And we are yet to find evidence that any of those values could be anything other than what they are, or that any gods were involved in them being what they are. So to say thee were tuned would be nothing but dishonest.
If that's supposed to be an argument for god, then that is a bad one. Like in the middle of death valley, there are stones that move across the ground on their own. Is that proof of god, or is it just proof that when the right conditions are met, that amazing things can happen.
The big difference is that the initial conditions of the fine tuning of the universe were present from the beginning. In the case of the Death Valley "sailing stones," it's been demonstrated that the best explanation is physical: ice forms in the winter, creating an ice slab around the rocks. When the liquid level changes due to melting, these small floating ice sheets move along the ground with the stone acting as a keel which digs a trail in the soft mud. No such explanation is possible for the fine tuning of the universe, since the constants and quantities involved are not affected by physical changes in the universe. Again, they are initial conditions. As Dr. Craig notes, chance and necessity both have less plausibility than design as an explanation for this fine tuning. - RF Admin
@drcraigvideos you know how I know you have no idea what you are talking about? You claim the fine tuning of the universe has always been present. Except when we look back in time so far that just fractions of a millisecond after the big bang all laws of physics break down. That means that the fine tuning wasn't there from the start. That means at those extremes found only at the beginning of the known universe the laws of physics as we know them don't exist. "Chance and necessity both have less plausibility than design as an explanation." Dangerous thing playing with probabilities. It's more plausible that we live in a simulation. If you want to talk about what is more probable for why we are here, we are more likely to be part of a simulation. Since you can have millions of simulations inside a universe it is more likely you live in a simulation than in a habitable universe.
@user-vm5ud4xw6n well given the facts of creation in the Bible and other religious texts, it is highly improbable that any of those religions are correct given what we know about the universe. This includes the age and how everything formed.
@@censorsstarve "From the beginning" doesn't mean "at the singularity, where all the laws of physics break down." Dr. Craig addresses this in his Defenders class: "[W]hen I talk about the early universe, I do not mean the singularity. Some of these constants and quantities result from quantum phase transitions that the universe goes through very, very early. You have first this unified theory - some sort of a quantum theory of gravity - in which there are not separate gravitational particles or electromagnetic forces and so on. You just have a unified force. Then you have this so-called “GUT Era”5 where you have a grand unified theory where gravity breaks loose from the other three fundamental forces of nature, and that will then involve this fine tuned gravitational constant. Then you have it break down further into the fundamental forces of nature like gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force. As the universe goes through these quantum phase transitions, what happens is these finely tuned values just fall out one after another - inexplicably because these are supposed to be indeterminate phase transitions. When I said “from the beginning,” I didn’t mean from the singularity. I meant from the very, very early universe; but in fact they do fall out serially as the universe goes through these phase transitions." www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-excursus-on-natural-theology/existence-of-god-part-14 - RF Admin
Sure. But that does nothing to undermine the argument since the best explanation for the fine tuning of our universe is still design, not chance or necessity. - RF Admin
sir can you answer this why god creates i mean why doesn't he just sit alone without creation that would be better choice to end suffering and if he wants to create its enough to create only one time why he creates multiple time its t0r|ture circus 🤡
God did not create us for suffering. He created we who believe (which can include you if you want) to live with him eternally. Adam and Eve were perfect when created. But the serpent whom we refer to as satan, tempted Eve by twisting the truth. And she was right. Whatever the fruit from the tree was, it was beautiful and good for food. She offered it to Adam, he ate and when God confronts them, Adam basically blames God “The woman who You gave me, She gave me of the tree and I did eat.” The butthead couldn’t even man up and tell what happened. They chose independence over obedience to God. That is when sin entered the world and it has effected EVERYTHING in our lives. From the very tiniest “white lie” (BTH there’s no such thing as a white lie. A lie is a lie) to the most vile, disgusting, nauseating, frightening crime you can think of or imagine. It is all sin and it started in the Garden. The reason things have always been the way they are is explained in 2 words. Free Will. God gave us a free will that allows us to accept or reject him. In Deuteronomy the results of obedience and independence are outlined as Blessings and Curses. Through the centuries people have repeatedly chosen independence. Everything that is going on falls under the heading of Curses. Taxes, crappy government, people going nuts with Inclusivity, men claiming to be women. You name it. Some questions cannot be answered this side of heaven. God has His secrets and there are some things we are just not meant to know. The book of Job will give you a glimpse of our Heavenly Fathers power, his intellect, his love, his mercy and his grace! If you’ll read it of course.
Besides the fact that he is wrong that scientist “just discovered” the improbability of life, he is isn’t proving the existing of a deity any more than someone saying that a tree full of gifts must come from Santa Claus
You are wrong here my friend. You have to look at the options. A tree full of gifts has many possible answers. Could be Santa Claus or your parents or your sibling or your neighbours etc but it's certain that it was a human that did it. Similarly, the universe being created at the Big Bang and it was created in such a finely-tuned way indicates that it is the work of a deity, but it doesn't tell us which one. Allah, Jesus, Krishna?
@mikemalmoff5696, You say that WLC is wrong but provided no evidence to show that scientists haven't "just discovered" what he said. If you can provide that, then you've proven WLC wrong.
This is a terrible analogy. Lazy and sensationalist. You, the atheist, has the burden of proof of refuting the mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY of random mutations resulting in readable genetic code, as well as the central dogma of cellular biology which requires both RNA and Proteins to have evolved (randomly) IN TANDEM, simultaneously, in a working self replicating cell. Even Dawkins refutes this possibility and therefore he is forced to acquiesce to theories that have as much proof to the hyper materialist mind as there is for God, such as intelligent design by an alien species. Y'all dunning-kreuger pseudo-intellectuals are so funny man.
I’ve always found the fine tuning argument one of the weakest apologetic arguments. I have several reasons for holding that belief, but, the simplest reason is fine tuning is yet another unfalsifiable claim. Which is to say it’s a weak claim
@@CorbinHoffman-lg7iuwell, had the initial conditions been different, things could have been different than how they actually are. And whatever may have evolved within those parameters could just as easily make the fine tuning argument that so often made. And, if the initial conditions were different, maybe nothing could have evolved within those parameters. Then nothing intelligent would be here to even contemplate the matter. So, as it is, we have what we have. As an aside; to whom satisfactory are we considering here? Edit; listen to how Dr. Craig formulates his responses. They’re rather ambiguous in some ways
@@TheContrarian32 but they’re not different, why would we have any good reason to think they could’ve been different? I think Craig has dealt with this response anyway. Figured you would’ve had a compelling reason. Thanks anyway
@@CorbinHoffman-lg7iu”but they’re not different” Exactly! The argument is working backwards here. It’s taking what we know to be “true”, and making a claim back to it. Which brings us back to my original refutation in the OP. It’s an unfalsifiable claim.
@@TheContrarian32 you’re wrong. We do have examples of things existing in different ways. Why isn’t their life on all the other planets? why isn’t there just people walking around on those planets who breathe methane? Because life is not possible on those planets. The fine tuning and the positioning of the earth makes all this possible. You don’t have to look very far from earth to find that life doesn’t exist anywhere else. at least, as far as we can observe.
always appreciate your contents, sir. God bless you 🙏
Life is a gift from the Lord!
Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Read the book “The Case for Easter”
And we are yet to find evidence that any of those values could be anything other than what they are, or that any gods were involved in them being what they are.
So to say thee were tuned would be nothing but dishonest.
It is just reasonable
If that's supposed to be an argument for god, then that is a bad one. Like in the middle of death valley, there are stones that move across the ground on their own. Is that proof of god, or is it just proof that when the right conditions are met, that amazing things can happen.
The big difference is that the initial conditions of the fine tuning of the universe were present from the beginning. In the case of the Death Valley "sailing stones," it's been demonstrated that the best explanation is physical: ice forms in the winter, creating an ice slab around the rocks. When the liquid level changes due to melting, these small floating ice sheets move along the ground with the stone acting as a keel which digs a trail in the soft mud. No such explanation is possible for the fine tuning of the universe, since the constants and quantities involved are not affected by physical changes in the universe. Again, they are initial conditions.
As Dr. Craig notes, chance and necessity both have less plausibility than design as an explanation for this fine tuning. - RF Admin
What if it’s both? Ever think of that?
@drcraigvideos you know how I know you have no idea what you are talking about? You claim the fine tuning of the universe has always been present. Except when we look back in time so far that just fractions of a millisecond after the big bang all laws of physics break down. That means that the fine tuning wasn't there from the start. That means at those extremes found only at the beginning of the known universe the laws of physics as we know them don't exist.
"Chance and necessity both have less plausibility than design as an explanation." Dangerous thing playing with probabilities. It's more plausible that we live in a simulation. If you want to talk about what is more probable for why we are here, we are more likely to be part of a simulation. Since you can have millions of simulations inside a universe it is more likely you live in a simulation than in a habitable universe.
@user-vm5ud4xw6n well given the facts of creation in the Bible and other religious texts, it is highly improbable that any of those religions are correct given what we know about the universe. This includes the age and how everything formed.
@@censorsstarve "From the beginning" doesn't mean "at the singularity, where all the laws of physics break down." Dr. Craig addresses this in his Defenders class:
"[W]hen I talk about the early universe, I do not mean the singularity. Some of these constants and quantities result from quantum phase transitions that the universe goes through very, very early. You have first this unified theory - some sort of a quantum theory of gravity - in which there are not separate gravitational particles or electromagnetic forces and so on. You just have a unified force. Then you have this so-called “GUT Era”5 where you have a grand unified theory where gravity breaks loose from the other three fundamental forces of nature, and that will then involve this fine tuned gravitational constant. Then you have it break down further into the fundamental forces of nature like gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force. As the universe goes through these quantum phase transitions, what happens is these finely tuned values just fall out one after another - inexplicably because these are supposed to be indeterminate phase transitions. When I said “from the beginning,” I didn’t mean from the singularity. I meant from the very, very early universe; but in fact they do fall out serially as the universe goes through these phase transitions."
www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-excursus-on-natural-theology/existence-of-god-part-14
- RF Admin
But if God created both the Universe and life, he could have created any way he wanted to, without the need for fine-tuning.
Sure. But that does nothing to undermine the argument since the best explanation for the fine tuning of our universe is still design, not chance or necessity. - RF Admin
sir can you answer this
why god creates i mean why doesn't he just sit alone without creation
that would be better choice to end suffering
and if he wants to create its enough to create only one time
why he creates multiple time
its t0r|ture circus 🤡
God did not create us for suffering. He created we who believe (which can include you if you want) to live with him eternally. Adam and Eve were perfect when created. But the serpent whom we refer to as satan, tempted Eve by twisting the truth. And she was right. Whatever the fruit from the tree was, it was beautiful and good for food. She offered it to Adam, he ate and when God confronts them, Adam basically blames God “The woman who You gave me, She gave me of the tree and I did eat.” The butthead couldn’t even man up and tell what happened. They chose independence over obedience to God. That is when sin entered the world and it has effected EVERYTHING in our lives. From the very tiniest “white lie” (BTH there’s no such thing as a white lie. A lie is a lie) to the most vile, disgusting, nauseating, frightening crime you can think of or imagine. It is all sin and it started in the Garden. The reason things have always been the way they are is explained in 2 words. Free Will. God gave us a free will that allows us to accept or reject him. In Deuteronomy the results of obedience and independence are outlined as Blessings and Curses. Through the centuries people have repeatedly chosen independence. Everything that is going on falls under the heading of Curses. Taxes, crappy government, people going nuts with Inclusivity, men claiming to be women. You name it. Some questions cannot be answered this side of heaven. God has His secrets and there are some things we are just not meant to know. The book of Job will give you a glimpse of our Heavenly Fathers power, his intellect, his love, his mercy and his grace! If you’ll read it of course.
Besides the fact that he is wrong that scientist “just discovered” the improbability of life, he is isn’t proving the existing of a deity any more than someone saying that a tree full of gifts must come from Santa Claus
You are wrong here my friend. You have to look at the options. A tree full of gifts has many possible answers. Could be Santa Claus or your parents or your sibling or your neighbours etc but it's certain that it was a human that did it. Similarly, the universe being created at the Big Bang and it was created in such a finely-tuned way indicates that it is the work of a deity, but it doesn't tell us which one. Allah, Jesus, Krishna?
@mikemalmoff5696, You say that WLC is wrong but provided no evidence to show that scientists haven't "just discovered" what he said. If you can provide that, then you've proven WLC wrong.
@@petros5882 You just made some pretty weird presuppositions in order to put together your flowery description of the universe.
This is a terrible analogy. Lazy and sensationalist. You, the atheist, has the burden of proof of refuting the mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY of random mutations resulting in readable genetic code, as well as the central dogma of cellular biology which requires both RNA and Proteins to have evolved (randomly) IN TANDEM, simultaneously, in a working self replicating cell. Even Dawkins refutes this possibility and therefore he is forced to acquiesce to theories that have as much proof to the hyper materialist mind as there is for God, such as intelligent design by an alien species. Y'all dunning-kreuger pseudo-intellectuals are so funny man.
I’ve always found the fine tuning argument one of the weakest apologetic arguments. I have several reasons for holding that belief, but, the simplest reason is fine tuning is yet another unfalsifiable claim. Which is to say it’s a weak claim
That doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory reason, can you give a better reason? One that Craig hasn’t already answered?
@@CorbinHoffman-lg7iuwell, had the initial conditions been different, things could have been different than how they actually are. And whatever may have evolved within those parameters could just as easily make the fine tuning argument that so often made. And, if the initial conditions were different, maybe nothing could have evolved within those parameters. Then nothing intelligent would be here to even contemplate the matter.
So, as it is, we have what we have.
As an aside; to whom satisfactory are we considering here?
Edit; listen to how Dr. Craig formulates his responses. They’re rather ambiguous in some ways
@@TheContrarian32 but they’re not different, why would we have any good reason to think they could’ve been different? I think Craig has dealt with this response anyway. Figured you would’ve had a compelling reason. Thanks anyway
@@CorbinHoffman-lg7iu”but they’re not different”
Exactly! The argument is working backwards here. It’s taking what we know to be “true”, and making a claim back to it. Which brings us back to my original refutation in the OP. It’s an unfalsifiable claim.
@@TheContrarian32 you’re wrong. We do have examples of things existing in different ways. Why isn’t their life on all the other planets? why isn’t there just people walking around on those planets who breathe methane? Because life is not possible on those planets. The fine tuning and the positioning of the earth makes all this possible. You don’t have to look very far from earth to find that life doesn’t exist anywhere else. at least, as far as we can observe.