Fine-Tuning Scrutinized? - A Response to
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- Back in June of 2020, TH-camr Arvin Ash published a video that attempts to scrutinize the Fine-Tuning Argument for God's existence. In this response video, cosmologist Luke Barnes, who also happens to be my favorite superhero, explains Arvin's many mistakes.
Link to original video: • Is God in Physics? Fin...
Link to Dr. Barnes' blog post responding to Arvin's video: letterstonatur...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on TH-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #FineTuning #God
I didn't expect the discussion to be what it was. But I'm glad Dr. Barnes took the time to address this and dispel all the misinformation. Mad respect!
Yep, unfortunately due to the nature of what was discussed (nothing about the structure of the argument, just physical trivia that gives it context) there's not much for me to do here. Kind of disappointing. Although your conversation with Mickey was more entertaining than the video itself. XD
@@logos8312 Wasn't much there for me to do either but I had a good time XD
@@Tommy01_XO
I've been keeping tabs on this discussion over the last couple of days and, though it pains me greatly to say this, Mickey is right on this one. He just doesn't explain himself very well (if at all, really). I'll explain this 2 ways, and then conclude by stating why it doesn't actually affect your position on the FTA.
1. Mickey (and the Theists he's quoting) are actually making a dilemma and arguing from that. Consider the Euthyphro Dilemma:
i. The good, is good, because God wills it.
ii. God wills things, because they are good (independent of his willing them).
Cashed out in laymen's terms:
i. The good is dependent on whatever God wants to do.
ii. The good is independent of whatever God wants to do (and he does only what is good).
These are contradictory propositions (supposing God exists, alternative options exists where God doesn't exist and hence no relation, etc.), and yet from these propositions, in either case, one could conclude that, say, morality isn't objective.
That's what's going on here. Just as Christians try to navigate a 3rd horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma, the "Naturalists" (and I still don't know exactly what that means) are being challenged to find a 3rd horn between:
a. The constants of the universe are indifferently random (uniform).
b. The constants in the universe are not indifferently random (but are instead biased in favor of life).
In either horn, just like the Euthyphro Dilemma, they'll have an argument for their conclusion. Luckily
2. Ignoring the conceptual explanation, let's just look at this purely from the perspective of symbolic logic.
First property:
X -> Q
Y -> Q
=> (X v Y) -> Q
Now if the Theists were just saying:
P -> Q
~P -> Q
Then: (P v ~P) -> Q
That is just saying that God is tautologically true...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT 1: It's worse than that!
1. P -> Q
2. ~P->Q
3. ~P v Q (1, material implication)
4. (P v Q) (2, material implication)
5. (~P v Q) & (P v Q) (3, 4 conjunction)
C1. Q & (~P v P) (5, Distribution)
C2. Q (C1, simplification)
1 and 2 straightforwardly put Q in the premises of the argument, making it question begging if the conclusion is Q. Further, insofar as a conjunction is involved, one part of the conjunction is a tautology, TRUE. That's the immediate part we all noticed. However what's pertinent is that even without the tautology (suppose it was just Q & P) this conjunction puts the conclusion independent of its supporting premise, which means not only do w have question begging (C2) but the original premise as put forward is a LIE or sleight of hand. The person putting for the argument never believed the conclusion on the basis of that premise, they just want YOU to do so. Bad form!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(P & S) -> T
(~P & S*) -> T
Then: [(P & S) v (~P & S*)] -> T
Where S and S* are sets of premises which accompany P or ~P in their respective arguments for T. The existence of S and S* means you're not going to grab a tautology on the left of the arrow as you would before, especially if S and S* aren't tautological reasons (indeed they may be independent).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit 2: I was erroneous in my reasoning here. I'm fixing this retroactively 4.5 months later, both, in case any future readers read this AND to ensure that I publicly give Tommy the apology owed here. Not that I meant to undercut him on purpose (I really did think there might be a risk of all dilemmas if this criticism stood, and I like the Euthyphro Dilemma) but it is worth showing that he was correct in his initial assessment of Mickey's argument and me explaining where my reasoning went wrong, so hopefully others can learn from it. OK so what did I get wrong?
A. The Euthyphro Dilemma does not conclude that morality is subjective in either branch!
One branch argues that if God makes the laws, then the laws are dependent on "a" mind (God's mind) and are thus subjective by that definition.
The other branch argues that if God does not make the laws (merely acts them out as a perfect example) then the laws don't depend on God, undercutting the other premise of the moral argument.
The point of a dilemma is two different conclusions, each unsatisfactory to a person holding a certain position. Not the same conclusion in opposition to one's concluison.
B. My broader reasoning though could be this. Suppose someone had the belief that morality was subjective independent of whether God exists. Erroneously I thought the Euthyphro Dilemma could be evidence for that, and it could be, but it's a much more complicated argument to make. But shouldn't one's rejection of a premise independent of a conclusion be virtuous? How much worse would it be if someone rejected to morality being objective BECAUSE it entailed the premise of the argument? That would be an ad hoc rejection! Regularly we look for reasons to believe a premise independent of an argument for that reason.
So if one, say, rejected to morality being objective in a premise like: "Whether or not God exists, I don't think morality is objective" then this is what we want, not what we want to avoid. So why is it good here but bad in the argument I outlined above? This is because the difference here is that one is rejecting / accepting a PREMISE independent of a CONLUSION in an argument. In the FTA case (like Tommy's discussion with Mickey elsewhere in these comments) we have Mickey accepting a CONCLUSION independent of what should be a supporting PREMISE.
The structure is the same: X is being accepted / rejected whether or not Y is the case, but which is the premise and which is the conclusion here is the difference between a virtuous interaction with a premise, and blatantly begging the question, lying about the importance of a status of a premise in one's own argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. OK so where does this leave objections to the FTA? No different than they were, actually. The best objections to the FTA, in my view, take 3 forms:
i. Object to the reasoning that implies the vast unlikelihood in the argument.
This does two things:
First, it allows you to argue that even if the universe is unlikely to permit life, it may be unlikely in a far more manageable fashion. 5% chance? 10%? 40% All of these are value less likely to produce life than not, and yet they're manageable enough that one could shrug their shoulders.
Second, if done correctly, you can actually maneuver the argument to be talking about a hypothesis test construction on the universe such that the physicists should be talking about pairs of parameters such that the existence of the universe does not reject the null on those parameters.
So rather than saying that life is or isn't likely, what you've done is flipped the argument so that parameter assignments are consistent with the universe (which I think is what Naturalists would prefer) rather than done "apriori" where the parameters are assigned and then the universe is just likely or not, relative to those parameters.
ii. Object to any discussion of likelihood AT ALL on the universe.
I'm thinking, of course, of the weak anthropic principle and the fact that no one ever gives it its proper due. It has two forms:
a: If a life permitting universe is observed then there must be a life permitting universe.
b: If there is no life permitting universe, it will fail to be observed.
Theists attempt to cover a with the firing squad analogy, but the firing squad analogy fails to cover b, and so it's an incomplete analogy. Namely, we can observe other people fail to survive a firing squad, and so if we were placed in front of a firing squad, we'd have an idea of our chances of success and failure before the triggers were pulled.
This is where my Genie Parody comes in, which so far has gone utterly unanswered for the (years now?) I've been posting it in these discussions.
None of these attacks on the FTA would entail a "bias in favor of life" for the universe, and so wouldn't trigger the second horn of the dilemma. Everything is still either in the first horn (how unlikely is the universe really?) or creating a 3rd horn (is it appropriate to describe the universe using likelihood at all?).
I hope that helps some, but yes I totally empathize with your frustration.
@@logos8312 Aw man. Ruined my day! Just kidding. Thank you for clearing this up. Given your explanation, I accept that Mickey's reasoning is valid. I have a few things that are still bothering me with his argument that I hope we can get cleared up.
First, even though Mickey's reasoning is valid, I'm not convinced that it is sound. What he is doing is building a model (theism) that predicts some data (fine tuning is unlikely). And that's great! I commend that approach. The problem then lies when we imagine that some evidence we find, maybe some new fundamental laws that force fine tuned universes to exist, contradicts his original prediction. He is then coming up with another hypothesis to then try to save the inconsistency in the data. I accept this is valid. The problem arises when we consider that his model doesn't predict the evidence that we have for fine tuning being likely, and evidence that is not predicted by a model cannot be used to corroborate it. This is problematic for his model, and then by adding a new hypothesis, he is decreasing the probability that his model is true. No matter what, contradictory evidence can never be argued away such that it can be evidence to vindicate a model.
I can analogize this with some history: Steady State Theory. It's not an outrageous claim on the face of it, it's just that it was demonstrated to be wrong. Steady State Theory doesn't predict the CMB, for example, and the Big Bang model does. Perhaps some wild hypothesis can be conjured up to save the inconsistency, but the only people who even try this anymore are internet crackpots. We discarded the model because it didn't fit the data and we know that trying to save the theory by adding hypotheses to explain away inconsistencies just decreases the probability that a theory is true. This approach of trying to force models to fit data instead of letting data select models is pervasive, especially in theist circles, where ideas like Craig's Neo-Lorentzianism and intelligent design still thrive even though they are born from failed models that science discarded when we found out that the data contradicted them. If I'm just screwing this up more, please let me know.
As for objections to fine tuning, it's nice to see that my favorite objection still holds: The Weak Anthropic Principle. I remember your hypothesis test that you used against Barnes, and I need to look more into that because it sounds absolutely fascinating.
This is gonna sound bad, but I'm having trouble recalling the Genie Parody :( if you wanna post it again, I'd love to read it again.
I've learned some things with this, thank you again.
@@Tommy01_XO "What he is doing is building a model (theism) that predicts some data (fine tuning is unlikely)."
Not quite. Remember that the argument technically is:
A. P(Tuned Universe | Naturalism) is very unlikely
vs.
B. P(Tuned Universe | Theism) is not very unlikely
So for all the FTA's faults, it doesn't actually say that Theism predicts that fine tuning is unlikely. It just aims to show that, whatever it does predict about the tuning of the universe, its probability is much higher than that of naturalism (which supposedly is so unlikely it shouldn't be considered as a competing model, given the universe we observe).
I'd wager that if Theism predicts anything about Fine Tuning in a vacuum (rather than just relative to Naturalism) what they'll say is that under Theism, Fine Tuning is likely and that we'd expect reality to comport with some kind of bias-for-life. This is ESPECIALLY true if one is a Theist that considers God's act of creation a continuous affair rather than some discrete moment in time at which "God created X in the past".
"This approach of trying to force models to fit data instead of letting data select models is pervasive, especially in theist circles, where ideas like Craig's Neo-Lorentzianism and intelligent design still thrive even though they are born from failed models that science discarded when we found out that the data contradicted them. If I'm just screwing this up more, please let me know."
I'm not a scientist, so far be it for me to question you on any matter of scientific fact. But as this relates to my fields of study (Economics and Statistics) there's actually a debate within those two fields on this exact question. What is the role of data with respect to models and vice versa? There are two kinds of epistemologies at play here.
(Frequentist?) Statisticians build models from data. The risks associated with that are as follows:
1. The models may not be very intuitive to explain causally even if they algebraically fit the data best.
2. Tuning the model around the data gives it a higher risk of over fitting (which is why Statisticians use LOTS of robustness checks on their models usually).
3. Usually Science works when we have an intuition about how things "might" be working that drives a research question. If we follow this model "rigidly" then we can't really set up a model until after we've done lots of research. But what if we don't have the resources to do the research? Very often, especially with regards to matters such as policy, you need to act, often making the best "educated guess" that you can". Going from model -> data works with that intuition.
Economists build models first and then check to see if the data adheres to what the model should predict will happen. Risks associated with this are as follows:
1. While the models are intuitive to explain if you build them "first" they often aren't "best fit" curves for the data, which means you're allowing for more variance (among other things) in trade for intuition.
2. While Statistical models may suffer from over fitting data, lacking a way to deal with competing models for "too long" before research is done to adjudicate, means that bad ideas can run rampant for a long time.
My response to 2 (given all the awful Econ papers I've read through for various reasons) is that sometimes bad models can hide in data, especially if people aren't trained to know when it's being toyed with. The mere existence of data isn't a panacea unfortunately.
Anyway maybe more points in favor of either position I've missed. I just know that as I talked to professors from both departments while I was in grad school, this general topic was very very contentious. It's not super cut and dry.
"This is gonna sound bad, but I'm having trouble recalling the Genie Parody :( if you wanna post it again, I'd love to read it again."
Yeah man, I've been storing some of my deep dives into various arguments on my cousin's Discord server lol. Simple copy/paste. It's long so I'll make a separate reply and do it there.
When Arvin says that "anyone who claims our form of life is the only conceivable form of life is doing so without evidence" aren't those positing a multiverse doing the same thing?
No. The multiverse is not claimed to be factual by anyone. It is speculation. . A possibility to be investigated based on math. No one claims to have evidence. So it is not at all the same.
Na, physicists are not putting forward idea of multiverse. Maybe we can never prove multiverse exists or not. But mathematically, we have found that some tampering with physical constants can still make good conditions for life to exist. Moreover, the fine tuning argument doesn't abide much with darwinism.
I commented on some of Ash's video's - just asked a couple of questions. He responded, but I followed up with more. He didn't seem to provide adequate answers. Then the questions disappeared. Can a content creator delete comments?
Absolutely, they can moderate their own comments sections. I’d like to know what questions you asked if you don’t mind reposting them here?
@@awm9290 Yes, I will post them here. Just need to remember exactly what I asked since they are gone. I will post them shortly. Thanks for the reply
Creators can delete any comments they want.
@@CapturingChristianity it will be nice if u ask
elephant philosophy vs cosmicskeptic
Majesty of reason vs cosmicskeptic
Majesty of reason vs elephant philosophy
For debates
Please😇😇
Sounds like this channel and many other apologetic channels.
To the point on the history of religious thinkers, St. Augustin 354 states, "the people, who were beginning to resent the action of the senate, were quieted and pacified. For an eclipse of the sun had also happened, and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun's course..."The City of God" Book 3 section 15. Avin Ash doesn't know what he's talking about. Oh and looky there, I actually used a citation. See Ash, it's not hard.
This was great. I'll also say Luke Barnes blog has some of the best debate around the fine-tuning argument I've read over the years. If you are into this argument and you don't read that blog, you are missing out.
25:30 the cinematographer in Cameron came out haha
Here before the atheist diarrhea
You rock bro 😎
33:40 is what I’ve been wondering about fine tuning this entire time and Luke seems to have answered that. I always thought well what if you changed 2 constants to where they both cancel each other out and a life permitting universe still exist. Now i see that Luke has taken this into account which is so relieving
😳
👀
I’ve watched Arvin Ashes videos before and made a polite but fair criticism in the comments section of their atheistic conclusions pointing out the lack of empirical evidence to support such conclusions only to find shortly afterward that my comment had been deleted by the ‘channel’…….🤔
I tried to comment the link to this video in the original video and it keeps getting deleted.
5:02 you're the one committing a strawman fallacy here. He's not saying religious scholars use the mystery of space to explain god, he's saying the mystery of space is originally one of the things that led humans to believe there's a god out there. He's obviously talking about thousands of years before Aristotle.
Evidence for your historical claim?
I thought that fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of life, even if true, does not logically necessitate a Designer God. That is only one explanation. Others might include the Multiverse, Random Chance Brute Fact, and a Theory of Everything not yet discovered which compels the universe to only “be” one way (the way it is now). Still other explanations: the universe only appears to us as finite limited humans with limited perception and cognition to be fine-tuned. It actually is not. Or perhaps it is only fine-tuned for carbon-based life as we know it. There could be many other forms of life which we do not understand currently.
He is very biased. Why would a science youtuber meddle is something that is irrelevant to his field. His video about after life and fine tuning. His site even says he is Science lover.
I don't know if this video demonstrates bias, per se. It demonstrates what Dr. Barnes alluded to: the Dunning-Kruger effect. The second he mentioned neutrinos was when I knew he was out of his depth. This goes for theists and atheists and anyone in between: misrepresenting science because you don't know the science undermines the integrity of legitimate science and hoses anyone who doesn't have the sufficient knowledge to see through the misinformation. Arvin Ash has to do better.
@L Lawliet It's not scientifically minded to make an educational video in which you get everything about the argument wrong, don't even bother to do basic research, and make gaffes that you'd expect from a high school student.
@@carsonwall2400 it's not even so much that he was addressing the argument, it was that he got all of the relevant information wrong! Once I saw what he said about the neutrino I knew this was gonna be REAL BAD
@L Lawliet Do I see a Death Note fan?
For me, the FTA always just boils down to the tautology of "if things were different, things would be different", usually with "but we don't want things to be different (because then we wouldn't exist)" implied.
With all respect, however in my opinion, this video is sadly biased. You can see the evidence for my opinion in the thumbnail. It appears that the creator of this is discrediting Arvin Ash for simply lablling him as a "TH-camr" and comparing him to a "Dr.", a "cosmologist". Who do you think appears to be more educated? When one looks into Arvin Ash's bio, one finds out that he is not just a TH-camr but instead holds 3 degrees.
Following this reason, I think whoever created the thumbnail didn't research about Ash or is simply dishonest.
I love this channel, so underrated!
Quantum Physics experiments (Delayed Choice-Quantum Eraser) indicating that the Future can influence the Past explain the Fine Tuning of the Universe. Its counter-intuitive and makes no sense, but - the birth of the Universe could have been 'caused' by its 'later development' or 'future'. This idea is from Paul Davies and John Wheeler. This idea is also an essential component of the theory of 'Biocentrism'- Robert Lanza. As John Wheeler has remarked: "We decide what the Photon shall have done after it has already done it." In layman's terms, this means the Universe retroactively created itself. "The Act of Measurement produces Histories which are consistent with the present choice to observe." In other words, instead of the Universe popping into existence out of nothing - a self-aware Consciousness or Consciousness's comes into existence from nothing. What would have been necessary for the existence of and leading up to this self-aware Consciousness or Consciousness's (a Big Bang producing Matter, Energy, Space, Time - followed by expansion and evolution) also then pops into existence. The Event (The existence of a Self-Aware Consciousness or Consciousness's) preceded the Cause (The Big Bang). This is why you will not find anything before the Big Bang. "The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning ? Then no world !" - John Wheeler. To solve the mystery of 'Infinite Regression', we must go beyond Materialism" - John Leslie. th-cam.com/video/_2DyvF03isM/w-d-xo.html
Man now this is some deeeeeeep philosophical stuff! I wish more ppl could read and understand your comment! I totally get it though and yes, it explains the quantum photon eraser experiment quite well I think! It also explains the weirdness of the whole pet cemetery interpretation of a wave function...
In schrodingers cat experiment, if the cat can be interpreted as both alive and dead, existing in both states... then we can also interpret this as the cat is neither alive nor dead, existing in no states. The cat does not exist until the box is opened. The scientist who placed the cat into the box does not even exists until the box is opened. Humans and cats do not even exist until the box is opened. Earth and the sun does not exist. There is not yet any universe that exists where the box has been opened and where the cat has been observed. Therefore, no universe exists which contains the correct history of past events leading up to the cat's observation. Here we can assume that the observation of the cat is the big bang, the birth of existence, for all past happenings in a universe which allows for that particular observation.
These responses are pretty bad. Like children complaining about someone who said something bad about their favorite cartoon character...
The video was an astrophysicist critiquing a TH-camr for not knowing the scientific evidence.
Great content, can you respond to Sabine's fine tuning video?
Famously said by someone else, seems to me a big bang, requires a big banger. Who by observation would require “something”beyond space, before time, seemingly without limits to power, and intelligent and wise enough to at minimum create what has been created. Sounds a lot like how one might begin to define “god”.
Maybe I'm just missing the point but the one thing I don't understand about the fine tuning argument is how people get to the conclusion that the fundamental constants could have been any other value than what they are.
I guess it's because no one has found the reason why they have the value they have. The value of the natural constants is a fact that asks for an explanation.
Either they could have been different or couldn’t. If they could, the argument is up and running. If they couldn’t have been different (they are metaphysically necessary), then (a) someone should tell that to theoretical physicists and (b) the same argument could be run using epistemic probability.
More on (b): suppose the laws are metaphysically necessary. Suppose also that an astronomer one day found that the stars in a distant galaxy were arranged such that they looked like John 1:1 spelled out in Greek. That seems like pretty good evidence of design, right? Not so fast. The laws are metaphysically necessary! The stars HAD to spell out John 1:1. But clearly something has gone wrong here. A design inference should be made. The way that this is done is through epistemic probability. Even if the laws are metaphysically necessary (which, again, is far from obviously the case), they aren’t epistemically necessary. It’s epistemically possible that those stars weren’t arranged to spell out a verse in the Bible (or that they spelled something else).
Even if fundametal constants could have been different, it's possible that the value they are right now is the more probable of all.
@@CapturingChristianity kindly it will be nice if u ask
elephant philosophy vs cosmicskeptic
Majesty of reason vs cosmicskeptic
Majesty of reason vs elephant philosophy
For debates
Please😇😇
Great video! Very informative.
Christianity and bible doesn't matter FINE TUNING as one of the criteria to judge or gauge God's presence or omniscience or benevolence. So, Capturing Christianity should not try to capture Fine tuning as one of the arguments behind God's evidence especially when we are not sure about the possibility and nature of any existing Multiverse or even alien forms of life in different regions within our own observable universe or beyond. We don even know whether the Master Law in a The of everything can fine tune itself and generate all possible outcomes across a wide range of planets , stars and galaxies. Now, in modern day physics, cracks are beginning to appear in the so-called absolute and impeccable nature of Fine Tuning. Here are some arguments to consider which is pointing that this Fine Tuning Argument might after all be only be based on our ignorance and not a fundamental feature of the cosmos itself: (i) In universes with parameters that are significantly different from those of our universe, new types of astrophysical processes can contribute to the generation of energy. For the case of dense galactic halos and larger cross sections for weak
interactions, the energy generated by dark matter annihilation can compete with stellar
radiation as a power source for habitable planets .Dark matter can also collect inside stellar remnants (such as white dwarfs) and subsequently annihilate. This
channel of power generation is also enhanced with denser halos and larger weak interaction cross sections. In the regime of stronger gravity and weaker electromagnetism
(smaller α), black holes can be bright enough and sufficient long-lived to serve as hosts
for habitable planets. (ii) The ratio αG=α is notoriously small (∼ 10^−36) in our universe. Within the range of the
(α; αG) plane allowed by working stars, this ratio can be larger by a factor of ∼ 10^4,
but still remains small compared to unity (∼ 10^−32). Planet properties do not depend
on the nuclear reaction parameter C?, and the allowed range of the (α; αG) parameter
space for viable planets is even larger than that for working stars. (Iii) Fred Adams has shown The range of allowed amplitudes Q for the primordial density fluctuations is approximately given by 10^−6 ∼< Q ∼< 10^−2. For smaller values of Q, galactic
gas has difficulty cooling, so that star formation is suppressed (or at least delayed).
For larger values of Q, galaxies become so dense that planets can be stripped out of
their orbits by passing stars, background radiation fields become more intense than the
solar flux received by Earth, and galactic black hole formation becomes problematic.
Nonetheless, the allowed range of Q spans about four orders of magnitude. (IV) If the amplitude Q of the primordial density
fluctuations varies over its allowed range, ρΛ can be larger than its observed value by a
factor of ∼ 10^10. Universes with even larger values of ρΛ can produce structure if the
baryon to photon ratio η increases. The bound is proportional to η4,
so that the upper limit increases by an additional factor of ∼ 10^12. For universes with
large (η; Q), the resulting galaxies would be much denser than those in our universe, so
only a fraction of the solar systems (residing in the outer galaxy) would remain viable. ..and lots more
27:00
"they are using tool that is convinient for them, that is bad."
"We should use tool that is convinient for us, that will be good."
Its not okay when they do it, but ts okay when we do it...
10:11 just because Newton was correct about physics doesn't mean his every opinion about other matters was also correct. He didn't even fully understand physics the way we do today.
He is just addressing the fact that Arvin uses Newton conveniently instead of showing the whole picture. Also, without Newton's equations, we would not have gone to space or have airplanes.
@@nasasjanitor994 but of course he would use Newton conveniently. Newton was an expert on physics, not religion. Trusting him on physics makes sense, trusting him on religion doesn't make sense. Just like trusting Newton on cooking doesn't make sense because he's not a chef. Just because he's trustworthy in one subject doesn't mean he's trustworthy in all subjects.
The point is that Ash completely misrepresents Newton. Newton was an expert on what Newton believed.
@@JL0007 You do realize Newton was Theologian as well, right?
@@nasasjanitor994 yes. You do realize that Newton wasn't correct about everything, right?
Taking a jab at fine tuning -
If the universe is fine tuned, then why is there more physics and more phenomena than what is required just for life? Why have all that extra taking place if it's all fine tuned for life? Why have singularities? Why quasars? Why have space expansion? Why NOT have extra constants that allow for life to form more easily? Why have increasing entropy all over the place instead of decreasing entropy? In fact, I could argue based on fine-tuning logic, that the universe is fine tuned to bring about what they call the "universal heat death" whereby all the available energy will become unavailable for doing work. This is bcus of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So, if the universe IS fine tuned then unfortunately, due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not fine tuned for life. I can argue just as well that the universe is actually fine tuned to gaurantee the heat death conditions where no possible life forms can exist.
Elephant should absorb these tunes
Can you pleaseeee do a video addressing sabine hossenfelder's video on fine tuning. I know yall did a debate but i think there is need to say more in a easy-to-understand way
The audio in this video waffles, needs to be fixed.
Please set up a debate between these guys!
They are not from the same league
@@OrenTube70 true, but when there are misunderstandings/misrepresentations debate is a great tool to straighten things out.
I’ve never heard the this Arvin guy till I looked up his bio today. Aside from the points raised in this video, this guy is super sketchy.
He lists his credentials but does mention from where. Just no mention of where he taught. His personal website is “non secure” another red flag for me personally. I doubt we are going to get a rebuttal from him. Wonder how many of his vids are misleading.
His bio is 5 sentences long...go figure.
Just discovered this video today and totally loved it, bad internet connection and all.
lol
I love Veritasium
I think the broad problem with internet discourse of this topic is existence of weak arguments. It works something like this.
Uneducated believer in inteligent design will make a claim like: "look, we have lungs that are perfectly fitted for oxygen and there is oxygen on earth, eyes that love seing green and there is tons of green on earth" or a classic "banana, the bain of atheist, is perfectly created for human hand". And some undeducated believers will actually believe that too. This is very persuasive if you don't know better and therefore gets millions of views
Then an Atheist with most basic understanding of science will rightfully debunk these claims, making many other atheists feel superior, and possibly deconverting some of undeducated believers in the process. This is very funny and makes for a good show so it gets tens of thousands or if well made, hundreds of thousands of views.
Then a highly educated Christian will look only at that Atheist video and destroy it for attacking straw-man and not engaging with propper literature. And bring his own, way stronger arguments. These arguments are way more abstract and sophisticated and require a lot more prior knowledge, and explaining and therefore get only a few thousands of views
These arguments are then challenged by highly educated atheists, but language is no longer "debunking" or "destroying" but arguing and questioning. Which is way less entertaining. And therefore also gets only a few thousands of views if any.
And uneducated believer will then come and say "look at these silly scholars on their high horses arguing over obvious! Just look at a trees! They obviously couldn't come like that by accident!" And as such circle is closed. And discourse doesn't move anywhere.
The root cause of that is existence of weak arguments. There would be no Logicked if not for Kent Hovind, no Paulogia if not for Ken Ham. All amateur youtube atheist live and feed of bad arguments. And I think it's a duty of educated christians to take care of misconceptions within their own camp. Attacking people who attack weak arguments for not attacking strong ones. Is just not productive in my opinion
You are correct that Christians should correct error, but I find it hard to believe that anyone believes that isn’t happening. Atheists are always quick to point out that Christians have split themselves into so many camps. Why do you think that happened? If you look up these guys, I think you will find many Christian responses and critiques. Other than the good ones, most you tubers are looking to ‘destroy’ something, so they look for and find easy prey. And this happens on both sides, so atheists need to clean up their own camp as well, if this is a problem you find important enough to fight.
@@nicholasprice6902 I absolutely do agree with that. Atheists need to clear their camp out of racists and fake #skeptics. In order to claim that they champion actual reason and not just feeling superior to uneducated people.
That being said. 50% of americans who Identify as protestants believe that "god created man in his present form within last 10 000 years" compared to 9% of americans who identify as non-affiliated. This is huge. And yeah obviously correlation does not mean causation. But there definitelly is something deeply wrong in how christians (especially protestants, it drops down to 37% for US catholics and even lower for european catholics) formulate their ideas in everyday non-academic circles.
@@KillmanPit Well said👍🏾
Ugh. This was pretty terrible. You got a squeaky-voiced cosmologist to stutter offended noises at something a TH-camr said. To quote the great philosopher, Eminem, "You're losing the fight you picked."
Astrophysicist critiquing a TH-camr for not knowing science of astrophysicist. Who cares the sound of his voice.
Multiverse as an explanation of fine tuning is multiplying entities by necessity. Not beyond. I’m not saying it’s right just that it’s justified. I find that when I think about fine tuning, I’m not even sure if I’m supposed to be confused. If we don’t know how to correct for possible anthropic bias, how do we know if we have. If we had good independent ways to know how big such a bias was then that would be interesting. Let’s spin up a couple of universes and poll all the observers in them. 😊
I know where @Arvin_Ash got those neutrino bounds from. He's confusing them with the expansion rate of the universe.
I think I speak for everyone when I say that we all need cheering up this year. So this was perfect, I spent the video laughing at this fool, "Arvin Ash" who has 200,000 views on a video without knowing any basic physics.
If this fool has proved anything, it is that athiests will gladly support anything, even without knowing if its true or not. They just wish it to be the case. Its an emotional case and thats it.
WOW! The irony of this comment! Thank you, i needed a good laugh!
I don’t know how the hell you come to that conclusion when WE ALL agree with Barnes on the dispelling of misinformation
@@Tommy01_XO so do I. Read my comment properly...
@@markcederberg1 I did read it properly... I’m saying that you have no business coming to the conclusion that you do when theists as well as guys like L Lawliet, an agnostic, and me, an atheist, all think that this was a very good video and Barnes did us all a service by refuting misinformation.
And one could easily say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but we don’t have to go there either.
@@Tommy01_XO ok so you are basically saying dont generalise all athiests. You could of just said that. Very confused way of communicating your point. Probably smoking too much Marijuana as most athiests like to do.
Geat!
Given the vastness of the universe, and the extremely small amount of life therein, any fine tuning wouldn't have been concerned with producing life as we know it.
Why? I don't see how that follows at all.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 The universe is fine-tuned for death.
@@russellmillar7132 well it appears that I am very much alive, so that's one point for evidence. A second point of evidence is your message, which appears to be from a living human. Can you restate the evidence for fine tuning that Dr. Barnes, a phD in astrophysics, explained in the video in your own words?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Yes, I'm conscious of being alive at the moment. Yet I'm relatively certain that some day soon I'll be dead, as will anything that was ever alive. So in the same sense that it could be asserted that the universe is fine tuned for life, it can just as certainly be asserted that it is fine tuned for death.
No I can't summarize Dr. Barnes work in astrophysics on galaxy formation. I have no background in astrophysics. I listened to his opening remarks and realized that I have heard these types of arguments before. He is not a biologist, is he? Has he published any papers in scientific journals about his findings with respect to the fine-tuning of life?
I know that if one starts with the assumption that the universe exists so that human life (me) can exist, then when of all the calculations are done, all the quantities determined, all the findings tabulated and recorded, the conclusion that will be reached is that life has an intelligent designer that deliberately set the laws of physics just so, and, now that they have been fixed, life could not exist if they were any different.
This is, of course, hypothetical. Until this is tested with real world conditions ( take a planet identical to our own and place it in situation wherein the conditions and quantities are different) it can only be asserted on a pre-theoretical basis.
But how would it be if I were to design a chicken coup the size of Illinois with only has 100 square meters of that space devoted to raising chickens? And what if all the rest of the area within this coup was deadly to any form of life that might venture outside the 100 meters without special equipment. If my real aim was to raise chickens, would this be an intelligent design? Would I be considered an intelligent designer.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that life on Earth is an expression of that infinitesimally small fraction of all the matter and energy that exists by chance. Sorry.
@@russellmillar7132 I would recommend you listen to Dr. Barnes evidence in physics that he presents so that you will understand what the argument is.
The logic of religion: Can't understand this, therefore god. The god of the gaps.
How have we advanced and found answers to similar mysteries over the last 2000 years?
Through science, and never religion.
Because we have found answers to Christianity. Can't see where you refuse to look.
@@LetsTalkChristMinistries
Are you saying you have proper and sufficient evidence that proves Christianity true?
I'm all ears. I'm always open to be shown legitimate evidence that would meet legal or scientific evidential standards for the truth of Christianity's core claims... and no Christian has ever done this.
@@canwelook You do know there are theist scientist in all fields of science? Have you not bothered looking? Curious.
I've gone down this road with many an atheist. They'll caricature Christianity, regurgitate Dillanhunty, Hitches, Dawkins, and Dark Matter, and then the evidence given they'll use confirmation bias to dismiss it.
Are you aware of the archeological, theist scientist positions, and positions outside your echo chamber? Have you bothered to look?
@@LetsTalkChristMinistries
Yes I am aware that some people from every sphere of life are theists. Do you seriously believe this gives theism any credibility at all?
Are you aware that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to be theists?
@@canwelook I said nothing about credibility. You're already jumping to conclusions. Smh.
1 hour mark Luke gives good explanation of fine tuning. Naturalist always create strawman like the mud puddle illustration which is what Arvin was using basically. No fine tuning, no chemistry for life anywhere.
Gosh y'all sound like haterz😂
🤦♂️Please tell your guests not to refer to refer us to their books for the answers..it defeats the purpose of why they are here
Is luke an atheist?
No, he is a Christian, but his major book on fine-tuning was co-written with an agnostic.
He is a Christian proponent of the fine-tuning argument for a Designer God.
Couldn't watch this past the beginning of the discussion of Newton. This chubby guy is so smug and cringy 😬
Who cares what his personality is, look at his arguments based on his studying of astrophysics.
The last argument he presented was one of the stupidest arguments I've heard so far 1:00:36, he really is using a strawman God only knows where he is getting his utter nonsense from, the worrying thing and most depressing is that a guy like him would thousands of followers, it's down right scary.
This video is petty and pointless.....why did you leave out the basketball player analogy? Why not invite the man on and debate the points.
Did you not hear Cameron in the beginning? He said he would be happy to have him on. This video is not petty...he had a PROFESSIONAL analyse this man's claims. Dispelling misinformation is never pointless.
@@brandonbayangos6261 This guy is a tool, he didn't dispel anything. In my opinion he strawmanned Arvin the entire video. It was petty and pointless!
@@jacoblee5796 I don't know why you cannot see that he did dispel the information Arvin was giving. Dr.Barnes actually deals with this kind of science for a living and went to school for it. I am investing more trust in a physicist over a TH-camr. With all due respect that is just common sense. Dr. Luke was also on Closer to Truth, which I have watched many a time. They only ask some of the smartest and more respected scientists on that show. God bless
@@brandonbayangos6261 I'm sorry but fine tuning isn't science. Its a presuppositionalist approach to physics and its an absolute joke!
Because the point of the basketball analogy is made by the comment about the units. I don't need to respond to the illustration of the point if I respond directly to the point.
I've tried to contact Ash several times, to no avail. Happy to debate whenever. If you can contact him, be my guest.
Christianity is such nonsense
You seem to still be obsessed with it.
@@sillysyriac8925 xdxdxdxdxdxd
We missed your argument against finte tuning. Oh and the genetic code is still analogous to computer code.