The fine tuning argument debunked by philosopher in 1 minute

Atheist Philsoopher Alex Malpass debunks the fine tuning in less than 60 seconds. Part of a longer discussion here:

[cultofscriabin]

Best and simplest answer to the fine tuning arg

[quantumatheism-yn]

Great man. One day, please bring Dr. Philipe Leon into the discussion.

[resurrectionnerd]

Christian fine tuning proponents simultaneously believe life can only exist if physical constants are tuned a certain way while conscious spirits/souls exist in a supernatural realm called heaven....

[ILoveLuhaidan]

1:20:11 what’s the relevant difference between homosexuality and incest?

[Autists-Guide]

And what's the probability that if life exists elsewhere that they too have invented god(s)?

[JohnSmith-bqnf]

This doesn't refute fine-tuning. Pretty sure that logic nat dictate certain ways to create otherwise it would be a contradiction.

[eenkjet]

Mathematical platonism is necessary. Thus God must speak and create using logic. It's not "physics" that constrains nature, it's mathematics. AM here would argue that God could ground a universe on chaos, or cotton candy. This is the cotton-candology problem.

[zgobermn]

Um, i don't know. The argument is that for God ANYTHING will do. In the realm of the Divine, yes. But if God creates a world like our world, a natural world that includes a physical/material dimension, then real laws etc governing nature must exist, hence the space of probabilities/potentials. But if you think that with God an Alice in Wonderland world also works as good then i have to disagree in the strongest terms.

[deeprecce]

Ha..the real omnipotent beings are those trying to fit a non existence being into science!!

[MatthewFearnley]

It's worth pointing out that this argument doesn't have anything to do with fine tuning.

Suppose it was discovered the life-permitting range was actually very broad. Would proponents of the argument then say "OK, I guess God can be omnipotent after all"?

It's better to think of this argument as saying "Hey, there exist physical constraints on what universes can permit life (however broad or narrow). That makes me question God's omnipotence for some reason."

(And yes, it still doesn't address the main question raised by the FTA: on naturalism, why would the universe be life-permitting?)

[EugenHarhaj]

what is this even debunk? this is just you talking whats are the athiests talking about this debunking smt?

[abelex]

This goes for almost every arguments for God too..

[ChristianSigma]

well...Malpass said toward the end of the vid that every world is life permitting if god exists.

I [a Christian] respond that that **IS** exactly the point...so Malpass just basically conceded the point christians make for the fine tuning argument to succeed.


Alex Pruss says in his blog:
"P(the universe has low entropy | naturalism) is extremely tiny.
P(the universe has low entropy | theism) is not very small."
"At least locally low entropy is needed for the existence of life..."

[onlyonetoserve]

Athest tong do egghed jibberjabber wurd sumersalting tac tic deny crator

[adam.summerfield]

So if I understand him correctly, the claim he's making is that if God exists, then God can create physical life in any form? This amounts to an assertion that if (God's) omnipotence exists, then there's an infinite range of hypothetical systems that could support physical life. Well, some of those systems are contradictory, so the range isn't infinite. Some of them won't support positive feedback, so those won't support life either. Just because there is a limited range of systems that support biology, doesn't mean God is not omnipotent. The system itself is a set of rules that God has chosen, but the rules have consequences, because the rules have to be followed. That means some systems will sustain life and others won't. That's not a limit on God's power.

[chrispyp]

This doesn't address the fine turning argument. The argument has nothing to do with God's existence and preferences altering the probability distribution. Where did Alex get the idea that if God exists, we should expect to see a universe teeming with life? Alex has made some assumptions here based on his own concept of God. He is treating God as some super mechanism for creation, not having any free will of His own - the free will to create or not create.
Alex starts with the pressuppositon "if God exists then we should expect to see X". X is false, therefore God does not exist. This is terrible logic. Alex first needs to posit why a maximally great being would change the probability distribution in such a way to produce life on many worlds. Alex you're better than this. I'd expect to hear this from the likes of Stephen Woodford, not you.

[momo]

Brilliant! Why would god rely on the laws of physics?

[Lmaoh]

Simply it could be said that with the existence of an omnipotent God, there is nothing that disallows life

[quidam]

That is a stupid answer... You assume god creates laws for the universe and is going to contradict them all the time for this point to have any sense... That is not the idea of the fine tuning argument which you clearly do not understand. Along with the theological ideas about god and creation. Read on a subject before making claims like these, that can only make an impression on uninformed people.

[AttilaM-px]

This assumes a specific definition of omnipotence (roughly: there's nothing God can't do). But if omnipotence is used in a more constrained view (God can do only the logically possible), then this argument may not hold.