The Fine Tuning Argument
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 มิ.ย. 2024
- For more information, read God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (amzn.to/2kAroVD)
READ:
Four Ways the Earth Is Fine-Tuned for Life
coldcasechristianity.com/writ...
In this clip from J. Warner Wallace’s longer talk on the existence of God from cosmological evidence (based on his book, God’s Crime Scene), J. Warner offers three illustrations that will help you understand the degree to which the universe is fine-tuned for life. If the universe is this finely tuned, what should we infer about the existence of a cosmic “fine-tuner”?
I've always loved the Fine Tuning argument, because it really is impossible without God.
Impossible is a Supreme understatement in this case.
It is possible: if you don't have these values for the constants, you don't have life. If you don't have life you can't make the argument.
@@simongarcia2336 But we do have life, and we can only draw conclusions from the data that we have. In court we only use the data that's available to make a verdict. If there is a waiting period, it's only because the law has allotted a set time for investigation to obtain relevant information. Other than that we are frequently making decisions based on what we know and not irrationally waiting for data we have no promise of ever being delivered. I can literally be skeptical of everything, but that will not make me a rational person. There is an unhealthy level of skepticism.
@@semi4 what arw the actuall odds for the constants in our universe beeing exacetly what they are?
And, you must add the royal flushes for each constant together. That's when they punt and start creating things like "multiverse" and "maybe the universe has to be this way".
Well, String Theory does support the notion of a multiverse, which if true would allow for infinite potential universes, and then what you're getting at is so many failures before we arrive at a universe that supports life, such as ours. However that is an incredibly counter-intuitive position to maintain.
The figure given for the Cosmic Constant is actually a more conservative estimation (10 to the 90). Many estimations have it figured to 10 to the 120. It is not incredibly relevant though since both figures are higher (and more unlikely) than picking out one atom out of all the atoms in the universe which is 10 to the 81. It is also important to consider that nothing mentioned here even goes into the extremely high odds against the formation of our planet and the development of life here.
While it goes against the grain for many Christians I have found when making this argument a much better strategy is to leave the reason open ended as to why. When you say God did it most of these people will just turn you off and not look further. So much for the follow the science crowd! When people are challenged to figure out their own reason for the incredible stroke of good fortune that we exist options are very limited. The multiverse is the most common retort but there is more actual science to support the tooth fairy than there is for the multiverse!
Really puts things in perspective with the examples, well done
Atheist: “That’s dealer of the gaps argument. Just because we know it’s mathematically impossible to be dealt 28 royal flushes in a row, doesn’t mean there’s not a natural explanation, and it doesn’t mean you can infer that some magic dealer man in the sky is fixing the deck”
Noice 😄
@@mesplin3 the anthropic principle as you stated I think is a complete truism. Of course we have to be in such and such a kind of planet of the kind that we could appear on, that does not answer the question how we came to exist on it.
@@mesplin3Why do the odds have to be so unlikely? Who says the odds cant be 50/50. Even if that is the case
Very informative
Thank you for a VERY COMPREHENSIVE and well thought out 8.43 minutes.
Thank you
I laughed so hard I almost swallowed my face. At the last joke.
WOW !!! Thank you !!!
Everyone knows the truth. They just don't like it.
Romans 1:19-21
English Standard Version
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 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.
Atheism is goofy.
Thanks for such a compelling, precise presentation of yet another proof of our Almighty God. It still befuddles me how so many people just blow this off and refuse to believe. But I have to remember some saw the miracles of Christ and still did not believe.
In fact the fine tuning argument is not a convincing argument for God unless you need it to be. See for instance "Physicists & Philosophers critique The Fine Tuning Argument" - two long form videos on YT.
The point is that, while superficially indicative of some sort of deity (which is only one step towards an Abrahamic God of course) the argument is based on a lot of extremely questionable assumptions that are perhaps not obvious without detailed thought about very complex issues about the nature of time, the nature of matter and energy and epistomology. The majority of physicists who specialise in cosmology and related fields seem not very convinced. That at least should give you pause to question the "compelling" nature of the argument.
@@martifingers This is a weaker version of the teleological argument, however the stronger versions discuss how it is more likely this world occurs given theism than given atheism, and this is just a very long version of one of the hidden assumptions in the argument.
Premise 1: The intrinsic probability of life given atheism is low.
Premise 2: The intrinsic probability of life given theism is not low.
Premise 3: Life exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, the probability that theism is true is higher than the probability of atheism.
The video above supports premise 1 of the argument.
These constants have these values and make life possible and the universe the way it is. If it were not like this, there would be no life. The fact that we are alive comes from the values of the clnstants. There might actually be many many universes where the constants are different but we don't live there because there are no stars, DNA...
Analogously, you are the way you are because of your DNA but not because a god chose you over other versions but because if it had been another version it would not be you and that version would think they're the "chosen"!
So cool! Love this kind of stuff.
And what are the odds of all of those things happening at the same time in the same place working together…. 🤔🤔
Great illustration
I'm not an atheist anymore, but I used to argue that if you have an infinite amount of time, the odds are that something with slim chances would still happen if there's an infinite amount of time. That's why I don't like this particular argument.
Well what are the chances of our constants beeing what they are now?
Great Work !!!
Great video
God is good
❤️✝️🙏
Now multply them all together because they all happened simultaneously. The only answer is God
It's amazing what man WILL believe, just to not believe in God.
Great comment.
Does this prove that the Buddhists or the Zoroastrians are right?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
It doesn't "prove" anything. It shows how it's kind of foolish to believe the world came here by accident
The fine tuning argument gives evidence for God. There is also plenty of evidence that Jesus is God, and JWW has many videos on that :) Frank Turek, Hugh Ross as well!
Follow the evidence where it leads. But here's a shortcut:
God has manifest himself:
Creation. Arguments for God’s existence.
The Bible. Why the Bible is the word of God?
Jesus Christ. Did Jesus rise from the dead?
Michio Kaku believes in a multiverse. Wouldn't the fine tuning argument loose all its strength if we lived in a multiverse?
Jimmy Wallace (this good man's son) covered this exact topic under the title "Is There Really No Evidence For The Multiverse?" at the Cold Case Christianity site. You'll have to google that title, because TH-cam eats any links I post. :)
Not really. Imagine how intricate a universe generating process would be. That itself would likely require fine tuning. Also, we have little evidence there is a multiverse.
We can always make stuff up when we don't want to deal with what's staring us in the face. That's why they postulated that after being presented with the Big Bang, then with the constants on top of that.
That is an untestable philosophy, that cannot be called science. These guys will literally do mental backflips to avoid the simple truth that there is a Creator God with a moral claim on your life.
@@june012006 Not intricate at all. A universe is simply a persistent fluctuation in the background quantum field. Minor fluctuations occur constantly and are purely random.
They deny God despite the fact that his creative attributes are plainly obvious. It’s very much like Romans 1.