt just appear.
But if, againt all odds, the universe created itself. And the Big Bang happend randomly, we all know that an explotion leads to caos. And explotion defenetly doesnt lead to order and design. Or even life for that instance. The odds are in the favor of theist. Theres more likley that this universe was created by an intellegent mind, and was the results of an guided prosess. And the facts are, we live in a fine-tuned universe. And that to me, suggest that there is a designer. (God)
@@poo934 One thing im sure, and that is that this universe didnt just created itself. Every action has something triggering it, for it to happend. Matter and energy doesnt just appear.
But if, againt all odds, the universe created itself. And the Big Bang happend randomly, we all know that an explotion leads to caos. And explotion defenetly doesnt lead to order and design. Or even life for that instance. The odds are in the favor of theist. Theres more likley that this universe was created by an intellegent mind, and was the results of an guided prosess. And the facts are, we live in a fine-tuned universe. And that to me, suggest that there is a designer. (God)
Reply
The gravitational constant is not nearly as precisely required as he presents. You could change that decimal place by 1 in both directions and it wouldn't make any measurable difference.
There's actually a huge range in a lot of the parameters for life to exist. It's not nearly as narrow as apologists like this guy like to present.
So, the universe could not possibly have come about naturally but our magic god just appeared magically.
Our magic god then is able to magically create this universe which is only going to be interesting to me if it include humans. Somehow all the rest of the universe is not interesting.
So, why would our magic god only consider our universe to be interesting if it contained complex life?
Great point.
My vision (for a stand up routine, maybe): God was sitting on his throne for, well, forever going back in time. After a few billion earth years he finally jumped up and said "Damn this is boring! I need some playthings to mess around with..."
A perfect being would have no need for anything as far as I can figure, so no creation of anything would have been necessary. Either that, or God isn't the perfect being Christians argue for...
Fine-tuning is an intellectually bankrupt idea. Look how it immediately falls apart in the face of even mild questioning.
Lol. Please explain why it is 'intellectually bankrupt'.
@@dac3298 Because it starts with the assumption that the universe is "tuned" (based off argument from incredulity) and uses that as evidence of a creator. That's begging the question. We have no reason to think the universe was tuned at all, finely or otherwise. We have no reason to think the constants of physics could have had any other value.
@@joeturner9692 There's already a weight of evidence to support the view that the universe has a designer.
The universe has a finite age, and had a beginning - suggesting that other modes of life exist outside the space-time realm.
The formation of the living cell required hundreds of simultaneous technologies to emerge instantaneously etc.
The 'fine-tuning' argument is not the lynch-pin and therefore begs for nothing.
Therefore, It's churlish to state that this is 'begging the question'. The issue of a designer is already scientifically credible, and this is just another of many supporting ideas.
@@dac3298 "There's already a weight of evidence to support the view that the universe has a designer." I mean zero is a weight, sure.
"The universe has a finite age, and had a beginning - suggesting that other modes of life exist outside the space-time realm." That doesn't follow logically. The universe could easily be all that has ever existed or ever will.
"The formation of the living cell required hundreds of simultaneous technologies to emerge instantaneously etc." Not true at all. F in biology.
"The 'fine-tuning' argument is not the lynch-pin and therefore begs for nothing." Not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Fine-tuning clearly pre-supposes a creator. In reality, we have no reason to think the universe was "tuned" at all, finely or otherwise.
"The issue of a designer is already scientifically credible, and this is just another of many supporting ideas." It's not. Creationism is not science; it's science-denialism.
If you’re saying the universe is the only thing that could ever exist, then you ruin your own theory about the origin. If the universe is all there is then it shouldn’t have an origin at all…
You sir have an F in biology we know how to build quantum computers and yet don’t know how to create the simplest living thing from scratch. So are you telling me if I left all the materials for a quantum computer in an air-tight lab for BILLIONS of years it would assemble itself a function?! That’s essentially what chemical evolution suggests. If it’s so easy to have simple life then we would create it already.
We know that if certain constants and scientific laws didn’t exist or work the same the universe wouldn’t exist in the complexity it is now. For that matter in many cases not exist at all.
Imagine saying "I just think that a supernatural explanation is more likely than a naturalistic explanation" even though we have trillions of examples of naturalistic explanations and absolutely 0 for supernatural explanations. Theists are simply incredible. 🤦🏾♂️
People used to think the earth was fine tuned for our existence - gravity just right, distance from the sun just right, moon steadies the tilt of the earth, air pressure just right, etc, etc. But it is obvious that the earth is not adapted for us. We are adapted to the earth, that just by chance happens to be suitable for life like us.
… Alex, you can outdo a great scientist like Frances Collins with one hand tied behind your back. You constantly amaze me how knowledgeable and well prepared you are. And you’re still so young.
Started to watch Alex some 8 years ago and so dumbfounded on how he developed to an outstanding mind and brilliant debater.
I watched the full debate, and noted that you made the point that Mark was the earliest Gospel.
Then Matthew copied Marks. Verbatim.
So my point is this; Knowing that each Gospel author just copied each other, and Mark being the earliest. We cannot make the claim that they are four independent accounts.
All we have is one source; Marks Gospel. Placing Jesus on Earth, with elaborate allegorical tales.
And the rest just copied his. Updating it, or adding bits that reflected their changing agenda.
Knowing this, points the finger at the author of Mark.
Didn’t he just make it up?
Prior to this, Paul’s letters, and 1 Clement, Hebrews, only speak of a revelatory being. Known only through revelations and scripture.
This is exactly what happens when you start with a conclusion and have to ignore everything we learn about the question that doesn't match up with your baseless assertion.
Trust me folks, Collins understands neither Entropy nor Evolution!
“God is outside of space. Outside of time”.
Citation needed
I think Alex needed to think through his arguments more. It was in-coherent how he replied. I suppose that's what happens when you lift someone else's arguments.
Sir, you are becoming a debating master. Bravo.
This was pretty good, he made some good points.