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 KZfaq 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.

One of my favorite videos on your channel :) keep up the great work!!

Robin Collins knows this subject like Dr. Rasmussen knows the back of Robin Collins hand by the end of this interview.

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.

Josh you should do a podcast!

I think i'm going to have to watch this a few times.

This was an awesome conversation!

loved that point at the end

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.

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.

Awesome video, loved it Josh.

very informative ..thank you for the video

Title needs to exclude the word “on”. Title should be “Robin Collins talks about God, fine-tuning and the origin of reason.”

Is he really saying that the only reason fundamental particles have the properties they have is so the can be 'discovered' ?

Our universe is NOT 'unlikely' and nor is it 'improbable'.

Matt dilian look a like .

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

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?

Get it through your thick head - there is no 'reason' for the universe, or life , it just is.

Is Robin Collin a Christian?

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.

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.

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?

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.