It also contradicts omnipotence Why would an omnipotent god need to fine tune the constants for life?Could he just not change the conditions suitable for life?Or is he forced to fine tune due to external restrictions?
Bond, Chemical Bond That's just a stupid argument. Because if god doesn't fine tune the constants for life, then you would argue and say then if god is omnipotent, why can't he fine tune the constants for life to exist? It's circular logic and doesn't have any creditability. Even if the universe if fine tuned for life or not, it has nothing to do with its omnipotent.
+Pizaerable If god doesn't fine tune the constants for life, how are we supposed to be here to say anything about how we're not alive? God isn't beholden to physics, so why does he need physics to make a universe? Why did he do any of the ridiculous stuff we see?
+Pizarable, the point is that the physical constants don't have to be a certain way for life to exist on theism (e.g. God can just make souls in heaven). However, if God doesn't exist and/or physical reality is all there is, then what we see with regards to life isn't surprising at all. In sum: The fact that life in our world is physically 'fine-tuned' (i.e. life-permitting) is actually evidence against God! So, even if the existence of life is evidence for God, this is overridden by the more specific fact that it's physical life, which counts against the existence of God. This means the fine-tuning argument for God commits the fallacy of understated evidence.
If "god" is omniscient and is outside of time then it is a static universe that wouldnt need to be fine tuned because "everything" would already have/will have happened. The concept of now becomes meaningless. It is an ouraborous. And i realize this has probably been said ad nauseum but i am pretty high right now.
For the anthropic principle argument to work you have to assume a multitude of parallel universes each with different fundamental constants. Then the fine tuning argument is equivalent to wondering why we live on Earth instead of Venus. As an argument this is merely offering an equally unfalsifiable explanation for the way the universe we live in is.
@@mism847 It shows that we only see this universe as special and finely tuned because we are here to observe it. If it wasn't "finely tuned" we wouldn't exist to observe it anyway.
huh! so you think the water just "happens" to fit in a glass? How about gloves? something something Big Bang something something and they just happen to fit on a human hand? you need God in your life!
The water fits perfectly in the cup because an outside force (the cup) is acting on it. Even if every variable in the universe has to be that way because of unknown laws of physics this doesn't solve the problem, it simply moves the problem far beyond the realm of understanding. Sounds supernatural to me
kakashi hatake No, it’s a valid analogy independent of the snarky delivery. The argument is about how the universe is fine-tuned for life. The analogy is that a cup is fine-tuned for water. In reality, water takes the shape of whatever its container may be. Life similarly evolves and adapts to conform and survive in its environment, and by extension, the universe and the laws of physics.
TheCommunistDragon Finally someone with common sense. I just ran into a few idiots today who used appeals to authority (Einstein was a theist) and another who thought the Bible was proof of god
u get 10 points for being smart being asthiest but get nenegitive 50 points for believing a God Dam Communist fuck. I'd rather believe in God then a communist utopia. heaven is surly a more believable existence . you Fuck ing dirty mutt!
A literal puddle? No. However as it's a metaphor with the puddle being us, and the hole the universe, that's another matter. I also don't know whether "accident" or "creation" covers the options.
This argument seems so flawed to me. It basically says that the universe is the way that it is and if it wasn't the way that it is, it wouldn't be the universe. Like no shit.
@Ano Ny This isn't the argument. Its that if the laws of universe would be a little be differents then life would not be possible in the universe. So the question is what fine turned the universe ? The atheist are forced to call the infinite with multiverses or things like that to avoid saying that there is a god. It's like a correct long password, the theist would say that someone who know the good password put it, the atheist would say there is a bot that try an infinite possibility of passwords possible to force it one day...
@@الحنيف-ي2ج if the multiverse violates ocam's razor, then God violates it more. To posit any supernatural explanation is worse than positing a natural one because the supernatural explanation has never been the right one. Also, isn't God more complex than the multiverse? If not, then you'll have to submit that there is something more complex than the most complex and infinite being, which doesn't allign with your belief system. If yes, then we'll have to scratch off God as an explanation since you're positing too much to explain too little.
@@turksungerbob728 God isn't irrational. Because if we think about the begining of the all existence, then the necessary cause must be unique, eternal, intangible, intelligent and therefore powerfull wich is the meaning of God. For "natural" explanation : what could be considered as "natural" in the topic of universe creation ? We are not speaking about the rain or the stars, we are answering the question "what all instead of nothing ?"
@@الحنيف-ي2ج if it isn't more complex, then it follows that God IS more complex than the multiverse, which means that he violates ocam's razor more than the multiverse does, which means that God shouldn't be a possible explanation if you think the multiverse is positing too much to explain too little since God does that to an even worse degree AND because supernatural explanations have never been the correct ones
Following the logic of the fine-tuned argument: Tapeworms require several conditions to live. Human bodies provide such conditions. The probability of human bodies to be the perfect host for tapeworms is almost cero. Therefore, humans were designed for tapeworms.
@Al-Hadi Not really, I don't think that human beings were created to be a host for parasites, nor that tapeworms are the goal of the Universe. My point is that the fine tuning argument only makes sense if the objective is known, and we don't know if humans, tapeworms and life are the objective of the Universe, or even if the Universe has an objective.
@Al-Hadi Lmao no he just used reductio ad absurdum to show how ridiculous the logic of the argument is, since such logic would also imply that humans were designed for tapeworms which is obviously not the case
Well tapeworms exist as well as sharks as well as lions as well as cancer as well as all variations that bring death because of mankind's rebellion to God. The wages of sin is death and death comes in it's various forms. Mankind is rebellious in nature against God as the Bible says in Romans 8:7 that the natural man is at enmity against God and it cannot be brought to submit to the laws of God. Your atheism is just a manifestation of your rebellious nature against God and your ignorance only allows it to be more rebellious. Have a good day now
I've never been impressed by the fine tuning argument. It implies the point of the univerese is us, instead of us being a result of the way the universe is.
some atheists say universe isn't fine tuned for us but we are fine tuned for universe.. so if we humans have such a good ability to fine tune ourselves then why couldn't we get fine tuned for Jupiter or Saturn or even moon where traces of water were found, couldn't any form of life fine tune itself for moon or other eight planets??? Now you'll say that other planets don't have favourable conditions for life then again this means that earth is favourable i.e., earth is finely tuned, not us humans .
@@SP-on1gt now I agree that earth is favorable for out survival but that doesn’t mean that earth is fine tuned for us. If it was fined tuned for us we wouldn’t have to do all these things to prevent our own deaths. Just now animals either adapt or don’t survive to to their environments, us human adapted to our environment and survived
@@matrat6648 your statement is contradiction. If life forms can adapt then they should never go extinct and if then go extint then it means they were not made to adapt .Also,believing that fishes are ancestors of human is hard for me. But I do not have problem with atheism but atheism believes that life is a mere coincidence and there is no afterlife which ultimately makes life useless and pointless because in the end we lose everything.
@@SP-on1gt and adapt mean different things. Physical adaption structural adaption and behavioral adaption do increase the likelihood that an organism survives, it doesn’t mean it’s going to survive. And animals are made to adapt to different environments so it would make sense that they would have trouble surviving if there environments changed suddenly or drastically. And the only thing atheism believe is a lack of belief in god, evolution and atheism are synonymous. I think your forgetting that life can’t adapt to everything, if a species does extinct it yes it couldn’t adapt but it doesn’t mean that because we did a god fine tuned it.
I just made my grandma reevaluate her entire life by asking her what kind of omniscient god would knowingly create people destined for Hell. I feel like a dick
Dylan Wedel 😳 Why so? Your relationship with your grandmother remains just that because of reproductive biology. Reflect on the way adults all too often resist children's questions. We are born seemingly full of curiosity and seek answers to matters of concern or interest by asking those who appear to know, 'Why?' Yet so many children and young people are criticised for being bothersome, when they should be encouraged to explore their environment for solutions to their concerns. Without asking 'Why?' from early in our existence as a species we would not be where we are today and in what remains of our future. Q & A rocks, my friend! Regards from 🇬🇧
And, trying to get out of it only proves you (the human idiot) are evil or mindless, mostly both. They never learn. They always try and make the evil god seem good.
1 timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Not the God who is the Father of Lord Jesus Christ He doesn't form any in the womb to be destined to hell before they have sinned
+Davey "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled." -- John 17:12. So Judas was meant to go to hell? And it seems like He just doesn't want to ''call'' certain people, Romans 9:21-24 “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Either He has a divine plan which involves some people going to hell or He has no plan and we all can make our own choice. I can't see past the contradiction.
A deck of cards got mixed up, and when I looked at the order the cards were in I was shocked! There was only a 1 in 10^67 chance it could have been in that particular order. Clearly with odds that unlikely, it must have been due to God himself arranging the cards.
More like 1 in 10^229 according to Lee Smolin, but fine. In comparison, the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be anywhere from 10^78 to 10^82.
That is a terrible analogy! You cant see how silly that is? I would like to play poker with you and when I get a royal flush first hand don't you come back at me and call me a cheat as ill just quote you and say that any random arrangement has the same odds.
@@lennyrobo4293 It's a great analogy. For your poker analogy to work, we'd have to know for sure this is the only universe and we'd have to know that this is the best possible universe.
@@SpaveFrostKing Your analogy suggests that any arrangement of the cards is of equal significance. Rather imagine there was only one order that you needed to deal out at random, and if you did not get that order then no life of any kind could exist anywhere. I say of any kind because if the constants were out by an infinitesimal amount we would not even have atoms, chemistry, matter or energy whereby no life could exist! Of course if you postulate a multiverse whereby we have an infinite universes then I agree we should not be surprised that eventually we landed on a life permitting universe. A bit like if there were an infinite amount of you dealing out random arrangements of cards. The multiverse is completely speculative though and there is no evidence for it. Even if it did exist, it itself would have to be finely tuned. Also if we go down the infinity train we lead into mathematical madness.
@@lennyrobo4293 there's no evidence of a multiverse, but there's also no evidence that it's possible for other configurations of the constants to occur. We have never observed either phenomenon. The propositions are equally far-fetched.
Most concise and well read and studied kid. Good job. Keep up the good work. I'm a trucker here across the pond ikn the US and love your material. Interesting and keeps me thinking and questioning.
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: _birth date of the star-planetary system_ _if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_ _if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_ _flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_ _if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_ _if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_ _rotation period_ _if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_ _if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_ _fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_ _if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_ _if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _ _if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_ _oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_ _if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_ _if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_ _Jupiter’s mass_ _if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_ _if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_ For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
xXPandaCroftXx Who designed the designer? To be capable of designing life, God would have to be at least as complex. Also, watchmakers do not create watches out of nothing, but make them from pre-existing materials. So if the analogy be valid, God would have created life out of pre-existing materials, which contradicts Christian dogma.
The watchmaker argument is hilariously self-refuting. It begins with the premise that if you found a watch like out on a hike you'd know that it was designed even if you didn't know by whom right? Here's the obvious problem: The argument is meant to explain the design of nature, the very nature surrounding this watch that you found. Why did the watch stand out then? Why not pick up a blade of grass with the same sense of bewilderment? See the problem?
Not only that, but watches aren't a unique item, they are the result of generations of iterations of time keeping devices. An evolution, if you will, from a simple stick in the ground for casting shadows, to the more complex springs and cogs, to the modern vibrational frequency based time keeping.
I have heard it many ways, you know, 'how can books make themselves?' (I don't think it deserves a question mark, such a waste.) It is self-defeating. No reply is even needed. Just a few brain cells.
Alex, I appreciate your articulate delivery, your clear passion for science and the truth and the diligence to make educational youtube videos for the masses w/ no thought of tangible reward. And you're only 18. That's remarkable and I give you high marks, excellent sir. That. Being. Said…. :) I simply have to respond because although I very often agree with much of your content, unless I misunderstood your /contention/ to the argument from fine tuning here, you've fallen prey to a strangely popular but highly flawed one. (I'd greatly appreciate you correcting me if I'm wrong) You claim to have introduced in your video here the /false/ dichotomy of A: The universe came about by absurd chance or B: God, and then allegedly demonstrate this by introducing a third option: Some as of yet undiscovered but merely plausible 'meta' law(s) or constraints by which these universal constants could not have possibly been anything other than the values they precisely are. This point is valid but in NO WAY serves to undermine or challenge the argument from fine tuning. It merely shifts the goal posts back a leap -- As you rightly put it, the constants may very well be constrained to the precise values they are by some, as yet unknown, higher meta force or forces. But then we're back to square one… These meta forces must have been finely tuned to a precise value in order to perfectly constrain the constants in our local universe to precisely the values they are. You can keep shifting the goal posts back further and further but you get no closer to answering the questions the argument from fine tuning raises: Who or what set the ultimate preconditions for reality to exist? God/Intelligencia or not God/not Intelligencia…. If not God, then indeed by all accounts it appears to be left to absurd chance, which for obvious reason I patently reject.
Good point there! If I may, I’m gonna weigh in with something worth bearing in mind concerning your point and the original argument, as I’ve seen people argue these points for God before. Here’s what I read into the dialogue so far: Premise 1: The odds for the universe existing due to chance is extremely improbable, as there are very precise values and fine margins which certain constants must exist in for our universe to exist as it is. Alex’s response: There may be as yet unexplained natural constraints on these constants which make them what they are, so… Premise 2: The odds for the universe to exist by chance may not be that improbable, as the constants were maybe constrained to be what’s viable. Therefore, the required conditions were either more likely to exist or determined to be, and then create the universe as we see it today. Your response: This shifts the goal posts back a leap…. These meta forces must have been finely tuned to a precise value in order to perfectly constrain the constants in our local universe to precisely the values they are. The point I want to make doesn’t undermine your argument, but I’ve heard people simultaneously argue for both Premise 1 and your response. If I’m on the right lines, this constitutes an unfalsifiable argument for God as they argue for God’s existence on two opposing premises, as per the below: Premise 1: Improbable universe due to chance (God exists, as the chances were so small, leaving the universe to exist by chance is absurd) Premise 2: Probable universe to exist by chance (God exists, as action was required to make the universe probable in the first place) I’m not saying this is your argument by the way; you didn’t venture much about what you actually believe in your comment, but I’ve heard the above for the existence of God before and wanted to point it out. Of course, if there are any errors in my logic/reasoning, please let me know! Always learning… 😉
I believe he was just bringing that up to address the matter IF one would consider these laws to be absolute constants, not that he simply thought that they automatically were. I would in fact still say that just his point about it alone still serves to reduce the amount of "impossibilities" or unlikelihoods that exist, which would mean said God is doing less powerful things (one would imagine), although ultimately it just gets back to God of the Gaps, where it's not as if some fallsifiable premise has been raised by the theist for the atheist to actually look at and try to counter; ergo, Alex isn't in the position required to answer these things at all, therefore hasn't really committed any fault. To address the chance point, let me ask this. If you were to line up a thousand solar systems in a straight line (keeping all of their properties and constitutions the same for the sole purpose of the argument), and adding no additional factors, how many light years of distance would be hospitable enough for ANY life to exist, and how much of that distance is Earth a part of? Putting Earth's amount into a % chance value, how close does it stack up to the value's asserted in regards to the many other "universal constants"? (Not that I necessarily expect you to reply to a 4 year old comment, nor necessarily do I expect anyone else to even see my reply; I more just cared to add this for my own intellectual use)
@@Jonathan-A.C. wouldn't any distance make life possible since merging solar systems would just delay the emergence of life by a couple billion years. Looking at the other side of the argument, as a programmer I'd say anyone that made a program, that'd crash just because a floating point rounded the wrong way is terrible at programming. So if god just got lucky in his creation of the universe then it's definitely not good at creating universes
@@gm683 I don't think it is. Especially when combined with the cosmological argument. Together the argument looks something like this: Something bound by space and time (ie our universe) cannot come from nothing nor exist for eternity past. Thus, something unbound by space and time must have brought it into being. This however could not have been a random process because there are far too many variables for the universe to exist if it was by chance. Thus, some sort of intelligent being existing outside of space and time must have created the universe.
I would bet that at least half your audience finds you very attractive. You're very intelligent, well spoken, and your voice, speaking and singing, is velvet. Oh, and you're very pretty. Make all the atheist babes go, "Oooo dayum boi, tell me again about the evolution of secular ethics."
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, The Salmon of Doubt
My dad thinks I was persuaded by people like you because I'm impressionable. If I was really so impressionable I'd probably be a Christian. I was convinced because it made sense.
Great video! My question on these so-called finely tuned constants is "what is the scale?". As you hinted at, one needs to know the available range of these constants before we can know how "lucky" or "finely tuned" they are for having their particular values. Another question I have is what is meant by "chance"? This is an interesting rabbit hole to explore with those who believe in intelligent design, because if any such designer exists, then there is no such thing as "random" or "chance". Therefore it's worth asking what they mean by the word. And as you rightly pointed out, just saying that chance was responsible does not mean that every value in the available range was equally likely. BUT even if every value in the available range WAS equally likely, and even if it was just down to completely random chance, in an infinite universes (multiverse?) where all possibilities occur an infinite number of times, this would again resolve the apparent paradox. I don't have a firm belief in any of these options - but the fact there are so many options means I lack sufficient information to choose just one. Also as other commenters have mentioned, I don't think theists realise just how specific their particular favourite option is - and how many other options there actually are with just as much explanatory power. In most cases, the belief came first, and their rationalisation for it came later. Coincidence?
Everyday example of not just fine tuning but exact tuning...consider 3 lines forming a triangle. Depending on the lengths of the lines, 3 angles of exact arcs will be made. If any of the angles varies at all, what was a triangle is no longer a triangle. We take this for granted everyday (a corner stone of structural engineering) and yet some people grasp at a god of the gaps when we see the same phenomenon in cosmology. Thanks for the video Alex.
You never cease to impress me, truly amazing. Another thing, you said in this video "the problem is Einsteins don't come around all too often"... well to that I say that you might be one of those in the future in your respective field of work. Thanks for the consistent quality content.
Alex, your channel has helped me more than you know! I'm a 17 year old kid born and raised in a conservative christian home. I am on my senior year of high school, and have been attending the same christian school since I was 5. I love the effort you put into your videos trying to explain science, as I cannot seem to be able to question much where I am taught. I am in the process of becoming an atheist, and you have helped me think along the way. Thank you!
Within the analogy of the blind person I thought the following conclusion would've been nice too: "but on closer inspection you notice there wasn't one dart but billions of darts and the most surprising is now that supposedly only one dart hit the target". (Analagous to the billions of planets on which life could have formed)
@@benevolentgiovanni3113 Then it means it's actually more likely to be finely tuned for life to exist in this tiny part. Your point actually strengthens the case for fine tuning.
If the probability of getting the constants we got is 1 in a billion billion, and there have been or will be a billion billion universes, then it is reasonable to expect at least 1 universe just like ours. How many universes have there been, or will there be? What are the odds of each of the other possible combinations of constants? The probability of at least one universe forming is 1, and it can be proven. Ever notice how a lake is perfectly shaped to fit the water in it?
Some atheists say that water takes the shape of container so water adjusts itself according to container similarly universe is self adjusting ... Now try fitting any metal ball or huge rock in that glass ,unfortunately metal ball or huge rock won't take the shape of glass and glass will break then,by your logic, universe isn't self adjusting
I've always found the fine tuning argument to be a giant game of "What if?". It brings unfounded suppositions into the discussion. You still have to present evidence beyond a logical argument that supports the logical argument. It always comes back to burden of proof. You can claim it all you want, you just can't claim it as fact without the supporting evidence.
It is interesting that the only new argument for god in how ever many hundreds of years comes from science. And it is science that will be needed to understand the argument, to review it critically and ultimately dismiss it.
*"What are the odds that the universe could be like this? Surely the chances against it are so low, there must be a creator!"* Imagine there are 4 dice - each labelled A, B, C, and D. Imagine we roll them, and record the results. A=5, B=2, C=1, D=2. Pretty unremarkable result, right? It's not like these numbers are really very interesting. They're just a bunch of random dice rolls. What about if we got this result? A=6, B=6, C=6, D=6. That's pretty incredible, right? I mean, it's not impossible, but it's pretty extraordinary to roll all-6s. If we were playing a board game, we'd probably be doing great right now. The truth is that both 5212 and 6666 are *equally likely results* (if you can believe it). Each has a 1-in-1296 chance of occurring, to be exact - the same will all other possible combinations. As such, when one rolled the dice, one outcome had to emerge, and each had an equal likelihood of coming up. "Extraordinary" results are actually far from extraordinary. They're entirely ordinary. Our human preference for rolling all-6s doesn't change the fact that all-6s is just as mundane and likely as any other possible outcome. Astonishment, bafflement, and thankfulness don't prove anything. Intuition doesn't prove anything. I don't know what parameters of probability the universe operates upon (if any), but if one claims that "our universe is so exact that a divine dice-fixer must be present", the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that alternative universe structures are somehow more likely than ours, and that we just "got lucky" by hitting one near-impossible variant.
Proponents of fine tuning are looking at it the wrong way around. It's not that we're so lucky that the constants allow for us to exist, but rather we exist as we do because of how the universe is. If there are infinite number of possible universe, we obviously exist in the one that allows us to exist.
If we lived in a universe that wasnt 'fine tuned' for humans that would be an even greater argument for God. God can do anything right? He has supernatural powers. He wouldn't need to make a universe that had to make sense to us and so we could understand. Both arguments could be used for God which means neither argument proves anything unless you already want it to.
Indeed. Furthermore, I think Alex flatters the argument by talking in terms of "governing constants" and other language which tends to muddy the fact that those constants are DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. He also misses the futility of trying to argue probability (a concept which applies to the future) in respect of an actuality (rooted in the past and present). Once I have picked a single blade of grass from a field, the probability of me picking that particular blade is not a useful or relevant concept. If one were to single out a particular blade ahead of time, one could try to calculate the chances of that blade being picked, but once I've picked a blade, the concept becomes meaningless and unhelpful. A sentient blade of grass with a tendency to paranoia and solipsism, and a misunderstanding of probability, might admittedly feel singled out.
The objective morality argument is the very best argument. It doesn't require a sheepskin, and is easily understood by the over educated, and simpleton alike.
For you to say that's a terrible argument shows how dishonest you are and how you probably will never find God. When Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins calls it a good argument, you know it's good
+CosmicSkeptic The best "argument" is the one that convinces the most people. That would be personal testimony and personal experiences. I didn't come to my faith my thinking of the fine tuning of the universe.
You make a good point there. When I see theists bringing out logical and scientific arguments for God, I often want to ask them whether they heard, for example, the cosmological argument, and then immediately decided to start going to church. If they didn't, why do they think I will? Yet there are big problems with expecting personal experience of God to convince people. First, not everyone gets one. So you had some private experience with God, being touched by the Holy Spirit or some such. Okay. Your omniscient god should know exactly what kind of experience would also convince _me_, yet here I've been an open-minded nonbeliever for over twenty years and there's been nothing. Second, what do I do with personal testimony when believers of every religion on Earth describe similar ones? Third, medical and social science have uncovered many ways in which our brains trick us, with hallucinations, misperceptions, and biases. That doesn't mean everyone's testimony about experience with God is false, but how do we tell which ones are not?
personal experience essentially convinces no one but the person who experienced it. But even that is suspect if the person simply recognizes the fallibility of personal experience in validating a corresponding explananation ie in this case, God. You aren't going to convince a rational individual using personal experience if you're even remotely honest and informed about the fallibility of personal experience and the standards of evidence that come with it. So by your very own statement, personal experience is a shitty argument as its extent of persuasion is confined to the individual who experienced it and doesn't necessarily extend beyond it. You're trying to be clever with words lol. Go ahead, try convincing a single stranger on this thread about how you were abducted by aliens last night and brought back at 6 am in the morning without providing any evidence other than you simply claiming you were. That is not an argument. What you're saying is many people have had personal experiences/testimonies with respect to some explanation, therefore it is a good argument for the corresponding explanation A, like in this case, God. There is nowhere in the definition of argument that says the best argument is the one that convinces the most people as most people can be easily mistaken about a variety of things and be easily persuaded by bad reasoning. It is just how our brains are. This is EXACTLY why childhood indoctrination is a powerful tool of persuading people into a specific ideology/set of beliefs. It is often brought up by famous speakers like Sam harris and Dawkins how it is difficult to reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. In my opinion, that is a profound recognition of our problems with belief and the ways we acquire it, as it is central to epistemology (the philosophy of belief and knowledge). The "best" argument is the one that is reasoned well, provides sufficient justification for its premises and claims and positions and accounts well for the objections made to it. The property of persuasion should be a result of this good reasoning and that requires reasonable participants, not the other way around ie the argument should convince the most people, which might as well be badly reasoned, lack sufficient justification for its claims ("personal experience/testimony is a reliable justification for some proposition or the corresponding reality of the experience") and doesn't account well for the objections ("you were possibly mistaken", "you were intoxicated/very tired", "you were on drugs", "you've had an acquired affinity to the said entity and its relation to you", or the equally plausible "we don't know what's the explanation to the experience". etc).
cchdz On formal arguments alone, no I probably would not. I know enough about how we get our beliefs, as Ruthwik Rao mentioned, to disbelieve someone who said they heard the cosmological argument and then dedicated their life to Christ as a result. Evidence, reason, and experience can all play a part, but their importance and reliability goes in that order. I agreed with wmpratt2010's observation that logical arguments rarely convert people, but I don't think the best argument is the one that convinces the most people. That would just mean that the most popular ideas are always the ones we should consider the most true. The argument that convinces the most people (e.g., personal mystical experience) could just as easily be the one that plays to our emotional weaknesses and mental biases better than any other.
Glad u gave a definition of False Dichotomy. I love your videos but your vocabulary sometimes overwhelms me and I have to leave the video Google something and come back. I always leave smarter but this is just more convenient
Joiker 😳 Consider the outcome when a person is both intelligent and educated to a high degree! Why should I or Alex then 'talk down' to an audience on any subject? Vocabulary exists to be used, not dumbed down! What we do is tailor our presentations to the particular audience we anticipate will be listening to us. Neither Alex or I would use the same vocabulary to nursery children as to university academics. Makes sound sense to me. Challenge yourself to add five new words to your vocabulary each day, then see what difference that makes to your thinking. Kindest regards from 🇬🇧
Sir Meow The Library Cat I'm sorry if I didn't know what "False Dichotomy" was. It's not something that is common knowledge that's why we watch these videos.. to gain knowledge. I'm not asking him to "dumb down" his vocabulary I was just thanking him for giving the definition of a term I was unaware of.
The multiverse theory is how I solve this problem. The universe we are in seems normal to us. If it's the only universe that supports us, that's no big deal. There are an infinite number if universe, so that will definitely happen. Case closed. If you'll excuse me, I have a Spaghetti Mister to worship. Good Day.
Joel Almloff Many theories in physics support the multiverse. If you're not a layman, it's easier to assume that there are multiple universes rather than one.
Joel Almloff Many phenomena in the universe such as cold spots in Cosmic Background Radiation point to the existence of multiple universes. You don't need faith for that. Even if there was a god, how would you know which religion is the right one. You couldn't "just worship them all" because many religions consider that a sin. On the other hand, if this were true, he/she/it/they might not have shown [insert pronoun here] self to us in order to hide, so they could all be wrong.
Joel Almloff Isaac Newton even blamed "divine providence" for the fact that the planets have stable orbits. We now know that that is wrong. We could easily have explained this by saying there was some sort of "cosmic egg" that was made perfect to hatch the universe, but since these can neither been proven nor disproven, it is an utter waste of time. The same goes to the theory of a deity or FSM. Heck, I could say that the universe was created last Thursday, and you wouldn't be able to falsify the claim.
Joel Almloff Many theorists state that the universe "is born" and "dies" an infinite amount of times. If this is true, then an infinite amount of universes will be "just right". If you put an immortal monkey in front of a typewriter and give him an infinite amount of time to type he will write the complete works of Shakespeare an infinite amount of times. Of course this couldn't happen due to the death of the universe, but this is exactly what allows a "new try" when it comes to universes.
Very well said. Your third option is not used very much in debates, which I find strange, because in my view, it is an extremely strong argument against fine tuning. All you have to do is ask "how many other universes do you have access to, so you know the constants can be different?" It makes no sense to speculate about how things might have been, if you can't first prove that they actually can be different. As an analogy I can say "Isn't it remarkable that two plus two is fine tuned to equal exactly four? Just a difference of 1 in 10^55 would have made math useless." Somewhat related, there are people who are convinced that we all live in a simulation, because somehow the odds are strongly in favor of it. I have a question to them: In what way does a simulated universe differ from a non simulated one? What is substantially different? To answer that question, you need to know how the universe actually works, which we have no clue at all about. The natural laws we observe are just the effects of it. So statements about simulations are equally silly to me.
Excellent argumentation, Alex. Clearly the universe wasn't fine tuned for us. If it actually were, why would virtually the entirely of it be so inhospitable to us...even the earth itself. Humans can naturally habitate only the smallest portion of it. Go a little distance up and the air is too thin for most people. Attempt to live in the water and we die because water wasn't designed for us to live in (but aquatic animals have evolved to perfectly live in it). And what about the rest of the earth that isn't water or the very narrow band of atmosphere that humans can naturally live in....like the soil and rocks and molten material? Why is all of that not hospitable for humans to naturally live in while soil and some rocks are perfect for those animals or plants (or other life forms) who have evolved to thrive in it?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, since I'm not a physicist... If any of them were different, wouldn't an entirely different universe simply have formed instead, one that was remarkably finely tuned for IT? Perhaps life would've existed in such a universe, perhaps it wouldn't have. Perhaps the universe has reformed itself billions of time, and we're simply experiencing the microscopic portion of it where we happen to have been finely tuned to exist in its endless myriad of variations.
The fine-tuning argument uses the finely tuned constants that, if altered, would result in NO LIFE of any type. An example could be that if the G constant was altered stars would not form to create chemistry and other matter.
That's my problem with people using the "The chance of that happening is so low." argument and then bringing up dice rolls or a coin toss. You have no idea how many universes existed before ours that may had different constants and therefore collapsed. As a matter of fact, you couldn't observe a universe with other constants as you wouldn't exist in it. So the mere fact that you're here to observe these constants does in no way show intelligent design nor does it disprove the universe coming up by chance because you don't know the probability function behind the formation of a universe - noone does. With infinite trys (which is possible, since time and space are bound to a universe existing) the chance of our universe existing at some point even with a chance of 10e-1quadrillion would become 100%.
That doesn't even matter, I could easily say, 'this universe naturally existing is nearly impossible'. This is still the end of the debate, in no way, shape, or form can we ever get to, 'the god of the Bible must have done it' or something of the ilk. Now, that is impossible. So, the chance factor doesn't matter at all.
Joel Almloff, I realize that, but what I'm saying is (and why I'm asking for correction, since I'm not a physicist, though perhaps this falls more into philosophy), we couldn't possibly know that something else couldn't have formed, a completely different universe where physics as we know it wouldn't even exist. Perhaps the constants in themselves wouldn't even have the same meanings or relevance in such a universe. Perhaps billions of such universes exist simultaneously, without our ability to perceive them, and since we only perceive the small part that we actually are fine-tuned to exist in, our assumption that it's fine-tuned for us is false.
No matter how unlikely something is.. If the universe truly has no end. Even the most unlikely thing that can happen, will happen. And not just once, it will happen infinite times.
"Perhaps _we_ are perfectly tuned to _it."_ Right there. I believe there is nonphysical substance to the universe and that life is made of it and the physical stuff too. It makes sense to me, assuming that to be true, that the nonphysical energies that give rise to life look for the path of least resistance, like all other energy systems do. Hence, the goldilocks zones. What we call goldilocks zones are parts of the universe that would take the least amount of nonphysical energy to produce a physical result. Once life takes hold and grows advanced enough, it can spread from that zone to the next areas that would take the least amount of energy to produce a result - - in our case it would be the space station and mars and the moon and asteroids. Whichever comes first took the least amount of energy to get there and get set up.
I work doing healing and other "energy" stuff. Placebo cant explain most of it, especially when you heal plants and animals and inanimate objects. I've tried to figure out how it works using only physical mechanisms and it just doesnt fit. It works about as good as saying "God did it" to explain the unexplainable. I think it's more reasonable to assume there is more substance to the universe than the physical stuff. This is how they assume dark matter and dark energy exists as well. I don't think dark matter explains life though. So it's not unreasonable to draw this conclusion.
Energy is an attribute of matter. By its very nature "energy" *has to be* physical. And dark energy is just a force that PRODUCES energy (Like gravity), it isn't energy in and of itself, and dark matter is either a force or physical matter that we cannot see.
Placebo very much can explain the healing of pets, plants, etc. Through the fact that it's humans who are reporting said results. Set up a proper trial with control groups and double-blinding and watch those results disappear into the (non-existent) ether.
The puddle analogy is a really good rebuttal and I feel a more powerful analogy than the dart one. That said, I actually believe the intelligent design argument to some extent. It seems that there is some kind of intelligence to the universe. However, that doesn't in any way lead me to conclude that any metaphysical beings exist, and most certainly doesn't do anything to affirm the Christian god. It just strikes me that it's a fact that the universe is configured in such a way as to give rise to consciousness, and that doesn't have to be an "accident".
The problem with this argument is the assumption that other parameters wouldn't produce other emergent phenomena just as complex and versatile as the chemistry we have in our universe. All that's being claimed is that the chemistry as we know it would break down, but so what? I'm not a physicist, but as far as I understand the state of affairs, we currently don't have the technical means to derive the properties of even very simple molecules purely theoretically from the physics of elementary particles without using major shortcuts and simplifications guided by observation. If that's the case, how can we realistically explore truly alien physics?
@@AlexanderShamov if everything is clumped into a black hole or spread out into individual protons. You are not going to have any kind of complex chemistry. Sure you can have a verity of different unknown complex chemistries but that requires some interaction of particles
Theists also argue that life is far too complicated to have started without divine intervention - which is the complete opposite of fine tuning. They want to argue that the universe is fine tuned for life and also that it wasn't fine tuned enough for life to arise naturally.
Now that u said it :D. I was just listening to to him without looking yesterday and reading some comments like yours, so I thought I missed some shirtless part of the Video :D.
I enjoyed this series quite a bit. Brought back memories of my father and I stuck in a plow truck for 36 hours debating religion when I was a teen. Thank you.
This seems a very bold stance to take on fine-tuning, and it is admirable that CosmicSkeptic admits that chance alone cannot explain the fundamental constants and quantities of the universe - many atheists cling to chance as an explanation, or to a multiverse theory which is arguably less empirically provable than God. But what seems even braver is putting all his eggs in the basket of necessity to explain these constants and quantities. There are over two dozen of these constants that we have so far discovered, and tens of other random quantities that make those constants possible. He makes the case that the gravity constant is brought about through necessity (which is still questionable as something that can alone be explained by natural law), but in doing so gives himself an enormous burden of proof (made worse by his admission that between chance and design, chance seems extremely farfetched). Sound logical reasoning is based on following the evidence where it leads, and with the exception of one of 26 constants that *may* be a natural necessity, there is very little supporting evidence that any of these constants are so through necessity. The most intellectually honest skeptic would in fact recognise that design is the best explanation, but seek to explore necessity until (or if) it becomes more plausible. Not to do so - and therefore to suggest (as CosmicSkeptic does) that we need only wait for more Einsteins to come along to prove all our constants to be necessitated by nature - is surely to embody an "atheism of the gaps" stance.
So, let’s consider your gravity example. The fact that the deformation of space time around a mass constrains light to follow an inverse square law in no way constrains the value of the gravitational constant. The inverse square law is not one possible value of any physical constant. The physical constants configure the equations of relativity and the deformations provided by the solution conform to reality because of the unique value of the physical constant. If the constant took any other value, the way the space time continuum deformed would be different and this difference would destabilise the universe and make it impossible to support life. So, I am sorry, the gravity example is completely misleading. As an analogy it is dishonest in that it creates exactly the opposite impression than the one the science reveals. Your conjecture about ‘physical necessity’ is wishful thinking on a grand scale. There is nothing in science even remotely close to providing an explanation for the values the constants hold. There is no proposed mechanism to explain how such a theory could work. There is no theory like it. It is hot air. So when the CosmicSkeptic says that the ‘plausibility of the physical necessity theory removes the need for God’, we know we are dealing with a demagogue. The fine tuning argument claims that a life supporting universe is fantastically unlikely. We are NOT saying ‘this means God made it’ we ARE saying that the best possible explanation of this FACT is more likely to be an intelligent designer than the result of chance. THAT’S ALL. The point about probability is equally erroneous unless of course we invoke this speculative theory, for if we do not, the statement is FALSe. The probability of an event is the number of ways the event occurs divided by the total number of ways it can occur. So, if there is one value for a constant that produces a universe that can support life and one billion possible values of this constant, the probability is one billionth and NOTHING ELSE. The values of the constant are random unless the universe is designed, so your claim that the chances of a change (the probability) are a different thing that the amount of the change (the factor), then I am sorry, you are wrong and the inference you draw; namely that the chances of a life supporting universe existing is NOT infinitesimal, is WRONG too. The values of the 26 physical constants conspire to make life a possibility in this universe. This universe is not a random universe. The fact that such a universe produces the earth and lots of dead planets is true but misleading. The fine tuning argument supports a conjecture. It is not a thing in itself. The conjecture is that an intelligence (God) created the universe. So what is relevant about the fine tuning argument is that it produces the possibility of life, which was God’s intention. The fact that it produces dead planets and black holes in entirely immaterial and I suggest people who overlook this are seeking to mislead. There are other comments made that are plain stupid. I will not comment on them.
“In my father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you. We’re in the middle renovations, because two thirds of the mansions are flooded with sea water, & a number of the remaining ones are covered with ice. Some others contain volcanoes. We’re still fine-tuning it, TBQH.”
Thank you. I now understand more about the ‘fabric’ of the universe, and how gravity is apart of it. I have heard it explained a few times, but I finally understand it. Thank you again.
Alex, a few clarifications and alternatives for your points here. 1) Einstein had already gotten an offer of a post at a university but did not want to take it and he just took the patent clerk job because he still had to eat and clothe himself. He wasn't even at that point "a patent clerk" any more than a PhD who got a job working as a manager at Costo is a barrista. 2) If gravity is produce by radiation then the square law inevitably applies. Radiation in three dimensional space reduces intensity by the square of the difference (one less than the dimensions of freedom, since radiation from a point is necessarily taking one of those dimensions) 3) If it changes by 10^-55 parts it produces no universe like this. But the difference may just change what the universe looks like. It could be that some factors change in codependence. This is possibly a clue that there is an underlying law and feature that explains both and occam would push us to put that basal cause as "real" (cf string theory replacing all particles and forces with one type of "thing": string loops). 4) The inflationary period may have been where the ratio of mass-energy in the universe and the gravitational potential were out of balance and it inflated until the two figures came close. Just like heated water stays 100C and the steam produced is at such a rate as to carry off the energy injected without leaving any left to raise the temperature of the bulk of the water. Until steam is produced (if the energy rate is enough to actually boil that amount of water) water heats up. Then it stays at that temperature and produces steam at the amazing rate of EXACTLY THE HEAT INPUT!!! Proof there's a god of teakettles! As far as proof of god goes, fine tuning is less proof of god than proof of the anthropic principle and I just assert the weak anthropic principle and wait for them to prove it isn't just chance.
I've always found the watchmaker argument more formidable than fine tuning, and I would genuinely like to see your take on it, Alex. Thanks for posting! I ❤️ your videos!
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: Oxygen level • On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere • That precise figure is an Anthropic constant that make life in earth possible. • If oxygen were 25 percent fire would erept spontaneously • If it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate Carbon dioxide level • If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop, and we would all burnt up • If the level was lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis, and we would all suffocate _fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_ For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
It's currently 1am here, I've watched 12 of your videos in a row, even if I tried, I probably wouldn't be able to sleep because my mind is completely fucked
1. Life is as varied as opinion 2. Life can exist in a multitude of conditions in one form that would not support life in another form 3. It follows that life is esoteric to the conditions it requires to survive. 4. Conditions that support one form of life but cannot support another form of life indicate that these conditions, if fine-tuned, were done so esoterically and specifically to the form of life that can be supported by it. 5. No specific conditions, therefore, have been fine-tuned to support life as a whole. 6. By eliminating specific fine-tuning, we need to look at the wider ecosystem. Has the wider ecosystem been fine-tuned to support life as a whole? 7. If the wider ecosystem has been fine-tuned to support life as a whole, then it follows that life as a whole must be esoteric to the wider ecosystem, and unable to be supported in another ecosystem. 8. Is this universe designed as a specific esoteric ecosystem in order to support specific ecosystematic life? 9. There is no evidence to suggest that this universe was designed to support the specific ecosystematic life residing in it. 10. If the universe was designed as an ecosystem to support many forms of life, why can these forms of life not co-exist in identical conditions? 11. It follows that this universe was not designed to support specific types of life. Life was either designed or evolved to meet the conditions of a pre-existing universal ecosystem. 12. This universe was not fine-tuned to support life because there are simply too many conditions that only support a specific form of life and not life as a whole.
I want to point this out to you, Alex. I'm glad you talked about physical necessity. It had been thought that bees made hexagons because they fine tuned their combs to have the most volume per shape and bees wax etc. Science has since found out that the hexagonal proportions of honeycombs came out of physical necessity and natural process. Something that always happen and always will. Bees do not tune their honeycombs and the combs come out on their own. Its pretty intuitive to me that phsyical necessity would create this constant unchanging measurements of the energy of expansion/gravity After all, there are no circular honeycombs.
I make no comments on your videos Alex for one reason.... I cannot fault your logic or reasoning. It's people like you who should be the ones teaching science in classrooms because you bring clear reasoning to the subject, uncluttered and free of religious bullshit dogma. Cheers, Alex! Keep up the great work!
Lovely footage of the man, the legend, The Hitch, at the start. For me the "first cause" argument has always had more weight behind it than the "constants" argument, but I can certainly see why Hitch, Dawkins, and many other prominent atheist and anti-theist intellectuals see the "fine tuning/constants" as the strongest argument that the theists (or better yet, deists, considering that the constants say nothing about actual religions) have for the existence of a designer. Good job in pointing out the fallacy of the argument, though. As always, great content! 🍻✌🏼
Alex, the fine tuning argument always seemed like post-hoc reasoning: The way it's usually presented is "What is the probability that the universe is in this particular configuration that we observe?" and then going around showing that minuscule changes result in a radically different universe, thus implying that the chances are infinitesimal. However, the real question should be "What is the probability that the universe is in this particular configuration that we observe, given that we're inside of it, to observe it?", and the answer to that is 1, that is, 100%.
The first criticism to the fine-tuning argument that comes to mind is the assumption that the universe is "tunable." We have 1 universe to observe, meaning the idea that these values could be different is an unsubstantiated one. Also, if you don't assume any predetermined result, then it becomes unreasonable to try and calculate probabilities, since to calculate a probability you need some goal in mind. What's the probability of anything at all happening anytime in the future? With no specific goal, it seems that the odds are 1:1.
When met with the argument that any difference in universal constants would lead to no universe existing, my answer is always this: If the constants were different, we wouldn't be able to discuss it. We are here because the universe is here.
It also contradicts omnipotence
Why would an omnipotent god need to fine tune the constants for life?Could he just not change the conditions suitable for life?Or is he forced to fine tune due to external restrictions?
Bond, Chemical Bond
That's just a stupid argument. Because if god doesn't fine tune the constants for life, then you would argue and say then if god is omnipotent, why can't he fine tune the constants for life to exist? It's circular logic and doesn't have any creditability. Even if the universe if fine tuned for life or not, it has nothing to do with its omnipotent.
+Pizaerable If god doesn't fine tune the constants for life, how are we supposed to be here to say anything about how we're not alive? God isn't beholden to physics, so why does he need physics to make a universe? Why did he do any of the ridiculous stuff we see?
+Pizarable, the point is that the physical constants don't have to be a certain way for life to exist on theism (e.g. God can just make souls in heaven). However, if God doesn't exist and/or physical reality is all there is, then what we see with regards to life isn't surprising at all. In sum: The fact that life in our world is physically 'fine-tuned' (i.e. life-permitting) is actually evidence against God! So, even if the existence of life is evidence for God, this is overridden by the more specific fact that it's physical life, which counts against the existence of God. This means the fine-tuning argument for God commits the fallacy of understated evidence.
If "god" is omniscient and is outside of time then it is a static universe that wouldnt need to be fine tuned because "everything" would already have/will have happened. The concept of now becomes meaningless. It is an ouraborous. And i realize this has probably been said ad nauseum but i am pretty high right now.
If an all-powerful god existed, nothing would have to be "just right."
I think you forgot to talk about the anthropic principle
Only a universe fit to make observers will be observed
The anthropic principle doesn't work in a materialistic view. So not sure how you can use this.
Of course, and a universe not fit to make observers will not be observed. I don't see how that proves anything.
For the anthropic principle argument to work you have to assume a multitude of parallel universes each with different fundamental constants. Then the fine tuning argument is equivalent to wondering why we live on Earth instead of Venus.
As an argument this is merely offering an equally unfalsifiable explanation for the way the universe we live in is.
@@mism847 it proves that there could have been other universes that collapsed or never made atoms. Maybe we just won the cosmic lottery.
@@mism847 It shows that we only see this universe as special and finely tuned because we are here to observe it. If it wasn't "finely tuned" we wouldn't exist to observe it anyway.
Isn't it incredible that the water in a glass has the same exact shape as the glass itself?
Coincidence? No, it must be gawd!
huh! so you think the water just "happens" to fit in a glass? How about gloves? something something Big Bang something something and they just happen to fit on a human hand? you need God in your life!
Tight analogy bruh
The water fits perfectly in the cup because an outside force (the cup) is acting on it. Even if every variable in the universe has to be that way because of unknown laws of physics this doesn't solve the problem, it simply moves the problem far beyond the realm of understanding. Sounds supernatural to me
You are using a fallacy of absurdism
l dont know
Comparing water and glass with a theory about the universe just seems weird
kakashi hatake No, it’s a valid analogy independent of the snarky delivery. The argument is about how the universe is fine-tuned for life. The analogy is that a cup is fine-tuned for water. In reality, water takes the shape of whatever its container may be. Life similarly evolves and adapts to conform and survive in its environment, and by extension, the universe and the laws of physics.
Lets assume the universe is finely tuned
How do we know a god did it?And how do we know a SPECIFIC god did it?
And who or what finely tuned this god? Infinite regress...
TheCommunistDragon
Finally someone with common sense. I just ran into a few idiots today who used appeals to authority (Einstein was a theist) and another who thought the Bible was proof of god
Let's assume that the universe wasn't finely tuned.
Who would be here talking about it? Done.
Stfu commie
u get 10 points for being smart being asthiest but get nenegitive 50 points for believing a God Dam Communist fuck. I'd rather believe in God then a communist utopia. heaven is surly a more believable existence . you Fuck ing dirty mutt!
Yes, it's pretty odd to say the universe has been fine-tuned for life the majority has none. Fine-tuned for black holes and empty space maybe.
Not only that, but life hasn't been around very long compared to when the universe began (by our estimations).
Yes. We are very much like the puddle who thought how its hole is perfectly made for it before drying up, like Douglas Adams said.
It's a metaphor.
How does the mere ability to think indicate that one's "hole" was created anyway?
A literal puddle? No. However as it's a metaphor with the puddle being us, and the hole the universe, that's another matter. I also don't know whether "accident" or "creation" covers the options.
This argument seems so flawed to me. It basically says that the universe is the way that it is and if it wasn't the way that it is, it wouldn't be the universe. Like no shit.
@Ano Ny This isn't the argument. Its that if the laws of universe would be a little be differents then life would not be possible in the universe.
So the question is what fine turned the universe ? The atheist are forced to call the infinite with multiverses or things like that to avoid saying that there is a god.
It's like a correct long password, the theist would say that someone who know the good password put it, the atheist would say there is a bot that try an infinite possibility of passwords possible to force it one day...
@@الحنيف-ي2ج if the multiverse violates ocam's razor, then God violates it more. To posit any supernatural explanation is worse than positing a natural one because the supernatural explanation has never been the right one.
Also, isn't God more complex than the multiverse? If not, then you'll have to submit that there is something more complex than the most complex and infinite being, which doesn't allign with your belief system. If yes, then we'll have to scratch off God as an explanation since you're positing too much to explain too little.
@@turksungerbob728
God isn't irrational. Because if we think about the begining of the all existence, then the necessary cause must be unique, eternal, intangible, intelligent and therefore powerfull wich is the meaning of God.
For "natural" explanation : what could be considered as "natural" in the topic of universe creation ? We are not speaking about the rain or the stars, we are answering the question "what all instead of nothing ?"
@@turksungerbob728 The multiverse theory is not "more complex" but have many problems.
@@الحنيف-ي2ج if it isn't more complex, then it follows that God IS more complex than the multiverse, which means that he violates ocam's razor more than the multiverse does, which means that God shouldn't be a possible explanation if you think the multiverse is positing too much to explain too little since God does that to an even worse degree AND because supernatural explanations have never been the correct ones
Following the logic of the fine-tuned argument: Tapeworms require several conditions to live. Human bodies provide such conditions. The probability of human bodies to be the perfect host for tapeworms is almost cero. Therefore, humans were designed for tapeworms.
@Al-Hadi Not really, I don't think that human beings were created to be a host for parasites, nor that tapeworms are the goal of the Universe. My point is that the fine tuning argument only makes sense if the objective is known, and we don't know if humans, tapeworms and life are the objective of the Universe, or even if the Universe has an objective.
@Al-Hadi Lmao no he just used reductio ad absurdum to show how ridiculous the logic of the argument is, since such logic would also imply that humans were designed for tapeworms which is obviously not the case
I really don't think tapeworms put existence in crisis
Well tapeworms exist as well as sharks as well as lions as well as cancer as well as all variations that bring death because of mankind's rebellion to God. The wages of sin is death and death comes in it's various forms.
Mankind is rebellious in nature against God as the Bible says in Romans 8:7 that the natural man is at enmity against God and it cannot be brought to submit to the laws of God.
Your atheism is just a manifestation of your rebellious nature against God and your ignorance only allows it to be more rebellious.
Have a good day now
Not a realy good analogy, tapeworms evolved to live in us. Basicly a bunch of em got inside us, some died and some lived.
I've never been impressed by the fine tuning argument. It implies the point of the univerese is us, instead of us being a result of the way the universe is.
some atheists say universe isn't fine
tuned for us but we are fine tuned for
universe..
so if we humans have such a good
ability to fine tune ourselves then
why couldn't we get fine tuned for Jupiter
or Saturn or even moon where traces
of water were found, couldn't any
form of life fine tune itself for moon
or other eight planets???
Now you'll say that other planets don't
have favourable conditions for life
then again this means that earth
is favourable i.e., earth is finely tuned,
not us humans .
@@SP-on1gt are you talking about life forms in general or Intelligent life?
@@SP-on1gt now I agree that earth is favorable for out survival but that doesn’t mean that earth is fine tuned for us. If it was fined tuned for us we wouldn’t have to do all these things to prevent our own deaths. Just now animals either adapt or don’t survive to to their environments, us human adapted to our environment and survived
@@matrat6648 your statement is contradiction. If life forms can adapt then they should never go extinct and if then go extint then it means they were not made to adapt .Also,believing that fishes are ancestors of human is hard for me.
But I do not have problem with atheism but atheism believes that life is a mere coincidence and there is no afterlife which ultimately makes life useless and pointless because in the end we lose everything.
@@SP-on1gt and adapt mean different things. Physical adaption structural adaption and behavioral adaption do increase the likelihood that an organism survives, it doesn’t mean it’s going to survive. And animals are made to adapt to different environments so it would make sense that they would have trouble surviving if there environments changed suddenly or drastically. And the only thing atheism believe is a lack of belief in god, evolution and atheism are synonymous. I think your forgetting that life can’t adapt to everything, if a species does extinct it yes it couldn’t adapt but it doesn’t mean that because we did a god fine tuned it.
I just made my grandma reevaluate her entire life by asking her what kind of omniscient god would knowingly create people destined for Hell. I feel like a dick
Dylan Wedel 😳 Why so? Your relationship with your grandmother remains just that because of reproductive biology. Reflect on the way adults all too often resist children's questions. We are born seemingly full of curiosity and seek answers to matters of concern or interest by asking those who appear to know, 'Why?' Yet so many children and young people are criticised for being bothersome, when they should be encouraged to explore their environment for solutions to their concerns. Without asking 'Why?' from early in our existence as a species we would not be where we are today and in what remains of our future. Q & A rocks, my friend! Regards from 🇬🇧
He's either evil, impotent or nonexistent. You just presented to her the evil.
And, trying to get out of it only proves you (the human idiot) are evil or mindless, mostly both. They never learn. They always try and make the evil god seem good.
1 timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Not the God who is the Father of Lord Jesus Christ
He doesn't form any in the womb to be destined to hell before they have sinned
+Davey "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled." -- John 17:12. So Judas was meant to go to hell?
And it seems like He just doesn't want to ''call'' certain people, Romans 9:21-24 “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
Either He has a divine plan which involves some people going to hell or He has no plan and we all can make our own choice. I can't see past the contradiction.
By far, one of the best channels on UA-cam.
A deck of cards got mixed up, and when I looked at the order the cards were in I was shocked! There was only a 1 in 10^67 chance it could have been in that particular order. Clearly with odds that unlikely, it must have been due to God himself arranging the cards.
More like 1 in 10^229 according to Lee Smolin, but fine. In comparison, the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be anywhere from 10^78 to 10^82.
That is a terrible analogy! You cant see how silly that is? I would like to play poker with you and when I get a royal flush first hand don't you come back at me and call me a cheat as ill just quote you and say that any random arrangement has the same odds.
@@lennyrobo4293 It's a great analogy. For your poker analogy to work, we'd have to know for sure this is the only universe and we'd have to know that this is the best possible universe.
@@SpaveFrostKing Your analogy suggests that any arrangement of the cards is of equal significance. Rather imagine there was only one order that you needed to deal out at random, and if you did not get that order then no life of any kind could exist anywhere.
I say of any kind because if the constants were out by an infinitesimal amount we would not even have atoms, chemistry, matter or energy whereby no life could exist!
Of course if you postulate a multiverse whereby we have an infinite universes then I agree we should not be surprised that eventually we landed on a life permitting universe. A bit like if there were an infinite amount of you dealing out random arrangements of cards.
The multiverse is completely speculative though and there is no evidence for it. Even if it did exist, it itself would have to be finely tuned. Also if we go down the infinity train we lead into mathematical madness.
@@lennyrobo4293 there's no evidence of a multiverse, but there's also no evidence that it's possible for other configurations of the constants to occur. We have never observed either phenomenon. The propositions are equally far-fetched.
Well I should actually be studying but athIEST AL IS BACK SO I HAVE NO CHOICE
Another name for the fine-tuning argument is "Ray Comfort's banana argument"
ha ha ha haa omg so funny ..
Atheists nighmare 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Most concise and well read and studied kid. Good job. Keep up the good work. I'm a trucker here across the pond ikn the US and love your material. Interesting and keeps me thinking and questioning.
jeff wimer 😺 Thinking and Questioning, both excellent attributes of of an intelligent person. Kindest regards from 🇬🇧
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument*
For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this:
1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer
*The Anthropic Principle*
Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:
_birth date of the star-planetary system_
_if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_
_if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_
_flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_
_if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_rotation period_
_if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_
_if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_
_fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_
_if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_
_if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _
_if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_
_oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_
_if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_
_if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_
_Jupiter’s mass_
_if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_
_if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_
For more evidence:
reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2
reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009
*What are the chances?*
It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance.
According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" .
Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_*
_Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_
_Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_
_According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_
_It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_
_It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
@@mathew4181you are a silly goose
I would like to see the watchmaker arguement refuted
xXPandaCroftXx Who designed the designer? To be capable of designing life, God would have to be at least as complex.
Also, watchmakers do not create watches out of nothing, but make them from pre-existing materials. So if the analogy be valid, God would have created life out of pre-existing materials, which contradicts Christian dogma.
The watchmaker argument is hilariously self-refuting. It begins with the premise that if you found a watch like out on a hike you'd know that it was designed even if you didn't know by whom right? Here's the obvious problem: The argument is meant to explain the design of nature, the very nature surrounding this watch that you found. Why did the watch stand out then? Why not pick up a blade of grass with the same sense of bewilderment? See the problem?
Not only that, but watches aren't a unique item, they are the result of generations of iterations of time keeping devices. An evolution, if you will, from a simple stick in the ground for casting shadows, to the more complex springs and cogs, to the modern vibrational frequency based time keeping.
xXPandaCroftXx He made a response video to someone who used that argument, just scroll through his videos and you'll find it.
I have heard it many ways, you know, 'how can books make themselves?' (I don't think it deserves a question mark, such a waste.)
It is self-defeating. No reply is even needed. Just a few brain cells.
Alex, I appreciate your articulate delivery, your clear passion for science and the truth and the diligence to make educational youtube videos for the masses w/ no thought of tangible reward. And you're only 18. That's remarkable and I give you high marks, excellent sir.
That. Being. Said…. :)
I simply have to respond because although I very often agree with much of your content, unless I misunderstood your /contention/ to the argument from fine tuning here, you've fallen prey to a strangely popular but highly flawed one. (I'd greatly appreciate you correcting me if I'm wrong)
You claim to have introduced in your video here the /false/ dichotomy of A: The universe came about by absurd chance or B: God, and then allegedly demonstrate this by introducing a third option: Some as of yet undiscovered but merely plausible 'meta' law(s) or constraints by which these universal constants could not have possibly been anything other than the values they precisely are.
This point is valid but in NO WAY serves to undermine or challenge the argument from fine tuning. It merely shifts the goal posts back a leap -- As you rightly put it, the constants may very well be constrained to the precise values they are by some, as yet unknown, higher meta force or forces. But then we're back to square one… These meta forces must have been finely tuned to a precise value in order to perfectly constrain the constants in our local universe to precisely the values they are.
You can keep shifting the goal posts back further and further but you get no closer to answering the questions the argument from fine tuning raises: Who or what set the ultimate preconditions for reality to exist? God/Intelligencia or not God/not Intelligencia…. If not God, then indeed by all accounts it appears to be left to absurd chance, which for obvious reason I patently reject.
Good point there! If I may, I’m gonna weigh in with something worth bearing in mind concerning your point and the original argument, as I’ve seen people argue these points for God before. Here’s what I read into the dialogue so far:
Premise 1: The odds for the universe existing due to chance is extremely improbable, as there are very precise values and fine margins which certain constants must exist in for our universe to exist as it is.
Alex’s response: There may be as yet unexplained natural constraints on these constants which make them what they are, so…
Premise 2: The odds for the universe to exist by chance may not be that improbable, as the constants were maybe constrained to be what’s viable. Therefore, the required conditions were either more likely to exist or determined to be, and then create the universe as we see it today.
Your response: This shifts the goal posts back a leap…. These meta forces must have been finely tuned to a precise value in order to perfectly constrain the constants in our local universe to precisely the values they are.
The point I want to make doesn’t undermine your argument, but I’ve heard people simultaneously argue for both Premise 1 and your response. If I’m on the right lines, this constitutes an unfalsifiable argument for God as they argue for God’s existence on two opposing premises, as per the below:
Premise 1: Improbable universe due to chance (God exists, as the chances were so small, leaving the universe to exist by chance is absurd)
Premise 2: Probable universe to exist by chance (God exists, as action was required to make the universe probable in the first place)
I’m not saying this is your argument by the way; you didn’t venture much about what you actually believe in your comment, but I’ve heard the above for the existence of God before and wanted to point it out. Of course, if there are any errors in my logic/reasoning, please let me know! Always learning… 😉
Your reply framed my thoughts. John Lennox says, "nonsense remains nonsense even when scientists speak it."
@@Ros170386coe It's a bit long, maybe I could have trimmed it down a bit. But I wouldn't describe what I'm saying as nonsense.
I believe he was just bringing that up to address the matter IF one would consider these laws to be absolute constants, not that he simply thought that they automatically were. I would in fact still say that just his point about it alone still serves to reduce the amount of "impossibilities" or unlikelihoods that exist, which would mean said God is doing less powerful things (one would imagine), although ultimately it just gets back to God of the Gaps, where it's not as if some fallsifiable premise has been raised by the theist for the atheist to actually look at and try to counter; ergo, Alex isn't in the position required to answer these things at all, therefore hasn't really committed any fault.
To address the chance point, let me ask this. If you were to line up a thousand solar systems in a straight line (keeping all of their properties and constitutions the same for the sole purpose of the argument), and adding no additional factors, how many light years of distance would be hospitable enough for ANY life to exist, and how much of that distance is Earth a part of? Putting Earth's amount into a % chance value, how close does it stack up to the value's asserted in regards to the many other "universal constants"?
(Not that I necessarily expect you to reply to a 4 year old comment, nor necessarily do I expect anyone else to even see my reply; I more just cared to add this for my own intellectual use)
@@Jonathan-A.C. wouldn't any distance make life possible since merging solar systems would just delay the emergence of life by a couple billion years.
Looking at the other side of the argument, as a programmer I'd say anyone that made a program, that'd crash just because a floating point rounded the wrong way is terrible at programming.
So if god just got lucky in his creation of the universe then it's definitely not good at creating universes
Here's the fine tuning argument in a nutshell: If the universe was different, it would not be like it is.
yep, this is the weak version of the anthropic principle (but there’s a reason why we want to avoid it)
No, its "if the universe was different, it literally could not exist at all in any form"
@@zachdavenport8509 either way this argument is total bullcrap
@@gm683 I don't think it is. Especially when combined with the cosmological argument. Together the argument looks something like this: Something bound by space and time (ie our universe) cannot come from nothing nor exist for eternity past. Thus, something unbound by space and time must have brought it into being. This however could not have been a random process because there are far too many variables for the universe to exist if it was by chance. Thus, some sort of intelligent being existing outside of space and time must have created the universe.
@@zachdavenport8509 pearls before swine
If a piano were finely tuned like the universe supposedly is, you could play it for the rest of your life and never once hit a right note.
I would bet that at least half your audience finds you very attractive. You're very intelligent, well spoken, and your voice, speaking and singing, is velvet. Oh, and you're very pretty. Make all the atheist babes go, "Oooo dayum boi, tell me again about the evolution of secular ethics."
Definitely! Alex is atheist daddy
Especially his helmet
Just sayin, Alex, you're a cutie. The world knows.
Masaomi Kida yas his helmet😍😍💧💧🔥🔥❤
Shannon462981 exactly right.
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, The Salmon of Doubt
My dad thinks I was persuaded by people like you because I'm impressionable. If I was really so impressionable I'd probably be a Christian. I was convinced because it made sense.
Great video! My question on these so-called finely tuned constants is "what is the scale?". As you hinted at, one needs to know the available range of these constants before we can know how "lucky" or "finely tuned" they are for having their particular values.
Another question I have is what is meant by "chance"? This is an interesting rabbit hole to explore with those who believe in intelligent design, because if any such designer exists, then there is no such thing as "random" or "chance". Therefore it's worth asking what they mean by the word. And as you rightly pointed out, just saying that chance was responsible does not mean that every value in the available range was equally likely.
BUT even if every value in the available range WAS equally likely, and even if it was just down to completely random chance, in an infinite universes (multiverse?) where all possibilities occur an infinite number of times, this would again resolve the apparent paradox. I don't have a firm belief in any of these options - but the fact there are so many options means I lack sufficient information to choose just one. Also as other commenters have mentioned, I don't think theists realise just how specific their particular favourite option is - and how many other options there actually are with just as much explanatory power. In most cases, the belief came first, and their rationalisation for it came later. Coincidence?
Everyday example of not just fine tuning but exact tuning...consider 3 lines forming a triangle. Depending on the lengths of the lines, 3 angles of exact arcs will be made. If any of the angles varies at all, what was a triangle is no longer a triangle. We take this for granted everyday (a corner stone of structural engineering) and yet some people grasp at a god of the gaps when we see the same phenomenon in cosmology. Thanks for the video Alex.
"Before we get our trousers off..."
I'm going to use this as often as I can.
You never cease to impress me, truly amazing. Another thing, you said in this video "the problem is Einsteins don't come around all too often"... well to that I say that you might be one of those in the future in your respective field of work. Thanks for the consistent quality content.
Merchandise now available?
But can we get that cool helmet you always wear?
thepieproblem lol
What about those drawers he once had. I would buy those.
Orange Boy Yes, the drawers!
Great stuff Alex keep up the good work 👍👍
Alex, your channel has helped me more than you know! I'm a 17 year old kid born and raised in a conservative christian home. I am on my senior year of high school, and have been attending the same christian school since I was 5. I love the effort you put into your videos trying to explain science, as I cannot seem to be able to question much where I am taught. I am in the process of becoming an atheist, and you have helped me think along the way. Thank you!
And are you still an atheist to this day?
5 years later, how's it been?
How did your journey begin?
Wow, 2023 and I'm learning so much from you! You explain things better than my college professor. I really appreciate your help!
Within the analogy of the blind person I thought the following conclusion would've been nice too: "but on closer inspection you notice there wasn't one dart but billions of darts and the most surprising is now that supposedly only one dart hit the target". (Analagous to the billions of planets on which life could have formed)
Great reasoning and your ideas are very well articulated.
Love your work, keep it up.
Subscribed!
Just because we observe the universe as finely tuned ending up with us, does not mean it is finely tuned.
Your statement is a contradiction in terms
@@azzylandvanessa5524 How so?
99.9% is extremely hostile to life !
@@benevolentgiovanni3113 Then it means it's actually more likely to be finely tuned for life to exist in this tiny part. Your point actually strengthens the case for fine tuning.
@@originalsource8952 then when using the fine tuning argument you should say the earth is fine tuned for life not the entire Universe
Thank you
Such convenient uploading times my (most likely non existent) god
We need this series to continue
Yes :D!!! I'm so excited for this one. I can't watch it at the moment, but without a doubt I am GOING to set aside 10 minutes of my night for this.
Philosophermit
Looooool it's you again :DD
Pizaerable Hiiiiii :D, Mr. Intelligent Cow guy!!!!!
If the probability of getting the constants we got is 1 in a billion billion, and there have been or will be a billion billion universes, then it is reasonable to expect at least 1 universe just like ours. How many universes have there been, or will there be?
What are the odds of each of the other possible combinations of constants? The probability of at least one universe forming is 1, and it can be proven.
Ever notice how a lake is perfectly shaped to fit the water in it?
Some atheists say that water takes the
shape of container so water adjusts itself
according to container similarly
universe is self adjusting ...
Now try fitting any metal ball or huge
rock in that glass ,unfortunately
metal ball or huge rock won't take
the shape of glass and glass will break
then,by your logic, universe isn't self adjusting
I've always found the fine tuning argument to be a giant game of "What if?". It brings unfounded suppositions into the discussion. You still have to present evidence beyond a logical argument that supports the logical argument. It always comes back to burden of proof. You can claim it all you want, you just can't claim it as fact without the supporting evidence.
It is interesting that the only new argument for god in how ever many hundreds of years comes from science. And it is science that will be needed to understand the argument, to review it critically and ultimately dismiss it.
Why is this the first time my tiny brain has finally started to grasp 'space'? Words well chosen, thank you.
*"What are the odds that the universe could be like this? Surely the chances against it are so low, there must be a creator!"*
Imagine there are 4 dice - each labelled A, B, C, and D. Imagine we roll them, and record the results. A=5, B=2, C=1, D=2. Pretty unremarkable result, right? It's not like these numbers are really very interesting. They're just a bunch of random dice rolls.
What about if we got this result? A=6, B=6, C=6, D=6. That's pretty incredible, right? I mean, it's not impossible, but it's pretty extraordinary to roll all-6s. If we were playing a board game, we'd probably be doing great right now.
The truth is that both 5212 and 6666 are *equally likely results* (if you can believe it). Each has a 1-in-1296 chance of occurring, to be exact - the same will all other possible combinations. As such, when one rolled the dice, one outcome had to emerge, and each had an equal likelihood of coming up.
"Extraordinary" results are actually far from extraordinary. They're entirely ordinary. Our human preference for rolling all-6s doesn't change the fact that all-6s is just as mundane and likely as any other possible outcome. Astonishment, bafflement, and thankfulness don't prove anything. Intuition doesn't prove anything.
I don't know what parameters of probability the universe operates upon (if any), but if one claims that "our universe is so exact that a divine dice-fixer must be present", the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that alternative universe structures are somehow more likely than ours, and that we just "got lucky" by hitting one near-impossible variant.
Proponents of fine tuning are looking at it the wrong way around. It's not that we're so lucky that the constants allow for us to exist, but rather we exist as we do because of how the universe is. If there are infinite number of possible universe, we obviously exist in the one that allows us to exist.
If we lived in a universe that wasnt 'fine tuned' for humans that would be an even greater argument for God. God can do anything right? He has supernatural powers. He wouldn't need to make a universe that had to make sense to us and so we could understand. Both arguments could be used for God which means neither argument proves anything unless you already want it to.
The fine tuning argument may be the 'best' argument for god, but it's still a terrible argument.
Indeed. Furthermore, I think Alex flatters the argument by talking in terms of "governing constants" and other language which tends to muddy the fact that those constants are DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE.
He also misses the futility of trying to argue probability (a concept which applies to the future) in respect of an actuality (rooted in the past and present).
Once I have picked a single blade of grass from a field, the probability of me picking that particular blade is not a useful or relevant concept.
If one were to single out a particular blade ahead of time, one could try to calculate the chances of that blade being picked, but once I've picked a blade, the concept becomes meaningless and unhelpful. A sentient blade of grass with a tendency to paranoia and solipsism, and a misunderstanding of probability, might admittedly feel singled out.
The objective morality argument is the very best argument. It doesn't require a sheepskin, and is easily understood by the over educated, and simpleton alike.
For you to say that's a terrible argument shows how dishonest you are and how you probably will never find God. When Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins calls it a good argument, you know it's good
I've heard Penn Jillette reference the "target drawn around the dart" idea but didn't get the full concept until you explained it. Thanks.
I'm 100% here for this right now, hell yeah.
+CosmicSkeptic The best "argument" is the one that convinces the most people. That would be personal testimony and personal experiences. I didn't come to my faith my thinking of the fine tuning of the universe.
You make a good point there. When I see theists bringing out logical and scientific arguments for God, I often want to ask them whether they heard, for example, the cosmological argument, and then immediately decided to start going to church. If they didn't, why do they think I will?
Yet there are big problems with expecting personal experience of God to convince people. First, not everyone gets one. So you had some private experience with God, being touched by the Holy Spirit or some such. Okay. Your omniscient god should know exactly what kind of experience would also convince _me_, yet here I've been an open-minded nonbeliever for over twenty years and there's been nothing. Second, what do I do with personal testimony when believers of every religion on Earth describe similar ones? Third, medical and social science have uncovered many ways in which our brains trick us, with hallucinations, misperceptions, and biases. That doesn't mean everyone's testimony about experience with God is false, but how do we tell which ones are not?
+cchdz That's the point, no one ever said they came to a faith based on science.
personal experience essentially convinces no one but the person who experienced it. But even that is suspect if the person simply recognizes the fallibility of personal experience in validating a corresponding explananation ie in this case, God.
You aren't going to convince a rational individual using personal experience if you're even remotely honest and informed about the fallibility of personal experience and the standards of evidence that come with it. So by your very own statement, personal experience is a shitty argument as its extent of persuasion is confined to the individual who experienced it and doesn't necessarily extend beyond it. You're trying to be clever with words lol. Go ahead, try convincing a single stranger on this thread about how you were abducted by aliens last night and brought back at 6 am in the morning without providing any evidence other than you simply claiming you were. That is not an argument. What you're saying is many people have had personal experiences/testimonies with respect to some explanation, therefore it is a good argument for the corresponding explanation A, like in this case, God. There is nowhere in the definition of argument that says the best argument is the one that convinces the most people as most people can be easily mistaken about a variety of things and be easily persuaded by bad reasoning. It is just how our brains are. This is EXACTLY why childhood indoctrination is a powerful tool of persuading people into a specific ideology/set of beliefs. It is often brought up by famous speakers like Sam harris and Dawkins how it is difficult to reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. In my opinion, that is a profound recognition of our problems with belief and the ways we acquire it, as it is central to epistemology (the philosophy of belief and knowledge).
The "best" argument is the one that is reasoned well, provides sufficient justification for its premises and claims and positions and accounts well for the objections made to it. The property of persuasion should be a result of this good reasoning and that requires reasonable participants, not the other way around ie the argument should convince the most people, which might as well be badly reasoned, lack sufficient justification for its claims ("personal experience/testimony is a reliable justification for some proposition or the corresponding reality of the experience") and doesn't account well for the objections ("you were possibly mistaken", "you were intoxicated/very tired", "you were on drugs", "you've had an acquired affinity to the said entity and its relation to you", or the equally plausible "we don't know what's the explanation to the experience". etc).
cchdz
On formal arguments alone, no I probably would not. I know enough about how we get our beliefs, as Ruthwik Rao mentioned, to disbelieve someone who said they heard the cosmological argument and then dedicated their life to Christ as a result. Evidence, reason, and experience can all play a part, but their importance and reliability goes in that order.
I agreed with wmpratt2010's observation that logical arguments rarely convert people, but I don't think the best argument is the one that convinces the most people. That would just mean that the most popular ideas are always the ones we should consider the most true. The argument that convinces the most people (e.g., personal mystical experience) could just as easily be the one that plays to our emotional weaknesses and mental biases better than any other.
Glad u gave a definition of False Dichotomy. I love your videos but your vocabulary sometimes overwhelms me and I have to leave the video Google something and come back. I always leave smarter but this is just more convenient
Joiker 😳 Consider the outcome when a person is both intelligent and educated to a high degree! Why should I or Alex then 'talk down' to an audience on any subject? Vocabulary exists to be used, not dumbed down! What we do is tailor our presentations to the particular audience we anticipate will be listening to us. Neither Alex or I would use the same vocabulary to nursery children as to university academics. Makes sound sense to me. Challenge yourself to add five new words to your vocabulary each day, then see what difference that makes to your thinking. Kindest regards from 🇬🇧
Sir Meow The Library Cat I'm sorry if I didn't know what "False Dichotomy" was. It's not something that is common knowledge that's why we watch these videos.. to gain knowledge. I'm not asking him to "dumb down" his vocabulary I was just thanking him for giving the definition of a term I was unaware of.
The multiverse theory is how I solve this problem. The universe we are in seems normal to us. If it's the only universe that supports us, that's no big deal. There are an infinite number if universe, so that will definitely happen. Case closed. If you'll excuse me, I have a Spaghetti Mister to worship. Good Day.
So in order for you to get around a belief in a creator you believe in a complex multiverse with no evidence? Seems like that violates Occams razor
Joel Almloff Many theories in physics support the multiverse. If you're not a layman, it's easier to assume that there are multiple universes rather than one.
Joel Almloff Many phenomena in the universe such as cold spots in Cosmic Background Radiation point to the existence of multiple universes. You don't need faith for that. Even if there was a god, how would you know which religion is the right one. You couldn't "just worship them all" because many religions consider that a sin. On the other hand, if this were true, he/she/it/they might not have shown [insert pronoun here] self to us in order to hide, so they could all be wrong.
Joel Almloff Isaac Newton even blamed "divine providence" for the fact that the planets have stable orbits. We now know that that is wrong. We could easily have explained this by saying there was some sort of "cosmic egg" that was made perfect to hatch the universe, but since these can neither been proven nor disproven, it is an utter waste of time. The same goes to the theory of a deity or FSM. Heck, I could say that the universe was created last Thursday, and you wouldn't be able to falsify the claim.
Joel Almloff Many theorists state that the universe "is born" and "dies" an infinite amount of times. If this is true, then an infinite amount of universes will be "just right". If you put an immortal monkey in front of a typewriter and give him an infinite amount of time to type he will write the complete works of Shakespeare an infinite amount of times. Of course this couldn't happen due to the death of the universe, but this is exactly what allows a "new try" when it comes to universes.
Very well said. Your third option is not used very much in debates, which I find strange, because in my view, it is an extremely strong argument against fine tuning. All you have to do is ask "how many other universes do you have access to, so you know the constants can be different?" It makes no sense to speculate about how things might have been, if you can't first prove that they actually can be different. As an analogy I can say "Isn't it remarkable that two plus two is fine tuned to equal exactly four? Just a difference of 1 in 10^55 would have made math useless."
Somewhat related, there are people who are convinced that we all live in a simulation, because somehow the odds are strongly in favor of it. I have a question to them: In what way does a simulated universe differ from a non simulated one? What is substantially different? To answer that question, you need to know how the universe actually works, which we have no clue at all about. The natural laws we observe are just the effects of it. So statements about simulations are equally silly to me.
One of the best videos you've ever made
Excellent argumentation, Alex.
Clearly the universe wasn't fine tuned for us. If it actually were, why would virtually the entirely of it be so inhospitable to us...even the earth itself. Humans can naturally habitate only the smallest portion of it. Go a little distance up and the air is too thin for most people. Attempt to live in the water and we die because water wasn't designed for us to live in (but aquatic animals have evolved to perfectly live in it).
And what about the rest of the earth that isn't water or the very narrow band of atmosphere that humans can naturally live in....like the soil and rocks and molten material? Why is all of that not hospitable for humans to naturally live in while soil and some rocks are perfect for those animals or plants (or other life forms) who have evolved to thrive in it?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, since I'm not a physicist... If any of them were different, wouldn't an entirely different universe simply have formed instead, one that was remarkably finely tuned for IT? Perhaps life would've existed in such a universe, perhaps it wouldn't have. Perhaps the universe has reformed itself billions of time, and we're simply experiencing the microscopic portion of it where we happen to have been finely tuned to exist in its endless myriad of variations.
that's the exact point of "we are fine-tuned to the universe" argument
The fine-tuning argument uses the finely tuned constants that, if altered, would result in NO LIFE of any type. An example could be that if the G constant was altered stars would not form to create chemistry and other matter.
That's my problem with people using the "The chance of that happening is so low." argument and then bringing up dice rolls or a coin toss.
You have no idea how many universes existed before ours that may had different constants and therefore collapsed. As a matter of fact, you couldn't observe a universe with other constants as you wouldn't exist in it.
So the mere fact that you're here to observe these constants does in no way show intelligent design nor does it disprove the universe coming up by chance because you don't know the probability function behind the formation of a universe - noone does.
With infinite trys (which is possible, since time and space are bound to a universe existing) the chance of our universe existing at some point even with a chance of 10e-1quadrillion would become 100%.
That doesn't even matter, I could easily say, 'this universe naturally existing is nearly impossible'. This is still the end of the debate, in no way, shape, or form can we ever get to, 'the god of the Bible must have done it' or something of the ilk. Now, that is impossible. So, the chance factor doesn't matter at all.
Joel Almloff, I realize that, but what I'm saying is (and why I'm asking for correction, since I'm not a physicist, though perhaps this falls more into philosophy), we couldn't possibly know that something else couldn't have formed, a completely different universe where physics as we know it wouldn't even exist. Perhaps the constants in themselves wouldn't even have the same meanings or relevance in such a universe. Perhaps billions of such universes exist simultaneously, without our ability to perceive them, and since we only perceive the small part that we actually are fine-tuned to exist in, our assumption that it's fine-tuned for us is false.
Dude You've Debunked this argument Like A beast
Have watched a lot of the "Fine Tuning" videos. This one is very precise. Hands down the best....
No matter how unlikely something is.. If the universe truly has no end. Even the most unlikely thing that can happen, will happen. And not just once, it will happen infinite times.
"Perhaps _we_ are perfectly tuned to _it."_ Right there.
I believe there is nonphysical substance to the universe and that life is made of it and the physical stuff too.
It makes sense to me, assuming that to be true, that the nonphysical energies that give rise to life look for the path of least resistance, like all other energy systems do. Hence, the goldilocks zones.
What we call goldilocks zones are parts of the universe that would take the least amount of nonphysical energy to produce a physical result. Once life takes hold and grows advanced enough, it can spread from that zone to the next areas that would take the least amount of energy to produce a result -
- in our case it would be the space station and mars and the moon and asteroids. Whichever comes first took the least amount of energy to get there and get set up.
eh non physical substance?
I work doing healing and other "energy" stuff. Placebo cant explain most of it, especially when you heal plants and animals and inanimate objects.
I've tried to figure out how it works using only physical mechanisms and it just doesnt fit. It works about as good as saying "God did it" to explain the unexplainable.
I think it's more reasonable to assume there is more substance to the universe than the physical stuff. This is how they assume dark matter and dark energy exists as well. I don't think dark matter explains life though. So it's not unreasonable to draw this conclusion.
Energy is an attribute of matter. By its very nature "energy" *has to be* physical. And dark energy is just a force that PRODUCES energy (Like gravity), it isn't energy in and of itself, and dark matter is either a force or physical matter that we cannot see.
Placebo very much can explain the healing of pets, plants, etc. Through the fact that it's humans who are reporting said results.
Set up a proper trial with control groups and double-blinding and watch those results disappear into the (non-existent) ether.
Ironysandwich it doesnt work that way, but keep the dream alive.
"posted 5 seconds ago"… wow, I've never been this early to anything.
The puddle analogy is a really good rebuttal and I feel a more powerful analogy than the dart one.
That said, I actually believe the intelligent design argument to some extent. It seems that there is some kind of intelligence to the universe. However, that doesn't in any way lead me to conclude that any metaphysical beings exist, and most certainly doesn't do anything to affirm the Christian god. It just strikes me that it's a fact that the universe is configured in such a way as to give rise to consciousness, and that doesn't have to be an "accident".
Its not that its fine tuned for us, but that its fine tuned for any kind of complex chemistry.
The problem with this argument is the assumption that other parameters wouldn't produce other emergent phenomena just as complex and versatile as the chemistry we have in our universe. All that's being claimed is that the chemistry as we know it would break down, but so what? I'm not a physicist, but as far as I understand the state of affairs, we currently don't have the technical means to derive the properties of even very simple molecules purely theoretically from the physics of elementary particles without using major shortcuts and simplifications guided by observation. If that's the case, how can we realistically explore truly alien physics?
@@AlexanderShamov if everything is clumped into a black hole or spread out into individual protons. You are not going to have any kind of complex chemistry. Sure you can have a verity of different unknown complex chemistries but that requires some interaction of particles
Theists also argue that life is far too complicated to have started without divine intervention - which is the complete opposite of fine tuning. They want to argue that the universe is fine tuned for life and also that it wasn't fine tuned enough for life to arise naturally.
Can you do a video debunking young earth creationism?
OmegaWolf747 🙀 There are many other channels that have done as you ask. Leave Alex to do other and more enlightening matters. Regards from 🇬🇧
YEC is so fucking stupid, even mainstream Christian creationists and apologists like Willaim Lane Craig debunk it.
Damn Alex have you been working out?
Christian Bennett mh? I cant see a difference. what am i missing?
florian diller he looks a lot skinnier in prior videos even a few months ago
Now that u said it :D.
I was just listening to to him without looking yesterday and reading some comments like yours, so I thought I missed some shirtless part of the Video :D.
I can't watch his videos anymore because his actractiveness distracts me.
I enjoyed this series quite a bit. Brought back memories of my father and I stuck in a plow truck for 36 hours debating religion when I was a teen. Thank you.
This seems a very bold stance to take on fine-tuning, and it is admirable that CosmicSkeptic admits that chance alone cannot explain the fundamental constants and quantities of the universe - many atheists cling to chance as an explanation, or to a multiverse theory which is arguably less empirically provable than God. But what seems even braver is putting all his eggs in the basket of necessity to explain these constants and quantities. There are over two dozen of these constants that we have so far discovered, and tens of other random quantities that make those constants possible. He makes the case that the gravity constant is brought about through necessity (which is still questionable as something that can alone be explained by natural law), but in doing so gives himself an enormous burden of proof (made worse by his admission that between chance and design, chance seems extremely farfetched). Sound logical reasoning is based on following the evidence where it leads, and with the exception of one of 26 constants that *may* be a natural necessity, there is very little supporting evidence that any of these constants are so through necessity. The most intellectually honest skeptic would in fact recognise that design is the best explanation, but seek to explore necessity until (or if) it becomes more plausible. Not to do so - and therefore to suggest (as CosmicSkeptic does) that we need only wait for more Einsteins to come along to prove all our constants to be necessitated by nature - is surely to embody an "atheism of the gaps" stance.
I luv ubdaddy
Pine Cone I wonder what Alex thinks about random strangers on the internet calling him daddy
Salamander it erects him I know it
Arguments for God, well which one there are many of them and they serve several different purposes.
How about one with actual evidence supporting it? That would be new.
DRAGONTIMER Neptune is the god of the sea. The Christian god is an omnipotent ruler. Pan is the god of nature. Ra is the god of the sun.
what is time? other than the distance to my next chicken meal.
6:45 - 7:08 That bit was so satisfying to me. So concise and well explained.
Sat through an ad for Prager University because I don't donate to you through Patreon. Keep up the awesome work Alex.
I have never heard of a perfect watch made by an amateur just because of mere necessity
So, let’s consider your gravity example.
The fact that the deformation of space time around a mass constrains light to follow an inverse square law in no way constrains the value of the gravitational constant. The inverse square law is not one possible value of any physical constant. The physical constants configure the equations of relativity and the deformations provided by the solution conform to reality because of the unique value of the physical constant. If the constant took any other value, the way the space time continuum deformed would be different and this difference would destabilise the universe and make it impossible to support life. So, I am sorry, the gravity example is completely misleading. As an analogy it is dishonest in that it creates exactly the opposite impression than the one the science reveals.
Your conjecture about ‘physical necessity’ is wishful thinking on a grand scale. There is nothing in science even remotely close to providing an explanation for the values the constants hold. There is no proposed mechanism to explain how such a theory could work. There is no theory like it. It is hot air. So when the CosmicSkeptic says that the ‘plausibility of the physical necessity theory removes the need for God’, we know we are dealing with a demagogue.
The fine tuning argument claims that a life supporting universe is fantastically unlikely. We are NOT saying ‘this means God made it’ we ARE saying that the best possible explanation of this FACT is more likely to be an intelligent designer than the result of chance. THAT’S ALL.
The point about probability is equally erroneous unless of course we invoke this speculative theory, for if we do not, the statement is FALSe. The probability of an event is the number of ways the event occurs divided by the total number of ways it can occur. So, if there is one value for a constant that produces a universe that can support life and one billion possible values of this constant, the probability is one billionth and NOTHING ELSE. The values of the constant are random unless the universe is designed, so your claim that the chances of a change (the probability) are a different thing that the amount of the change (the factor), then I am sorry, you are wrong and the inference you draw; namely that the chances of a life supporting universe existing is NOT infinitesimal, is WRONG too.
The values of the 26 physical constants conspire to make life a possibility in this universe. This universe is not a random universe. The fact that such a universe produces the earth and lots of dead planets is true but misleading. The fine tuning argument supports a conjecture. It is not a thing in itself. The conjecture is that an intelligence (God) created the universe. So what is relevant about the fine tuning argument is that it produces the possibility of life, which was God’s intention. The fact that it produces dead planets and black holes in entirely immaterial and I suggest people who overlook this are seeking to mislead.
There are other comments made that are plain stupid. I will not comment on them.
“In my father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you. We’re in the middle renovations, because two thirds of the mansions are flooded with sea water, & a number of the remaining ones are covered with ice. Some others contain volcanoes. We’re still fine-tuning it, TBQH.”
Brilliant, just brilliant Alex! . . .
"The dart hit no target. The target was drawn around the dart." I don't know if you've invented that expression, Alex, but I think it's perfect!
he should copyright it right now.
Too late, I took it!
Disease, death, extinction - all finely tuned.
Excellent video man
Thank you. I now understand more about the ‘fabric’ of the universe, and how gravity is apart of it. I have heard it explained a few times, but I finally understand it.
Thank you again.
Alex, a few clarifications and alternatives for your points here.
1) Einstein had already gotten an offer of a post at a university but did not want to take it and he just took the patent clerk job because he still had to eat and clothe himself. He wasn't even at that point "a patent clerk" any more than a PhD who got a job working as a manager at Costo is a barrista.
2) If gravity is produce by radiation then the square law inevitably applies. Radiation in three dimensional space reduces intensity by the square of the difference (one less than the dimensions of freedom, since radiation from a point is necessarily taking one of those dimensions)
3) If it changes by 10^-55 parts it produces no universe like this. But the difference may just change what the universe looks like. It could be that some factors change in codependence. This is possibly a clue that there is an underlying law and feature that explains both and occam would push us to put that basal cause as "real" (cf string theory replacing all particles and forces with one type of "thing": string loops).
4) The inflationary period may have been where the ratio of mass-energy in the universe and the gravitational potential were out of balance and it inflated until the two figures came close. Just like heated water stays 100C and the steam produced is at such a rate as to carry off the energy injected without leaving any left to raise the temperature of the bulk of the water. Until steam is produced (if the energy rate is enough to actually boil that amount of water) water heats up. Then it stays at that temperature and produces steam at the amazing rate of EXACTLY THE HEAT INPUT!!! Proof there's a god of teakettles!
As far as proof of god goes, fine tuning is less proof of god than proof of the anthropic principle and I just assert the weak anthropic principle and wait for them to prove it isn't just chance.
Amazing clip in the beginning there, thanks for that. Thank you for your videos.
Must be nice hanging 100 dollar bills on the wall for decoration. ha! Excellent upload!
Wonderful video!
Exactly what I needed right now
" but before we get our trousers off " Oh Alex, Hitch would be so proud of you, as we all are.
I've always found the watchmaker argument more formidable than fine tuning, and I would genuinely like to see your take on it, Alex. Thanks for posting! I ❤️ your videos!
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument*
For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this:
1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer
*The Anthropic Principle*
Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:
Oxygen level
• On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere
• That precise figure is an Anthropic constant that make life in earth possible.
• If oxygen were 25 percent fire would erept spontaneously
• If it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate
Carbon dioxide level
• If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop, and we would all burnt up
• If the level was lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis, and we would all suffocate
_fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_
For more evidence:
reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2
reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009
*What are the chances?*
It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance.
According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" .
Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_*
_Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_
_Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_
_According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_
_It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_
_It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
@@mathew4181 hey can you watch the video before hitting ctrl-v
I LOVE your channel so much!!
Nicely said! The only thing I need to refute "fine tuning", however, is that almost 100% of the cosmos is nearly instantly fatal.
If this place was finely tuned, the tuner was tone-deaf.
It's currently 1am here, I've watched 12 of your videos in a row, even if I tried, I probably wouldn't be able to sleep because my mind is completely fucked
This series of videos is amazing keep it up, Alex!
1. Life is as varied as opinion
2. Life can exist in a multitude of conditions in one form that would not support life in another form
3. It follows that life is esoteric to the conditions it requires to survive.
4. Conditions that support one form of life but cannot support another form of life indicate that these conditions, if fine-tuned, were done so esoterically and specifically to the form of life that can be supported by it.
5. No specific conditions, therefore, have been fine-tuned to support life as a whole.
6. By eliminating specific fine-tuning, we need to look at the wider ecosystem. Has the wider ecosystem been fine-tuned to support life as a whole?
7. If the wider ecosystem has been fine-tuned to support life as a whole, then it follows that life as a whole must be esoteric to the wider ecosystem, and unable to be supported in another ecosystem.
8. Is this universe designed as a specific esoteric ecosystem in order to support specific ecosystematic life?
9. There is no evidence to suggest that this universe was designed to support the specific ecosystematic life residing in it.
10. If the universe was designed as an ecosystem to support many forms of life, why can these forms of life not co-exist in identical conditions?
11. It follows that this universe was not designed to support specific types of life. Life was either designed or evolved to meet the conditions of a pre-existing universal ecosystem.
12. This universe was not fine-tuned to support life because there are simply too many conditions that only support a specific form of life and not life as a whole.
I want to point this out to you, Alex. I'm glad you talked about physical necessity. It had been thought that bees made hexagons because they fine tuned their combs to have the most volume per shape and bees wax etc.
Science has since found out that the hexagonal proportions of honeycombs came out of physical necessity and natural process.
Something that always happen and always will. Bees do not tune their honeycombs and the combs come out on their own.
Its pretty intuitive to me that phsyical necessity would create this constant unchanging measurements of the energy of expansion/gravity
After all, there are no circular honeycombs.
I make no comments on your videos Alex for one reason.... I cannot fault your logic or reasoning. It's people like you who should be the ones teaching science in classrooms because you bring clear reasoning to the subject, uncluttered and free of religious bullshit dogma. Cheers, Alex! Keep up the great work!
Lovely footage of the man, the legend, The Hitch, at the start. For me the "first cause" argument has always had more weight behind it than the "constants" argument, but I can certainly see why Hitch, Dawkins, and many other prominent atheist and anti-theist intellectuals see the "fine tuning/constants" as the strongest argument that the theists (or better yet, deists, considering that the constants say nothing about actual religions) have for the existence of a designer. Good job in pointing out the fallacy of the argument, though. As always, great content! 🍻✌🏼
Alex, the fine tuning argument always seemed like post-hoc reasoning:
The way it's usually presented is "What is the probability that the universe is in this particular configuration that we observe?" and then going around showing that minuscule changes result in a radically different universe, thus implying that the chances are infinitesimal. However, the real question should be "What is the probability that the universe is in this particular configuration that we observe, given that we're inside of it, to observe it?", and the answer to that is 1, that is, 100%.
Great video! That's exactly what I thought about the fine tuning argument when I first heard of it. Glad to know other people hold the same view.
This was a nice video, well presented and well researched.
Thanks much Alex.
The first criticism to the fine-tuning argument that comes to mind is the assumption that the universe is "tunable." We have 1 universe to observe, meaning the idea that these values could be different is an unsubstantiated one.
Also, if you don't assume any predetermined result, then it becomes unreasonable to try and calculate probabilities, since to calculate a probability you need some goal in mind. What's the probability of anything at all happening anytime in the future? With no specific goal, it seems that the odds are 1:1.
When met with the argument that any difference in universal constants would lead to no universe existing, my answer is always this: If the constants were different, we wouldn't be able to discuss it. We are here because the universe is here.