1
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:04,120
Speaker 1: Life audio.

2
00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:09,160
Speaker 2: This week on the fine tuning argument for the existence

3
00:00:09,280 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 2: of God. What's interesting about this is last night I

4
00:00:12,280 --> 00:00:15,880
Speaker 2: was at cal Pauly San Luis Obispo having a conversation

5
00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:19,000
Speaker 2: with an atheist for Veritas Forum, and he said, the

6
00:00:19,040 --> 00:00:24,040
Speaker 2: one argument that gives him pause is fine tuning. He's

7
00:00:24,040 --> 00:00:27,160
Speaker 2: not persuaded by it, hence he's an atheist. But I've

8
00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:31,319
Speaker 2: heard this over and over again. So we're here with

9
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:35,120
Speaker 2: doctor Jay Richards, who's one of the leading defenders of

10
00:00:35,680 --> 00:00:39,080
Speaker 2: the fine tuning argument, author of The Privileged Planet. We

11
00:00:39,200 --> 00:00:41,479
Speaker 2: did an interview, of course, we're live streaming this on

12
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:45,000
Speaker 2: a Tuesday. We posted it Friday, and I asked people

13
00:00:45,040 --> 00:00:49,360
Speaker 2: to post their toughest objections and we wouldn't skip any

14
00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:53,279
Speaker 2: we'd take the toughest ones that people post. Now, I'm

15
00:00:53,320 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 2: an apologist, Jay, You've got a lot of scientific background,

16
00:00:56,960 --> 00:00:59,680
Speaker 2: you have some philosophical background. But I also invited my

17
00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:02,920
Speaker 2: colleaue Greg Gansel, who is a philosopher and kind of

18
00:01:02,960 --> 00:01:03,920
Speaker 2: my boss.

19
00:01:03,680 --> 00:01:05,000
Speaker 3: A little bit as well.

20
00:01:05,360 --> 00:01:07,880
Speaker 2: Hardly to Wayne here because you've done some writing on

21
00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:11,280
Speaker 2: fine tuning as well. So you guys ride rock and

22
00:01:11,360 --> 00:01:15,160
Speaker 2: roll yep. Really, all right, let's do it. So these

23
00:01:15,240 --> 00:01:17,880
Speaker 2: questions were written in on YouTube. Some of these were

24
00:01:17,920 --> 00:01:20,800
Speaker 2: written in on x We're going to take some live

25
00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 2: ones here. If you put the word question in caps

26
00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:30,559
Speaker 2: and your question is relevant and legible, we will take

27
00:01:30,680 --> 00:01:34,319
Speaker 2: your tough questions. Okay, here's the first one that came

28
00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:37,080
Speaker 2: from a skeptic. It's more of a statement, but we'll

29
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:39,520
Speaker 2: get your response. And Jay, you're streaming in, so we'll

30
00:01:39,520 --> 00:01:42,360
Speaker 2: start with you on this one. It says, quote the

31
00:01:42,520 --> 00:01:47,039
Speaker 2: constants as they are as they are are actually fine

32
00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:51,040
Speaker 2: tuned for death. Only one tiny example of life can be.

33
00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:53,760
Speaker 3: Found so far. Earth is tiny.

34
00:01:54,080 --> 00:01:59,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, Kristianity doesn't allow you to understand that. So I

35
00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:01,840
Speaker 2: think this is a class argument, Jay, that most of

36
00:02:01,880 --> 00:02:05,560
Speaker 2: the universe is not fine tuned for life, most of

37
00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:07,960
Speaker 2: it is fine tuned for death. If there were a

38
00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:11,399
Speaker 2: fine tuner, we wouldn't see things set up as they are.

39
00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:14,920
Speaker 4: Your response, Sean, it's a great question. It sort of

40
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:17,120
Speaker 4: it combines two things really. So first there is this

41
00:02:17,240 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 4: question of fine tuning. Is the universe fine tuned? And

42
00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:23,760
Speaker 4: is that evidence that it has been fine tuned? In

43
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:26,400
Speaker 4: other words, we don't can't explain it away. Then there's

44
00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:30,480
Speaker 4: this second question, Okay, what would God is? Christians understand

45
00:02:30,520 --> 00:02:33,040
Speaker 4: God to be, what would we expect him to do?

46
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:36,840
Speaker 4: And very often these these objections conflate those two things,

47
00:02:37,000 --> 00:02:40,440
Speaker 4: so let's just separate them. The fine tuning argument concerns

48
00:02:40,680 --> 00:02:44,919
Speaker 4: these fundamental constants in the universe, these things that are

49
00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:48,359
Speaker 4: true absolutely everywhere, as well as the initial condition, so

50
00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:53,000
Speaker 4: things that hold in the entire universe. So the claim

51
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:56,360
Speaker 4: is that not that the universe is fine tuned so

52
00:02:56,400 --> 00:02:58,880
Speaker 4: that life can be everywhere. It's rather, what are the

53
00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:04,400
Speaker 4: sort of necessary conditions that make any life permitting universe possible.

54
00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:06,400
Speaker 4: That's the key idea. So it's not that the universe,

55
00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:09,080
Speaker 4: the most of the universe, is fine tuned for death.

56
00:03:09,560 --> 00:03:12,080
Speaker 4: It's that if you look at the range of possible

57
00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:14,320
Speaker 4: universes and you look at the parameters that would need

58
00:03:14,360 --> 00:03:16,520
Speaker 4: to be fine tuned, what you discover is they have

59
00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:20,920
Speaker 4: to be very precisely set within these particular limits in

60
00:03:21,040 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 4: order for any kind of life permitting universe to exist. Now,

61
00:03:25,320 --> 00:03:29,200
Speaker 4: you could ask a secondary question, well, why would God

62
00:03:29,240 --> 00:03:29,760
Speaker 4: do that or.

63
00:03:29,880 --> 00:03:32,640
Speaker 5: Why would my understanding of God allow that?

64
00:03:32,680 --> 00:03:34,720
Speaker 4: And that's an interesting question, but of course I don't

65
00:03:34,720 --> 00:03:37,040
Speaker 4: think we can presume I wouldn't do this As a Christian,

66
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:40,200
Speaker 4: I wouldn't presume that God must create a university.

67
00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:41,720
Speaker 5: To create any universe, it has.

68
00:03:41,600 --> 00:03:45,120
Speaker 4: To exist like all of its volume, must be continually

69
00:03:45,160 --> 00:03:48,720
Speaker 4: and everywhere filled with sentient life like human beings. I mean,

70
00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:51,800
Speaker 4: God doesn't have limited resources. He can do what he

71
00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 4: wants to do. Let's look at the evidence, but there's

72
00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:58,800
Speaker 4: nothing I think that sort of contradicts the idea or

73
00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:02,120
Speaker 4: the argument of fine tuning or its inference based on

74
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:08,119
Speaker 4: these necessary conditions within a narrow life permitting range compared

75
00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:11,360
Speaker 4: to the many other ways that the universe could exist.

76
00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 4: The second question about what God would do, that's a

77
00:04:13,640 --> 00:04:15,920
Speaker 4: great question, but it really is a theological question.

78
00:04:16,240 --> 00:04:18,560
Speaker 2: That's really helpful distinction because there seems to be an

79
00:04:18,600 --> 00:04:22,320
Speaker 2: assumption in here that if there is a fine tuner,

80
00:04:22,880 --> 00:04:27,560
Speaker 2: we would find life abundant in the universe, almost like

81
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:32,560
Speaker 2: we find life abundant on our planet. But that confuses,

82
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:37,000
Speaker 2: like you said, necessary conditions in the universe for any

83
00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:41,960
Speaker 2: life to exist anywhere. And then it's a secondary question,

84
00:04:42,040 --> 00:04:46,200
Speaker 2: why don't we find life on more planets? Well, that

85
00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:49,800
Speaker 2: now shifts to the mind of the creator, which is

86
00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:52,640
Speaker 2: a theological question, and the only way we know the

87
00:04:52,680 --> 00:04:55,719
Speaker 2: answer to that is if in fact the Creator told

88
00:04:55,839 --> 00:04:59,640
Speaker 2: us that, And great, you want to weigh in on this.

89
00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:02,000
Speaker 6: Well, well, there's two things I'd like to say because

90
00:05:02,040 --> 00:05:06,640
Speaker 6: it is very interesting. The fine tuning argument and the

91
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:10,480
Speaker 6: value of the constants, the precise way they have to

92
00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:14,520
Speaker 6: be set, gives us lots of information about what a

93
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 6: universe tuned for death would be.

94
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:18,239
Speaker 1: And these are.

95
00:05:18,240 --> 00:05:22,120
Speaker 6: Universes where the constants have these different values and you

96
00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:27,000
Speaker 6: can't get heavy elements it expands too fast or crunches

97
00:05:27,040 --> 00:05:32,360
Speaker 6: on itself after the Big Bang. Those universes aren't fine

98
00:05:32,360 --> 00:05:35,479
Speaker 6: tuned for death. They're just tuned for death. The fine

99
00:05:35,520 --> 00:05:41,760
Speaker 6: tuning talks about the narrow specificity with which these constants

100
00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:44,880
Speaker 6: have to which the value of these constants must have

101
00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:48,360
Speaker 6: in order to allow the possibility of life, and then

102
00:05:48,440 --> 00:05:53,920
Speaker 6: to speculate on God's purposes. I think the vision that

103
00:05:53,960 --> 00:05:57,120
Speaker 6: we're given of God in the scriptures is one of

104
00:05:57,200 --> 00:06:01,320
Speaker 6: extravagant generosity, and I think he just delights in the

105
00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 6: beauty of the universe, the galaxies. I think that's why

106
00:06:05,560 --> 00:06:08,720
Speaker 6: there are so many species of frogs, because frogs are

107
00:06:08,760 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 6: really cool, and so there's not a stinginess about the

108
00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:19,720
Speaker 6: creator in terms of just spreading these beautiful things all

109
00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:20,720
Speaker 6: over the cosmos.

110
00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:24,080
Speaker 2: Love it all right, friends, we're here live with doctor

111
00:06:24,160 --> 00:06:28,640
Speaker 2: Greg gansel a philosopher, doctor j Richards, philosopher, and scientists

112
00:06:28,960 --> 00:06:32,840
Speaker 2: taking your tough objections to the fine tuning argument. We're

113
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:34,320
Speaker 2: going to take some live ones here. If you hit,

114
00:06:34,560 --> 00:06:38,600
Speaker 2: if you write in question in caps and it's legible

115
00:06:38,680 --> 00:06:41,479
Speaker 2: and relevant, we will take it. Let's move on to

116
00:06:41,520 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 2: the second one, which I thought was also a good objection,

117
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:47,640
Speaker 2: and this person wrote in on the YouTube the original

118
00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:50,880
Speaker 2: YouTube video we did says, doesn't the fact that matter

119
00:06:50,960 --> 00:06:56,120
Speaker 2: and organisms obey complex rules and physics obeys finely tuned

120
00:06:56,200 --> 00:07:00,960
Speaker 2: laws lend that intelligence designer didn't create the world.

121
00:07:01,400 --> 00:07:03,400
Speaker 3: If God is God, why would he have.

122
00:07:03,400 --> 00:07:06,919
Speaker 2: To choose to design earth so intricately obedient to so

123
00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:08,240
Speaker 2: many finite laws.

124
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:13,640
Speaker 3: Doesn't this under sell God's ability? Jay, go for it,

125
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:14,400
Speaker 3: my friends.

126
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:18,720
Speaker 4: Well, again, this is a very much a theological argument.

127
00:07:18,760 --> 00:07:21,000
Speaker 4: In other words, there's always this kind of the unstated

128
00:07:21,040 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 4: premise is that if there were a God, he would

129
00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:26,840
Speaker 4: do it this way. The first question, though, in fine

130
00:07:26,840 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 4: tuning is okay, does the universe look fine tuned?

131
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:30,760
Speaker 5: And if so, is it fine tuned?

132
00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:32,680
Speaker 4: And then we need to develop the sort okay, what

133
00:07:32,680 --> 00:07:34,640
Speaker 4: would that mean if God is the creed or what

134
00:07:34,800 --> 00:07:39,800
Speaker 4: evidence might bear on that? And so perfectly legitimate questions,

135
00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:43,200
Speaker 4: but distinct questions. But I you know, it doesn't really

136
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 4: make sense to me to say that, well, you know,

137
00:07:46,440 --> 00:07:49,280
Speaker 4: God being God, he could sort of do anything. Right,

138
00:07:50,000 --> 00:07:52,480
Speaker 4: of course, he has the power to do anything that

139
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:56,000
Speaker 4: is logically within his power to do. That's a definite

140
00:07:56,080 --> 00:07:57,800
Speaker 4: something like that is the definition of divine.

141
00:07:57,800 --> 00:07:58,440
Speaker 5: No evidence.

142
00:07:58,840 --> 00:08:01,640
Speaker 4: That doesn't mean that God is can act contrary to

143
00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:04,720
Speaker 4: his nature. And as John tells us, right, I'm going

144
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:07,240
Speaker 4: to appeal to sort of theological sources because it's a

145
00:08:07,280 --> 00:08:08,239
Speaker 4: theological objection.

146
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:11,080
Speaker 5: And the first chapter of the Book of.

147
00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:14,840
Speaker 4: John that right in the beginning was the word was

148
00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 4: the logos, this idea that God himself is wisdom and

149
00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:23,440
Speaker 4: reason and order, and he creates a world that reflects that.

150
00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:26,200
Speaker 4: And so I think if anything, theologically, if you're a

151
00:08:26,280 --> 00:08:29,440
Speaker 4: Christian or a Jew, you would expect something like a

152
00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:33,360
Speaker 4: rational order. You'd expect a world that's generally law like

153
00:08:33,559 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 4: rather than catastrophic or chaotic. And now that doesn't mean

154
00:08:37,760 --> 00:08:40,720
Speaker 4: that those bind God it just means, you know, in

155
00:08:40,760 --> 00:08:43,720
Speaker 4: the Christian tradition, this is sort of the ordinary ways

156
00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:46,800
Speaker 4: in which God acts. He creates other things that have

157
00:08:46,840 --> 00:08:49,800
Speaker 4: their own causal powers, he can still act through those

158
00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:52,840
Speaker 4: in a secondary way. He can also act directly in

159
00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:55,560
Speaker 4: the created order, because it's his universe. He's not breaking

160
00:08:55,600 --> 00:08:58,000
Speaker 4: into anything. And so I think the very fact that

161
00:08:58,559 --> 00:09:02,800
Speaker 4: matter obeys precise rules that enable life and scientific discovery,

162
00:09:02,800 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 4: which we haven't talked a lot about, if anything, it

163
00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:08,800
Speaker 4: points to an intelligence behind these laws. And that's exactly

164
00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:12,920
Speaker 4: what the view was of the early founders of modern

165
00:09:12,960 --> 00:09:15,959
Speaker 4: science who proposed laws. Of course, Newton when he was

166
00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:19,720
Speaker 4: talking about laws, he presupposed a lawgiver. What's funny is

167
00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:23,280
Speaker 4: that science is so progressed and I think detached itself

168
00:09:23,320 --> 00:09:26,600
Speaker 4: from its really its theological origins, that we now speak

169
00:09:26,600 --> 00:09:30,520
Speaker 4: of laws, which are really latently theological categories, as if

170
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:34,160
Speaker 4: they're independent. But I think, if anything, a law like

171
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:36,920
Speaker 4: universe makes much more sense on theism.

172
00:09:37,559 --> 00:09:38,360
Speaker 3: That's such a good point.

173
00:09:38,400 --> 00:09:42,120
Speaker 2: It's important to realize how given the theistic background of science,

174
00:09:42,679 --> 00:09:45,920
Speaker 2: even some of the terms that we use have changed.

175
00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:49,319
Speaker 2: So science used to be the search for the truth

176
00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:52,600
Speaker 2: about the natural world. Now, in many ways, it's the

177
00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 2: search for the naturalistic explanation for something which begins with

178
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:02,600
Speaker 2: a naturalistic premise. So if you approach fine tuning through

179
00:10:02,600 --> 00:10:07,040
Speaker 2: that lens, you're going to rule out design from the start. Now, Greg,

180
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:08,880
Speaker 2: let me come to you and tell me if you

181
00:10:08,920 --> 00:10:12,760
Speaker 2: agree with this distinction or not. So when we're studying

182
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:16,679
Speaker 2: fine tuning, we're kind of operating from the bottom up.

183
00:10:16,840 --> 00:10:19,080
Speaker 2: As Jay talked in our last interview, it's actually an

184
00:10:19,120 --> 00:10:22,120
Speaker 2: agnostic Fred Hoyle that found one of the first fine

185
00:10:22,160 --> 00:10:26,720
Speaker 2: tuning quote coincidences, not looking to prove design. It actually

186
00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:30,600
Speaker 2: went against his worldview. So it's a bottom up discovery.

187
00:10:31,120 --> 00:10:35,000
Speaker 2: But when we ask why doesn't God do this, now,

188
00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:39,959
Speaker 2: we're asking for a top down explanation which we only

189
00:10:40,120 --> 00:10:44,640
Speaker 2: know again if this God speaks and tells us, so

190
00:10:44,679 --> 00:10:48,120
Speaker 2: we can know that something is designed, even if we

191
00:10:48,160 --> 00:10:52,040
Speaker 2: don't know why it is designed or why the designer

192
00:10:52,400 --> 00:10:53,320
Speaker 2: did it this way.

193
00:10:53,960 --> 00:10:55,360
Speaker 3: That's the follow up question.

194
00:10:55,760 --> 00:10:58,000
Speaker 2: And just because we don't know why designer did it

195
00:10:58,040 --> 00:11:00,439
Speaker 2: one way or not another way, does does it mean

196
00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:02,880
Speaker 2: that something doesn't fair the marks of design?

197
00:11:03,640 --> 00:11:07,400
Speaker 6: Well, that's exactly right, and I think are if you

198
00:11:07,480 --> 00:11:12,920
Speaker 6: have a Christian or a judaic theistic grid. In other words,

199
00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:16,959
Speaker 6: if you take the scripture seriously, we are told some

200
00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:20,720
Speaker 6: of the purposes of God in his creation, and one

201
00:11:20,760 --> 00:11:24,000
Speaker 6: of the purposes expressed in the first couple of chapters

202
00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:27,839
Speaker 6: of Genesis is that human beings would cultivate the earth,

203
00:11:28,200 --> 00:11:32,920
Speaker 6: would explore it, would bring good and true and beautiful

204
00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:36,400
Speaker 6: and useful things out of this good world. Well, that

205
00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:41,840
Speaker 6: project is possible only if the world is pretty regular.

206
00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:46,080
Speaker 6: We need to be able to make predictions about how

207
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:48,560
Speaker 6: things are going to act, and we need to be

208
00:11:48,679 --> 00:11:53,760
Speaker 6: able to generalize our experience in order to know how

209
00:11:53,800 --> 00:11:54,840
Speaker 6: to cultivate the world.

210
00:11:55,200 --> 00:11:57,120
Speaker 1: And so the questions.

211
00:11:56,679 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 6: About well, wouldn't God do it this way are questions

212
00:12:00,040 --> 00:12:01,160
Speaker 6: about his purpose?

213
00:12:01,640 --> 00:12:03,480
Speaker 1: What are his purposes for doing that?

214
00:12:04,040 --> 00:12:06,200
Speaker 6: And in the religions of the.

215
00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:09,240
Speaker 1: Book we get some of these purposes.

216
00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:12,520
Speaker 6: Now, there's still lots of speculation about the details of

217
00:12:12,559 --> 00:12:15,320
Speaker 6: why God did it, but we ought to expect a

218
00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:22,680
Speaker 6: world in Christianity that is largely following lawlike regularities, because

219
00:12:22,720 --> 00:12:25,760
Speaker 6: that's part of the purposes of God in creating human beings.

220
00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:26,319
Speaker 3: That's good.

221
00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:28,760
Speaker 2: And we totally concede here that fine tuning doesn't get

222
00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:31,319
Speaker 2: us to the God of the Bible. That's not the point.

223
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:36,240
Speaker 2: It's consistent with Judaism, it's consistent with Islam. But as Christians,

224
00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:40,400
Speaker 2: we believe God has spoken and revealed his will. So

225
00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:44,000
Speaker 2: this helps some degree, but doesn't answer all.

226
00:12:43,840 --> 00:12:46,520
Speaker 3: Our questions exactly. All right, that is a.

227
00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:48,360
Speaker 2: Stream for another time when we get to how we

228
00:12:48,400 --> 00:12:50,840
Speaker 2: know the Bible is true. Okay, friends, we're here live

229
00:12:50,880 --> 00:12:53,480
Speaker 2: with doctor Greg Gansel and doctor j Richards taking the

230
00:12:53,520 --> 00:12:58,280
Speaker 2: toughest objections that you have about fine tuning. Now, I

231
00:12:58,280 --> 00:13:00,920
Speaker 2: see a question here about the SI days the creation,

232
00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:04,040
Speaker 2: contradicting scientific idea that the world is a lot older.

233
00:13:04,600 --> 00:13:08,520
Speaker 2: Great question, important question. Our focus here is on the

234
00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:12,200
Speaker 2: fine tuning argument, and so I'm going to stay dialed

235
00:13:12,280 --> 00:13:15,280
Speaker 2: in to that one for this. Let's move to another

236
00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:16,360
Speaker 2: objection that we got.

237
00:13:17,160 --> 00:13:17,880
Speaker 3: I like this one.

238
00:13:18,520 --> 00:13:22,560
Speaker 2: This one says these factors had to be precisely set

239
00:13:22,600 --> 00:13:26,719
Speaker 2: as end quote begs the question. The idea that there

240
00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:30,120
Speaker 2: was a tuner is supposed to be the conclusion, not

241
00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:34,040
Speaker 2: the premise. The laws that are apparently tuned are just

242
00:13:34,120 --> 00:13:37,800
Speaker 2: descriptions of how we see matter behave. They are actually

243
00:13:37,880 --> 00:13:39,840
Speaker 2: laws of the sense that a lay person thinks of

244
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:42,480
Speaker 2: a law like some kind of command from an outside.

245
00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:47,800
Speaker 2: Once you realize this, the whole argument disappears. Does your

246
00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:51,040
Speaker 2: argument disappear because you're begging the question?

247
00:13:51,679 --> 00:13:56,120
Speaker 4: Doctor j is okay, this is a really important point

248
00:13:56,360 --> 00:13:59,400
Speaker 4: that folks should remember that the fine tuning problem, or

249
00:13:59,440 --> 00:14:01,880
Speaker 4: the sort of disscovery of fine tuning, that it was

250
00:14:01,960 --> 00:14:05,880
Speaker 4: a thing, right, came from scientists that were not looking

251
00:14:06,000 --> 00:14:08,400
Speaker 4: for this. Whether it was Brendan Carr or Fred Hoyle

252
00:14:08,440 --> 00:14:12,600
Speaker 4: as you mentioned, or Martin Reese. They looked at the

253
00:14:12,760 --> 00:14:16,040
Speaker 4: you know, the constants, the sort of discoveries what the

254
00:14:16,040 --> 00:14:19,960
Speaker 4: initial conditions would need to be. And notice this peculiar

255
00:14:20,040 --> 00:14:23,200
Speaker 4: fact about them, which is that they have these very

256
00:14:23,240 --> 00:14:27,440
Speaker 4: precise values. Notice what's not being assumed in the argument.

257
00:14:27,480 --> 00:14:29,760
Speaker 4: They're not assuming that there's a fine tuner. In fact,

258
00:14:29,800 --> 00:14:32,840
Speaker 4: they generally didn't even believe in a fine tuner. So

259
00:14:32,920 --> 00:14:35,440
Speaker 4: nothing about the fine tuning argument, or at least a

260
00:14:35,480 --> 00:14:39,600
Speaker 4: good form of it, presupposes or assumes a tuner's premise.

261
00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:43,000
Speaker 4: Now the question or makes a good point that the

262
00:14:43,080 --> 00:14:46,800
Speaker 4: laws of physics or mathematical descriptions they're not sort of

263
00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:48,120
Speaker 4: independent causal agents.

264
00:14:48,120 --> 00:14:49,320
Speaker 5: So that's absolutely true.

265
00:14:49,800 --> 00:14:54,080
Speaker 4: But the descriptions are specific numerical values of the constants

266
00:14:54,120 --> 00:14:57,840
Speaker 4: and the initial conditions. And here's the kind of the

267
00:14:57,920 --> 00:15:00,880
Speaker 4: key thing is that they're contingent inputs could have been different.

268
00:15:00,960 --> 00:15:03,680
Speaker 5: That's what it was discovered that, okay, this is odd.

269
00:15:04,360 --> 00:15:09,520
Speaker 4: Presumably we could have discovered that g the gravitational forresconsin

270
00:15:09,880 --> 00:15:11,440
Speaker 4: or you know, the larger.

271
00:15:11,200 --> 00:15:14,680
Speaker 5: Law that is around it had some different value.

272
00:15:14,840 --> 00:15:17,960
Speaker 4: Right before these things were discovered, it was an open

273
00:15:18,040 --> 00:15:19,960
Speaker 4: question what their values were going to be. And so

274
00:15:20,000 --> 00:15:23,760
Speaker 4: it was actually an empirical realization the more we learned

275
00:15:23,760 --> 00:15:27,760
Speaker 4: about the universe that gosh, there are these universal properties

276
00:15:27,760 --> 00:15:30,880
Speaker 4: that the universe has, it needed to be very precisely set.

277
00:15:31,440 --> 00:15:34,320
Speaker 4: And then when you sort of step back and you say, okay,

278
00:15:34,760 --> 00:15:37,760
Speaker 4: here's the sort of expectation would be that if there's

279
00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:41,040
Speaker 4: going to be a universe, if the universe is very

280
00:15:41,400 --> 00:15:43,920
Speaker 4: needs to be very precisely set, what that means is

281
00:15:43,920 --> 00:15:47,680
Speaker 4: that that any particular universe that existed, it would be

282
00:15:47,760 --> 00:15:51,240
Speaker 4: much more likely that it would be entirely life hostile,

283
00:15:51,280 --> 00:15:53,960
Speaker 4: that it could not possibly contain life than it would

284
00:15:54,000 --> 00:15:57,040
Speaker 4: And so if we have a universe with life and

285
00:15:57,080 --> 00:16:00,720
Speaker 4: it's precisely fine tuned to allow for that, and this

286
00:16:00,880 --> 00:16:03,480
Speaker 4: is the sort of minor premise that's not often revealed.

287
00:16:03,760 --> 00:16:06,560
Speaker 4: We all know that life is intrinsically interesting in a

288
00:16:06,600 --> 00:16:09,480
Speaker 4: way that a universe filled with hydrogen atoms is not,

289
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:12,680
Speaker 4: and so that sort of triggers the temptation that you

290
00:16:13,360 --> 00:16:16,840
Speaker 4: either follow that well, gosh, it's fine tuned. That seems

291
00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:18,680
Speaker 4: to be evidence that there's a fine tuner, that there's

292
00:16:18,680 --> 00:16:22,320
Speaker 4: an agent that's responsible for this, and everyone sort of

293
00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:25,400
Speaker 4: recognizes that. It's just that some don't want that, right,

294
00:16:25,800 --> 00:16:28,920
Speaker 4: I don't want that conclusion, and so they construct objections.

295
00:16:29,160 --> 00:16:33,280
Speaker 4: That's always the question, and the argument never presupposes that

296
00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:36,080
Speaker 4: there is a fine tuner. It's an inference from the

297
00:16:36,520 --> 00:16:39,800
Speaker 4: evidence of the natural world to a conclusion of a

298
00:16:39,880 --> 00:16:40,440
Speaker 4: fine tuner.

299
00:16:40,840 --> 00:16:41,080
Speaker 1: Yeah.

300
00:16:41,360 --> 00:16:45,040
Speaker 6: I think that the objector raises a good point because

301
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:51,320
Speaker 6: the vocabulary we use as shorthand sometimes gives the impression

302
00:16:51,720 --> 00:16:54,680
Speaker 6: that we're assuming someone set the values they have to

303
00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:59,600
Speaker 6: be set precisely. But that's just shorthand for something that's

304
00:16:59,640 --> 00:17:03,280
Speaker 6: more implicated to say in English, which is the range

305
00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:09,560
Speaker 6: of values that produces a life permitting universe is incredibly

306
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:14,640
Speaker 6: small compared to the range of possible values, and that's

307
00:17:14,680 --> 00:17:17,199
Speaker 6: all we mean by they have to be set precisely,

308
00:17:17,840 --> 00:17:22,400
Speaker 6: and we discover empirically that this is the range of values,

309
00:17:22,800 --> 00:17:25,760
Speaker 6: and there's no reason to think that they couldn't be

310
00:17:25,840 --> 00:17:29,000
Speaker 6: set in all of these other ways, that the values

311
00:17:29,000 --> 00:17:34,760
Speaker 6: couldn't have these other numerical constants. And so the vocabulary

312
00:17:34,920 --> 00:17:38,639
Speaker 6: kind of lends itself to the worry over begging the question.

313
00:17:39,359 --> 00:17:41,720
Speaker 6: And I think we just have to say, well, I'm

314
00:17:41,800 --> 00:17:49,360
Speaker 6: using that as shorthand to describe the range of constants

315
00:17:49,400 --> 00:17:53,239
Speaker 6: that is going to produce a life permitting universe. And

316
00:17:53,960 --> 00:17:56,040
Speaker 6: so we have to be careful with how we talk

317
00:17:56,200 --> 00:17:59,480
Speaker 6: that we're not giving the impression that we're begging the

318
00:17:59,600 --> 00:18:00,320
Speaker 6: question here.

319
00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:04,080
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's right. So let me shift to

320
00:18:04,080 --> 00:18:06,080
Speaker 2: a question here. But the key point in wand drought

321
00:18:06,200 --> 00:18:09,119
Speaker 2: is these are not laws of logic. These are not

322
00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:14,520
Speaker 2: laws of math that have necessity built into them. These laws,

323
00:18:14,600 --> 00:18:17,520
Speaker 2: as far as we can know, could have been different.

324
00:18:17,880 --> 00:18:19,440
Speaker 3: They're contingent, but.

325
00:18:19,480 --> 00:18:23,400
Speaker 2: They all seem to be set in a precisely narrow,

326
00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,760
Speaker 2: surprising pattern, as if the porridge is not too hot,

327
00:18:26,880 --> 00:18:31,720
Speaker 2: not too cold, it's just right points towards design. As

328
00:18:31,800 --> 00:18:35,040
Speaker 2: the explanation of this feature, we see. So it's not

329
00:18:35,080 --> 00:18:39,080
Speaker 2: begging the question, it's drying out the best explanation of

330
00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:42,560
Speaker 2: this feature that we see, although we know intelligent agents

331
00:18:42,880 --> 00:18:46,280
Speaker 2: can fine tune systems. Okay, this one we're gonna shift

332
00:18:46,320 --> 00:18:48,159
Speaker 2: to next. Was post it earlier. But I think if

333
00:18:48,200 --> 00:18:50,520
Speaker 2: I'm reading it right, it builds on a question that

334
00:18:50,600 --> 00:18:53,200
Speaker 2: I have here, and I hope Tony six three six'

335
00:18:53,240 --> 00:18:56,639
Speaker 2: Five i'm reading this in. Context there's a few comments,

336
00:18:56,680 --> 00:18:59,400
Speaker 2: here but it says something to the fact of it's.

337
00:18:59,480 --> 00:19:02,840
Speaker 2: Bigoted have faith if we can't test and find out

338
00:19:02,880 --> 00:19:06,080
Speaker 2: what is? True helen demons have been talked about in

339
00:19:06,119 --> 00:19:08,800
Speaker 2: the major. Religions would you not be willing to find

340
00:19:08,840 --> 00:19:10,360
Speaker 2: out the truth to escape?

341
00:19:10,640 --> 00:19:12,959
Speaker 3: Them, now underneath.

342
00:19:12,440 --> 00:19:14,720
Speaker 2: This we all brought helen demons in, here which is

343
00:19:14,760 --> 00:19:18,760
Speaker 2: a separate, conversation but this idea that faith should be.

344
00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:21,120
Speaker 3: Tested one of the.

345
00:19:21,119 --> 00:19:25,560
Speaker 2: Key objections to intelligent design is it's not. Testable And,

346
00:19:25,680 --> 00:19:27,760
Speaker 2: jay one of the questions that came in this week

347
00:19:27,800 --> 00:19:31,000
Speaker 2: on the original, video somebody, said if there's an, argument

348
00:19:31,160 --> 00:19:35,800
Speaker 2: the first question always is whether the argument is? Falsifiable

349
00:19:36,320 --> 00:19:40,320
Speaker 2: what is the counter argument that would nullify? It So

350
00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:43,600
Speaker 2: britt going as this blind faith or can we really

351
00:19:43,680 --> 00:19:45,000
Speaker 2: test this or falsify.

352
00:19:45,040 --> 00:19:48,119
Speaker 4: It, yeah so there's a few things going on. Here so,

353
00:19:48,200 --> 00:19:50,600
Speaker 4: first so let me answer the question at the. Beginning,

354
00:19:50,640 --> 00:19:54,040
Speaker 4: yes this argument is absolutely. Falsifiable on the other, hand

355
00:19:54,200 --> 00:19:57,160
Speaker 4: there are different ways to test different arguments in.

356
00:19:57,200 --> 00:19:58,159
Speaker 5: Science in.

357
00:19:58,280 --> 00:20:02,280
Speaker 4: Life the falsified ability criterion was proposed By Carl, popper

358
00:20:02,320 --> 00:20:06,400
Speaker 4: and the basic idea is that something isn't scientific if

359
00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:09,160
Speaker 4: you can't sort of at least ideally construct a scenario

360
00:20:09,720 --> 00:20:11,560
Speaker 4: under which you could prove that it's.

361
00:20:11,600 --> 00:20:12,920
Speaker 5: False but of.

362
00:20:12,840 --> 00:20:15,679
Speaker 4: Course there are many things that we would consider at

363
00:20:15,760 --> 00:20:18,360
Speaker 4: least a sort of part of science that aren't falsifiable

364
00:20:18,359 --> 00:20:21,400
Speaker 4: in that. Way, so for, instance is their life somewhere

365
00:20:21,400 --> 00:20:24,360
Speaker 4: else in the, Universe, well that is very it's very

366
00:20:24,359 --> 00:20:26,480
Speaker 4: hard to falsify the claim somebody wants to, Say, look

367
00:20:26,480 --> 00:20:29,560
Speaker 4: there's their microbial life somewhere in the. Universe you, know

368
00:20:29,800 --> 00:20:33,040
Speaker 4: we're not going to get to check everywhere in the universe.

369
00:20:33,119 --> 00:20:35,320
Speaker 3: A universal, Claim, yeah.

370
00:20:35,359 --> 00:20:37,480
Speaker 4: Exactly on the other, hand it would be so easy to,

371
00:20:37,600 --> 00:20:41,000
Speaker 4: confirm if you, know if a saucer shows up Over

372
00:20:41,440 --> 00:20:43,720
Speaker 4: New York city like it does In Independence, Day, hey

373
00:20:44,520 --> 00:20:47,240
Speaker 4: nobody's going to be a, skeptic, Right. Yep, sure there

374
00:20:47,240 --> 00:20:50,399
Speaker 4: turns out there are, aliens and so the question is

375
00:20:50,440 --> 00:20:52,120
Speaker 4: really whether it's.

376
00:20:52,200 --> 00:20:54,919
Speaker 5: Testable AND i think that is a feature of natural.

377
00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:58,280
Speaker 4: Science we want for something to be about the natural

378
00:20:58,359 --> 00:21:00,240
Speaker 4: world and to be within the domain of. Side so

379
00:21:00,280 --> 00:21:01,840
Speaker 4: we want to be able to sort of test our,

380
00:21:01,880 --> 00:21:07,760
Speaker 4: conjectures our, hypotheses our theories against some kind of observable

381
00:21:08,040 --> 00:21:10,800
Speaker 4: or observable evidence and then, say, okay that strengthens or

382
00:21:10,800 --> 00:21:13,720
Speaker 4: weakens the. Case, now when you're talking about these very large,

383
00:21:13,800 --> 00:21:17,159
Speaker 4: hypotheses like we're talking about whether the universe has an

384
00:21:17,160 --> 00:21:21,119
Speaker 4: intelligent cause or it. Doesn't, right it's a very broad.

385
00:21:21,200 --> 00:21:24,200
Speaker 4: Question it's unrealistic to expect, That, okay it's going to

386
00:21:24,240 --> 00:21:26,800
Speaker 4: be simply it could be sort of falsified, accord you,

387
00:21:26,840 --> 00:21:29,960
Speaker 4: know with one experiment in a lab or something like.

388
00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:31,760
Speaker 5: That you can have evidence for and against.

389
00:21:31,760 --> 00:21:33,960
Speaker 4: It and so in this, case the question would, be,

390
00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:36,600
Speaker 4: okay so is there evidence that cond count for against

391
00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:37,240
Speaker 4: these fine tuning?

392
00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:37,720
Speaker 5: Arguments?

393
00:21:37,760 --> 00:21:40,480
Speaker 4: ABSOLUTELY i, mean so think what just think about what

394
00:21:40,480 --> 00:21:43,760
Speaker 4: the claim. Is so the claim is that these values

395
00:21:43,760 --> 00:21:47,080
Speaker 4: of these universal parameters had to be very narrowly set

396
00:21:48,040 --> 00:21:51,960
Speaker 4: compared to their possible values in order to produce a

397
00:21:52,040 --> 00:21:55,280
Speaker 4: life permitting, Universe, well what if we discovered actually it

398
00:21:55,280 --> 00:21:57,160
Speaker 4: didn't need to be so precisely. Set in, fact there's

399
00:21:57,160 --> 00:21:59,960
Speaker 4: a wide range of. These in, fact you could sort

400
00:21:59,960 --> 00:22:02,440
Speaker 4: of vary several of them at once and maybe one

401
00:22:02,480 --> 00:22:04,320
Speaker 4: looks fine. Tuned but if you change this, one in,

402
00:22:04,320 --> 00:22:06,760
Speaker 4: fact there's a wide range in which we could get

403
00:22:06,800 --> 00:22:08,720
Speaker 4: something like chemical.

404
00:22:08,280 --> 00:22:09,239
Speaker 5: Life like we have in our.

405
00:22:09,359 --> 00:22:13,160
Speaker 4: Universe, so in, fact the whole argument sort of presupposes

406
00:22:13,240 --> 00:22:15,879
Speaker 4: that we're observing the opposite of, that and so that

407
00:22:15,920 --> 00:22:18,080
Speaker 4: would count against. It it turns out it doesn't look

408
00:22:18,160 --> 00:22:20,200
Speaker 4: nearly as fine tuned as we thought it. Was now

409
00:22:20,200 --> 00:22:23,399
Speaker 4: that's not a refutation of, theism but it would weaken the.

410
00:22:23,520 --> 00:22:25,879
Speaker 4: Argument and then when you get to you, know we

411
00:22:25,920 --> 00:22:27,479
Speaker 4: haven't talked about, it but when you get to the

412
00:22:27,520 --> 00:22:31,320
Speaker 4: local fine tuning, argument so not the universal properties that

413
00:22:31,520 --> 00:22:34,320
Speaker 4: are persist, everywhere but the things you need in a

414
00:22:34,359 --> 00:22:37,480
Speaker 4: local planetary, environment that right kind of, star the distance

415
00:22:37,520 --> 00:22:39,680
Speaker 4: from the, star the mass of the, planet all these.

416
00:22:39,720 --> 00:22:43,760
Speaker 5: Things you, know all those presupposed certain.

417
00:22:43,800 --> 00:22:47,040
Speaker 4: Things they presuppose that life in this universe is going

418
00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:49,040
Speaker 4: to be based on, carbon it's going to need liquid

419
00:22:49,080 --> 00:22:51,400
Speaker 4: water and all those. Things if we find life that's

420
00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:54,800
Speaker 4: based on a completely different kind of chemistry that would

421
00:22:54,800 --> 00:22:58,959
Speaker 4: put a major dent in those local fine tuning. Arguments

422
00:22:59,000 --> 00:23:01,400
Speaker 4: and in, fact if we found life, right let's say

423
00:23:01,400 --> 00:23:04,680
Speaker 4: we found a thousand different kinds of life that were

424
00:23:04,720 --> 00:23:07,680
Speaker 4: just completely different from what the life we observe in the,

425
00:23:07,720 --> 00:23:10,199
Speaker 4: universe and, say, gosh it turns out life really it

426
00:23:10,200 --> 00:23:14,440
Speaker 4: seems like it can accommodate itself fairly easily to certain initial.

427
00:23:14,440 --> 00:23:17,879
Speaker 4: Conditions and so there are absolutely ways to sort of

428
00:23:17,920 --> 00:23:20,719
Speaker 4: test and weaken or strength these strengthen these.

429
00:23:20,800 --> 00:23:24,199
Speaker 3: Arguments, Jay there's only one THING i disagree with you.

430
00:23:24,240 --> 00:23:28,120
Speaker 2: On you, said if intelligent life appeared in a saucer

431
00:23:28,359 --> 00:23:32,280
Speaker 2: above one of the big, cities some people would still

432
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:36,440
Speaker 2: doubt it and do conspiracy first podcasts.

433
00:23:35,720 --> 00:23:41,240
Speaker 3: ABOUT ai and. Drones but OTHERWISE i agree.

434
00:23:40,840 --> 00:23:42,400
Speaker 2: Anything you want to add that covered it pretty.

435
00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:44,440
Speaker 3: Well but anything on siteide that was a great.

436
00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:48,240
Speaker 6: Answer, now falsifiability actually doesn't apply to. Arguments it applies to,

437
00:23:48,280 --> 00:23:53,919
Speaker 6: theories and it's a criterion whether a theory should count

438
00:23:54,000 --> 00:23:59,480
Speaker 6: as empirical. Science can you imagine how it would be falsified?

439
00:23:59,480 --> 00:24:02,159
Speaker 6: Empirically it doesn't mean you have to be able to

440
00:24:02,200 --> 00:24:05,280
Speaker 6: falsify it because if a theory is, true it won't be.

441
00:24:05,359 --> 00:24:11,760
Speaker 6: Falsified but Like jay's, examples we can imagine empirical findings

442
00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:17,080
Speaker 6: that would set the fine tuning theory as the best

443
00:24:17,200 --> 00:24:19,280
Speaker 6: answer to these phenomena we're.

444
00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:21,119
Speaker 1: Observing it would set it.

445
00:24:21,160 --> 00:24:24,560
Speaker 6: Back it would, say, no the best explanation might not

446
00:24:24,720 --> 00:24:29,320
Speaker 6: be an intelligent designer for these, phenomena because maybe they

447
00:24:29,320 --> 00:24:33,320
Speaker 6: don't need to be explained in one of the Scenarios

448
00:24:33,359 --> 00:24:38,000
Speaker 6: jay talked, about or life doesn't need to have these

449
00:24:38,040 --> 00:24:43,879
Speaker 6: specific features in order to be a living. Thing so

450
00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:48,000
Speaker 6: falsifiability the Way popper brings it, UP i, believe is

451
00:24:48,800 --> 00:24:51,200
Speaker 6: the mark of something that counts as empirical.

452
00:24:51,560 --> 00:24:53,080
Speaker 1: Science and.

453
00:24:54,960 --> 00:25:00,800
Speaker 6: So the fact that the fine tuner hypothesis can be

454
00:25:00,960 --> 00:25:06,560
Speaker 6: falsified in this context leads us to believe that the

455
00:25:06,560 --> 00:25:10,040
Speaker 6: god hypothesis is at least very close to his scientific.

456
00:25:10,119 --> 00:25:15,919
Speaker 2: Hypothesis and sometimes how we falsify things varies based on

457
00:25:16,040 --> 00:25:18,360
Speaker 2: the discipline of the. Claims So darwin, said if any

458
00:25:18,480 --> 00:25:21,879
Speaker 2: complex organ could be, demonstrated it could not possibly have

459
00:25:22,040 --> 00:25:26,560
Speaker 2: developed by slow incremental stages that would falsify his.

460
00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:29,880
Speaker 3: Theory Verse corinthians, Fifteen paul, says.

461
00:25:29,640 --> 00:25:35,320
Speaker 2: If jesus is not, risen that would falsify a theological. View,

462
00:25:35,960 --> 00:25:39,760
Speaker 2: similarly if we discovered that the laws and constants of

463
00:25:39,840 --> 00:25:44,119
Speaker 2: physics were not actually fine tuned and it's an, illusion

464
00:25:44,720 --> 00:25:49,200
Speaker 2: or we found a better, explanation that would falsify fine.

465
00:25:49,240 --> 00:25:53,000
Speaker 2: Tuning so that doesn't prove that it's, scientific but it

466
00:25:53,080 --> 00:25:56,960
Speaker 2: removes one barrier where people say it's not actually a,

467
00:25:57,000 --> 00:25:58,719
Speaker 2: theory so to, speak and it's not.

468
00:25:58,880 --> 00:26:02,240
Speaker 3: Scientific, okay let's go to this.

469
00:26:02,280 --> 00:26:04,480
Speaker 2: One we've got through four questions and we've got some

470
00:26:04,560 --> 00:26:06,000
Speaker 2: other good skeptical ones.

471
00:26:06,040 --> 00:26:07,639
Speaker 3: Here, Jay i'll come to you on this.

472
00:26:07,720 --> 00:26:11,359
Speaker 2: One this individual, says it's very clear that random chance

473
00:26:11,400 --> 00:26:14,760
Speaker 2: can be excluded as rational cause of the fine tuning

474
00:26:14,800 --> 00:26:17,359
Speaker 2: parameters in. Physics and for those who are, saying how

475
00:26:17,400 --> 00:26:19,840
Speaker 2: do we know, that go to our last video on

476
00:26:19,880 --> 00:26:22,760
Speaker 2: Which jay talked about just one example of fine tuning

477
00:26:22,800 --> 00:26:25,840
Speaker 2: out of dozens that had one to times ten with

478
00:26:25,960 --> 00:26:30,880
Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty zeros after it arguably beyond anything

479
00:26:31,000 --> 00:26:31,480
Speaker 2: chance could.

480
00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:34,080
Speaker 3: Produce and that's just. One this.

481
00:26:34,119 --> 00:26:37,320
Speaker 2: Says many YouTube, videos many videos on YouTube make this

482
00:26:37,600 --> 00:26:41,600
Speaker 2: very clear and. Obvious could you please explain on top

483
00:26:41,640 --> 00:26:46,960
Speaker 2: of this why physical necessity cannot count for fine, tuning

484
00:26:47,560 --> 00:26:50,680
Speaker 2: so rather than, chance how come there couldn't be some

485
00:26:51,000 --> 00:26:56,200
Speaker 2: necessity in the physical realm that causes this fine.

486
00:26:56,200 --> 00:26:59,280
Speaker 4: Tuning, yeah this is a tough one because it's not

487
00:26:59,320 --> 00:27:04,000
Speaker 4: clear because we're we're talking about these bulk properties of

488
00:27:04,040 --> 00:27:06,720
Speaker 4: the physical, universe and so when we talked about the went,

489
00:27:06,760 --> 00:27:08,440
Speaker 4: PHYSICAL i, mean we got to decide what that. Means

490
00:27:08,440 --> 00:27:11,240
Speaker 4: but are we talking about, matter, space, time and, energy,

491
00:27:11,320 --> 00:27:13,080
Speaker 4: Right so it's just to sort of include the whole.

492
00:27:13,119 --> 00:27:18,360
Speaker 4: Show but the fine tuning argument is about the properties

493
00:27:18,400 --> 00:27:21,719
Speaker 4: of the physical universe. Itself so it's not clear what

494
00:27:21,760 --> 00:27:24,719
Speaker 4: it would mean to the further to be a physical

495
00:27:24,800 --> 00:27:25,639
Speaker 4: necessity to.

496
00:27:27,160 --> 00:27:28,359
Speaker 5: The physical properties of the.

497
00:27:28,440 --> 00:27:33,000
Speaker 4: Universe and maybe the questioner is, thinking, well maybe there's

498
00:27:33,040 --> 00:27:37,440
Speaker 4: some kind of deeper, necessity or maybe there's some fundamental

499
00:27:37,560 --> 00:27:41,520
Speaker 4: law behind all of these individual constants that all of

500
00:27:41,560 --> 00:27:45,280
Speaker 4: the things we're talking about sort of descend. From so

501
00:27:45,320 --> 00:27:50,439
Speaker 4: there's this like upstream fundamental. Law, okay that would be.

502
00:27:50,520 --> 00:27:54,280
Speaker 4: Interesting it wouldn't solve the problem, Though just move the question,

503
00:27:54,480 --> 00:27:57,040
Speaker 4: back because you would inevitably end up with some much

504
00:27:57,200 --> 00:28:00,960
Speaker 4: more precisely fine tuned. Reality IF I i'd be really

505
00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:04,399
Speaker 4: surprising to discover. THAT i think during our Interview, SEAN

506
00:28:04,440 --> 00:28:06,480
Speaker 4: i THINK i used the example of like the ultimate

507
00:28:06,520 --> 00:28:09,040
Speaker 4: pool player would be a person not a person that

508
00:28:09,080 --> 00:28:11,840
Speaker 4: can break the balls and then, get you, know one

509
00:28:11,920 --> 00:28:14,440
Speaker 4: ball at a time on their first, try and be

510
00:28:14,480 --> 00:28:16,680
Speaker 4: the person that could sink all the you, know, say

511
00:28:16,720 --> 00:28:19,240
Speaker 4: all the stripe balls on their first. Shot and so

512
00:28:19,320 --> 00:28:22,440
Speaker 4: that doesn't really solve the problem of fine. Tuning there's

513
00:28:22,480 --> 00:28:26,439
Speaker 4: this other kind of, necessity, though the logical, Necessity and

514
00:28:27,119 --> 00:28:28,840
Speaker 4: so far AS i, CAN i can't even sort of

515
00:28:28,840 --> 00:28:31,359
Speaker 4: conceive what kind of argument you would construct to, Say,

516
00:28:31,400 --> 00:28:35,840
Speaker 4: okay there's some kind of logical necessity to the physical.

517
00:28:35,920 --> 00:28:38,320
Speaker 5: Laws it seems quite. OBVIOUS i, mean the.

518
00:28:38,280 --> 00:28:42,000
Speaker 4: Whole discipline presupposes that you can change these. Variables if

519
00:28:42,160 --> 00:28:46,280
Speaker 4: if the value of something is, three right in a,

520
00:28:46,360 --> 00:28:49,800
Speaker 4: law the value could presumably have been. Forced there's nothing

521
00:28:49,840 --> 00:28:52,800
Speaker 4: that by logic requires it in the same way that

522
00:28:52,880 --> 00:28:57,040
Speaker 4: logic requires that you, know something can't be both true

523
00:28:57,080 --> 00:28:59,160
Speaker 4: and untrue at the same time and in the same.

524
00:28:59,240 --> 00:29:01,600
Speaker 5: Sense and so there's no sort.

525
00:29:01,400 --> 00:29:03,880
Speaker 4: Of law of logic that would are that type of

526
00:29:03,920 --> 00:29:07,000
Speaker 4: necessity that could contrain these. Things and so we're back

527
00:29:07,040 --> 00:29:09,080
Speaker 4: to just the sort of physical properties of the.

528
00:29:09,160 --> 00:29:12,120
Speaker 2: Universe, okay good stuff you want to win in this

529
00:29:12,160 --> 00:29:12,400
Speaker 2: one at?

530
00:29:12,400 --> 00:29:12,560
Speaker 1: All?

531
00:29:12,600 --> 00:29:14,400
Speaker 3: Great oh that's, Good, OKAY i love.

532
00:29:14,480 --> 00:29:16,920
Speaker 2: It it kind of reminds me to make a connection for.

533
00:29:17,000 --> 00:29:21,440
Speaker 2: People William dempsky has a filter where he recognizes, design

534
00:29:22,120 --> 00:29:25,080
Speaker 2: and this would be like, information say in the cell

535
00:29:25,120 --> 00:29:27,840
Speaker 2: that we've, discovered and imagine you're trying to get a

536
00:29:27,880 --> 00:29:30,880
Speaker 2: sentence this, says or imagine like all the works Of.

537
00:29:31,000 --> 00:29:37,320
Speaker 2: Shakespeare we know that chance cannot produce that specified complexity

538
00:29:37,440 --> 00:29:40,600
Speaker 2: because every letter is one out of twenty. Six you

539
00:29:40,720 --> 00:29:43,280
Speaker 2: start doing the, math and there's not enough resources in

540
00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:45,880
Speaker 2: the universe with all the space and time to produce

541
00:29:46,040 --> 00:29:47,280
Speaker 2: all the works Of shakespeare by.

542
00:29:47,360 --> 00:29:48,600
Speaker 3: Chance and then.

543
00:29:48,440 --> 00:29:50,400
Speaker 2: When it comes to that kind of, information some people,

544
00:29:50,440 --> 00:29:53,600
Speaker 2: say what about some kind of law like, Necessity like

545
00:29:53,640 --> 00:29:56,240
Speaker 2: in a crystal you see some kind of, design but

546
00:29:56,320 --> 00:30:01,240
Speaker 2: that's a, repetitive simple information like x y x, y

547
00:30:01,960 --> 00:30:08,000
Speaker 2: not novel information like we see in a text applied

548
00:30:08,040 --> 00:30:11,520
Speaker 2: to the. Universe does that scenario play, over like if

549
00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:14,400
Speaker 2: there was some kind of necessity we see more, simple

550
00:30:14,960 --> 00:30:18,640
Speaker 2: repetitive kind of processes or does that not really apply

551
00:30:18,880 --> 00:30:21,680
Speaker 2: to the fine tuning the way that it would apply

552
00:30:21,800 --> 00:30:25,880
Speaker 2: to something like specified complexity in the cell.

553
00:30:26,800 --> 00:30:29,640
Speaker 4: Sean the WAY i would explain that a specified complexity.

554
00:30:29,760 --> 00:30:33,200
Speaker 4: Thing to add to what you just, said there's there's

555
00:30:33,240 --> 00:30:36,760
Speaker 4: a complexity or the, improbabilities so that all the sensive, letters,

556
00:30:36,800 --> 00:30:40,200
Speaker 4: right there's also the. Specification and so it's not just

557
00:30:40,240 --> 00:30:43,560
Speaker 4: complexity or improbability that leads us to infer. Design it's

558
00:30:43,880 --> 00:30:47,640
Speaker 4: a specification which is kind of a meaningful independent pattern

559
00:30:47,720 --> 00:30:50,600
Speaker 4: or just in this case it's meaning, Right so any

560
00:30:50,760 --> 00:30:53,840
Speaker 4: long string of letters could be sort of randomly, constructed

561
00:30:54,040 --> 00:30:56,760
Speaker 4: we wouldn't infer design because it's like just a random

562
00:30:56,760 --> 00:30:59,760
Speaker 4: pile of letters on the. Floor it's precisely. That, well

563
00:30:59,800 --> 00:31:03,480
Speaker 4: it conforms to the meanings Of english words and syces

564
00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:03,960
Speaker 4: and things like.

565
00:31:04,000 --> 00:31:04,960
Speaker 5: That so it's those combined.

566
00:31:05,000 --> 00:31:08,520
Speaker 4: Things so how do we apply that argument to these

567
00:31:08,720 --> 00:31:12,520
Speaker 4: universal characteristics of the, Universe, because of, course In denski's,

568
00:31:12,560 --> 00:31:14,880
Speaker 4: examples if you're talking ABOUT, dna for, instance you know

569
00:31:14,920 --> 00:31:17,880
Speaker 4: the sequence specificity in certain.

570
00:31:17,720 --> 00:31:19,000
Speaker 5: You know lines OF.

571
00:31:19,080 --> 00:31:24,760
Speaker 4: Dna we're presupposing the regular laws of physics and. Chemistry

572
00:31:24,800 --> 00:31:26,760
Speaker 4: those are sort of the, backstory, right and then we

573
00:31:27,000 --> 00:31:29,080
Speaker 4: compare them now when you're talking about the universe's a.

574
00:31:29,080 --> 00:31:31,240
Speaker 4: Whole what are we, Doing, well we're actually we're comparing

575
00:31:32,200 --> 00:31:35,640
Speaker 4: the specific details of our. Universe, Right so maybe the

576
00:31:35,760 --> 00:31:39,800
Speaker 4: values of the for fundamental, constants the initial, conditions initial,

577
00:31:39,920 --> 00:31:42,760
Speaker 4: entropy all these, things we're comparing those to.

578
00:31:42,760 --> 00:31:46,040
Speaker 5: All the other kinds of way or ways the universe could.

579
00:31:46,120 --> 00:31:49,240
Speaker 4: Exist so we're really comparing the actual universe with other

580
00:31:49,440 --> 00:31:53,440
Speaker 4: possible values of the, universe and so and then that's

581
00:31:53,440 --> 00:31:55,960
Speaker 4: now we're going to get the probability or improbability or.

582
00:31:55,960 --> 00:31:59,360
Speaker 4: Complexity the claim is that the range of life permitting

583
00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:02,280
Speaker 4: universes is it's much smaller than the range of possible

584
00:32:02,360 --> 00:32:06,200
Speaker 4: universes that are. Lifeless so that gives you the complexity

585
00:32:06,280 --> 00:32:10,960
Speaker 4: or the. Improbability what's the. Specification the specification is a life.

586
00:32:11,080 --> 00:32:15,920
Speaker 4: Itself everyone Knows Richard dawkins, knows the atheist on the

587
00:32:15,920 --> 00:32:21,360
Speaker 4: street corner knows that there's something interesting about life, intrinsically

588
00:32:21,400 --> 00:32:25,000
Speaker 4: that's you, know not you, know a pile of hydrogen

589
00:32:25,040 --> 00:32:27,360
Speaker 4: atoms or something is not interesting in the same way life.

590
00:32:27,400 --> 00:32:30,840
Speaker 4: Is that's why we watch documentaries about living. Things so

591
00:32:30,880 --> 00:32:34,160
Speaker 4: everybody recognizes. That so there is a, specification.

592
00:32:34,080 --> 00:32:35,920
Speaker 5: And there's an. Improbability you have both of.

593
00:32:35,920 --> 00:32:37,800
Speaker 4: These it's just when you're talking about the universe as a,

594
00:32:37,840 --> 00:32:41,280
Speaker 4: whole you're not comparing different states within the. Universe you're

595
00:32:41,280 --> 00:32:44,360
Speaker 4: comparing the actual universe with the sort of range of

596
00:32:44,440 --> 00:32:46,800
Speaker 4: other possible ways the universe could have.

597
00:32:46,840 --> 00:32:47,000
Speaker 5: Been.

598
00:32:47,360 --> 00:32:50,760
Speaker 2: Jay that is such a helpful, connection because there's a

599
00:32:50,760 --> 00:32:54,320
Speaker 2: big difference between the laws of physics as they, exist

600
00:32:55,120 --> 00:33:00,320
Speaker 2: being sufficient to explain the origin of information and they

601
00:33:00,400 --> 00:33:04,280
Speaker 2: generate law like patterns such as we see in, crystals

602
00:33:04,760 --> 00:33:10,160
Speaker 2: and the origin of those laws, themselves which exist within

603
00:33:10,200 --> 00:33:14,440
Speaker 2: a narrow range and point towards the pattern of being,

604
00:33:15,680 --> 00:33:20,440
Speaker 2: made so to, speak to allow the complexity and origin of.

605
00:33:20,560 --> 00:33:25,480
Speaker 2: Life so complexity within is different than explaining the origin

606
00:33:25,600 --> 00:33:26,440
Speaker 2: of those laws.

607
00:33:26,560 --> 00:33:28,880
Speaker 3: Themselves very very helpful.

608
00:33:28,920 --> 00:33:31,680
Speaker 2: Distinction, okay let's go back to our skeptics here And

609
00:33:31,720 --> 00:33:33,080
Speaker 2: i'll throw this to both of you and have you

610
00:33:33,160 --> 00:33:36,240
Speaker 2: in here, Again greg, again we are live with Doctor Greg,

611
00:33:36,400 --> 00:33:39,160
Speaker 2: gansel and we're here with doctor J richards taking your

612
00:33:39,200 --> 00:33:41,040
Speaker 2: toughest questions on fine.

613
00:33:41,120 --> 00:33:43,960
Speaker 3: Tuning you, know let's take this.

614
00:33:44,040 --> 00:33:44,640
Speaker 5: ONE i like.

615
00:33:44,720 --> 00:33:48,200
Speaker 2: This this is live From i'm not GONNA i can't

616
00:33:48,200 --> 00:33:50,720
Speaker 2: even pronounce the, name but it, says is there any

617
00:33:50,960 --> 00:33:56,840
Speaker 2: serious objection to fine. Tuning they say multiverse plus anthropic

618
00:33:56,920 --> 00:34:00,600
Speaker 2: selections seems, Strongest but it just pushes the question. Back

619
00:34:00,640 --> 00:34:04,040
Speaker 2: and we talked about that Last jay. Time last, Time,

620
00:34:04,160 --> 00:34:08,120
Speaker 2: jay you addressed the multiverse. Theory but in your, estimation

621
00:34:08,280 --> 00:34:12,760
Speaker 2: are there any serious objections to fine tuning that really

622
00:34:12,960 --> 00:34:14,680
Speaker 2: challenge or potentially overturn?

623
00:34:14,719 --> 00:34:19,279
Speaker 4: IT i would say the one That, Gammeal gonzalez AND

624
00:34:19,320 --> 00:34:21,600
Speaker 4: i struggled with back in let's say two thousand and

625
00:34:21,640 --> 00:34:23,839
Speaker 4: two when we were writing the Book The Privileged, planet

626
00:34:24,480 --> 00:34:27,080
Speaker 4: which talks a lot about the local fine tuning, stuff

627
00:34:27,080 --> 00:34:29,360
Speaker 4: but it also talks about the cosmic fine. Tuning is

628
00:34:29,400 --> 00:34:31,560
Speaker 4: this idea that, well, okay how do you sort of

629
00:34:32,400 --> 00:34:35,760
Speaker 4: you can run probability calculations on the sort of possible

630
00:34:35,880 --> 00:34:39,040
Speaker 4: arrangements of base pairs IN dna or something like. That

631
00:34:39,080 --> 00:34:42,000
Speaker 4: how do you run a probability on all the possible

632
00:34:42,080 --> 00:34:46,440
Speaker 4: universes and so there's not a probability, distribution is the

633
00:34:46,480 --> 00:34:48,960
Speaker 4: way probability theorists put it.

634
00:34:49,000 --> 00:34:51,200
Speaker 5: In so it's sort of like how do you attach

635
00:34:51,239 --> 00:34:52,040
Speaker 5: a number to?

636
00:34:52,160 --> 00:34:55,760
Speaker 4: This so that is that's a sort of complicated, question

637
00:34:55,840 --> 00:34:58,920
Speaker 4: and we have a complicated way of answering.

638
00:34:59,000 --> 00:34:59,759
Speaker 5: It in the.

639
00:34:59,760 --> 00:35:01,719
Speaker 4: Book but that kind of key thing would just be

640
00:35:01,840 --> 00:35:06,359
Speaker 4: that you don't need an exact probability distribution to recognize fine.

641
00:35:06,360 --> 00:35:09,240
Speaker 4: Tuning in, fact if you just think about normal, life

642
00:35:09,320 --> 00:35:12,040
Speaker 4: we do this all the. Time we recognize, that, okay that,

643
00:35:12,560 --> 00:35:15,680
Speaker 4: thing there's no way that happened by. Chance it looks

644
00:35:15,800 --> 00:35:17,879
Speaker 4: very much like a, setup and we're actually really good

645
00:35:18,320 --> 00:35:22,279
Speaker 4: except in the boundary cases doing. This we don't routinely

646
00:35:22,400 --> 00:35:24,000
Speaker 4: run actual probability.

647
00:35:24,040 --> 00:35:26,040
Speaker 5: Calculations it would be sort of.

648
00:35:26,200 --> 00:35:27,960
Speaker 4: Light but the WAY i think of, it you, know

649
00:35:28,000 --> 00:35:30,439
Speaker 4: we've reg and ized said several times that the fine

650
00:35:30,440 --> 00:35:33,360
Speaker 4: tuning argument is just this idea that there's this narrow

651
00:35:33,480 --> 00:35:36,719
Speaker 4: range of sort of properties that a universe needs to

652
00:35:36,719 --> 00:35:39,279
Speaker 4: have in order to be life permitting compared to all

653
00:35:39,719 --> 00:35:43,400
Speaker 4: the other the alternatives think about it like it's a, dartboard,

654
00:35:43,520 --> 00:35:45,360
Speaker 4: right and so there's.

655
00:35:45,200 --> 00:35:45,919
Speaker 5: This big dart.

656
00:35:45,960 --> 00:35:48,280
Speaker 4: Board there's just a lot of places on the board

657
00:35:48,400 --> 00:35:50,239
Speaker 4: that are not the bulls, eye and there's a huge

658
00:35:50,239 --> 00:35:52,400
Speaker 4: amount of space outside the board that's not the bull's.

659
00:35:52,400 --> 00:35:54,800
Speaker 4: Eye so that's why somebody sort of throws five darts

660
00:35:54,800 --> 00:35:57,520
Speaker 4: in land and the bulls. Eye we, think, okay they're obviously.

661
00:35:57,560 --> 00:36:01,600
Speaker 4: Skilled that's design right, now somebody could, say, well, okay but,

662
00:36:01,719 --> 00:36:05,160
Speaker 4: actually if it depends on the size, scale because you know,

663
00:36:05,480 --> 00:36:08,279
Speaker 4: what let's say that rather than the kind of normal size,

664
00:36:08,280 --> 00:36:10,880
Speaker 4: scale and we're thinking maybe millimeters or, inches it seems.

665
00:36:10,880 --> 00:36:15,000
Speaker 4: Oppressive but think about, how you, know let's go down

666
00:36:15,040 --> 00:36:18,239
Speaker 4: to the radius of a proton or something like. That

667
00:36:18,360 --> 00:36:21,360
Speaker 4: right there's so many places that that dark could have

668
00:36:21,440 --> 00:36:23,600
Speaker 4: landed in, There and in, fact there's really kind of

669
00:36:23,640 --> 00:36:27,799
Speaker 4: no you, know you could just infinitely divide the sort

670
00:36:27,840 --> 00:36:32,080
Speaker 4: of range of space within that, bullseye so there's kind

671
00:36:32,080 --> 00:36:34,000
Speaker 4: of no way to get a probability distribution because you

672
00:36:34,000 --> 00:36:37,479
Speaker 4: can always, just at least, mathematically you could just keep

673
00:36:37,520 --> 00:36:41,160
Speaker 4: getting more and more high resolution on. This that's sort

674
00:36:41,160 --> 00:36:43,359
Speaker 4: of what the argument, is is, that, well you, know

675
00:36:44,120 --> 00:36:45,759
Speaker 4: how do you sort of do the numbers on? This

676
00:36:45,880 --> 00:36:49,520
Speaker 4: and in, fact we generally know what the relevant levels

677
00:36:49,560 --> 00:36:53,799
Speaker 4: of resolution are on fine. Tuning, Friend Robin, collins the

678
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:57,400
Speaker 4: philosopher has done really good job. Us but it's the

679
00:36:57,520 --> 00:36:59,920
Speaker 4: kind of thing that it's, like that's a complicated kind

680
00:36:59,920 --> 00:37:03,440
Speaker 4: of philosophical philosophical objection that we did spend a lot

681
00:37:03,440 --> 00:37:05,000
Speaker 4: of time, on and SO i think it's a serious

682
00:37:05,040 --> 00:37:07,040
Speaker 4: OBJECTION i just don't think it's at all this, positive

683
00:37:07,360 --> 00:37:10,520
Speaker 4: AND i, think if, anything it requires something of.

684
00:37:10,480 --> 00:37:14,600
Speaker 5: The argument that we just never require of arguments like.

685
00:37:14,640 --> 00:37:17,400
Speaker 4: This and the fact that people who are themselves skeptical

686
00:37:17,880 --> 00:37:20,839
Speaker 4: of the existence Of god or anything Like god themselves

687
00:37:20,880 --> 00:37:23,400
Speaker 4: recognize the, PROBLEM i think is testimony to that that

688
00:37:23,480 --> 00:37:25,279
Speaker 4: it's just, like, look there's a real problem here to be,

689
00:37:25,360 --> 00:37:27,960
Speaker 4: explained and we're not going to explain it away with

690
00:37:28,040 --> 00:37:32,000
Speaker 4: some sort of complicated artifact of a particular type of probability.

691
00:37:32,040 --> 00:37:34,200
Speaker 3: Theory well, said do you want to add anything to?

692
00:37:34,200 --> 00:37:38,840
Speaker 6: That i'd like to take up the many universe, response

693
00:37:38,920 --> 00:37:41,719
Speaker 6: BECAUSE i think you're, right and what you said on

694
00:37:41,760 --> 00:37:45,600
Speaker 6: The friday podcast about it pushes the problem.

695
00:37:45,680 --> 00:37:48,480
Speaker 1: Back but there's also another problem with the.

696
00:37:48,560 --> 00:37:52,560
Speaker 6: Multiverse AND i published a paper on, this AND i

697
00:37:52,600 --> 00:37:58,640
Speaker 6: looked up all of these definitions in philosophical reference books for,

698
00:37:58,800 --> 00:38:04,239
Speaker 6: naturalism and most of these definitions said naturalism is a

699
00:38:04,280 --> 00:38:07,799
Speaker 6: commitment that what science tells us is.

700
00:38:07,920 --> 00:38:10,160
Speaker 1: True anything that can be a.

701
00:38:10,160 --> 00:38:15,920
Speaker 6: Scientific entity we can say that might. Exist the problem

702
00:38:16,040 --> 00:38:21,319
Speaker 6: is the multiverses aren't. Scientific they sound, scientific but a

703
00:38:21,360 --> 00:38:26,280
Speaker 6: lot of understanding of a scientific explanation Is i'm trying

704
00:38:26,320 --> 00:38:30,600
Speaker 6: to explain something by bringing it under the laws of,

705
00:38:30,640 --> 00:38:34,640
Speaker 6: physics to, say, oh NOW i can understand why this. Happens,

706
00:38:35,200 --> 00:38:39,520
Speaker 6: now the problem is the other universes have different laws than,

707
00:38:39,560 --> 00:38:44,279
Speaker 6: ours so they cannot be brought into congruence with the

708
00:38:44,360 --> 00:38:47,879
Speaker 6: laws of physics as we know, them and so they're

709
00:38:48,040 --> 00:38:54,880
Speaker 6: completely outside scientific, explanation and there's no causal relationship between

710
00:38:54,920 --> 00:38:56,160
Speaker 6: those universes and.

711
00:38:56,320 --> 00:38:58,560
Speaker 1: Ours there's no way to get.

712
00:38:58,600 --> 00:39:04,279
Speaker 6: Information they're not actually empirically testable in. Principle it's not

713
00:39:04,400 --> 00:39:07,600
Speaker 6: just we can't find, them but they're outside the range

714
00:39:07,960 --> 00:39:10,080
Speaker 6: of any possible empirical.

715
00:39:10,440 --> 00:39:11,719
Speaker 1: Testing AND i.

716
00:39:11,680 --> 00:39:15,040
Speaker 6: Think that this isn't, decisive but it puts a lot

717
00:39:15,080 --> 00:39:19,920
Speaker 6: of pressure on the multiverse. Theory, now people tend to

718
00:39:19,960 --> 00:39:23,719
Speaker 6: be flippant about, it, well maybe there's a, Multiverse AND

719
00:39:23,800 --> 00:39:27,200
Speaker 6: i think we can press people and say, so either

720
00:39:27,520 --> 00:39:33,440
Speaker 6: you're telling me either an intelligent designer exists or these non,

721
00:39:33,480 --> 00:39:40,080
Speaker 6: scientific non naturalistic speculative possibilities are. Real you have to

722
00:39:40,120 --> 00:39:43,480
Speaker 6: believe they're real in order to use this as an

723
00:39:43,520 --> 00:39:47,280
Speaker 6: alternative to the. Designer SO i think there's a lot

724
00:39:47,440 --> 00:39:51,720
Speaker 6: more pressure that we can put on the multiverse hypothesis

725
00:39:51,760 --> 00:39:52,840
Speaker 6: as it's employed in this.

726
00:39:52,960 --> 00:39:54,120
Speaker 1: CONVERSATION i love.

727
00:39:54,120 --> 00:39:55,880
Speaker 2: It that's a great. Response, now before we go back

728
00:39:55,920 --> 00:39:59,800
Speaker 2: to the, questions two quick. Announcements cliff And Stuart connectly

729
00:40:00,120 --> 00:40:01,960
Speaker 2: a new book out Called Demolishing.

730
00:40:02,360 --> 00:40:03,960
Speaker 3: Doubt they asked me.

731
00:40:03,920 --> 00:40:06,840
Speaker 2: To right To, ford which was really. Cool so, tomorrow my,

732
00:40:07,040 --> 00:40:11,040
Speaker 2: Son scott AND i are Interviewing cliff And Stuart. Connectley

733
00:40:11,360 --> 00:40:13,680
Speaker 2: we actually already interviewed. HIM i think it's their first

734
00:40:13,680 --> 00:40:16,000
Speaker 2: interview on this and we're releasing it on this channel

735
00:40:16,000 --> 00:40:20,360
Speaker 2: tomorrow at. Noon super fun first Interview i've done with my.

736
00:40:20,520 --> 00:40:23,439
Speaker 2: Son i've interviewed, him but this is the first father son.

737
00:40:23,560 --> 00:40:26,520
Speaker 2: Interview we thought it would be fun Of cliff And Stuart.

738
00:40:26,520 --> 00:40:28,040
Speaker 3: Connectley don't miss.

739
00:40:28,080 --> 00:40:31,239
Speaker 2: That. Tomorrow we have fourteen questions for. HIM i did

740
00:40:31,280 --> 00:40:34,120
Speaker 2: not prep him with any of the. Questions and Also,

741
00:40:34,360 --> 00:40:38,320
Speaker 2: FRIDAY i have an Interview friday And tuesday With Steven

742
00:40:38,400 --> 00:40:42,520
Speaker 2: meyers back because it turns Out Sir Roger, penrose one

743
00:40:42,560 --> 00:40:46,320
Speaker 2: of the most influential scientists over the past fifty years

744
00:40:46,719 --> 00:40:50,960
Speaker 2: on the doctoral committee Of Stephen, hawking responded to one

745
00:40:50,960 --> 00:40:55,080
Speaker 2: of my videos in WHICH i Interviewed steve AND i

746
00:40:55,120 --> 00:40:57,640
Speaker 2: gotta tell, you even though he thinks we're. WRONG i

747
00:40:57,680 --> 00:40:59,960
Speaker 2: was like thrilled that he's paying attention to what we're

748
00:41:00,160 --> 00:41:02,440
Speaker 2: doing in this. Channel And Steve, meyer we have a

749
00:41:02,480 --> 00:41:05,239
Speaker 2: two part series coming up where this is considered one

750
00:41:05,239 --> 00:41:07,440
Speaker 2: of the MOST i would, say one of the most

751
00:41:07,480 --> 00:41:12,600
Speaker 2: forceful models that maintains that challenges the idea of a big,

752
00:41:12,640 --> 00:41:15,719
Speaker 2: bang that we argue points towards a big, banger And

753
00:41:15,760 --> 00:41:22,160
Speaker 2: steve does a, careful very, critical gracious. Response so this

754
00:41:22,200 --> 00:41:26,160
Speaker 2: is at the forefront of conversations about cosmology and. Design

755
00:41:26,600 --> 00:41:30,000
Speaker 2: you will not want to miss part one On. Friday all,

756
00:41:30,080 --> 00:41:34,480
Speaker 2: right back to the tough. Questions here's. One i'll throw

757
00:41:34,520 --> 00:41:37,759
Speaker 2: this over to You. Jay it, says perhaps this is

758
00:41:37,800 --> 00:41:42,360
Speaker 2: a naive, response but doesn't an argument from necessity require

759
00:41:42,520 --> 00:41:46,120
Speaker 2: something that can have a. Need for, example for life to,

760
00:41:46,200 --> 00:41:49,880
Speaker 2: exist the gravitational constant needs to be exactly what it,

761
00:41:50,040 --> 00:41:54,240
Speaker 2: is among other. Constraints but in this, formulation life needs

762
00:41:54,239 --> 00:41:58,200
Speaker 2: the exact gravitational. Constant so if you have, life you

763
00:41:58,239 --> 00:42:01,879
Speaker 2: can conclude that the gravitational must be what it. Is

764
00:42:02,480 --> 00:42:05,720
Speaker 2: but if life doesn't exist, yet how can it necessitate

765
00:42:05,840 --> 00:42:06,840
Speaker 2: a gravitational?

766
00:42:07,320 --> 00:42:11,360
Speaker 4: Constant, okay SO i get an idea would be that

767
00:42:11,400 --> 00:42:14,480
Speaker 4: fine tuning claims that life sort of would have to

768
00:42:14,600 --> 00:42:17,400
Speaker 4: backward cause the, CONSTANTS i suppose.

769
00:42:17,080 --> 00:42:17,680
Speaker 5: Or something like.

770
00:42:17,719 --> 00:42:18,600
Speaker 3: THAT i think that's all.

771
00:42:18,680 --> 00:42:23,640
Speaker 4: Right, yeah so this confuses conditional with causal, necessity and

772
00:42:23,719 --> 00:42:26,040
Speaker 4: so maybe you, know the problem is they're different types of.

773
00:42:26,040 --> 00:42:30,000
Speaker 4: Necessity SO i think we've been speaking of this. Clearly

774
00:42:30,040 --> 00:42:34,000
Speaker 4: but the basic ideas the constants we're set whatever they're

775
00:42:34,080 --> 00:42:39,080
Speaker 4: cause to particular values that make life. Possible, Right so

776
00:42:39,360 --> 00:42:42,840
Speaker 4: the word possible is actually that's the language of. Necessity

777
00:42:42,880 --> 00:42:46,839
Speaker 4: things can be possible or. Impossible they can be necessary

778
00:42:47,840 --> 00:42:51,840
Speaker 4: or they can be. Impossible, Right so fine tuning claims

779
00:42:51,840 --> 00:42:54,120
Speaker 4: that they need to be set a certain way for

780
00:42:54,280 --> 00:42:57,280
Speaker 4: life to be. Possible but it's not, like, well life

781
00:42:57,320 --> 00:42:59,920
Speaker 4: has some kind of, need some future life has an

782
00:43:00,200 --> 00:43:04,200
Speaker 4: that then backwards causes the. Constant but really the simple

783
00:43:04,200 --> 00:43:06,640
Speaker 4: way of distinguishing it is just that it can uses

784
00:43:07,040 --> 00:43:11,279
Speaker 4: conditional with causal. Necessity that's the technical way to. Say

785
00:43:11,480 --> 00:43:15,840
Speaker 4: so for that necessity to explain fine, tuning you, Know

786
00:43:15,880 --> 00:43:18,040
Speaker 4: AND i think maybe the way the question is thinking

787
00:43:18,440 --> 00:43:21,400
Speaker 4: the contest would need to be sort of logically required

788
00:43:21,480 --> 00:43:25,240
Speaker 4: or something independently of. Life but the claim is really,

789
00:43:25,280 --> 00:43:28,359
Speaker 4: simple just like all every single. Day we know that

790
00:43:28,360 --> 00:43:32,000
Speaker 4: there are certain necessary conditions that are required for something to.

791
00:43:32,040 --> 00:43:35,160
Speaker 4: Happen you, know if a car is going to, explode

792
00:43:35,480 --> 00:43:39,240
Speaker 4: oxygen is almost certainly going to be. Present it doesn't follow,

793
00:43:39,360 --> 00:43:43,400
Speaker 4: that you know the car explosion backwards caused the presence of.

794
00:43:43,440 --> 00:43:44,799
Speaker 5: Oxygen that's not how these things.

795
00:43:44,800 --> 00:43:48,000
Speaker 4: Work it's just that certain kinds of events have necessary

796
00:43:48,040 --> 00:43:51,680
Speaker 4: conditions for them to. Happen they're not sufficient, conditions and

797
00:43:51,800 --> 00:43:54,440
Speaker 4: you don't need to invote backwards causation to explain.

798
00:43:54,520 --> 00:43:55,080
Speaker 3: It that's.

799
00:43:55,120 --> 00:43:57,480
Speaker 2: GREAT i think that the way to break that down

800
00:43:57,680 --> 00:44:01,759
Speaker 2: is there's a difference between necessary and sufficient, conditions and

801
00:44:01,920 --> 00:44:05,400
Speaker 2: just because something is necessary doesn't mean it has any

802
00:44:06,000 --> 00:44:08,680
Speaker 2: causal power or influence to generate.

803
00:44:08,920 --> 00:44:12,719
Speaker 3: Anything that distinction is. VITAL i think we covered. That

804
00:44:12,719 --> 00:44:15,080
Speaker 3: when you want to jump into you're. Good, okay all,

805
00:44:15,160 --> 00:44:17,480
Speaker 3: right here's a Good let's.

806
00:44:17,239 --> 00:44:19,040
Speaker 2: See we got some great responses.

807
00:44:19,080 --> 00:44:22,480
Speaker 3: Here, okay this, one let me read this.

808
00:44:22,520 --> 00:44:25,520
Speaker 2: One it has some depth to, it BUT i think

809
00:44:25,600 --> 00:44:27,720
Speaker 2: when we get down to, it it's a pretty. Basic

810
00:44:27,760 --> 00:44:32,560
Speaker 2: important question Says given the Recent james Web space telescope

811
00:44:32,640 --> 00:44:36,000
Speaker 2: data showing fully mature galaxies where the big main model

812
00:44:36,040 --> 00:44:40,440
Speaker 2: predicted infant. Ones the previous fine tuning coefficient of ten

813
00:44:40,480 --> 00:44:44,680
Speaker 2: to one hundred and twentieth appears insufficient to keep the

814
00:44:44,840 --> 00:44:50,600
Speaker 2: deep time model. Alive the required precision for initial density

815
00:44:50,640 --> 00:44:54,240
Speaker 2: fluctuations must now be adjusted to an even finer. Degree

816
00:44:54,880 --> 00:44:58,120
Speaker 2: what is the current calculated value of the fine tuning

817
00:44:58,239 --> 00:45:02,080
Speaker 2: in light of The James Webb Space. Telescope how many

818
00:45:02,080 --> 00:45:04,719
Speaker 2: more zeros would we have to write on a piece

819
00:45:04,760 --> 00:45:08,040
Speaker 2: of paper to resent this level of? Precision how much?

820
00:45:08,239 --> 00:45:11,279
Speaker 2: Longer how long must such a piece of paper be?

821
00:45:11,320 --> 00:45:14,719
Speaker 2: Accommodated SO i won't keep going, on but this this

822
00:45:14,760 --> 00:45:17,799
Speaker 2: person basically, says have we moved from fine tuning to

823
00:45:18,440 --> 00:45:23,320
Speaker 2: hyper tuning because we're learning more and more remarkable precision

824
00:45:23,840 --> 00:45:26,240
Speaker 2: because the discoveries that The james Web Space.

825
00:45:26,840 --> 00:45:29,040
Speaker 3: Telescope, okay so.

826
00:45:29,000 --> 00:45:31,799
Speaker 4: This is one of these really complicated questions to try

827
00:45:31,840 --> 00:45:34,840
Speaker 4: to sort of boil this. Down so here is the

828
00:45:34,880 --> 00:45:39,640
Speaker 4: basic idea is The James Webspace telescope has allowed us

829
00:45:39,760 --> 00:45:43,040
Speaker 4: to see because if you're looking the deeper you look into,

830
00:45:43,080 --> 00:45:46,920
Speaker 4: space you're actually looking backwards in. Time so the further

831
00:45:47,000 --> 00:45:50,160
Speaker 4: away you can resolve something in your telescope because light

832
00:45:50,280 --> 00:45:53,680
Speaker 4: has a finite speed you're really sampling different times of the.

833
00:45:53,760 --> 00:45:56,600
Speaker 4: Universe and so The james Web space telescopes allowing us

834
00:45:56,640 --> 00:46:00,640
Speaker 4: to imagine it just sort of peer into the very

835
00:46:00,760 --> 00:46:05,239
Speaker 4: very early stages of the universe's, history and the presumption

836
00:46:05,400 --> 00:46:09,800
Speaker 4: of the current models of how the universe would develop

837
00:46:10,560 --> 00:46:13,320
Speaker 4: requires that it takes a certain amount of time after

838
00:46:13,360 --> 00:46:18,280
Speaker 4: the universe heals sufficiently and elements form to get stars

839
00:46:18,320 --> 00:46:20,719
Speaker 4: and to get, galaxies and it takes a lot of

840
00:46:20,719 --> 00:46:21,160
Speaker 4: time to do.

841
00:46:21,200 --> 00:46:22,759
Speaker 5: That you're not just gonna get galaxies right.

842
00:46:22,800 --> 00:46:26,120
Speaker 4: Away and so what's weird is that we're discovering in

843
00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:29,640
Speaker 4: this very early stage at the universe things that look

844
00:46:29,719 --> 00:46:32,560
Speaker 4: like mature, galaxies so that they seem to be able

845
00:46:32,600 --> 00:46:35,319
Speaker 4: to come together much more, quickly, Right and SO i

846
00:46:35,360 --> 00:46:38,879
Speaker 4: think the question intuition is, Right, Okay if, anything all

847
00:46:38,960 --> 00:46:42,000
Speaker 4: the fine tuning arguments that we developed prior to this

848
00:46:42,160 --> 00:46:47,080
Speaker 4: data actually presupposed that there was more than enough time.

849
00:46:46,920 --> 00:46:49,720
Speaker 5: Back there right to sort of form these mature.

850
00:46:49,760 --> 00:46:52,799
Speaker 4: Galaxies and so if, anything, gosh it may be that

851
00:46:52,960 --> 00:46:55,360
Speaker 4: something has to be written even more fine tuned in

852
00:46:55,440 --> 00:46:58,400
Speaker 4: order to sort of bootstrap these galaxies into existed so.

853
00:46:58,520 --> 00:47:00,640
Speaker 4: QUICKLY i don't know that anybody's tried to run that.

854
00:47:00,680 --> 00:47:03,880
Speaker 4: Calculation BUT i do think it's one of those. AGAIN i,

855
00:47:03,880 --> 00:47:07,000
Speaker 4: mean maybe we need to add a zero to the

856
00:47:07,920 --> 00:47:10,440
Speaker 4: or you, know go from one in ten to the

857
00:47:10,480 --> 00:47:12,200
Speaker 4: ten to the one hundred and twenty three to one

858
00:47:12,239 --> 00:47:13,520
Speaker 4: in ten to the ten to the one hundred and

859
00:47:13,560 --> 00:47:16,600
Speaker 4: twenty fourth power on the initial entropy or something in

860
00:47:16,680 --> 00:47:17,480
Speaker 4: or order to account for.

861
00:47:17,520 --> 00:47:19,120
Speaker 5: That but of course that's just making it more fine.

862
00:47:19,160 --> 00:47:22,120
Speaker 4: Tuned but in some, Ways, look these numbers are so

863
00:47:22,200 --> 00:47:25,839
Speaker 4: astronomical THAT i doubt there'll be a lot of people that, Say,

864
00:47:25,880 --> 00:47:27,239
Speaker 4: OKAY i was a total, atheist and.

865
00:47:29,440 --> 00:47:32,760
Speaker 5: But you know what's great about? It though the universe

866
00:47:32,800 --> 00:47:33,640
Speaker 5: still holds these.

867
00:47:33,680 --> 00:47:36,799
Speaker 4: SURPRISES i, MEAN i think the theory was that we

868
00:47:36,800 --> 00:47:39,640
Speaker 4: were holding was fairly, reasonable and then we develop a

869
00:47:39,760 --> 00:47:43,600
Speaker 4: very expensive telescope so we could peer deeper and deeper

870
00:47:43,920 --> 00:47:47,520
Speaker 4: back in, time and we, discover, man things are different

871
00:47:47,520 --> 00:47:49,760
Speaker 4: than we, thought and if, anything harder than we. Thought

872
00:47:49,840 --> 00:47:51,839
Speaker 4: SO i, think if, anything that's sort of moving us

873
00:47:51,840 --> 00:47:53,200
Speaker 4: in the direction of greater fine.

874
00:47:53,040 --> 00:47:55,000
Speaker 2: Tuning which by the, way goes back to a question

875
00:47:55,040 --> 00:47:59,560
Speaker 2: we had earlier about, falsifiability a prediction looking through The

876
00:47:59,640 --> 00:48:03,240
Speaker 2: James web telescope would be that we would find increased fine,

877
00:48:03,239 --> 00:48:06,680
Speaker 2: tuning that we might find new examples of fine tuning

878
00:48:06,760 --> 00:48:10,359
Speaker 2: as we look back in. Time it should match the

879
00:48:10,560 --> 00:48:13,800
Speaker 2: presence since these constants haven't, changed.

880
00:48:13,880 --> 00:48:15,000
Speaker 3: And this is what we.

881
00:48:15,120 --> 00:48:19,120
Speaker 2: Discover so it's a kind of theory that's put out

882
00:48:19,120 --> 00:48:21,759
Speaker 2: there that's actually. Testable NOW i have one for, You,

883
00:48:21,840 --> 00:48:24,839
Speaker 2: greg because you teach philosophy here with. Me in, fact

884
00:48:24,960 --> 00:48:28,040
Speaker 2: soon you'll be teaching on our apologetics program a CLASS r,

885
00:48:28,080 --> 00:48:31,279
Speaker 2: two which is kind of. Exciting but before this you

886
00:48:31,400 --> 00:48:35,480
Speaker 2: were doing a lot of scholarly, work but At yale

887
00:48:36,000 --> 00:48:39,759
Speaker 2: having a lot of spiritual conversations with. People SO i

888
00:48:39,760 --> 00:48:41,520
Speaker 2: asked you this because a question came through and it,

889
00:48:41,520 --> 00:48:45,320
Speaker 2: says fine tuning seems to be very very intellectual answer

890
00:48:45,800 --> 00:48:48,560
Speaker 2: and could be written off on the street when. Evangelizing

891
00:48:49,200 --> 00:48:52,239
Speaker 2: how can we use fine tuning in a practical?

892
00:48:52,280 --> 00:48:56,440
Speaker 6: Way, well that is a great, question and the questioner is.

893
00:48:56,520 --> 00:49:01,120
Speaker 6: Right in a conversation with, somebody there are a couple

894
00:49:01,160 --> 00:49:05,120
Speaker 6: of things that happen if a person is generally skeptical

895
00:49:05,239 --> 00:49:11,160
Speaker 6: about the existence Of, god and that person might kind

896
00:49:11,200 --> 00:49:14,759
Speaker 6: of lose patience with the technicalities of an. Argument and

897
00:49:14,800 --> 00:49:18,000
Speaker 6: this is going to be common with the fine tuning

898
00:49:18,600 --> 00:49:24,279
Speaker 6: and with things like The cologne cosmological. Argument and in

899
00:49:24,560 --> 00:49:30,040
Speaker 6: part that is because these arguments are somewhat abstract and

900
00:49:30,320 --> 00:49:33,920
Speaker 6: don't seem to many people immediately.

901
00:49:33,239 --> 00:49:34,080
Speaker 1: To touch the.

902
00:49:34,120 --> 00:49:38,879
Speaker 6: Person and this is why in many, conversations arguments such

903
00:49:38,880 --> 00:49:46,120
Speaker 6: as a moral argument can be better conversation. Generators because people.

904
00:49:45,840 --> 00:49:48,320
Speaker 1: Hold their moral views and.

905
00:49:48,560 --> 00:49:52,800
Speaker 6: The nature of morality and what is it about very,

906
00:49:52,840 --> 00:49:59,520
Speaker 6: closely it's much easier to dismiss some cosmological theory in

907
00:49:59,560 --> 00:50:03,839
Speaker 6: the middle of a. Conversation at the same, TIME i

908
00:50:03,880 --> 00:50:07,520
Speaker 6: think we can use fine tuning and use the colomn

909
00:50:07,520 --> 00:50:16,000
Speaker 6: cosmological argument to push against a very common misconception that

910
00:50:16,280 --> 00:50:17,680
Speaker 6: the more science.

911
00:50:17,320 --> 00:50:21,560
Speaker 1: Grows the smaller the room For. God and we can

912
00:50:21,600 --> 00:50:23,160
Speaker 1: point to these things by.

913
00:50:23,040 --> 00:50:27,680
Speaker 6: Saying starting in the early decades of the twentieth, century

914
00:50:28,080 --> 00:50:34,160
Speaker 6: scientific progress has actually opened up the reasonable possibility for

915
00:50:34,239 --> 00:50:37,160
Speaker 6: the existence Of. God and we can, say depending on

916
00:50:37,200 --> 00:50:40,000
Speaker 6: how old you, are we can, say in my own,

917
00:50:40,040 --> 00:50:45,520
Speaker 6: lifetime fine tuning has been put on the. Map these

918
00:50:45,560 --> 00:50:52,040
Speaker 6: are new discoveries and they are very established in the scientific.

919
00:50:52,080 --> 00:50:57,320
Speaker 6: Community nobody disputes the, facts and they open up room

920
00:50:57,800 --> 00:51:01,560
Speaker 6: for a reasonable belief In. God it can be very

921
00:51:01,640 --> 00:51:07,680
Speaker 6: helpful to undermine the alleged conflict between science and.

922
00:51:07,719 --> 00:51:11,640
Speaker 2: Religion do either of you have a favorite way where

923
00:51:11,680 --> 00:51:15,960
Speaker 2: you just try to make fine tuning as simple as. Possible,

924
00:51:16,000 --> 00:51:18,839
Speaker 2: NOW i realize when we use illustrations and make things,

925
00:51:18,840 --> 00:51:23,960
Speaker 2: simple some precision can be lost and can potentially be.

926
00:51:24,200 --> 00:51:27,040
Speaker 2: Inaccurate But i've heard people say things, like, well you,

927
00:51:27,080 --> 00:51:31,040
Speaker 2: know a big bang requires a big. Banger if universe

928
00:51:31,120 --> 00:51:35,239
Speaker 2: had a, beginning it points towards a, beginner and there's

929
00:51:35,280 --> 00:51:39,239
Speaker 2: something intuitive about that where people, go, OH i get,

930
00:51:39,239 --> 00:51:41,680
Speaker 2: it and then of course we need to defend it

931
00:51:41,719 --> 00:51:42,279
Speaker 2: and lay out the.

932
00:51:42,320 --> 00:51:44,719
Speaker 3: Premises do either of y'all come over you.

933
00:51:44,640 --> 00:51:48,400
Speaker 2: To jay, First, like if you're explaining to your kids fine,

934
00:51:48,480 --> 00:51:51,759
Speaker 2: tuning is there a way you would do it for

935
00:51:51,880 --> 00:51:53,960
Speaker 2: just a kid or a person on the street without

936
00:51:53,960 --> 00:51:56,160
Speaker 2: the philosophical or scientific.

937
00:51:56,360 --> 00:51:58,400
Speaker 3: Training, YEAH i mean THAT'S.

938
00:51:58,400 --> 00:52:00,800
Speaker 4: I mean that's everyone for the most, part, RIGHT i

939
00:52:00,840 --> 00:52:03,080
Speaker 4: mean a set of people that studies. THIS i Mean

940
00:52:03,080 --> 00:52:05,400
Speaker 4: i'm guessing it's it's one or two percent of the,

941
00:52:05,440 --> 00:52:08,919
Speaker 4: population which is, why as A, Christian i'm really glad

942
00:52:08,960 --> 00:52:11,160
Speaker 4: people don't need to know these arguments in order to

943
00:52:11,440 --> 00:52:12,759
Speaker 4: be rational and believing In god.

944
00:52:12,920 --> 00:52:14,680
Speaker 3: Exactly but es, actually Like greg.

945
00:52:14,480 --> 00:52:17,760
Speaker 4: SAID i completely agree about if you can get someone

946
00:52:17,800 --> 00:52:20,200
Speaker 4: to realize not just that they think certain things are

947
00:52:20,280 --> 00:52:21,600
Speaker 4: right or, wrong but that they have moral.

948
00:52:21,640 --> 00:52:22,160
Speaker 5: Knowledge.

949
00:52:22,440 --> 00:52:26,239
Speaker 4: Right so it's just, said, look you, know everyone that

950
00:52:26,360 --> 00:52:31,279
Speaker 4: has functioning faculties knows that it is, wrong always and everywhere.

951
00:52:30,760 --> 00:52:32,799
Speaker 5: To torture a small child for the fun of.

952
00:52:32,840 --> 00:52:35,880
Speaker 4: It it's not just that cultures that believe, that you,

953
00:52:35,920 --> 00:52:38,440
Speaker 4: KNOW i had a sort Of darwinian, advantage and so

954
00:52:38,480 --> 00:52:40,600
Speaker 4: they survived for the. President you just you know that

955
00:52:40,680 --> 00:52:43,200
Speaker 4: as much as you know, anything if you're mistaken about,

956
00:52:43,239 --> 00:52:46,320
Speaker 4: that you, know how much more likely are you to

957
00:52:46,360 --> 00:52:49,080
Speaker 4: be mistaken about some complicated. Theory and SO i think

958
00:52:49,080 --> 00:52:51,200
Speaker 4: if people can just simply see, that, oh there's this

959
00:52:51,280 --> 00:52:54,839
Speaker 4: thing called moral, knowledge it's not about the physical properties

960
00:52:54,840 --> 00:52:57,320
Speaker 4: of the. Universe it's this other thing and it constitutes

961
00:52:57,400 --> 00:52:59,880
Speaker 4: knowledge that in some, ways that's a sort of a

962
00:53:00,160 --> 00:53:03,480
Speaker 4: quicker pathway than some of these complicated. Arguments BUT i

963
00:53:03,560 --> 00:53:05,719
Speaker 4: was going to talk about fine tuning or really sort

964
00:53:05,719 --> 00:53:07,560
Speaker 4: of the big bang cosmological.

965
00:53:07,640 --> 00:53:10,200
Speaker 5: Argument DO i use an intuitive version.

966
00:53:09,960 --> 00:53:13,040
Speaker 4: Of the balm cosmological argument and just basically, say, look the.

967
00:53:13,160 --> 00:53:15,960
Speaker 4: Question we're not going to prove something to you, mathematically

968
00:53:16,280 --> 00:53:19,160
Speaker 4: but here are the kind of two basic. Alternatives either

969
00:53:19,719 --> 00:53:23,239
Speaker 4: the material universe has always, existed so you wouldn't can, say,

970
00:53:23,280 --> 00:53:25,560
Speaker 4: well it's always existed so it doesn't need an, explanation

971
00:53:26,080 --> 00:53:29,279
Speaker 4: or it hasn't always, existed in which case it needs

972
00:53:29,280 --> 00:53:32,640
Speaker 4: something other than itself to bring it into existence and

973
00:53:33,120 --> 00:53:36,000
Speaker 4: try to get people to, Recognize, okay, yeah if something

974
00:53:36,400 --> 00:53:40,160
Speaker 4: hasn't always, existed it can't be the ultimate. Explanation the

975
00:53:40,239 --> 00:53:42,800
Speaker 4: thing that's going to explain everything else needs to be. Something,

976
00:53:43,320 --> 00:53:46,560
Speaker 4: right they didn't come into existence out of, nothing and

977
00:53:46,640 --> 00:53:49,920
Speaker 4: then so that's. Right just the two hypotheses sort of

978
00:53:50,680 --> 00:53:54,600
Speaker 4: either the universe's physical universe explains itself or something outside it. Does,

979
00:53:54,960 --> 00:53:57,120
Speaker 4: well we know the universe doesn't explain itself because we

980
00:53:57,120 --> 00:53:58,640
Speaker 4: know it has an age and it has a finite

981
00:53:58,719 --> 00:54:01,520
Speaker 4: past that in some ways that can sort of get you.

982
00:54:01,600 --> 00:54:04,239
Speaker 4: There and then you start talking about the properties at

983
00:54:04,239 --> 00:54:07,160
Speaker 4: the universe because that, one you, know it only takes

984
00:54:07,160 --> 00:54:09,640
Speaker 4: a couple one or two or three minutes to kind

985
00:54:09,640 --> 00:54:13,120
Speaker 4: of set it. Up it's very hard without just using

986
00:54:13,160 --> 00:54:15,200
Speaker 4: a mental image like the dartboard or something.

987
00:54:15,320 --> 00:54:18,480
Speaker 1: Round, well with my.

988
00:54:18,600 --> 00:54:22,359
Speaker 6: KIDS i would talk about playing, poker BECAUSE i taught

989
00:54:22,360 --> 00:54:24,640
Speaker 6: about to play poker at a very young. Age and

990
00:54:25,920 --> 00:54:29,600
Speaker 6: what are the odds of getting dealt a royal? FLUSH

991
00:54:29,760 --> 00:54:31,719
Speaker 6: i looked it up On wikipedia one, time BUT i

992
00:54:31,719 --> 00:54:34,080
Speaker 6: can't remember the. Number it's something like one in seven

993
00:54:34,160 --> 00:54:37,359
Speaker 6: hundred thousand royal flush in, spades for.

994
00:54:37,400 --> 00:54:39,800
Speaker 1: Example and so you, think.

995
00:54:39,680 --> 00:54:44,480
Speaker 6: Suppose you have a card shuffling machine In vegas and

996
00:54:44,520 --> 00:54:49,480
Speaker 6: you're playing poker and you get dealt five royal flushes

997
00:54:49,520 --> 00:54:49,640
Speaker 6: in a?

998
00:54:49,760 --> 00:54:51,680
Speaker 1: Row is it.

999
00:54:52,200 --> 00:54:55,600
Speaker 6: Reasonable to believe that the card shuffler has not been tampered?

1000
00:54:55,640 --> 00:54:59,719
Speaker 6: With and, well what about twenty royal flushes in a?

1001
00:54:59,800 --> 00:55:03,319
Speaker 6: Row and so that can help people see that at

1002
00:55:03,320 --> 00:55:07,239
Speaker 6: a certain point it becomes unreasonable to believe that a

1003
00:55:07,360 --> 00:55:10,920
Speaker 6: specified complexity could happen simply by.

1004
00:55:11,040 --> 00:55:13,279
Speaker 1: Chance it just is not.

1005
00:55:13,400 --> 00:55:17,600
Speaker 6: Reasonable and so you're gonna think somebody fixed the. MACHINE

1006
00:55:18,840 --> 00:55:20,680
Speaker 6: i think that can help you with with the. ODDS

1007
00:55:20,719 --> 00:55:22,600
Speaker 6: i think the dartboard example also helps.

1008
00:55:22,600 --> 00:55:25,720
Speaker 2: You that's a great. EXAMPLE i like the royal. Flesh

1009
00:55:25,760 --> 00:55:27,200
Speaker 2: you get, one you go Maybe and by the, WAY

1010
00:55:27,239 --> 00:55:29,480
Speaker 2: i google it really, fast which we take it for

1011
00:55:29,560 --> 00:55:32,839
Speaker 2: what it's. Worth says one in six hundred and forty nine,

1012
00:55:32,920 --> 00:55:37,600
Speaker 2: thousand seven hundred and forty hands point zero zero zero two.

1013
00:55:37,719 --> 00:55:40,840
Speaker 2: Percent so, one you, go, WELL i guess it. Happens

1014
00:55:41,560 --> 00:55:44,880
Speaker 2: two almost for, sure not three is a solid. Case

1015
00:55:45,400 --> 00:55:47,480
Speaker 2: we're talking about fine. TUNING i, MEAN i couldn't do the,

1016
00:55:47,520 --> 00:55:49,080
Speaker 2: math but it would BE i don't know how many

1017
00:55:49,080 --> 00:55:52,680
Speaker 2: thousands or millions of royal. Fleshes would it be that insane, jay.

1018
00:55:53,239 --> 00:55:55,360
Speaker 4: It would be just there's, yeah there's no way to conceive.

1019
00:55:55,360 --> 00:55:58,520
Speaker 4: It and notice how it's not like our standards are

1020
00:55:58,520 --> 00:56:00,920
Speaker 4: all that. HIGH i, mean so this would be you

1021
00:56:00,920 --> 00:56:02,799
Speaker 4: know the. Example so let's say it's one in seven

1022
00:56:02,880 --> 00:56:05,240
Speaker 4: hundred thousand times, four, Right, well that's.

1023
00:56:05,239 --> 00:56:05,719
Speaker 5: That's a big.

1024
00:56:05,800 --> 00:56:08,240
Speaker 4: Number it's nothing like almost any of these fine tuning,

1025
00:56:08,320 --> 00:56:11,840
Speaker 4: variables and yet everyone would immediately. INFER i suspect at,

1026
00:56:11,880 --> 00:56:13,920
Speaker 4: two we would probably think something's.

1027
00:56:13,920 --> 00:56:16,520
Speaker 5: Fishy AND i would almost wonder if.

1028
00:56:16,520 --> 00:56:18,200
Speaker 4: ONE i don't Think i've ever seen a real royal,

1029
00:56:18,239 --> 00:56:20,880
Speaker 4: flush BUT i honestly think it would be reasonable to

1030
00:56:20,920 --> 00:56:23,240
Speaker 4: think on the second, one something weird is. Happening three

1031
00:56:23,760 --> 00:56:26,000
Speaker 4: you know something's, happening, Right and that's this is a

1032
00:56:26,239 --> 00:56:29,879
Speaker 4: tiny insignificant number compared to some of these fine tune

1033
00:56:29,920 --> 00:56:32,680
Speaker 4: variables for which you. Know this is WHY i tend to, Think,

1034
00:56:32,920 --> 00:56:35,480
Speaker 4: okay at some, point adding numbers to these, things it

1035
00:56:35,480 --> 00:56:38,600
Speaker 4: sort of misses the point because if someone's decided kind

1036
00:56:38,600 --> 00:56:40,840
Speaker 4: of nothing is going to count in favor of the

1037
00:56:40,920 --> 00:56:43,400
Speaker 4: universe actually being fine, tuned then you're you're sort of

1038
00:56:43,440 --> 00:56:45,799
Speaker 4: wasting your breath trying to come up with more.

1039
00:56:45,840 --> 00:56:48,680
Speaker 2: Examples JE i told you this many. Times love your

1040
00:56:48,719 --> 00:56:51,480
Speaker 2: book To Privage. Plan it's so. Fascinating one of my

1041
00:56:51,560 --> 00:56:55,200
Speaker 2: favorite apologetics. Books you wrote, IT i think two thousand and,

1042
00:56:55,600 --> 00:56:57,000
Speaker 2: five the first verse thousand and.

1043
00:56:57,040 --> 00:56:58,840
Speaker 5: Four, yeah first version two thousand and.

1044
00:56:58,800 --> 00:57:02,000
Speaker 2: Four and then you did twenty year. Update we came,

1045
00:57:02,040 --> 00:57:04,799
Speaker 2: on we talked about. That did response to? That now

1046
00:57:05,000 --> 00:57:06,600
Speaker 2: Won't we don't have time to go into it. Here

1047
00:57:06,680 --> 00:57:09,160
Speaker 2: we've been talking about fine tuning kind of the laws

1048
00:57:09,160 --> 00:57:13,080
Speaker 2: of physics and the constants and. Cosmology what you referred

1049
00:57:13,080 --> 00:57:16,520
Speaker 2: to as local fine tuning is more for there to

1050
00:57:16,520 --> 00:57:19,000
Speaker 2: be life on our, planet we need a certain core

1051
00:57:19,080 --> 00:57:21,680
Speaker 2: and a certain sun of a certain, distance of a certain,

1052
00:57:21,720 --> 00:57:25,040
Speaker 2: age and outer planets and a moon and a certain.

1053
00:57:25,120 --> 00:57:28,919
Speaker 2: Tilt that's a local kind of fine. Tuning we didn't

1054
00:57:28,960 --> 00:57:33,200
Speaker 2: even go into that if, anything just adds the improbability

1055
00:57:33,240 --> 00:57:38,000
Speaker 2: of naturalism and points further towards. Design that'll be a

1056
00:57:38,040 --> 00:57:41,240
Speaker 2: conversation for another, time but maybe as we wrap. Up

1057
00:57:41,440 --> 00:57:43,360
Speaker 2: one of the Things i'm doing this month is we've

1058
00:57:43,400 --> 00:57:46,600
Speaker 2: Had doug axon. Friends if you missed, that he made

1059
00:57:46,640 --> 00:57:50,280
Speaker 2: such a compelling case from biology to. Life we Had

1060
00:57:50,280 --> 00:57:52,600
Speaker 2: Stephen myron to make a case from the origin of

1061
00:57:52,760 --> 00:57:55,120
Speaker 2: universe towards a source outside of the.

1062
00:57:55,200 --> 00:57:56,960
Speaker 3: Universe we had you on for fine.

1063
00:57:56,960 --> 00:57:59,400
Speaker 2: Tuning is BECAUSE i really want to use my channel

1064
00:57:59,440 --> 00:58:02,600
Speaker 2: to talk about this movie Called The story Of. Everything

1065
00:58:02,800 --> 00:58:07,360
Speaker 2: i've seen an early. Copy it's so, interesting it's. Fascinating

1066
00:58:08,040 --> 00:58:10,640
Speaker 2: tell us about that, movie because it's coming up really

1067
00:58:10,720 --> 00:58:11,800
Speaker 2: soon it.

1068
00:58:11,840 --> 00:58:14,680
Speaker 4: Is in, FACT i think it opens in theaters around

1069
00:58:14,720 --> 00:58:17,000
Speaker 4: the country on the thirtieth, here just in a couple of.

1070
00:58:17,040 --> 00:58:23,240
Speaker 4: Days this, movie theatrical. Release documentary has really it's been

1071
00:58:23,280 --> 00:58:25,400
Speaker 4: about four years in the. Making in, FACT i remember

1072
00:58:25,440 --> 00:58:27,320
Speaker 4: the first interviews happened sort of at the end of

1073
00:58:27,360 --> 00:58:27,720
Speaker 4: THE covid.

1074
00:58:27,800 --> 00:58:32,160
Speaker 5: Lockdowns but it's a magnificent you, know it's an.

1075
00:58:32,040 --> 00:58:36,200
Speaker 4: Hour and a half long sort of extended treatment of these.

1076
00:58:36,240 --> 00:58:39,240
Speaker 4: Issues it really focuses on the origin of the, universe

1077
00:58:39,280 --> 00:58:41,400
Speaker 4: so that you, know The Big bang, cosmology the fact

1078
00:58:41,440 --> 00:58:43,880
Speaker 4: the universe had at the beginning all the fine tuning

1079
00:58:43,920 --> 00:58:47,520
Speaker 4: evidence that we've talked about here tonight this afternoon to,

1080
00:58:47,640 --> 00:58:50,440
Speaker 4: night and then also the origin of life and the

1081
00:58:50,480 --> 00:58:54,840
Speaker 4: complexity and these information reality in, life and then also

1082
00:58:54,960 --> 00:58:58,240
Speaker 4: the beauty of the natural, world which is sort of

1083
00:58:58,280 --> 00:59:01,280
Speaker 4: something in addition to these. Things and so it's delightful

1084
00:59:01,320 --> 00:59:03,760
Speaker 4: and it's really nice to be able to honestly be

1085
00:59:03,800 --> 00:59:07,080
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty six when you can have, really really

1086
00:59:07,120 --> 00:59:11,120
Speaker 4: really high definition, imitry so that, yeah just begin to

1087
00:59:11,160 --> 00:59:13,440
Speaker 4: get a sense of the grandeur and the beauty of

1088
00:59:13,520 --> 00:59:17,200
Speaker 4: life at both at very small, scales at human size,

1089
00:59:17,200 --> 00:59:19,080
Speaker 4: scales and then the grandeur of.

1090
00:59:19,080 --> 00:59:21,680
Speaker 5: The universes as a whole at very large. Scales it's.

1091
00:59:21,720 --> 00:59:25,000
Speaker 2: MAGNIFICENT i haven't seen a, film whether for believers or,

1092
00:59:25,080 --> 00:59:28,720
Speaker 2: unbelievers that is going to better visualize.

1093
00:59:27,920 --> 00:59:28,800
Speaker 3: And explain the.

1094
00:59:29,000 --> 00:59:33,120
Speaker 2: Arguments so even if somebody is not, convinced at least

1095
00:59:33,400 --> 00:59:37,200
Speaker 2: steal man it and understand, it given what's at stake

1096
00:59:37,240 --> 00:59:40,200
Speaker 2: here with whether or not the universe is, designed and

1097
00:59:40,240 --> 00:59:43,240
Speaker 2: the movie the story of everything huge fan and by the,

1098
00:59:43,280 --> 00:59:45,160
Speaker 2: way some people think you're giving so much time for,

1099
00:59:45,200 --> 00:59:48,160
Speaker 2: this you're getting. Sponsored, Nope Discovery institute.

1100
00:59:47,760 --> 00:59:48,440
Speaker 3: Is not paying me a.

1101
00:59:48,480 --> 00:59:51,800
Speaker 2: Penny i'm doing this Because i'm a fan in the

1102
00:59:51,920 --> 00:59:54,960
Speaker 2: sense of grateful for it in my own, life believe

1103
00:59:55,040 --> 00:59:58,360
Speaker 2: in intelligent, design and just want to partner with organizations

1104
00:59:58,400 --> 01:00:00,640
Speaker 2: THAT i think are doing good. Work so check out

1105
01:00:00,640 --> 01:00:02,800
Speaker 2: The story Of, everything pick up a copy of Their Privileged,

1106
01:00:02,840 --> 01:00:06,320
Speaker 2: planet and before you click, away make sure that you

1107
01:00:06,520 --> 01:00:09,040
Speaker 2: think about studying with us At. Bayola our other guests,

1108
01:00:09,040 --> 01:00:12,840
Speaker 2: Today Greg, gansel teaches in THE Ma philosophy, program WHICH

1109
01:00:12,840 --> 01:00:16,400
Speaker 2: i did over twenty years. Ago no exaggeration to say

1110
01:00:16,440 --> 01:00:19,400
Speaker 2: that it was life changing and game changing for, me my,

1111
01:00:20,240 --> 01:00:24,160
Speaker 2: worldview my belief, system my. Confidence, greg you'll be teaching

1112
01:00:24,200 --> 01:00:27,120
Speaker 2: some of the apologetics classes with me coming. Up we

1113
01:00:27,160 --> 01:00:31,360
Speaker 2: actually have a master's distinctly in science and, religion but

1114
01:00:31,480 --> 01:00:34,040
Speaker 2: in all three of those programs we cover and talk

1115
01:00:34,080 --> 01:00:37,360
Speaker 2: about a lot of what we did. Today make sure

1116
01:00:37,360 --> 01:00:39,880
Speaker 2: you hit. Subscribe we've got the two videos coming up.

1117
01:00:39,920 --> 01:00:42,840
Speaker 2: Again you will not want to miss. This Steve meyer

1118
01:00:42,880 --> 01:00:45,960
Speaker 2: On friday and then again On. Tuesday we're doing a

1119
01:00:46,000 --> 01:00:49,520
Speaker 2: deep dive response to the new Book battle of The Big,

1120
01:00:49,560 --> 01:00:54,120
Speaker 2: bang which lays out a couple dozen models that kind

1121
01:00:54,120 --> 01:00:56,840
Speaker 2: of challenges The Big bang model and leans in towards

1122
01:00:56,840 --> 01:01:01,360
Speaker 2: an eternal. Universe and specifically to Sir rob Your, PENROSE

1123
01:01:01,440 --> 01:01:03,520
Speaker 2: i am honored that he responded to a video on

1124
01:01:03,560 --> 01:01:07,560
Speaker 2: my channel and he deserves a, careful thoughtful response and

1125
01:01:07,600 --> 01:01:11,600
Speaker 2: we're going to do that all, right subscribe click. Below

1126
01:01:11,960 --> 01:01:14,439
Speaker 2: we'll see you next, Time doctor J, Richards thanks for joining.

1127
01:01:14,520 --> 01:01:15,920
Speaker 3: Us this was, fun my.

1128
01:01:16,040 --> 01:01:19,680
Speaker 2: Pleasure Ja hey, friends if you enjoyed this, show please

1129
01:01:19,800 --> 01:01:22,600
Speaker 2: hit that fall button on your podcast. App most of

1130
01:01:22,640 --> 01:01:25,040
Speaker 2: you tuning in haven't done this yet and it makes

1131
01:01:25,080 --> 01:01:27,959
Speaker 2: a huge difference in helping us reach and equip.

1132
01:01:27,680 --> 01:01:28,600
Speaker 3: More people and build.

1133
01:01:28,600 --> 01:01:31,560
Speaker 2: Community and please consider leaving a podcast.

1134
01:01:31,640 --> 01:01:33,320
Speaker 3: Review every review.

1135
01:01:33,560 --> 01:01:36,440
Speaker 2: Helps thanks for listening to The sean McDowell, show brought

1136
01:01:36,480 --> 01:01:40,000
Speaker 2: to you By Talbot school Of theology At Biola, university

1137
01:01:40,040 --> 01:01:43,840
Speaker 2: where we have on campus and online programs and apologetic spiritual,

1138
01:01:43,920 --> 01:01:46,840
Speaker 2: formation marriage and Family, bible and so much. More we

1139
01:01:46,840 --> 01:01:49,760
Speaker 2: would love to train you to more effectively, live, teach

1140
01:01:49,880 --> 01:01:52,720
Speaker 2: and defend The christian faith today and we will see

1141
01:01:52,720 --> 01:01:54,040
Speaker 2: you when the next episode.

1142
01:01:54,200 --> 01:01:54,560
Speaker 3: Drops