Fine-Tuning Scrutinized? - A Response to @ArvinAsh

Back in June of 2020, YouTuber Arvin Ash published a video that attempts to scrutinize the Fine-Tuning Argument for God's existence. In this response video, cosmologist Luke Barnes, who also happens to be my favorite superhero, explains Arvin's many mistakes.

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.

---------------------------------- LINKS ----------------------------------

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #FineTuning #God

[Tommy_XO]

I didn't expect the discussion to be what it was. But I'm glad Dr. Barnes took the time to address this and dispel all the misinformation. Mad respect!

[isaacroberts]

When Arvin says that "anyone who claims our form of life is the only conceivable form of life is doing so without evidence" aren't those positing a multiverse doing the same thing?

[rhandley]

I commented on some of Ash's video's - just asked a couple of questions. He responded, but I followed up with more. He didn't seem to provide adequate answers. Then the questions disappeared. Can a content creator delete comments?

[christiangadfly]

To the point on the history of religious thinkers, St. Augustin 354 states, "the people, who were beginning to resent the action of the senate, were quieted and pacified. For an eclipse of the sun had also happened, and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun's course..."The City of God" Book 3 section 15. Avin Ash doesn't know what he's talking about. Oh and looky there, I actually used a citation. See Ash, it's not hard.

[AlexADalton]

This was great. I'll also say Luke Barnes blog has some of the best debate around the fine-tuning argument I've read over the years. If you are into this argument and you don't read that blog, you are missing out.

[joshuaphilip]

25:30 the cinematographer in Cameron came out haha

[InfinityExt]

33:40 is what I’ve been wondering about fine tuning this entire time and Luke seems to have answered that. I always thought well what if you changed 2 constants to where they both cancel each other out and a life permitting universe still exist. Now i see that Luke has taken this into account which is so relieving

[charles]

I tried to comment the link to this video in the original video and it keeps getting deleted.

[warrenrae]

I’ve watched Arvin Ashes videos before and made a polite but fair criticism in the comments section of their atheistic conclusions pointing out the lack of empirical evidence to support such conclusions only to find shortly afterward that my comment had been deleted by the ‘channel’…….🤔

[bijoythewimp]

He is very biased. Why would a science youtuber meddle is something that is irrelevant to his field. His video about after life and fine tuning. His site even says he is Science lover.

[mountainjay]

Great content, can you respond to Sabine's fine tuning video?

[OnlyINDRAJIT]

Christianity and bible doesn't matter FINE TUNING as one of the criteria to judge or gauge God's presence or omniscience or benevolence. So, Capturing Christianity should not try to capture Fine tuning as one of the arguments behind God's evidence especially when we are not sure about the possibility and nature of any existing Multiverse or even alien forms of life in different regions within our own observable universe or beyond. We don even know whether the Master Law in a The of everything can fine tune itself and generate all possible outcomes across a wide range of planets, stars and galaxies. Now, in modern day physics, cracks are beginning to appear in the so-called absolute and impeccable nature of Fine Tuning. Here are some arguments to consider which is pointing that this Fine Tuning Argument might after all be only be based on our ignorance and not a fundamental feature of the cosmos itself: (i) In universes with parameters that are significantly different from those of our universe, new types of astrophysical processes can contribute to the generation of energy. For the case of dense galactic halos and larger cross sections for weak
interactions, the energy generated by dark matter annihilation can compete with stellar
radiation as a power source for habitable planets .Dark matter can also collect inside stellar remnants (such as white dwarfs) and subsequently annihilate. This
channel of power generation is also enhanced with denser halos and larger weak interaction cross sections. In the regime of stronger gravity and weaker electromagnetism
(smaller α), black holes can be bright enough and sufficient long-lived to serve as hosts
for habitable planets. (ii) The ratio αG=α is notoriously small (∼ 10^−36) in our universe. Within the range of the
(α; αG) plane allowed by working stars, this ratio can be larger by a factor of ∼ 10^4,
but still remains small compared to unity (∼ 10^−32). Planet properties do not depend
on the nuclear reaction parameter C?, and the allowed range of the (α; αG) parameter
space for viable planets is even larger than that for working stars. (Iii) Fred Adams has shown The range of allowed amplitudes Q for the primordial density fluctuations is approximately given by 10^−6 ∼< Q ∼< 10^−2. For smaller values of Q, galactic
gas has difficulty cooling, so that star formation is suppressed (or at least delayed).
For larger values of Q, galaxies become so dense that planets can be stripped out of
their orbits by passing stars, background radiation fields become more intense than the
solar flux received by Earth, and galactic black hole formation becomes problematic.
Nonetheless, the allowed range of Q spans about four orders of magnitude. (IV) If the amplitude Q of the primordial density
fluctuations varies over its allowed range, ρΛ can be larger than its observed value by a
factor of ∼ 10^10. Universes with even larger values of ρΛ can produce structure if the
baryon to photon ratio η increases. The bound is proportional to η4,
so that the upper limit increases by an additional factor of ∼ 10^12. For universes with
large (η; Q), the resulting galaxies would be much denser than those in our universe, so
only a fraction of the solar systems (residing in the outer galaxy) would remain viable. ..and lots more

[garybala]

I thought that fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of life, even if true, does not logically necessitate a Designer God. That is only one explanation. Others might include the Multiverse, Random Chance Brute Fact, and a Theory of Everything not yet discovered which compels the universe to only “be” one way (the way it is now). Still other explanations: the universe only appears to us as finite limited humans with limited perception and cognition to be fine-tuned. It actually is not. Or perhaps it is only fine-tuned for carbon-based life as we know it. There could be many other forms of life which we do not understand currently.

[selwynrenard]

Maybe I'm just missing the point but the one thing I don't understand about the fine tuning argument is how people get to the conclusion that the fundamental constants could have been any other value than what they are.

[JL]

5:02 you're the one committing a strawman fallacy here. He's not saying religious scholars use the mystery of space to explain god, he's saying the mystery of space is originally one of the things that led humans to believe there's a god out there. He's obviously talking about thousands of years before Aristotle.

[Akira-jdzr]

These responses are pretty bad. Like children complaining about someone who said something bad about their favorite cartoon character...

[meanman]

Famously said by someone else, seems to me a big bang, requires a big banger. Who by observation would require “something”beyond space, before time, seemingly without limits to power, and intelligent and wise enough to at minimum create what has been created. Sounds a lot like how one might begin to define “god”.

[zacharygonsalves]

Can you pleaseeee do a video addressing sabine hossenfelder's video on fine tuning. I know yall did a debate but i think there is need to say more in a easy-to-understand way

[JL]

10:11 just because Newton was correct about physics doesn't mean his every opinion about other matters was also correct. He didn't even fully understand physics the way we do today.

[IoannesBaptista]

Please set up a debate between these guys!