Would Different Kinds of Life be Possible with Different Fundamental Constants & Quantities?

preview_player
Показать описание
Is it possible that a slightly different fundamental constant or quantity of nature would lead to a universe with different kinds of life? Dr. Craig explains why tweaking these fundamental values is catastrophic for life of any kind!

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I wish I was part of this random congregation that gets personal classes from William Lane Craig 😭

daman
Автор

What about the objection that these constants had to be the way they are? This seems to be a common objection I've encountered.

existential_o
Автор

What's interesting to me about the argument from Fine Tuning is that it suggests that the Fundamental Constants that Dr. Craig speaks of here are Necessary and therefore NOT contingent (otherwise The Universe would be thrust into Chaos, as Craig explains in this video) - which apparently conflicts with the argument from Contingency which suggests that these Constants are NOT Necessary. Thus it appears (when viewed from a Christian perspective) that these two arguments are incongruous.

mugsofmirth
Автор

I'd really like the 'fine tuning' argument to be a good one, but I am yet to be convinced. It strikes me at first as being a type of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious conclusion.
The obvious, to my mind, thing it doesn't deal with is that we are talking about a whole suite of constants. If there was a different 'coherent' suite of constants, then we'd conceivably have a different universe and any life in it would be that universe's life. Life that could not work in 'this' universe with its constants. It wouldn't be like this universe, or even this life. Thus, arguments about the problem of one constant being changed throwing the whole suite out of wack is obvious, and should only get a 'so what' response. That is obvious and unremarkable.
There is a circularity in the argument, that I think is inescapable.
Now, give me an argument that avoids the post hoc-ness and the question-begging flavour and I'd be interested.

dagwould