dewinthemorning | The Fine-Tuning Argument Does NOT Work! @dewinthemorning | Uploaded March 2011 | Updated October 2024, 9 hours ago.
First, god can't be 'in time', because when we say 'time' we mean the action of The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that it is overwhelmingly more probable that tiny particles will tend to arrange themselves from more ordered state to more disordered state - it is a statistical probability that the cube of ice in a glass of warm water will tend to melt, while in the same glass of water, for statistical reasons, a cube of ice won't form itself, leaving the rest of the water warmer than before. The reason for this is that there are a LOT more ways that the moving tiny particles will arrange themselves in an equilibrium way than in some ordered way. That possibility is far greater. There are fluctuations, of course, but they will always be small.
That's 'the arrow of time'.
The statistical probability, according to which the world works, means that the fundamental laws of nature (which Craig says 'are created with precision' by god) presuppose that a certain class of objects or phenomena will appear, but not the particural objects that we do see. And this is not true about living beings. They are not a 'class of objects' that could be predicted by the fundamentsl laws, that could be 'programmed' in them, although life is compatible with them, allowed by them. There is no way the chemical chance that started life could be guided, or ordered, or even presupposed from the first principles, even if it is allowed by them. So, even if god created the fundamental physical forces (which is bullshit), it doesn't follow that living beings, let alone intelligent beings, created 'in god's image', will appear. That means that the fine-tuning argument should be dropped already from the theologians' arsenal. It doesn't work!
For a deeper knowledge of the subject, read "From Eternity to Here" by Sean Carroll and "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod.
Links to Craig's lecture on the fine-tuning argument (Pay attention to the last 2-3 minutes of the last video, where they mention their desire to have Intelligent Design taught in schools. That's what spurred me to make this video.):
youtube.com/watch?v=1FLKfsybH9c&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
youtube.com/watch?v=NlVFnS0CMWo&feature=watch_response
youtube.com/watch?v=Dz5bASim19M&feature=watch_response
youtube.com/watch?v=4J8naNYGhcM&feature=watch_response
youtube.com/watch?v=Ubr5x_APZxs&feature=watch_response
First, god can't be 'in time', because when we say 'time' we mean the action of The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that it is overwhelmingly more probable that tiny particles will tend to arrange themselves from more ordered state to more disordered state - it is a statistical probability that the cube of ice in a glass of warm water will tend to melt, while in the same glass of water, for statistical reasons, a cube of ice won't form itself, leaving the rest of the water warmer than before. The reason for this is that there are a LOT more ways that the moving tiny particles will arrange themselves in an equilibrium way than in some ordered way. That possibility is far greater. There are fluctuations, of course, but they will always be small.
That's 'the arrow of time'.
The statistical probability, according to which the world works, means that the fundamental laws of nature (which Craig says 'are created with precision' by god) presuppose that a certain class of objects or phenomena will appear, but not the particural objects that we do see. And this is not true about living beings. They are not a 'class of objects' that could be predicted by the fundamentsl laws, that could be 'programmed' in them, although life is compatible with them, allowed by them. There is no way the chemical chance that started life could be guided, or ordered, or even presupposed from the first principles, even if it is allowed by them. So, even if god created the fundamental physical forces (which is bullshit), it doesn't follow that living beings, let alone intelligent beings, created 'in god's image', will appear. That means that the fine-tuning argument should be dropped already from the theologians' arsenal. It doesn't work!
For a deeper knowledge of the subject, read "From Eternity to Here" by Sean Carroll and "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod.
Links to Craig's lecture on the fine-tuning argument (Pay attention to the last 2-3 minutes of the last video, where they mention their desire to have Intelligent Design taught in schools. That's what spurred me to make this video.):
youtube.com/watch?v=1FLKfsybH9c&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
youtube.com/watch?v=NlVFnS0CMWo&feature=watch_response
youtube.com/watch?v=Dz5bASim19M&feature=watch_response
youtube.com/watch?v=4J8naNYGhcM&feature=watch_response
youtube.com/watch?v=Ubr5x_APZxs&feature=watch_response
