Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
REBUTTING atheist objections to the fine-tuning argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2024
- In this episode Trent defends the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence which uses the finding from modern physics to show the universe is the product of divine design. In the process he examines popular atheist objections to the argument.
Timestamps:
00:00:00 - Introduction
00:02:08 - Framing the argument
00:04:21 - Understanding “Fine-tuning”
00:28:31 - Are the constants fine tuned?
00:40:44 - Defending the design inference
00:52:47 - The Multiverse and fine tuning
01:01:22 - Is God a good explanation?
The "sentient atom" example made me imagine a bunch of hydrogen atoms sitting in heaven enjoying the beatific vision. Gave me a chuckle.
What an absurd statement.
🤣🤣🤣
From an objective but "alien" perspective, we'd be just a "bunch of sentient molecules" and thus very similar to the example that made you chuckle. If our "spirits/souls" can (or must) inhabit disease-ridden, frail, defecating bags of carbon-based molecules, then why can't god, who can do anything he wants, imbue ANYTHING, including atoms, with the same spirit or soul?
@@jamescastellihe certainly could. But he didn’t, soooo
@@phylocybe_ how would or could you know?
Those multiverse scientists have hedged their careers on the scientific documents known as Marvel comics.
Hawking calling them fans of science fiction
😂😂😂😂
This comment just demonstrates a level of ignorance that I didn't think possible.
@@thedude0000 as opposed to theorizing about infinite universes with zero scientific evidence.
@@Davidjune1970 HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE.....
one is a theory that is open to change or even be disregarded if new information arises.
The other is from an ancient text 2000+ years ago that demands you live your life around worshiping this entity and EVEN WITH NEW INFORMATION refuses to change.
There truly is a massive difference...
@@thedude0000 the first is based on the scientific evidence in marvel comics
The other is based on books written over thousands of years that first predicted the coming of Christ and then culminated in coming of Jesus, a real person, walking among us and preaching to us what the message of God was.
You are baloney but I guess you already knew that since you have the time stone and are just bouncing around the multiverse checking all the probabilities
Psalm 8
3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
So what?
@@jeffmaehre7150fr bruh so what
Not a Catholic but really like your work.
I remember when I used to watch Trent's videos as a not Catholic (actually, quite an anti Catholic).
Hey Trent, I was is in front of you and your son on the 3 Hearts Pilgrimage last week! Didn't get to say hi but I was glad to see you out there, it was an awesome experience.
This is why Trent is one of my all time favorite apologists
Ask him if he'll debate Br Peter Dimond
@@T_frog1 who the heretic ?
But he failed on every point..
@@tony1685 mmm.. sorry didn't get you. You Catholic ?
@@tony1685 Not fully Christian my fellow brother in Christ.
As an atheist,, I found this treatment fair, clear, and thought provoking. Thank you.
Don’t be an atheist I’ve seen the other side buddy accept Jesus and I really am telling you the honest truth and I don’t mean a near death
Funny enough theists don't realize that the fine tuning argument is an argument against Supernaturalism and that includes god , to put it simply the fine tuning argument is an argument against god not for one .
Think about it the whole premise of this argument that
'life as we know it would not have existed if certain physical constants didn't had their very specific and narrow value. And these values are too narrow to come from chance. So there must have been some intelligence that tuned the cosmos to host life '
But if this fine tuned is really a all powerful supernatural deity than he wouldn't need to finely tuned the universe to make life . An all powerful being can easily make life in an different gravitational constant or with any element of Periodic table.If the fine tuner is really all powerful supernatural deity than he can easily make 5 dimensional life or like that spans life years.
But if the intelligence in question needs the physical constants in an very specific settings than the fine tuner is very far from all powerful . Same goes for all supernatural agents as well. Supernatural agents don't need to play by the rules of nature. They can do whatever they want how ever they want. The appernent fined tuning can only be the work of a at present unknown natural mechanism.
@@celestialsatheist1535 More and more modern theologicans question that God is allpowerfull. And the early Christian would very propably haven not seen it like that either. I think the idea was promoted by some Saint in the 4th or 5th century after Christ. Sorry we have the heat wave here too, I can not give you the name, my memory is down. You suggest that God, if allpowerfull, could have designed a universe where life exists contrary to the rules of logic. That would be a universe in which our mind could not work. One can make a general rule that "the more miracolous" an universe the less well are we able to understand what happens next - up to a point where everything gets totally gaga. Even if God could do that why should he want to do that?
I wish you the best and that you find God and peace. The hardest problem in becoming a believer in my opinion is the problem of evil. That one just has to rearange dead matter geometrically and than it suddenly becomes concious was always a crazy crazy idea. Even when my faith is weakest I can not convince my mind that this will ever work. As when it comes to crazy stuff in Christian theology I would strongly avoid ideas like that God is allpowerfull or that Jesus "paid" God for our sins. This explains it better: ua-cam.com/video/zARN5r_x2KM/v-deo.html
@@celestialsatheist1535
No. God established all of life a very specific way, of which the fine-tuning of the universe is perfectly consistent. If he established the whole thing with something obviously supernatural, all people would then KNOW that God is. He purposefully does not reveal himself to those who have not yet chosen him, and for good reasons (just refer to how the people reacted to Jesus once they knew he was a miracle worker). Instead, what he has done is provide just enough evidence that he is, that anyone who has even an iota of desire for him can and will be lead to him. Those who don't will make wild, crazy excuses to continue to be willfully blind concerning him.
God does not NEED all of these physical constants established in exactness - it's the way he chose to do it to draw you to him, if you possess any objectivity whatsoever concerning him, celestial.
And of course, what your attempted explanation really misses the mark on is any way to account for how these many fine-tuned parameters of the universe (some of them fine-tuned precisely merely to allow the universe to even exist in the first place), so overwhelming the odds, could all be JUST SO... simultaneously, and by chance.
So no, your attempt to make the fine-tuning reality a case for naturalism is just woeful.
Trent, you do a better job summarizing and propping the Contra arguments than the people making them. Honestly, I just watched an hour-long video containing a dozen babbling anti-fine-tuners, and I'm gaining a more useful sense of their position from you within the first dozen minutes here.
Your commentary on the puddle thinking argument is spot on. I have encountered atheists who will avoid discussing the origins of life, and quickly change the subject when I point out that something cannot come from nothing, and to believe that it can is unscientific. One such atheist I had a recent conversation with kept using the term "naturally" as a replacement for "spontaneously." When I confronted him about it, he quickly changed the subject and avoided my question altogether.
You aren't "pointing out" anything because NOBODY in the origin of life community ever said something came from nothing. The only ones who literally believe that, are theists. I mean irony much?? You believe god came from nothing - or just always "was" - and that he created our Universe out of nothing but mind power or "intelligence". Hypocrite.
Life arose from semi-organic compounds we know were abundant on prebiotic Earth. Because when we chemically break down and analyze what cells are made up of, that is what we find. It's also what makes up DNA itself. So it stands to reason a natural process is the explanation. Then we perform lab tests and other experiments which also show how these chemical structures came about naturally.
But every time this is discussed some theist just says "Man has never taken some chemicals and made a Rhinoceros" or some insane crap, to crush any discussion in this area.
"When I confronted him about it, he quickly changed the subject and avoided my question altogether."
So because an atheist you spoke to wasn't an expert in an extremely complex field like Origin of Life, and wasn't familiar with Assembly Theory....that means what exactly? That your alternative sky daddy explanation automatically wins the award?? Ummm no, I don't think so. That's not how any of this works.
You wanna discuss it? I think Trent is wrong but I'd more like to just explain the other side in a non-combative manner if you're interested.
Doesn't using a sculpture in that case totally defeat the point of the argument since he's using an item that presupposes that it's already designed?
THIS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE TO ME and I'm only halfway through 🥰
THANK YOU,
how? god picks values that have the LEAST probability of giving the desired outcome - that makes god a dimwit in my book. if you want humans you coarse tune.
@@HarryNicNicholas I’ve seen you leave this comment a few times, and it seems that you don’t understand the argument. I’m an agnostic, but I find this pretty persuasive, and it seems like many physicists at least acknowledge the weirdness of the “fine-tuning.”
@@alchased you being agnostic finding it persuasive, doesn’t mean the argument is persuasive, not believing in god is neither necessary (although that might be controversially discussed) nor sufficient (that is a fact) for critically (not heuristically) assessing arguments
The argument is complete horse crap:
“Our universe is so complex, powerful and so “fine-tuned”, that can only be explained by a creature which is infinitely more complex, more powerful and more fine-tuned, but this creature doesn’t need an explanation of course”.
When physicists find something “weird”, it just means they cannot definitely explain it. Physicists just don’t know why/how the laws of the universe are as they are. That’s it.
Funny enough theists don't realize that the fine tuning argument is an argument against Supernaturalism and that includes god , to put it simply the fine tuning argument is an argument against god not for one .
Think about it the whole premise of this argument that
'life as we know it would not have existed if certain physical constants didn't had their very specific and narrow value. And these values are too narrow to come from chance. So there must have been some intelligence that tuned the cosmos to host life '
But if this fine tuned is really a all powerful supernatural deity than he wouldn't need to finely tuned the universe to make life . An all powerful being can easily make life in an different gravitational constant or with any element of Periodic table.If the fine tuner is really all powerful supernatural deity than he can easily make 5 dimensional life or like that spans life years.
But if the intelligence in question needs the physical constants in an very specific settings than the fine tuner is very far from all powerful . Same goes for all supernatural agents as well. Supernatural agents don't need to play by the rules of nature. They can do whatever they want how ever they want. The appernent fined tuning can only be the work of a at present unknown natural mechanism.
@@alchasedFunny enough theists don't realize that the fine tuning argument is an argument against Supernaturalism and that includes god , to put it simply the fine tuning argument is an argument against god not for one .
Think about it the whole premise of this argument that
'life as we know it would not have existed if certain physical constants didn't had their very specific and narrow value. And these values are too narrow to come from chance. So there must have been some intelligence that tuned the cosmos to host life '
But if this fine tuned is really a all powerful supernatural deity than he wouldn't need to finely tuned the universe to make life . An all powerful being can easily make life in an different gravitational constant or with any element of Periodic table.If the fine tuner is really all powerful supernatural deity than he can easily make 5 dimensional life or like that spans life years.
But if the intelligence in question needs the physical constants in an very specific settings than the fine tuner is very far from all powerful . Same goes for all supernatural agents as well. Supernatural agents don't need to play by the rules of nature. They can do whatever they want how ever they want. The appernent fined tuning can only be the work of a at present unknown natural mechanism.
Wonderful way to start the day! Thank you Trent!
Fascinating video, you picked my brain with a couple of arguments on this one. Took me a while to put some of my counterarguments to you into words, good job
The marksman example was the first thing I thought of when I saw the video was about the fine tuning argument, and you mentioned it. You were very well prepared for this video.
trent is an idiot. if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
@@HarryNicNicholas do you think Trent originated any of the arguments or examples used? If so, I'm afraid you might be the idiot
cant miss any of his videos. so clear.
Thanks for doing this clip Trent! I hear a lot of these objections on our campus here.
Just want to say this makes my head hurt, but you've done a great job simplifying such a complex argument.
That argument that universes would continually make universes that have more and more black holes just leads to the question why haven't we reached the point where all that we have are nothing but black holes?
Space is big. If there is a multiverse, it just got a hell of a lot bigger.
And it inflates.
@@RustyWalker space is big? thats pretty relative
@@RustyWalker “If”
Same with other things like Boltzmann brains. If there are an infinite number of universes with too many black holes, why this one?
if you leave now you could get to one quite soon i'm sure, byeee!
Fantastic Trent!
I listen to these podcasts all the time. The ones like this are far above my level of comprehension.
then don't bother, trent is a waste of your time, go enjoy life, be nice, if there is a god he wants you to explore creation, not spend your life sucking up.
Hawking dropped the mic on atheists calling them fans of science fiction
hawking was atheist. jeez.
Hawking was an atheist. Maybe you’re thinking of Roger Penrose?
@@HarryNicNicholas These folks aren't ones for facts, really
The odds right at the beginning are moronic.
We have exactly 1 universe. We cannot establish odds with a sample of 1.
Alex O'Connor may be a pretty friendly atheist *most* of the time, but I still wouldn't want to be in the same boat he's in
The one heading towards that really hot place?
@@mike-cc3dd hahaha! No actually, although that's not an enviable ride either.
Alex and Trent had a debate a while back wherein a horrendous historical example of how fallen human nature had adopted the idea of consent as a basis for moral guidance was discussed, iirc. I forget the details, but I believe it was in the 19th century on a lifeboat after a shipwreck. As rations dwindled, straws were drawn amongst the survivors for a volunteer who would sacrifice himself as a source of sustenance for the others. Lo and behold, the cabin boy drew the shortest straw. It was of course a touch suspicious that the crew member of lowest standing was found to be the "winner".
Nevertheless, Trent held to the position that this event revealed how consent wasn't a sufficient basis for moral rectitude, and rather disturbingly Alex proffered that it did. He quite vehemently defended the cabin boy's sacrifice, that, while regrettable, it was valid because it was "consensual".
Ergo, I hope to never find myself traveling the high seas on a vessel also inhabited by Alex O'Connor, as, should worst come to worst, he may not have my best interests at heart.
@@ironymatt notice how consent as an ethical principle is always presupposed by these types
@@newglof9558 yes indeed, a very convenient presupposition for those who would seemingly gain from the sacrifice
trent is an idiot. if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
I enjoyed that you spent so much time debunking bad counters and then just dismissed the strongest argument, that we have no relevant data on how the laws of the universe were determined and therefore no idea of how likely or unlikely our universe is, off hand by saying something about 'not everybody thinking about probability this way'. But the earlier arguments, yes, mostly bad.
I think this one was just as bad
(As I understood
What you are trying to say is that we haven't demonstrated that the laws of nature couldn't have been any different)
My question is
How is this an objection
As Dawkins said
(And I am paraphrasing)
Isn't it a very Happy coincidence that the only way the universe could have been
Is in the ridiculously narrow life permitting range
Even if the result was determined
Why was is it determined to be what it is
That's the whole point of the argument
@kiroshakir7935, the argument that was dismissed here challenges a probabilistic fine tuning argument. This seems to rest on a premise like 'the laws of this universe are unlikely under naturalism'. But many people reject that naturalism can tell us about the likelihood of the natural laws, given that we have no access to even a single unverse in which they are different. If they are correct this defeats the premise.
In your restatement of the problem where no other way of being was possible, then fine tuning seems to just reduce to a cosmological argument, clearly if there were no other way to be, then the way a thing is can be explained by the fact it exists at all.
You are an instrument of God's mercy Trent. Reaching charitably into the depths of God forsaken atheist communities by the grace of God and helping untie the knots they have tied themselves in. I think too many Catholics are online apologists and have an obsession with debating and debunking rather than becoming saints. But your work particularly is very much needed. Thank you Trent ❤️
Amen
trent is an idiot. if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
Creepy.
Good grief. This was mind melting!
As a Christian, I do like the fine-tuning argument. I find it very awe-inspiring to look at the values of these constants and to contemplate their consequences. However, having a degree in science, I also understand some of the objections to it, in particular the one adressed at around 45:00. If I may rephrase: "We cannot say anything about the probability of these constants being any different, simply because we don't have any available data on their variability (that's why they're called 'constants')". I also think that the dinosaur analogy does not really work here as a rebuttal, since it does not go into enough detail about how probabilities of counter scenarios (i.e. dinosaurs not going extinct) would be derived. The problem with the fine-tuned constants is that as far as I know, we simply do not have any data at all on how/why they exist the way they are - so assigning probabilites there pretty much comes down to pure speculation.
Nonetheless, I want to commend you for the pretty comprehensive compilation you give in this video.
trent is an idiot. if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
Yeah, I get the sense that a lot of people who debate these things don't have the requisite background knowledge to actually understand that which they're debating. Not that that's a problem, when one already has the answers from dogma, and just needs to work backwards.
Thanks for your input. I’m a Christian without a strong foundation in science, and I always disclaim so when such topics are broached. I am always open to new ideas / information. However most skeptics’ objections are moral / emotional in my experience
I don't buy neither his reasoning at this point.
He assumes that our description of the reality has to be the "fundamental reality".
Why should it be?
If we assume that we can change the constants and assume that there is a mechanism that sets the values of these constants, then, the fundamental reality can only be behind this mechanism and we can only hope to observe on top of it, one layer above, and so, we can only ever hope to describe a less fundamental reality.
I think the easiest way to put it is this way:
Science observes laws.
Possibly, science improves and discovers more fundamental laws but still, we are always ultimately left with the question "why these laws and not any other?", and science, by essence, can't answer this question. Science can only observe until a certain level of depth but can't ultimately answer the question "why?".
And so, we can't ever hope to estimate a probability about why these laws are the way they are.
He assumes that our description should be the most fundamental reality and that if it's not, the most fundamental reality has to be immaterial and supernatural and thus, god.
What I see is that, by essence, we can't actually grasp the most fundamental reality that can only lie behind the mechanism that generates the laws. And invoking a "supernatural, immaterial" is going back to the god of the gaps.
When something is unknown, science suggests that it's generally better to say "we don't know" than invoking the supernatural, the immaterial and god.
The way you approached this entire scenario was mature, intelligent, and courteous. A very refreshing response. Rather than get emotional like some theists, you logically presented the data and the facts and broke everything down. Frankly, this is how I believe the Church needs to approach criticism. Just let the numbers and data speak for themselves. L
You earned my subscription 👍
So if an object's moral value is directly related to its size, does that mean that tall people are more valuable than short people? It seems like a lot the problems on both sides have to do with trying to measure things with nothing to measure against.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🤖 The video discusses atheistic objections to the fine-tuning argument for God's existence based on modern physics findings.
00:41 🛡️ The fine-tuning argument posits that the universe's constants and conditions necessary for intelligent life are highly unlikely, making the existence of God more plausible.
01:37 💼 Two main versions of the fine-tuning argument are discussed: William Lane Craig's deductive version and probability-based formulations by Robin Collins and Luke Barnes.
03:12 🧐 Objections to the fine-tuning argument include doubting the reality of fine-tuning and disputing God as the best explanation for it.
05:14 🤯 "Fine-tuning" refers to narrow ranges of constants and laws in the universe permitting life, not whether an agent designed them.
08:39 🌌 Even though most of the universe is hostile to life, the argument concerns the fine-tuning of constants, not the overall nature of the universe.
11:48 🧪 Extreme conditions and examples like tardigrades don't address fine-tuning's core claim about necessary constants for life to form.
16:48 🎭 The objection that the universe doesn't match expectations ignores the question of fine-tuning constants and whether they enable life's existence.
19:06 🚫 The notion that God could change the laws of physics contradicts the concept of logical and metaphysical impossibility.
22:58 🌀 Intelligent life in a universe where God doesn't constantly intervene necessitates fine-tuned constants for stability and complexity.
23:41 👑 The objection of arrogance in claiming fine-tuning for intelligent life overlooks the argument's focus on necessary conditions, not centrality of humans.
23:55 🌌 Fine-tuning argument defended by Trent shows universe's complexity and human insignificance.
24:23 🌍 Medieval philosophers acknowledged Earth's smallness in comparison to the cosmos.
25:17 🌟 Geocentrism wasn't about Earth's importance but material placement; Aquinas explained hierarchy.
26:09 🌌 Arguing universe designed for humans is a rejection of premise but not a counter-argument.
27:20 🌠 Misunderstandings of fine-tuning premise: it's about constants, not maximizing life.
28:17 🪐 Physicists Barnes, Lewis, and atheist Lewis affirm fine-tuning as a factual reality.
29:01 🪐 Critique of argument against gravitational constant fine-tuning by Westbrook.
33:20 🔮 Fine-tuning of the cosmological constant and its implications for life.
36:07 🎯 Addressing the "anthropic principle" argument: survival doesn't explain fine-tuning.
40:01 🕊️ Different phases of the argument: fine-tuning's reality, disjunction of explanations, design.
42:05 🎯 Critique of anthropic principle: doesn't explain improbable fine-tuning.
45:01 🔄 Understanding probability: it's about possible variations, not just actual outcomes.
47:05 🔄 Constants shaping laws, not vice versa; Naturalism can't explain origin of constants.
48:00 🕰️ Fine-tuning objection: Laws of nature and physical constants are just descriptions, not physical rules.
48:39 🤔 A deeper law beyond constants would require immaterial reality or universal mind.
49:07 🧪 Laws of nature's necessity not same as mathematical truths' necessity.
49:33 🔢 String Theory suggests up to 10^500 possible universes with different constants.
50:00 🌌 Necessity doesn't explain why constants have specific life-permitting values.
50:14 📐 Stephen Weinberg's view: Constants not knobs for tuning, only one way for a universe.
51:07 🃏 Analogy: Card order in a deck, improbable but had to go in some order.
51:35 ♠️ Royal flush analogy: Improbable events are meaningful when design is involved.
52:16 🎲 Life-permitting Universe less unexpected if constants are designed.
53:11 🌌 Multiverse objection: Probability of life-permitting universe increases with enough universes.
54:07 🕳️ Lee Smolen's cosmological natural selection theory about black hole universes.
55:29 🔍 Stephen Hawking's reversal on black holes tunneling into other universes.
56:27 🌐 Multiverse hypothesis: Observers more likely to be randomly produced brains.
57:08 🎰 Multiverse generator: Speculative, lacks scientific evidence, requires fine-tuning.
58:02 🔮 Boltzmann brain problem: Multiverse doesn't explain complex, ordered universe.
59:25 🎯 Multiverse argument: Infinite universes don't eliminate improbability.
01:01:40 🤷♂️ Dawkins' objection: God as explanation leaves God's existence unexplained.
01:02:19 🌀 Infinite regress objection to requiring explanations for every explanation.
01:04:12 🎭 Fine-tuning argument in cumulative case for God's existence.
Made with HARPA AI
Thank you even if it's AI I appreciate it much thanks 🙏👍
Same here. Nice program.
At 20:45 this was very enlightening. I was always under the assumption that God was responsible for creating logic, reason, rationality, and the truth of reality, and if he wanted he could just alter any of those concepts to avoid contradiction, but you have clarified that he cannot.
Thank you for explaining the limitations of God.
There are also limitations of God's written in the Bible, like that he cannot lie, for example.
Well, there are two schools of thought on this which I personally don't know what makes more sense.
God doesn't have any limitations, there are two schools of thought on this.
One way to look at it is like this; The reason why God can't make logical inconsistencies is because logical inconsistencies are not a "thing" in the first place. Take the classic "stone too heavy for God to carry," question. This is similar to asking, "Can God increase the distance between purple and Wednesday?" No he can't, not due to a limitation, but due to the fact that you asked something which made no sense at all. "A stone too heavy for God," is something that doesn't make any sense because God is all powerful by definition.
Of course, your original reason in assuming that God is not limited to the law of rationality that he created also makes sense to me as well. Because if the answer to the question "can God make a stone too heavy for God to carry," is "yes," than God has created a contradiction. If he can create a contradiction, than who's to say that he can't contradict the contradiction and just pick up a stone that is "too big for him to carry."
I don't really know where I stand on this personally.
@@Benjamin-ey9jgWell, considering God is a God of logic, He made the rules that He follows. Can He change the rules? Sure. But He made the rules so He will follow them.
“Can God make a shapeless square? No? Then he is not all powerful”
This argument is very weak as it asks God to do something contradictory to his own. It’s like asking if God can make himself not God, and if he can’t do that, he is isn’t all powerful, and if he does do that, he is not all powerful. The very definition of God limits this because God is an all perfect being and it would be imperfection for God to contradict his nature. Gods omnipotence is maintained however as it would be weakness to contradict this nature, making him less than all powerful. There’s a good passage in St Anselms proslogion about this if you would like to check it out.
@@gobgaming2725I don't think I need to check out yet another source to understand the very simple argument that Trent made in his video and you are now repeating and recommending I go read about as if there is more depth to it. "God can't contradict himself because he is perfect and to contradict himself would be imperfect". That's it. That's the whole argument.
The argument is short-sighted and very quickly starts to sound like "God can't undo what he did". Of course he can. You are placing arbitrary restrictions on God's power so that they conveniently line up with human understanding.
God created logic so he can destroy logic. In the absence of logic, there are no contradictions. It doesn't matter that you can't understand a universe without logic.
58:26 the fun part with this one is that it also argues for the existence of god in an infinite amount of universes
I'd love a list, Trent, of all the books you recommend for fine-tuning/intelligent design more broadly. It's always been a fascinating topic for me. Maybe there's a FFAF in that?
don't waste your money, if you want life you coarse tune, not make it as hard as possible. jesus, can't you read? can't you do maths?
Intelligent design in biology is pseudo science don’t listen to those ppl . Fine tuning is real tho
I, as an atheist, would also love this. In the meantime, I can recommend the fine tuning chapter in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It's written by Robin Collins, who Trent mentioned several times in the video.
Return Of The God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer is probably my favorite. It's not very "preachy" but Meyer builds his argument for why the spirit of science was historically a theological motivation and why God is the "inference to the best explanation" for the creation of life, The Big Bang, fine tuning of the Universe, etc.
A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos by Luke A. Barnes, `
Fine-Tuning in the Physical Universe
Roger L. Davies (editor), Rafael Alves Batista (editor), David Sloan (editor), Michael Townsen Hicks (editor)
God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science by Neil A. Manson ,
The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited by Andrew Loke,
The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies
Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments: What (if Anything) Should We Infer from the Fine-Tuning of Our Universe for Life? by Jason Waller
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, chapter 4 by Robin Collins
Universes by John Leslie
to name a few.
The nerdy fine tuning vs the Chad St Paul "The heaven's declare the glory of God"
Always looking forward to Trent’s council.
Nice & clean!
Great break down
Supremely well reasoned.
It would be great if you linked all the videos in the description
Is there any reason to believe that these constants could be different values? It has never been empirically observed that they could have different values. Why is there any reason to think these things are like dials that could be a range of values
It’s amazing how much time and brain power are spent on what seems to me to deny what is intuitive.
Just because it is intuitive it is not true.
so god picked values that are the least likely to start life, and that makes it obvious there is a god.
stay christian, i don't want you on my team.
If you think the values are “least likely to start life” you missed the majority of what was said.
@@MrRebound68 it's painful because all of your objections on any argument all are counterintuitive..this pain will haunt you and torment u all ur life ..till u come back home to JESUS.. and that is the taste of hell for those who rejects OUR LORD
@@Yesunimwokozi1 , please come back and prove to me that fine-tuning was not created by super smelly farty monkey
People have been psyop'd into believing in real multiverses like a cartoon.
Multiple universes could be a thing
@@carolinpurayidom4570 this world could also be a simulation. Those kinds of proposals just derail conversations. There is no reason to believe in a multiverse or simulation theory other than that.
the multi verse is the solution to a MATHEMATICAL problem, it has bugger all to do with religion, if you read just a little cosmology instead of getting your astronomy from twits like trent, or story books like the bible you wouldn't look so dim.
@@HarryNicNicholas Who cares? There's a lot of theories in physics that are unscientific even if they are a possible way to conceptualize. Tegmark is one of the few people who believes in real multiverses. Treating it as a useful fiction is fine, but it's not real
@@TheThreatenedSwan You've disproven the multiverse? Would love to see your paper in a journal
There was a recent discovery in physics by astrophysicist Franco Vazza and neurosurgeon Alberto Feletti that the universe behaves very much like a neural network. Incredibly fascinating.
Why is that fascinating?
@@mike-cc3dd Why isn’t it? Doesn’t it prompt any questions or a need for an explanation?
Oooh does it really? Amazing!
I love these repeating patterns all over our world /universe /existence
Which would mean what exactly? Explain further
@@Michael-bk5nz I’m still reading a bit on the discovery and asking questions, but at least for now it seems to harmonize with the fine-tuning argument as Trent describes it.
Just want to say that my toddler was working from home with me and said that she liked the opening song. Is there an album for the podcast
Protestant admirer here, Trent! Another fabulous video. You seem to have a unique ability to help me understand these kinds of arguments in ways others can’t. I think I finally get how the constants and quantities of the laws of nature are not _dependent_ on those laws; rather, they _define_ and _delimit_ those laws, thus allowing for the eventual appearance of conscious, embodied life (and not necessarily ours). One of the points I’d been stuck on for some time.
Another great point you made was how the _universe_ isn’t fine-tuned for life; rather the initial _settings_ of the constants and quantities are. And how that must be explained. Well done.
Yet another masterpiece, Trent!
No, this is a masterpiece ua-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/v-deo.html
not really, there is a big flaw in the "god did fine tuning" argument, i bet you can't find it.
@@HarryNicNicholas disagree…
There are SEVERAL big flaws, theists don’t WANT to find them.
masterpiece in closing your eyes and ears and go "nonono", sure.
Already at 1:20 Trent will show you Sean Carroll saying how theological fine-tuning argument is probably the best one theists got.
But he will quickly cut Carroll away, before Sean says that it is still the terrible argument and not at all convincing.
I don't know guys.... but it really seems to me that along with Craig, you've got nothing but the strong wish for god to be there.
@@rayfighter denying it like the dawkins drone you are, ray by banging your head against the wall endlessly then, sure.
I don't know guys... but it really seems to me that along with dawkins/hitchens, you've got nothing but for the strong and seething wish for Atheism to be true. Try harder, hitchenite ray.
Fine-tuning is very much real:
On the face of it, the universe does look like it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings. Like the porridge in the tale of Goldilocks and the three bears, the universe seems to be just right for life, in many intriguing ways.-The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. 3.
It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. -A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 1988) p. 127
This is a good video. I like this type of response and critique.
As a classical theist, while I find the fine tuning argument interesting, it nonetheless has nothing to do with the ancient and classical case for God. Fine tuning refers to a state of physical affairs that already exist. The deeper question is why any state of physical affairs exist at all. Physical reality, being contingent, requires ultimately a non contingent reality which we know ultimately to be God.
Don’t get me wrong, the fine tuning does require and explanation just as a multiverse would require an explanation. Ultimately all leads back to God.
Nonetheless, as usual, atheist arguments closely resemble magical thinking as they routinely ignore basic logic to hold on to the superstition of atheism.
I really wish Trent wouldn't give airtime to the holy kool-aid guy. It brings a shudder to my soul that anyone could find him credible
@@ironymatt agreed, Alex O'Connor at least has a degree in philosophy and is someone you can converse with
Theism doesn't explain physical affairs. An all powerful God could have made us all unembodied souls.
Moreover, you are left with the even deeper question of "why any God at all." If you want to claim God is not contingent, the naturalist can simply say that the universe is not contingent and be on equal footing.
@@kensey007 What do you think is meant by the word “God”? Based upon what you said, it seems we mean drastically different things by the word “God”? Are you familiar with classical theism?
@@gfujigo I roughly have an idea but may have misunderstood you. Are you deist? Deism is perhaps a subcategory of classical theism? I have to admit I am not that familiar with classical theism and have to study up on it more so sorry if I am straw manning you.
Probably more helpful for you to explain where I am mistaken on your view of God.
FYI, on my second point re metaphysics, I can shortcut the discussion by noting that I am convinced by Oppy's position on these things. I haven't heard a good counter yet.
Trent, I love your videos like this! While I understand you are a Catholic apologist first and foremost, this Lutheran encourages you to take on materialism more often! Your rebuttals are perfect.
I really enjoy your talks
Wow, probably the most interesting part (of course it is all interesting) is when Trent goes over types of impossibility. It is nice how he laid out what God can and cannot do. It makes sense, and I think this could be used to answer the problem of natural evil.
trent is an idiot. if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
I'd be curious to hear your response to a different kind of argument in this sphere, one from Fr. Ripperger and others which states that life evolving from non-life is impossible due to violating the principles of noncontradiction.
Does current evolutionary theory really hold that at some point in the past life abruptly emerged from nonlife?
@@Michael-bk5nz it’s called “Abiogenesis”
@@TristenTaylorMD how is this not basically an appeal to magic?
@@Michael-bk5nz it’s been awhile since I’ve graduated w a bachelors in biology and studied this stuff, so a lot of this info just comes from my nog or Wikipedia - the presupposing circumstances consist of the earth and non-organic & non-living material (minerals and water and ammonia and such). They called this a “primordial soup”. After addition of electricity from lightning to spark chemical reactions, biological monomers (amino acids for instance) and then polymers (proteins) and then more complex structures (RNA/DNA) could be formed and so on
How does it violate the principle of non-contradiction? You might as well agree with Bertrand Russell in that case that cause and effect are impossible because they cannot be coincident. It seems to me he's clearly wrong in the same way that life coming from nonlife is clearly not a contradiction of any sort.
this is perfect bro!
TRENT PLZ MAKE MORE VIDS LIKE THIS PLZ💀
This felt like facing the final boss of a video game where you also have to battle all the previous bosses
Great work Trent!
not really, try to think about the fine tuning argument, there is a big flaw in it that makes god look stupid.....i bet you can't find it.
@@HarryNicNicholas Harry, God exists and there is nothing you can do about that. Repent or perish.
@@HarryNicNicholas A flaw “that makes god look stupid.” Yeah, there us a dispassionate truth-seeking statement. No underlying bias at all.
Funny enough theists don't realize that the fine tuning argument is an argument against Supernaturalism and that includes god , to put it simply the fine tuning argument is an argument against god not for one .
Think about it the whole premise of this argument that
'life as we know it would not have existed if certain physical constants didn't had their very specific and narrow value. And these values are too narrow to come from chance. So there must have been some intelligence that tuned the cosmos to host life '
But if this fine tuned is really a all powerful supernatural deity than he wouldn't need to finely tuned the universe to make life . An all powerful being can easily make life in an different gravitational constant or with any element of Periodic table.If the fine tuner is really all powerful supernatural deity than he can easily make 5 dimensional life or like that spans life years.
But if the intelligence in question needs the physical constants in an very specific settings than the fine tuner is very far from all powerful . Same goes for all supernatural agents as well. Supernatural agents don't need to play by the rules of nature. They can do whatever they want how ever they want. The appernent fined tuning can only be the work of a at present unknown natural mechanism.
@@celestialsatheist1535i swear, it's as if you didn't watch the video.
Another brilliant rebuttal.
it's tosh, it's obvious from the oitset what the problem is, see if you can work it out, i'll give you a clue COARSE TUNING.
I don’t know if I agree that God “can’t” do the logically/metaphysically impossible - I don’t see any reason God “can’t” do anything, I don’t believe anything is impossible for God. But I could certainly believe that God *won’t* contradict himself in those ways, which I suppose you could argue is a distinction without a difference (because God, being perfect, will never do something he won’t do, which would be indistinguishable in effect from it being something he can’t do - the only difference would be in the mind of God, which we can’t know).
About the hydrogen life thing though, I’d hesitate to make judgments on what God can and can’t do within the world He created, since He could just as easily have created a world entirely different if He wanted to. Seems like just because we can’t conceive of how that could be doesn’t mean He couldn’t do it or that it couldn’t be - we could just as easily be ignorant of how such a thing could exist.
Yup I also think that way and you are the one who properly addressed this issue here,fine tuning doesn't exist in the first place if god will it and creates it, if we acknowledge that god is the source of knowledge and not an outside objective value,then anything becomes created not fine tuned , the argument doesn't have anything to stand on if that's the case
I also had this kind of a reaction to the clip. As a result of being God, God *can* do anything, and I would think that would include the metaphysically impossible, like making a hydrogen atom sentient. After all, Heaven exists beyond time and space, and God can view all of history at once and has already comprehended all information there is to know. Nothing in creation, metaphysically, can do these things. God, however, has power beyond infinity. It’s actually incredible when one dwells on it.
best video yet
Trent’s outro music absolutely slaps
No, check out Charles Berthoud if you want that.
I've been diving into arguments for design and arguments for God as well as Catholic apologetics, but I have yet to find good resources on how one makes the jump from a designed universe to Christianity. Can anyone help?
I think they just pat themselves on the back for "proving" the universe is designed, and assume that because it is now, every other claim they make therefore follows (right down to a first-century Galilean carpenter suspending the laws of physics somehow).
@jayinjapan9978 "They" say nothing of the sort, if by "they" you mean trent. He literally says in this video that the probabilistic fine-tuning argument doesn't prove theism, only provides evidence for it. In his book he very clearly states that the fine tuning argument doesn't get you all the way to the God of Classical Theism.
@@aaronmueller5802well said. I hope ' they' understand. I'm always taken by the' free thinkers' because ' they' are so open to different views.
Revelation, that is all the resources you need.
The biggest problem with the fine tuning argument is the number of unjustified assumptions that must be made in order for the conclusion to follow the premises.
First, you must assume that the result was the intended outcome. You look at the result (the universe, Earth and people existing as they are now) then you go back and look at all the factors that led to this result and gawk at how unlikely it is for them to be the way they are.
You can do this with practically anything.
If I find a rock on the floor and I assume that THIS rock is in this precise position on Earth, I can then assume that all the various factors and series of events that led to this result were intended to be so. Wind speed, temperature, rainfall, etc. EVERYTHING had to be perfect to allow the rock to be where it is. Does that mean the factors I listed were fine-tuned with that result in mind? Of course not, the problem is with me arbitrarily applying meaning to the rock's positioning in the first place.
Much like with the universe as we know it, WE assign significance to this result because it's favourable to us - we have no reason to think there is intrinsic meaning to our existence.
The second problem is the assumption that the "fine-tuned" constants are the only way they could possibly be. For all we know, changes could be made to these constants and they'd still be conducive to life, but maybe a different kind of life. Again, we're looking at the result and assuming it's the only way things could be.
If we apply this in the rock analogy, I could say that any change to the factors that led up to the rock's positioning would make it impossible for it to be where it is. Which may be true, but couldn't it just be somewhere else? Again, starting with an assumption causes so many problems.
The thing is that the constants might just be depending on each other. If one is changed all others will follow… I do not see any problem with that, and I would say that it’s shown since we are here. 🤔
Is it not hilarious that TMM the atheist looks like an atheist?
[Fedora emoji]
It boggles my mind how anyone can still believe in mindless evolution.
That’s like saying it’s stupid to believe in mindless rain, it’s a natural process like any other
quick question, just curious, how do you think different dog breeds exist?
@@enzoaraya4796And have you seen this "natural process"?
@abaddon214variation within the same genetic pool we see some variation do we see thr microbe to human scenario plausible no why is thay because for two simple coordinated mutations it will take for humans to be fixed 100 milion years according to population genetics 8
He means random changes forming complex organsims we do see some little variations within species do we observe new proteins forming by random mutant no do we observe changes like dinasour to bird without preassumptions no just take for example whales evoultion the time for whales to evlove from land mammals is 10 milion years it doesn't add up we don't have enought time for two coordinated beneficial mutations it would take milions of years let alone entire body structure s@@enzoaraya4796
absolutely brillient
You have to add this video to your “Rebuttals” playlist!
Trent did a great job rebutting these atheists arguments against fine tuning. My argument against fine tuning argument as evidence for God (and I'm not at all an atheist) is that I can't get into theoretical arguments about what laws of the universe could be different. It's like what if the rules of logic were different. God, then could do evil.
@Sven Andersson well if you alter pi by a small amount you wouldn’t have a round circle.
The point of the video though is not individual constants, it’s the fact that all of those constants and their values together make life possible … that if any one of them were different then life wouldn’t be possible. And that’s not just our life as we know … any life.
@Sven Andersson no that’s the point of people studying them, and why the scientists say the universe is finely tuned for life.
@Sven Andersson the key word is “fine” with the emphasis that there is not much margin permissible. And once again it’s not just looking at how one constant is finely tuned … it’s how all those constants are finely tuned.
And explaining it as being due to a multiverse where an infinite number of universes happened to produce this one is just science fiction to the ridiculous level.
@Sven Andersson pi was not raised in the video but nice diversionary tactic.
Maybe you can postulate on a multiverse where pi is a constant that produces a perfect square
Glad to hear that the incoherent seductions of atheism haven't claimed you from your vows father!
Also, yes, it's right to point out that fine tuning isn't an explicit argument for God's existence. Its value is in making clear that mere chance isn't a viable explanation.
Trent’s presentation is superb! I remain convinced that the beginning of every argument against the existence of God is in one’s philosophy rather than science. Highly intelligent people who insist on being their own highest moral authorities must convince themselves that God does not exist in order to justify their position that, “As far as I am concerned, I am the true and lone god of the universe centered around me.” It’s not “atheism,” but “egotheism.”
Thanks for judging me based on no effing evidence but your own prejudice.
@@adamcosper3308 Fascinating! I'm stunned that you care enough about my opinion to take it personally and made the effort to respond. Yours is an ad hominem statement that does not address the hypothesis I provided. I will recant my statement if you tell me, as an atheist, to whom you submit your full allegiance and subordinate your moral conduct, and why you chose that authority to be absolute in your life. It must be an authority to whom you subordinate even your own opinions of right and wrong, going so far as to affect your most personal conduct even when no one is watching.
@@wjtruax What kind of weird BDSM enthusiast just replied to me?
for parameters necessity, one case could be simple that most of them are not "free" parameters but combination of others parameters. And now instated of 20 parameters used by current physics would be only 3 parameters, and "chance" for them have correct would be order of magnitude of magnitude orders less than current set of parameters.
Another things this values could be simply based on mathematical constants and consequence of "geometry of physic", like height of triangle is not fine tuned but consequence of length of this triangle edges, and triangle edges are again determined by triangle vertices position. We can see that more general view of triangle we have its less fine tuned as putting vertices you can nearly every where to make triangle, but only very specific edges lengths can make triangle.
This will reduce this whole argument to: "Why physic laws are this way?"
if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
Accepting your premise that the laws of our universe favor life in a way that seems difficult to explain at present, how is the teleological argument anything more than the argument from ignorance?
For anyone who wants to go really deep into this, I recommend looking up nucleosynthesis in stars and just how amazing that all is. It is beautiful how the forces of nature and the two most basic elements makes a working power plant/element factory just by how they interact over time and how this leads to the elemental mixture we find in the cosmos. It requires a pretty high amount of mathematics and physics knowledge, and a good amount of time and effort, but it is so worth it! I might recommend looking at AGB stars after looking at the types of stars and how the Sun works. It is just magnificent!
I understand it more like "setting the parameters" instead of actually adjusting. Also in parallel universe, you would probably be saying the same thing where (hypothetically) the life would have came to existence with different parameters. "Why it has to be this way, why not other way hehe?" This remark is just cringe.
@@grand5207 Well that is the thing though. For many of these parameters, if they are even by what we would consider altered by small degrees, we end up with not a variant on this Universal outcome but with say a few less percentage of Technetium or an increase in hydrocarbon`s tendency to branch.
Usually these changes lead to something like greatly increased black hole formation due to increased matter density, making star formation impossible, or the loss of molecular formation or even atoms. Or alternatively, we get a universe without galaxies and thus very very much less efficient (if not largely impossible) element cycling through generations of stars. Or consider if the expansion energy is off and leads either to a much more truncated universal lifespan before gravitational collapse, or greatly accelerated isolated larger proportional areas of the Universe over time in a sometimes exponential fashion making intergalactic material exchange (if not galactic formation) impossible, making galaxy mergers much less common meaning galaxies overall are smaller and burn through their supply of gas early on and end up as elliptical galaxies which it is theorized are largely uninhabitable for developing life (for reasons I admit I forget). Or finally if the proportion of massive stars increased we have too many supernova for complex life to develop before a given planet`s surface is sterilized or we do not have enough elrments past oxygen for a system complex as a fully fledged cell to develop ubiquitously as it does, or rocky planets now that I think of it.
My point is, alot of these points exhibit criticality point and edge of chaos behavior. As expected by Complexity Theory and Chaos Theory, complexity develops on a thin line between structured order and chaotic dynamics.
Change things up much and you end up with a bored dead system or static. Fine-tuning is basically expected due to the mathematical nature of emergant complexity such as biological life in the cosmic universal system.
The universe is not a toy where the knobs can be haphazardly turned to get cool new forms of life. It is more like a carefully balanced and layed out work of art.
@@LostArchivist Sorry, I apparently replied to a wrong comment. Not disagreeing with you.
@@grand5207 As someone who knows from experience. Consider examining your heart if you are valuing your own wisdom too much. Often when the Lord brings me to such mistakes, it is to humble me or bring it to light to me.
Alternatively if I am mistaken, perhaps I need such humility at this time,
Funny enough theists don't realize that the fine tuning argument is an argument against Supernaturalism and that includes god , to put it simply the fine tuning argument is an argument against god not for one .
Think about it the whole premise of this argument that
'life as we know it would not have existed if certain physical constants didn't had their very specific and narrow value. And these values are too narrow to come from chance. So there must have been some intelligence that tuned the cosmos to host life '
But if this fine tuned is really a all powerful supernatural deity than he wouldn't need to finely tuned the universe to make life . An all powerful being can easily make life in an different gravitational constant or with any element of Periodic table.If the fine tuner is really all powerful supernatural deity than he can easily make 5 dimensional life or like that spans life years.
But if the intelligence in question needs the physical constants in an very specific settings than the fine tuner is very far from all powerful . Same goes for all supernatural agents as well. Supernatural agents don't need to play by the rules of nature. They can do whatever they want how ever they want. The appernent fined tuning can only be the work of a at present unknown natural mechanism.
I love the fine tuning argument. It's so beautiful.
you can love it all you want...does prove god
@@thedude0000 watch the video
@@thedude0000 yes because I want it to
@@thedude0000 I see you like to follow Christian channels. Maybe you're just insecure in your "lack of belief", pretty pathetic.
@@thehungarywaffleinc.7775 wanting something doesn't make it true. I want to win the lottery....but
Have you considered mirroring this on Rumble?
What is the probability of 42 ?
The probability of 42 is so vastly minute that there must be a God
Absolutely the best theistic argument yet.
The fine tuning argument has quite convinced me that Zeus exists.
Darn I was thinking it was either super intelligent Aliens from another universe or possibly a cohort of gods who are not all-knowing but super-duper smart that like pain, suffering, and death.
@tedgrant2 @veridicusmaximus6010
so we all agree this argument lends credit to theism, which is the sole and only claim of the argument? Great!
@@benfairlamb1760
Scientists are not satisfied by arguments.
They like to have lots of hard evidence.
For example, rocks.
@@benfairlamb1760 so if the universe is a simulation created by a below-average super smelly farty monkey, we are to worship him?
Funny enough theists don't realize that the fine tuning argument is an argument against Supernaturalism and that includes god , to put it simply the fine tuning argument is an argument against god not for one .
Think about it the whole premise of this argument that
'life as we know it would not have existed if certain physical constants didn't had their very specific and narrow value. And these values are too narrow to come from chance. So there must have been some intelligence that tuned the cosmos to host life '
But if this fine tuned is really a all powerful supernatural deity than he wouldn't need to finely tuned the universe to make life . An all powerful being can easily make life in an different gravitational constant or with any element of Periodic table.If the fine tuner is really all powerful supernatural deity than he can easily make 5 dimensional life or like that spans life years.
But if the intelligence in question needs the physical constants in an very specific settings than the fine tuner is very far from all powerful . Same goes for all supernatural agents as well. Supernatural agents don't need to play by the rules of nature. They can do whatever they want how ever they want. The appernent fined tuning can only be the work of a at present unknown natural mechanism.
I really appreciate the approach taken in this video, which is basically stick to the science of the constants themselves. I believe as a result this is about the most clear and best presentation of the notion of fine-tuning and its common objections. However, I'd like to clarify and amplify an objection not covered in this video but alluded to in an earlier comment. Remember, we're debating within the realm of science. The objection is that the whole fine-tuning hypothesis is based on an unsupported assumption -- that the values of the constants, both individually and collectively, are unlikely. That is certainly a natural human reaction to the values of these constants so it's not surprising that this fact is so often missed. As the theism-neutral Dr. Hossenfelder points out, we simply do not know if they are unlikely or not. We have no scientific bases to determine their probabilities. We have no distribution of alternate universes and no math/physics that support any calculation of their probability. Where does this leave us? Fine-tuning is an interesting perception to debate, but the notion of fine-tuning is inherently (at least for now) unscientific. Dr. Hossenfelder goes on to point out that the notion of the multiverse is also unscientific although for somewhat different reasons. In the end, it's fine to believe that the universe is fine-tuned, it's just that one cannot demonstrate it scientifically. Science is not leading us back to the "God Hypothesis" if one really sticks to science.
As a Physics student I never understood the jump from "If the constants were slightly different, then the universe wouldn't allow for structures" going to "Therefore our universe is *unlikely* ". As far as I know, there's no concept of "probability" when it comes to the laws of Physics, they just are what they are. There's no data-generating process that generates universes and makes ours unlikely.
We don't know where do the laws of Physics come from (including the values of the fundamental constants), and Physics has no intention of investigating that question.
Fine-tuning arguments seem to always start from the assumptions that 1) not only there is a data-generating process for generating universes with different constants, but also 2) universes like ours have low probability in this process. But in Physics claim 1 is false, and therefore claim 2 has no value.
Even if it was the case that the values for the constants are generated by chance, who's to say that values like ours are unlikely? In other words, say that if the gravitational constant has to be within 0.000001% of what we observe, who's to say that this is not a very likely event? For all we know, it could be a probability distribution centered on what we observe and having a variance that is 10^(-100).
William Lane Craig in his video asks: "Is it necessary that our universe is life-permitting?" And says that no, it's possible (and much more likely) that it's not life-permitting. But as far as I understand there are no grounds to make this affirmation. The universe we see, with the constants that we see, is the only one we can observe and the only one we will ever observe, so as far as we know, it's the only one that exists and the only one that is possible.
Ok, I just saw that this is addressed around 47:07 until 50:49. I'm still not convinced that "Necessity" is a poor objection though, because to me there is no need for a "why" when it comes to the laws of Physics. The values of the fundamental constants are what they are, just like when you look around you see what you see. It's fundamental, there is nothing beyond it to inquire.
"Why is it that the only possible universe is the one that gives rise to us?" This is like asking why is it that God is the way He is, or why is it that what is Good is Good. It's a point of axiom, where it doesn't make sense to inquire further. The *fundamental* laws of Physics aren't open to inquiry as to "What causes them", only to "What are they". I wish more time was spent dealing with the notion that our fine-tuned universe is necessary.
@@piface3016I think this is fallacious to somehow discredit "why" because it presupposes that there is no answer.
It is a necessity to ask why due to basic belief. If you go off the notion of not asking why, then where does the line stop? I could stop asking why for a murder scene and not solve it, but one would ask..."why would you do that?" To which one would reply "it just is"
What you'd argue for leads to an absurdity because it contradicts and doesn't account for reason. We can ask why in every situation that reason permits it, including this one.
@@OJPrime Are you referring specifically to the question "Why are the laws of Physics the way that they are?" My contention with this is that we have no way of examining it through science, because it would require observing something outside of our universe. There is no working Physicist that considers that a question to be asked. Science is concerned only with the "what are they", not "why are they like this".
But even beyond that, there's just a confusion by my part on what would that question even mean. As far as we know, that's the only way things can be, but even more than that, it's the only way things _are_. I don't see how can you ask "Why are things the way they are", the observation that "Things are the way they are" is the most basic observation, it doesn't make sense to me to wonder "why".
To put it simply, the question is at best a question of philosophy of science (or physics), or at worst (depending on your sympathies) a question of philosophy proper. In what many would call normal science, the question of why doesn’t come up since you are already working within a framework where that question does not increase the boundaries of physics but rather reinforces it.
However the boundaries of science are challenged with inconsistent observations (the ether or ultraviolet catastrophe)which include a new framework which entails philosophical questions that are informed by the why question introduced in the fine tuning argument.
In any case, the fine tuning argument is a philosophical question that is informed by mathematics and science to provide evidence for a probability that God exists. Not a proof per se.
Finally, the idea of varying the constant is not unheard of in physics since many models are trying to describe physical events with a very generalize physical theory and reducing it down to an instance which coheres with physical constants we can measure. But if that is not a valid way to do physics… fair enough, but for many atheist it brings us back to the anthropic principle and the multiverse cannot solve it. And the type of multiverse that is envisioned using Feynman path integrals is not of the same kind anyhow. I hope this helps and I wish you success in your studies and in your career in physics.take care.
The funny thing is, I watched all the videos you rebutted before I found yours
It's odd; I always found fine-tuning the least convincing argument for theism so it was really weird to hear so many prominent atheists talk about it as one of the best. The fine-tuning argument only works if you assume that life can only exist in the form that we observe in a universe with our properties; if any of those constants were different, a totally alien form of life, like a living wavelength or something, could exist and apply the same fine-tuning argument to its universe and conclude that a universe like ours would be prohibitive to life.
What arguments do you find the most convincing for theism?
'A living wavelength or something.' That's just science fiction, though, there's no reason to believe that could be possible.
@@djo-dji6018 You missed the point
@@existential_o Not OP, but I'm probably in a similar boat as them. I agree that fine-tuning is unconvincing. As are most other arguments- hence why I remain unconvinced. It's a question of which is the least worst really...
I suppose that if it were scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning (currently an open question), then the case could be made that it might've therefore had a Cause. What that Cause was could be highly speculative, but perhaps it could be considered "God" in the narrowest of senses. (Like the Deist God).
I certainly wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this Cause thing, if it existed, was therefore an omnipotent being of some sort that actively intervenes in the universe, and took an interest in a very specific group of hairless primates on a very specific planet, and incarnated on that planet to kill himself for himself, so that said hairless primates can live with him forever and adulate him forever in another dimension. That seems like a large jump to me.
But a Cause thing might be plausible. Thing is, even if the universe had a beginning, there are models that suggest that it could begin without any external causal factor. (The physics is complicated).
If the universe had no beginning, and goes back infinitely in the past, then honestly I don't know how much room that leaves for any conception of "God". Maybe that'll be the scientific discovery that finally kills the god of the gaps. Either way, determining more about the origin of the universe will be very exciting indeed. And I'm open to the implications of that discovery, wherever it may lead us.
@@Jay_in_Japan There's a reason why many sophisticated atheistic philosophers focus on the fine-tuning argument. I think simply looking over it on the basis of speculation isn't justified. There was an interesting discussion between Dr. Graham Oppy and Dr. Michael Huemer on fine-tuning. I like this discussion in particular because Oppy claims the fine-tuning argument would be underwhelming if the laws were fixed (as he thinks). Although, Huemer makes a good point that most theists would make, asking why they are fixed. Huemer draws the analogy of atoms having the label, "made by God," and Oppy's reasoning being able to wave a phenomenon like that away.
In terms of a cosmological beginning (I prefer using cosmic/cosmos over universe because it avoids a person from invoking the multi-verse), I believe the only possible way to demonstrate such a thing would be to reason whether a truly infinite amount of things can actually exist within reality. I find it hard to believe scientific research will ever come close to answering such a question.
it's possible to demonstrate a first cause that transcends the cosmos, the qualities of this first cause have to be such: immaterial, powerful, and personal/possess a will. I know at first glance claiming it would be personal/ a will seems dumb. It seemed dumb to me, but when someone actually explained it to me it made sense.
The cause has to be personal/a will because the cause isn't mechanistic. The cosmos came into existence, not as a consequence of a cause-and-effect sequence (because if it did, then the question is why not "earlier"), but rather within the context of a willed choice.
this is the argument where neither the argument (for) nor the rebuttal (against) is really convincing, the entire argument feels unconvincing to me no matter how you phrase it
I agree. It might just be my inability to effectively grasp the point, but I personally find contingency arguments more weighty
@@CoolGuyBebo Yes, this is, and is intended to be, a motive of credibility rather than a demonstration. Put differently, it does not try to show that God exists. Instead, it is intended to show both that objections, misconstruing the argument, lack force, and that presumption is in favour of a creator.
I think the weight comes from regarding it as a probabilistic argument as you could (I guess?) use Bayesian probability to argue a posteriori that given these observations of how particular the universe is that it is quite probable that God arranged it this way, hence some author has talked about having a hotel room prepared for your arrival.
trent is an idiot. if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
I agree the natural constants in our universe are fine tuned but there is no way of finding out if this is rare or common. We don’t know how likely it is because we only have 1 universe that we can observe which is the one we live in. You can’t say it’s rare or unlikely because we have no other universes to compare it to. Therefore fine tuning is not an argument for theism nor is it an argument for naturalism.
28:00 Bottom line, it is very presumptive to not to robustly consider the downstream relationships and emergent effects when asserting any viability of alternative value ranges for these universal constant in a serious academic discussion on these matters where one is attempting to disprove alternative theories. These are why simulations and observational/experimental data (among other reasons) are required academically when say mapping out the resultant formation, evolution and interactions of galaxies based on mathematical models, it can result in chaotic and complex behavior.
It can be rewarding and even insightful to consider these in isolation or in a hypothetical scenario, but it does not account that the Universe is a single package. Phenomena downstream matter as violent deviations resulting from changing different values and their latent effects have a causal affect on subsequent events and can wildly steer the Universe off-course from being hospitable to life.
Very good arguments.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Mmm, not really. GOD IS goodness, anything not aligned to His will is therefore not good.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Yes
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Absolute in that what is good or evil doesn't change and is always good or evil no matter what
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Yes
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Did you have any point to this comment or were you just upset that I defined a word by that it means?
I have two problems with the fine tuning argument for the existence of God
1 I don't accept that you can calculate the probability of something that you have sample group or idea of the process by which these values came about.
2 Creationism is a category of possibilities, so establishing creationism is not the same thing as establishing God as a truth.
If a hydrogen atom had different properties, it wouldn't be a hydrogen atom....
The math of the universe is a miracle
We don’t understand or deserve.
Eugene Wigner
Nobel prize winning Scientist
Atheists sure do retreat back to the "multiverse of the gaps" argument.
Atheists aren't a monolith, anymore than Christians. And there's far more to cosmogeny than just the multiverse model
You are starting off wrong. There is NO WAY of calculating the odds of anything with only one example of the thing. Actually the odds of out universe existing is a 100%, because we have one example and it exists. Theists alway mistake the margins within which the constants should fall for the universe we know (not all possible life permitting universes, just something that resembles ours) to exist with odds for them being that way. We have no clue what the offs are, or if the constants could even be any other way or what the range is.
the constants could just necessarily have the values that they do. it would be physically impossible for them to be different. funnily enough, Trent makes that point about hydrogen atoms but fails to apply it to the constants
Trent, the problem with the argument is not imagined possibilities. The problem with the argument is that there is only one universe that we experience and you can’t do a probability calculation on anything that you only have one of so the rest of it doesn’t matter it’s all just flapping your lips, for the sake of trying to convince other people that don’t understand this,that you have shown…and you haven’t.
We also shouldn't let them get away with the implication that something's small size relative to similar things suggests insignificance. The smallest human beings on Earth are very often seen as the most important (given the choice in an adult dying and a child dying, most would select the adult).
i'm surprised that no one points out that if god fine tuned the universe he appears to have picked the most difficult combination of values for the desired outcome, surely if you want humans you COARSE tune? by saying "life is so unlikely with these fantastically improbable values" is saying "god really took a chance eh".
This is a good point. I'm glad someone here is actually thinking
These are mostly amateur objections to fine-tuning. I wish you had addressed some of the more serious objections like the normalizability objection or Sabine Hossenfelder's objection.
True. He just assumed the improbability was a fact from the outset. He didn't even mention that Sabine, Draper, Carroll and others often criticize these assumptions of "naturalness" or "simplicity," that create the problem in the first place.
Trent misinterpreting Krauss RE: naturalness seems to imply that he's perhaps unaware of these objections, because he would otherwise know what was meant by naturalness here.
it's even simpler than that, all they are saying is god has chosen values least likely to give the desired result. if you want life you COARSE tune. not make it as hard as possible.
I doubt he has the required knowledge in the relevant scientific fields to speak confidently to these objections. That seems to be the case with very nearly every apologist I've seen. (Seriously, I can't think of an apologist who's literate in e.g. quantum field theory).
But, not surprising. Because ultimately, their position doesn't even need science, since they can just appeal to their dogmatic "truths" and to "faith".
@@Jay_in_Japan there is many one is professor in those quantum field. His name is DONE PAGE.. and many others just check them
@@paulmarko Sean Carroll even was in the clip..just watch again😁.. by the way all falls in the same 3 category.. Sabine also is in physical necessity which does not explain anything
We don't have a fine-tuning argument. Cosmologists may have.
I like this Trent. One thing about scientists who say they can get around the fine tuning argument is that they have no way of conclusively testing their hypotheses. Anyone who comes up with a hypothesis should also provide a method of falsification/testing. To conclusively test an alternative to the fine tuning argument as viable, the scientist must instantiate a universe with the properties they suggest, leaving this one intact. That might render their hypothesis untestable until further notice.
Please note it is a grandiose claim, which should be accompanied by commensurate evidence. Computer simulations won't tell you whether it will work, only that it might work. I see scientists doing this often (making assertions without providing a real empirical testing methodology). Someone called it "Fiction Science". Since fine tuning is taken from observations of nature, it is evidence based. Computer simulations only have validity when the data is well known - like with gravity.
21:30 And here Trent refutes the idea of a common ancestor by asserting that evolution can only happen through kinds.
Why would that refute the idea of an Adam and Eve?
Like a boss!
@@brittoncain5090 It doesn't. I mean a common ancestor for all life. It's interesting because Trent concedes evolution, so I'm not sure how he squares what he said with his beliefs.
Uuh not at all. Both us and chimps are primates, therefore our common ancestor had the nature of a primate. The population of primates originated a multitude of adapted populations, which are still primates but can no longer breed with eachother.
Evolution is a scientific discovery acknowleged by the Church, denying it is just a display of unwarranted pride and a stumbling block to potential converts.
@@tafazzi-on-discord That means that the single celled organism everything evolved from has the nature of a primate. This has no evidence what so ever.
Polygenism has been denied by the Church, and should be acknowledged as such. Catholics refusing to submit to the teaching of the Magesterium, that polygenism is heretical, and cannot be held, and thus any teaching or understanding of evolution that fails to answer the question of polygenism must be denied are doing a disservice to the Church and fellow Catholics. They are also a stumbling block to potential converts.
Truth cannot contradict Truth. The fact that Catholics can't see that shows the shape the Church is in. Be in the world, not of it.
If a mouse giving birth to an elephant is a metaphysical impossibility due to it having "a mouse nature and a non-mouse nature at the same time", how is Mary giving birth to God not considered the same?
Much love to you Trent and your work in defending the faith, thank you!
Mary is giving birth to God in his human; not in his divine nature
@@ante3979 this is nestorianism, a heresy! Not the way to answer this question
@@Guresu nope... nestorianism would be to say that Mary gave birth to the human Christ who wasn't hypostaticaly connected to the divine Son, or that Mary gave birth to the human nature of the Son (which would be metaphysicaly impossible since one cannot give birth to natures, but only to actual living beings).
As I said, Mary gave birth to God himself in his human nature, she didn't bore Him in his divine nature.
@@ante3979 I don’t see how saying ‘Mary gave birth to God in his human and not in his divine nature’ is not separating Jesus’ two natures, i.e saying that Mary gave birth to Jesus’ human nature and not his divine nature
@@Guresu well the natures are, according to nicene and calcedonian christianity, distinct, and are united in the person of the Son....
Mary didn't give birth to His human nature, she gave birth to Him in His human nature... this is a distinction with an important difference. A nature cannot subsist without a suppositum, the Son being the suppositum of the two distinct natures in this case.
I mean, let's hear your opinion.... how do you answer the question in the initial comment, and how do you preserve conceptualy the notion that Mary didn't give birth to God qua [insert divine properties].
The whole notion of distinct natures and one Person/Hypostasis that unites them in Himself, was introduced to clarify this issue
It's true this argument lends some credence to the idea of a creator being. But it has nothing to do with any book we've written for a specific god at all.
Typically apologists will use a string of arguments. So this argument helps push towards some form of god. Its useful at reaching a certain premise, now he might argue for monotheism or historically of Christ.
Can we get this in a written version somewhere? I want to use these rebuttals next time I get on Reddit lol
Do you debate Atheists on Reddit? I do too! It's nice to see a fellow Redditor on here. We could follow each other and team up if you ever feel alone. It can be overwhelming with the army of Atheists on there.
trent is an idiot. if you want human life you COARSE tune, he's saying god picked the most UNLIKE:Y values to give the desired outcome, either trent is an idiot, or god is, or both.
if you had any clue you'd know you can get a transcript direct from this vid. trents rebuttals are daft, better to go to atheist sites if you want to know about science and how religists have no clue what they are talking about. for instance, trent is saying it must be god's mind cos these numbers are so incredibly improbable - which means god decided to use values LEAST LIKE:Y to result in life, which is stupid, even for god who does the most incredibly stupid things imaginable.
if you want humans you coarse tune.
@@HarryNicNicholas Name one single point in the video where trent states that the values of the universe are "tHe LeAsT liKeLY" for life to exist". You are just making that up.
@@HarryNicNicholas Why should we take anything you say seriously if you don't even know the word "theist"?
I'm somehow consistently and reliably disappointed by how wholly unremarkable these internet atheists are.
They're not sending their best, folks!
You just looked for - and found - a cheap way to insult people who don't share your religious views.
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 Nope. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote.
Also, nothing cheap here.
@@MeanBeanComedy Oh, I read what you wrote. It's very cheap. You're insulting people you've never even met simply because they disagree with you on the subject of religion.
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 You still aren't getting it. Try one more time. Third time's the charm.
@@MeanBeanComedy Sorry, it's still cheap and unnecessary. You aren't actually saying anything. Because you're afraid to. Say something. Or challenge something. All you're doing here is _"dEm aThEiStS iz nUt cleva"_ and then when you're challenged, you simply deflect. Type it out, clearly, and proudly. Don't type _"TrY aGaiN"_ or other such drivel - what's your POINT here?
Could god have made the constants different yet still produced life?
there's a very very small amount of wiggle room to all the constants where if they were changed let's say by less than one part in 10^100 nothing significant would change, therefore yes.
@@tafazzi-on-discord could have made the laws of nature different to where he had more wiggle room or was he determined to play within this wiggle room if he wanted to create humans?
@@creatinechris I don't think so, every aspect of the laws of the Universe contributes to determining our nature. The kind of alternative universe you're proposing would be incompatible with forming beings made in the image and likeness of God. To be clear, yes, God can choose to create beings not made in His image, look at animals, but He chose to treat us specially.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Gotcha so god's omnipotence is limited by nature if he wants to create beings in his likeness?
@@creatinechris Yes, God can't do what's logically impossible. E.g. A universe where molecules don't form can't sustain human existance.
It certainly helps that you offer a definition for fine tuning that basically looks at the odds of something happening being slim. The arguments that the atheists you posted listed are certainly based on a fine tuner doing the tuning, not about the odds being slim. I would not say that under naturalism that the parameters are very unusual, meaning there is an expectation that the parameters are naturally possible as unlikely as that might be. Just as winning the lottery is highly unlikely, it is still in the realm of possibilities. It is because the parameters, as unlikely as it may be, fall into the realm of natural possibilities. In a world full of natural explanations, it is reasonable to expect that the parameters also naturally occurred for whatever reasons. It really doesn't matter how slim the odds, in a Cosmos of eternity, there is plenty of time to pick the lucky numbers. Even if the odds of winning the lottery are a million to one, it doesn't necessarily require a million tries before winning, it could be your very first try. I am perfectly fine with a God being involved in some way, but you have superstitious reasons why people would believe a God exists as opposed to good reasons to expect natural reasons for it all. Having zero odds of it naturally occurring would be some evidence to support an entity is involved. A car has zero odds of naturally occurring, thus we can know an intelligence was involved. Fine tuning simply has natural odds of it happening. That doesn't mean a God doesn't exist, only that fine tuning is not an avenue to demonstrate that existence. I do appreciate your clarification so that I could demonstrate why fine tuning doesn't work based on your definition. We need something outside of natural possibilities to demonstrate an intelligence at work and unfortunately we only have evidence that supports our intelligence even though there are rumors that we have evidence for advanced alien intelligence. I hope one day someone will figure out how to make an actual case for the existence of God. Then we can turn our attention to which God or how many Gods/Goddesses.
The objections, summarized:
- If *I* were in charge, I would've waved my magic wand and given everyone a pony
- Why didn't God make us tardigrades so we could live in primordial soup hellholes
- Footsie! Actually evolution has fitted us perfectly for the uninhabitable universe and the hostile earth
- There are rules, they work, and things obey them without fail. This proves that no one wrote the rules or is enforcing them
- If the earth, the moon, birds, whales, sequoia trees and human beings are really small, why are they objectively better than a vacuum full of rocks, fire and radiation
- Maybe if we refuse to understand the challenge, it will go away
- Maybe a science-y sounding thought experiment with no proof or examples will get them off our backs
- Maybe these comically precise constants *had* to have their values. No, we haven't got any proof
- Infinite universes would make it necessary for this universe to exist. Infinity is just a really big number, right
- WHO CREATED GOD
Pretty much