Caller's "Fine-Tuning" Argument Gets Completely BLOWN OUT feat. Seth Andrews

本站添加: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]Hi everyone, thanks for watching. Most of the content on my channel is supported by generous patrons but made available for free to the entire world.

[00:00:09]If you support that, please consider adding your support at patreon.com/theistdates.

[00:00:15]This clip, however, is from one of the many programs that I do on YouTube on the line. And if you liked it, feel free to visit like, subscribe, and watch the line network live. Thank you. Harvey is dialing in from Canada. Oh, I may I I'm tempted to seek asylum, Harvey, but u says you're calling to talk about design. You're on with Matt and Seth.

[00:00:40]Let's talk. What do you think?

[00:00:43]>> Yeah. Hi guys. How are you tonight?

[00:00:46]>> Wonderful. Not too bad.

[00:00:50]It's >> good. Yeah. I I wanted to um discuss the teological or the design argument.

[00:00:57]Because when I look at the I'm a theist obviously I'm a Christian and when I look at the how how precisely certain uh physical constants and the laws of the universe um and other examples are are are so precisely uh fine-tuned on a razor's edge. It just it it makes for me it makes the position of a of atheism uh just so extraordinarily unlikely.

[00:01:32]Like for example, and there's many examples. I'm sure you're familiar with all of them, but if the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered with uh between one and a quintilion, which would be the equivalent of combining all the sand in >> Didn't we just talk about this just the other day?

[00:01:53]>> Uh, no, we didn't, Matt. We discussed the the column cosmological argument.

[00:01:58]>> I'm pretty I'm pretty sure you touched on this as well. So, let me ask this.

[00:02:02]Isn't your entire argument Isn't your entire argument here predicated on the notion that we were the goal?

[00:02:11]>> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

[00:02:14]>> Isn't your entire argument predicated on the assumption that we are the intended goal?

[00:02:21]>> Not at all. Uh my argument is predicated on the fact that we have certain examples in nature uh such as the cosmological constant such as the rate of expansion after the big bang the uh particular size and location of our planet in the solar system etc etc and it comes down to what is the best explanation of those facts. No, one hypothesis that no Harvey Harvey there. First of all, you'd have to demonstrate that they could be any other way. And second of all, if they were some other way, we wouldn't be here, but perhaps something or someone else would be here talking about how it seems designed.

[00:03:10]What how many universes do you have that you can explore and investigate? As far as I know, we only have the one.

[00:03:21]>> Yeah, of course. We we can't >> So, if we only have the one, >> how do you tell the difference between a universe that was intentionally designed and a universe that was not intentionally designed? How what's the hallmark to tell the difference?

[00:03:37]Well, first of all, where you're making the claim that other it's possible that other life forms or other >> No, sir. No, sir. Harvey. Harvey.

[00:03:49]Harvey, listen to me very carefully. I did not make a claim.

[00:03:56]I'm asking you to defend your point.

[00:04:00]How did you determine that other that that this isn't the only possible way the universe could be? What what where is your hallmark for telling the difference between a universe that was designed and a universe that wasn't designed?

[00:04:18]>> Because so far as we know uh there is no mechanism that would uh prevent the uh these characteristics of the universe from being different. There's no we don't have any law in physics that's that that would indicate that these these constants and quantities would have would have to be this way.

[00:04:39]>> Okay.

[00:04:39]>> You're going to make that claim. You would have >> I'm not making that claim, Harvey.

[00:04:42]Please listen to what I'm actually saying and stop assuming you know what I'm saying when you're not when you don't.

[00:04:51]>> I have no idea.

[00:04:52]>> I'm listening to you. I have no idea how the universe could have been different or not different. I'm not making a claim that it had to be this way. I was asking you how you determined that it didn't have to be this way. We only have the one universe. And you asserting or claiming that because we cannot demonstrate that it couldn't have been another way, all of a sudden that means it's possible is an assertion that I will reject. But I don't have a problem with it. My problem is here's a universe. What is the way to tell if that universe was intentionally designed rather than not intentionally designed?

[00:05:31]Because there are millions if you shuffle a deck of cards, there's millions of different possibilities. There are more possible uh potentially shuffled decks than there are stars in the in the universe.

[00:05:46]If I deal out a particular 13 cards to four players, like a bridge hand, the odds of any hand is astronomical. It doesn't matter whether you get 13 spades or 12 spades in a heart or four spades, four clubs, seven diamonds, and three.

[00:06:12]What did I leave out?

[00:06:14]Whatever. All of those hands are equally likely.

[00:06:20]So what is the criteria you use to determine that the specifics of this universe are more probably the result of intended design than that they occurred by a natural mechanism that you don't know about.

[00:06:38]>> Okay. Well, first of all, the the example you provided has a fallacy because not all hands are are equally likely. It's >> No, you're you're wrong. Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey, you are wrong.

[00:06:55]So, first of all, there's no fallacy in my example. My example is correct. The odds of any configuration of a shuffled deck of deck of cards is equal to any other configuration of a shuffled deck of cards. Which means the odds of getting dealt 13 spades is exactly the same as the odds of getting 13 spades and a or 12 spades and a five of clubs.

[00:07:21]The odds of those two hands are exactly the same.

[00:07:26]>> Okay. Yeah, I I concede. I was wrong on that. Thank you for the clarification.

[00:07:30]Well, I'm wondering though why you would assert that my position is facious and then claim that my example is wrong when the math is 1 in 52 factorial and very easy to assess instead of telling me what I want to know which is how do you tell the difference? How do you tell that the specific configuration of this universe is more probably the result of design than accidental? Because that what you're doing, and this is why I use this analogy, is you are looking down at a at a hand of cards that's been dealt to you, and you're saying, "Wow, this hand is so le so um unusual that the odds of me getting this hand is different from the odds of other hands."

[00:08:16]But it's not.

[00:08:20]So my answer is you have to in assessing you have to look at the options you have available to explain these facts in nature right and as far as I can see it there's >> sorry go ahead >> I just I just said I agree when we're trying to find a potential explanation for something we have to make a list of the available candidate explanations.

[00:08:46]>> Okay perfect. So, as far as I'm cons, as far as I'm aware, I could be wrong on this, and if I am, feel free to correct me. Uh, the options are on the that are on the table as potential candidates for explaining these facts. Uh, one option is design, another option is chance, and another option is physical necessity. I haven't heard uh is this proposed any other uh alternative that would explain these facts. So when you look at >> so so I can answer you >> I can answer you Harvey.

[00:09:18]>> Okay.

[00:09:19]>> Why do you get to include intelligent design as a candidate explanation? What evidence do you have that there could possibly be an intelligent designer that is capable of both with power and ability producing this specific universe?

[00:09:41]Well, we can infer that such a being exists.

[00:09:45]>> No, we can't. Or we can infer.

[00:09:47]>> We can't. You have to demonstrate. No, you don't get to just assume that it's a candidate explanation. You have to list.

[00:09:53]When you're listing candidate explanations, you have to show that it should be considered a candidate explanation. And I have seen no evidence that it is even possible for a being to have existed with the with the the the physical and mental ability and power to design an entire universe.

[00:10:16]Where's the demonstration that that is a possible candidate explanation?

[00:10:22]Well, I I I think that's uh very gross.

[00:10:27]Like it's a misrepresentation in a way like like for like for example dark matter. Scientists were proposing dark matter as a potential explanation before they had reasons for dark matter.

[00:10:42]>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not proposing dark matter. Dark matter is irrelevant to this conversation. I you don't even know whether what I do or don't accept about it and you are just now avoiding >> defending your position by deflecting to something that is not relevant to the conversation. I asked you to defend your assertion that intelligent design is a possible candidate explanation for the state of the universe and that doesn't require any discussion about what anybody else is proposing about any other subject.

[00:11:16]>> Well, let me jump in. Harvey, I heard you talk about how if the Earth was any closer to or any further from the sun, right, the positioning of the planet, >> making >> humankind and all of the other life forms as they are on this planet possible. Are you using that as part of um a potential evidence chain? like you are convinced that we are in this supposedly perfect position and only could have arrived there because we were placed by an intelligent designer. Would you say that that is a reason that you infer an intelligent designer?

[00:11:59]What I would what I would say was as as and maybe I didn't communicate myself effectively uh is we have certain constants and quantities and facts of nature that we know uh could have been the values they need to accommodate for complex life. And so we need to look at what is the most reasonable explanation of those facts and the explanations that have been the potential candidates for explanations that have been proposed uh by both physicists and philosophers have been intelligent design, chance or physical necessity.

[00:12:43]As far as I know, >> actually that's not correct. Harvey, hang on just a second. Let me jump in.

[00:12:48]To say physicist and mass or in large have said that in design is the best explanation is actually not correct.

[00:12:57]>> I never I never said I never said that.

[00:12:59]I never said that the phys physicist said that design is the best explanation. What I had said was that the potential candidates that phys both physicists and philosophers have given as as potential candidates of explanation have been design chance and physical necessity. I didn't that physicist >> hang on if you are then going to say that life complex life the position of the earth in our orbit around the sun etc. From that we can infer a designer because it is so optimized in that way.

[00:13:39]Well, let's say we grant that.

[00:13:42]Then how do you explain examples and there are so many of poor design? Blind creatures with eyes, deaf creatures with ears, the appendix which explodes in our bodies and kills us with bacteria, the esophagus next to the windpipe. So we choke to death. 5,000 people a year choke to death on their food because of a poor design. Degenerating joints, the cartilage in our knees, death and childbirth, the pain and trauma of childbirth. Uh our son gives us cancer, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tsunamis which kill a quarter of a million people in a day. Uh wisdom teeth, you know, genetic mutations. So, you know, if you're going to say, "Wow, a complex life equals or potentially equals design." Well, then you'd have to allow that. If there is a designer, he did kind of a job, right?

[00:14:41]Well, well, the first point is is that that's kind of a separate it's not really a counterargument. a separate argument because the many of the examples you listed child the pain of child birth for example you could make the case that that's an example of shitty design as as you uh have vocalized it but the pain of child birth uh has no effect on the allowance for complex life you're talking about you're describing things that are >> hold on not only is it part of the conversation about design Because death and childbirth not just of the child but of the mother has been a reality. Right?

[00:15:20]There is a better way to do that. In fact, we can see in the animal kingdom and other creatures like the kangaroo a better way to procreate where there's less trauma on the body and better care, safer care of the offspring. So, relatively speaking, we are not as welldesigned.

[00:15:41]Our eyesight is not as good as other animals. our taste buds and sense of smell is not as good as other animals.

[00:15:48]We are fragile in our bodies in ways that often kill us or harm us. So, I mean, if you're going to say designer, there's some really bad design, it's not a very good argument, right?

[00:16:04]>> Okay. Okay. Well, the fir the first thing I'd like to say and I'm trying to express this as respectfully as possible, but you're giving a mountain of examples and expect me to provide one response that would deal with all of all of the matters at hand, but you you could go, you know, obviously I don't have all the answers to those specific things, but you one of the examples you gave just to point out that this really isn't a valid counter argument. Okay, we don't have the same as strong of a uh sense of smell as other animals. Well, we don't need one. We don't need as strong of a sense of smell as a wolf does. We don't hunt in the same in the same ma manner. You can make you can make you can also use the example our teeth are not as sharp as a lion, but we don't use artis to kill prey. So, >> okay. Well, let's do the easy one.

[00:16:56]Explain to me how an earthquake can cause the raising of a shelf in the ocean 30 ft, causing a massive tsunami that kills 230,000 people in a day.

[00:17:08]Explain to me how the designer of that world got it right.

[00:17:14]>> In g in giving that example, you're moving away from poor design to the problem of evil.

[00:17:19]>> Okay, now we're getting into it. Now we're getting into the the problem of needless suffering or the problem of evil, which is a theistic argument, not a theistic one, not a prime mover first cause uh intelligent design argument.

[00:17:35]Are you on the >> a believer in a specific religion?

[00:17:38]Harvey, are you a Christian?

[00:17:43]>> First thing I'm going to Yes, I am a Christian. And I want to respond to your previous point. The problem with evil is not a was not a argument proposed by theists. an argument proposed by atheists and it's an entirely separate matter from the >> not an argument the athe I'll I'll let Matt have it forgive me I I jumped in it's not an argument to reveal that theists are now playing the get out of bad design free card by saying everything that's beautiful God or designer everything bad is the problem of evil the fall of man the frailty of humankind the plan went horrible or horribly and it's essentially our fault that kids get leukemia and our son gives us cancer and our expend appendix explodes and kills us.

[00:18:32]>> We made no such case.

[00:18:34]>> You are if you are making a problem of evil claim that's exactly what you just did. Matt, I'm going to shut up and stand back. Did you have anything else?

[00:18:46]>> Are you speaking to me or Matt? Do I have anything else?

[00:18:49]>> Go ahead. I mean, if if you want to respond, you cannot invoke >> respond to Seth and then I can get back to my my question about why why God is a possible candidate explanation or why in design is. Go ahead.

[00:19:03]>> Yeah. All I was going to say was I was I was not chalking those things up to uh well that you know that's the problem of evil and uh that's you know I wasn't playing I was just making the point that the the example of the earthquake and the tsunamis etc. So those are typically arguments presented or typically examples pointed to by atheists as part of the problem of evil and are not >> Harvey. The problem here is that you were essentially labeling Harvey. The problem here is that Seth made a case and you were basically saying, "Oh, that's the problem of evil." You were identifying the category of argument that Seth was making or the category of objection Seth was making. Um, and I mean I I I don't know that it benefit it clearly distracted ability to have a discussion just because you went and labeled something and then tried to say that this is an atheist thing when in reality the problem of evil is a category of arguments that are responses to theistic claims and how they are inconsistent with observations of reality. But since we're talking about design, >> not inconsistent with I didn't I didn't say anything about it.

[00:20:17]You You could have design and it could be shitty design. You could have design and it could lead to all kinds of potential objections. I'm I'm talking about the design.

[00:20:27]>> So, we have the status of the current universe, the observed facts, the the data points that you'd like to point to.

[00:20:37]And I asked cuz we agreed we need to make a list of candidate explanations. I wanted to know why intelligent design is a candidate explanation. And your answer seemed to confuse um theoretical possibility or logical possibility with empirical or physical possibility. Something is theoretically possible or logically possible if it doesn't entail a logical contradiction that is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is actually possible in reality whether it is an empiric or physical probability. You are talking about an actual physical or empiric because we going to have a difficult time defining physics once we get outside of the universe. But you are you are making an appeal to the empiric possibility of a god because I'm only going to to accept candidate explanations that have been demonstrated to be empirically possible, physically possible.

[00:21:45]And then once you demonstrate that it's possible, you have to show how probable it is and how it's a more probable explanation than the other candidate explanation which or the candidate explanations which are at a minimum chance and necessity. So can you demonstrate that the designer is a an empiric possibility?

[00:22:14]Well, I would say we we can we can infer that it's an empiric uh an empirical possibility because it serves as an adequate explanation for for these facts.

[00:22:25]>> So that's a no. That is a no that you you are not able. No, I'm No, it's a no because I asked you if you could demonstrate the empiric possibility and you've asserted that we can infer it >> based entirely on the logical possibility. There's no demonstration that the being or or designer that you're advocating is in fact possible in reality. You're assuming it because you want there to be an explanation other than chance or necessity.

[00:23:01]>> Not that I want it necessarily want it to be uh the preferable uh explanation.

[00:23:07]I when I look at when I look at the facts, it seems to me the design is a more probable explanation than >> okay necessity Harvey when I look at the facts I don't agree with you. So now we can just both sit here and say, "Well, that's just like my opinion, bro, and we make Seth all happy for a movie I haven't seen, but I heard lots of good things about." Or you can actually stop just giving me your opinion that I don't care about and that should not inform anyone's assessment of possibility or probability and you can then either acknowledge that you do not have a way to demonstrate the empiric possibility or probability of a designer or you do.

[00:23:47]Which is it?

[00:23:50]Uh well to be completely frank and honest at at this point in time as as I don't have the ability to uh to demonstrate that maybe I need to do a little bit more research on the topic.

[00:24:02]Uh >> it's wild. It's wild Harvey that in that you that you >> this is I mean this is great and call us back some other time especially if you figure out a way to do this but I literally asked you an easy question that could have been answered with a no but instead of just saying the no like I'd go back to your I I'm still talking I'd go back to your Bible where it's recommended that let your no be no and your yes be yes instead no carries so much Wait. And I don't know if there's somewhere in the back of your head fear of saying no or fear of acknowledging that you don't know something or fear that the sound bite's going to be used against you. But doing a long meandering multi-sentence no to in order to avoid saying no doesn't really play well.

[00:24:54]The answer is no. You do not currently have a way to demonstrate even the possibility of a designer, right?

[00:25:05]As I said, as I stated, no, I I don't but I don't I don't think there's anything here. I don't question. You could have just acknowledged that I was correct.

[00:25:15]>> But you had to do the as I stated. No, you're always adding something to it.

[00:25:20]Here's some here's some food for thought.

[00:25:22]>> Go do more research. Go do more research and add Go do more research and add to that rather than adding fluff to your simple answers that no, you do not currently have a way to demonstrate that the designer is even possible, let alone probable, let alone more probable than the explanations we already accept as probable, which are chance and necessity. So you're saying Harvey, you had not previously considered this stuff, but you will now consider it and assess it and take that journey. Is that what I'm hearing?

[00:25:59]>> The only point I was trying to make was my answer to Matt's question was no. And I think I need to do a little bit more research on the topic to be able to potentially provide an answer. I don't see what's so illogical about that by saying I I'm clearly outwitted uh >> on this matter. I really >> I buy that. Hey Harvey, I buy that. It's not really about wits. I It's not a It's not a contest.

[00:26:23]>> If you say, "You know what? I realize I wasn't prepared. I'm going to go dig a little deeper." As long as you say you're going to do that in good faith >> and you're not going to start with a presupposed answer.

[00:26:35]>> I buy that. I do. And I appreciate that.

[00:26:37]>> I bought it, too. I just didn't need a >> Never mind. Gravity is the soul of wit.

[00:26:46]Harvey, I appreciate your call, my friend.

[00:26:50]>> Yeah. Uh, thank you. I appreciate the the opportunity to have this discussion.

[00:26:54]And I I just have one one quick question before for Matt if before you hang up on me, if you don't mind. Uh Matt, do you have any uh resources like books or anything you could recommend on from your perspective on the design argument that could potentially uh put me in a better position to answer that question?

[00:27:16]>> I do I don't know. Seth says that he does. I have a reading a video on my personal channel with books I think people should be reading. Um but Seth had a recommendation.

[00:27:29]>> No, no, no. What's your channel? That might be a better resource.

[00:27:32]>> Oh, YouTube.comsandsde, I guess.

[00:27:37]>> Cool. Yeah. Uh, Dr. Abby Hayer has a book called The Notso Intelligent Designer. She passed away last year, but the book is going to be out there for posterity, which I really appreciate.

[00:27:49]She is a science professor or was and uh and laid out some pretty compelling cases against intelligent design and also lines out why many of the intelligent design arguments made by uh the Discovery Institute etc are actually poorly reasoned facious and often just outright lies. The not so intelligent designer Dr. Abby Hafer. Okay. also on YouTube. Go look up Dr. Blitz and call in and talk to him about it. He's brilliant and a physicist and can address the physics aspects of it and he's not remotely bad on the philosophical aspects as well. So much better, you know, person to interact with and he's more patient than I am, I would say.

[00:28:40]>> Hey, thanks Harvey. Appreciate the call.

[00:28:44]>> Thank you guys. debate.

[00:28:46]>> Who's Dr. Blitz? Where have I been?

[00:28:49]>> Oh, he's I've had him co-host shows with me. He's brilliant. He's a physicist.

[00:28:54]>> Um does live uh debates online on flat earth, young earth. Um lots of physics stuff arguments.

[00:29:08]>> Is it like blitz? Like like a football blitz?

[00:29:11]>> Yes.

[00:29:12]>> Blitz physics.

[00:29:15]All right, I have homework.

[00:29:17]>> Hi, thanks for watching. If you enjoyed that or if you think you have better arguments for the supernatural or God, the Sunday show is live at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. every Sunday on the line. Links below