Londoniyyah - Part 11 - Proofs of God's Existence / 3 "Fine Tuning" | Mohammed Hijab (2021-12-24) ​

0:00:13 and welcome to another episode where
0:00:15 today inshallah we're going to be
0:00:16 discussing the fine tuning argument for
0:00:17 god's existence now this argument
0:00:20 although all kinds of teleological
0:00:22 arguments had been made before
0:00:24 and teleological arguments sometimes
0:00:28 can can refer to most of the times will
0:00:30 refer to things with purpose
0:00:32 but always will be linked to some kind
0:00:34 of a design
0:00:35 in this case this fine tuning is is a
0:00:37 very specific type of teleological
0:00:39 argument
0:00:40 which uh in particular
0:00:42 uh deals with the issue of life
0:00:45 permitting universes
0:00:47 or lpu's life permitting universes
0:00:50 and uh i'm going to go through
0:00:52 insha'allah today some
0:00:54 of the most prominent ways that this
0:00:57 argument is being made both in
0:00:59 apologetics circles and or the
0:01:01 philosophy of religion
0:01:03 and then we're going to discuss some of
0:01:04 the strengths and limitations of this
0:01:06 argument some of the objections to this
0:01:07 argument and how i prefer to use it i
0:01:10 mean
0:01:11 we've already spoken about the
0:01:12 contingency argument and uh
0:01:14 in many ways the contingency argument i
0:01:16 see as the usual is the foundation for
0:01:17 all arguments in terms of demonstrative
0:01:19 proof
0:01:20 um
0:01:22 not just the contingency argument but
0:01:24 the the question the quranic question
0:01:26 which is
0:01:28 where they created from nothing or were
0:01:29 they themselves the creators of
0:01:30 themselves
0:01:31 this proposition
0:01:34 of
0:01:35 the the fact that they cannot be
0:01:36 something which is self
0:01:38 generating or self-maintaining
0:01:40 is is the basis for all arguments for
0:01:42 god's existence and we talked about
0:01:44 before the very
0:01:45 important but very basic question where
0:01:47 we all start from which is why is there
0:01:49 something rather than nothing
0:01:51 a very difficult question for
0:01:53 atheists to deal with
0:01:55 but that's the basis this is something
0:01:57 which can be used sometimes
0:01:58 as a
0:02:00 supporting
0:02:01 argument
0:02:03 so this these are the kind of points
0:02:05 that you could talk about in terms of
0:02:06 the fine tune or that are being spoken
0:02:08 about in terms of the fine-tuning
0:02:09 argument number one that initial
0:02:11 conditions of the universe must be
0:02:13 adjusted just right in order for life to
0:02:15 exist now this is called the life
0:02:16 permitting range the fine-tuning
0:02:18 argument let's talk about what it's not
0:02:20 it's not saying that the universe is
0:02:22 beautiful and aesthetically pleasing and
0:02:24 therefore it must have a creator
0:02:26 it's not saying that the universe is is
0:02:29 designed so immaculate and um it's so
0:02:31 complicated and therefore it must have a
0:02:33 creator
0:02:34 these are not what the fine-tuning
0:02:36 arguments of today
0:02:38 are stating that the fine-tuning
0:02:40 arguments of today are stating
0:02:42 that the universe
0:02:45 is
0:02:48 constructed in a way which allows life
0:02:50 to exist
0:02:52 human life no it could be any life
0:02:55 so there is a life permitting range
0:02:57 and this is an incontrovertible and
0:02:59 indupitable fact
0:03:01 and nobody has actually denied that the
0:03:04 fact that there is life the fact that
0:03:05 there is life in the universe i mean who
0:03:07 can deny that yeah the and the secondary
0:03:10 fact which is that the universe
0:03:11 therefore allows
0:03:13 life to exist within it it's
0:03:15 you can have a habitable life in the
0:03:18 universe
0:03:20 these are two clear
0:03:22 straightforward facts
0:03:25 okay
0:03:26 now
0:03:30 how this argument is usually made is
0:03:32 that they say well you've got these
0:03:34 constants
0:03:35 uh you have these different constants or
0:03:37 you have these fundamental constants
0:03:40 and they could be six nine depending on
0:03:42 what you decide to count and what you
0:03:43 decide not to count
0:03:45 which
0:03:47 if they were
0:03:49 any different
0:03:50 by the smallest of margins
0:03:53 by
0:03:55 the breadth of a you know hair
0:03:57 hair splitting difference
0:03:59 then
0:04:00 the universe wouldn't exist as we know
0:04:02 it and or would not allow life to exist
0:04:04 within it that's a very straightforward
0:04:06 argument isn't it
0:04:07 and i think this is this is why it's the
0:04:09 potency of the argument almost anyone
0:04:10 can understand it
0:04:12 you know
0:04:13 let me tell you one more time before we
0:04:15 get into this this is not uh william
0:04:17 paley's watchmaker's argument
0:04:19 this is not william paley's watch pick
0:04:21 and lagrange which richard dawkins spent
0:04:23 so much time trying to refute
0:04:25 because william paley's watchmaker
0:04:26 argument in natural theology was that
0:04:30 you know you're walking around you see a
0:04:31 watch you know
0:04:32 and he referred to it as contrivance
0:04:34 actually the word contrivance now
0:04:35 usually is worth used pejoratively
0:04:38 you know if you contrive something it's
0:04:40 as if you're trying to superimpose some
0:04:41 kind of a narrative on something
0:04:43 pre-existing but in his terminology and
0:04:45 when he wrote this book
0:04:47 natural theology in the whatever it was
0:04:49 he wrote it
0:04:50 he meant that it's got exhibiting
0:04:53 factors which indicate that it's been
0:04:55 carved into being
0:04:57 not like a rock so he compares a rock to
0:04:59 a watch so when you're walking in the
0:05:02 you know forest or whatever it is desert
0:05:04 or forest or whatever example you like
0:05:06 you see a rock
0:05:08 and you see a watch you know that the
0:05:10 rock has different qualities to the
0:05:11 watch
0:05:12 because the watch has uh has contrivance
0:05:14 this contrivance this is seeming uh
0:05:18 constructions which are
0:05:20 superimposed or not superimposed that
0:05:22 they are carved into being by some
0:05:24 higher intelligence and the inference
0:05:26 therefore that is made
0:05:28 is that it was
0:05:29 there was a designer there was a
0:05:30 watchmaker
0:05:33 richard dawkins
0:05:34 and probably
0:05:36 the only argument he actually spends
0:05:38 time trying to deal with because if you
0:05:40 look at
0:05:41 the his books of the god delusion
0:05:44 hundreds of pages the god delusion but
0:05:46 he only spends five pages on the
0:05:48 cosmological argument i don't know if
0:05:50 this is something you knew or not but he
0:05:52 spends five
0:05:53 five pages
0:05:55 on the cosmological argument and two
0:05:57 pages i think to the ontological article
0:05:59 something like that the rest of it is
0:06:01 just some kind of
0:06:02 run about religion and what it does you
0:06:04 know a moral run even though as we
0:06:06 mentioned before he doesn't have
0:06:07 anything to base morality on according
0:06:09 to himself
0:06:10 but he does spend some time in his other
0:06:12 books especially the blind watchmaker
0:06:15 talking about this argument which is
0:06:16 william paley's argument he does spend
0:06:18 some time talking about it and basically
0:06:20 he says because of the theory of
0:06:21 darwinian evolution
0:06:24 and this is the argument he made with
0:06:25 john lennox in the debate that he had
0:06:27 series of debates that he had with him
0:06:29 he says because of the theories of
0:06:31 darwinian evolution we don't need he
0:06:33 says we do not need
0:06:36 a god to explain design because
0:06:40 he states that
0:06:42 designers
0:06:43 is understood through the darwinian
0:06:44 mechanism
0:06:45 and so any reference to god is
0:06:47 superfluous
0:06:49 it's um it's not a required reference
0:06:51 it's uh
0:06:53 john lennox just to give you to kind of
0:06:55 spoil the story for you if you haven't
0:06:56 already seen this
0:06:58 and he answers this very well to his
0:07:00 credit
0:07:01 he states look he's what richard dawkins
0:07:04 is doing is confusing mechanism and
0:07:05 agency
0:07:07 mechanism is how something is being done
0:07:10 so even if we agree he states
0:07:13 that there is such a thing as the only
0:07:14 evolution that's the mechanism through
0:07:16 which life comes into being
0:07:20 but agency is well through what will was
0:07:22 it a guided or unguided process
0:07:25 and he's saying that just because
0:07:26 there's a mechanism of something
0:07:28 happening it doesn't mean there's no
0:07:29 agency behind it like for example the
0:07:31 train i'm just my example now a train
0:07:33 can move from one station to another
0:07:36 but it doesn't mean because we can we
0:07:38 can explain the mechanics of the train
0:07:40 or car can move like i got here by
0:07:42 driving
0:07:44 i can explain to you mechanically and
0:07:46 scientifically how the car moved when i
0:07:49 came here
0:07:50 and that would be the equivalent in this
0:07:51 analogy of darwinian evolution this is
0:07:53 how it happens
0:07:55 if we accept all the premises for the
0:07:56 sake of argument
0:07:58 but it doesn't explain how the car came
0:08:00 from this place to that place
0:08:03 with a blind
0:08:04 or blindly and usually this is exactly
0:08:07 the wording he used blind watchmaker
0:08:08 meaning it's an unguided process
0:08:12 the theist is saying no it's a guided
0:08:13 process it has to be a guidance process
0:08:15 like when i came here
0:08:17 the best way to explain how i got from
0:08:18 home to here is through me driving it
0:08:20 i'm the agency i'm the driver
0:08:24 so the reason why i put this to you
0:08:26 because some people sometimes get
0:08:27 confused between this type of
0:08:28 teleological argument which is
0:08:31 most famous in western circles through
0:08:33 william paley
0:08:35 and the fine-tuning argument they're not
0:08:36 the same thing although there is clearly
0:08:38 a flesh that joins the two types of
0:08:40 argument
0:08:41 which is the idea of design
0:08:44 the fine tuning argument just to repeat
0:08:46 is an argument that states explicitly
0:08:50 it's an argument that states explicitly
0:08:52 that the universe couldn't have been
0:08:54 by virtue of probability okay
0:08:58 and i'll tell you what they mean by
0:08:59 probability we'll go into more depth
0:09:02 it couldn't have been
0:09:04 um
0:09:05 made in a way or it could not be in such
0:09:07 a way
0:09:08 that would be life permitting
0:09:10 okay
0:09:11 had there not been a designer and the
0:09:13 probability of that not being the case
0:09:15 is
0:09:16 infinitesimally small
0:09:18 and they'll give you numbers they'll
0:09:19 literally give you numbers
0:09:22 and how can they give you numbers
0:09:24 they'll give you numbers based on
0:09:26 the
0:09:27 the constants so the most popular one
0:09:30 that they use is the electromagnetic
0:09:32 constant
0:09:33 the rather the gravitational constant is
0:09:35 probably the second most popular
0:09:37 but the electromagnetic constant is is
0:09:39 the one that's probably the most popular
0:09:41 one that they use
0:09:43 and you can see here on the slide
0:09:46 because if it was larger than zero the
0:09:48 universe would accelerate at a stage
0:09:51 okay
0:09:52 which would make life not permit it
0:09:54 would be non-life permitting
0:09:56 and if it were to decelerate
0:09:58 the opposite would happen
0:10:00 and also the the the
0:10:02 life permitting range would be obscured
0:10:04 or otherwise inhibited
0:10:07 or negated even yeah
0:10:10 and so
0:10:12 this is an example the electromagnetic
0:10:14 constant
0:10:16 and so the way craig makes this argument
0:10:19 in his uh in both his works his actual
0:10:22 written works
0:10:23 uh and also his uh publications
0:10:26 apologetic publications
0:10:29 is that he states there's three options
0:10:32 you've got these constants
0:10:35 and you have three options
0:10:36 either it was from necessity
0:10:38 either was from
0:10:41 he says
0:10:42 chance necessity or design these are
0:10:44 your three options
0:10:45 and he says that the chance or the
0:10:47 possibility that this could have been
0:10:48 from chance
0:10:50 i'm talking about william lane craig by
0:10:51 the way when i said craig just in case
0:10:53 anyone who doesn't know who i'm talking
0:10:54 about he says the possibility that it
0:10:55 was from chance is and it'll give you
0:10:57 some numbers this this this amount
0:11:00 which is infinitesimally small
0:11:02 and it couldn't have been by necessity
0:11:03 because there's nothing necessary about
0:11:05 the laws of nature and therefore it must
0:11:07 have been by virtue of
0:11:09 elimination design this is the but i
0:11:12 don't i don't agree with the way that
0:11:14 this argument is being made
0:11:15 and i in the beginning when i was
0:11:17 younger
0:11:18 some years ago i used to like this
0:11:19 argument
0:11:21 but now
0:11:22 when i uh
0:11:23 when i thought about a bit more deeply
0:11:26 i think this argument is actually flawed
0:11:28 um
0:11:29 and we can make a stronger argument in
0:11:30 this i'll tell you why
0:11:34 first and foremost yes
0:11:37 necessity
0:11:39 i agree with the sentiment that there's
0:11:40 nothing necessary about the laws of
0:11:42 nature true
0:11:43 but does necessity and i spoke to to be
0:11:46 fair uh
0:11:47 alistair mcgrath actually when i was in
0:11:49 the university of oxford i spoke to him
0:11:50 about this directly and had a
0:11:52 conversation with him about this
0:11:53 and i said and this actually came from
0:11:55 faraz zahabi i was mentioning him today
0:11:57 in other contexts
0:11:59 but he gave me this idea and i had a
0:12:00 conversation with him because he's got a
0:12:01 background of philosophy as well
0:12:03 and he he brought this up to me and i
0:12:05 thought this is actually very clever
0:12:06 what he's saying
0:12:08 and then i brought brought the attention
0:12:10 of alistair mcgrath and he he agreed
0:12:11 with me on this
0:12:13 necessity does not threaten the theistic
0:12:15 conclusion
0:12:17 if we say
0:12:18 that the
0:12:19 the laws of nature are necessarily that
0:12:21 way
0:12:22 so what
0:12:23 because we've already explained
0:12:25 okay
0:12:26 that so long as it's not a necessity in
0:12:28 the category of existence then we're not
0:12:31 doing
0:12:32 that we're not enumerating the the
0:12:34 necessary existences
0:12:36 we're just saying it's a necessary fact
0:12:38 so what if this is if so what if it's a
0:12:40 necessary fact that the laws of nature
0:12:42 are
0:12:43 in xyz way so what
0:12:45 it doesn't do anything it does it
0:12:47 it does nothing to to threaten the
0:12:49 theistic conclusion
0:12:52 so there's no contradiction so in a
0:12:54 sense it's a false
0:12:55 i'm not sure if this is a word but
0:12:56 trichotomy i don't know if this is if
0:12:59 someone can research if this is a word
0:13:01 it's not it's a false kind of separation
0:13:03 here
0:13:04 okay
0:13:05 because you can't
0:13:06 it's not either or it can be we are
0:13:09 saying design and necessity those two
0:13:12 things shouldn't be there's no necessary
0:13:15 separation between those two things so
0:13:16 at first i thought yeah craig is on to
0:13:18 something but now that i think about i
0:13:19 think craig is wrong for separating them
0:13:21 like this
0:13:25 and moreover
0:13:26 i think craig is wrong again
0:13:30 and
0:13:32 in so much as he
0:13:34 talks about chance now what is chance
0:13:37 and i've had conversations with people
0:13:39 about this
0:13:40 and to once again for us the hobby does
0:13:42 a good job and in my discussions with
0:13:44 him that you know very casual
0:13:45 informative discussions in the car and
0:13:47 whatever he makes a really good point
0:13:49 what is randomness what is this chance
0:13:51 that we're talking about
0:13:53 and he he argues
0:13:54 and he should have this written
0:13:56 somewhere because he makes a really good
0:13:57 point you know
0:13:58 he argues that actually chance is just
0:14:01 something which we don't understand
0:14:03 it's it's chance is an expression when
0:14:06 we say randomness or chance on these
0:14:07 things
0:14:08 well he talks about randomness let's be
0:14:10 clear right he talks about randomness if
0:14:11 someone says random the word random has
0:14:14 specific connotations
0:14:15 random something which is random is just
0:14:18 you're talking about something which you
0:14:19 can't explain it's just an expression of
0:14:20 your own ignorance if you knew the prior
0:14:23 conditions you'd understand the workings
0:14:25 out but because you don't know the prior
0:14:26 conditions you don't know the workings
0:14:27 out
0:14:29 is a little bit different we're gonna
0:14:30 talk about what chance is
0:14:32 probabilistically and what they mean by
0:14:34 chance and how to be fair i don't accept
0:14:36 what they mean either when i say they
0:14:38 i'm talking about the philosophers of
0:14:39 religion
0:14:43 so is there and can there be a universe
0:14:45 from trance i say that's impossible i
0:14:46 don't i don't think that's an option
0:14:49 and i'm going to argue that in what
0:14:50 follows but um before we get to that
0:14:53 i'm going to tell you what they mean by
0:14:54 chance because it's it's a bit of an
0:14:56 elaborative discussion okay
0:14:58 so
0:14:59 you can say
0:15:01 it you could say
0:15:03 you one can say
0:15:05 that is from chance
0:15:07 but it's not an actual option it's
0:15:09 impossible for it i'm saying it's absurd
0:15:11 for it to be from chance i'm saying that
0:15:13 necessity
0:15:14 and design should not be separated
0:15:18 that's what i'm saying
0:15:19 and therefore the conclusion is only
0:15:22 that there had to be some something
0:15:24 which put
0:15:25 a lawmaker that the that put the laws
0:15:28 into place
0:15:29 there's only one conclusion this this is
0:15:31 because when we say there's three
0:15:32 conclusions it's like okay you can
0:15:34 choose now whatever you like
0:15:35 and probably one of the first videos
0:15:37 i've ever done in youtube that got the
0:15:39 first one that got viral
0:15:41 is a conversation i had with a guy in
0:15:43 speaker's corner
0:15:44 and i told him there was the chances of
0:15:46 me
0:15:47 grabbing up you know some some um
0:15:51 i was like 24 at this time you know and
0:15:53 i was affected by this stuff
0:15:56 what's the chance of me putting
0:15:59 you know
0:16:01 letters into a bag and
0:16:03 shaking it up and throwing onto the
0:16:05 floor and it becoming like macbeth
0:16:08 and he stated oh it's very low i agree
0:16:13 but xyz is still possibility
0:16:16 given given an infinite multiverse
0:16:18 whatever it may be yeah
0:16:20 and across the years when i've been
0:16:22 thinking about this
0:16:23 i say no i say that
0:16:25 i'm going to come to this there's no
0:16:27 chance of it happening and we're going
0:16:28 to come to why i say that
0:16:30 this is it's not there's no such thing
0:16:31 as chance like that
0:16:33 and especially considering
0:16:35 you can't even explain why this bag of
0:16:37 letters came there in the first place in
0:16:38 the case of our universe you can't
0:16:40 explain how the universe came in first
0:16:41 why is there something rather than
0:16:42 nothing why is there such a bag of
0:16:44 letters
0:16:46 you see
0:16:48 so there's no chance
0:16:49 and this is a very strong conclusion but
0:16:51 it's uh hopefully going to be justified
0:16:52 before we get there
0:16:54 i want to talk about how they present
0:16:56 this argument in the philosophy of
0:16:57 religion
0:16:58 so one of the key proponents of this
0:17:00 this type of argument is a guy called
0:17:01 robin collins
0:17:05 and he
0:17:06 he says
0:17:08 the core fine-tuning argument relies on
0:17:10 a standard principle of confirmation
0:17:12 theory the so-called likelihood
0:17:14 principle this principle this principle
0:17:16 can be stated as follows
0:17:19 let h1 and h2 be two competing
0:17:21 hypotheses
0:17:22 according to the likelihood principle an
0:17:24 observation e counts as evidence in
0:17:26 favor of hypothesis one
0:17:28 over hypothesis two of the observation
0:17:30 is more probable under h1 than h2 you
0:17:33 can see why this is this kind of
0:17:35 groundwork is going to be required in
0:17:37 order to then say well this possibility
0:17:39 that has come from design or this
0:17:40 possibility that come from chance
0:17:42 but what i'm saying is h1 and h2 are not
0:17:44 actual options
0:17:47 and we'll come to that yeah
0:17:50 so he gives an example
0:17:52 to illustrate the need
0:17:54 for the restricted version suppose that
0:17:55 i roll a die
0:17:57 20 times and it comes up
0:18:00 some apparently random sequence of
0:18:02 numbers and he gives a long list of
0:18:03 numbers yeah
0:18:04 the probability of it coming up in this
0:18:06 sequence is one
0:18:08 in three point six times what 10 15 yeah
0:18:11 or about one in a million billion
0:18:16 to explain this occurrence suppose i
0:18:17 invested in sorry invented the
0:18:19 hypothesis that there is a demon
0:18:22 whose favorite number is just the
0:18:24 aforementioned sequence of numbers
0:18:26 and this demon had a strong desire for
0:18:28 that sequence to turn up when i rolled
0:18:29 the die now if this demon hypothesis
0:18:32 were true then the fact that the dye
0:18:34 came up in this sequence would be
0:18:36 expected that is the sequence would not
0:18:38 be epistem epistemically
0:18:40 improbable
0:18:42 consequently by the standard of the
0:18:44 standard likelihood principle the
0:18:46 occurrence of this sequence would be
0:18:48 would strongly confirm the demon
0:18:50 hypothesis over the chance hypothesis
0:18:52 you see the chance hypothesis which we
0:18:54 don't believe is is a plausible one in
0:18:56 the first place
0:18:58 but this seems counterintuitive given a
0:19:00 sort of common sense notion of
0:19:02 confirmation it does not seem that the
0:19:03 demon hypothesis is confirmed
0:19:06 and so here these are the three types of
0:19:10 evidences they use okay when
0:19:13 when they're talking about the chance
0:19:14 hypothesis and versus the the god
0:19:17 hypothesis if you like these are the
0:19:18 kind of things they use the fine tuning
0:19:20 of the laws of nature
0:19:22 the constants of nature and the
0:19:23 fine-tuning of the initial condition of
0:19:24 the universe
0:19:26 now when he talks about probability
0:19:28 probability is a mathematical concept
0:19:29 but be careful because there's different
0:19:31 kinds of probability
0:19:32 so especially in fine tuning when they
0:19:34 say probability and
0:19:35 i don't know if i told you this story
0:19:37 before
0:19:38 but when i first got into this
0:19:40 like what six seven years ago
0:19:42 i had a conversation with a
0:19:44 mathematician
0:19:45 let's say about this
0:19:47 okay i'll tell you this is a story i had
0:19:48 a conversation with he was a professor
0:19:50 in one of the german
0:19:53 central european universities yeah
0:19:56 and it was a private discussion thank
0:19:57 god you know
0:19:59 and
0:20:01 he saw the video that i told you about
0:20:02 with um
0:20:05 with the guy and i was talking about the
0:20:06 probability of the universe coming from
0:20:08 from from chance or randomness or
0:20:10 whatever is this number
0:20:14 which was like a very low number yeah
0:20:18 and he said what kind of probability are
0:20:19 you using
0:20:21 he goes because if you use base theory
0:20:23 and he sent me this kind of long list of
0:20:25 he got he got these constants he put
0:20:27 them in a
0:20:28 you know thing and he said uh what do
0:20:30 you think
0:20:32 i said i looked at it i don't know what
0:20:34 he's talking about
0:20:36 but i don't know because he was being a
0:20:37 bit arrogant
0:20:38 so i didn't want to concede
0:20:40 i didn't want to say anything
0:20:42 so i just looked at him i said hmm
0:20:45 let me think about this for a second
0:20:47 but before i continue uh
0:20:50 i looked them in the face i said
0:20:52 are you sure you got those numbers
0:20:53 correct
0:20:57 he said uh yeah i'm pretty sure and he
0:20:59 had a smug you know this guy's a
0:21:02 professor in mathematics and who am i
0:21:03 i've
0:21:04 i haven't done anything in mathematics
0:21:06 at the level that he has
0:21:09 okay
0:21:10 i i said you know here you go check it
0:21:13 he said okay
0:21:14 i said i tell you what
0:21:17 professor
0:21:18 i think you should double check your
0:21:20 numbers
0:21:22 because no no i said you know i think
0:21:24 you should double check your numbers
0:21:26 because you
0:21:27 you've written a couple of things here
0:21:28 which i need to process properly but i
0:21:30 don't think
0:21:31 just double check your numbers and we'll
0:21:33 talk about this later
0:21:34 okay and they were and i went
0:21:37 and i went and spoke to some
0:21:38 mathematicians or some people that were
0:21:40 good at maths and i showed them i said
0:21:41 what's this man so this is base theory
0:21:43 and he you know it showed me this how it
0:21:45 works and this is
0:21:46 and it was long man and you know i
0:21:47 haven't i haven't covered base series
0:21:49 like this before yeah
0:21:52 and he's explained he actually hadn't
0:21:54 made a mistake
0:21:55 the guy i said are you sure this is a
0:21:57 mistake
0:21:58 because i want some brother that's just
0:21:59 a molly guy you know
0:22:01 and uh
0:22:02 he said yeah he made a mistake here he
0:22:03 made there i said are you sure he said
0:22:06 yeah
0:22:07 so i went back to him and
0:22:09 said that
0:22:10 so did you check your number is it
0:22:16 he said
0:22:17 i said you this is what you wrote and
0:22:18 this is how it should be
0:22:20 you know and he said
0:22:22 i said that's right i said
0:22:23 next time you have to be sure
0:22:26 and then i just dragged it into a
0:22:28 philosophical discussion but from this i
0:22:30 learned
0:22:31 that when you're talking about the fine
0:22:32 tuning it's you've got to be very
0:22:33 specific and moreover
0:22:36 not only do you have to be very specific
0:22:37 you have to understand the different
0:22:38 types of probability so in the
0:22:40 philosophy of religion usually the way
0:22:42 that these guys make the argument like
0:22:44 when i say these guys
0:22:46 i'm talking about swinburne for example
0:22:48 richard swinburn makes this argument
0:22:49 like this
0:22:50 craig to a lesser extent this guy wrote
0:22:53 what's his name colin robbins
0:22:56 they use what is referred to as
0:22:58 epistemic probability
0:23:02 and episomic probability is divided into
0:23:04 two different types
0:23:05 there's a subjective type
0:23:07 which i think we have we've discussed
0:23:09 before in this class which is the idea
0:23:11 that you know your standards you already
0:23:12 know like this is probably going to
0:23:14 happen this is not going to happen
0:23:15 and most reject this type of probability
0:23:18 as a way
0:23:19 of trying to
0:23:21 assert the truth of a designer for
0:23:23 example
0:23:24 so they're left with what you call
0:23:25 logical
0:23:28 logical epistemic probability referred
0:23:30 to by swinburne by the way as inductive
0:23:33 probability
0:23:35 and
0:23:40 i tried to look for different
0:23:41 definitions of it oh
0:23:43 and planting had this uh
0:23:45 very cryptic definition i'm gonna try
0:23:47 and break it down for you okay
0:23:49 where he says this he says
0:23:53 he's defining a conditional epistemic
0:23:54 probability
0:23:56 after the symbols that he puts in place
0:23:59 of some conditional propositional
0:24:01 statements okay and we'll go through
0:24:04 propositional logic uh later so this
0:24:07 kind of thing will become
0:24:08 more intelligible to you
0:24:11 so he puts b and then bracket a
0:24:16 and then
0:24:17 that figure there and then b and then
0:24:18 close bracket equals
0:24:20 and then you can see that this is the
0:24:21 smallest interval which contains all
0:24:24 the intervals
0:24:25 which represent the degree to which a
0:24:27 rational human being s
0:24:30 whom believed be had no
0:24:32 undercutting defeater
0:24:34 for a
0:24:35 had no other source of warrant either
0:24:38 for a and or not a this should be not a
0:24:41 yeah
0:24:42 was aware that she believed b
0:24:45 and considered the evidence bearing of b
0:24:47 on a
0:24:49 now
0:24:50 this is
0:24:52 in layman's terms is saying let's
0:24:55 imagine the counter factual possibility
0:24:57 here
0:24:59 so imagine that you have a universe
0:25:02 that was
0:25:03 not designed
0:25:05 and let's see the probability of that
0:25:07 being the case
0:25:09 this kind of probability allows that but
0:25:11 what we're saying is that counterfactual
0:25:12 reality itself is an absurd one
0:25:16 you you can try and
0:25:18 the thing is the moment you try and
0:25:19 imagine that what i'm saying is
0:25:22 you're falling into an absurdity you're
0:25:23 falling into an impossibility
0:25:26 and i explain why yeah
0:25:30 the assumption of chance
0:25:33 this assumption that they can't be the
0:25:35 equivalent of a null hypothesis here
0:25:37 something which you get a zero
0:25:39 that or some chance that can create can
0:25:42 can can move around the universe the
0:25:44 constants and the laws of nature
0:25:45 whatever
0:25:47 this assumption is no way whatsoever
0:25:49 there's no chance there's no um evidence
0:25:51 for it
0:25:55 there's no evidence for it and you're
0:25:56 you're stuck again because how can you
0:25:58 get something from nothing
0:26:00 so i don't like this
0:26:01 way of making the argument
0:26:04 in addition you've got
0:26:06 another issue with with this argument
0:26:08 which is that
0:26:09 what if there's some quantum theory that
0:26:11 overlaps all of the or some major theory
0:26:13 that bridges the you know the quantum
0:26:15 world with the physical or the macro
0:26:16 world and the electromagnetic constant
0:26:19 uh gravity all these other things that
0:26:21 we we talked about
0:26:23 they become less potent as explaining
0:26:25 forces or that those numbers change and
0:26:27 all this thing is possible with the
0:26:29 corridable and volatile nature of
0:26:30 physics
0:26:32 so does that mean
0:26:34 that the argument can be made in the
0:26:35 same way no it wouldn't be made in the
0:26:36 same way
0:26:38 which brings us back to what we spoke
0:26:40 about in the previous sessions which
0:26:42 instead of talking about these constants
0:26:44 what i prefer to do and obviously
0:26:45 everyone's free to do their own thing
0:26:47 but
0:26:47 is talk about not the things which
0:26:49 science discovers but the things which
0:26:51 is required for science to be done
0:26:54 because it fits the timeless criterion
0:26:56 in a better way
0:26:58 so in other words in order to do science
0:27:00 what do you need you need a regular
0:27:01 system a stable system and a predictable
0:27:03 system
0:27:05 and the regularity and predictability
0:27:07 and stability of sight of the world
0:27:10 is established beyond beyond reasonable
0:27:11 doubt and and if it's not established
0:27:13 then you wouldn't have science now just
0:27:15 to remind you the example that we gave
0:27:19 is that you know you have
0:27:20 this phone is not blowing up right now
0:27:23 why is it not blowing up because
0:27:25 whatever is keeping it together now has
0:27:27 kept it together a second ago and we'll
0:27:28 keep it together a second from now
0:27:31 hope it doesn't blow up in my face
0:27:33 you know but you see the point so this
0:27:35 is the stability and predictability of
0:27:37 science and if we didn't believe in that
0:27:39 and we didn't have that as somewhat of
0:27:40 an axiom before even doing science
0:27:43 then we couldn't do science
0:27:46 so instead of using the universal
0:27:47 constants
0:27:49 and and uh using uh
0:27:52 science really physics to make the
0:27:54 argument you can still make the same
0:27:55 argument you can still say
0:27:58 you can still say the universe
0:28:02 it's a fact that the universe permits
0:28:04 life
0:28:07 it is a fact that the universe permits
0:28:09 life it is a fact that the universe is
0:28:11 stable
0:28:12 predictable uniform
0:28:16 and simply ask
0:28:17 what is the best explanation for this
0:28:20 that's how easy it is
0:28:25 and you know because
0:28:27 going into probability discussion might
0:28:29 be
0:28:30 disadvantageous
0:28:33 and
0:28:34 you go into a probability discussion
0:28:35 you're putting the null hypothesis
0:28:36 chance
0:28:37 zero or whatever it is but that zero is
0:28:39 impossible we don't even concede to that
0:28:43 so
0:28:44 for that reason
0:28:46 i don't i don't like using this argument
0:28:48 in this way unless you use it strictly
0:28:51 as a supporting evidence
0:28:52 strictly
0:28:53 if you use supporting evidence i don't
0:28:55 think it's that bad but using it as a
0:28:57 main type of argument which some people
0:28:58 do
0:29:00 what if what if the people's martin rhys
0:29:02 changes his mind he writes the book says
0:29:05 six numbers and then he changes his mind
0:29:06 says actually the electromagnetic
0:29:08 thing is this and then
0:29:10 is he he can't change his mind they
0:29:12 can't change their mind they do change
0:29:13 their mind
0:29:14 these physicists change their mind
0:29:15 within one's own lifetime
0:29:18 so to pick one's hopes
0:29:20 uh on on on these theories
0:29:23 is is difficult
0:29:26 and we have to go more fundamental than
0:29:27 this which is why is there something
0:29:28 rather than nothing in the first place
0:29:31 okay and this goes back
0:29:34 what is the epistemic probability that
0:29:36 there may be something rather than
0:29:38 nothing
0:29:39 and the epistemic probability
0:29:41 or on an atheistic world views nothing
0:29:43 zero is is
0:29:45 uh
0:29:46 zero
0:29:48 you see the point
0:29:50 what is the epistemic probability that
0:29:52 there can be something rather than
0:29:53 nothing
0:29:55 considering an atheistic worldview
0:29:57 yes that you know
0:29:59 there is no possibility of that
0:30:00 happening
0:30:01 so we don't need to go into elaborative
0:30:04 dice type
0:30:08 illustrations
0:30:11 and we talked about the assumption of
0:30:12 necessity and sometimes you can have a
0:30:13 necessity and it doesn't threaten
0:30:16 god's thesis
0:30:20 now there are some objections to this
0:30:22 kind of
0:30:23 fine-tuning argument
0:30:27 i've written them down i mean you can
0:30:28 look at them yourself
0:30:30 but all three of them do not apply
0:30:32 to the way that the argument is made
0:30:36 if you
0:30:37 simply even don't even make it as an
0:30:40 argument simply ask a question
0:30:44 why is the universe stable
0:30:46 why does
0:30:47 what explanation do you have you don't
0:30:49 even need to have why what explanation
0:30:52 do you have for the universe
0:30:54 permitting life
0:30:55 being stable being uniform being regular
0:30:59 i have no explanation
0:31:01 what explanation fits this data best
0:31:05 the fact that the universe is is this
0:31:07 way what explanation fits this data best
0:31:09 the less you say i think the more
0:31:10 powerful it is the more you bring in
0:31:12 ideas of probability and epistemic
0:31:15 versus bayesian bayesian actually
0:31:16 bayesian is a type of epistemic
0:31:18 objective
0:31:19 probability
0:31:20 but
0:31:21 bayesian versus total or statistical
0:31:23 probability
0:31:25 and you have to now have a mathematical
0:31:27 discussion when they say there's a 20
0:31:30 chance
0:31:31 for example that
0:31:33 or 50 chance that someone's going to die
0:31:34 from cancer
0:31:36 according to cancer research that is
0:31:38 actually
0:31:39 that is actually the stat
0:31:41 i'm not sure if you know that
0:31:43 50 of people in the uk die from cancer
0:31:46 or 50 of people die from cancer
0:31:49 do you know that according to the cancer
0:31:51 research one in two
0:31:53 now obviously the majority of them are
0:31:54 over the age of 60 yeah but that's still
0:31:56 that's called a statistical probability
0:31:59 the way they come to that conclusion is
0:32:01 basically by seeing how many people die
0:32:02 from cancer and divide it and ratio it
0:32:06 but a statistical possibility is not to
0:32:08 say probability is not the same
0:32:10 as an epistemic probability and or
0:32:13 uh
0:32:14 or an inductive is referred to as an
0:32:16 inductive
0:32:17 or or
0:32:19 a bayesian probability
0:32:21 so you
0:32:22 but this is is getting once again
0:32:25 imagine just being a debate or a
0:32:26 discussion with some kind of a
0:32:27 mathematician
0:32:28 and you now have to define why you're
0:32:30 using what probability
0:32:32 you can imagine it even very sticky
0:32:34 so instead of doing all of that just say
0:32:36 okay
0:32:37 what we what we can all agree upon is
0:32:39 that there's something rather than
0:32:40 nothing these are the agreeables
0:32:42 do we agree that there's something
0:32:43 rather than nothing number one
0:32:45 we agree that the universe is stable
0:32:47 predictable and uniform
0:32:50 we agree that the universe
0:32:51 has a life permitting range
0:32:54 now what's what
0:32:57 explains this data best
0:33:00 does explaining this data best
0:33:03 if he says chance if they say chance if
0:33:05 they say that to you because you're not
0:33:06 going to say it's either chance because
0:33:07 it cannot be chance
0:33:09 if they say it's chance yes it's chance
0:33:11 it's the burden of proof is the one upon
0:33:12 the one that's making the claim you're
0:33:13 making what is chance explain it and
0:33:15 explain how that consider how that can
0:33:18 uh
0:33:19 explain the data now they are actually
0:33:22 it's upon them if they say that
0:33:25 to explain it it's the burden of proof
0:33:26 on them you don't have to say it can't
0:33:27 be chance why are you starting why are
0:33:29 you fighting their battle for them let
0:33:30 them do it
0:33:32 if they say it's uh
0:33:34 it's uh necessities okay how does
0:33:36 necessity threaten the fact that there's
0:33:38 a well necessity in what sense
0:33:41 so it's all determined like in the
0:33:42 deterministic sense and then we go back
0:33:44 to the idea that
0:33:46 if there is an uninterrupted line of
0:33:48 causal chains where does it end
0:33:50 do you have an
0:33:51 infinite regress
0:33:54 so they're stuck
0:33:56 because there is no way of explaining
0:34:01 the
0:34:03 the things i've just mentioned
0:34:05 the stability the the regularity the
0:34:07 uniformity
0:34:09 the life permitting
0:34:11 reality of the universe and or even that
0:34:13 the universe is there in the first place
0:34:16 and there's something other than nothing
0:34:17 you can't that's it you explain it
0:34:20 explain it we don't know you're going to
0:34:22 get this answer all the time
0:34:26 we don't know i don't know
0:34:29 i don't know
0:34:31 say what
0:34:32 is it reasonable
0:34:34 to assume
0:34:36 that the laws were put in place by a
0:34:37 lawmaker
0:34:39 which laws are you talking about
0:34:40 the natural laws or the laws of not
0:34:43 electromagnetic or this we're talking
0:34:46 about
0:34:47 these assumptions which are the
0:34:50 the predictability the uniformity and
0:34:51 stability of nature those themselves
0:34:53 were put for they were put in place
0:34:56 by an intelligent
0:34:58 intelligence or knowledge
0:35:01 or something that has knowledge
0:35:03 or something that has no knowledge
0:35:06 we know that these patterns exist
0:35:08 either these patterns exist
0:35:10 or were put in place by something that
0:35:12 has knowledge
0:35:14 or
0:35:15 or not so which of the two
0:35:17 and if it's the latter then explain it
0:35:19 please
0:35:22 because and this goes back to
0:35:24 what some say is weak but i don't think
0:35:25 is that we intuitively we don't we don't
0:35:28 act like that
0:35:29 we see something which is
0:35:32 going back to if you like the the
0:35:34 watchmaker thing
0:35:35 we see something with that kind of
0:35:36 design and we assume assume that some
0:35:39 something has made it with that that has
0:35:41 intelligence
0:35:42 that's what we assume all the time
0:35:46 but they have to be counter-intuitive in
0:35:48 order to come to their conclusions
0:35:50 but
0:35:51 and i think this is in many ways
0:35:53 the way that if you look at the quran
0:35:54 how it makes these kinds of arguments
0:35:59 that this is the
0:36:01 manufacturing of allah like the universe
0:36:04 yeah or the the actually
0:36:06 he was talking about the mountains and
0:36:08 the earth and then he says
0:36:11 the manufacturing of allah that he has
0:36:14 perfected
0:36:15 everything
0:36:17 and when he says he'll
0:36:19 do you see any gaps in creation
0:36:21 so if you look at the way allah deals
0:36:23 with that it's usually informatively and
0:36:27 interrogatively
0:36:30 he doesn't do it in a way that is
0:36:32 eliminatively
0:36:34 when it came to the um
0:36:36 that was elimination but when it came to
0:36:38 this the best way to to count i think to
0:36:41 do with it is actually ask them
0:36:42 questions
0:36:43 sometimes the best arguments are made
0:36:46 or the best points are made through
0:36:48 questions rather than so you tell them
0:36:50 what it is
0:36:52 you tell them what's happened what is
0:36:53 what do we have here we have a universe
0:36:55 with regularity with stability and
0:36:56 uniformity
0:36:58 which is life permitting
0:37:00 we have laws or these patterns of nature
0:37:04 either they're explained through
0:37:06 something that puts laws into place an
0:37:08 intelligence or it's not
0:37:10 if it's not can you give us an
0:37:11 alternative
0:37:12 if they say multiverse and all these
0:37:14 kind of things is assigned the point
0:37:16 because
0:37:16 the multiverse needs an explanation just
0:37:18 like
0:37:19 as we've said before just like the
0:37:20 universe does
0:37:22 you see it needs an explanation just
0:37:24 like the universe does and it probably
0:37:26 needs more of an explanation
0:37:29 so with that we conclude
0:37:31 we're going to talk now i know i've been
0:37:32 speaking for a long time but we're going
0:37:34 to try these uh
0:37:36 dish discussions now
0:37:38 assalamu alaikum
0:38:05 you