Responding to the 'Fine Tuning' Argument for God (Sean Carroll)

Physicist Sean Caroll lays some of the problems with the popular "fine tuning" arguments for a god.

Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. All copyrighted materials contained herein belong to their respective copyright holders, I do not claim ownership over any of these materials. I realize no profit, monetary or otherwise, from the exhibition of these videos.

[pcbacklash_]

I don't even need to hear the whole debate to recognize Craig's biggest mistake:Debating Sean Caroll in the first place.

[AtheistRex]

Craig pretends to take notes, then delivers his usual script.

[beayn]

My favorite Craig ass-handing. Sean Caroll is one of the few debaters who could address all of Crag's points quickly enough that Craig himself couldn't claim victory based on not addressing every single point, one of his favorite things to do.

[chrislrob]

Wow. That was a helluva nine minutes. One of the best summaries of  many of the best arguments for naturalism that I've ever seen. 

[pmyou]

I just want to stand and applaud to my monitor!
That was a wonderful presentation of reason and logic. Crisp, clear, succinct, totally intelligible, even at the brisk speaking pace he relayed the information.
Brilliant!

[standoughope]

Dr. Craig has to be in my lifetime the most frustrating apologist to debate with in that he reuses the exact same argument over and over again and refuses to be influenced by articulate rebuttals.

[DogmaDisputant]

I think this quote sums up Craig's wishful thinking:

"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn’t there, and finding it.” ~ Oscar Wilde

[fecxorfecxor]

The fine-tuning argument is circular. It assumes that since life exists, life is special and must have been the goal all along, in order to prove that life is special and must have been the goal all along.

[shrekogreton]

This may be the most complete and conclusive destruction of the fine-tuning argument I've ever heard. Sean is the fucking man.

[OriginLinear]

My major objection to the fine tuning argument is one which Carol touches upon.

The premise that says something like "The universe is so finely tuned such that if the variables were altered even slightly, life could not exist, " can not possibly be true if the conclusion; "Therefore God, " is true.

Like Carol suggests, to argue this is to suggest that God has no command or control over how life can exist, which is incredibly detrimental to the omnipotence of their supposed God.

[thebatmanover]

This was one of many arguments that changed my mind about rather there is a god or not. Dr.Carroll made me change my mind with regards to allot of what I use to believe to be true.

[garyhughes]

Well, that’s the end of Fine Tuning. Always thought it was a load of rubbish, and Sean Carroll confirms it spectacularly with superior knowledge, logic and eloquence in this brilliant address.

[bonnieuk]

The Christians in the audience hang on to every word that William Lane Craig says as if he *couldn't* be wrong, Craig speaks with such sickening confidence with a large dose of mocking in his delivery that for the casual observer anyone would think that his opponent must be mad to even disagree with him. In debates concerning the New Testament, Craig talks about Jesus's resurrection as if it's an undeniable *fact* that Jesus rose from the dead, the possibility that somebody could actually fabricate such a story is impossible for him to contemplate. 

[daverobertson]

That, ladies and gentlemen, was an ass whoopin.

[PaulTheSkeptic]

Wow, now that's how you debate. I'd go watch the full debate but I don't know how much more WLC I can handle. 

[pinball]

This is an annihilation from Carroll, but what did we expect? A top physicist talking to a christian apologist?

[Pat_Johnson]

He is so eloquent and easy-to-understand. When he explains you do not need to know astrophysics so that you can understand, it is contrary to Craig.
He sounds pretty well, he should do more debates

[useyourbrain]

"That is what computer scientists call a bug, not a featute." So good.

[tech]

Then Craig stood and spewed a bunch of meaningless bullshit. 

[alexdeleon]

Wow! Sean´s sarcastic smile is priceless!!!  "The fine tuning is the best theist argument, but it´s still a terrible argument"!! LMAO