There is no actual evidence of a multiverse or any other universe

@@heartfeltteaching It's not like saying that at all. You are mincing properties to build up a strawman argument. The person who designed a building indeed would have to be more fine-tuned than the building itself.

​@@heartfeltteaching ​ @Omar Sarwar *In the end, what this comes down to is whether there is a strong defeater for belief in an actual infinite, which would include an infinite regress of finite causes for a finite universe.* I thought we were talking about fine-tuning, but now you want to talk about actual infinite causes. The two are not necessarily related. Also, I don't understand your logic. You wonder if there is a strong defeater of an actual infinite, then you follow it up with a strong defeater of an actual infinite. So what's the problem? *Dr. William Lane Craig sets forth a good argument for the non-existence of an actual infinite. If he’s correct-and I suspect he is-then there need be no further enquiry past the existence of God.* Okay, so what's the problem? *We can only ask what is fine-tuned of things in the finite, contingent world that appear to be finely tuned for a particular purpose.* That's not true. Only if you are talking about a concrete object. The constants that were fine-tuned are not concrete objects. They are just values or scalars. *God-as the greatest possible being; the ultimate cause of all space, time, matter, and energy; the supremely perfect being-simply isn’t the sort of object that would require fine-tuning.* God is infinitely fine tuned. God is infinitely fined tuned due to his own nature. Nothing created God, but that does not mean that God is not fine tuned. *If that were so, then whoever or whatever did that fine-tuning would, by definition, be God or that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought.* Not necessarily. If B fined-tuned C, it does not logically follow that nothing fined tuned B. A could be the thing that fine tuned B, and A is the first uncaused cause that is infinitely fined tuned (aka God). *The objection, therefore, falls flat.* You're the one who left the objection.

​@@heartfeltteaching ​ @Omar Sarwar *Fine-tuning, by definition, can only ever apply to finite, contingent things. God, being finite and transcendent of space, time, matter, and energy, simply does not meet that description.* Only if you use "fine-tuned" as a verb rather than as a noun that describes a property. Concrete objects are fine-tuned when they are created. God possess the property of fine-tuning. *A proposed infinite regress of causes within the domain of finite objects is hardly a self-evident defeater of the infinite and eternal.* Not a valid argument. First, you didn't say "self-evident". You said "strong". Asserting that something is "hardly a self-evident defeater" is not an argument backed up by logic and reason or premises. It's just an assertion. An infinite regress in the domain of concrete objects sets up, as you say, an actual infinite of causes/events. Actual infinities cannot exist in the domain of concrete objects. This is easily proved false by logic like Hilbert's Hotel, and not only that but by your own admission that Dr. Craig is right. Thus it's a strong defeater. *Nobody is saying or implying that the fundamental numbers are concrete objects in and of themselves.* The fundamental constants are what are referred to when Dr. Craig says that the Universe was fine-tuned. They are the initial conditions that govern how the Universe functions and forms. So if that is not what you are referring to, then you are referring to something else that no one is arguing has been fine-tuned. *You assert this but it is scarcely self-evident.* It doesn't have to be self-evident. It's true by definition. However, I should modify my response to be more precise. God is the "maximally great being" or "the first uncaused cause" or "that which exists that there is nothing greater". So by definition God is the maximally fine-tuned being. God possesses the quality of finely tuning to the point that it is logically possible to be maximally fine tuned. *Not so. To be finely tuned is to be an object that is amenable to such treatment. God is not such an object by definition.* Nope! You are playing with English definitions. Fine tuned can be a verb, or a noun. God is finely tuned as one of his properties that exists as a result of his own nature. Objects are finely tuned by an actor that is doing the fine tuning. *That's exactly right. And in the scenario you've just delineated, A just is God. One can always interpose an any number of finite agents or causes between the cosmos and God, but that does not require the theist to concede that God is finely tuned.* Yes it does. If you accept that fine tuning is both a noun and a verb. If A is the first uncaused cause, and A causes B, then by logical deduction B is required to be lesser than A. Otherwise A is just A. The first uncaused cause cannot create something greater than A as it would setup a logical contradiction. *No.* Yes. The OP said correctly that if the multiverse exists, it would have to be more finely-tuned than the Universes it is creating. You cannot get more order from something with less order. So even if a multiverse existed, then something greater than the multiverse that is more finely-tuned would have to exist to create the multiverse engine. This is what you objected to.

@@heartfeltteaching *No, 'finely-tuned' or 'fine-tuned' is as an adjective. It is neither a noun nor a verb.* I didn't say it was a noun. I said it was a noun that describes a property that God has, otherwise known as an adjective. Holy is an adjective that describes a property of God. Finely tuned is also. *This just assumes that all concrete objects are created, but there's no good reason to make such an assumption.* Except there are several good reasons that we know all concrete objects are created at least in this Universe. 1. Big Bang Cosmology. 2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 3. Impossibility of infinite regress of actual infinities of causes and events. 4. Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin Theorem. 5. Contradiction with the definition of God. *This is just an assertion.* Nope! It is a logical argument that comes from a deductive argument based upon the definition of God. *The onus is still on you to show that there exists a strong defeater for belief in an actual infinite beyond contingent reality.* What??? Who ever said that? Dr. Craig nor I have ever said there is a defeater for an actual infinite outside of concrete objects. In fact we know that there is an actual infinite outside the concrete Universe. Infinite Set theory is one of them. You must be confused as to what you are arguing about. *I said 'what this comes down to is whether there is a strong defeater for belief in an actual infinite, which would include an infinite regress of finite causes for a finite universe.' I'm suggesting that there is no strong defeater yet for the impossibility of the infinite beyond contingent space-time reality.* LOL now you are adding new information to what you said before. Yes, there is no strong defeater for an actual infinite beyond the concrete Universe. Absolutely no one ever claimed that. Not me, nor Dr. Craig. If you had added that qualifier in your original post, I would have agreed with you. Also you seem to be under the impression that the abstract domains seem to include the concrete domains, and that somehow an argument for the abstract must encapsulate the concrete. They don't. *There are, however, as you point out, defeaters for the claim that actual infinites exist within contingent reality. So it's not clear what is supposed to be a strong defeater of the idea that something infinite exists beyond the universe.* It's pretty clear. All you have to do is show a logical contradiction. If you can. *No, this is a non sequitur. God is not "maximally great," but rather limitlessly good.* Nope! That is your made up definition. That is not the definition that is used in philosophy. And I don't think you know what a "non sequitur" is. *God's being the uncaused first cause or that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought by no means renders God "maximally fine-tuned."* It sure does. Due to the rules of logic and everything in the known Universe, you cannot get more order from less order. You can only get a lesser amount of order from a higher amount of order. Since God is the first uncaused cause, nothing can have more order or fine-tuning than he can. All other things must be lesser. Otherwise you have something else, rather than God. If you can find two "things" and one of them has more order than the other, then that "thing" is God. You are using your made up defintion of God. Not the classical philosophical one. *Fine-tuning, again, applies to contingent physical realities, including the cosmos.* Nope! You said it yourself. "Fine-tuning" is an adjective. It can describe a property of God because God is a noun. *It does not apply to the greatest possible being.* It sure does. *Were the greatest possible being fine-tuned, that would imply that there was some other reality that fine-tuned God.* You are flip-flopping between the verb and the adjective form of "fine-tuning" to suit your argument. Which is a Red Herring. One of God's properties is fine-tuning (adjective). The Universe was fine-tuned (verb). *However, in that case, that other reality would just be that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought. Interpolating any number of fine-tuned entities between the universe and God changes nothing.* Now this is actually just a flat out lie so you can create a Strawman. I never said "that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought". I said "that which exists that there is nothing greater". The lie you just told allows you to invent a Strawman argument to mercilessly attack. What I said has nothing to do with human thought. It's an objective truth. *English isn't my first language, but I know it well enough to know that 'fine-tuned' is neither a verb nor a noun. It is an adjective.* You clearly know enough to lie about what I said and hope I wouldn't catch you. I did not say it was a noun. I said it was a noun that described God's properties (aka adjective). And you clearly know enough to flip-flop between the verb form and the adjective. Which is a Red Herring argument.

Why can't you spell God?

​@@oldscorp thats the point

That's absolutely the case though.

@@LawlessNate i promise you it's based on the math

@@all_time_Jelly_Fish It's based on math which itself is based on pure assumptions which themselves are based upon philosophical desperation.

@@LawlessNate no, math is objectively based on logic, we can agree on that right?

@@all_time_Jelly_Fish For whatever reason you've misunderstood me. Looking back I didn't word what I meant as carefully as I could have. When I said "It's based on math which itself is based on pure assumptions..." I wasn't trying to suggest that math was based on pure assumptions, but rather that the original "It's..." of the sentence was. In context, that "It's... was the same "...it's..." you were referring to in your previous comment, that being the hypotheses being proposed by theoretical physicists. I'll rephrase what I meant. The hypotheses being proposed by theoretical physicists are based on math, the math was performed based upon pure conjecture, that conjecture itself being based upon further conjecture, etc, all of this conjecture of which is being made based on philosophical desperation. The math sits atop conjecture which itself sits atop philosophical desperation in light of the real evidence that actually exists.

Occam's razor: which makes the least assumptions? I'd definitely say an infinite number of universes and that we are the exception among all of them. That's like the BIGGEST assumption. God is real in the end.

Get him a good argument while you're at it.

The fact that they are constants and not variables and allow, with the multiple of constant that coexist together, life is what they mean by ''it's fine tuned''. If somehow these variable had a different number, than it wouldn't work with other constants.

@@toonyandfriends1915 "if somehow these variabled had a different number" is what I object to. How do we know they CAN have a different value? Also, you called the constant at first, and variables now. Which is it?

@@katamas832 ''How do we know they CAN have a different value?'' I'm saying that the hypothesis postulate that they can't, or else there wouldn't be life

@@toonyandfriends1915 No, the hypothesis postulates that the constants of the universe could have any other value, hence it had to be fine tuned by God for life to exist, because it being by chance is too improbable, and it being necessity is not so because they said so (their reasoning for it is not valid). That's the TL;DR of the Fine Tuning argument.

​@@katamas832is this a joke? You add 1 or subtract 1. The constants were mathematically derived....just like you change the acceleration due to gravity on different body masses, you would be able to see the difference. In fact if they couldn't be changed than the multiverse theory would be a thing (not that it's credible). It's fully plausible to see the adjustment to the constants. This objection fails because it presupposes that mathematical values cannot be manipulated

A strong faith

It's great that you're having conversations like that with your dad! It should just be noted that the constants and quantities involved in fine-tuning are present *at* creation and are therefore initial conditions, not the result of later natural causes. This is one of the reasons why the fine-tuning argument points so strongly to a transcendent Designer. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos uhm the universe is much more fine tuned for black holes, they can exist anywhere, consume anything , and have an almost infinite lifespan.

You have to demonstrate a god even exists in the first place before getting ahead of yourself and asserting this god created anything at all.

@@2l84me8 based

Two of the biggest grifters on the professional apologetics circuit.

True. Consider how much pointless nonsense WLC spews and now imagine that other apologists are even worse.

@@WhiteScorpio2 it's truly depressing isn't it?

Unfortunately you're probably right. The bar is pretty low.

That you’d quote Paul Davies already speaks volumes about the lack of quality your book will possess. This of course is independent on whether or not one accepts the multiverse theory.

I believe he says essentially that in his book, Cosmic Jackpot. I think he mentions Max Tegmark as the originator, and that he put forth the idea because the fine tuning argument was gaining speed, and he wanted to counter supernatural arguments for the creation of the universe.

​@@Bomtombadi1just curious; what's your beef with Paul Davies? He's written nearly 30 books, and has several hundred published papers, primarily on math. I've read several of his books, and a few of his articles.

@@jaredsotherbrother3597 no issue with his math credentials. I have an issue with his lying about evolution and using his math credentials to make arguments against evolution.

@@Bomtombadi1 another question😉 how did he lie? When I was working on my doctorate in chemistry, way back in the 90s, it was a dirty little secret that a number of mathematicians with an understanding of biochemistry believed that the odds are too steep for the random formation of amino acids, and proteins. Some of my biochemist friends felt the same way. I'm not trying to argue against evolutionary theory, but rather to say, if he pointed out that the mathematics relative to biochemistry needed for the formation of enzymes, and cells, are prohibitive, he wasn't saying anything that wasn't being considered by those in the know. Just saying.

I'll recommend you to check the Fine Tuning argument video from this Channel, it explains why they can't be necessary.

FWIW even Hawking and Mlodinow reject the physical necessity hypothesis.

​@@heartfeltteaching ​ @Omar Sarwar You deleted all your comments in the other thread, so I will address your final reply here. *Hi Bryan, after reading your latest reply, I see that I misunderstood the OP’s comment. This is partly a function of learning English as a third language, but I’ll admit it’s also an outcome of not reading and interpreting carefully.* Fair enough. *It’s still not clear to me why there can only be a parallel arrow between causality and complexity, such that God as the uncaused first cause must be the most finely tuned being.* This is due to logic. If God can create a "thing" that is more finely-tuned (adjective) than himself, then he would cease to be God and the new "thing" would become God. This would setup a logical contradiction. The thing that was God, is no longer God. That would mean that God never was God in the first place. This is by definition and logical deductive reasoning. *I thought WLC agreed with Swinburne that God is simple, not complex, and that he made this point partly in response to Dawkins’s insistence that the designer of the universe must be more intricately designed than the universe, thus requiring yet another designer.* Yes indeed. God is a very simple being. God is not composed of parts. God is not a physical thing. God is an unembodied mind and has no form. God's mind has complex ideas and very complex knowledge. Just like Software. The concept of software is very simple. Software is nothing more than a series of binary things. On/Off, Yes/No, True/False, 0/1. The embodiment of software is very simple. It is only comprised of two states of being. Even if you have 1 trillion of these states, you only have just two states. On/Off. However, if you view these states in a special fashion, you can encode abstract ideas with the simple On/Off states and get a very complex idea. God is even more simple than software is, but the abstract ideas of his mind has far more complexity. *Do you disagree with WLC on any issue relating to the KCA or matters pertaining to the origin of the universe? If so, why?* No. I agree with him on just about everything that I can think of. The only thing I disagree with Dr. Craig on is that he said that Christians are supposed to obey the law. I disagree with him on that blanket statement. Unless he cares to elaborate on it more.

@@heartfeltteaching congratulations you just turned something that was an argument from ignorance to an argument from authority. Nobody cares what Hawkins says, the science only matters, and there is exactly 0 serious scientific reasons to pick one hypothesis about the nature of physical constants over another.

@@marcossidoruk8033 No, there is no argument from ignorance. The claim is not that because it hasn’t been demonstrated that the universe exists by necessity, it is certainly false that the universe exists by necessity. On the contrary, the onus is on those who support physical necessity to make a compelling argument for it. Simply declaring that the fundamental numbers might be necessary, as the OP has done here, does not an argument make. Hawking (there’s no Hawkins) recognises and discusses this problem. He is not guaranteed to be correct because of his expertise and stature, but he correctly notes that it’s neither a demand of logic nor of empirical investigation that the universe exist necessarily.

Isaiah 45:18 does include this interesting passage: "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!)..." - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos The best things he designed, of course, were Adam and Eve, his finest products. And like every careful designer, he tested his products to see if they were fit for purpose. Unfortunately, they failed the test miserably, as we all know from Sunday School. What would be the next step of a good designer, do you think ?

@@HarryNicNicholas Which is a very good argument for setting up a Religion Switching website.

@@drcraigvideos If I built a complicated product, say, a car, I would, of course, take it for a test run. If the steering system didn't work properly, I wouldn't get out and hit the car with a stick. I would go back to the drawing board, revise my design and get it working properly.

@@drcraigvideos But apparently, a faulty steering system was specifically given to us as a gift ! He didn't want us to obey the driver, but goeth withersoever we like. But If we don't go straight, we will be scrapped.

There are no arguments for fine tuning either. It just the arrogant assumption that we are just so gosh darned wonderful, that it must all be for us!

its very simple. Could our universe have been any different?

fine tuned is ridiculous , humans can only live more than a minute on earths surface , an extremely small fraction of the universe . there is so much unuseable space its ridiculous to say its fine tuned for humans. maybe for black holes - they exist anywhere

"Where does this "fine-tuning" thing come from, exactly?" From the study of nature. The blatantly theistic implications that can be rationally drawn from scientific evidence are amazing. They're so amazing that atheists are forced to posit completely unsubstantiated hypotheses to rationally maintain their non-theistic worldview in light of this evidence.

@@LawlessNate "The blatantly theistic implications that can be rationally drawn from scientific evidence are amazing." Like what?

​@@WhiteScorpio2 like there being an infinite series of universes and us being the lucky exception out of em all... Like ya'll fr?

@@axxel9626 That would make more sense than an invisible wizard creating everything out of nothing by magic. We know that at least one universe is possible, so why couldn't multiple universes be possible? I'm not saying that any universe besides our own exists, because we just don't know, but it's not exactly an impossibility either. But the overall problem with the idea of "fine-tuning" is that you are looking at a situation backwards. Life hasn't been dumped in a random universe that just happened to be able to support it, so there is no point to call it "lucky". There is no reason to assume that life in the form we observe was the intention or the goal of anybody, and if there is no goal, what point is it to talk about luck? Whose luck? If the universe were to exist, it had to exist in one way or another. Why not this particular way? And while you, being an organic living being, may find the existence of organic life special, there is nothing particularly special about it, objectively speaking.

Well, we don't want to confuse multiverse theory with modal realism. The latter is what you're describing, which is the idea that all possible worlds are concrete objects. The former is about the actual world, describing a multiplicity of causally isolated regions of spacetime. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos *"Well, we don't want to confuse multiverse theory with modal realism"* Are you sure? Yes or no will suffice and I'll take your word for it. A lot of this is well beyond my ability. I don't however see how my comment is unfounded. As I understand it there is no evidence of a multiverse. If what the theist posited in terms of fine-tuning was a 1 in 10 chance, the atheist would posit a multiverse consisting of at least 10 universes. If what the theist posited in terms of fine-tuning was a 1 in a billion chance, the atheist would posit a multiverse consisting of at least a billion universes. If what the theist posited in terms of fine-tuning was a 1 in a 10^10^123 chance, the atheist would posit a multiverse consisting of at least 10^10^123 universes. Are these atheists not positing that these number of universes actually exist? And if they actually need an infinite number then isn't what I suggested in the original comment is true? What started me thinking about this was when Michael Shermer gave short shrift to eternal (infinite) universes because he sees the ridiculousness of the claim when the logical consequences of an eternal (infinite) universes are pushed as far as these actual words, (eternal or infinite) entail. *kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mbiVY9ylmK6smnk.html*

@@samdgh9473 Right. The point though was that in multiverse theory the other universes would not contain other versions of us, since we exist in this universe. The idea that we exist in other possible worlds is a feature of modal realism, not multiverse theory. The two are often confused in entertainment, which is why a lot of people have trouble differentiating these concepts. - RF Admin

Almost like some supernatural creature that is allegedly almighty, right? How do some people call it? God?

@@maksimbolonkin Is that you saying that you believe in an infinite number of universes?

Or it was just designed that way, but if Christianity is true then it means it won't stay that wau

@@Hellohellohello803 Yes me watch whole video cus me big brain. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. if the multiverse exists than the probability of us being in a universe is exactly 100% because we are in a universe right now. If a roll a Dice 100 times the probability of rolling all 6s is the exact same as rolling any other combination with the dice. The probability getting 100 results from 100 dice rolls will always remain 100%.

@@Hellohellohello803 No, my analogy works just fine, you were just too stupid to understand it. We are in a universe right now so the odds of us being in a universe if the multiverse exists will always be 100% and how many universes there are can not change that 100%. If we call the universe we are in universe 1, then the odds of us being in universe 1 is exactly the same as the odds for us being in universe 474279962731476465847638034945. You very simply do not know what you are talking about here. The odds of rolling all 1s is the exact same as rolling any other set of numbers.

There are plenty of good evidences for God. There are no good evidences for the multiverse hypothesis. The many independent evidences for God (the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, etc, etc) make the suggestion fairly well supported, whereas the multiverse hypothesis is an ad hoc suggestion made out of philosophical desperation.

@@LawlessNate "There are plenty of good evidences for God." Than why is that every time I ask for evidence I never get any? "There are no good evidences for the multiverse hypothesis." But there is some evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, but you don't have any for a god. "The many independent evidences for God (the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, etc, etc)" Those are ARGUMENTS and not evidence. Those ARGUMENTS are supported by any evidence. "whereas the multiverse hypothesis is an ad hoc suggestion made out of philosophical desperation." Nope, its a plausible scientific explanation that yet to be confirmed or denied. And its only one of many plausible scientific explanations for the beginning of the current universe. BTW the plural of evidence is evidence, you look like a fool when you say it wrong.

@@darrylelam256 You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Just because you're an emotional person who because of your emotions wants to reject God you therefore suggest that all evidence for His existence is somehow invalid. A more objective person wouldn't dismiss the existence and validity of evidence based on their emotions as atheists tend to do. If you don't consider logical argumentation to be evidence then to be consistent with this claim you'd have to reject any and all evidence for all claims. There is no such thing as evidence without logic. Logic is the foundation of science, so without logic science is as nonsensical as anything else would be in the absence of logic. The fact that you reject logical argumentation as evidence just goes to show how incredibly ignorant you are on this topic. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the multiverse hypothesis. It's essentially bad fan fiction about physical reality. As far as we know there is nothing that could possibly be observed about the universe that would do anything to suggest the existence of these other hypothetical universes. We can't even conceive of what would constitute as evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, and yet because you're an emotional person who feels strongly enough that you really want God to not exist you therefore want to suggest into existence this non-existent evidence for the multiverse hypothesis.

If I throw a bucket of dice, the exact result I would get would be highly unlikely. Does it mean that that result was intelligently arranged? No. The unlikeliness of a result doesn't indicate any intent behind it.

@@WhiteScorpio2 that's not true, there is something like a normal distribution. In other words, expected values. In the example with the dice: depending on how many dice are thrown, all numbers will appear. Now fine-tuning to allow for lives is far less likely than dumping a whole truckload of dice and only sixes appearing. To make matters worse, it takes someone to roll the dice (cause, impetus of it all).

@@imperatorundso4193 "expected values" And you have no idea what values would be expected in the case of the universe. "Now fine-tuning to allow for lives is far less likely than dumping a whole truckload of dice and only sixes appearing." And any other particular combination of numbers would be just as unlikely. Our particular universe supports life, some other universe would support something else or nothing at all. So what? I just don't see where do you get this "fine-tuning" other that you feel very special just for existing. "it takes someone to roll the dice" No, it absolutely doesn't. No intelligence is necessary in the process. There doesn't even need to be any rolling at all. Dice show numbers without anyone or anything ever rolling them.

@@imperatorundso4193 The only reason you treat "all sixes" as more particular as any other combination is because, as a human, you are a pattern seeking animal. Objectively, though, there is nothing more particular about a number 66666666666666666666 than about a number 29843841650627076523. Both these numbers are equally likely (or unlikely) to be randomly generated. Apologists feast on our intuitions in service of their lies. Don't fall prey to them.

@@WhiteScorpio2 if the die is not rolled, no result can occur. Our universe needs a trigger. Yes I feel special. I am a conscious human with ingeniously functioning organs on the only known planet with perfect conditions for life, in a universe with the perfect laws of stable carbon formation. 😉 Probability counts since our universe is the only one in existence. So probability comes into play. At formation, a universe with no life or just a simple life form would be much more likely. Everything here is extremely unlikely (and that's a gross understatement). Btw if you roll the dice, the combination 1426332 is more likely than 6666666 (see probability calculation).

Have you deleted your other reply? I cannot find the thread. If you deleted it, I can't say that I blame you. You say, "The universe is not fine tuned, life is not fine tuned, the planets are not fine tuned and neither is planet earth. If you think that it is; then, prove it." *"If you think that it is; then, prove it."* Strawman. The burden of proof rests upon the person who claims to be able to prove something. As in the prosecution in a court trial. In a court case the prosecution in taking a case to trial, agrees to meet that burden. No one is claiming to be able to prove God, as inconvenient as that is for you. Unfortunately for you, your demand for proof is warrantless. Rather the case made by the theist, using Craig's words, is "I'm saying this is the best explanation of the data when you compare it with other competing hypotheses. I think it's more probable than not." So I'm unable to make any sense of comments like this, *"Form implies limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order to create, a being must think and plan. How can the absolute be supposed to think, to have any relation whatever to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned.? This is a philosophical and logical absurdity. Even the ancient Hebrews rejected such an idea, and therefore, makes of the one and the Absolute Deific Principal an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph."* I guess it is possible that it makes. I don't know. What I can make sense of is comments such as, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics … and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” - Fred Hoyle “Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning.” - Sir Martin Rees “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” - Stephen Hawking “If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.” - David Deutsch It appears that you must be willing to enlarge your comment from, *"Your FINE-TUNER, Craig, and you, are a joke."* to, "Your FINE-TUNER, Craig, and Hoyle, and Rees, and Hawking and Deutsch, and you, are a joke. Don't be such a coward. Let's see you include famous atheists who conclude fine-tuning with those you so willing disparage because of their willingness to posit a tuner for the tuning. So rather than your demand for proof of something no one claims to be able to prove, how about you give whatever possibilities you think even plausible. Craig as stated that the fine-tuning is due to either, necessity, chance, or design. You choose among these or add to the list. Have at it. I don't know what you are talking about here, *"as far as Craig goes when he uses the computer analogy"* . If you are referring to my comment above, "Lewis Wolpert (aka Einstien) did a computer. *kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ndVmoJB8s7vRd2g.html* " , the claim that the designer was a computer came from Lewis Wolpert (aka Einstien). Note how well that worked out for Wolpert. I looks as good on you. Even Wolpert seems to concede that the cause of the universe is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful. He only balks at the mention of it being personal. And nevertheless looks like a joke at the end. Wolpert looks like a joke to me, you, on the other hand, claim it is Craig that is the joke. Good luck with that deep logic. The last word is yours. It appears I'm wasting my time on you.

@@samdgh9473 And you've said absolutely nothing. You have yet to give me an argument. I have stated what my argument is. Hell...you even pasted a series of quotes, from me, regarding my argument. If your creator is outside the realm of space, time, and matter; then, he is not the creator of anything and he surely isn't infinite. The only creator is, creation itself, that which continues to create or continues to become.

Did you delete the long 70+ comment thread in which you were booted all over the place? 1) Yes or 2) No That is not a question requiring a degree in rocket surgery.

@@samdgh9473 I deleted my previous thread because I received numerous comments that I was not notified about and I cannot reply to everyone three weeks after the fact: as if, that's any of your business or that pertains to this particular argument that we are having right now. And why do you feel I need to explain what I do with my thread.?

@@samdgh9473 Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. ... Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes, matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change-none is created or destroyed. This is called the Law of Conservation of Mass. Matter cannot be created or destroyed; but, the constitution of matter can change its properties from a gas, to a liquid, to a solid. How do visible lightning strikes occur.? When conditions are right, a positive unseen force slams into a negative unseen force {such as the opposites ends of a magnet} and a visible lightning strike occurs that can be heard, felt, and seen.

It shows more his love for humans rather then to toss us into the trash can.

@@bikesrcool_1958 I'm always convinced when someone demonstrates love by killing all life on earth save for a handful of "the chosen"

@@shinywarm6906 nice switch from one point to another, so if God could create all of this, and we are nothing to him, yet he cares about earth and *JUDGES* earth, why can’t he judge if he is God? i would hate a God that let evil run rampant without some check points where he destroyed it, giving more examples on why to stop, but guess what? Humans keep going at it. If you actually think God is God, he has all the right to end us after the suffering each of us has made. And since you chose Christianity, how about we open our eyes a bit more to the timeline. A life on earth is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of eternity. In Christian theology it’s definitely up to each individual on how they want to spend it. Also I wonder why the chosen were chosen? Maybe because they were different from the others, most of Gods judgement occurs when they are sacrificing babies, killing women and children that lag behind, after hundreds of years where no one thinks what they are doing is wrong, or when a city becomes a pool of sexual immorality and murder, or when they will slaughter the Israelites in the Old Testament in the future, and have definitely committed some of the above.

@@bikesrcool_1958 well, you were the only who introduced the odd idea that the alternative to creating the universe was to "toss us into the trash can". You can hardly complain when I point out that the OT God *did* "toss virtually every living thing into the trash can" when he got frustrated that he'd not ironed out all the bugs in his supposedly perfect creation. This absolutist and Manichean mindset is one of the most wretched legacies of the Old Testament. It encourages us to worship a god that kills babies, rather than figure out a way of encouraging them to behave - which is what any normally decent parent would do. Your "maybe" story about "a pool of sexual immorality and murder," sacrificing babies and the rest of it is transparently the product of an Iron Age society ruled by warlords and despots. These days, most of us have a more realistic view of humanity as a bunch of people who are mixed up and diverse. We prefer leaders who dont use mass murder as a tool of governance

@@shinywarm6906 his perfect creation stopped being perfect 🤒 after people ruined it, had to point that out. Also I could name a form of mass murder people continuously want in first world countries👽 and those babies are definitely in eternal bliss right now. Also, I’m not sure teaching humans how to “behave” worked out so well. I think the Old Testament shows this pretty clearly, with every single mess up after being told not to do it 🤷‍♂️

The argument doesn't prove which god is the right one. It proves that the existence of an intelligent being is probable and is reasonable to believe in.

Thats just one of the many ways in which the fine tuning fallacy is mindnumbingly stupid, the other one(and the most obvious to me) is that fundamental physical constants are by definition numbers that are essential for a physical Model yet there is no KNOWN model to derive them, they are by definition an unknown. Thus, any argument that relies on the nature of physical constants, independently on its type or structure, is irremediably an argument from ignorance.

I don't think you understood what they were talking about

@@danielanthony8373 oh I think James understands very well indeed.

@@danielanthony8373 he does.

The obvious difference between the number of sides in a hexagon and fine-tuning is that a hexagon necessarily has six sides by definition. The constants and quantities involved in fine-tuning are contingent. This fine-tuning therefore needs some explanation outside of the constants and quantities themselves, like a transcendent Designer. - RF admin

@@drcraigvideos well done for totally missing the point.

@@midlander4 He's an actual expert at doing that, and don't you forget it!

@@Hellohellohello803 you're wrong on several counts, including the last one. But you wouldn't know that, would you?

@@Hellohellohello803 another xtian runs out of road and immediately reaches for 'ad hom'. Who knew?

@Anon Ymous Tell me you don't get the point without saying you don't get the point. However inadvisable it is to "assume" a creator, it is infinitely more inadvisable to assume an infinite number of universes. Furthermore a creator is the conclusion, not a premise, of the Fine-Tuning argument. The argument begins with observable facts which are uncontroversial and concludes with the proposition that a creator must exist. The multiverse idea is merely a reactionary theoretical contortion. based on no observable evidence of any kind, to avoid the force of the Fine Tuning argument; the "multiverse" is more appropriately described as an assumption.

@Anon Ymous You ask how to detect fine tuning, and two sentences later you state the facts aren't controversial. Those are the facts which indicate fine tuning. Those uncontroversial facts are themselves the detection of fine tuning. Like the multiverse idea itself, you're just making up semi-random sentences to avoid the obvious implication (that's right "implication", as in "conclusion", not "premise" or "assumption") of the fundamental physical constants.

@Anon Ymous Advocates of the Fine Tuning argument do not present it as proof of a creator. They present it as more reasonable than the alternative. If you wish to rebut the argument you'll need to show that it is more reasonable to believe the values of the fundamental physical constants fall into narrow ranges necessary to support life as a random outcome than as an intentional outcome. You responded to my comparison of the basic logical reasonableness of the multiverse theory with that of the Fine Tuning argument. If you don't want to defend the multiverse theory then don't respond to arguments against it. I don't play whack-a-mole with misrepresentations of ideas, whether well-known arguments or simply my own statements; I suspect my part of this discussion is finished.

This one universe requires an omnipotent, eternally existing universe creator. Aka the FSM.

No they don't. (Wow, that was easy).

@@WhiteScorpio2 TOO easy. Don't go dividing by zero, now! 😂

@@Hellohellohello803 It’s never been demonstrated that anything or anyone can.

@@Hellohellohello803 as could your credulity. The only way to determine which one of us is most likely correct, is to evaluate and try to falsify the evidence as objectively as we can. Unless, of course, the evidence is any variation on the topic of “look at the trees”. In that case, this conversation is over.

Of course there is reason to believe the universe is finely tuned. If simply suggesting otherwise were rationally justifiable given the scientific evidence then that's exactly what the most revelantly-accredited atheists would assert. Instead they assert the patently ad hoc suggestion of a near infinite amount of other universes the existence of which we have absolutely no way to test. The fact that the best informed atheists are forced to suggest a near infinite amount of other universes rather than affirm the design of the universe we live in is damning pragmatic evidence against atheism and for theism.

> believing they are saved when they have merely a mental assent to a factual/logical proposition I agree with you that the reception of the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ, not knowing the arguments of some argument like fine-tuning, is what saves souls. However, such arguments stir many people up to a more serious and abiding interest in religion, leading ultimately to attending church and conversion there. I say it is a simplification to label all apologists as deceivers. Dr. Craig never claimed that accepting logical arguments equates to salvation.

Who are you to tell them how they should follow Christ? If He would that they should teach apologetics, then what is that to you? You'll do well to follow the path you are called to.

Demon has been judged, no salvation for them, they just wait for the day of the execution of punishment. Many Christians including myself testify the work of the Holy Spirit, absolutely undeniable for us who experience Him, essentially, daily. If you do not want God, no one can force you, free will given. He seek those who worship Him in spirit and truthfulness.

I don't know if you noticed - it's a 4 minute 34 second long video *clip* *"It's frustrating to see how two apologists talk to each other, how they carefully avoid any tricky questions and only focus on stuff that is convenient for them. You would never expect Turek to ask WLC"* How do you like it when an agnostic dismisses the multiverse? Or, how is it that atheist physicist Lawerence Krauss descends to deception in response to Craig? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d9Gmls6CrJ2Vn5c.html Every atheist that Craig has debated has had the opportunity to question him on these issues. *"- how do you calculate those "vastly low" probabilities and why don't you calculate a probability of your god existing by the same principles"* The odds in light of the evidence is more probable than not. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZtqJoJdizciYaKM.html *"- how is the Universe fine tuned for our existence if we can only exist in the minuscule part of that Universe"* Whattt??? Ask that nonsense about any other fine-tuned or designed thing? How is it that my computer is fine-tuned and only a small part of it does ... How is it that my car is fine-tuned and only a small part of it is devoted to braking. *"- so you are saying that your god couldn't change those constants and still let us exist? Isn't he supposed to be almighty?"* What part of the fine-tuning argument is that? Why don't you pause and review what Craig presents and quit asking him to defend things he doesn't assert? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e6tnadGoztPZhGQ.html

You’re right. Darwin is here for interview, if the video is too long you can jump to the second half where Darwin talk more about what you mentioned kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j9WDZqqe06iad6c.html

Chance is not a rationally acceptable answer for the values and constants allowing for the existence of intelligent life.

You say, *"The fine tuning is a god of the gaps argument. Nothing more than theists trying to slot their god into a gap in our knowledge."* You might be making a valid point there - apart from the evidence of course. “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics … and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” - Fred Hoyle “Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning.” - Sir Martin Rees “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” - Stephen Hawking “If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.” - David Deutsch “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all …it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.” - Paul Davies “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” - Arno Penzias

@@samdgh9473 At isn't evidence. That's a list of people making claims. Where is the evidence to support the claims that they constants have been tuned by an intelligent being?

@@somerandom3247 *"At isn't evidence. That's a list of people making claims."* Ok, so that doesn't make total sense to me. Can I assume that you meant, " *That* isn't evidence. That's a list of people making claims."? Let me assume that that is what you meant. Well, what did you expect it to be evidence for? Did you not read the quote from you that I was addressing? Or do you not recognize any of these names. Surely you are not just 'writing off' Stephen Hawking, are you? Anyway, I guess it might have gone over your head, but I was trying to show that some atheists or at least some agnostics were willing to admit that there was something 'suspicious' going on. Something that might make the atheist 'uneasy'. Can you not admit that an atheist is pretty unlikely to make a 'god of the gaps' argument. You don't have to agree with me on everything. But surely I'm pretty likely to have a valid point in the last sentence. That is what it is evidence for. And hence you'd be wrong to suggest that I presented evidence for nothing. It is evidence that your claim, *"The fine tuning is a god of the gaps argument"* is rather suspect.

Only Judeo-Christian world is able to answer the 4 questions in a coinherent and consistent way: origin of universe, meaning, moral obligation, destiny …

@@heloisaheng3189 Claiming that a god is responsible for things there is nothing evidence of a god being responsible for is not coherent. And the judeo-christan worldview is one of the most inconsistent ones out there. Do you have any evidence that a god is responsible for anything you listed there?

@@HarryNicNicholas "Akshually!!!!" You're conflating three separate categories. Stick to pretending to grasp science and leave the explaining to those of us who know how language works.

It can help soften ones heart

This is demonstrably false. We have hundreds of testimonials on our website which show that "rational and scientific arguments" do in fact bring people to Christ. - RF Admin

As an Engineer, it stopped me in my tracks. I went back and considered the improbabilities involved along with the functional information embedded in our DNA. These pragmatic “proofs” along with others allowed me to go back and read the Bible, consider the historical evidence, etc etc I’m now solidly in the theist camp and happy to be so.

Alejandro, Acts 17:22-34 directly contradicts your statement (or at least the "rational" part). People have been using apologetics to bring people to Christ since the days of the church fathers - 1 Peter 3:15 tells us that we should be prepared to give rational answers for our faith.

They might if theists had such a thing.

Atheist here. I don’t hold to it. How am I desperate?

Literally 90% of apologetics is Christians desperately trying to make sense of the mess that is the collection of ancient texts we call the Bible with itself and their modern beliefs 😆