Also, scientists (e.g. atheist Lawrence Krauss, Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross) point out that human civilization has risen at the right time in cosmic history such that we can look out into the universe and gather enough data to extrapolate what the beginning of the universe was like and what the ending will be like. If human civilization arose earlier or later we would have been "left in the dark" scientifically regarding the life cycle of the universe. I'm also reminded of the book (and the documentary based on it) titled The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. It too sees a connection between fine tuning for life and for scientific discovery. One dramatic example they give is how the moon's size and distance from the earth and sun provided vital scientific information during lunar eclipses. The documentary is on various TH-cam channels. So, there seems to be fine-tuning for 1. life (e.g. bacteria), 2. embodied CONSCIOUS agents, 3. scientific discovery, and 4. the discovery of the possibility of scientific discoverability (I think Collins called it "discovery of discovery"). Atheists like to argue for gratuitous evil and suffering, but there also seems to be gratuitous beauty and pleasure in the world. An example of superfluous beauty given a naturalistic worldview is found in the butterfly (see the documentary Metamorphosis by Illustra Media). When it comes to pleasure, Hugh Ross has pointed out that if the laws of nature were slightly different, certain chemicals or molecules wouldn't be available for us to enjoy certain tastes or smells. William Lane Craig has argued that we didn't need to have a finely tuned universe I think because he said that was due to the multiverse theory or quantum mechanics. I forgot. Nevertheless, Craig's point seems to be that fine-tuning not only suggests design, but that it was meant to suggest design. Since, God could have chosen to create a non-finely tuned universe, just as undirected naturalistic/atheistic process could have produced a non-finely tuned universe.
I would avoid using that camera that was low in this video. Love the video, great discussion. audio is good, but that camera needs to go. Great job overall. I love hearing Robin Collins. He is a genius.
Yo. I stumbled access your channel and love it. I was wondering if you could help be close a gap in my understanding about the fine tuning argument. The probabilities used in these discussions confuse me because the point of them is to say it's unlikely that fine tuning would appear by chance. But unlikely in what context? You guys used an analogy of a man flipping a coin, but what does the man and the act of flipping a coin actually represent? Thanks.
Why should we be 'surprised' that our universe exists or that it supports life - we know of no other universe so can have no idea whether any other would or could support life ?
Hi Josh. Doesn't the Fine Tuning Argument put God in a box? God presumably could have created life in any kind of universe, including ones that arose from slightly different parameters at the Big Bang. If so, why bother with the Fine Tuning Argument? Curious. sb
Isnt the point that fine tuning is improbable given the fact that the universe was not created by a mind and probable given that it was. I dont think anyone is claiming that God HAD to use these particular laws in order for life to form.
@@kimyunmi452IMO Carrier's counter arguments tend to be pretty awful. The success of the fine tuning argument would not lead atheism even if Carrier's underlying point is correct. At most, it would mean that there are intrinsic metaphysical limitations in what God can do (which many theists already grant anyway). That aside, I do NOT find the fine tuning argument compelling.
Okay so God fined tune the cosmic dials. Did God follow a certain manual book when he did this? If he is God, why was he limited by law of physics in order for him to be able to create life? So law of physics is superior than God?
This is a frustratingly stupid comment, God created the laws of physics and made the universe such that it could support our existence in addition to us being able to discover and understand the universe. Hence the fine tuning arguments for the existence of life and the facilitation of discovery by that very life which is pretty much discussed throughout the video.
Fine tuning is all well and good, but it still doesn’t account for one’s present personal existence, which itself is an astronomically improbable event. Think about it: For you to exist required a specific egg from your mother to be fertilized by a specific sperm from your father (a one in a million chance). And even that was only possible because each of them resulted from a highly improbable union of a specific egg and sperm from their parents. Multiply that improbability by many ancestral generations it quickly becomes apparent that your present existence is a near infinite improbability. Yet you exist, the odds of which are probably less than winning the Power Ball lottery five times in a row, which no one would believe is due to mere luck, least of all the Gaming Commission. Since there is no logical imperative requiring God to cause you to exist out of the potentially infinite number of sentient beings God could have created, what reasonable explanation other than outright solipsism is sufficient to account of one’s present existence.
This is a very bad objection because in the case of descendants each outcome has the same probability and is no more likely than the other so there is nothing special about me being born and not my brother or sister. However in the case of the universe even though each constant has an equal probability of happening the vast majority of those constants will not allow life and therefore the fact that the constants fall into a very narrow range that allows life cries out for an explanation.
@@kenandzafic3948 Yes, every decedent has an equal chance of being born. But the odds that the decedent is you rather than an almost unlimited number of potential others is extremely slim. In the same way, every person entering the Power Ball Lottery has an equal chance of winning. But confusing the probability of someone winning with the probably of you winning is to seriously miscalculate the probabilities involved. You insinuate as much when making the distinction between the vast number of potentially lifeless universes that could have occurred compared to the very slim odds of a universe permitting life.
@@charlesvandenburgh5295 Ok your logic is like this, if a random combination of letters produced Shakespeare you wouldn't be surprised because any other combination had the same chance, or if a person draws cards at random 5 times and gets 4 aces each time you shouldn't be surprised because every other combination had the same chance, or if he took a pot of paint and spilled it on a canvas and got a picture of Bruce Lee I shouldn't be surprised because every other color combination had an equal chance.
Surprising vs non surprising. If we only have earth, moon, sun, everybody would become Theist without further question. But tadaaa...look what we have in this cosmos billions of galaxies each containinh billions stars. So is this fact more surprising for Theists or Atheists?
Multiverse is a philosophical concept, not science. There must be some strong philosophical objections to the multi-verse idea, and I don't think they were covered well.
Some versions are indeed scientific because some theories (which have *some* empirical support) appear to have a multiverse has a consequence... But I agree with your point that the multiverse explanation of fine tuning has not been sufficiently ruled out by theists.
It kind of bothers me that Robin Collins seems to support evolution. There's no scientific evidence that natural processes can originate life and there's no evidence of any kind (empirical or theoretical) that natural processes may design or evolve anything.
The basis of life is information, and information can only come from a mind. Nobody ever observed a natural process which is capable to take off on its own and generate an unbounded amount of information, which is what evolution requires. No experiment and no computer simulation confirms that this is possible. Read this book: "Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics" www.amazon.com/dp/9813142146/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I2OOSU2XL0Z99Z&colid=1ZFZK00TC8IOZ Any geneticist will tell you that humans are degenerating, not evolving. Here's a book written by a leading geneticist: "Crumbling Genome: The Impact of Deleterious Mutations on Humans" www.amazon.com/Crumbling-Genome-Impact-Deleterious-Mutations/dp/1118952111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503243612&sr=8-1&keywords=kondrashov
There is overwhelming evidence for evoution (see Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True" or watch Coyne's lecture at th-cam.com/video/w1m4mATYoig/w-d-xo.html)
![fellow fellow - PROUD feat. INK WARUNTORN [STRING QUARTET]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BQrVkMPTdHE/mqdefault.jpg)
Also, scientists (e.g. atheist Lawrence Krauss, Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross) point out that human civilization has risen at the right time in cosmic history such that we can look out into the universe and gather enough data to extrapolate what the beginning of the universe was like and what the ending will be like. If human civilization arose earlier or later we would have been "left in the dark" scientifically regarding the life cycle of the universe. I'm also reminded of the book (and the documentary based on it) titled The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. It too sees a connection between fine tuning for life and for scientific discovery. One dramatic example they give is how the moon's size and distance from the earth and sun provided vital scientific information during lunar eclipses. The documentary is on various TH-cam channels. So, there seems to be fine-tuning for 1. life (e.g. bacteria), 2. embodied CONSCIOUS agents, 3. scientific discovery, and 4. the discovery of the possibility of scientific discoverability (I think Collins called it "discovery of discovery"). Atheists like to argue for gratuitous evil and suffering, but there also seems to be gratuitous beauty and pleasure in the world. An example of superfluous beauty given a naturalistic worldview is found in the butterfly (see the documentary Metamorphosis by Illustra Media). When it comes to pleasure, Hugh Ross has pointed out that if the laws of nature were slightly different, certain chemicals or molecules wouldn't be available for us to enjoy certain tastes or smells. William Lane Craig has argued that we didn't need to have a finely tuned universe I think because he said that was due to the multiverse theory or quantum mechanics. I forgot. Nevertheless, Craig's point seems to be that fine-tuning not only suggests design, but that it was meant to suggest design. Since, God could have chosen to create a non-finely tuned universe, just as undirected naturalistic/atheistic process could have produced a non-finely tuned universe.
What a well written response!
Please explain what a 'non-finely tuned universe' is ??
One of my favorite videos on your channel :) keep up the great work!!
I would avoid using that camera that was low in this video. Love the video, great discussion. audio is good, but that camera needs to go. Great job overall. I love hearing Robin Collins. He is a genius.
Agreed!
Josh you should do a podcast!
Robin Collins knows this subject like Dr. Rasmussen knows the back of Robin Collins hand by the end of this interview.
I was looking for this, Robin is a bit liberal on the meaning of personal space :D
I think i'm going to have to watch this a few times.
This was an awesome conversation!
loved that point at the end
Awesome video, loved it Josh.
33:54 - 40:04 and beyond… What a feast!! 🤌🏻🤌🏻🤌🏻
Yo. I stumbled access your channel and love it. I was wondering if you could help be close a gap in my understanding about the fine tuning argument. The probabilities used in these discussions confuse me because the point of them is to say it's unlikely that fine tuning would appear by chance. But unlikely in what context? You guys used an analogy of a man flipping a coin, but what does the man and the act of flipping a coin actually represent? Thanks.
very informative ..thank you for the video
Why should we be 'surprised' that our universe exists or that it supports life - we know of no other universe so can have no idea whether any other would or could support life ?
I love the content, but I hate the goofy camera work. I'm not a fan of lens flare, for one thing. And burnt out highlights look really ugly.
Hi Josh. Doesn't the Fine Tuning Argument put God in a box? God presumably could have created life in any kind of universe, including ones that arose from slightly different parameters at the Big Bang. If so, why bother with the Fine Tuning Argument? Curious. sb
Exactly. Richard Carrier said fine tuning argument is an argument for atheism for this reason. And not for theism.
@@kimyunmi452 You mean people actually take Richard Carrier seriously?
Barry Anderberg you should not take anyone seriously fo who he is, rather take his arguments and see if they have merits or not.
Isnt the point that fine tuning is improbable given the fact that the universe was not created by a mind and probable given that it was.
I dont think anyone is claiming that God HAD to use these particular laws in order for life to form.
@@kimyunmi452IMO Carrier's counter arguments tend to be pretty awful. The success of the fine tuning argument would not lead atheism even if Carrier's underlying point is correct. At most, it would mean that there are intrinsic metaphysical limitations in what God can do (which many theists already grant anyway). That aside, I do NOT find the fine tuning argument compelling.
Matt dilian look a like .
Title needs to exclude the word “on”. Title should be “Robin Collins talks about God, fine-tuning and the origin of reason.”
Our universe is NOT 'unlikely' and nor is it 'improbable'.
Is he really saying that the only reason fundamental particles have the properties they have is so the can be 'discovered' ?
they can be discovered
@@bigblukiwi Yeah lol, otherwise what would be its function if not to perpetuate the principle of intelligibility as a constituent in manifestation.
Okay so God fined tune the cosmic dials. Did God follow a certain manual book when he did this? If he is God, why was he limited by law of physics in order for him to be able to create life? So law of physics is superior than God?
Kim Yun Mi who said he was limited by the physical laws?
Kim Yun Mi It doesnt seem to me that their ideas entail God using some kind of manual or being limited by physical laws
This is a frustratingly stupid comment, God created the laws of physics and made the universe such that it could support our existence in addition to us being able to discover and understand the universe. Hence the fine tuning arguments for the existence of life and the facilitation of discovery by that very life which is pretty much discussed throughout the video.
Fine tuning is all well and good, but it still doesn’t account for one’s present personal existence, which itself is an astronomically improbable event. Think about it: For you to exist required a specific egg from your mother to be fertilized by a specific sperm from your father (a one in a million chance). And even that was only possible because each of them resulted from a highly improbable union of a specific egg and sperm from their parents. Multiply that improbability by many ancestral generations it quickly becomes apparent that your present existence is a near infinite improbability. Yet you exist, the odds of which are probably less than winning the Power Ball lottery five times in a row, which no one would believe is due to mere luck, least of all the Gaming Commission. Since there is no logical imperative requiring God to cause you to exist out of the potentially infinite number of sentient beings God could have created, what reasonable explanation other than outright solipsism is sufficient to account of one’s present existence.
This is a very bad objection because in the case of descendants each outcome has the same probability and is no more likely than the other so there is nothing special about me being born and not my brother or sister. However in the case of the universe even though each constant has an equal probability of happening the vast majority of those constants will not allow life and therefore the fact that the constants fall into a very narrow range that allows life cries out for an explanation.
@@kenandzafic3948 Yes, every decedent has an equal chance of being born. But the odds that the decedent is you rather than an almost unlimited number of potential others is extremely slim. In the same way, every person entering the Power Ball Lottery has an equal chance of winning. But confusing the probability of someone winning with the probably of you winning is to seriously miscalculate the probabilities involved. You insinuate as much when making the distinction between the vast number of potentially lifeless universes that could have occurred compared to the very slim odds of a universe permitting life.
@@charlesvandenburgh5295 Ok your logic is like this, if a random combination of letters produced Shakespeare you wouldn't be surprised because any other combination had the same chance, or if a person draws cards at random 5 times and gets 4 aces each time you shouldn't be surprised because every other combination had the same chance, or if he took a pot of paint and spilled it on a canvas and got a picture of Bruce Lee I shouldn't be surprised because every other color combination had an equal chance.
Get it through your thick head - there is no 'reason' for the universe, or life , it just is.
Is Robin Collin a Christian?
Surprising vs non surprising. If we only have earth, moon, sun, everybody would become Theist without further question. But tadaaa...look what we have in this cosmos billions of galaxies each containinh billions stars. So is this fact more surprising for Theists or Atheists?
Kim Yun Mi Does the size of the universe give theists a reason to doubt? If yes, why?
This comment has puzzled me, i literally dont understand what youre trying to say
What?
Multiverse is a philosophical concept, not science.
There must be some strong philosophical objections to the multi-verse idea, and I don't think they were covered well.
Some versions are indeed scientific because some theories (which have *some* empirical support) appear to have a multiverse has a consequence... But I agree with your point that the multiverse explanation of fine tuning has not been sufficiently ruled out by theists.
Robbin collins just read Quran once.
It kind of bothers me that Robin Collins seems to support evolution. There's no scientific evidence that natural processes can originate life and there's no evidence of any kind (empirical or theoretical) that natural processes may design or evolve anything.
The basis of life is information, and information can only come from a mind.
Nobody ever observed a natural process which is capable to take off on its own and generate an unbounded amount of information, which is what evolution requires. No experiment and no computer simulation confirms that this is possible.
Read this book:
"Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics"
www.amazon.com/dp/9813142146/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I2OOSU2XL0Z99Z&colid=1ZFZK00TC8IOZ
Any geneticist will tell you that humans are degenerating, not evolving.
Here's a book written by a leading geneticist:
"Crumbling Genome: The Impact of Deleterious Mutations on Humans"
www.amazon.com/Crumbling-Genome-Impact-Deleterious-Mutations/dp/1118952111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503243612&sr=8-1&keywords=kondrashov
There is overwhelming evidence for evoution (see Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True" or watch Coyne's lecture at th-cam.com/video/w1m4mATYoig/w-d-xo.html)