6 Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument

The fine-tuning argument is often considered one of the best arguments for God. In a way, I can understand why. On an intuitive level, the universe just seems to "work" in a way that appears orderly and perfectly suited for the survival of life. But once you start digging a little deeper, it becomes clear that this idea is deeply flawed - and when discussing the modern Christian version of a tri-omni God who could have created the universe however he wanted, it's incoherent. In this video, I discuss six reasons why.

00:00 Intro
01:47 1) Most of the universe is inhospitable to human life and would instantly kill us.
03:55 2) It considers the odds of producing OUR life in particular instead of any possible kind of life an all-powerful God could have created.
05:29 3) It assumes the universe was made to help life survive and not that life adapted to survive in the universe.
07:41 4) It assumes that the “constants” and other attributes of the universe that make life possible were random.
10:18 5) It dismisses alternatives such as the multiverse hypothesis as having no evidence.
12:14 6) It proposes that God went out of his way to design humans with specific weaknesses just so he could design the universe to accommodate them.
17:39 Outro and Patreon Credits

THEME MUSIC CREDITS:

STUFF ABOUT ME AND WHERE TO FIND ME

My mailing address:
PO Box 773024
Eagle River, AK 99577

[antondovydaitis]

Remember that Apologists are never actually talking to Atheists, but instead want to be seen as arguing with Atheists in order to assure believers that they have answers for all doubts.

[cplus]

"If everything wasn't exactly the way it is, it would be different. Checkmate, athiests!"

[the-nick-of-time]

To be fair, the fine tuning argument being trash and it being the best apologetic argument are not mutually exclusive.

[ianchisholm]

The fine-tuning argument wouldn't have been so appealing to people who lived before our modern age - a world full of hunger, cold, drought, disease, lethal childbirth and infant mortality would hardly seem to be finely designed for their benefit.

[pRODIGAL_sKEPTIC]

One of the reasons I love this channel is that POZ rarely engages in ad hominem or hyperbole. So when he says something is "obscenely stupid at its foundation, " it hits different

[avir]

My favorite starting point with someone like that is usually 'if we and this world were designed by the same designer, specifically for human life, then it's really weird that so much of this planet, not to mention virtually everything we know of beyond this world, is utterly lethal to our form of life, and any version of life we have been able to think of so far.'

[JM]

Without a doubt, the best, most comprehensive rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument I've ever seen. I adore you, PoZ. From the the bottom of my undesigned heart, I do.

Thank you for this.

[undecidedmiddleground]

Yes, this, precisely this. The Fine-Tuning Argument is so thoroughly thrashed by The Puddle Analogy that it's boring. But apologists, even well-respected apologists still use it. Why? Because even this weak, thoroughly debunked, and clearly BS argument is one of the best they have. And that should tell you all you need to know.

[Egooist.]

The fine-tuning argument drowned in the puddle of Douglas Adams ;-D

[bradypustridactylus]

Take a football stadium as a setting for a lottery. The stadium holds 70, 000 seats. The lottery is won by having the participants guess whether the next coin toss will be heads or tails. Those who guess correctly continue the game, those who don’t must leave the stadium. After 16 or 17 trials, there will be one winner.
Picture an interview where the winner is pressed about the experience of winning. Now, if you have watched lottery winners talk about winning on TV, two things will almost certainly be true. The winner will claim that they have followed the same preconceived strategy from the beginning, and they will also claim that it was following this strategy consistently that produced the win.
This is what the human mind does to cope with inconceivable odds. It creates fictional plausible scenarios. If you have won 16 times against 1 on 70, 000 odds, the mind struggles for an explanation. It’s the egocentric tunnel-vision of the human mind that makes the Fine Tuning Argument so compelling.

[natew.]

Good video.

Another issue with the argument is that it "proves" a god that is just as probable without fine-tuning. If god can manipulate the very dials of the universe then it's absurd to think he can't also create life under any universe conditions. In which case, you now have a situation that is shown to be insignificant.

[peterkapinos]

The fine tuning argument is THE EPITOME of navel-gazing, and for it's own sake, staying in it's own lane. It does disregard soooo much of what exists in the world. Great video.

[georgev]

“STARS EXPLODE, WORLDS COLLIDE, THERE'S HARDLY ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE WHERE HUMANS CAN LIVE WITHOUT BEING FROZEN OR FRIED, AND YET YOU BELIEVE THAT A... A BED IS A NORMAL THING. IT IS THE MOST AMAZING TALENT.”
Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[Sparkbomber]

The fine-tuning argument is about as persistent as a cockroach, but this debunking of it is excellent.

[bellezavudd]

The fine tuning apologetics has always seemed so obviously ludicrous that I almost didn't watch this video.
However I ended up watching and appreciating the fine tuned atguments presented by ZOD. 👍
Thanks !!

[philb]

The trouble with the Fine-Tuning argument is that people who use it never actually demonstrate that the universe we find ourselves in was *intended.* This is merely asserted. The argument is just shooting an arrow and drawing a target around where it lands.

[donaldnumbskull]

Thank you, that was good. I was nodding along with the first five, but number six was new to me, which in hindsight it shouldn't have been. Which is why I watch your videos.

[markmayberry]

Gosh, I can't even describe how pleasant it is to listen to a channel with such pointed, well-researched yet gently explained points. Excellent writing! I smile every time I hear a common idiom carried through consistently until its conclusion. Not mixing metaphors? Priceless.
So satisfying. Thank you.

[dienekes]

I've never thought of #6, but, to me, it's brilliant!!!! It really solidifies stuff that has been itching the back of my brain, but I've never been able to dig it out. Thanks for the shovel!!!

[foppishdilletaunt]

I firmly believe that all the apologetics arguments were already played out and refuted by roughly the 7th Century. Their persistence only serves to show that apologetics existence is a compound fracture of an argument.
“Look at this ! Reams and volumes and encyclopaedias have been written Proving the sufficiency of this scripture !”

Anyone with a human body should be well able to refute the argument of fine tuning.