A very interesting discussion. I was worried that being between a scientist and a philosopher, they would constantly be talking past each other, but I'm pleased that it wasn't the case.
Both good guys. I have seen at least 30-40 discussions with Alex and he is as cool as a cucumber. Again both had a good attitude and really demonstrated the principle of charity.
If every model we have for explaining the fine tuning of the universe turns out itself to require fine tuning then by the same reasoning we could say that if every mind we know about requires a body to function then the theistic hypothesis fails because it commits us to positing a mind outside of space and time.
your first example simply leads us to an infinite regression of thing that required fined tuning. Unless you posit a thing that doesn’t require such thing eventually to stop this down the chain similarly to a mind being unlike the rest and existing without requiring a body to function
Fill up a bucket with dice. Shake it around a bit. Dump them all on the floor. Now, write down which number each dice has landed on. What were the chances that every dice would land on the number that they did, in this exact combination? Almost zero. Therefore, the bucket was fine tuned to roll these numbers.
Alex Crick Dunning Kruger effect? You really think you have just managed to outsmart a cosmologist like Luke Barnes, or Roger Penrose, and many others who find fine tuning extremely surprising and in need of some explanation, with this silly little example? If only they could have thought of your little dice analogy, man!
If it is true that a timeless agent does a thing, then that agent must have entered into time at the instant they did the thing, and they are no longer timeless. You could say the being is timeless without creation, but has been in time since the moment of creation.
@@HainishMentat So God is a bachelor that enters and exits marriage at will? God is a circle that enters square-ness? If you become temporal, you are no longer essentially timeless. A God that can be this contradiction is a God that can lie while being solely truth. "To enter" time is itself a verb, leading to further dilemmas about how a timeless being begins to enter anything.
@@6Churches Well, a bachelor could enter and exit marriage, so long as he's only a bachelor while unmarried; but in any case, God's timelessness isn't an intrinsic property. He can exist in a timeless situation, and does do without creation, but he enters time at the moment of first creating.
@@HainishMentat Where is God's origin: is it in timelessness or is it in temporality? It seems very very suspicious that a freely-temporal being would originate within timelessness. How does he have these contradictory capacities?
Damn good conversation! I think Barnes was pretty good in the first part of the conversation, but Malpass had good points in the second. I wish more debates were like this, but lasted wayyy longer so that each side can really get into the nitty-gritty of the finer points of their stances.
The problem I have here is that the cosmological constants seem to have been claimed for fine tuning when it’s possible they are the product of nature and chance. Instead of saying evolution leads back to fine tuning instead it should be evolution leads back to the cosmological constants. Until it’s demonstrated that these are a product of fine tuning and not nature and chance then that should be the honest language to use.
We quite often say that a person, given their personal qualities is "likely" to do such-and-such" or we express surprise because they do something we would have thought very unlikely for them. By analogy, if God also has a mind, then we can reasonably discuss what it is likely or unlikely for Him to do.
@@HainishMentat "Likely" is a term you only use for a temporal being like humans. If you are God, and timeless, then you are your total actuality all at once and "likelihood" is a nonsense term that cannot apply to you as you contain no potential. You just are.
@@6Churches What would be the logical problem with saying something timelessly possesses a potential? I don't see any problem with that, as long as it doesn't actualize that potential without entering into time.
@@HainishMentat If timelessness is an essential property of an entity, saying it has potential means it has the potential to be an entity that isn't timeless; making the claim of essential timelessness a fraud. I'd you're only incidentally timeless, like some undiscovered quantum particle, then you can have potential because remaining timeless is not one of your essential characteristics.
@@6Churches No one is claiming God is essentially timeless in this argument or any similar argument. Merely that He existed timelessly without creation but freely chose to enter time and act by creating the world.
That is not the case. The vast majority of universes which produce observers would involve much smaller areas of organization. In fact, the most common would involve "Boltzmann Brains" in which an observer simply pops into existence through the random collision of particles. Sir Roger Penrose describes these universes as "utter chickenfeed" in comparison to the highly organized universe we see.
@@joostvanrens "In fact, the most common would involve "Boltzmann Brains" in which an observer simply pops into existence through the random collision of particles." As long as it's not the case that all of them would become BBs.
@@joostvanrens Because you can only end up in a viable universe. If it was the case that any other universe would involve BBs, there'd be a serious problem. As long as it's possible for at least one universe to allow life, it would look like it was fine-tuned to observers within it.
There must be something I’m missing. We know about one universe. One. We measured the fundamental parameters as far as we know for this one universe. The basic question is how do we know the constants can have any values different from what they are? What universe do you know of that you are getting these alternate values from? There is one universe with one set of values period. So what fine tuning are you talking about?
What you are missing is that we don't need to observe other universes to know that the constants and quantities of the universe could have been different. You are reasoning that the claims: 1) The universe is necessary. 2) The universe is contingent. Are equally plausible claims. But they are not. Claims of necessity are far more extravagant than claims of contingency. Simply put, without a good reason to think something is necessary, the default position is that it is contingent. For example, I have no experience of my non-existence. But, nevertheless, I can know that the claim "I am a necessary being" is false. I do not have to be on the fence about whether my existence is necessary or contingent. Just as it would be massively arbitrary and highly implausible to claim that my existence is necessary, so likewise it is massively arbitrary and highly implausible to think the universe is necessary.
Just came back to this great discussion after having initially watched it a few times last year when it came out. Still one of my favourites. There's a couple of things I noticed this time around that I wanted to flag; (1) I really like Alex's initial 'Goldielocks problem' objection and I wanted to flag that Luke seems to say that his way around it is to say that God is 'good' but then at 49:30 he says that if you take away God's goodness property then he doesn't see how it damages the argument too much which seems to suggest he didn't understand the objection to begin with. So, to reiterate; without either a desire to create 'L' or a 'goodness' property that makes it more likely that God will create 'L' then even an all powerful God is not more likely to create 'L' than it occurring on hypothesis 'N.' (2) At around 1:02:00, Luke tries to refute the stalking horse hypothesis by saying that we have to calculate the probability that God is good and the probability that a mysterious disposition would be part of 'N.' This seems to confuse the approach (unless I'm confused) as isn't the whole point that you're saying here is the data we have which is the existence of 'L' and then saying what's the probability that 'L' would exist on different hypotheses. I didn't see the step where Luke calculated the probability of any of God's other properties so why is he talking about calculating the probability that he's Good. (3) At around 01:30:00 Luke says that when he tries to examine the probability of L given ND he comes out with a very small number which is similar to L given N. I think this shows that he doesn't actually understand Alex's argument... The 'D' in 'ND' is something that brings the probability of 'L' way up, perhaps even approaching 1. Similar to the way that God's property of goodness is meant to bring the probability of 'L' given 'T' way up to a number approaching 1.
@Oners82 Hey, thanks for the question. Yeh, it is a bit confusing now that I read it back. Let me try to explain it more clearly; The argument was summarised by Alex near the beginning as being; 1. P(L | N)
Cameron, I’m curious if you have a solution to the problems with the concept of God that Alex raises around 1:25:00? You offer the Swinburne quote to help explain, but it doesn’t seem to help much, and the problem seems to remain. Thanks
Im not Cameron, but I was particularly frustrated by this response by Dr. Malpass. It is generally considered impolite to bring up a completely different argument in one of these discussions. Dr. Barnes is not a philosopher or theologian, nor is Cameron. Nevertheless, let me offer some responses... Dr. Malpass brings up the issue of God being outside of time saying. Of course this issue has been considered in depth by Christian theologians. For example, Dr. William Craig contends that God entered into time with creation, but was timeless sans creation. Others argue that time is an emergent property from Gods thoughts or actions. If he really had a problem with the conceivability of God due to being in time, then perhaps he should bring it up with a qualified philosopher. The question of time and God is underdetermined in the Bible. God is just described as eternal. Whether that is in time or not in time is up for debate. What is shocking to me is that Dr. Malpass would insist that timelessness is an essential quality of God only minutes after demanding that Dr. Barnes defend that goodness is an essential quality. Dr. Barnes excellently responds that God is not necessarily "mind" in the sense of our minds (it certainly isn't attached to a body) and gives a good response regarding analogical talk and God. At any rate, I found this a very disappointing part of the discussion. Dr. Malpass might as well have carted out the "can God make a stone big enough that he can't move it" or the Problem of Evil at this point. These are only related to the Fine Tuning Argument in that they also have God in the argument.
@Oners82 Thank you for your comments, but I believe you have missed my entire point. Look at the title of the discussion... "The Fine Tuning Argument for God". Dr. Luke Barns is an Astronomer who specializes in studying fine tuning. This is why he was invited to discuss this topic. Alex Malpass is a philosopher who, among other specialties, lists "philosophy of physics" on his biography on bristol.academia.edu. Rather than remain on topic discussing the Fine Tuning argument, Malpass moves to generic coherence arguments against Theism (what does timeless existence look like? how would we know God is good?) These are fair questions in a debate about the coherence of theism. These are not fair questions in a debate about Fine Tuning with a scientist, not a philosopher. We see the same behavior of Sean Carroll at the Greer-Heard debate with WLC. He states explicitly in his 2nd paragraph of the transcript that he would not focus on the question at hand (whether modern science provides evidence for the existence of God) but instead on the generic argument that God is not a well-defined theory. Now, WLC is prepared to respond to questions about God's attributes, but it is still a unethical move insofar as the debate participants are supposed to remain on topic. Malpass could have presented the most coherent argument against God ever devised, but it would be inappropriate to do so in a debate on Fine Tuning unless it actually had something to do with Fine Tuning.
@Oners82 I'm sorry that you took my original statement as a claim that Malpass didn't defend the positions he made. He did. That was not my intent. My sole intent was to point out that Malpass threw out red herrings at the end, one after another.
@Oners82 At 1:25 Malpass says "I don't think I need slides for this..." and then goes into a list of reasons against a general Theistic hypothesis. He presents a quite well known coherence argument against theism... in particular the relation of God and Time. This could be employed against any theistic hypothesis in any argument of probability and is not especially targeted at much less unique to the Fine Tuning argument. Malpass could have just as easily raised the problem of evil - a coherence argument against Theism. He then says causation is a temporal phenomena so how could this temporal thing originate from a timeless being. Now, I would assume Malpass is aware of Craig's work "Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time" in which he defends a movement from being timeless to in time at the point of creation. This is neither here nor there, though. Once again, this is not an argument against Fine Tuning, this is a generic argument against the coherence of Theism. It is the same as asking about the coherence of Omnipotence or the coherence of Omniscience. It is a red herring because it draws the listener and Barnes away from the subject matter (the Fine Tuning argument) to a completely different argument (the coherence of God's relation to time). This is a particularly unfair red herring because it is being lodged against a scientist who specializes in Fine Tuning by a philosopher who has far more training in philosophy of religion. I am not saying that Malpass is raising a bad argument, I'm saying in a discussion on Fine Tuning, it is outside the boundaries of the discussion. Let me try it this way. Imagine after this, Dr. Barnes raised a coherence of naturalism argument that was unrelated to fine tuning. Perhaps he presented Plantinga's EAAN or an argument against Naturalism from Consciousness. Would that be an appropriate topic for a discussion of fine tuning?
You can’t, that doesn’t even make sense. You need to put in some theory that (at least a purports), to explain the fine tuning. i.e., “multiverse”, “theism”, “brute fact” etc.
@@andrewwells6323 Thanks yes, I think they touched on this question as the video went on - it was just my initial query in real time. I guess my amended query would be - can you put into the theorem "Some God other than the Christian God" And still get a probability that is proximate?
@@andrewwells6323 So there's no way to specify theism-at-the-exclusion-of-the-Christian-God? Because a strong principal of Christian theology is the expressed exclusion of all other theisms, and the supreme distinction of God the father above all else.
@@andrewwells6323 I guess what I mean is that, to a lay person, it seems very weird to have T = theism, where internal to any actual theism is usually a staunch rejection of every other kind of theism. So the T, to me, seems full of conflict and warring factions that don't want to be included into one variable.
Even the ontological argument is more convincing for me than fine-tuning. There is just so great amount of problems with this argument that it makes the argument unconvincing for anyone that actually try to look at the evidences presented for it's case, which is different from Cosmological and Ontological arguments that rest more on philosophy and a priori arguments. Paulogia video explains some of the problems around 22 mins forward. th-cam.com/video/eJQ54wKlD2Q/w-d-xo.html And Digital Gnosis, puts forward pretty much every point raised in the presentation here, plus the presentation of Craig's papers and debates. th-cam.com/video/7UAHDygN8hk/w-d-xo.html First problem that is quite obvious as pointed out here in 36:06 an hypothesis that tries to explain something in relation to probability, but it's always sucessful it has nothing to do with probabilities, you already devised a way for your research of the probabilities to be unfalsifiable. Second problem is you can't claim "what you can expect from a NU (naturalistic universe) is no life at all". First because you can't actually say how changing any constants what would be the actual results in the universe, you only suppose what will happen. Second if you had different constants it could be the case we had completely different results altogether for a host of other things we can't compute, meaning, you could have an universe with completely different particles and molecules, you don't need to expect carbon base life in a universe that doesn't produce carbon. So it's kind of begging the question if you expect each and every possible universe where there is life, for life to be exactly as we see in our universe. You can't really say what would be the results. The other problem is that even IF it was possible to change one of those numbers, there is no telling how this other universe would react to that (which other things would shift and maybe collapse and reset altogether). It could be the case that these numbers can't actually be different and we are just describing how they are as we see them. Meaning: what is the demonstration that what we see can be different? And IF they can be different, how can we tell this wouldn't lead to an unstable reaction from all the other constants, either forcing it to be a certain way, or to collapse and restart the whole process. Which leads to another point: "natural selection of universes". For instance in the Vilenkin/Linde's and others propostitions of eternal inflactionary models, it is possible for any number of pocket universes to create other universes. In this scenario we simply live in a universe that is permissible to life. And that doesn't actually add more elements as supposition, or to the ontology of the argument. You would only have to chose an inflactionary model, or string theory to explain the possibility of multiverses and if you have 1 you can have any number of universes. Another problem we can raise to this fine tuning argument is that this is not actually correct comparing to the view given by Theists of god. As Carroll points out in his video (44min th-cam.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/w-d-xo.html) if the universe was really made for life, there would be no point to have the extremely low entropy and time needed to reach the situation where you can create planets. If god indeed need to wait for such and such to happen in order to make things, that means god is not Omnipotent, he needs to follow the rules of engagement of physical laws, but if he is restricted by physical laws doesn't that already make his presence redundant in the explanation? (and also not god in some definitions?) So, you need god to follow the rules of nature, and nature needs X and Y to be exactly like this for the universe to happen. What would actually be demonstrably a higher probability of the God Hypophesis would be the contrary: *No need for life to follow any laws of physics, conservation and constants, no need to wait billions of years for the situation to improve, the universe being so highly hospitable to life we could actually live anywhere* . This would actually constitute a miracle and proof of concept that there is no way to explain life without evoking something beyond natural. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems with the fine tuning argument. Wrote that much, so ppl dont go saying I'm just blabbering things without looking into them.
One of the miracles of nature is the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics and cosmology. To appreciate this phenomenon, try simulating the tuning of six constants at UFTmachine.com. The focus is the what of fine-tuning not the why. Non-commercial, no tablet support.
Luke did a great job! Thanks for hosting the discussion Cameron. It's a shame to see that so many people in the comments still don't understand that basics of the argument though :(
1:25:06 - Malpass makes a lot of assertions vis-à-vis incoherency without much justification. For example, Malpass asserts a mind is necessarily a linear sequence of phenomenological experiences, such that a mind outside of time (outside of time there would be no change; only being and non-being) cannot exist. But why should anyone accept this? And why think such an atemporal mind is _inconceivable?_ There doesn't appear to be any apparent _a priori_ reason for thinking such an atemporal consciousness cannot exist, and Malpass doesn't provide any. Malpass also claims it's "inconsistent" for a nonphysical mind to cause events, but where's the inconsistency? The bare assertion that nonphysical minds are like abstract objects (like numbers) in being causally inert? Even if one finds the idea of a supernatural nonphysical mind causing events implausible, there doesn't appear to be anything _self-contradictory_ about it. It's too bad Barnes didn't point all this out, but to be fair he's area of expertise is more cosmology than philosophy.
He sort of explains why an atemporal mind is inconceivable. Minds, as far as we know, have certain features, all of which come by or function through experience. Experiences are the kinds of things that happen in time. What is an "experience" that doesn't happen from one moment to the next? Suppose you press pause on a movie. What kind of experience could a character in the movie have, while on pause? If all of time was literally non-existent, it's hard to comprehend how any experiences could exist. The theist who is committed to an atemporal mind must say that such a mind doesn't have any experiences (unless you're thinking that God exists in his own meta-time... in which case, God isn't atemporal). Or, are you saying there is a such thing as an atemporal experience? What that is, I cannot understand. I don't think you understand, either. So at best, the theist can only say there is no _apriori_ contradiction in the idea of a timeless mind or a timeless experience. But that doesn't mean the theist (or anybody else) has the slightest clue what they're talking about. Thus, the theistic hypothesis isn't a good explanation of the mysteries of the natural world since it only opens up another can of supernatural mysteries.
@@electrifyeverything6454 If immaterial things exist, then by definition they don't experience entropy. Time is an illusion, and simply a result of the arrow of time in the direction of the increased entropy. We don't experience time, we experience entropy. Therefore consciouness isn't subject to time. What is time? A human construct. Spacetime is an actual thing, in which the physical space is defined as a 4D non-euclidean spacetime where gravity warps the geometrical structure and time, is different from different locations. A photon, for example, doesn't experience time. So there are timeless things. And immaterial things. If the soul is immaterial, then it doesn't experience entropy. Its perfectly conceivable for a mind to be timeless and spaceless, just like a photon. But specially a mind, with the problem of the hard problem of consciousness.
As soon as you go to "nonphysical", you've left the realm of abstracts and moved into subsistent abstracts that don't even deserved to be mentioned in the same sense as numbers. If immaterial minds were half as demonstrable as numbers, there wouldn't even be a debate over it.
If any timeless mind (i cant conceive what it is)can have potential to create anything it will be mental creation (imagination )it will lead to some form of idealism. (Kybalion have some kind for argument for it )
The fine-tuning argument is comprised of two parts: 1) If reality didn't operate in a way conducive to the formation of life, life wouldn't exist. 2) A comparative analysis of the probabilities of the required precursors for life occurring with a god vs without a god (i.e. god hypothesis vs naturalism hypothesis). As for number one, it is true, but it's trivial. Reality _does_ operate in a way that is conducive to life, so the existence of life is not remarkable. (What would be remarkable is life existing in a reality that is not conducive to it.) What's also implicit in part one is that the existence of life was a goal from the beginning. If naturalism is true, that is not the case. The existence of life is just one outcome amongst the infinite possibilities, no more significate than any other possibility. As self-aware life forms, we may find the idea of a reality where we don't exist horrific, but a naturalistic reality doesn't care. As for number two, the analysis is always flawed in some way. In fact, the god hypothesis is always going to have the same, or worse, probability as the naturalism hypothesis. The proponents of the fine-tuning argument always propose some type of attribute of god that supposedly makes it more likely for reality to be conducive to life but always fail to consider the prior probability of a god existing with that property. But it doesn't matter what property one proposes; the prior probability of a god existing with that property is always going to offset any probability gain of that god's existence resulting in reality operating in a way conducive to life. Take the example given in the video; if a god exists that is both capable of producing the reality we exist in and desires such a reality, then the probability of such a reality existing is one. However, we still need to consider the prior probability of such a god existing. Well, it's possible that a god could exist that desires any one of the possible realities that could exist under the naturalism hypothesis. That would indicate that the probabilities are equal, but it's actually worse. There is another variable that needs to be considered: that the god is capable of producing the reality it desires. That is a binary possibility; either it is capable or it's not. So, for every possible world under the naturalism hypothesis, we have two possible god iterations. That means it's actually half as likely that there is a god that both desires this reality and is capable of producing it than this reality just existing randomly amongst all the possible worlds consistent with naturalism. Let's look at the other example from the video: A good god would create a reality conducive to life because life is good. In this context, _good_ is a meaningless buzzword that serves only to link some abstract property of god to the existence of life. It's basically saying if god has some property that leads it to producing a reality conducive to life, the probability of that reality existing is one. But again, we must consider the prior probability of god having that property vs a property that leads it to producing some other world. Further, since the labeling of life as good is arbitrary, we could label anything as good, and a good god would produce that. Best case, if we ignore the arbitrary usage of _good,_ we end up with the same probability as the naturalism hypothesis.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Or maybe a natural, physical law is behind the fine tuning? How do we know that the god was not fined tuned by other gods? Or even a natural, physical law is behind fine tuning a god?
@@andrewwells6323 All I mean is that we move from 1) A God with a highly specific intention/desire to create this very universe, to a 2) A God with a less defined array of intentions/desires which may or may not produce this very universe I find 2 to be vaguer than 1 as it specifies fewer qualities of that deity.
@Jon again. All you do is attack me and add 0 new information, critique, insight or answers. Maybe just sit in your annoyance and stop wasting my time.
What certain people are calling, Fine Tuning, the Buddha called it, Dependent Origination - that things arise or manifest due to certain conditions, that things are interdependent, interconnected and impermanent. Scientists and environmental scientists have been discovering this fact. There is no creator God who is separate from creation. Creator and Creation is a result of Dualistic Thinking. Stilling the mind through meditation practice/mind training, takes us beyond thinking and duality. With stillness and reflection, we will realize that we are aspects of Nature and the Universe, in this temporary physical form, composed of the six elements, being aware of itself, experiencing itself. However, people are free to believe what they wish to believe. Be well, be peaceful, be happy.
What I have noticed in many atheists, both popular level and academic level atheists, is that their reasoning always seems to start from the position that theism is so implausible that any non-theistic explanation, no matter how absurd, is equally as plausible or more plausible than theism. Alex claims this is how he reasons in this video, for example. But this line of reasoning is nothing more than begging the question. You cannot simply assume from the beginning that theism is so massively implausible that any non-theistic hypothesis is equal to or greater than it. The theist could do exactly the same thing in reverse. They could start by assuming that non-theistic hypothesis are so implausible that any theistic explanation, not matter how absurd, is equally as plausible or more plausible than any non-theistic hypothesis. Take this scenario as an example: You find a deck of cards arranged in perfect order, ace-king in every suit. Theist: I think someone intentionally arranged the cards in this order. Atheist: I think your personal explanation is so implausible that any impersonal explanation that I can come up with will be equal to or greater than your personal explanation. For example, maybe the deck of cards spontaneously re-arranged itself into this order. Maybe it is just a mysterious feature of this deck of cards that it would do so. Or maybe it is just necessary that this deck of cards be arranged in perfect order. It should be obvious that the atheist is doing nothing more than begging the question by assuming ahead of time that personal explanations are implausible. On top of that, you could use this line of reasoning to argue against anything. For any two competing hypothesis P and Q, assume that P is massively implausible, such that any Q hypothesis is equal to or greater than any P hypothesis, then offer some arbitrary and absurd Q hypothesis and claim you have undermined the P hypothesis.
@@paulwillisorg No it wasn't. He said he would need a massive change of worldview before he could start seeing fine tuning as evidence for God. The word "emotion" was never used there, nor was any synonym of "emotion". Starting at 1:25:06 he explained multiple reasons why he finds the theist explanation extremely implausible, and his reasons had nothing to do with emotion.
To be more simple: you don't know you can change gravity, you don't know how to calculate the probability to inquire using Baye's Theorem in this case (are all the other universes with equal probabilities of existing? You can't tell), you can't tell where life in any other ways can exist or not. All of those are assumptions and the more assumptions you make to devise an argument and theory, the worst is the problem you have to tell it is the simplest and best explanation.
Neo Darwinian explanations are inherently circular when brought in to answer appearance of design. Arbitrary inputs into a system which accepts random inputs are likely to be undetectable. “We know that evolution is a contingent process, therefore no biological feature is designed.”
Gee Schwag exactly. or as in my favorite example (a long lost quote from a scientist in the field): “of course evolution is true- i mean, well, here we are!”
Gee Schwag I got you comment notification but can no longer see you comments. Anyway, i’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. No thinking Christian would ever say “I know that the bible is true only bc the bible says it’s true”. We just don’t say that. and, re. other arguments for Christianity and theism in general, see Capturing Christianity you tube channel or the Unbelievable channel for a small sampling of current thought, for and against. but maybe you were just trolling, in the sense of “there are no arguments for Christianity bc I am not aware of any”. in that case, you just need to inform yourself.
In regard to the nature of minds: Alex claims that the concept of God is like a married bachelor because God's mind would be too different from our minds to really call God a mind. His main point here is about the temporal nature of our minds and how our minds operate over time. However, as far as I am aware, Alex does not believe the B-theory of time is incoherent like a married bachelor. I think he leaves it open as a plausible view of time. But if a B-theory of time is true, then no minds operate in the way Alex claims they do. There are no minds that have sequences of thoughts through successive temporal moments. Every human mind would exist as an expanded 4 dimensional spatio-temporal object. All states of our minds would exist simultaneously. It would simply be that our minds exist across a 4 dimensional space. There would be no sequence of thoughts one after another, its just that our thoughts would be arranged spatially one after another. Every human mind would be static and changeless, having all their thoughts existing simultaneously, spread across a 4 dimensional space-time. But then, I ask, what is so absurd about the idea of a mind existing in the same static and changeless manner, only outside of this 4 dimensional space-time? The only difference between the two is that one mind would be finite and spread across a 4 dimensional space-time, whereas the other mind is infinite and exists outside of this 4 dimensional space-time. The two would be incredibly similar to each other. The only difference would be the location in which they exist, and the finite vs infinite nature of the two minds.
As far as i can conceive even for a split second any thing to exist it should have fine tuned structure between its parts or in otherway fine tuned for every parts while it exists. That means fine tuning a necessary condition for anything to exists.
Thank 'a thing' for the screen sharing...I nearly turned off after 2mins as the massive light in the corner of the hosts picture was blinding me...can someone help this guy out with his set up...i've watched a lot of videos on YT and have never come across someone trying to blind their viewers before. thanks. Other than that, an awesome discussion.
What appears to be Alex Malpass' dilemma: I can't understand, with my finite mind, an infinite God with an infinite mind, that caused a finite universe to exist, and within this finite universe, this timeless Being fine-tunes it within time, whiles remaining outside of time. (This is what I've tried to deduce from watching this video). And he is unconvinced or discontent with this, as it is inconceivable, with no analogical example being sufficient enough to comprehend such a thing? If I have correctly summarized his problem/ philosophical dilemma, then: *Does the infinite, Timeless God provide a reason for this philosophical dilemma?* (Ecclesiastes 3:10-11) "I have seen the burden that God has laid on men to occupy them. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work God has done from beginning to end." (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17) "When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the activity that one does on the earth-though his eyes do not see sleep day or night- I saw every work of God, and that a man is unable to comprehend the work that is done under the sun. Despite his efforts to search it out, he cannot find its meaning; even if the wise man claims to know, he is unable to comprehend." (Job 11:7-9) "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? The heights of heaven-what can you do? The depths of Sheol-what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea." (Isaiah 55:8-9) "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."" (Deuteronomy 29:29) "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law." (Job 5:12-13) "He thwarts the schemes of the crafty, so that their hands find no success. He catches the wise in their craftiness, and sweeps away the plans of the cunning" (Isaiah 29:14) "...the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-27) "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 2:11-14) "For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Indeed they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (Romans 11:34) "Behold; the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?” (Roman 1:18-23) "Indeed, God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what is knowable of God is evident within them; indeed, God made it evident to them. Undeniably, since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Remarkably, even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image in the form of mortal man, or of birds, or four-footed animals, or crawling creatures." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The mind of fallen man is spiritually blind and hostile to God; it cannot submit to God's law. Whiles I really love Alex's enthusiasm and his earnestness in seeking knowledge and truth, I am torn inside with sorrow because I can also see his plight. He is unable to see that sin is withholding him from beholding the true wisdom, knowledge, grace and beauty of God. He is alienated from the life of God, and unless he repents, will forever remain in darkness *Has God provided a solution to this dilemma?* Thanks be to Jesus Christ our Lord! - Only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, can Alex be reconciled with and brought back into the presence of the Almighty, everlasting Father - Only by Divine intervention of the Father drawing him by The Spirit, bringing Alex to spiritual, moral, intellectual bankruptcy in the form of humble, repentant surrender can 'the full riches of complete understanding' of 'the mystery of God' be found, which is Christ, who is 'the pearl of great worth' and the treasure laid up in heaven, 'in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.' - God humbles the proud and gives grace to the humble. But how can believe without hearing? And how can he hear without a preacher? And how can they preach without being sent? So we must pray to the Father to send laborers out into the field to proclaim the good news rather than presenting purely philosophical arguments, since 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.'
1) "If the concepts deployed by the argument, as you seem to concede, are beyond our understanding, there would be no reason to accept the conclusion of the argument, excluding of course, one's prior commitment to its soundness." Nowhere was this stated by me. It is within man's ability to comprehend, not so much the mechanics of how God works, but that within the constructs of time and space, His eternal power can be clearly seen, hence, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," and, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 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. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." 2) "Alex did not argue that atheism is true in this video. The claim that atheism is false is not even a premise, or a conclusion, of the argument. As Alex also pointed out, many atheists accept the fine-tuning argument for theism...Given that there is no probabilistic analogue to falsification, it is impossible for the conclusion of the argument to be atheism is false." Again, not once was "the claim that atheism is false" made, although indirectly, the fact that God reveals in His word that atheists know He exists but rather suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20). But the correct Christian worldview doesn't deal in probability when it comes to truth, as it is absolute, and revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life," (John 14:6). 3) " If I were to summarize your dilemma, it seems you misunderstood the prompt of the discussion and have not thought through the fact that *your conception of God* is _incompatible_ with Luke's. Luke repudiates, as his defense of the argument entails, that *we cannot know anything* about God's nature. Were that the case, we would have no justification for believing God's wholly good essence would consist of a creative disposition for fine-tuned universes." I am not presenting _my conception_ of God, but God's revelation of Himself, in the scriptures, all of which "is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If Luke is representing the Christian God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yahweh, then His foundation - if he is truly consistent in his profession of faith - will be the same. Christians don't begin with probability or speculation but with the truth that God has made known by His Spirit after removing the blindness of sin. We cannot know anything about God's nature? God Himself refutes that position, as I say in point 1 and 2. 4) "I would also add that the fall of humankind as understood by the Christian tradition _cannot play an explanatory role_ in the theistic hypothesis under consideration. Luke's argument is for a necessarily existent, morally perfect divine entity, *not for any Christian doctrines* that are quite independent of these attributes being the instantiated." My argument is one of a necessarily existent, morally perfect divine entity also, but instead it is not made from baseless speculation but, as mentioned in prior points, is based on revelation through scripture. The fall of mankind is the explanatory role of scientists and a society of individuals who are staring at the work of God's hands every day but refuse to acknowledge Him; sin has alienated mankind from God, and because of this, man's reasoning has become darkened and futile, in an attempt to assert autonomy in the realm of knowledge, and to escape the looming judgment that awaits all who have broken God's law. 5) "You would need to revise the theistic hypothesis if you want to appeal to such a concept in the discussion of the fine-tuning argument. However, I would suggest against it, as such a doctrine will likely drastically lower the prior probability of theism." I have carefully read through what you've written, and though I respect the time you've taken to reply, the statements you make are arbitrary. "I would suggest against it," why? "as such a doctrine will likely drastically lower the prior probability of theism." Says who? I'm not looking to increase the probability of a theistic truth claim, but asserting the truth of God's claim, based upon scripture. I have a standard with which to judge truth and error, and that is what I am compelled to preach.
雨Jacob雨 1) "What needs to be obvious is not that God exists, but rather, that the probability of fine-tuning conditional upon theism is high." Okay, I can see the point you are making. God says in Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'" Again, because of a difference in worldview and perspective, the latter part 'that the probability of fine-tuning conditional upon theism is high,' is not a probability. God declares that He is both the cause of a highly ordered and fine-tuned universe. The orthodox view is that He is sovereign over all things and works all things in accordance to the counsel of His will. 2) "It may be that the existence of God is obvious, whereas the probability of him fine-tuning the proton-to-electron ratio is not. Does his eternal power demonstrate the latter claim to be true? No, it does not (???). *Nothing about having eternal power entails that there is a high probability of the proton-to-electron ratio obtaining as it is.* 'No it does not'? According to whose and what standard? David says of the Lord, "Yours is the day, yours also the night; you have established the heavenly lights and the sun. You have fixed all the boundaries of the earth; you have made summer and winter." And again the writer of Hebrews says, "He upholds the universe by the word of his power," and again, Paul says, "For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." God's Word, the eternal Logos, is the word of His eternal power, through which the universe was created, and through which the universe is sustained. Solomon says, "The LORD founded the earth by *wisdom* and established the heavens by *understanding.* By His *knowledge* the watery depths were broken open, and the clouds dripped with dew." 3) "Alex already addressed this argument, which is why Luke appealed not to God's power, but to God's moral attributes." God's power can't be fully explained without explaining His moral Attributes. In 1 John 4:16, John says, "God is love", and thus the universe was formed from the essence of His being, hence why at the end of each periodic day of creation, it ends with 'and God saw that it was good.' What exists is a reflection of God's goodness, and His kindness, as well as His power, because His kindness has been made known by what was formed by His power. 4) "You stated that Alex was suppressing the truth of Christian theism. Now, this is an absurd claim, but even if were true, it would have no bearing on the discussion, as this is not an argument for Christian theism, but an argument the probability of fine-tuning conditional upon theism being high...So the allegation of truth-suppressing is just irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. " It does somewhat have a bearing on the discussion. In Alex's worldview, where truth is relative and based on arbitrary reasoning, he will reason that anything, not excluding but not necessarily being the Christian God, could be the cause of a fine-tuned universe. In this worldview, chance, probability and speculation exist in regards to the origins (God, something other than God etc) and the operations (fine-tuning of the universe). But in my worldview, based upon the foundation of scripture, God declares that Alex is aware that the God of the universe created it, and is the cause of this finely tuned universe, and is the reason why Alex is spending much of his time in theocentric philosophical discussions, but refusing to acknowledge the God who created him and the world he lives in. The topic is inescapably about God, and Alex admits that he doesn't believe there is enough evidence to believe in Him, which is the presupposition that he then brings into his analysis of any and every philosophical discussion or debate. The bible states that sin is the cause of this truth suppression. 5) "In other words, I think theism (Luke's hypothesis in this video) is much higher than theism+ (your proposed hypothesis)." Is this statement a true statement or arbitrary? What I mean is this; in order to evaluate anything, you have to have a standard by which to evaluate. So, Luke coming from a Christian worldview, without asserting his position from the foundation of scripture, is asserting an arbitrary philosophical guess. Without a standard of truth by which to measure, it is nothing but conjecture and a denial of the clear claims of his professed faith. Truth, in order to be truth, cannot be arbitrary. It is immovable. Immutable. Because truth is God's very nature, which is immutable. 6) "Luke is defending a hypothesis that is distinct from the one you are. Luke is defending the view that a necessarily existent, morally perfect, omnipotent agent renders high the probability that there would be a fine-tuned universe. You, on the other hand, are speaking about a morally perfect, omnipotent, maybe necessary, though not obviously (see Swinburne) agent that (i) created man in a perfect state and (ii) wrote a particular book, viz. the Holy Bible. Now, these further two claims were not claims Luke made and were not factored into Luke's theistic hypothesis. If you wish to introduce them, you need to update Luke's hypothesis, which is what I said." Okay, it's unraveling a little clearer in your response what your initial response was. Apologies. Yes, I should addressed my disagreement with Luke's ambiguous theistic argument for fine-tuning. Alex was right in pointing out the flaws within it, but _my point_ was that some of the statements Alex made towards the last quarter of the video, were really, really, sooooo good and honest with regards to the analogy being insufficient to describe an eternal, self-existent God, and one who is able to be outside of time and yet act within time, that it had to be addressed! lol, I was listening thinking, "wow, God actually says EXACTLY what Alex is saying, and His word addresses these philosophical dilemmas!" Now, the argument he was being presented with from Luke was _insufficient_ at addressing those very key statements. And there does appear to be a level of honesty in Alex at trying to comprehend/ get his head around some of these concepts of God. But there is a reason why he won't be able to fully process them until he has repented and reconciled with God. 7) No true Christian disagrees with the literal understanding of the Genesis account, as Jesus Himself and the Apostles quote from Genesis with regards to creation. Theists who disagree are theists. Not Christian. The foundation of the Christian faith begins in Genesis. 8) "Again, I won't argue against them here, as their being true has little to do with Luke's argument, which was my main point about you criticizing Alex when he was not even addressing the hypothesis you want to defend." I was not criticizing Alex as much as I was pointing out the truth in some of his statements (that analogy would be insufficient to describe an infinite God, essentially because there would be nothing infinitely comparable to) and the philosophical dilemma in not being able to get his head around such a concept. Hence why I began to show that the very dilemma he expressed, is in fact expressed in scripture. As He says, "To whom will you compare Me, or who is My equal?” asks the Holy One." (Isaiah 40:25).
This is the second out of two conversations I've seen with Malpass where his thinking seems so completely off-base that his interlocutor can't even come to grips with it. It's like Malpass doesn't understand the type of argument where living/moral agents are a good thing, and there aren't anywhere near 10^10^123 ways to describe a being that would qualify as "God" which might fail to apprehend that goodness. Omnipotence isn't all we bring to the table when we say "God", but that doesn't mean we're adding in specifically the explanans (via "desiring life"), which is what Malpass himself tries to do in his souped-up Naturalism. It's that anything worthy of the label "God" is powerful *and* good. Indeed, given that we've had this concept in place for millennia on totally different grounds, fine-tuning for goods counts as a prediction. In any case, if knowing is a power/capacity, then omnipotence alone actually *does* entail the full acceptance of and action in accordance with the goods! So, even though it is a straw man to talk about mere omnipotence; in this case it actually works out anyway. I think Barnes would understand and present something like this, if he weren't reeling from how crazy some of Malpass' ideas are. Are we really to take seriously that a disposition toward life (or anything else, for that matter) makes any sense in a mere physical system??
@@moonhouse3540 If we mean dispositions as personality traits (like a cheerful disposition) or as mental states (like being in a depression), then obviously that doesn't make sense of a mere physical system. Desiring something (e.g. desiring a life-permitting Universe) or intending something are likewise not the sorts of things it makes sense to attribute to a mere physical system. Only living, animate creatures can meaningfully be spoken of in these ways.
@@HainishMentat right. I don’t think that’s what Alex meant by disposition. Take the “particles in love” for instance. Protons and electrons are disposed to attract one another due to their opposite charges, but we needn’t talk about them as if the desire or intend to do anything at all. Further evidence that this is not what Alex meant can be found at 49:55, where he says that he’s not even sure if he would consider himself a naturalist because he doesn’t understand how naturalists account for normativity, which is what I think you are referring to.
@@moonhouse3540 I appreciate the clarification. If "disposition" just means the sense in which oppositely charged particles are disposed to attract each other, then of course that is a perfectly sensible metaphor. Still, to think that a mere physical system could have or pursue a goal (like life) is meaningless.
@@HainishMentat I agree that knowledge is basically a capacity, but what then does it mean to say that God (a nonphysical thing) 'knows' anything to be so? If I know that the earth orbits the sun, then I have the capacity to answer certain question, correct others who think that it does not, and other things. In general, knowledge (as well as memory, thought, and imagination) are manifest in behaviour. However, a nonphysical thing cannot be said to 'behave'. So, what does it mean for God to know something?
Well, we came 'round the houses, but eventually reached the core problem with the FTA at 1:30. It's the "soft underbelly" of the FTA, and when Luke entered that region, the Lord delivered him into Alex's hands. Trying to explain how a timeless, minded, supernatural creator of universes even makes sense, (let alone how he did it), leads scientist Barnes to say, "blowed if I know." 1:34. That really ought to be the final epitaph for all explanations claiming to span the gulf from scientific evidence to supernatural theism.
@@drawn2myattention641 Alright, so we don't need to know HOW a thing operates to know it does operate, even if that operation is scientifically inscrutable?
This was a great discussion, but I felt like Dr. Malpass's critiques were frustrating to say the least. He began by pointing out that the conjunction of "omnipotent" and "desires this world" creates a probability of 1. At first, I didn't understand what he was doing with this line of reasoning as Dr. Barnes rightly responded that it is no part of Christian Theism (or any of the great monotheisms) that this Universe exists as a necessary outflow of God's nature. What he was really doing, IMHO, was "pegging" where you set a price high or low to force your negotiating partner in a particular direction. In this case, he used it to try and pry apart the definition of Theism, saying that the Theist needs to arbitrarily add in "goodness" to their definition to run the argument. Considering that "Goodness" is considered a definitional component of the Theist belief of more than half of the world's population (Christians, Muslims and Jews make up over 50%), it seems disingenuous to characterize the goodness of God as an arbitrary attribute. It seems to me that asking a Theist to "buy" goodness as an attribute for God would be similar to asking the naturalist to buy special relativity or quarks or physical laws. These things are baked in already and it is disingenuous to demand either side adopt an esoteric or stripped down definition of either theism or naturalism. He then used this line to justify adding to his definition of naturalism a "disposition" towards a fine tuned universe, like loaded dice. He defended this premise on two grounds - one, that it was like evolution (which Dr. Barnes rightly rebutted describing that such dispositions had been explored and summarily rejected by modern astrophysics) and that it is no more mysterious than God. This latter position struck me as inimical to naturalism, which, if it has any disposition at all, is a rejection of the mysterious. At any rate, this just is a "science of the gaps" response where Dr. Malpass increases the probability of Naturalism by writing an IOU that there is a natural cause which we haven't yet discovered but will be forthcoming. Rather than say "at present, theism has stronger explanatory power" he goes ahead and grants naturalism the benefit of the doubt, essentially begging the question in favor of naturalism.
@Ju Err *Wrong. Look at Richard Swinburne or Trent Dougherty’s videos* No pal, you're wrong as are the two theists you presented as examples. I repeat, theism has zero explanatory powers, in truth, it simply presents one mystery to account for another, that is not any explanation, that's intellectual laziness.
@Oners82 Oh really? Then please tell me what it explains? I'm sorry, but it has no explanatory power whatsoever, all it does is posit one mystery to account for another mystery. An explanation requires qualification via evidence and demonstration, not assertion absent of these things.
Goldilocks hypothesis fails bcoz Imagine there are 1000 red balls and 3 blue balls in a bag , if you randomly pick a ball the probability getting a blue ball is 3/1003 Now imagine you look into the bag and pick your desired colour , here the probability of choosing blue is 1/2 The ratio of blue to red has no effect on your decision In naturalism hypothesis, if there are millions possibilities and 100 of them are life permitting, then the probability is 100/million In theism (just omnipotent) , it is 1/2 , he either decides a life permitting or not We can take ‘omnipotence and desire L ‘ hypothesis, then the probability is 1 but prior probability would be less Alex is saying if God is just omnipotent, then probability of LPU is same as in naturalism , bcz God knows which universe is life permitting and may prefer that with a 50% chance
So basically, Malpass goes at one point... why does it seem like I can’t win this argument? Lol...Cause you’re wrong dummy? You can argue 2+2=5 all day long, ain’t gonna make it so! You wonder if he even believes his nonsense? Fine tuning is bulletproof, so keep writing those IOUs atheists 😂 Keep praying to the science gods you worship for new physics. Let us know how that works out in hundred years 😂😂
So basically big number therefore God they might ask what are the odds ? Well ... In a determined world ... odd are 1 in 1 In a random world ..... odd are 1 in ??? In a designed world .... odd are ??? In ??? In order to get the numbers we need some REAL metaphysical knowledge Good luck with that !
I always find it funny when theists start with a really dense and intimidating opening PowerPoint, but then their own commitment to something like classical theism throws the the whole thing out the window. A terrific waste of time and energy.
@@vaskaventi6840 The omnipotent characteristic of the classical Christian god is incompatible with fine tuning. Something that is all powerful would be about to make life out of anything. Sean Carroll spoke on this with WLC in their debate.
@@micahchermak6386 so what ? All powerful means he can ,not that he should Secondly, are you suggesting a universe without temporal and spacial regularity ? Where we cannot do anything since the result is chaos?
If immaterial things exist, then by definition they don't experience entropy. Time is an illusion, and simply a result of the arrow of time in the direction of the increased entropy. We don't experience time, we experience entropy. Therefore consciouness isn't subject to time. What is time? A human construct. Spacetime is an actual thing, in which the physical space is defined as a 4D non-euclidean spacetime where gravity warps the geometrical structure and time, is different from different locations. A photon, for example, doesn't experience time. So there are timeless things. And immaterial things. If the soul is immaterial, then it doesn't experience entropy. Its perfectly conceivable for a mind to be timeless and spaceless, just like a photon. But specially a mind, with the problem of the hard problem of consciousness.
nothing can be timeless or spaceless because time and space don't actually exist. They're abstracts. A mind could exist for a seemingly infinite amount of time, but it depends on how you define a mind. If it's something that just has a consciousness, then that could be more plausible, but going further to say that this mind could create the cosmos is inconsistent. Minds cannot interact with the physical world unless they are attached to matter.
What an atrociously poor presentation by the first cool and fun guy. Unable to explain in lay terms, equals not smart enough. Adding in some faux ozzy average guy linguistics makes it more cringe.
This is the best conversation on the fine-tuning that I've ever heard :)
Thank you :)
I thought so too!
I love Alex Malpass, such a good spirited person. Great points as usual!
A very interesting discussion. I was worried that being between a scientist and a philosopher, they would constantly be talking past each other, but I'm pleased that it wasn't the case.
Both good guys. I have seen at least 30-40 discussions with Alex and he is as cool as a cucumber. Again both had a good attitude and really demonstrated the principle of charity.
If every model we have for explaining the fine tuning of the universe turns out itself to require fine tuning then by the same reasoning we could say that if every mind we know about requires a body to function then the theistic hypothesis fails because it commits us to positing a mind outside of space and time.
your first example simply leads us to an infinite regression of thing that required fined tuning. Unless you posit a thing that doesn’t require such thing eventually to stop this down the chain
similarly to a mind being unlike the rest and existing without requiring a body to function
Fill up a bucket with dice. Shake it around a bit. Dump them all on the floor. Now, write down which number each dice has landed on. What were the chances that every dice would land on the number that they did, in this exact combination? Almost zero. Therefore, the bucket was fine tuned to roll these numbers.
Alex Crick Dunning Kruger effect? You really think you have just managed to outsmart a cosmologist like Luke Barnes, or Roger Penrose, and many others who find fine tuning extremely surprising and in need of some explanation, with this silly little example? If only they could have thought of your little dice analogy, man!
@Dave Whatever both of you guys didn't answer the questions asked. Just saying. You're both amazing though thanks for being alive God bless
@Oners82The probability of all of the dice being 6 would be the same as any other combination though
@@mordec1016 Yeah, kinda. A+ for sarcasm, D- for substance
@Oners82 What's the point?
That was a very interesting discussion
Philosophy of Religion Blog Glad you enjoyed it!
That was a great walk into the woods of this argument 👍
1:29:10 Thank You! I ask this question every day of my life - how can a timeless agent do anything when verbs require time? It seems unimaginable.
If it is true that a timeless agent does a thing, then that agent must have entered into time at the instant they did the thing, and they are no longer timeless. You could say the being is timeless without creation, but has been in time since the moment of creation.
@@HainishMentat So God is a bachelor that enters and exits marriage at will? God is a circle that enters square-ness? If you become temporal, you are no longer essentially timeless. A God that can be this contradiction is a God that can lie while being solely truth.
"To enter" time is itself a verb, leading to further dilemmas about how a timeless being begins to enter anything.
@@6Churches
Well, a bachelor could enter and exit marriage, so long as he's only a bachelor while unmarried; but in any case, God's timelessness isn't an intrinsic property. He can exist in a timeless situation, and does do without creation, but he enters time at the moment of first creating.
@@HainishMentat Where is God's origin: is it in timelessness or is it in temporality? It seems very very suspicious that a freely-temporal being would originate within timelessness. How does he have these contradictory capacities?
@@6Churches entering into time from a timeless state is possible of you realize that an effect can be simultaneous with a cause.
Damn good conversation! I think Barnes was pretty good in the first part of the conversation, but Malpass had good points in the second. I wish more debates were like this, but lasted wayyy longer so that each side can really get into the nitty-gritty of the finer points of their stances.
1:01:00 It sounds like Malpass just doesn't believe the physics. He just seems to deny it but doesn't have a reason.
The problem I have here is that the cosmological constants seem to have been claimed for fine tuning when it’s possible they are the product of nature and chance. Instead of saying evolution leads back to fine tuning instead it should be evolution leads back to the cosmological constants. Until it’s demonstrated that these are a product of fine tuning and not nature and chance then that should be the honest language to use.
@@steveo4400
It’s not chance. There are a process behind. It’s not like throwing dices.
1:32:44 How do you assign probabilities to analogical variables?
We quite often say that a person, given their personal qualities is "likely" to do such-and-such" or we express surprise because they do something we would have thought very unlikely for them. By analogy, if God also has a mind, then we can reasonably discuss what it is likely or unlikely for Him to do.
@@HainishMentat "Likely" is a term you only use for a temporal being like humans. If you are God, and timeless, then you are your total actuality all at once and "likelihood" is a nonsense term that cannot apply to you as you contain no potential. You just are.
@@6Churches
What would be the logical problem with saying something timelessly possesses a potential? I don't see any problem with that, as long as it doesn't actualize that potential without entering into time.
@@HainishMentat If timelessness is an essential property of an entity, saying it has potential means it has the potential to be an entity that isn't timeless; making the claim of essential timelessness a fraud.
I'd you're only incidentally timeless, like some undiscovered quantum particle, then you can have potential because remaining timeless is not one of your essential characteristics.
@@6Churches
No one is claiming God is essentially timeless in this argument or any similar argument. Merely that He existed timelessly without creation but freely chose to enter time and act by creating the world.
Great chat!
This argument seems so trivial. No matter what universe you find yourself in this argument could be used.
That is not the case. The vast majority of universes which produce observers would involve much smaller areas of organization. In fact, the most common would involve "Boltzmann Brains" in which an observer simply pops into existence through the random collision of particles. Sir Roger Penrose describes these universes as "utter chickenfeed" in comparison to the highly organized universe we see.
@@rjonesx sure but could a Boltzmann brain not use the exact same argument?
@@joostvanrens "In fact, the most common would involve "Boltzmann Brains" in which an observer simply pops into existence through the random collision of particles."
As long as it's not the case that all of them would become BBs.
@@RustyWalker how so?
@@joostvanrens Because you can only end up in a viable universe. If it was the case that any other universe would involve BBs, there'd be a serious problem. As long as it's possible for at least one universe to allow life, it would look like it was fine-tuned to observers within it.
There must be something I’m missing. We know about one universe. One. We measured the fundamental parameters as far as we know for this one universe. The basic question is how do we know the constants can have any values different from what they are? What universe do you know of that you are getting these alternate values from? There is one universe with one set of values period. So what fine tuning are you talking about?
What you are missing is that we don't need to observe other universes to know that the constants and quantities of the universe could have been different.
You are reasoning that the claims:
1) The universe is necessary.
2) The universe is contingent.
Are equally plausible claims. But they are not. Claims of necessity are far more extravagant than claims of contingency.
Simply put, without a good reason to think something is necessary, the default position is that it is contingent.
For example, I have no experience of my non-existence. But, nevertheless, I can know that the claim "I am a necessary being" is false. I do not have to be on the fence about whether my existence is necessary or contingent.
Just as it would be massively arbitrary and highly implausible to claim that my existence is necessary, so likewise it is massively arbitrary and highly implausible to think the universe is necessary.
Just came back to this great discussion after having initially watched it a few times last year when it came out. Still one of my favourites.
There's a couple of things I noticed this time around that I wanted to flag;
(1) I really like Alex's initial 'Goldielocks problem' objection and I wanted to flag that Luke seems to say that his way around it is to say that God is 'good' but then at 49:30 he says that if you take away God's goodness property then he doesn't see how it damages the argument too much which seems to suggest he didn't understand the objection to begin with. So, to reiterate; without either a desire to create 'L' or a 'goodness' property that makes it more likely that God will create 'L' then even an all powerful God is not more likely to create 'L' than it occurring on hypothesis 'N.'
(2) At around 1:02:00, Luke tries to refute the stalking horse hypothesis by saying that we have to calculate the probability that God is good and the probability that a mysterious disposition would be part of 'N.' This seems to confuse the approach (unless I'm confused) as isn't the whole point that you're saying here is the data we have which is the existence of 'L' and then saying what's the probability that 'L' would exist on different hypotheses. I didn't see the step where Luke calculated the probability of any of God's other properties so why is he talking about calculating the probability that he's Good.
(3) At around 01:30:00 Luke says that when he tries to examine the probability of L given ND he comes out with a very small number which is similar to L given N. I think this shows that he doesn't actually understand Alex's argument... The 'D' in 'ND' is something that brings the probability of 'L' way up, perhaps even approaching 1. Similar to the way that God's property of goodness is meant to bring the probability of 'L' given 'T' way up to a number approaching 1.
@Oners82 Hey, thanks for the question. Yeh, it is a bit confusing now that I read it back. Let me try to explain it more clearly;
The argument was summarised by Alex near the beginning as being;
1. P(L | N)
Cameron, I’m curious if you have a solution to the problems with the concept of God that Alex raises around 1:25:00? You offer the Swinburne quote to help explain, but it doesn’t seem to help much, and the problem seems to remain. Thanks
Im not Cameron, but I was particularly frustrated by this response by Dr. Malpass. It is generally considered impolite to bring up a completely different argument in one of these discussions. Dr. Barnes is not a philosopher or theologian, nor is Cameron. Nevertheless, let me offer some responses...
Dr. Malpass brings up the issue of God being outside of time saying. Of course this issue has been considered in depth by Christian theologians. For example, Dr. William Craig contends that God entered into time with creation, but was timeless sans creation. Others argue that time is an emergent property from Gods thoughts or actions. If he really had a problem with the conceivability of God due to being in time, then perhaps he should bring it up with a qualified philosopher. The question of time and God is underdetermined in the Bible. God is just described as eternal. Whether that is in time or not in time is up for debate. What is shocking to me is that Dr. Malpass would insist that timelessness is an essential quality of God only minutes after demanding that Dr. Barnes defend that goodness is an essential quality.
Dr. Barnes excellently responds that God is not necessarily "mind" in the sense of our minds (it certainly isn't attached to a body) and gives a good response regarding analogical talk and God.
At any rate, I found this a very disappointing part of the discussion. Dr. Malpass might as well have carted out the "can God make a stone big enough that he can't move it" or the Problem of Evil at this point. These are only related to the Fine Tuning Argument in that they also have God in the argument.
Russell Jones
Buhu😢
@Oners82 Thank you for your comments, but I believe you have missed my entire point. Look at the title of the discussion... "The Fine Tuning Argument for God". Dr. Luke Barns is an Astronomer who specializes in studying fine tuning. This is why he was invited to discuss this topic. Alex Malpass is a philosopher who, among other specialties, lists "philosophy of physics" on his biography on bristol.academia.edu.
Rather than remain on topic discussing the Fine Tuning argument, Malpass moves to generic coherence arguments against Theism (what does timeless existence look like? how would we know God is good?)
These are fair questions in a debate about the coherence of theism. These are not fair questions in a debate about Fine Tuning with a scientist, not a philosopher.
We see the same behavior of Sean Carroll at the Greer-Heard debate with WLC. He states explicitly in his 2nd paragraph of the transcript that he would not focus on the question at hand (whether modern science provides evidence for the existence of God) but instead on the generic argument that God is not a well-defined theory. Now, WLC is prepared to respond to questions about God's attributes, but it is still a unethical move insofar as the debate participants are supposed to remain on topic.
Malpass could have presented the most coherent argument against God ever devised, but it would be inappropriate to do so in a debate on Fine Tuning unless it actually had something to do with Fine Tuning.
@Oners82 I'm sorry that you took my original statement as a claim that Malpass didn't defend the positions he made. He did. That was not my intent. My sole intent was to point out that Malpass threw out red herrings at the end, one after another.
@Oners82 At 1:25 Malpass says "I don't think I need slides for this..." and then goes into a list of reasons against a general Theistic hypothesis. He presents a quite well known coherence argument against theism... in particular the relation of God and Time. This could be employed against any theistic hypothesis in any argument of probability and is not especially targeted at much less unique to the Fine Tuning argument. Malpass could have just as easily raised the problem of evil - a coherence argument against Theism. He then says causation is a temporal phenomena so how could this temporal thing originate from a timeless being. Now, I would assume Malpass is aware of Craig's work "Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time" in which he defends a movement from being timeless to in time at the point of creation. This is neither here nor there, though. Once again, this is not an argument against Fine Tuning, this is a generic argument against the coherence of Theism. It is the same as asking about the coherence of Omnipotence or the coherence of Omniscience.
It is a red herring because it draws the listener and Barnes away from the subject matter (the Fine Tuning argument) to a completely different argument (the coherence of God's relation to time). This is a particularly unfair red herring because it is being lodged against a scientist who specializes in Fine Tuning by a philosopher who has far more training in philosophy of religion.
I am not saying that Malpass is raising a bad argument, I'm saying in a discussion on Fine Tuning, it is outside the boundaries of the discussion.
Let me try it this way. Imagine after this, Dr. Barnes raised a coherence of naturalism argument that was unrelated to fine tuning. Perhaps he presented Plantinga's EAAN or an argument against Naturalism from Consciousness. Would that be an appropriate topic for a discussion of fine tuning?
17:07 What happens with a Bayesian probability where the T is simply changed from a theist question to an atheist question?
You can’t, that doesn’t even make sense. You need to put in some theory that (at least a purports), to explain the fine tuning. i.e., “multiverse”, “theism”, “brute fact” etc.
@@andrewwells6323 Thanks yes, I think they touched on this question as the video went on - it was just my initial query in real time.
I guess my amended query would be - can you put into the theorem "Some God other than the Christian God" And still get a probability that is proximate?
T doesn’t stand for “the Christian God”. It’s just theism, so it would be exactly the same argument.
@@andrewwells6323 So there's no way to specify theism-at-the-exclusion-of-the-Christian-God?
Because a strong principal of Christian theology is the expressed exclusion of all other theisms, and the supreme distinction of God the father above all else.
@@andrewwells6323 I guess what I mean is that, to a lay person, it seems very weird to have T = theism, where internal to any actual theism is usually a staunch rejection of every other kind of theism. So the T, to me, seems full of conflict and warring factions that don't want to be included into one variable.
Even the ontological argument is more convincing for me than fine-tuning. There is just so great amount of problems with this argument that it makes the argument unconvincing for anyone that actually try to look at the evidences presented for it's case, which is different from Cosmological and Ontological arguments that rest more on philosophy and a priori arguments.
Paulogia video explains some of the problems around 22 mins forward.
th-cam.com/video/eJQ54wKlD2Q/w-d-xo.html
And Digital Gnosis, puts forward pretty much every point raised in the presentation here, plus the presentation of Craig's papers and debates.
th-cam.com/video/7UAHDygN8hk/w-d-xo.html
First problem that is quite obvious as pointed out here in 36:06 an hypothesis that tries to explain something in relation to probability, but it's always sucessful it has nothing to do with probabilities, you already devised a way for your research of the probabilities to be unfalsifiable.
Second problem is you can't claim "what you can expect from a NU (naturalistic universe) is no life at all". First because you can't actually say how changing any constants what would be the actual results in the universe, you only suppose what will happen. Second if you had different constants it could be the case we had completely different results altogether for a host of other things we can't compute, meaning, you could have an universe with completely different particles and molecules, you don't need to expect carbon base life in a universe that doesn't produce carbon.
So it's kind of begging the question if you expect each and every possible universe where there is life, for life to be exactly as we see in our universe. You can't really say what would be the results.
The other problem is that even IF it was possible to change one of those numbers, there is no telling how this other universe would react to that (which other things would shift and maybe collapse and reset altogether). It could be the case that these numbers can't actually be different and we are just describing how they are as we see them.
Meaning: what is the demonstration that what we see can be different? And IF they can be different, how can we tell this wouldn't lead to an unstable reaction from all the other constants, either forcing it to be a certain way, or to collapse and restart the whole process. Which leads to another point: "natural selection of universes". For instance in the Vilenkin/Linde's and others propostitions of eternal inflactionary models, it is possible for any number of pocket universes to create other universes. In this scenario we simply live in a universe that is permissible to life.
And that doesn't actually add more elements as supposition, or to the ontology of the argument. You would only have to chose an inflactionary model, or string theory to explain the possibility of multiverses and if you have 1 you can have any number of universes.
Another problem we can raise to this fine tuning argument is that this is not actually correct comparing to the view given by Theists of god. As Carroll points out in his video (44min th-cam.com/video/ew_cNONhhKI/w-d-xo.html) if the universe was really made for life, there would be no point to have the extremely low entropy and time needed to reach the situation where you can create planets. If god indeed need to wait for such and such to happen in order to make things, that means god is not Omnipotent, he needs to follow the rules of engagement of physical laws, but if he is restricted by physical laws doesn't that already make his presence redundant in the explanation? (and also not god in some definitions?)
So, you need god to follow the rules of nature, and nature needs X and Y to be exactly like this for the universe to happen. What would actually be demonstrably a higher probability of the God Hypophesis would be the contrary: *No need for life to follow any laws of physics, conservation and constants, no need to wait billions of years for the situation to improve, the universe being so highly hospitable to life we could actually live anywhere* .
This would actually constitute a miracle and proof of concept that there is no way to explain life without evoking something beyond natural.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems with the fine tuning argument.
Wrote that much, so ppl dont go saying I'm just blabbering things without looking into them.
One of the miracles of nature is the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of
physics and cosmology. To appreciate this phenomenon, try simulating the tuning
of six constants at UFTmachine.com. The focus is the what of fine-tuning not
the why. Non-commercial, no tablet support.
Alex he states he can happily conceive a God of evil but not a God of Good typical of an atheistic view
Luke did a great job! Thanks for hosting the discussion Cameron. It's a shame to see that so many people in the comments still don't understand that basics of the argument though :(
@Adam Cosper I agree :). I'm saying that some of the comments show they don't understand the argument though.
1:25:06 - Malpass makes a lot of assertions vis-à-vis incoherency without much justification. For example, Malpass asserts a mind is necessarily a linear sequence of phenomenological experiences, such that a mind outside of time (outside of time there would be no change; only being and non-being) cannot exist. But why should anyone accept this? And why think such an atemporal mind is _inconceivable?_ There doesn't appear to be any apparent _a priori_ reason for thinking such an atemporal consciousness cannot exist, and Malpass doesn't provide any.
Malpass also claims it's "inconsistent" for a nonphysical mind to cause events, but where's the inconsistency? The bare assertion that nonphysical minds are like abstract objects (like numbers) in being causally inert? Even if one finds the idea of a supernatural nonphysical mind causing events implausible, there doesn't appear to be anything _self-contradictory_ about it.
It's too bad Barnes didn't point all this out, but to be fair he's area of expertise is more cosmology than philosophy.
He sort of explains why an atemporal mind is inconceivable. Minds, as far as we know, have certain features, all of which come by or function through experience. Experiences are the kinds of things that happen in time. What is an "experience" that doesn't happen from one moment to the next? Suppose you press pause on a movie. What kind of experience could a character in the movie have, while on pause? If all of time was literally non-existent, it's hard to comprehend how any experiences could exist.
The theist who is committed to an atemporal mind must say that such a mind doesn't have any experiences (unless you're thinking that God exists in his own meta-time... in which case, God isn't atemporal). Or, are you saying there is a such thing as an atemporal experience? What that is, I cannot understand. I don't think you understand, either.
So at best, the theist can only say there is no _apriori_ contradiction in the idea of a timeless mind or a timeless experience. But that doesn't mean the theist (or anybody else) has the slightest clue what they're talking about. Thus, the theistic hypothesis isn't a good explanation of the mysteries of the natural world since it only opens up another can of supernatural mysteries.
Maverick Christian Just wish that when you claim he hasn't ruled anything out someone can actually start ruling a god in.
@@electrifyeverything6454 If immaterial things exist, then by definition they don't experience entropy. Time is an illusion, and simply a result of the arrow of time in the direction of the increased entropy. We don't experience time, we experience entropy. Therefore consciouness isn't subject to time. What is time? A human construct. Spacetime is an actual thing, in which the physical space is defined as a 4D non-euclidean spacetime where gravity warps the geometrical structure and time, is different from different locations. A photon, for example, doesn't experience time. So there are timeless things. And immaterial things.
If the soul is immaterial, then it doesn't experience entropy. Its perfectly conceivable for a mind to be timeless and spaceless, just like a photon. But specially a mind, with the problem of the hard problem of consciousness.
@@lololauren55 But tests show that brain damage changes minds. Change is an aspect of time. So minds are tethered to time.
As soon as you go to "nonphysical", you've left the realm of abstracts and moved into subsistent abstracts that don't even deserved to be mentioned in the same sense as numbers. If immaterial minds were half as demonstrable as numbers, there wouldn't even be a debate over it.
Wonderful discussion.
If any timeless mind (i cant conceive what it is)can have potential to create anything it will be mental creation (imagination )it will lead to some form of idealism. (Kybalion have some kind for argument for it )
The fine-tuning argument is comprised of two parts:
1) If reality didn't operate in a way conducive to the formation of life, life wouldn't exist.
2) A comparative analysis of the probabilities of the required precursors for life occurring with a god vs without a god (i.e. god hypothesis vs naturalism hypothesis).
As for number one, it is true, but it's trivial. Reality _does_ operate in a way that is conducive to life, so the existence of life is not remarkable. (What would be remarkable is life existing in a reality that is not conducive to it.) What's also implicit in part one is that the existence of life was a goal from the beginning. If naturalism is true, that is not the case. The existence of life is just one outcome amongst the infinite possibilities, no more significate than any other possibility. As self-aware life forms, we may find the idea of a reality where we don't exist horrific, but a naturalistic reality doesn't care.
As for number two, the analysis is always flawed in some way. In fact, the god hypothesis is always going to have the same, or worse, probability as the naturalism hypothesis. The proponents of the fine-tuning argument always propose some type of attribute of god that supposedly makes it more likely for reality to be conducive to life but always fail to consider the prior probability of a god existing with that property. But it doesn't matter what property one proposes; the prior probability of a god existing with that property is always going to offset any probability gain of that god's existence resulting in reality operating in a way conducive to life.
Take the example given in the video; if a god exists that is both capable of producing the reality we exist in and desires such a reality, then the probability of such a reality existing is one. However, we still need to consider the prior probability of such a god existing. Well, it's possible that a god could exist that desires any one of the possible realities that could exist under the naturalism hypothesis. That would indicate that the probabilities are equal, but it's actually worse. There is another variable that needs to be considered: that the god is capable of producing the reality it desires. That is a binary possibility; either it is capable or it's not. So, for every possible world under the naturalism hypothesis, we have two possible god iterations. That means it's actually half as likely that there is a god that both desires this reality and is capable of producing it than this reality just existing randomly amongst all the possible worlds consistent with naturalism.
Let's look at the other example from the video: A good god would create a reality conducive to life because life is good. In this context, _good_ is a meaningless buzzword that serves only to link some abstract property of god to the existence of life. It's basically saying if god has some property that leads it to producing a reality conducive to life, the probability of that reality existing is one. But again, we must consider the prior probability of god having that property vs a property that leads it to producing some other world. Further, since the labeling of life as good is arbitrary, we could label anything as good, and a good god would produce that. Best case, if we ignore the arbitrary usage of _good,_ we end up with the same probability as the naturalism hypothesis.
What fine tuned god?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Or maybe a natural, physical law is behind the fine tuning? How do we know that the god was not fined tuned by other gods? Or even a natural, physical law is behind fine tuning a god?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf No, the natural law I'm talking about is for sure necessary and not contingent.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nfYup, we could have these parameters over the others because of an undiscovered law of physics, a god, multiple gods, etc., etc.
41:20 Wait, what? We're supposed to make God even vaguer (deny Him the capacity to specifically desire this universe) so you can fudge the theorem?
What are you talking about? He didn’t make it vaguer, at all.
@@andrewwells6323 All I mean is that we move from 1) A God with a highly specific intention/desire to create this very universe, to a 2) A God with a less defined array of intentions/desires which may or may not produce this very universe
I find 2 to be vaguer than 1 as it specifies fewer qualities of that deity.
@@6Churches Good point. Seems to me, in virtue of my experience thus far, many theists are rather flummoxed by the interpretation argument.
@Jon all I hear is desperation from you and no clarity. If you can identify deep misunderstanding in me, why can you not address it clearly?
@Jon again. All you do is attack me and add 0 new information, critique, insight or answers.
Maybe just sit in your annoyance and stop wasting my time.
What certain people are calling, Fine Tuning, the Buddha called it, Dependent Origination - that things arise or manifest due to certain conditions, that things are interdependent, interconnected and impermanent. Scientists and environmental scientists have been discovering this fact. There is no creator God who is separate from creation. Creator and Creation is a result of Dualistic Thinking. Stilling the mind through meditation practice/mind training, takes us beyond thinking and duality. With stillness and reflection, we will realize that we are aspects of Nature and the Universe, in this temporary physical form, composed of the six elements, being aware of itself, experiencing itself. However, people are free to believe what they wish to believe. Be well, be peaceful, be happy.
What I have noticed in many atheists, both popular level and academic level atheists, is that their reasoning always seems to start from the position that theism is so implausible that any non-theistic explanation, no matter how absurd, is equally as plausible or more plausible than theism.
Alex claims this is how he reasons in this video, for example.
But this line of reasoning is nothing more than begging the question. You cannot simply assume from the beginning that theism is so massively implausible that any non-theistic hypothesis is equal to or greater than it.
The theist could do exactly the same thing in reverse. They could start by assuming that non-theistic hypothesis are so implausible that any theistic explanation, not matter how absurd, is equally as plausible or more plausible than any non-theistic hypothesis.
Take this scenario as an example:
You find a deck of cards arranged in perfect order, ace-king in every suit.
Theist: I think someone intentionally arranged the cards in this order.
Atheist: I think your personal explanation is so implausible that any impersonal explanation that I can come up with will be equal to or greater than your personal explanation. For example, maybe the deck of cards spontaneously re-arranged itself into this order. Maybe it is just a mysterious feature of this deck of cards that it would do so. Or maybe it is just necessary that this deck of cards be arranged in perfect order.
It should be obvious that the atheist is doing nothing more than begging the question by assuming ahead of time that personal explanations are implausible.
On top of that, you could use this line of reasoning to argue against anything.
For any two competing hypothesis P and Q, assume that P is massively implausible, such that any Q hypothesis is equal to or greater than any P hypothesis, then offer some arbitrary and absurd Q hypothesis and claim you have undermined the P hypothesis.
Great discussion. Why did Malpass wait so long to present the best objection? He left it for the last three minutes lol
1:52:28. Malpass admits his emotional worldview prevents him from using abduction and reasoning about the problem dispassionately.
Is that an objection, or proves him wrong somehow?
Emotion was never mentioned there
@@chad969 Yes it was.
@@paulwillisorg No it wasn't. He said he would need a massive change of worldview before he could start seeing fine tuning as evidence for God. The word "emotion" was never used there, nor was any synonym of "emotion". Starting at 1:25:06 he explained multiple reasons why he finds the theist explanation extremely implausible, and his reasons had nothing to do with emotion.
Hud Hudson, a grand old name!
other favorites....
John Johnson
Don Donahue
Jack Jackson(Jackman)
Knew 'em all....
To be more simple: you don't know you can change gravity, you don't know how to calculate the probability to inquire using Baye's Theorem in this case (are all the other universes with equal probabilities of existing? You can't tell), you can't tell where life in any other ways can exist or not. All of those are assumptions and the more assumptions you make to devise an argument and theory, the worst is the problem you have to tell it is the simplest and best explanation.
Neo Darwinian explanations are inherently circular when brought in to answer appearance of design. Arbitrary inputs into a system which accepts random inputs are likely to be undetectable.
“We know that evolution is a contingent process, therefore no biological feature is designed.”
Gee Schwag exactly. or as in my favorite example (a long lost quote from a scientist in the field): “of course evolution is true- i mean, well, here we are!”
Gee Schwag I got you comment notification but can no longer see you comments. Anyway, i’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. No thinking Christian would ever say “I know that the bible is true only bc the bible says it’s true”. We just don’t say that. and, re. other arguments for Christianity and theism in general, see Capturing Christianity you tube channel or the Unbelievable channel for a small sampling of current thought, for and against. but maybe you were just trolling, in the sense of “there are no arguments for Christianity bc I am not aware of any”. in that case, you just need to inform yourself.
In regard to the nature of minds:
Alex claims that the concept of God is like a married bachelor because God's mind would be too different from our minds to really call God a mind. His main point here is about the temporal nature of our minds and how our minds operate over time.
However, as far as I am aware, Alex does not believe the B-theory of time is incoherent like a married bachelor. I think he leaves it open as a plausible view of time.
But if a B-theory of time is true, then no minds operate in the way Alex claims they do. There are no minds that have sequences of thoughts through successive temporal moments. Every human mind would exist as an expanded 4 dimensional spatio-temporal object. All states of our minds would exist simultaneously. It would simply be that our minds exist across a 4 dimensional space. There would be no sequence of thoughts one after another, its just that our thoughts would be arranged spatially one after another. Every human mind would be static and changeless, having all their thoughts existing simultaneously, spread across a 4 dimensional space-time.
But then, I ask, what is so absurd about the idea of a mind existing in the same static and changeless manner, only outside of this 4 dimensional space-time?
The only difference between the two is that one mind would be finite and spread across a 4 dimensional space-time, whereas the other mind is infinite and exists outside of this 4 dimensional space-time.
The two would be incredibly similar to each other. The only difference would be the location in which they exist, and the finite vs infinite nature of the two minds.
“Elk don’t know how many feet a horse have!”
There is no arguing with a theist because they don't do falsifiable
As far as i can conceive even for a split second any thing to exist it should have fine tuned structure between its parts or in otherway fine tuned for every parts while it exists. That means fine tuning a necessary condition for anything to exists.
Thank 'a thing' for the screen sharing...I nearly turned off after 2mins as the massive light in the corner of the hosts picture was blinding me...can someone help this guy out with his set up...i've watched a lot of videos on YT and have never come across someone trying to blind their viewers before. thanks. Other than that, an awesome discussion.
What appears to be Alex Malpass' dilemma: I can't understand, with my finite mind, an infinite God with an infinite mind, that caused a finite universe to exist, and within this finite universe, this timeless Being fine-tunes it within time, whiles remaining outside of time. (This is what I've tried to deduce from watching this video). And he is unconvinced or discontent with this, as it is inconceivable, with no analogical example being sufficient enough to comprehend such a thing? If I have correctly summarized his problem/ philosophical dilemma, then:
*Does the infinite, Timeless God provide a reason for this philosophical dilemma?*
(Ecclesiastes 3:10-11) "I have seen the burden that God has laid on men to occupy them. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work God has done from beginning to end."
(Ecclesiastes 8:16-17) "When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the activity that one does on the earth-though his eyes do not see sleep day or night- I saw every work of God, and that a man is unable to comprehend the work that is done under the sun. Despite his efforts to search it out, he cannot find its meaning; even if the wise man claims to know, he is unable to comprehend."
(Job 11:7-9) "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?
The heights of heaven-what can you do?
The depths of Sheol-what can you know?
Its measure is longer than the earth
and broader than the sea."
(Isaiah 55:8-9) "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.""
(Deuteronomy 29:29) "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law."
(Job 5:12-13) "He thwarts the schemes of the crafty, so that their hands find no success. He catches the wise in their craftiness, and sweeps away the plans of the cunning"
(Isaiah 29:14) "...the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”
(1 Corinthians 1:20-27) "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
(1 Corinthians 2:11-14) "For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Indeed they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
(Romans 11:34) "Behold; the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?”
(Roman 1:18-23) "Indeed, God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what is knowable of God is evident within them; indeed, God made it evident to them. Undeniably, since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Remarkably, even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image in the form of mortal man, or of birds, or four-footed animals, or crawling creatures."
(2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
The mind of fallen man is spiritually blind and hostile to God; it cannot submit to God's law. Whiles I really love Alex's enthusiasm and his earnestness in seeking knowledge and truth, I am torn inside with sorrow because I can also see his plight. He is unable to see that sin is withholding him from beholding the true wisdom, knowledge, grace and beauty of God. He is alienated from the life of God, and unless he repents, will forever remain in darkness
*Has God provided a solution to this dilemma?*
Thanks be to Jesus Christ our Lord!
- Only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, can Alex be reconciled with and brought back into the presence of the Almighty, everlasting Father
- Only by Divine intervention of the Father drawing him by The Spirit, bringing Alex to spiritual, moral, intellectual bankruptcy in the form of humble, repentant surrender can 'the full riches of complete understanding' of 'the mystery of God' be found, which is Christ, who is 'the pearl of great worth' and the treasure laid up in heaven, 'in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.'
- God humbles the proud and gives grace to the humble. But how can believe without hearing? And how can he hear without a preacher? And how can they preach without being sent? So we must pray to the Father to send laborers out into the field to proclaim the good news rather than presenting purely philosophical arguments, since 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.'
1) "If the concepts deployed by the argument, as you seem to concede, are beyond our understanding, there would be no reason to accept the conclusion of the argument, excluding of course, one's prior commitment to its soundness."
Nowhere was this stated by me. It is within man's ability to comprehend, not so much the mechanics of how God works, but that within the constructs of time and space, His eternal power can be clearly seen, hence, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," and, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 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. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
2) "Alex did not argue that atheism is true in this video. The claim that atheism is false is not even a premise, or a conclusion, of the argument. As Alex also pointed out, many atheists accept the fine-tuning argument for theism...Given that there is no probabilistic analogue to falsification, it is impossible for the conclusion of the argument to be atheism is false."
Again, not once was "the claim that atheism is false" made, although indirectly, the fact that God reveals in His word that atheists know He exists but rather suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20). But the correct Christian worldview doesn't deal in probability when it comes to truth, as it is absolute, and revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life," (John 14:6).
3) " If I were to summarize your dilemma, it seems you misunderstood the prompt of the discussion and have not thought through the fact that *your conception of God* is _incompatible_ with Luke's. Luke repudiates, as his defense of the argument entails, that *we cannot know anything* about God's nature. Were that the case, we would have no justification for believing God's wholly good essence would consist of a creative disposition for fine-tuned universes."
I am not presenting _my conception_ of God, but God's revelation of Himself, in the scriptures, all of which "is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If Luke is representing the Christian God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yahweh, then His foundation - if he is truly consistent in his profession of faith - will be the same. Christians don't begin with probability or speculation but with the truth that God has made known by His Spirit after removing the blindness of sin.
We cannot know anything about God's nature? God Himself refutes that position, as I say in point 1 and 2.
4) "I would also add that the fall of humankind as understood by the Christian tradition _cannot play an explanatory role_ in the theistic hypothesis under consideration. Luke's argument is for a necessarily existent, morally perfect divine entity, *not for any Christian doctrines* that are quite independent of these attributes being the instantiated."
My argument is one of a necessarily existent, morally perfect divine entity also, but instead it is not made from baseless speculation but, as mentioned in prior points, is based on revelation through scripture. The fall of mankind is the explanatory role of scientists and a society of individuals who are staring at the work of God's hands every day but refuse to acknowledge Him; sin has alienated mankind from God, and because of this, man's reasoning has become darkened and futile, in an attempt to assert autonomy in the realm of knowledge, and to escape the looming judgment that awaits all who have broken God's law.
5) "You would need to revise the theistic hypothesis if you want to appeal to such a concept in the discussion of the fine-tuning argument. However, I would suggest against it, as such a doctrine will likely drastically lower the prior probability of theism."
I have carefully read through what you've written, and though I respect the time you've taken to reply, the statements you make are arbitrary.
"I would suggest against it," why?
"as such a doctrine will likely drastically lower the prior probability of theism." Says who?
I'm not looking to increase the probability of a theistic truth claim, but asserting the truth of God's claim, based upon scripture. I have a standard with which to judge truth and error, and that is what I am compelled to preach.
雨Jacob雨
1) "What needs to be obvious is not that God exists, but rather, that the probability of fine-tuning conditional upon theism is high."
Okay, I can see the point you are making. God says in Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'" Again, because of a difference in worldview and perspective, the latter part 'that the probability of fine-tuning conditional upon theism is high,' is not a probability. God declares that He is both the cause of a highly ordered and fine-tuned universe. The orthodox view is that He is sovereign over all things and works all things in accordance to the counsel of His will.
2)
"It may be that the existence of God is obvious, whereas the probability of him fine-tuning the proton-to-electron ratio is not. Does his eternal power demonstrate the latter claim to be true? No, it does not (???). *Nothing about having eternal power entails that there is a high probability of the proton-to-electron ratio obtaining as it is.*
'No it does not'? According to whose and what standard? David says of the Lord, "Yours is the day, yours also the night;
you have established the heavenly lights and the sun.
You have fixed all the boundaries of the earth;
you have made summer and winter." And again the writer of Hebrews says, "He upholds the universe by the word of his power," and again, Paul says, "For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
God's Word, the eternal Logos, is the word of His eternal power, through which the universe was created, and through which the universe is sustained. Solomon says, "The LORD founded the earth by *wisdom* and established the heavens by *understanding.* By His *knowledge* the watery depths were broken open, and the clouds dripped with dew."
3) "Alex already addressed this argument, which is why Luke appealed not to God's power, but to God's moral attributes."
God's power can't be fully explained without explaining His moral Attributes. In 1 John 4:16, John says, "God is love", and thus the universe was formed from the essence of His being, hence why at the end of each periodic day of creation, it ends with 'and God saw that it was good.' What exists is a reflection of God's goodness, and His kindness, as well as His power, because His kindness has been made known by what was formed by His power.
4) "You stated that Alex was suppressing the truth of Christian theism. Now, this is an absurd claim, but even if were true, it would have no bearing on the discussion, as this is not an argument for Christian theism, but an argument the probability of fine-tuning conditional upon theism being high...So the allegation of truth-suppressing is just irrelevant to the actual topic at hand.
"
It does somewhat have a bearing on the discussion. In Alex's worldview, where truth is relative and based on arbitrary reasoning, he will reason that anything, not excluding but not necessarily being the Christian God, could be the cause of a fine-tuned universe. In this worldview, chance, probability and speculation exist in regards to the origins (God, something other than God etc) and the operations (fine-tuning of the universe). But in my worldview, based upon the foundation of scripture, God declares that Alex is aware that the God of the universe created it, and is the cause of this finely tuned universe, and is the reason why Alex is spending much of his time in theocentric philosophical discussions, but refusing to acknowledge the God who created him and the world he lives in. The topic is inescapably about God, and Alex admits that he doesn't believe there is enough evidence to believe in Him, which is the presupposition that he then brings into his analysis of any and every philosophical discussion or debate. The bible states that sin is the cause of this truth suppression.
5) "In other words, I think theism (Luke's hypothesis in this video) is much higher than theism+ (your proposed hypothesis)."
Is this statement a true statement or arbitrary? What I mean is this; in order to evaluate anything, you have to have a standard by which to evaluate. So, Luke coming from a Christian worldview, without asserting his position from the foundation of scripture, is asserting an arbitrary philosophical guess. Without a standard of truth by which to measure, it is nothing but conjecture and a denial of the clear claims of his professed faith. Truth, in order to be truth, cannot be arbitrary. It is immovable. Immutable. Because truth is God's very nature, which is immutable.
6) "Luke is defending a hypothesis that is distinct from the one you are. Luke is defending the view that a necessarily existent, morally perfect, omnipotent agent renders high the probability that there would be a fine-tuned universe. You, on the other hand, are speaking about a morally perfect, omnipotent, maybe necessary, though not obviously (see Swinburne) agent that (i) created man in a perfect state and (ii) wrote a particular book, viz. the Holy Bible. Now, these further two claims were not claims Luke made and were not factored into Luke's theistic hypothesis. If you wish to introduce them, you need to update Luke's hypothesis, which is what I said."
Okay, it's unraveling a little clearer in your response what your initial response was. Apologies. Yes, I should addressed my disagreement with Luke's ambiguous theistic argument for fine-tuning. Alex was right in pointing out the flaws within it, but _my point_ was that some of the statements Alex made towards the last quarter of the video, were really, really, sooooo good and honest with regards to the analogy being insufficient to describe an eternal, self-existent God, and one who is able to be outside of time and yet act within time, that it had to be addressed! lol, I was listening thinking, "wow, God actually says EXACTLY what Alex is saying, and His word addresses these philosophical dilemmas!" Now, the argument he was being presented with from Luke was _insufficient_ at addressing those very key statements. And there does appear to be a level of honesty in Alex at trying to comprehend/ get his head around some of these concepts of God. But there is a reason why he won't be able to fully process them until he has repented and reconciled with God.
7) No true Christian disagrees with the literal understanding of the Genesis account, as Jesus Himself and the Apostles quote from Genesis with regards to creation. Theists who disagree are theists. Not Christian. The foundation of the Christian faith begins in Genesis.
8) "Again, I won't argue against them here, as their being true has little to do with Luke's argument, which was my main point about you criticizing Alex when he was not even addressing the hypothesis you want to defend."
I was not criticizing Alex as much as I was pointing out the truth in some of his statements (that analogy would be insufficient to describe an infinite God, essentially because there would be nothing infinitely comparable to) and the philosophical dilemma in not being able to get his head around such a concept. Hence why I began to show that the very dilemma he expressed, is in fact expressed in scripture. As He says, "To whom will you compare Me, or who is My equal?” asks the Holy One." (Isaiah 40:25).
Why pay attention to the bible? What does it demonstrate other than words on a page?
This is the second out of two conversations I've seen with Malpass where his thinking seems so completely off-base that his interlocutor can't even come to grips with it. It's like Malpass doesn't understand the type of argument where living/moral agents are a good thing, and there aren't anywhere near 10^10^123 ways to describe a being that would qualify as "God" which might fail to apprehend that goodness. Omnipotence isn't all we bring to the table when we say "God", but that doesn't mean we're adding in specifically the explanans (via "desiring life"), which is what Malpass himself tries to do in his souped-up Naturalism. It's that anything worthy of the label "God" is powerful *and* good. Indeed, given that we've had this concept in place for millennia on totally different grounds, fine-tuning for goods counts as a prediction.
In any case, if knowing is a power/capacity, then omnipotence alone actually *does* entail the full acceptance of and action in accordance with the goods! So, even though it is a straw man to talk about mere omnipotence; in this case it actually works out anyway. I think Barnes would understand and present something like this, if he weren't reeling from how crazy some of Malpass' ideas are. Are we really to take seriously that a disposition toward life (or anything else, for that matter) makes any sense in a mere physical system??
Why don’t dispositions make sense in a in physical system?
@@moonhouse3540
If we mean dispositions as personality traits (like a cheerful disposition) or as mental states (like being in a depression), then obviously that doesn't make sense of a mere physical system. Desiring something (e.g. desiring a life-permitting Universe) or intending something are likewise not the sorts of things it makes sense to attribute to a mere physical system. Only living, animate creatures can meaningfully be spoken of in these ways.
@@HainishMentat right. I don’t think that’s what Alex meant by disposition. Take the “particles in love” for instance. Protons and electrons are disposed to attract one another due to their opposite charges, but we needn’t talk about them as if the desire or intend to do anything at all. Further evidence that this is not what Alex meant can be found at 49:55, where he says that he’s not even sure if he would consider himself a naturalist because he doesn’t understand how naturalists account for normativity, which is what I think you are referring to.
@@moonhouse3540
I appreciate the clarification. If "disposition" just means the sense in which oppositely charged particles are disposed to attract each other, then of course that is a perfectly sensible metaphor. Still, to think that a mere physical system could have or pursue a goal (like life) is meaningless.
@@HainishMentat
I agree that knowledge is basically a capacity, but what then does it mean to say that God (a nonphysical thing) 'knows' anything to be so? If I know that the earth orbits the sun, then I have the capacity to answer certain question, correct others who think that it does not, and other things. In general, knowledge (as well as memory, thought, and imagination) are manifest in behaviour. However, a nonphysical thing cannot be said to 'behave'. So, what does it mean for God to know something?
Well, we came 'round the houses, but eventually reached the core problem with the FTA at 1:30. It's the "soft underbelly" of the FTA, and when Luke entered that region, the Lord delivered him into Alex's hands. Trying to explain how a timeless, minded, supernatural creator of universes even makes sense, (let alone how he did it), leads scientist Barnes to say, "blowed if I know." 1:34. That really ought to be the final epitaph for all explanations claiming to span the gulf from scientific evidence to supernatural theism.
So if we dont know how a thing operates, we shouldn't use it as an explanation?
@@WhatsTheTakeaway By all means. If you've actually got a "thing".
@@drawn2myattention641 By "thing", you mean scientifically testable physical material/energy?
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Whatever you got.
@@drawn2myattention641 Alright, so we don't need to know HOW a thing operates to know it does operate, even if that operation is scientifically inscrutable?
This was a great discussion, but I felt like Dr. Malpass's critiques were frustrating to say the least. He began by pointing out that the conjunction of "omnipotent" and "desires this world" creates a probability of 1. At first, I didn't understand what he was doing with this line of reasoning as Dr. Barnes rightly responded that it is no part of Christian Theism (or any of the great monotheisms) that this Universe exists as a necessary outflow of God's nature.
What he was really doing, IMHO, was "pegging" where you set a price high or low to force your negotiating partner in a particular direction. In this case, he used it to try and pry apart the definition of Theism, saying that the Theist needs to arbitrarily add in "goodness" to their definition to run the argument. Considering that "Goodness" is considered a definitional component of the Theist belief of more than half of the world's population (Christians, Muslims and Jews make up over 50%), it seems disingenuous to characterize the goodness of God as an arbitrary attribute. It seems to me that asking a Theist to "buy" goodness as an attribute for God would be similar to asking the naturalist to buy special relativity or quarks or physical laws. These things are baked in already and it is disingenuous to demand either side adopt an esoteric or stripped down definition of either theism or naturalism.
He then used this line to justify adding to his definition of naturalism a "disposition" towards a fine tuned universe, like loaded dice. He defended this premise on two grounds - one, that it was like evolution (which Dr. Barnes rightly rebutted describing that such dispositions had been explored and summarily rejected by modern astrophysics) and that it is no more mysterious than God. This latter position struck me as inimical to naturalism, which, if it has any disposition at all, is a rejection of the mysterious. At any rate, this just is a "science of the gaps" response where Dr. Malpass increases the probability of Naturalism by writing an IOU that there is a natural cause which we haven't yet discovered but will be forthcoming. Rather than say "at present, theism has stronger explanatory power" he goes ahead and grants naturalism the benefit of the doubt, essentially begging the question in favor of naturalism.
Theism has zero explanatory powers buddy - period
@Ju Err
*Wrong. Look at Richard Swinburne or Trent Dougherty’s videos*
No pal, you're wrong as are the two theists you presented as examples. I repeat, theism has zero explanatory powers, in truth, it simply presents one mystery to account for another, that is not any explanation, that's intellectual laziness.
@Oners82
Oh really? Then please tell me what it explains? I'm sorry, but it has no explanatory power whatsoever, all it does is posit one mystery to account for another mystery. An explanation requires qualification via evidence and demonstration, not assertion absent of these things.
Goldilocks hypothesis fails bcoz
Imagine there are 1000 red balls and 3 blue balls in a bag , if you randomly pick a ball the probability getting a blue ball is 3/1003
Now imagine you look into the bag and pick your desired colour , here the probability of choosing blue is 1/2
The ratio of blue to red has no effect on your decision
In naturalism hypothesis, if there are millions possibilities and 100 of them are life permitting, then the probability is 100/million
In theism (just omnipotent) , it is 1/2 , he either decides a life permitting or not
We can take ‘omnipotence and desire L ‘ hypothesis, then the probability is 1 but prior probability would be less
Alex is saying if God is just omnipotent, then probability of LPU is same as in naturalism , bcz God knows which universe is life permitting and may prefer that with a 50% chance
More atheistic slothful induction supported with sloppy generalizations and ibad analogies. The question is fine tuning not the possible causes.
Vb
So basically, Malpass goes at one point... why does it seem like I can’t win this argument? Lol...Cause you’re wrong dummy? You can argue 2+2=5 all day long, ain’t gonna make it so! You wonder if he even believes his nonsense? Fine tuning is bulletproof, so keep writing those IOUs atheists 😂 Keep praying to the science gods you worship for new physics. Let us know how that works out in hundred years 😂😂
Wtf how old are u...6? Lol
What god?.There are many.
ABOVE THE LAW
Only one true God and you know what God, that question is just insulting to your own intelligence.
@@brando3342 Prove it.
ABOVE THE LAW
Prove you are making yourself sound less intelligent by asking "which God?"?
@@brando3342 You enjoy your fictional.character. Its all in your mind. A delusion
ABOVE THE LAW
Maybe I'm actually just in your head? Prove it though 😉🙂
So basically big number therefore God they might ask what are the odds ? Well ...
In a determined world ... odd are 1 in 1
In a random world ..... odd are 1 in ???
In a designed world .... odd are ??? In ???
In order to get the numbers we need some REAL metaphysical knowledge
Good luck with that !
I always find it funny when theists start with a really dense and intimidating opening PowerPoint, but then their own commitment to something like classical theism throws the the whole thing out the window. A terrific waste of time and energy.
Fine-tuning has no place in Classical Theism, it's more like a Theistic Personalism thing.
@@sergeysmirnov5986 why doesn’t fine tuning have a place in classical theism? I haven’t heard someone say that before.
@@vaskaventi6840 The omnipotent characteristic of the classical Christian god is incompatible with fine tuning. Something that is all powerful would be about to make life out of anything. Sean Carroll spoke on this with WLC in their debate.
@@micahchermak6386 so what ?
All powerful means he can ,not that he should
Secondly, are you suggesting a universe without temporal and spacial regularity ?
Where we cannot do anything since the result is chaos?
If immaterial things exist, then by definition they don't experience entropy. Time is an illusion, and simply a result of the arrow of time in the direction of the increased entropy. We don't experience time, we experience entropy. Therefore consciouness isn't subject to time. What is time? A human construct. Spacetime is an actual thing, in which the physical space is defined as a 4D non-euclidean spacetime where gravity warps the geometrical structure and time, is different from different locations. A photon, for example, doesn't experience time. So there are timeless things. And immaterial things. If the soul is immaterial, then it doesn't experience entropy. Its perfectly conceivable for a mind to be timeless and spaceless, just like a photon. But specially a mind, with the problem of the hard problem of consciousness.
nothing can be timeless or spaceless because time and space don't actually exist. They're abstracts. A mind could exist for a seemingly infinite amount of time, but it depends on how you define a mind. If it's something that just has a consciousness, then that could be more plausible, but going further to say that this mind could create the cosmos is inconsistent. Minds cannot interact with the physical world unless they are attached to matter.
Bla bla bla
What an atrociously poor presentation by the first cool and fun guy. Unable to explain in lay terms, equals not smart enough. Adding in some faux ozzy average guy linguistics makes it more cringe.