DICE DON'T PROVE GOD! A Response to a Fine-Tuning Argument

DICE DON'T PROVE GOD

The video linked above claims that dice can show that God exists. The video employs a sly, but fundamentally misleading, argument for the existence of an intelligent creator based on fine-tuning.

Like so many fine-tuning arguments, this one is guilty of a number of fallacies. Have a watch and find out what they are!

Thank you very much for watching! If you enjoyed, like and subscribe for more physics, mathematics, philosophy and atheism!

If you have any ideas you want me to talk about, comment below!

[michaelchampion]

I've responded to this claim many times, just by telling someone that I have a die in my hand, what is the chance I will roll a six.
When I do so, its never a six sided dice, maybe four or twenty. If you dint know the possible range how can you give the probability. Well done, good vid.

[plantingasbulldog]

Why assume that the 'some people' he's referring to are whole cloth exclusively atheists? This seems uncharitable. Especially given that some people happily espouse this at least in day to day conversation. And while I think neo-darwinism is quite a flawed, anachronistic model compared to structuralism, this sort of thing certainly seems implied. The person in the video was quite specific when he said some people. Qualifications happen for a reason.

The whole objection of 'I don't have 1x10-55 universes to observe' actually doesn't help with regards to a typical fine-tuning argument such as those presented by Collins or Barnes, because they're using Bayesian rather than frequentist probability. I guess I don't blame you in one regard for this since you were merely responding to the video, but on the other hand seeing such an unfortunate misunderstanding of the kind of probability theorem used in the context of this argument again and again is quite tiring.

I often hear the sort of 'God of the gaps' complaint, but this is often just misunderstood and quite unfortunate as well. God of the gaps would be a subset of an Argument from Ignorance, saying that, by virtue of the fact that a given phenomena hasn't been explained by the opposition (in this case the metaphysical naturalist), therefore, necessarily, you are right. Positing God though is just not a problem if, for instance, the observe phenomena is more likely on your theory.

You did assert at one point that the evidence doesn't point to God being the best explanation, however, you did merely assert it. Why do you think God is not the best explanation, simply because there are others?

You go about saying that the fact that there is no evidence for a multiverse is comparable to no evidence for the ability to change the constants, but theoretical physicists, like Barnes and Lewis, have both done excellent work on this, and they aren't the only ones.

[Josh-mhkl]

Sean Carroll said it best "we don't know the parameters in which life can exist"

[RonCram]

Also, your video only discussed fine-tuning on a cosmic scale. You completely ignored the far more interesting fine-tuning of our local solar system and earth-moon system. While the universe is fine-tuned for low entropy, the vast majority of the universe is still very hostile to life. So it is necessary for additional fine-tuning of our solar system. Calculating the odds here is also difficult, but it is far more interesting because the fine-tuning did not happen all at once at the big bang. The apparent fine-tuning appears to have happened over billions of years from proto-earth to earth with a thin, transparent atmosphere. The evidence here is too massive to summarize, but I would recommend the book Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee.

[chanishkaperera]

Actually GOD is sperate to the universe. like the creator of a computer is sperate from his creations, He doesn't operate by the same rules. There is a misunderstanding.

what are of the three fundamental elements of physics space, time and matter.
here's a simple thought experiment( yes I know the big bang theory states that all came into being at once) but for argument sake we say we didn't know that a we ask which came first?

so to test this we say Matter came first: the question is "when" did matter exist and "where"

we say Time came first: the question is "where" did time exist

we say space came first: the question is then "when" did the space exist.

The obvious conclusion we come to is that they all had to come to being at the same time.
so something beyond space time and matter. something beyond the matrix of reality: the universe has a beginning so it must have an ending.

The universe is governed by complex laws some we are unaware off. I can not understand why, while such complex, intricate and precise mathematics are at work, you say its because of random explosion. EVERYTHING COMING OUT OF NOTHING heck the big bang theory contradicts THE LAW OF CONSERVATION ENERGY . which states that energy can never be created or destroyed only converted. yet we all some how agree that both are no one does there own thinking they let other peoples theories and opinions do there thinking with them.

yes this was things taught in schools to enlighten us to be better thinkers and what not to contribute to society BY TRUST WORTHY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DECICATED THERE LIVES TO ENLIGHTEN HUMANITY. If you think the world had the peoples interests at heart we would have had peace and less suffering a long time again. the ones in power hold all the cards the information flow is one of them. But that's another topic- i Digress

back to my answer He simply existed: because infinity has no beginning or end simple
our suborn hearts want a more profound answer but like a wise man once said "wisdom is simplicity itself''

[supermandefender]

Physically debunking I don't think did a very good job debunking. And im not trying to insult him or his efforts just offering my analysis.

I don't want to address everything he said I think is wrong otherwise this going to be a very long post.

1st: The introduction is not intended to be a characterure about atheists personally. That is an unjustified assumption about the person making the video. His words were some people think it's just a roll of the dice before he goes into his lecture.

2nd point: If you start with the assumption that all believers in God are bias and looking for reasons to believe in God then your starting position is already setting the bar far to high. And why is every believers source bias and not any source from anybody for any reason at all. Oh that man was a Buddha so we can assume their analysis is bias. Oh that guys an atheist so his source is bias. Oh look an agnostic so on and so forth. Just because you can reason from a certain view point that someone can use bias doesn't make that true. You have to prove bias exists in a person before you critique their conclusions. Otherwise, yet again you're setting the bar way to high. What I mean by setting the bar to high is that you're unreasonable.

3rd point. There are tons of books and websites that list facts (or atleast its roughly the facts). They make their case and point they want to make. If everybody was required to list sources for the sake of objectivity then everybody would also be required to find someone who disagreed with their view and compare them. That would include our scientific endeavors. For example, Dan Barker a well know former Christian who became an atheist wrote a book on free will. As you know it's a philosophical book not a scientific one. But in that book he did not reference even one person of thousands of books that disagree with him. So much for objectivity! And even you in the video you're critiquing took no effort to find anybody who has heard this arguments against fine tuning before and responded to them in disagreement. So again so much for objectivity. What's my point here? A reference on someone's person website, YouTube channel, book, etc isn't required the original source of reference. Again that's just setting the bar to high. Btw you're good search is determined by your interests. What pops up or is available depends on a number of different factors (like maintaining the website and or even paying regular fees).

Last quick point: You keep saying things you don't know. Like we don't know if the expansion rate is the product of chance. There could be some other natural explanation to explain why the expansion rate is what it is; Well the whole point in arguing against chance or some random event is for two reasons. One because that's the whole point of the video (not some other cause & effect out of necessity) and two a natural explanation has to be from a natural process. But to say you don't know it could be anything is just not true even you're also to attribute it to some natural event.

Personally, and this is just me. Be open-minded not confrontational. Don't think of everything you see as someone's trying to prove they're right and your wrong. Yes people have their beliefs and alot of the times their contents aren't meant to challenge you or force you to believe what they do. Their reason could be encouraging toward others that share similar views. It could be many different reasons and that's the reality of it. So stop making unnecessary assumptions and trying to force an uncessary burden as well. I'm not here to tell you're that beliefs that it's more logical in your mind that there's some natural explanation is wrong. I'm just here to have a discussion and attempt to engage with you as well as point out a few things you said I felt were off.

[jclp]

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ULTIMATE TIMEPIECE WE LIVE ON THE FACE OF?

[JerryPenna]

How could it appear to be fine-tuned for us and yet we weren’t around to observe it? Seems pretty difficult for us to exist in the universe that’s not fine tuned for us. More accurately we are fine tuned for the universe through well-known evolutionary processes. Christians just want to find ways to justify their book of mythology and their motivated reasoning. But the arrogance to think that the whole entire universe was designed for us is just ridiculous. there might be more black holes than human beings in the universe.

[SnowyOwlPrepper]

What if more than one intelligent design deity was involved? Multi god or gods. Given the scale and complexity, a team would have been more intelligent. Do any natural design deniers pose theories to preclude a trove of creators?

[mathew]

*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument*

For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this:

1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer


*The Anthropic Principle*

Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human life on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:

Oxygen level
• On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere
• That precise figure is an Anthropic constant that make life in earth possible.
• If oxygen were 25 percent fire would erept spontaneously
• If it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate

Carbon dioxide level
• If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop, and we would all burnt up
• If the level was lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis, and we would all suffocate

For more evidence:


*What are the chances?*

It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^138 (one chance in one with 138 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance.
According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" .



It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_*


_Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_

_Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_

_According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_

_It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_

_It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_

[josebaca]

I appreciate your desire to cite sources. If it’s cited science you desire here’s some for you The Privileged Planet by Dr. Gonzales. Also Dr. Douglas Axe wrote a book titled Undeniable. Another great resource is Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. Please check them out.

[Martin-xmgf]

So what happens with us popping onto existence? We don’t know how to create life, we haven’t found life in any place in the galaxy for now, which makes us rare, and even more rare considering that if life ever popped in another planet, it would probably inmediatly due to it not being able to sustain itself with other resources in its surrounding, it would be extremely rare for a life totally prepared to live of absorbing the resources that surrounds it, and then it’s even more rare for it to multiply or grow in numbers or size because it has no system for it, it would have to be born with it, because such simple life would have to be formed for it to pop into existence, because the chances are too low for it to pop into existence with the capability of growing, or multiplying and being able to absorbe the resources surrounding it.

You saying “I believe there is a more interesting thing than God that made the universe be how it is” is strange, it’s a guess that has no scientifical or logical backup, saying a pony influenced the tuning of our universe is as good of a guess as yours in my opinion since it doesn’t have any scientifical evidence, and because it doesn’t have a “Need” in the universe that we know of.

Finding such complex life like us and saying it was created by random chance, is like finding a advanced alien spaceship that is made for space, and saying it was made by random chance, no matter how small the change it is.

Well have a good day

[DeconvertedMan]

I forget what one I sent you to do. Dice eh? A wise gamer once told me that dice have no memory, but do have a horrible sense of humor.

[lukewills]

He said "some people" not atheists, you're reaching my dude.

[vincemendoza]

Then explain why Funny Cats videos have more views than this one.

[DavidIBHardwick]

This makes a really good point: there may yet be an explanation found for the fine tuning. However, he agrees that this is an "intriguing mystery" for which we don't yet have any clue. He clearly would prefer that the answer doesn't involve God, but at present there is no way to determine which way things will go.

[nirmalbundela]

I clicked bcos in hope of girl but this appeared a boy.

[geneandreyev]

An omnipotent god woudn't be bound by physics. He created physics

[Grana_geo]

I've watched that video... finally there is someone to debunk it

[UncriticalRaceTheory]

Sigh, where to begin, the constants are free parameters there is nothing in our equations that determine their value, physicists have to go measure these values. To claim that we dont know if these could have been different amounts to saying that we cannot do theoretical physics. Ps, the expansion rate is linked to the cosmological constant, and this is extremely fine tuned, Susskind and others considers this the worst fine tuning problem. Ps, you keep conflating the fact of FT for the explanation for FT. FT is a fact not an appearance, muliverse is a naturalistic rival explanation to theistic single universe models, because on naturalism single universe with our laws is highly suspect. But multiverse has its own problems, question of whether it would need its own set of finely tuned metalaws, Boltzmann brains, it doesn't account for other features of our universe, such as over-the-top cases of fine-tuning, i.e low entropy state of early universe, nor the fact that our universe also happens to be fine-tuned for discovery (not just complex life). The vastness of our universe is a function of its age, we literally couldn't live in a small universe because it wouldn't have had time to produce stars, or the building blocks that make up carbon based life.