The Fine Tuning argument
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Here is the link to the whole playlist.
• Dutko Against All Reason
This playlist addresses Bob Dutko's sermon "Answering the Skeptic"
• Answering The Skeptic ...
Here are other counter-arguments to "fine-tuning".
Sean Carroll
• Responding to the "Fin...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Fine Tuned Universe ? ...
Lawrence Krauss
• Lawrence Krauss - Is t...
Phil Halper
• Physicists & Philosoph...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @aronra
If you like what I do, please consider supporting my efforts.
PATREON► / aronra
PAYPAL► www.paypal.me/...
They fail to realize that the universe is not tailored to us, WE are tailored to it. Anything that wasn't, IS DEAD.
Yeah, but that makes too much sense...
@@alext7074 They'd rather believe that they are the center of the universe.
Dead, or never had a chance to start.
Who was the tailor? We aren't fine-tuned to live any more than the universe is fine-tuned to let us live.
Not even the universe, the planet at best
I like darkmatter2424's argument. Fine tuning doesn't make it look like a god did it, it makes it look like this is the only way it could work. If a god did it, they should have been able to build it anyway they wanted, including in a way that doesn't make sense.
A mechanic tunes an engine to get as close to the restrictions of physics as possible, not because only a mechanic could have made an engine fine tuned.
If idle hands are the Devil's play things, idle minds are God's.
Ooh I like that one! 👍
The internet means I keep my hands VERY busy.
Very good.
Nice 😏
Hmmm......good call!
I believe in god because of how my legs are EXACTLY the length needed to reach from my hips to the ground!
lol 😂
Not true your body is bigger on one side to than the other.
Praise Mighty Zeus, maker of legs
@@josephrodriguez2780 Ah, but THAT sides' leg is the different size, so it still is finely tuned to go EXACTLY the right distance to the ground! PROVING his legs were fine tuned!!!!!
@@RetroBackslash Without legs you can't kick someone's behind! Talking of kicking a man when he's down, when CAN you kick him?
I couldn't stop spitting my beer out with the "sock, cannibalism, petroleum trampoline and proctology" comment. 😂
Yeah, I too, had a hearty chuckle at the barely concealed euphemisms
I am British, and a schoolfriend of mine (late '60s) went on to become a dentist, moved to the Los Angeles, became dentist to the stars, wealthy, with a stable of cars. At a school reunion I asked him how he had coped, looking into people's mouths 8 hours a day; he replied "It could have been worse - I could have been a proctologist."
The old ones are the best although it was the first time _I'd_ heard it - and it took a while to work out that he was using a 'Merkin term for a colorectal specialist.
Reminds me of this: I had my annual check-up last week, and my doctor said he needed a sperm sample, a urine sample, a blood sample and a stool sample! 😕 I told him I was in hurry, and I just handed him my underwear. 😐
I don’t have a special sock. All my socks have probably been used for that purpose.
“I can’t explain it, therefore it’s fine-tuned.”
No, there's plenty of evidence the universe, our solar system and life are fine tuned to a degree.
Mind the gap, lol.
@@StupidusMaximusTheFirstNo, there is not. You just have zero understanding. Watch the actual video.
@@StupidusMaximusTheFirstSo God fined tuned things. ok, so first God made humans in a way to where an infinite number of conditions and universes would kill us, then he made a universe that didn’t follow those conditions so we would survive. That’s your belief. God made us broken, so he could make a cure? Sorry, NOPE. That is not logical. Evolution is why fine tuning appears. The earth was not designed for us, we evolved to live on the Earth.
@@StupidusMaximusTheFirst Name a single piece of evidence.
The Fine Tuning Argument: A tacit admission that God was forced to create life within a set of parameters. Who created those parameters he was forced to create within is presently unknown.
Those parameters were dictated to God by Godzilla, obviously.
@@lnsflare1 After careful consideration, I have determined that this is accurate.
If I wanna create replicating squares in a game engine, I might set some parameters for this myself. If I wanna create something else, I'll set different parameters for that myself.
@@StupidusMaximusTheFirst Yes, but you set those parameters based upon a preexisting software framework that you didn't design. If you're god, then what does that make the guy who coded the game engine?
@@alistairmaleficent8776 Maybe he did. Or they. I only brought this as an example, not to be taken literally. I suppose those concepts don't really apply as even those concepts are within this universe. God(s) would be something out of this universe.
I just want one Fine Tuning advocate to show evidence that the universal constants could even be something other than they are in the first place.
The Fine Tuning Argument Ain’t Nothing But the Intelligent Designer Argument in a “Tuxedo”.
A painted on tuxedo🎉
@@AllHailDiskordia Exactly
The emperor has new clothes?
"Dear Skeptics,
trust me, it's actually very totally indeedly logical to believe in made-up nonsense, misrepresentation and ignorance of science, a being that is somehow timeless and spaceless and still exists, a being that is all good and fine tunes the universe even though people unnecessarily suffer and 99.9% of space is uninhabitable. Why don't you just believe us, you guys?"
I don't know, even he must be smart enough to understand why we don't believe it.
The universe is not fine tuned to allow life as we know it to exist; life as we know it is fine tuned in order to survive in the environment that we occupy. If the laws of physics were slightly different life would also be different in order to fit the different environment.
Yep, that's all the "puddle in the hole" again...
Agreed
That's not necessarily true. First, the fine-tuning argument is not about the laws of physics being any different from what we currently know them to be. It's about slightly perturbing any one of about two dozen constants of nature with the current laws of physics in place.
Let's disregard the fact that, as noted in this very video, the vast majority of the universe is inhospitable to life. We may eventually discover that life is more prevalent than we currently realize, but as far as we know, Earth is the only hospitable environment in which life is possible.
Aside from that, perturbing certain constants such as the gravitational constant and the strength of the electromagnetic force would result in a universe in which mass-energy would be so diffuse, that stars and planets could not form. Slightly increasing the cosmological constant would also result in a universe in which stars and planets could not form. So if the vast majority of the universe that we currently observe is _almost_ entirely inhospitable to life, then a universe without concentrated mass-energy probably be worse.
Slightly decreasing the cosmological constant would result in the universe completely collapsing shortly after the big bang. In that case, life would certainly be impossible.
Having said all of that let me clarify that I think the analogy in second comment, that the hole was not formed to fit the puddle, is a strong point. I'm convinced by the evidence that we evolved from simple life forms as explained by the theory of evolution. Likewise, the big bang is the best explanation of how our universe evolved.
I'm just trying to steelman "their" position. It annoys me to hell and back when the likes of Kent Hovind strawmans evolution. That's what "they" do!! It annoys me even worse when the likes of Ra strawmans their position by saying that "the universe is fine-tuned for life" and then proceeds to refute that claim by pointing out the fact that the vast majority of the universe is inhospitable to life.
@@user-lb8qx8yl8k
Yes, it is frustrating when people here misunderstand and strawman as much as the creationists. As far as we know, if some of the values of some of the physical constants were a bit different, atoms or stars could not have formed, and therefore not life as we know it. To use this apparent fine-tuning of the universe as an absolute proof that one or more deities created the universe is in my opinion quite a stretch, but at least the argument from a fine-tuned universe is not as bad as most of their other arguments ...
@@skyinou
It goes something like this:
The casual puddle might contemplate itself and say 'of course I fit this hole, I'm water- I'll fit any hole you put me in, it's nothing special'
A more curious and informed puddle might think this through a little further, and realize that this apparently intuitive phenomena is only made possible by an excruciatingly narrow set of parameters that allow the right gravity, pressure, temperature, interaction of water and rock molecules not to mention spacetime itself. It might realize that there are an infinite number of combinations of these parameters that would NOT allow this phenomena to occur.
It might then think, well it's still all chance because what would be the point of all this being created on purpose? before he gets swallowed up by a thirsty Moose :)
Do I really want to watch yet another "fine tuning" debunk? Yes, you definitely want to watch this novel approach. The final few seconds tie it all together beautifully. Congratulations on this one @AronRa, although for Sci fi fans, it is a bit of a kick in the old "DNA torpedo" sources.
The problem with the anthropic principle is that it's based exclusively on life as we currently understand it. Even if the physical laws were different, that does not mean that life in some other capacity wouldn't inevitably emerge.
Exactly! But we only have one universe so we can't compare it to any other universes.
The anthropic argument is based on a lack of child-like imagination on the one side, and too much observation bias on the other.
This video should be played in schools everywhere
All Aron Ra science videos should be! Especially, his Phylogenetic ones. 🥰✌🏼
Particularly the comedic Sex Education part delivered in such a dead pan fashion
If an omnipotent deity existed, the fine tuning argument would be moot anyways; that deity should be able to create life in _any_ universe.
Going to say before even watching the video that whenever someone brings up the "fine tuning" argument, I instantly think of Douglas Adams' brilliant puddle analogy. Now on with the show!
I always flash to Hawkings. "Fine tuned to make black holes"
@@doubtful_form Another classic!
I was thinking of Adam's puddle, too!🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼
You beat me to the puddle analogy.
Why is the puddle analogy brilliant, do you think?
And even our precious little space rock, on which we are allowed to live only on some non-watery parts of its crust, is SOOO finely tuned for life it was almost entirely wiped out only five times in its history, with _mere_ 99%+ species to have ever lived going extinct. And even our ancestors just barely avoided the same fate 800,000-900,000 years ago.
If you are a God, why do you need to fine tune at all? Surely you can set the parameters any way you want them?
An intelligent designer might be able to make a universe of ghosts-with no need of atoms.
Indeed. And a being living on a non fine-tuned planet would still assume the planet was fine-tuned.
@@stevenjohnson4190 Like all theists seem to think.
Dunno if this guy does it but I love the paradox argument of “the universe is fine tuned, we’d be dead if anything were changed in the slightest!” and then “oh god sped up nuclear decay to make radio metric dating look so old!” I think that would change just a few physical constants.
I assume speeding up evolution after Noah’s flood would also involve changing a few physical constants as well.
If radioactive decay were sped up like the creationists claim the Earth would be a ball of magma today due to all the heat released.
There is no contradiction there, IF you include magical powers into your physics models.
Fine tuning implies a diddler. I mean, a fine tuner, a diddler of the Universe. A fine tunin' diddlin dude, a really big one inside of my own universal imagination.
Prove me wrong, Hoss.
You might like to read Victor J. Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning". It really does take a Theoretical Physicist to outline what's wrong with the list of so-called 'fine-tuned constants.'
Theoretical physicist. lol. Imagine. 🐒
@@michaelgordon18 Imagine what??
@@r.i.p.volodyaimagine is what theoretical physicists do. Then they deconstruct what they've imagined to see if it can be applied to known physical models of reality successfully.
@@thehellyousay Really? Have much experience of Theoretical Physicists do ya? Or really have you just been watching BIg Bang Theory??
The puddle that thinks the hole it is in was made for it
Yep. That's about the size of it
DON'T PANIC
@@Starhawke_Gaming Did you bring your towel?
@@freddan6fly - always. Especially on May 25th.
Douglas Adams
The statistics you quoted on eggs, sperm, birth etc are GREAT!
And that only makes sense in a evolutionary perspective.
@@freddan6fly Absolutely!
What Aron could also have pointed out is that, according to those who believe life starts at conception, the vast majority of abortions are performed by God. (fertilizations that failed to produce live birth). Try telling a woman with an ectopic pregnancy that her body and the reproductive process is perfectly designed.
Sean Caroll does also make a version of this argument: That it’s bizarre to talk about a universe “tuned” for life when almost all of this inconceivably vast expanse is totally incompatible with organic life.
That MRI example is better than the _Flatland_ analogy.
Just what I was thinking. A modern updating of Flatland.
Whenever I hear "Life wouldn't exist" my mind instantly replies "No, life as we currently know it wouldn't exist." We have little idea what other life might exist under different conditions.
Started the video expecting that Dutko wouldn't know about the anthropic principle, instead he brings it up immediately and proceeds to declare loudly that he doesn't understand it AT ALL.
If you were instantly teleported to a random point in the universe, the chance of you surviving would essentially be 0%. The universe is far from fine-tuned.
Fine tuning: everything exists so perfectly to support life.
Mass Extinctions: exists.
Fine tuning is nothing more than circular logic.
It is sheer arrogance.
As Arthur C. Clarke imagined in chapter 36 his novel 2010, any life under Europa’s frozen surface would be doomed in the long run. While the oases surrounding vents could lead to the development of life, and some of that might even brave the lightless voids between vents, that life was living in borrowed time. To quote:
“It was also a doomed one. Not only were its energy sources sporadic and constantly shifting, but the tidal forces that drove them were steadily weakening. Even if they developed true intelligence, the Europans must perish with the final freezing of their world.
They were trapped between fire and ice.”
Sort of like humans are on this planet when the sun becomes a red giant in about five billion years.
No, what you're offering is a fallacy called Appeal to Consequences. You don't like the implications of an idea, therefore it cannot be true.
The trouble is when they say life they mean us, never allowing for any other type of life
never mind the fact that we have no way of knowing what different emergent physical laws would be like, let alone whether they would preclude life, only that they would most likely be incompatible with allowing our life as we know it, to exist.
Different emergent physical laws could produce say, a void that produces a magical fox!
An all-powerful being should be able to create life under any circumstances,right.
Just imagine a whole universe filled with Russells teapots
@@g.m.2427that would still be of our universe. Again, we have no way of knowing what such a differently emergent universe would be like, not the least because we could not exist within it in order to observe it.
Exactly
*"If the hole in the ground were any other shape, the puddle wouldn't fit! Ooohhh!"*
if gravity, pressure, temperature, molecular structure of water, not to mention the universal constants and spacetime itself were any different,... you would not have the phenomena of liquid filling a hole.
@@SteveLomas-k6k
*Me:* illustrates a fallacy with a metapor.
*You:* uses that very same fallacy to... argue against the metaphor?
Don't ever change, y'all. Adorable.
@@satyasyasatyasya5746
Universal constants aren't a fallacy, dude
@@xenotype9349 whooosh
@@satyasyasatyasya5746 Ohh, you're a redditor, got it.
Two of those ugly deep fishes are discussing the fine tuning argument. Fish 1: the pressure here is 100% optimal for our body. Our environment has the right level of darkness and temperature. Fish 2: True that! I can't believe having to live in other conditions. Our bodies will explode at lower pressure and we won't survive being exposed to lots of light, lots of oxygen and high temperatures like 80F. I can't imagine any other organism surviving those conditions...it is almost the whole world is fine tuned just for us.
Aron Ra, yay. I was just listening, in bed late at night, to GE and Paulogia on the line with two creationists! One used the kalam and this, ugh. The other, grand canyon and flood. So I recommended your series!! This came on so I jumped here. And wow it was worth it! 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it"
The universe was fine tuned, but designing a sin resistant human brain was a bit of a challenge for Yahweh. Makes total sense.
...imagine citing in defense of one's religion, the notion that we exist in a universe that we can observe...and calling upon the selection bias while pretending it's not a selection bias.
the inefficiency of making babies is what I use as a counter to anti-choice people who always say "you knew the consequences and sex is not for pleasure but procreating". Not when not even 1% of the times you do it end up in sustained pregnancy.
Describing sperm as "DNA torpedoes" made me laugh.
It's easy to be a pastor. It's hard to be a scientist.
Religion give simple answers to simple questions. Science give complicated answers to complicated questions.
God is a simple concept, the universe in not.
That's why explaining why god can't be real is as simple as saying that he isn't.
While the universe is so complicated that no religion in any of today's religions can even begin to explain it.
They can't, because it's not simple.
"Religion give simple answers to simple questions. Science give complicated answers to complicated questions."
I'm going to use that line in the next episode.
@@AronRa I'm honored!
I've watched many of your videos over the years and I can't think of many other people, on youtube or not, that has had such dedication to bring understanding and curiosity to the world.
You better give them hell, metaphorically hell that is, as there's no hell. But of all people, I think you already know that.
Thank you for your work!
possibly one of my favorite video's from you
Theists: "The result determined the preceding factors."
Atheists: "Ah no, the preceding factors determined the result."
That really works. Religious thinking starts with a very ambitious, comprehensive, top-down "result" and then goes out looking for justification for it, cherry picking its evidence along the way. And after 5000 years it's still no closer to demonstrating the conclusion. It's a huge investment, and I'm sure one that's very hard to write off. But it's failed.
Science looks at the "preceding factors." Well, it doesn't even presume that the data must consist of preceding factors at all. It's just data at first. What might it suggest, and how can we explore further? This is a very modest bottom-up strategy. We can make incremental progress with it, and gain genuine, immediate benefit from our successes.
In science we can also learn from our failures, which a top-down approach is loathe to do, because it means abandoning the grand conclusion in which so much has been invested.
“Fine Tuning” would be a good album name.
Let's face it, about 90% of the surface of our beautiful blue marble is uninhabitable by homo sapiens.
Your model is missing the hydrogen scoop at the front to gather fuel An asteroid of appropriate size could be hollowed out rather than having to construct a craft big enough. A 6000 IQ AI could run the whole craft complete with holographic crewmates...
As to your suggestion that there would be three of such craft, arc A, arc b and arc c, this is all sounding very familiar. To the visionary Arthur C. Clarke, I would add Douglas Adams and grant Naylor
The universe clearly was designed, not to make humans, but to make recliners. Since you can't get recliners until after you have humans, we are just a step along that path. It seems obvious. No universe like this one, no humans, no recliners.
Ok, that aside. The fine tuning principle is based upon the premise that the designer was constrained to using the forces, and material available at the time. And that those constraints ended up forcing the designer to fine tune everything to an unimaginably fine degree in order to get something that around nine billion years later, at least on this planet, we would call human life.
That's fine, if you're willing to invoke a designer that came along AFTER everything, in some absolute, and primordial sense (think infinity stones), had already been created, and then this bloke just puts it all together. Then of course you would need a greater god to make all the matter, and energy, and then the lesser god.
The other side of that crazy coin is that there is a principle in engineering known by the acronym KISS. For those who don't wish to google, keep it simple stupid. The signature of a good engineer is that their design is both as simple, and reliable as it can be. Fine tuning informs us that the universe is the opposite to that.
Have you ever noticed that a cat has holes in its fur right where its eyes are? If those holes were arranged just a little differently, there would be no cats.
“DNA Torpedoes” would make a great band name. Punk, maybe.
I wrote a fun little story about a generation ship taking hundreds of years to get to another system, only to get there and discover that FTL travel had been invented while they were in transit and they weren't even the first to get there.
Not only are the constants not as restrictive as theists like to claim, the issue isn't the parameters themselves, it's the interplay between them that really matters.
So even if they were that restrictive, well, let's say you can change gravity so the universe would collapse back in on itself.
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I can change the expansion rate (which is the variable that has to overcome gravity) to compensate, and what do you know - you get a universe with not one but two constants that are different and nevertheless much the same universe.
I have always imagined the multiverse as a pint of beer, with multiple universes, forming like the tiny gas bubbles, which grow and rise to the surface to pop.
Awesome video, Aron. Theists have no idea what they're talking about. They have no idea how ridiculous they sound when they say "the universe is fine tuned for life"🤦♂They're just regurgitating the same old christian anthropocentrism.👏👏👏❤
Oh wow that galaxy collision simulation with actual pictures of colliding galaxies is amazing!
Whenever someone wins the lottery, is that fine tuning ?
No, it's fucking random.
I prefer the Fine Tuna argument, as described by Brian Dalton.
I'm also going to add on with the space ship that those conditions don't include space debris (random small (by our human standards) bits of meteorites), getting through the Oort Cloud, solar radiation, and black holes/magnetars that are ready to shred us to pieces.
Fine tuned, eh? Try living in Death Valley without any support.
"Petroleum trampoline" 😄
To me, the finely turned argument is actually one against a creator being, especially a perfect one. I would think an all powerful being wouldn't have to do all these work arounds to make life come about.
Thank you, Aron, for mentioning the nuclear pulse spacecraft! XD
If the universe is fine tuned for anything, it's black holes and empty space
Great video! Something else I would add is - that only 43% of the earth's land mass is habitable.
From Google: The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is Desert and about 24% is Mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres (43%) of habitable land.
From what we've seen thus far, the universe is as fine tuned for life, as a pipe organ with one out of tune key still working is for a Bach sonata.
We are here because conditions for us to be here exists. Those things that didn't work are not here because that didn't work.
I'd be eager to read the history told by those kids on Alpha Centauri B about why the ancestors had to leave Earth. I'd bet that at some point in the textbook there's a picture of Jim Inhofe using a snowball as a "gotcha!" prop in the US Senate. RIP Jim - your legacy crossed the stars.
the irony is, creationists who use this argument just need a quick twist to get their heads on straight. the environment was adapted for life is one step away from realizing life adapted itself to the environment.
One of your best videos ever I think. Thank you.
As a disabled person (Cerebal Palsy) i find the fine tuning argument hilarious.
So finely tuned that my umbilical cord decided to strangle me.
Why couldnt it be designed to have less slack? I have the sense to wrap my vacuum cord or garden hose as i move to avoid tangling.. a god doesnt?
Dude my orgasmic k/d is infinity/0 after more than 40 years with no kids. I'm more inevitable than Thanos.
TLDR; If the universe is fine-tuned for life, then the guy who fine-tuned it is a $@#&ing smooth brain, because he did a piss-poor job of it.
Entropy or matter and energy has free-will??..kinda like quantum uncertainty?? . Is the efficiency of reproduction a measure of free-will, or our questioning mind of doubt.
This drive to understand is just a gift with eyes ears skin and an amazing brain that thinks. All my 3+/- trillion cells working as one unit, with electronic thought patterns, ok now im back to dumbfounded and amazed. I helped my wife a little to create 2 girls.
Amazing talks AronRa. May understanding be granted to you, and please keep shareing.
Neil Degrasse once said, "the universe is trying to kill us" I like that....preacher should volunteer to do a space walk without a suit!
Believers > > > > > I am thee absolute king of Gish galloping therefore my "god of the gaps" explanation is a fine-tuned example of how the universe operates.
Marvel movies are fun, but people really need to realize that they are just fantasy.
"I want the intellectuals to realize, that the existence of God makes perfect, logical sense."
The audacity of that sentence is incredible.
"Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth" - Eric Idle, the Galaxy Song
Imagine being the offspring of that 3,000 generations...
The amazing feat of technology, human innovation, and drive it would take....
Only to arrive at a planet that will kill you in minutes upon setting foot on it's ground....
Quite possibly the saddest ending of that timeline
Man, the proof that galaxies have collided is absolutely terrifying.
Like, what could even be done about other planets hurtling at yours? It's beyond over.
@damon - Andromeda is closing in on the Milky Way. But don't worry too much, they are not expected to collide for another 4.5 billion years.
Despite what scary images and animations want to impress on you, a galaxy is mostly an empty space. Collision of two galaxies is more akin to two fog banks merging together.
@@FrikInCasualMode - "more akin to two fog banks merging together" - a fine analogy for most of the universe, but it would be devastating to any solar system in those galaxies which have inhabited planets.
The introduction of new gravity wells in close proximity (astronomically speaking) to the inhabited planets would impact the orbits of the planets, pulling them out of their native ellipticals and flinging them out where they freeze due to lack of energy from a sun, or pull them into a collision course with other planets or stars.
So yes, for the most part this makes no difference in the universe, if you lived on one of the planets impacted, it would be more akin to a cosmic billiards game.
@@Starhawke_Gaming No. FYI Every now an then a star in our Galaxy comes close to Solar System. Some of those encounters cause perturbations in Oort Cloud, sending comets towards the Sun. None of those encounters wiped out life on Earth. Space is big. Unbelievably big and mostly empty. We would have to be astronomically unlucky (pun intended) to be harmed by interaction with another star.
@@FrikInCasualMode - from what research I was able to find, yes there have been stars that came close to our solar system that have impacted the orbits of the planets, especially the outer planets, but that was early in the life cycle of our own solar system, prior to life on Earth, and may have been responsible for the planetoid striking Earth that eventually became our moon. And potentially responsible for the destruction of the planet that once occupied the orbit represented by the astroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.
So I don't know where you are getting your information, but everything I can find shows that if another star traveled close to our solar system, it could be extremely devastating to life on Earth.
It's more finely tuned for death.
That brain MRI has some sort of pathology in the left parietal lobe 4:16
'I want the intellectual out there to realise....' Dutko, like the Bible, teaches that thinking and reasoning are bad.
If there is a designer(s). One thing is certain. It ain't intelligent.
I don't know the probability of a universe being able to support life, and frankly I'm unimpressed by most of the efforts to calculate that probability because they all rely on unverifiable initial assumptions. But I do know, the probability of our being able to have this conversation in a universe capable of supporting life, as opposed to any other kind of universe, is 100% 😂
I don't see how the fine tuning argument gets you to a specific god.
It doesn't. It arguably gets you to a god, of some vague definition though
@@christophermonteith2774 How does it that? It gets to personal incredulity.
Important Note:
When Aron mentions the temperature on Europa (@ ~ 14:11) plummeting to 50 degrees Kelvin, this means that the temperature is only 50 degrees above absolute zero (50 degrees in the Celsius or Kelvin scale, not the Fahrenheit scale). Absolute zero is the coldest temperature that can be reached in this universe. While it's possible to generate temperature in excess of hundreds of millions of degrees, cold temperatures can only go so low as -273.2 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Kelvin, ie - absolute zero.
And so, 50 degrees kelvin isn't just 'Cold,' it's very close to 'the coldest temperature it's possible for anything to be, in our universe.'
BTW, gravity is not a fundamental "force". It is a consequence/effect produced by the distortion (warping) of spacetime by mass
No god worthy of the title would have fine-tuned shit to be the way it is.
That scenario you describe in the end actually kind of happens in the final Mass Effect Game. The Story was that the Earth was doomed because Alien Invasion, so they built a bunch of giant Ark-Ships to migrate to specially selected planets in the Andromeda Galaxy. Takes them 600 Years to get there, most of the Crew was in cryostasis for that. Then they arrive... and their target planets got devastated while they were en route.
We love AronRa because of comments like this
"And in the minority of those instances where they make it into the right orifice where they're also not blocked by a petroleum trampoline or some other method of birth control"
I'm surprised we don't find ourselves in a place which doesn't have us in it.
i find it funny that these clowns think the rules of physics are governed by how the world is, not that the world is how it is because of the laws of physics
Lets be honest
We have no idea what the universe would be like if the "dials" were changed. We can only know whats possible in our current reality
Thanks so much for advancing this idea. I had not heard it presented before...though I thought of something similar years ago. The only scene in the movie CONTACT that I dislike is when Ellie Arroway says that if no other life exists in the universe, it would be "a waste of space". Such a comment vaguely implies a quasi-intelligent creator (so she would never have said it) and also overlooks the inherently 'wasteful' character of the natural world (when viewed from a utilitarian perspective). In addition to the examples Aron (oo)cited, we could mention all manner of sea turtles, oak tree acorns, pollen grains, etc. where seeds/zygotes fail to produce life. (Heck, even Jesus pointed this out in the Parable of the Sower). The fact that other organisms can make use of this waste does not mean that it is not waste. Even the non-living world is wasteful. Most rain falls right back into the ocean; most of the Sun's light never intercepts a planet, etc.
If one wants to use the existance of life in the universe as evidence for a god, then the most plausible god would be one who desperately wanted NO living beings to exist, but screwed up on maybe 0.000001 % of the planets.
A happy little nebula. 😂
If heaven was a thing, Bob Ross would be smiling and put on a bit of titanium white.
I like to compare the coming into existence of universes with something we all enjoyably know: ejaculations. Most spermatozoa are destined for the drain, some are merely viable and once and awhile everything works out great and a big, healthy baby is the result. I think it’s no different with universes. Most fizzle out, some exist with laws that just prevent them to fizzle out and once and awhile a healthy universe is born that has the ability to produce something like conscious life. After that leave it up to the narcissistic nature of human species to convince themselves that the whole shebang has come into existence for their honour and glory. Preposterous but funny.
If things were different... things would be different.
Also its so amazing that the universe was gearing up for so long waiting and waiting for earth to be formed just for little old us.. well we took awhile to get here, but man that is all just so super mega amazing oohhh mywwwwwoororrdd. Also so cool how life is just everywhere in the universe like everywhere even in outer space itself and on the sun of all places! What?! ITS NOT OOOO.
We are a puddle that's it. Its also amazing to me how anyone buys into the idea that god likes to play games with us, like oooo I'll hide myself but I'll drop hints.... but never enough hints so you can be sure, wouldn't want to spoil faith after all! This goes to my "god is a nitwit" argument that goes like this: p1: god is a nitwit.... and that's the whole argument.
Talking to zealots about science is like talking to Communists about economics. Actually, I'm being mean to the Commies...
Random. What exactly is it that you disagree with here, and on what basis?
To me the "fine tuning" argument always sounds like people saying, "It was in the last place I looked!"
I wouldn't quite agree with AronRa regarding Martian life, I think there is a good chance there are still some extremophiles living in (as in "buried under sand" or perhaps "burrowed into cracks in rocks") Mars. I saw a video clip about the work NASA is doing in relation to designing space suits for people landing on Mars, going by the sort of "keep the germs out" engineering they were working on, it seemed to me that they are assuming that there are bacteria (and/or viruses and/or other single-celled life forms) that would not be good for humans there.
"Fine tuning" is just another way of saying defective "design".
There are major problems with the fine tuning argument. And in this case the theists use of the Weak Anthropic Principle.
1. The measurement scale (eV) is as inappropriate to compare the fundamental forces .As it would be to measure your height in light years. 6ft = 1.9330e-16ly 5ft = 1.6109e-16ly
2 We don't actually know if it is even possible to have different values for the fundamental forces. They may well be the emergent properties of a universe and just are what they are.
They could be by ratio mean larger or smaller values result in larger or smaller habitable universes Or that they can be different so either no universe evolves or a totally different uninhabitable universe evolves. If any of those other possibilities exist then the Weak anthropic principle tells us that the conditions required to have a universe like the one we observe to have happened must have happened because we observe it.
3 The universe doesn't care whether there is life or not! Life is an emergent property of this universe ( we've no idea whether it is the only one) Contrary to the way the theist in the video used the Weak Anthropic principle in an attempt to bolster his fine tuning argument. The principle actually implies that "If it was only possible for life to have evolved in the entire universe on one planet then the Earth is it!"
4 By presupposing that life must exist or that life is the intent of the universe to create it, skews the perception of statistics. Very often theists will liken the random events that culminated in life on Earth to Rolling 6s on a dice, and then give massive improbabilities of that happening. The error here is the assumption that 6s are important. The improbability of say rolling 100x6s is exactly the same as rolling 100 random numbers between 1-6 in the exact order that they are then rolled. In other words 6+6+6+6+6+6=36 assuming you think 36=Life on Earth. 2+5+3+4+6+1=21 why can't 21=life on Earth? The assumption by theists is that life is the "Gold Standard" and therefore only by Perfection of rolling all 6s can it be achieved which is a non sequitur.
Therefore using the Weak Anthropic Principle we can say that" if a specific order of dice rolls needed to happen to create life then they must have happened in that order and we are the result of those dice rolls."
In other words We either got lucky or we are not alone.