The fine tuning argument: a theological critique
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 08. 2023
- Hans Halvorson is a Christian and a Professor of Philosophy of Physics at Princeton University. He is skeptical that the universe is fine tuned for life. However , if it is, he thinks it's evidence against God's existence and thus for atheism.
This clip is taken from our longer film on the subject, showing a skeptical take on the fine tuning of the universe for life. Featuring Roger Penrose, Carlo Rovelli, Sean Carroll, Alan Guth and many other leading experts. We cover problems of probability, the multiverse, cosmological natural selection and related issues that potentially debunk the fine tuning argument.
You can see that film here:
• Physicists & Philosoph...
a reply to this argument can be found here:
• Philip Goff and Luke B...
and our counter reply here:
• The Fine Tuning Argume...
With thanks to Chris (morn1415) for the fabulous images. - Věda a technologie
Outta all the Subs in my feed, ur channels new uploads are the ones I look forward to the most.
Do you all have any interviews or pieces featuring Dr Neil Turok? I’ve always found the one-electron universe/anti-universe idea extremely fascinating.
i did reach out to him a while back and didn't hear back, but may try again in the future. Thanks for you comment btw, its much appreciated.
I'd love to be surprised just once to see that a video includes both aides of an argument.
Jesus and the Holy Ghost sit at a bar sharing a pint.
HG says, "So... this universe thing."
"Yeah, I know. A bit much, isn't it?" Jesus acknowledges.
"13.8 billion years, a ridiculous amount of space and galactic detritus, silly quantum rules that nobody really understands, a periodic chart that's frankly gotten way out of hand, and all for what? To create one little planet where human beings will eventually evolve 4.5 billion years later - an utterly frail species that can barely survive their own planetary extremes yet alone the vast hostile cosmos - most of whom won't even believe in the same god anyway!"
"Yep. That's his finely tuned plan."
"It's almost what you'd expect to happen if life was extremely rare and evolved naturally in some giant multiverse or something."
Jesus shook his head and took another sip. "Ghost, sometimes it's like I'm just talking to myself."
I like the Fine-Tuning argument, but my dad said you can't prove nor disprove it. He said you can't go back in time to the beginning. He also said that there currently are no other universes to observe. Plus how would we knownif they're "fine-tuned"? Their laws and constants could be very differebt. Also, the constants and quantities I read could possibly change throughout time "some physicists think this".
I think you can't prove nor disprove God using science.
Your dad seems pretty smart
Anything can be called god, its just a matter of interpretation.
And any time… It’s useless^^
Anything can be called poop if everyone who speaks English decided that the word poop means that thing.
Fine tuning - the whole universe made just for life!.... in a tiny spot of the universe! Because!
Not sure we need the word "just" here but I take your point
@@PhilHalper1 well you cant have just without a juster. :D
@@DeconvertedMan lol
I'm an atheist and thank you for this nice thought experiment. I think it would be nice to, as Gob, "delete" things I dislike so hard they became impossible to exist even teorethically/conceptually. Then again, who's to say Gob isn't already doing that with all those new colors you can't imagine, but he doesn't hate yellow quite that much.
But Gob should have anticipated us to call him out on making yellow teorethically and conceptually possible and made yellow not those things for that reason, I retort.
Colors are just a specific wavelength of light. It also exists without life. Minerals also have different colors. However, there is a correlation between minerals and life. But this nucleus of strands generates a system that can perform quantum measurements. This system interacts with wavelength of particles. In a way, it's looking at itself. But that's what many scientists say, not all of whom even believe in any religions.
Statistics doesn't predict the know. Saying that it's unlikely that the universe is the way it is , is non senseical
I agree but tat is what the fine tuning argument assumes and we grant that assumption and still point out problems with the argument.
Very interesting argument! Hadnt considered this. However, isnt this assuming that God would create a 'physical constant random generator' and sit back to see the outcome? But from what i understand, theists would argue that God is the picker?
the question what does he pick from? The standard argument assumes a low probability that God overcomes, but where does this probability come from? What would theism predict it to be without knowing the answer is the key question
@@PhilHalper1But couldn't we change the analogy to say that Gob can see every ball that is inside the hat. If Gob picks the only purple ball, we would be justified in assuming that Gob was likely not picking at random but chose the purple one. So it depends who is doing the picking right? Sorry if I'm not understanding your last reply correctly!
we already knew the purple ball was picked. The "discovery" is that hat is filled with yellow balls. What should the Gob theory predict about which balls are in the hat? Purple or yellow?
@@PhilHalper1 If someone other than Gob was picking (someone picking at random), I agree I would expect a hat full of purple balls, but if I knew that Gob could see what it was picking, it surely wouldnt matter what Gob could have picked, only what Gob did pick.
Since Gob wouldn't be picking at random I would just expect a hat containing at least one purple ball.
@@Ultras743 the question is what should we predict is the distribution of coloured balls given the person that packed the hat loves purple? I think the obvious ansi is purple.
Would you like to do a video about your reaction to many titles like JSTW found god, or Roger Penrose destroyed big bang, we need a longer video about all those lies
alas time prevents me. Working on a new video on the problem of animal suffering that Im very excited about. Watch this space.
I can wait a little bit longer bu I am looking forward to see that one day you upload that video, please !!!@@PhilHalper1
The argument at the end is just stupid.
Because it assumes no higher will, just blind probabilities... Yes the hat COULD had all those yellow balls, but in actually it had ONLY ONE purple ball. The one we experience now.
If there is only one purple ball the the fine tuning argument fails, it assumes there are lot fo purple balls. Thats how the low probabilities in the argument are derived.
@@PhilHalper1The probability is the there COULD be multiple yellow balls in that hat.
Reality is that... it is just that ONLY that purple one that made this Universe work and life to exist.
The probability wave function collapsed to this reality.
@@SorinNicu but we already knew life existed right?
@@SorinNicu no it doesn't you obviously do not know how the probability wave function works.
but doesn't the argument assume that God is able to create a universe scaffolding where fine tuning is not even necessary any longer? Sure, if humans design something it would be considered "well designed" if the tolerances of all parts can be huge and it still works fine. Though, we have no idea if that is possible with something like a universe. I mean, assuming even God has to accept boundaries because of inner consistency and logic which I think he must. Plus, if there IS just one universe. Why would it be a feature to design it in a way that the parameters could deviate a lot and still allow for life? I think it is interesting in the sense that we don't understand the first thing to even know whether this is an argument for or against God at all. I grant you that. But beyond that, I cannot follow the logic.
i am actually not a fan of the color yellow either. tell me more about this Gob.
hes the God of purple lovers
This is probably the worst objection to the fine tuning argument. This might be worse than the “God wouldn’t need to fine tune the universe, we would exist even if the parameters weren’t fine tuned for life”
(If we lived in a universe where the fine tuned parameters didn’t permit life, we would be alive and say that they do permit life)
But back to the objection in the video. Wouldn’t God want to show how improbable our existence is so we have evidence that God exists?
And then the guy in the video admits we got super lucky smh.
Your presume ing what God would want to do . How do you make this presumption?. A further problem with you counter is that it assumes intentions for God which will ruin you into the problem of evil. Wouldn't God want to make a world without enormous amount suffering.? You could just as easily say God would want to hide himself as he wants us to come to him freely.
@@PhilHalper1 But that's exactly what the philosopher is doing in the video : presuming that a god that loves purple and hates yellow would want to create a lot of purple and as few yellows as possible. That's also a presumption. And a naive one, too.
I was born an atheist and i will die an atheist BUT, I don't think your argument makes sense, I think pulling the only purple ball out of a hatful of yellow balls could in any case rather prove that gob exists because the odds are so narrow. One could argue that we are too lucky to be true unless gob fine tuned the universe since the chances were less than infinitessimal. Or am I missimg your point?
What you are missing is the deeper question of who sets the probabilities? Moreover, what is the so called discovery of fine tuning supposed to be ? Consider this: the discovery of fine tuning is supposed to the probabilities for life are low. Now should theism predict low or high probabilities for life , if God loves life and sets the probabilities? Halvorson suggests he would set high probabilities yet we see low probabilities. This is disconfirmation of theism. Of course one could assume a divine being can overrule these low probabilities like a slight of hand card magician acting as the dealer, cheating at poker. But the cheater only cheats becuase the game is not set up for the outcome he wants. It shows evidence that game maker doesnt want the dealer to keep winning. Similarly fine tuning then is evidence against the hypothesis of a life loving God.
I see your point but I still disagree. There could be many reasons why Gob intended the universe to be this way. I think it is a huge assupmption to say that Gob would have intended every planet of the universe to host life. I could assume the opposite too, maybe Gob made the entire universe just for us to conquer it, fill it and multiply. We also don't know if there really isn't life even in the nearest planets or star systems.
@@antoniojimenezperez50 The assumption is deinfltey not " Gob would have intended every planet of the universe to host life. " That is misunderstanding of the argument. . Rather there are only two assumptions 1) that God loves life 2) God sets the probabilities. for life. 1 is needed to run the fine tuning argument, so if 1 is false, no problem, then the fine tuning argument is also false. 2 Seems to follow from the assumption that God is the ground of all being..which I think is what most religions teach. From this we infer the probabilities for life should be high. So the "data:" that the probabilities for life are low is disconfirming evidence for theism not conforming evidence. One could make some auxihally hypothesis that God set the probabilities low to show off his power but that will run into all sorts of problems. Becuase by adding such a hypothesis you lower the probability of your hypothesis and it just looks ad hoc. You can solve most problems with ad hoc assumptions but they are very unconvincing solution that should sway no one. .
Another argument against fine tuning is god and his minions are claimed to exist without even needing a universe. Given that a god should be able to create life in any universe. This of course assumes we are talking about the triple omni god of the bible.
If the universe was finely tuned arsenic would not be toxic.
Alas , one can always draw a circle around anything and say bullseye thats what God wanted.
@@PhilHalper1 and that only demonstrates that God is stupid and not intelligent at all. Arsenic being toxic is exactly like that video of the failed child's puzzle where every single puzzle piece all fits into the square hole regardless of the shape of the block. Only an idiot would design such a failure of a puzzle or there is no designer at all
There would be no winter, rain would be regular and not chaotic, oranges would be ripe in July...
@@LuisAldamiz I dont know follow you , can you explain?
@@LuisAldamiz yes there would be because all of these things happened on their own. Seasons are because of the tilt of the earth. Rain is because of the water cycle. Are you claiming that God causes every single water molecule to evaporate and form into clouds and condensed and drain down and then repeat the cycle all over again??? That your God can get that cycle correct but he can't figure out how to make arsenic not toxic?????
If the universe starts out from somewhere it will end up somewhere. It's only if you think that the destination is special that you might be surprised by that particular destination.
you can always draw a circle around where we are say thats what God wanted
@@PhilHalper1 The probability of being where we are is 1 .
What about it was designed out out by a Kardashov seven society? Atheists could certainly live with that, right? But my dog always chased away the bible sellers and Alarmists.
I don't see where it follows that options God didn't choose must be made primarily of options he might choose. That doesn't follow at all. What am I missing here?
the point is the FTA is about probabilities. It says the probabilities of life is low but God can overcome this . This argument asks a deeper questions, where do the probabilities come from?
@@PhilHalper1 Ok. I see what you mean but I think this is a strawman. I think fine tuning involves probabilities, to be sure. That is our perspective. From a God perspective there isn't any probability calculation. God simply chooses to design a universe in a way that will work.
The FTA then, from our vantage point, becomes a fulfillment of a "God hypothesis" prediction. That is broadly, we should find the fingerprints of design in the material world. Thus, proponents appeal to probabilities because its evaluating the chance of a naturalistic explanation from the point of pure naturalism. By doing so a Baysian(sp?) calculation can be done. What hypothesis accounts for the observation better?
@@blusheep2 when did theism predict " we should find the fingerprints of design in the material world." ? After all dont some theologians say God wont give us firm evidence of his existence to preserve our free will?
@@PhilHalper1 Ummm.. From the get go. Thiesm's main position is that God created the universe.
Your shifting the goal posts to free will away from Fine Tuning. Why? Is it that what I wrote was fair and reasonable? And by the way, "no," theologians haven't said that God "won't" give us firm evidence of His existence.
The Bible actually says, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
I think if your fair minded you will see that the FTA falls into this verse quite comfortably.
Again, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."
@@blusheep2 It dense follow from God created the unvierse to fingerprints fo design should be found. In fact when they aren't found, in the case of biological evolution or planetary formation or stellar formation, many theists just say " well thats just how God did it ".The passages you quote says "have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world" But according to science there hasn't been conscious creatures ever since the creation of the world, they came along much later so this further evidence the bible is wrong.
The odds of someone winning the lottery are great but someone wins it. If god likes purple balls so much why are there so many yellow ones. Because we find life special doesn't mean anything to a universe that will end it someday. if god was supernatural then i would expect supernatural occurrences to be common and governed by supernatural laws rather than physical ones. i would expect consciousness to not be wiped out by what's in a vial in a hospital.
The difference is what is called probabilistic resources. It makes a lottery analogy worthless. The reason is that, in the scheme of things, there is a small finite number of numbers that can drop in the lottery and there are millions of people playing the game and often multiple times doubling or tripling the number of attempts. That brings the chances of someone randomly getting the dropped numbers, that don't even require a specific order, well within probabilistic resources.
This is not the case with the constants used in the FTA. First, we aren't just talking about 1 constant that is fine tuned. We are talking about 80+ constants. Most of these constants have an extremely small tolerance range and anything falling outside the tolerances results in a universe that expands to fast for life, collapses on itself to fast for life, or stars can't form, etc. According to our math, these constants are arbitrary which means there could be millions, billions, trillions of different values that could have been the case. The probabilistic resources aren't there because the universe didn't have millions of chances as with the people playing the lottery. It only had 1 chance.
A simple math problem to illustrate. Lets say that each constant has a range of 100,000 values and only 1 value works, and there are 80 constants that have to get it right. The chances are"
100,000 x 100,0000 x 100,000, x 100,000 x 100,000 x 100,000.... (80 times). Do you not see why this is a problem for naturalism? At least you should understand and acknowledge why this is an evidence for design, even if you aren't ready to accept that conclusion.
@@blusheep2 Unless you have knowledge of all the variables involved , you have no way of quantifying the odds. There is no math equation you can use to quantify it. This universe far exceeds our logic. You have too many unknown variables. You cannot account for all the conditions present during the formation of our planet or any singularities that might have existed, you do not have a model of another universe or multiverse to determine what is or isn't likely or even all the variables/constants of the present model of the Universe. You also do not know if the conditions that made life possible on this planet are the only conditions from which life could emerge.
It does not take many constants to have a planet suitable for life when you consider many of them are Universal constants, and some constants being due to the location of our planet . The odds do not seem all that great that there would be life forming molecules that react to the conditions of our planet's environment when what also exist in our environment are harmful substances that can end life and destroy our environment. It had plenty of time to the tune of billions of years being under constant bombardment of asteroids carrying with it a vast array of foreign molecules that were the essential building blocks of living organisms, only for it our planet to be destroyed which in no way indicates an Intelligent Designer with the intended goal of creating and sustaining life.
You are only counting the hit and not the misses when calculating the odds.. Our planet is not unique in being unique. Each planet is unique in having specific conditions/parameters and what those conditions allow for such as planets with conditions that only allow for minerals that form massive diamonds while this planet has parameters that just so happens to allow for organisms thrive such as bacteria, viruses. parasites, plants, animals, and humans so either an intelligent designer had the goal of creating harmful bacteria, viruses, toxic substances, and parasitic organisms that survive off other living organism with humans being on the menu, just as humans thrive on another living organism or there is no intelligent designer.
This planet suggest that life is merely a byproduct of constants that only allow for certain conditions without agency to consider what results from those conditions, be it humans, diamonds, or viruses, does not matter. Notice our survival is contingent on our ability to adapt to an ever-increasing harsher environment not the other way around with earth becoming increasingly a more hospitable environment for life as one would expect if life were the intended goal of a designer who created this planet specifically for that purpose. In fact, if this planet had agency with a goal in mind it would appear to me that it is intent on ending life in which it always ultimately succeeds in doing one way or another.
I will admit that our planet is rare but nothing that would seem to indicate that it is fine tuned. I really do not understand what people are drawing from to arrive at such conclusion or what is their idea of perfection. Just off the top of my head fine tune would not allow for the same organs that bodily waste is excreted from to reproduce, The ozone layer would repair itself, there would not be volcanoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes, we would be without droughts and famine, there would be no abundance of hazardous substances, scientist would not have to play god and alter our DNA to remove harmful genetic mutations and tasked with the responsibility of trying to prolong life and enhance the quality of it in an attempt to fine tune what is supposed to already be fined tuned and just as a bonus wouldn’t it be perfect if everything that felt good was good for you? Wouldn’t it be nice if healthy food did not taste like crap, and you do not feel like wanting to pass out after doing what is supposed to keep you physically healthy? Please find me a fine-tuned planet because it sure is not this one.
@@sandrajackson709 Look, I'm no scientist and if you can produce a scientific source that demonstrates I'm missing something then I am more then willing to evaluate it. That being said, from what I've read, it is relatively simple, and its not as if it just a little ole' Christian is saying this. Important minds in the field have done so. Just take the Cosmological Constant. They can calculate what happens after the Big Bang if the number varies by something like .0001%. Move it that much and the universe doesn't form.
So, your right to say that I can't give a proper equation to quantify it but that is because it doesn't get easier then what I wrote. It gets harder, because the options are so much larger then 1 in 100,000. I was being gentle.
Now, with all do respect, your response is really just "nah ah." If you want to suggest that it is possible then you need to demonstrate it and not just deny it so that you can forget about it later. If you think its alright to posit an answer that you have no evidence for, then you shouldn't be concerned when someone posits God. Its equally as valid as what you present.
Now I need you to get something into your head because almost everyone gets this wrong. Singularities aren't "things." They don't exist. "Singularity" is treated as a noun but it is not. It is a name that represents a point in our mathematics in which all Space, Time, and Matter is curved to the infinite. You will often hear someone say that "our math breaks down." It doesn't. It reaches a point where all space matter and time curves to the infinite and scientists don't know what to do with that because it looks a heck of a lot like "nothing."
Now I don't know if the conditions on our planet are the only conditions that life could spawn under, but its mere speculation to say that there are other conditions that it will and it doesn't remove the fact that life, even in our conditions is a bonifide miracle in itself. So again, you can hold out for something that contradicts our current science but you are just speculating and if your allowed to speculate on what might be possible then so am I. Please give me evidence and not speculation.
_It does not take many constants to have a planet suitable for life _
You don't understand the argument do you? Its not about how many constants there are. Its about the values of those constants. Like I said, there are over 80 constants required for life as we know it.
As for first life, you need to research it a bit more. Your "billions of years doesn't get you anywhere. The odds are so astronomical that you don't even have enough time since the beginning of the universe to account for it on our planet. Thats how bad the odds are against life and that is ASSUMING that ALL the right chemicals are in the SAME place at the SAME time, in an environment that will foster survival of the individual molecules by providing it a cell-like membrane to contain it.
How am I not counting the misses. Life exists and the argument is that the universe is Fine Tuned for life. It doesn't argue that life can happen anywhere anytime. You are trying to argue that life is difficult and we aren't all immortal. That doesn't say anything about the the existence of life and the universes tuning for it. And it hardly follows that microbes and bacteria disprove God. God never promised us a perfect planet, especially one apart from Him.
Now you write a lot about the intended goal of the designer. Could you tell me please how it is that you have a damn clue about the goals of the designer, to make a comment about what He would want to design and what He wouldn't. The FTA simply says that the universe appears to be fine tuned for life. Nothing more, nothing less. It is true that life exists and flourishes, even though there are all theses bacteria floating around.
It just strikes me odd that all these atheists act as if they know how God would or should create and why he would do so. They act like they know more about God then theists do.
Just as a reminder. FT has to do with the universe more then anything else. It has to do with the constants defined by physics.
So I can only suggest you shuffle off shallow arguments about pooping and birthing and deal with the fact that 80+ of our universes constants have to be highly fine tuned for the universe to even survive, much less survive in a way that will allow life.
As a thought though... Every engineer that deigns a complicated machine must make compromises for functionality. An airplane can have slick swept back wings to go fast but then its not that great at slow speeds. It can have a jet engine but that engine is highly inefficient at low altitudes or a prop instead but then it doesn't generate enough power at high altitudes. Everything is a tradeoff. The body machine is the same way. There is give an take. If you think you can design a better body then demonstrate that you can. Make sure its as flexible as a human being, as intelligent, as durable, as strong, etc.
Fine Tuning is not an argument that ALL things are fine tuned to perfection. Stop acting like it is. That is a strawman argument.
Surely other societies thousands of galaxies away to believe in gods or one too? But they will each have different Bibles. So the question arises whether this architect has really read all of this other papyrus and whether he is really interested.
I would be very surprised if he was.
Oh is that the origin of the argument that the universe isn't just fine tuned, you're believing in a fine tuned God. A God that likes life in a particular way and distribution.
I wonder what is the distribution of possible pre universe beings?
Old man Yaweh lacks Empathy and imagination
but he has one sick sense of humor.
Its not that complicated man. Simply put, the universe is not fine tuned FOR life because if the constants had a purpose, by no means would it be biology (humans aren't the most powerful, most massive, largest, smallest, most improbable, or most entropically significant cosmological phenomen). If we're being technical, any object is fine tuned to the universe it is in because changing a constant changes what the structure is. It might be functional identical but they are different, same as how two identical twins are physically distinguishible. Bonus: The implied implasusibility of these constants are using a completely unjustified range. Any physical theory that predicts the possible values of the constants returns either 1, or damn near infinity.
Life is of the essence: life is everywhere and even consciousness exists at subatomic level, else how would an electron know that it has to be attracted to a proton and repealed by another electron? That's consciousness or awareness, even if it is at a very simple level.
There's even a theory that claims that there is probably life in the sun... just not DNA-based.
how are you defining life? and distinguishing it form non life?
Consciousness does not exist at a subatomic level. Electrons and protons do not have consciousness they do not have awareness.
Yeah you can have that theory it's still bull
@@PhilHalper1 - That's a tricky question but for the biggest part of what I said I mean "life as we know it", i.e. bacteria and stuff like that. While so far the evidence is limited (time to get those actual human biologists out there into Mars, Venus, Titan and Enceladus, Mr. Big-Mouth Musk or whoever is in charge), it's clear to me that life must exist in all those places, just like it did exist in extremely unhospitable early Earth. There are probably some limits for "life as we know it" but it should be quite generalized anyhow. Another thing is complex life (multicellular organisms or equivalent), let lone "intelligent life", that clearly requires more specific conditions and lots of time to evolve.
As for your tricky question, something that exists in an entropy gradient and uses that energy flow to grow and/or reproduce in a sustained way is life. Some put a lot of conditions but I think they are unnecessary and typically just pretexts to unnecessarily restrict life to demands that probably not even "life as we know it" does meet.
@@LuisAldamiz you made the argument that rocks are alive dude. you just made the argument that rocks have consciousness. You just made the argument that shit has consciousness.
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite - No, I didn't. Particles do have consciousness of a very basic kind, rocks do not AFAIK, they are not even a thing properly speaking, they lack individualness, rocks are just accumulation of molecules, however molecules have basic awareness, for example our very vision is founded on the electrochemical reaction to photons by some very specific molecules in our retinas. That reaction is consciousness (always at the most fundamental level) and our kind of complex consciousness is nothing but an emergent phenomenon based on that kind of fundamental, physical, basic consciousness.
Consciousness is nothing but "input > process (often "black box", hard to tell what exactly happens here) > output". It may be simpler or more complex but that's it in the essentials. All those pseudo-philosophers who imagine that consciousness is something else are just utterly wrong.
I must say this is quite some reverse psychology you've got going on here!
Let's flip this argument on it's head:
If life had a high probability, it would be impossible to bring intelligent design into question, and so the naturalistic world view would succeed. Much in the same way that it's impossible to explain by natural means due to the probabilities being so low
With that being said: You could argue that the intelligent designer made it like this so that we are without excuse
Ive never understood how fine tuning is compatible with intelligent design. One argument says the universe is set up for life and the other argument says it isn't.
@@JustADudeGamer I agree
@@JustADudeGamer Suffering and death is due to the original and current sin. If there was no consequences for our actions, then we would just be able to do whatever we pleased without having to worry. If society knows this by incorporating the justice system, how much more does God know this?
Major changes in evolution have never been proven. We should have at least discovered a half and half transition by now, and yet nothing! Half and half meaning; half of one kind of animal, and half of another
How are God's instructions unclear? There has to be a level of faith to all of this, otherwise we would be liable for the divine judgement reserved for the fallen angels
The demiurge (what you call "god") is supposed to be the one who picks the ball, not the one who prepares the hat, where it is picked from. Of course he would pick the one he likes. It is not a valid argument.
The actual problem is that the universe is not the purple ball, but the world, in which the intelligent designer sits and picks it out of the hat. The mistake that judeo-christian thinkers make is believing that there is an Outside to the universe, from where their god intervenes. But "universe" means all that there is. If there is a god, he is necessarily part of the universe, otherwise he wouldn't exist.
Scientists make the same error believing that the universe came somehow spontaneous into existence due to a preset probability. But this probability is already existing before our world, therefore it is part of the universe. Universe is all that exists, not just the 4 dimensional continuum we see. The universe cannot come into existence from nothing. Either there is universe or there is nothing. This cannot change, and we know that there is not nothing, because things exist.
if the odds of life are bzillions to one against, that favours naturalism and chance, god's odds should be 1:1 theists are saying "god picked methods of producing life that were least likely to achieve his goal" god is a silly idea in so many ways.
Im an atheist, and I think even though life is not the most of what exist in this universe, its enough for a god that it exists only once, because its not because everything else (not alive) is not loved by God that it means it must be hated by him. Everything else is not repugnant yellow balls, its just indifferent.
Moreover, who said one's value must be determined by its own size? God decides what is meaningful for him. The only reason I don't believe in God is just for the lack of evidence.
But isn't fine tuning an evidence? Are you really saying that you don't believe in God because there isn't evidence that has compelled you to yet or are you saying that you don't believe in God because there is a lack of proof?
Otherwise, I appreciate your intellectual honesty.
@@blusheep2 In the first case, you say "The constants of nature in our universe are what we have measured and God made them". In the second case, you say "The constants of nature in our universe are what we have measured and there are infinitely many other unobservable universes with other constants of nature". Neither addition does anything whatsoever to improve our theories of nature. But this does not mean God or the multiverse do not exist. It just means evidence cannot tell us which hypothesis is the right one.
So, fine-tuning is not evidence for God, since there are other possible explanations. What we need is evidence that proves God is the right hypothesis among others such as the multiverse and the Cosmological Natural Selection (Lee Smolin) which proposes the laws of physics come from a natural selection process and that's why they SEEM to be fine-tuned.
Another argument against fine-tuning is the Sentient Puddle (Douglas Adams) in which we imagine a puddle waking up one morning after a night of rain and saying "This is an interesting hole I find myself in. Fits me rather well, in fact, it fits me perfectly. It must have been made to have me in it". And as the Sun rises and the water evaporates, the puddle keeps thinking that the hole was made for him, until he disappears. But there could be lots of holes with lots of sentient puddles with different dimensions of that hole. Similarly, if we change the physical constants, analogous to the dimensions of the hole, it would be an alternate universe, but life as we know may be different. There could be many ways life can adapt to exist in such alternate universes, but our brains are confined to think life like ours being the only kind of life, and this universe is made uniquely for that kind of life in it.
@@andregustavo2086 Evidences can be evidence for more than one theory. A we driveway can be evidence of a rain shower but it also can be evidence of someone washing their car. It doesn't cease to be evidence just because there are a few options. It isn't evidence that a volcano just erupted. It isn't evidence that your kid got a D in biology. It counts for something does it not.
The concept of creation is a concept about a historical event in the finite past. How do we retrieve evidence for a one off event?... We make predictions about what we expect to find and when a prediction is satisfied then it is evidence. So the God hypothesis makes its own predictions and the FTA satisfies one. That makes it an evidence... not a proof... of a creator.
Now your response might be that its unconvincing because the same evidence is evidence for a multiverse and that could be discussed but it wouldn't make FT any less of an evidence.
At this point one must ask what other evidences there are for a creator or the multiverse and weigh the evidences against each other. So it IS evidence for God. It just doesn't PROVE God's existence on its own. We would be wrong to conflate "evidence" with "proof." It would be wrong for us to claim there is not "evidence" because its shy of being proof or because we aren't convinced by it.
The puddle analogy is quite a poor analogy. We understand gravity, rain, mist, goldilock zones, etc. There isn't any justification for the puddle to think what it does. We do know things about the constants of the universe. We know how much some of these constants can change and that is astronomically small in the vast options available to it. We can calculate what would happen if the cosmological constant or the nuclear weak force was a bit stronger or a bit weaker. We would have a universe that to quickly collapsed on itself or we would have one that expands so quickly that matter couldn't clump effectively. If the nuclear forces were off a hair then stars wouldn't form or they would burn out to quickly.
The puddle analogy assumes we don't know anything.
To prove this, just look how science has reacted to it. Most run to the multiverse in order to escape the other option, but with all the talk about the pseudoscience of theist scientists, they choose a pseudoscience. An untestable, unrepeatable, unobservable option. Steven Hawkings last book attempted to take God out of the equation by solving the wave function for the universe. He wanted to show that these sets of parameters could be arrived at through chance. He proclaimed in the book that he solved it but when you look at the details you find that limited the search for certain kinds of universes, not the whole gamut of possible universes. He arbitrarily cooked the books to get his results.
This argument is a weak refutation, because what i understand from the premise of fine-tuning is that its impossible for the purple to exist than those yellow yet it exists. We can go on then that it was more probable for the yellow ones to exist always but there is a little possibility for the purple to pop out but then to how high ridiculous odds shall we say that the little possibility is not impossible? 1 out of a million? 1 out of a Billion? 1 out of a Trillion? Quadrillion? And so on and so forth.
So yea maybe if the presenter could touch up on those other odds where little possibilities exists even to the highest ridiculous odds then maybe it would be a fine refutation. Otherwise, mehhh I'd rather stick to other modalities that could be a more accurate argument of refutation to God's existence.
Also the man is a nerd and full of confidence. It feels as if he has never been punched in the face.
hes nto trying to refute Gods existence, he's a Chrsitian. Did you see the full film this was taken from?
Alternatively God is color blind... maybe?
maybe
Which would make it a fallible God. If God cannot see color than he is not perfect
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite Im skeptical there i a useful deinfiton of perfect.
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite - Perfection is probably an absurd idea on itself. Spinoza believed that God had to be perfect and thus infinite and absolutely contradictory with Itself (both infinitely big and infinitely small, infinitely good and infinitely evil, etc.)
And thus also infinitely able to see all colors and infinitely blind, as well as everything in between... infinitely so.
@@LuisAldamiz so there cannot possibly be a perfect being so there is no perfect God. You just keep defeating your own arguments dude
The universe is so fine tuned for life that everything in a 45.5 billion light year radius from the Earth so far seems to be void of life.....
a tiny for of life in an a mostly empty universe is just what God wanted. Unless we discoverer more life in which case thats what God wanted.
@@PhilHalper1 And even if we do discover more life, it would still barely be a speck compared to the non-life parts of the universe.
Atheistic paper? Is he serious? Is he doctor of atheistic sciences???
Hes A Christian not an atheist
@@PhilHalper1 fine tuning argument is solved by the fact that there are deeper laws and constants follow from those deeper laws.
And yea, those deeper laws are given by god - primitive discrete machine. This universe is a huge robot and all matter are primitive machines. That can be tested.
@@PhilHalper1 physics is not fundamental. It’s only extended statistics. As well as all it’s constants.
I don't think I've heard a dumber argument with a more skewed assumption. As if the probability for life was or should be the only goal of God. As if God was saying.....Geezz I hope I can pull this life thing off. As if God is just rolling dice and hoping he hits seven. As if life found on every planet would better prove God, even though there would be no purpose for it. As if abundant life throughout the universe + no reason for it = greater chance of God.
God created the natural world and set Man as the highest authority in it. That is the beginning part of the greater purpose. If anyone responds to my post I will elaborate more.
It's an internal critique of the fine-tuning argument, so it makes no more assumptions about God's goals than the fine-tuning argument itself.
@@PhilHalper1 The guys very argument is assumption. Replacing any greater related purpose with "it's my belief that" and "I don't think a God would"
But if you start off with the presupposed belief that the purpose related in scripture is a lie, then all you are left with is personal assumption.
@@bungalobill7941 Hes a Chrsitian , so where do you get the assumption that he thinks "he purpose related in scripture is a lie, "?
@@PhilHalper1 I could care less what he is or calls himself. His argument is really bad. William Lane Craig (a Christian) has some terrible arguments also.
So why mention " But if you start off with the presupposed belief that the purpose related in scripture is a lie, then all you are left with is personal assumption."?
My reaction to that is that such a God as described would be playing in a field of probabilities not of its choosing. In other words, an engineer.
But according to the God of , at leats the Abrahamic faiths, God is the author of reality, not a tinkerer with it. I think what Halvorson is arguing here is that , fine tuning makes him such a tinkerer.
@@PhilHalper1 a minor clarification would be that God is the author of *this* reality, in a space that includes other possible realities.
@@flaparoundfpv8632 that could be true but i dont think its what ic theists think
@@PhilHalper1 It's my personal leaning, in light of infinite expansion (inflaton field) theory, and brane theory.
as i say, if god has to turn the dials to be "just so" for life, whose laws of physics is he using? like sean carroll said, god should be able to make jelly people if he wants.
There must be a intelligent desighner a God who create All the prime reality
I presume you don't think the designer needs a creator. So there must be something pretty amazing that doesn't need a creator. if that's true why not just say the universe doesn't need one?Why posit an undetectable other entity?
@@PhilHalper1 any mataphysical system even materialism has to had a prime reality . .infinite regress problem has emgerged you try any effort to deny a God you must defeate
@@abubakarqureshi6774 but why cant the prime reality be the universe or whatever is fundamental in the universe, for example as Hawking suggests, a universal wave function?
Any contingent thing must have a begining somethng come not out of nothing and universe has a contingent or depandent . .
Prime reality is eternal beginingless timeless spaceless and personal to elect an option to something create out of nothing
mehh ., to me the thought experiment falls short way earlier., we aren't lucky cuz luck is a human perspective based on chance, 1 in a billion chance is basically inevitable though when talking scales like infinity ... Achievable and unachievable is the only actual reality... no need for selective tuning or luck at all cuz we have simpler concepts that explain this as inevitability , one being- Even a stopped clock is right twice a day .. The universe and evolution alike are inevitabilities if possible at all and humanoids are inevitable because other shapes dont work as well just like other kinds of universes dont work as well.. The universe can try everything all at once an infinite number of times in no time at all till the 1 works,. our code breakers call it bruit force code breaking .. but we dont even know we're actually looking at one universe & cant ever know how many failures there might have been before stability was achieved .. The particle colliders work in much the same way.., they try a million times till pop goes the boson ,, but the particles disappear without a trace even faster then they're achieved, so,. we cant ever know how many times without us counting each test., which = known unknowable... which = a waste of time cuz I want to be downloading into a fresh meat sack ,, on this planet, before i die by theist or old age . gods or not ..,. only then will the choice be a true leap of faith for them cuz right now its a hostage scenario. not a choice
Probably the most disappointing video of this channel. I really think you're better off sticking to science. In this "Gob and purple" argument, it could be argued that Gob created you in the purple universe, specifically because he loves purple and hates yellow and wanted you to live in the only - and thus very precious - purple universe, and not in the myriad of inferior yellow universes.
Now, you could ask why would Gob create yellow universes he doesn't like in the first place ? Well, that's what happens when you create thought experiements with pseudo gods : you end up thinking about things traditional theisms don't even talk about.
So, stick with the Big Bang, black holes, CCC models and just leave God or Gob out of your equations. And I mean it : I love your channel enough to not want to see such a waste of 3 minutes again from you.
Thanks for your feedback, but Im not sure how your reply grasps the relevant argument. The question is who sets the probabilities for life, and what should we expect them to be if they are set by a life-loving God? Maybe you could address those two questions?
@@PhilHalper1 1. We have no idea how much life there is in our own universe. For all we know it could be filled with it (even in our solar system, no one has explored the depths of its planets) 2. There is no proof that other universes exist. 3. Even if there are other universes, we have no way of knowing how much life they contain. Once again , they could be filled with it. 4. Even if life happened only on Earth in the whole multiverse, it would basically turn life into a miracle in the most absolute sense, which basically would strengthen the idea of a God behind it.
As I said, shallow theology based on poor philosophy really does not suit your channel. Stick to science. Thanks.
As long as it's not the Biblical God, I'm fine.
This statement does not make any sense as a follow-up to this video. Your statement has nothing to do with this video. Your statement does not address anything talked about in this video. You are making an out-of-place comment.
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite - Really? The video is in whole a provocative statement about how the supposed "fine tuning" makes (very debatably, I'm aware) the case for a "creator God" or "intelligent designer" or "Demiurg", rather than "just happening".
All I meant in this comment was that, even if it does (it doesn't), the "fine tuning" argument does not prove the Biblical God, which is clearly disproven by geology and biology rather. The Genesis can only be at best an allegory, hence it's false, hence the God of the Bible is false.
@LuisAldamiz I just want to add that the Old Testament Yahweh is also disproved to exist by way of religious anthropology.
@@CesarClouds - Surely. That "elohim" ("the gods") term is there for a reason: polytheism, at least in the Northern Kingdom(s).
@@LuisAldamiz the video is against fine tuning. The good job demonstrating you have no idea what the video said
That’s a lame argument. The game is just starting and we are in the early stages of life. Give it a few million years and the universe will be teeming with life.
It seems basically inarguable that this universe is, at least spatially, inhospitable to life. Even supposing some kind of life permitting conditions on at least one planet on *every* star system (i.e., if the universe were many orders of life permitting than it actually is), it would still follow as a fact that livable space would occupy an absolutely miniscule amount of the he known universe, simply because most of our space is just that - the harsh nothingness of the vacuum.
But that's not even related to Hans Halvorson's argument here. Halvorson is talking about the *possible other universes that could have been brought about by God*. According to the Fine Tuning Argument, a vanishingly small amount of those is life permitting, which is why Halvorson believes there's a theological issue with believing that conclusion *AND* that God values the existence of biologically embodied beings.
God doesn't love "life", he loves the mankind which he made his own image.
Then why did he flood the entire Earth to kill all the mankind on the Earth!????? That is some really messed up love their that's called abuse
Athest luk anser.
Anser aware hed open to truth
sorry? Im not following your comment
Dude you're missing some vowels. Or brain cells
that was almost words.
@@PhilHalper1 I'd ignore him Phil, he's a troll. He's a Muslim guy who for at least the last 7 years has deliberately posted barely comprehensible sentences on every non-theist channel he can find.
@@drasticmeasuresislam ok thanks
God was primitive discrete machine and there is evidence for that.