Fine Tuning Argument SPEED RUN!

This is a speed-run of the Teleological Argument based on the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe.

[avivastudios]

You have a cute voice and I like how you could speed through the idea of the universe having a beginning without it being confusing.

[expandingtruth]

This is amazing! Pretty much all my work in the past month simplified! Thank you! God Bless!

[philosophyman]

Other people covered objections, although I will throw in an extra one that says atoms may have formed differently, giving rise to new universe cinfigurations which may have harbored life, so all we can say is that OUR lives deoend on these constants being what they are.
Im really enjoing your videos. I am admittantly an athiest but think believing in the afterlife would be sick af, but I can only believe things that I believe are the smalest leap of faith (kierk).

[jjmichael]

Great video bro, can you do this with other arguments for God existance also?

God bless you btw.

[les]

This argument does NOT have good refutations. Great video!

[dr.shousa]

Here are my objections, reposted from elsewhere (FT: fine tuning, G: God, N: naturalism, D: data):
1) We simply have no way of knowing the data generating probability distributions of these constants. Assuming it over independent uniforms (even if truncated), is unjustified, therefore the FT probabilities are unjustified.
2) If we compare the assumption of independent uniform with a degenerate distribution at the observed constants, the latter will be more "likely, " given the one observation we have. If we are consistent with our methodology, we must accept that the probability that we observe these constants are 1 (since it is the most likely). p(D|constant)>p(D|uniform).
3) To use Bayes factors reliably, you need to assume that one of the hypotheses are true, and you have infinite data. We only have one data and naturalism/theism is not a dichotomy, therefore it is unreliable.
4) p(D|G) cannot be computed, because G cannot be quantified (it can be anything from 0 to 1). Therefore the Bayes factor is invalid.
5) G, particularly that which generates high p(D|G), is equivalent to an infinite parameter model. This is a matter of overfitting. Given Solomonoff's theory, this would lead to us assigning p(G)=0, due to its infinite complexity.
We can also see this if we were to compare hypotheses with the Bayesian information criterion (infinite penalty).
6) p(D|N) is not simply by chance. If these constants were set after the "beginning" of the universe, then it could be a matter of equilibrium, making it p(D|N)=1. (see also 1 and 2.) Assuming naturalism can only produce random samples from independent uniform distributions is factually incorrect and silly.

[krzyszwojciech]

I think this argument is one of the most confused ones out there, when used as an argument for God's existence (which technically, you didn't do, not on the surface anyway).
It has 'hidden' assumptions people don't look at for some reason or omit (which I'm bewildered by).
We don't know the nature of the constants - are they necessary, are they brute facts, are they arbitrary? Are they reducible to one constant, or not? Are some or all of them connected (you change one and other must also change)? If they can have other values at all, what values can they actually have? And what is the probability distribution for different values of a constant or a combination of constants?

Given that the constants are what they are, it's reasonable if not obvious that anything based on them (including the life that's known to us) would cease to exist almost no matter how little you'd change it.

It's all basically a speculations upon speculations that can't be properly evaluated because we don't have a Theory of [Actually] Everything and in my estimation no one will ever have it.

[timpieper]

You didn’t give any data set of trials to show the actual probability that our universe’s constants would have the value they have. For all we know, the probability might by 1:1, or possibly incredibly likely. This video didn’t present anything to suggest how likely or unlikely the constants would be what they are, given the assumption no gods exist. So the argument didn’t even get off the ground.

[MrFossilabgfyth]

My dad has said this about the fine-tuning argument, you can't prove it.