Great conversation. One thing that I think doesn't get discussed almost at all is the fact that we have never established the extent of "fine tuning". The theist typically posits a single point of change, like the strong nuclear force changing by X percent and how it would make atoms unstable. What they don't consider is that we know of hundreds of composite particles that are unstable under our conditions (see "particle zoo") and that the change in the strong nuclear force could have made some of those stable and a possible basis for intelligent life. So the real extent of "fine tuning" would have to be an extensive endeavor where you would somehow choose your variables (just the basic forces or also the masses of elementary particles and/or the speed of light? etc.), then choose the ranges for those variables and then explore ALL of particle physics including the exotic particles to see in what ranges of variables they could form complex structures. You would have to integrate all those spaces of the ranges and divide those that do support complex numbers by the volume of the whole space. Then you would get the "true" extent of "fine tuning". Event that would be somewhat contentius because we don't know the true amount of possible particles even all possible interactions of the known ones. Anyway, nobody has even attempted this.
*Hey guys! :)* That was awesome, thank you!! :) *I've got a question.* I'm wondering if the *Sinhababu objection* can be raised (with equal force) against the beginning of life *Stephen-Meyer-style argument* for the existence of God. Meyer says that in order for one functional protein to form the amino acids need to combine in a very specific way. "The probability of that happening is vastly improbable given naturalism!" he'll say. But then again... why should God need any amino acids of any kind to create life? Why should we consider this (life based on a combination of amino acids, which form proteins) highly expected given theism? After all, God is almighty. He can create life however he wants. He can make electrons come to life. Or make us blobs of water, capable of morally significant interactions. So its not like theism predicts the amino acid stuff in particular. In fact the theory "there exists an almighty being" doesn't predict ANYTHING in particular. *Am I getting this right?* *What do you think?*
I found this very interesting but I can also see when presented with arguments like this some people say they don't like philosophy or that it is useless, stupid etc... I found the part about the creation of a physical mind comprised of only a few fundamental particles quite compelling. As pointed out, the theist can't really object to this because they are proposing a totally immaterial mind to begin with.
This conversation is powerfully fun! Especially when contrasted with the many atheist-apologist debates about fine-tuning that focus on the science side. And props to Neil for wearing a headset with a good microphone :) Maybe our psychophysical laws and fine tuning of the physical constants were needed to produce a world where humans can interact with and manipulate their non-living environment (to build tools, structures, technology, art)? So maybe there is moral value in creating a being which can alter its environment in a diverse number of ways. But perhaps in Neil’s world there could be a bunch of other non-living particles that the electrons use their free will to manipulate through telekinesis? Maybe the richness to the physical cosmos gets lost in Neil’s thought experiment?
They say God is omnipotent so he can do whatever he wants. Attach minds to bicycles if he wants. No need to really go in physics at all. Theists are shooting them self in the foot by putting any kind of restrictions on god. Theists need to stick to "God is magical" argument can do whatever he pleases he does not need to obey any kind of logic or nothing. He can even exist and not exist at the same time. God needs to stay pure magic otherwise he is done.
*"Theists need to stick to "God is magical" argument can do whatever he pleases"* then he'd be arbitrary, and theists need him to be constant for their apologetics to work. of course, they ignore the fact that for such a being to choose to do anything at all is arbitrary. KEvron
Great conversation. One thing that I think doesn't get discussed almost at all is the fact that we have never established the extent of "fine tuning". The theist typically posits a single point of change, like the strong nuclear force changing by X percent and how it would make atoms unstable. What they don't consider is that we know of hundreds of composite particles that are unstable under our conditions (see "particle zoo") and that the change in the strong nuclear force could have made some of those stable and a possible basis for intelligent life.
So the real extent of "fine tuning" would have to be an extensive endeavor where you would somehow choose your variables (just the basic forces or also the masses of elementary particles and/or the speed of light? etc.), then choose the ranges for those variables and then explore ALL of particle physics including the exotic particles to see in what ranges of variables they could form complex structures. You would have to integrate all those spaces of the ranges and divide those that do support complex numbers by the volume of the whole space. Then you would get the "true" extent of "fine tuning". Event that would be somewhat contentius because we don't know the true amount of possible particles even all possible interactions of the known ones.
Anyway, nobody has even attempted this.
My first observation is that Neil is a very, very nice guy :D
*Hey guys! :)* That was awesome, thank you!! :)
*I've got a question.* I'm wondering if the *Sinhababu objection* can be raised (with equal force) against the beginning of life *Stephen-Meyer-style argument* for the existence of God.
Meyer says that in order for one functional protein to form the amino acids need to combine in a very specific way. "The probability of that happening is vastly improbable given naturalism!" he'll say.
But then again... why should God need any amino acids of any kind to create life? Why should we consider this (life based on a combination of amino acids, which form proteins) highly expected given theism? After all, God is almighty. He can create life however he wants. He can make electrons come to life. Or make us blobs of water, capable of morally significant interactions.
So its not like theism predicts the amino acid stuff in particular. In fact the theory "there exists an almighty being" doesn't predict ANYTHING in particular.
*Am I getting this right?*
*What do you think?*
Congrats on cracking 1k subs Alex. :) Sincere thanks for the awesome and educational content.
Thanks :)
I found this very interesting but I can also see when presented with arguments like this some people say they don't like philosophy or that it is useless, stupid etc...
I found the part about the creation of a physical mind comprised of only a few fundamental particles quite compelling.
As pointed out, the theist can't really object to this because they are proposing a totally immaterial mind to begin with.
That was fantastic you need to get Neil back!
Thank you! :D
This conversation is powerfully fun! Especially when contrasted with the many atheist-apologist debates about fine-tuning that focus on the science side. And props to Neil for wearing a headset with a good microphone :)
Maybe our psychophysical laws and fine tuning of the physical constants were needed to produce a world where humans can interact with and manipulate their non-living environment (to build tools, structures, technology, art)? So maybe there is moral value in creating a being which can alter its environment in a diverse number of ways. But perhaps in Neil’s world there could be a bunch of other non-living particles that the electrons use their free will to manipulate through telekinesis?
Maybe the richness to the physical cosmos gets lost in Neil’s thought experiment?
"exist timelessly and spacelessly" is problematic if the definition of "exist" includes space and time.
KEvron
They say God is omnipotent so he can do whatever he wants. Attach minds to bicycles if he wants. No need to really go in physics at all. Theists are shooting them self in the foot by putting any kind of restrictions on god.
Theists need to stick to "God is magical" argument can do whatever he pleases he does not need to obey any kind of logic or nothing. He can even exist and not exist at the same time. God needs to stay pure magic otherwise he is done.
*"Theists need to stick to "God is magical" argument can do whatever he pleases"*
then he'd be arbitrary, and theists need him to be constant for their apologetics to work. of course, they ignore the fact that for such a being to choose to do anything at all is arbitrary.
KEvron
if god is intelligent life, then a universe is redundant, much less a finely tuned one.
KEvron