 Ready Ladies and gentlemen thrilled to have you here one of those basic technical difficulties folks Don't worry. They happen all the time. We're experts at solving them, but not preventing them We're thrilled to have you here for this epic debate folks This is going to be a lot of fun as we have two experienced debaters here I mean you can say kind of experience we've had Otangelo has been on before to debate and Leo Philius has been on debating on discord if I if I recall right and so we are thrilled to have these guys here It's gonna be a lot of fun folks want a first day though If it's your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more debates coming up Which we are very excited about including this Thursday whether or not the Illuminati exists So that should be a juicy one as always and also excited though to let you know folks We're a nonpartisan channel in other words the channel itself We have never made any videos that declare Certain side having won or lost and we never will this channel from now Until as long as it exists will always be a debate channel where the debaters are the only ones making their case And the channel doesn't take any particular positions. We're strictly neutral and also with that Whether you be Christian atheist you name it no matter what walk of life you come from we do hope you feel welcome We really are glad to have you here, and we're going to jump into this pretty quick so what we're going to have is flexible 10-minute opening statements followed by 60 minutes of open conversation and then 30 minutes of Q&A from you So if you have a question feel free to fire into the old live chat And if you tag me with at modern-day debate, that'll be that'll help me be sure that I get every question in the list For that Q&A super chat is also an option if you do a super chat You can not only ask a question but if you'd like you can actually make a comment toward one of the speakers and Your question or comment will go to the top of the list with a super chat So we are going to jump into this as I had mentioned 10-minute openings And our first one is going to be from Otangelo who is defending the fine-tuning argument for theism Thanks, both of you though guys. It really we just we were thrilled to have you here. Thanks so much and Yeah, so I just want to say first. Thank you very much. Leo Philius and Otangelo for being here see of the subatomic particles of the atoms of the Physical laws and so forth. So that is my introduction The fine-tuning of the laws under the constants of physics is one of the most Extraordinary discoveries of the 20th century in physics It makes a strong argument for design which comes out of physics and the more science advances The more it discovers that the laws of physics and cosmological parameters Must be finely tuned to permit a life-permitting universe Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that that remind the properties of Our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately the earth able to support life The laws of physics need to have the right parameters to support the making of the building blocks that are needed for life to arise the thing that really does surprise us and which really does need Explanation and that is the incredibly incredible improbability of the conditions that are necessary for our existence We can make a syllogistic argument pointing to intelligent design as the best Explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe one The laws of physics and cosmological parameters are finely tuned to the extreme to permit life to The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance physical necessity or intelligent design three This fine-tuning is too improbable to be due to chance and there was no physical Necessity or constraint to permit only the parameters that actually exist Therefore the fine-tuning is most likely due to intelligent design now There are three possible explanations and I think that the design argument Makes most sense if we consider all the fine-tuned parameters starting from the physical laws to actually even the fine-tuning of biology and There are the laws of physics laws of universal cavitation the three laws of motion conservation of mass energy laws of thermodynamics and electrostatic laws then there is the subatomic particles which have to be fine-tuned But this quark fine-tuning the quark is a type of elementary particle and the fundamental constituent of matter a Proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark The mass of the down quark is a slightly heavier than the up quark a Neutron is made of two heavy down quarks plus one light up quark Hence a neutron is little heavier than a proton That heaviness has consequences If it were not so the simplest patterns would not join and form molecules and the universe would host no life More than 70 times heavier than there would be no life While this may not seem finely tuned physics suggests that the down quark could have been many Trillions of times heavier. So we are actually left with the question. Why does the down quark appears so light? Then we have the Higgs boson the Higgs boson gives Substance to all natures other particles and that must require a fine tuning on the order of one in 10 to the 34 Then we have the four fundamental forces the gravitational force the strong nuclear force The weak nuclear force the electromagnetic force all four must be finely tuned for life If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker by just one part in 10 billion billion billion billion Then protons and neutrons would not stick together and the only element possible in the universe would be hydrogen only The weak nuclear force is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay If this force were slightly stronger the matter would decay into heavy elements in a relatively short time However, if it was significantly weaker All matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium There would be for example with virtually no oxygen carbon or nitrogen which are essential for life Gravity for gravity not almost exactly 10 to the 36 times weaker Then we would not be here The electromagnetic force must be finely tuned in many different ways in order for life in our universe And the nerve to be possible There's multi fine tuning in most analysis of the fine tuning of the force strengths of the constants of nature Only one parameter is adjusted at a time and this would correspond to changing one dial At the time on our universe creative machine while leaving the other dials unchanged, but Even taken individually each of these examples of fine tuning are impressive But in the real universe the values of all constants and force strengths must be satisfied Simultaneously to have a universe hospitable to life Martin Reese mentions six numbers according to that to him These six numbers constitute a receipt of the universe Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values If any of them were to be untuned there would be no stars And no life And thread oil wrote some super calculating intellect Must have designed the properties of the carbon atom Otherwise the change of my finding Such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests That the super intellect has monkey with physics as well as with chemistry and biology And that there would be no blind forces worth speaking about in nature The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question Then we have the fine tuning of the solar system Our sun is placed at the right distance from our galactic center Our sun is placed in a norm of the Milky Way Where we can discover the universe Then our sun has the right mass gives off the right amount of energy Its fusion reaction is finely tuned Contains the right amount of life requiring metals And is uncommonly stable Our moon If their moon if our moon would not exist The day would be eight hours long the winds would be much stronger complex life would probably not exist If the earth had no moon, we wouldn't be here A large moon stabilizes the rotation axis of the earth yielding a more stable life friendly climate Our moon keeps earth axis tilt from varying over a large range A larger tilt would cause large climate fluctuations The fine tuning of the earth the earth requires the right size and gravity If the sun were closer to the earth, we would burn up if farther away we would freeze The earth requires to be tilted at 23.5 degrees What we see is a planet that is perfectly balanced for our habitation We see design in the perfect balance Many chemical processes necessary for life Are dependent on elements we call raw earth minerals These only exist as trace amounts, but without which life could not continue The earth has the just right ozone layer Which filters out ultraviolet radiation and helps mitigate temperature swings The earth's surface gravity Strengths preventing the atmosphere from losing water to space too rapidly The earth's spin rate on its axis provides for a range of day and nighttime temperatures To allow life to thrive The atmosphere's composition, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. is just right for life The atmosphere's pressure enables our lungs to function And water to evaporate at an optimal rate to support life The atmosphere's transparency to allow an optimal range of life-giving solar radiation To reach the surface And the atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapor providing for stable temperature and rainfall ranges Efficient life-giving photosynthesis depends on quantum physics The earth requires sufficient amount of water The water molecules astounding robustness results from finely balanced quantum effects Water life's giving properties exist on a knife edge It turns out that life, as we know it, relies on incredibly delicate balance of quantum forces Water is unrivaled solving Its low viscosity permits the finest tiniest fluid vessels Its high specific heat stabilizes biosphere temperatures Its low thermal conductivity as a solid Ansulates frozen overlakes and as a liquid its high conductivity lets organisms distribute heat It's an efficient lubricant. It's only mildly reactive Has an anomalous fish saving expansion when it freezes its high vapor tension Keeps moisture in the atmosphere and it tastes great too Then we have a volcanic activity and the earth's magnetic field So there is a whole range of parameters starting from the big bang To the earth and then even to fine-tuning of biological systems Which need to be finely tuned You got it. I'm finished. Thank you very much Otangelo We will now kick it over to Leo Ophilius for his opening statement as well. Thanks for being here folks and Leo Ophilius Thanks for being here as well. The floor is all yours Thank you James, and I'd like to extend another thank you for allowing me to come onto your channel to have this discussion This is a really really good discussion. I think for my uh, for my debut debate on this channel Is the universe finally tuned for life and does this point to an intelligent designer? Well, let's take a look at our universe and life's place within it in about 99 percent Of the universe because 99 percent of the universe is empty space Life as we know it would die in mere seconds Right off the bat our universe doesn't really look like a place That was designed specifically for life. What I mean by this is if you were to take a human put them in the vacuum of space They would die. There's no pressure. There's no gravity There's no heat all of the things that we need for survival all of the things that most life that we know of needs for survival You put a human a cat a dog a tree In the interstellar medium And its genetic material will be almost immediately ripped apart by the intensely energetic cosmic rays And the electromagnetic radiation that permeates the whole of both interstellar and Intergalactic space now some people might be thinking well, what about tardigrades can't tardigrades survive in the vacuum of space Within the solar system where the sun's powerful magnetic field prevents the interstellar medium or rather the energy That's in the interstellar medium from piercing it and getting to us Yes, they can but if you were to put them into the interstellar medium Or the intergalactic medium They would die very very quickly. This doesn't seem like the kind of universe That you would want if life was your end result The second point that I'd like to make is this About 69 percent of all the mass energy in the universe is something that we don't really even know that much about called dark energy Another 27 percent Of the mass energy in the universe is something else that we know a little bit more about but not much called dark matter The remaining material the material that everything that we can see All the forms of life that could exist in the universe are made of is a whopping four percent a whopping four percent Of the total mass energy density of the universe Again, this doesn't seem like something that would be the case The universe was designed specifically for life Another point that I'd like to make is this Why would an all-powerful god need to fine-tune a universe to begin with? He's all-powerful He could create any universe and allow for life to exist within it if you really wanted to So why does he need to fine-tune a universe for our existence? It just doesn't seem like the universe had us in mind at all It doesn't seem that the universe was put here purposefully so that we would exist and Rather short opening I'd like to end with an analogy We have a fish swimming around in the ocean He looks around and he says, you know I'm in this water. I'm in this ocean. I can breathe the water just fine all the food that I need It's right here within the ocean My skin is scaly and sleek. I have fins and these allow me to move within the water in an agile way Aha, the fish explains the ocean must have been designed specifically for fish to exist within it But I don't think that anybody would actually state that that is the case The ocean is not designed specifically for fish to exist within it Fish evolved to be capable of surviving in the ocean Likewise, the universe is not finely tuned for life life Arrows in such a way that it could survive in the universe And I will yield the remainder of my time to the moderator Gotcha. Thank you very much in a moment We will jump into the open conversation portion as mentioned You can fire your questions into the live chat and then we will be working on reading each and every one time permitting Also want to mention we just started doing this. We're very excited that if you don't worry all of our debates They're all they're always going to be public So we'll never have like any debates behind a paywall What we're doing though is some people were like, you know, I would love Audio because I don't have let's say you don't have youtube premium and you're like I love to listen to the debates though And so we are adding it as a patreon perk and our patreon link is in the description box where now All of the audio of our new debates that are coming out as well as old debates that you can request We are putting the audio files on patreon And so you can sign up for patreon for as low as two bucks a month and you'll have access to those mp3 So with that thanks to our guests, we'll jump into that open conversation mode gentlemen. Thanks again. The floor is all yours Yes, so your first point Devin, is that how you would like to Evan leo that doesn't really matter whichever is more comfortable for you. I don't care if people know my name It's not that big of a deal. Oh Okay, so your first Objection to the fine tune argument Is that the universe 99.9 percent is actually not fine tune For life Now that point seems a little bit moved to me because The question is not Why is it not? 99.9 percent fine tuned for life. The question is why is it fine tuned to lost life at all? And why is there even a universe because even the big bang Is precisely fine tuned the expansion rate The matter anti matter ratio and so forth if the big bang would not be fine until there would be no universe Yes, but if the whole goal of the universe was for life to exist Why is it that life would die very quickly in 99 percent of the universe? Well, I can give you an example. Let's take a light bulb The light bulb is made to to To radiate light. Now, of course, if you touch the light bulb you will burn your hands. So it wasn't made for that so That seems a little bit moved for me that that argument because The the universe may be the sun and so forth if we would go but there we would Burn ourselves. We would not be able to survive but That's not the perfect purpose of the rest of the universe. So As I repeat that the question is why is there a universe at all? Why is the big bang find a tune and then why is the earth and the galaxy and All the other things precisely fine tuned to host us Are those things fine tuned for us or did we just happen to evolve to survive within the particular conditions that we're in? Well, I repeat again the big bang was finally tuned. It is the most finely tuned event in the universe We haven't even gotten back to the big bang yet. The furthest back that we can get is about 10 to the negative 13 seconds Past which general relativity breaks down and we lose a description of spacetime So we haven't even gotten back to the big bang to know what it's like Which is another reason why most cosmologists would say we don't know if the universe really is finely tuned Or if there's a deeper explanation that tells us why the constants have values that they do Well, for example, professive Hawking says if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang Had been smaller by even one part in 100 000 million million The universe would have recollected before it either reached its present state And steven weinberg said there are now two cosmological constant problems The old cosmological constant problem is to understand in a natural way Why the vacuum energy density is not very much larger. We can reliably calculate some Contributions like the energy density in the fluctuations in the gravitational field At gravitational energy is nearly up to the Planck scale Which is larger than is observationally allowed by some 120 orders of magnitude. That's the cosmological constant. So we have this data We know how precisely that the cosmological constant has to be finely tuned So we cannot say oh, we don't know we know actually how Enormously fine till that the big bang has to be in order for our universe to exist Yeah, but that doesn't mean the parameters were set by some intelligence There could be some underlying cause that tells us why they hold the values that they do We don't know yet. We don't have a unified field theory to tell us all about fundamental forces We don't have a quantum theory of gravity to tell us why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces And we really don't know anything past about 10 to the negative 13 seconds to know how the universe was In its earliest moments when the values of these constants and parameters may have been different Well, I think there is no big controversy That the cosmological constant has to be Finely tuned up to that degree and you have three possible explanations One is designed the second is physical necessity It couldn't be different and the third possibility would be chance or random unguided natural evidence I don't see why physical necessity Is an option that makes sense because it could have had different parameters And chance in such an extreme manner I mean Hey, we have 10 to the 8 atoms in the universe and the cosmological constant is even far far more Narrow in its range in in order to be In a in a in a in a range that permits the the universe to expand and and And we to exist in it How do we know that the parameters Could not have been different or could have been different. Did we measure other universes to Figure that out Well, I mean there are many many different parameters That are involved in order for us to to be To be here and there is no reason to think for example That the moon could be much smaller than it actually is or that the sun Uh, uh, it's distant from the earth could be much farther away actually as you even said 99 of the universe is Hostile in life. So these parameters that could have been easily different. So I see no reason to think that There is physical necessity and Why the universe could not have been non-life permitting that is a very extreme position to take There is actually a quick point. I wanted to make about our distance from the sun Both mars and venus are within the sun's circumstellar habitable zone We could put the earth where venus is and some life might die But for the most part life would be fine. We could put the earth where mars is and again Some life might die, but for the most part life would be fine We would still be within the circumstellar habitable zone And if if I remember the math that I did I think that's a variation If I want to say about 70 million miles That we have where we can move the earth and for the most part life is going to be just fine There would still be liquid water the surface temperature might change naturally But there would still be liquid water on earth and likely life Well, the the goldilocks range is is not so extremely fine tuned. I agree with that With you, but as I listed there are many many different other fine tune parameters That needs to be just right in order for The earth that we able to host life so I listed over 10 different parameters if there would be no moon there would be no life On earth, but what about a planet that doesn't have a moon but does have life? Is that an impossibility all planets with life have to have moons? Or the moon that has a very specific purpose of permitting life on earth the day would On earth. Yes Well As I as I said, you you need to have over a dozen different fine tune parameters On the earth in order to host and permit life Yeah for the earth to permit life, but not other planets There could be planets that are larger that have life that are smaller that have life that are closer To are further from their stars that have more moons or no moon at all that have rings There's numerous things so life on earth Requires these parameters, but life elsewhere does not necessarily require those two parameters Well, there has been made a calculation how rare that life would be in the universe and a science paper said that the chance To find the life permitting planet is one to 10 to the 123rd power so That gives an idea about How how extremely rare that our earth is So if if life in the universe is extremely rare rare, excuse me Doesn't that kind of work against fine tuning because again if if the whole purpose of the universe being here And looking the way it does is so that not necessarily specifically humans, but that life can exist Then why is life so rare? Why is the universe so hostile to life and why are we made up of such an infinitesimally small amount of the universe? It just it doesn't seem like the universe Is here specifically for us Well, first of all, I am not caught in order to say to you the purpose of Of his creating the universe why it was just to make one a planet Able to host life, of course he could have made other planets Doing so and we don't even know if that is the case I personally don't believe so but Yeah But another point that I want to go back to is how do we know That there are not any underlying causes underlying physical necessities that mandate these values have the values that they do I mean given that we I think you would agree We I mean we know a lot obviously we've got quantum mechanics quantum field theory relative You we know a hell of a lot about our reality how it works, but we don't know everything So how have we ruled out the possibility that there is something that dictates that these parameters have to have the values that they do How have we ruled that out? Well, as I I mentioned in the in my introduction Even taken individually each of these examples of fine-tuning are impressive But in the real universe the values of all the constants and force strengths must be satisfied Simultaneously to have a universe hospital hospital to live So and with with all of the parameters I think that you would agree if we could court of sort of excuse me get a god's eye view so to speak And we could theoretically just change all the parameters at whim that we could Technically change them from minus infinity to plus infinity So how do we know that we couldn't take every parameter in our universe and change it in some way and still have life? Well, I think science has made these these tests and the calculations and I just called the two briefings Which said that if you change one parameter Then you have to change another tree in order to have again a life from meeting universe And if you change then the other three then there are other parameters that have to be changed So this is a fine balance indeed if you don't have everything right Then nothing goes that you don't have a life from meeting universe So what if you did change all the parameters and the universe was still capable of permitting life Well, that is just what I told you right now that would not be possible if you change Well, how do we know that? Well, I mean we don't have any other universes to measure this one against to know What a universe with different parameters would look like As I just told you They did these calculations and if they change just one force of the fundamental Forces, then you have to change everything else too You cannot just change one force and then it still functions It's not how it works you if you change one thing then you have to change several other things together in order to have a fine tuning again But if so you are essentially admitting that there could be Other ways that you can change not just one but all of the parameters and still somehow have have life Well, as I told you they made calculations Uh, uh, if there could be other life permitting planets in the universe and the Chance is one to ten to the 123rd power. So that's extremely unlikely um, okay, so That means that if we changed all the parameters, there's no way we could ever have life Well, I gave an example this morning. For example, he made a calculation About the chance to have a universe costing stars And the chance is one to ten to the 209th power So if it is not fine tuned exactly to to what we have we have no stars and no life But how do we know that if we don't have other universes with different parameters to tell us whether Or not there could still be stars or galaxies or planets or life When we people can calculate well It looks like you couldn't really change this parameter If you did the chances of this still existing is this but we don't have any tangible evidence to actually suggest that is the case But first of all you need to start with the big bang and already there you run into problems Even to have a universe The the the range Of fine tuning is so small the cosmological constant alone is so extremely small that You have to find an answer. Why is that so? Why is there actually a universe rather than that? The why why there is something rather than nothing I think that the contingency argument. I think that's a different discussion Okay, but I am referring now to the initial conditions of the of the universe of the big bang We don't know what those are Well, I great just an example cosmological constant. We know it is in range of 1 to 10 to the 130 power We don't know what the cosmological constant was at say 10 to the negative 29 seconds after the big bang because we haven't gotten back that far There might not have been a cosmological constant back then like I said some of these parameters might not have even existed in the very early universe Well, we have to work with what we have on hand and we have a lot of state on hand And and considering what we have We can say that the best explanation for why there was a fine-tuned big bang and Atoms and stars and everything else is that it was designed Or it could have just had to be that way or it could have just ended up that way. We we don't know Well, as I as I told you The there is no physical necessity that there is a life Permitting universe it could be non-life Permitting so how have we ruled out physical necessity when we don't have An underlying description of our entire reality, which you would need in order to make the claim that it could be physical necessity Well, I gave you an example for example the moon I don't see a reason why there could be An earth without the moon and if there would be no moon there would be no life As we know it there would be no life But I I think that most astrobiologists would probably say if you took away the moon There could still be some forms of life on the earth. They might not be complex, but if there's there could still be life Well, if we would have no moon Then we would have no tides causing the ocean waters to remain stagnant and produce no oxygen for its creatures So there would be no oxygen. You would have no advanced life. I think there would be no life without the moon also because of the of the Of the rotation of the earth, which would be much faster and there are other things that are Just in balance The moon earth Is a system that is finely tuned and in balance to permit life and if you take the moon out, then you have no life Again, that's to permit life on earth specifically on earth And we evolved on earth to survive in the particular environment that we're in We're fine tuned for the environment. The environment isn't fine tuned for us So as I said, um, you need to start from the big bang without fine tuning, there would be no Expansion at the right rate and we would have no universe with stars and everything else and galaxies and planets We don't know what caused inflation and we also don't know what what the values of the parameters would have been During inflation or prior to inflation if there is a prior to inflation We also don't even know if all of the constants and parameters that we see today would have even existed And they've suggested that some of them may not have the speed of light may not have been constant in the early universe The cosmological constant may may not have been constant in the early universe We don't know because we have not we do not have the technology to understand Those energy levels in those earliest moments of time So we cannot say with any level of definitiveness That the parameters and constants of the big bang had to be the way they are We just don't know Well, I think that you you have to go even deeper and you have to ask Why are the the physical laws? uh mathematical and and finely tuned as well And if you have no physical laws, you have no physics You have You have no no universe either and the physical laws and the the physical universe They had to start together and they are interdependent So there you have another level of of of problem of fine-tuning which you have to find an answer Why there's physics and math Why are the laws of physics fine-tuned and based on mathematical principles Uh, well that that seems to me to just be kind of a what is it an ad hoc? I think it is Is that the word of is that the term I'm no a priori? That's the term I'm it seems like an a priori assumption that the laws of physics are fine-tuned Before having demonstrated that they are in fact fine-tuned. Well, they are fine-tuned and how do we know that? Well, you need to I don't think this is a subject Of a life discussion, but I can send you after our Debated relevant papers which demonstrate that the laws of physics They are fine-tuned and they are based on mathematical principles and they enforce how matter behaves I mean the constants and parameters that we see in the universe today Have to be in those values to get the universe that we see today Nobody has ever changed any of the parameters to know what a universe would actually look like Or whether or not there could be life. Again, it just kind of seems like an a priori assumption Well, I can be if you're called the naive you implies that the universe suddenly came into existence And found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent That is macphria cosmology After half a century in science paper So the laws of physics and the physical stuff upon which the laws of physics interact. They are interdependent Well, the laws of physics are really just human abstractions of how reality fundamentally works They're descriptive not prescriptive Well, I would say they are descriptive because the mathematical formulas and laws they are They are enforced of how matter and physical things behave Math is also a human abstraction that is descriptive not prescriptive These things just kind of are a part of reality. They're not prescribed to it by some external intelligence Well, that that is what you just say, but The thing is that the universe works based on mathematical principles And then you have to find an explanation of why that is so The universe just does what it does We invented the mathematical principles to describe what the universe does But math is not an objective feature of reality humans created math Well, Einstein asked why is there not cows Rather than order in the universe and that is a very pertinent question I would argue the universe is quite chaotic Well, Albert Einstein said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe Is that it is comprehensible? How would you comprehend it if it would be chaotic? I I guess I don't get the question Why does something chaotic have to be incomprehensible? Well, cows you cannot quantify cows cows is disorder But the universe works based on mathematical principles, which can be put in formulas Well, if chaos is disorder then wouldn't entropy dictate that since the universe is getting more disorderly that it's also getting more chaotic Well, yes, that is one of the fundamental fundamental laws, but you have to ask Why why is why is why is the universe at the beginning of of of its existence in an extremely high Anthropical order, we don't know we have we don't have the mathematics to describe the early universe to know that Well, that's one of the points I've been making Yeah, but the thing is that the laws of physics that is the law of universal gravitation The three laws of motion the conservation of mass and energy the laws of thermodynamics and electrostatic laws They can be put in formulas and the question is why Do these formulas enforce how physical matter behaves? They don't Our mathematical laws don't dictate how the universe works. That would be assuming that they're restrictive They describe how the universe the universe just does what it does the math that we invent Tells us what the universe does. It doesn't make the universe do it By the way, you mentioned the conservation of energy You do know that the conservation of energy is broken by all rights in general relativity, correct? Well, I'm not very much into that. So I don't know No, no, it's it is Due due to the breaking up time translation symmetry since there's no symmetry. You don't get no terrestrial. You don't get a conserved quantity Yeah, but still I disagree with you because the laws of physics are obviously they are enforced of On physical matter on the universe. Otherwise, there would be no laws of physics So that the universe works based on stable laws The these laws that the universe is stable of a long period of time because of these laws which do not change So these laws they are enforced on physics. So you cannot say, oh, that's just a description No, it's a description and it's a prescription of how our universe works And we know that the universe works based on mathematical principles So you have to ask yourself, why do these mathematical principles? Why are they enforced on physical things? And I think that an intelligent mind on the bottom of all physical things explains it because a mind can actually come up with mathematical formulas while a non-mind cannot Exactly, that's how we know that humans created mathematics And again mathematics doesn't tell reality what to do. It simply describes what it does Okay, we can move forward because I simply disagree with you on that I think that the laws of physics they enforce How better behave so you believe the laws of physics transcend physical reality? Yes Yes, they do because mathematics is not something physical. It is it is something abstract And I think it has to come from a mind It does the human mind Well, I think humans didn't exist. There would be no math math would not exist if humans never existed Well, I believe in a mind which is supernatural which is at the bottom of all reality And which which find the universe and which which came up with these mathematical formulas to produce the physical laws Yeah, that that I think is it's more of a different discussion on whether or not that being exists Not really. I mean it's somewhat related to this discussion But this one is more about specifically the fine theory But I do want to go back to the initial point that I made because I do think it is a Major problem for the idea that the universe is finally tuned for life when life would die in 99 of the universe Well, as I said to you the question is why is the universe Life permitting rather than not life permitting. It is irrelevant that in 99.9 percent of the universe It is not life permitting To ask why the universe is life permitting when you say why would do you mean? What is the meaning behind it or do you mean how does the universe allow for life to exist? Well, the question is Why is the universe finally tuned to host life at all? That's assuming that the universe is finally tuned Well, of course it is I I don't think it is It doesn't look like it's finally tuned for life That's what we are talking about and if it would not be finally tuned for life who would not be here There would be just random cows Or what if life is finally tuned for the universe? Excuse me So what if life was just finally tuned for the universe? It evolved to be capable of surviving in this environment rather than the environment being tailored for this future I have to come back to what I said previously Um The fine-tuning begins right at the bottom of everything. That's the big bang And if there would be not a fine tuned big bang, there would be not the life permitting universe But again, you know, the big bang is fine tuned because we haven't been capable of examining those those time scales and energy scales We can't talk about what we don't know Well, I think we know and the logical constant We know the cosmological constant how finely tuned it has to be to commit an expansion rate Of the universe which is not too fast and which is not permitting the universe to collapse into itself So it has to be finely The expansion rate must be finely tuned in order to to to to permit the universe to exist And there's that's already the question How do we know that the cosmological constant doesn't break down or disappear or Combine with something else at earlier times if we've never been to those times that's a major point We don't know what happens here. So we can't make claims about what happens here Well, it does not have a description of this It is not only the the cosmological constant, but also the matter antimatter Must be uh one part in 10 billion At that part that the one part makes all matter in the universe Why is the annihilation of matter antimatter finely tuned as well There are several things that must be just right. Are you asking about baryon asymmetry? It's the the the matter antimatter Relation is 1 to 10 billion or In each 10 billion There is one matter which makes up the the matter in the universe And that is that ratio is finely tuned and if it would not be finely tuned we would not have Uh a matter in the universe, but we we're pretty sure we know why matter dominates over antimatter That that problem is called baryon asymmetry and we believe that it likely has something to do with neutrino oscillation Okay, so that would explain that would be a Something that explains why something seemingly is fine tuned for specifically baryon asymmetry now I'll admit we haven't verified that but it fits very very well with the data that we currently do have that Neutrino oscillation ended up allowing matter to dominate over antimatter How do we know that it's not the same for all the other parameters? That there's something there that is well within the confines of the universe that explains why that parameter is that way How have we ruled that out because I haven't been given an explanation of how we've ruled that out It well, maybe it can be ruled out But my point is that we know that the cosmological constant must be just right To the extreme of 1 to the 10 to the 100 23rd power and if it would not be so there would be not a life permitting Universe there would be as we know you there would be no universe at all because Expansion rate must be just right and if it isn't there would be no universe So you do know that the universe is accelerating in its expansion, correct? Yes, so the the expansion of the universe is not constant Correct. It is Accelerating but that acceleration rate must be just right as well And another thing that that I should mention just while we're on it. The universe is not Physically expanding. It's not like an object Getting bigger and an otherwise pre-existing space. It's a metric expansion of the scale Of the universe that can only be measured on sufficient enough distances Okay, but my point stands that acceleration rate must be also extremely fine tuned In order for the universe not to expand too fast And not permitting the the evolution of stars and planets Or too slow to collapse into itself How do we know that the cosmological constant doesn't break down or disappear at the earliest moments in the universe's history? Well, I don't know that but I think that the fact that the cosmological constant must be so finely tuned to the extreme makes A formidable case for intelligent design There must be something and I think an intelligent designer is the best explanation for that fine tune But we haven't ruled out physical necessity because we don't know if there are other things that dictate these parameters How the values that they do Okay, let's suppose there would be a physical necessity to to fine tune the cosmological constant But then you have so many other things that must be finely tuned as well, which I Brought up in my introduction that is the fine tuning of the subatomic particles fine tuning of the fundamental forces fine tuning of the galaxies fine tuning of the sun fine tuning of the earth of the moon Of the atmosphere of so many different things that must be just right as well So you have still to find an explanation and to say well all these things Are so because of necessity. Well, that is a very far-fetched explanation I don't think that it makes sense to say How there could be no moon Or the distance from the sun to the earth could not be different. Of course, it could be different. So I think that that argument that The universe must be life-permitting is very weak So in terms of the subatomic realm number one, we have no idea why there's three generations of matter But we're quite sure a unified field theory will probably tell us why And a unified field theory will probably give us a much much more thorough description of all four fundamental forces And could very well tell us why they have the strengths that they do their strengths could have Probably and likely were different in the early universe So again, it just comes back to this we don't know and again It seems like you're kind of making an a priori assumption that these things are finely tuned Even though that hasn't really been established yet No, no, I think that has been established I would quote you again the tenderness of quarks has consequences If it were not so the simplest atoms would not join it for molecules and the universe would not host life More than 70 times design that way there could be again Like I said something in the mathematics that tells us why it's that way We don't have to assume that it was designed that way Well, the fact is that it is fine tuned I continue more than 70 times heavier And there would be no life while this may not seem to find it tuned physics suggests That the down quark could have been many trillion times heavier So we are actually left with the question. Why does the down quark appear so light? So you don't know fine. Well I'm giving you three possible explanations that is design Look at physical necessity and it seems to me that design explains it Well, so does physical necessity Well, I don't I would argue that's a better explanation because it requires us to make less assumptions There there could easily be something in a unified field theory that tells us exactly why these values have to be I would think it's much more likely than assuming On intelligent designer with all these other properties and everything else And I do want to mention that I've watched some lectures by Leonard Susskind. I don't know if you've ever heard of him He's one of the titans of theoretical physics. He's a professor of theoretical physics at stanford university And the director of the stanford institute for theoretical physics and one of the co-founders of string theory And even he says these these things are not fine. We tuned. We don't know why there's three generations of matter Why there's there's one there's light medium and then heavy. We don't know We don't know why the values of the forces or the strengths of the forces have the values they do We just don't know But I will quote you again physics suggests That the down quark could have been Many trillions of times heavier so that refutes your argument That there is physical necessity Well, if it could have been different But it's not to me that kind of implies that there's probably something in the math something about our physical reality that dictated Had to be that way i.e. physical necessity Well, mathematical formulas can be changed What was that Mathematical formulas they can be changed Can or cannot But of course they can no no i was asking i didn't catch that did you say they can or they cannot be changed They can't be changed. Okay So if all the parameters could be changed But they're not and doesn't that imply that there could easily be something telling us that well, this is why they took these values That this math tells us why yeah, but then wouldn't that be physical necessity No, that would be designed because physical necessity because you you There is no physical necessity imposing upon mathematical formulas A mathematical formulas is something abstract and you can change it Oh, okay, but you can't change what the math is describing But you can you can enforce a mathematical formula To give an example, we have the equation e equals mc squared I could change that to h equals four pi squared And as long as I assume that the all those terms if I just make them mean what e equals mc squared means I changed formula, but it still describes the same thing So you can change a mathematical formula, but you can't change what it describes. Yes. Yes I agree with you, but that's my point. You can change a mathematical formula So my question is why does the mathematical formulas that underline the physical loss of the universe And describe it and they are enforcing how physical matter behaves Why do these physical formulas permit a life permitting universe? And we don't think Okay, let me ask you a question Would you be willing to grant that even though there is life in the universe that maybe there could not have been Even though it could permit it that the universe could permit life, but it just never happened Would you be willing to grant that that's at least a possibility? Yes, but we are here. So that's what we try to elucidate So just because the universe is life permitting doesn't mean there has to be life in it. It just means there can be Yes, yes, which I think implies that life evolves to survive in the universe not not the other way around But also I claim that design is the best explanation for why these constants are in their parameters versus physical necessity, but Design just says oh, well something put them there whereas physical necessity tells us there are underlying Laws underlying math underlying reasons whatever words you want to use that might explain why they're that way Why is that? I would were a sex foundation than assuming Some transcendent creator that put them in that value and how can we prove or not even prove But how can we demonstrate or show a likelihood that those values Have that these parameters have the values that they have because they were set like the dials were set by somebody to be that way I will come back again to the example of the moon the moon could the moon is 400 times The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than of the sun and it is exactly 400 times Uh more distant from the earth So you have a precise eclipse And the size of the moon fits the size of the sun Explain me. Why is that so it could be different and we would not have a perfect eclipse So god made the moon the size that it is so we can see eclipses rather than the moon just happened to Be a size that's a possible explanation Actually, we can still see the the corona of the sun Which is a part of the sun when the moon is covering it. So it actually doesn't cover the entire sun Yeah, but it is about 400 times the size I can read that to you rounding. Yes, I agree with you But I would just said that that's happenstance well That is our difference That would be like me walking into a foot locker picking some random shoe off the shelf Putting it on my foot and saying aha this fits me perfectly. This shoe must have been designed specifically for my foot I don't think that's a better explanation than I just happened to pick up the shoe that that's the right size for me Well, the thing is that if the moon would not have the exact size it has Then it would lose its function and we would not be here. So that we might not but what was that What we're going to do is In a few minutes we'll go into the q&a if uh, either of you are willing to defer to the other on letting the other Have the last word otherwise at some point. I'll just kind of uh transition us into it on our own Just want to let you know we're going to go into the q&a pretty quick here Okay, um, I I would think that fairness would say not not not want to sound pompous when I say this but angelo went first So I think in fairness I should probably get the last word Sure go ahead Um, so I just I don't think that there's any reason to assume that the parameters of our universe have the values They do because they were set by some intelligence We know a hell of a lot about our reality and how it works And I just want to expand on that just for a quick second We don't know everything about everything but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about anything Just because some people like to make that argument But we don't know enough to be able to say they there is absolutely nothing that is self contained within reality dictating that these parameters have the values that they do and I would like to go back to my analogy of the fish swimming around in the ocean Where he seems that oh well, it's like the ocean was perfectly designed for me to be in it But is that really the right way to look at it or should we look at it from the perspective of the fish evolved to survive In that particular environment rather than the environment being tailored for the fish Gotcha, we are going to jump into the q&a folks. So thanks so much for all of your questions Really appreciate it and let me just turn my mic up a bit. I'm a little bit low on this side so Very excited to read through these folks. I really appreciate it and also want to let you know I don't think I mentioned at the start both of the speakers. Well, leo felius as of now is uh did not give a link but I do have Otangelo's link in the description box. So if you're listening, you're like, hmm, I like that I want to hear more you can hear more by clicking on those links. So I mean one second. I'm a little bit behind here long day already Thanks so much for your super chat from Cigafredo Sarabia in the house says leo isn't at the old universe gambler's fallacy to ask another Person to show another universe to support fine-tuning when you can't do the same to show otherwise No, you can't I mean i'm the universe is seemingly fine-tuning but to state that if the parameters are different Life couldn't exist or this Well, we don't know that because we don't and what i'm saying is that you don't have to show me another universe I'm saying we don't have another universe to look at to compare ours too Gotcha, michael dresden. Thanks for your super chat says our local troll Says i'll save you all the time the answer is yes in all caps Andrew Handelsman responds michael dresden already lost in all caps. Thanks for that Suck aid. Thanks for your super chat said Saying fine-tuning supports god Presupposes that a god exists, which is logically incoherent further life wouldn't exist to observe the universe in any other way So it's flawed to say it's made for life I think that's for you tangelo Okay, I would just cite a syllogism, which I think is a good reply to that The laws of physics and cosmological parameters are finely tuned to the extreme to permit life The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance physical necessity or intelligent design This fine-tuning is too Improbable to be due to chance and there was no physical necessity or constrained To permit only the parameters that actually exist Therefore the fine-tuning is most likely due to intelligent design Gotcha and thanks so much for your super chat from skeptic wiz Says the theist already won debate over Anamorphic mind. Thanks for your super chat. Let's see Says leo felius wins over uh, let's see i'm trying to remember Give me one second. I just i'm trying to remember we had. Oh, okay. That's what it was. So sorry I I missed one of the questions up here. So brian steven. Thanks for your super chat patreon question said Uh, which scientists in parentheses names and papers did the calculations about changing the parameters of the universe? I think that's for you or tangelo Well, I would suggest that he reads martin reese just six numbers And he gives a receipt of the universe of of six parameters Which must be precisely fine-tuned in order to have a life-promoting universe Gotcha and thanks for subscribing. I saw there was one or two people at sub During this stream. So we appreciate you being here thrilled to have you it's just that i'm so sorry that i'm a little bit slow in keeping up with the uh As I see the notifications come up in stream labs and thanks for your super chat from Sisypheros rabbia shoots out another one who they asked does the universe follow math or create math? Is that for both of us or one of us? I think That's a good question could go either way if you guys each want to respond All right, if you want to go answer that first angelo, you're more than welcome to Yeah, so the physical laws They are based on mathematical formulas which enforce of how physical matter behaves So it is not just a description. It is a prescription Gotcha. Thank you So mathematics is a human abstraction It was entirely created by humans if humans didn't exist math wouldn't exist what math describes would still exist But the description itself would not because we invented that description as a way of understanding the reality that we live in Mathematics and the laws of nature are inherent to it. They're not they don't transcend it and impose themselves upon it Gotcha and kevin Foul I know I mispronounced that sorry kevin. Thanks for your super chat said Question for rotangelo. How is your argument any different from the sentient puddle example? Popularized by carlin. I think that's referring to george carlin. You have too many assumptions in your argument Well, first of all in order for the puddle to adapt or evolve Uh to the universe we need to have a universe and in order to have a universe We need a big bang which is finely tuned At the expansion rate must be finely tuned the chronological constant must be finely tuned And so you need to first explain that how did big bang come to to uh Have defined the two parameters permitting light permitting universe and only after you have this explained You can figure out about the evolution of life Gotcha and kent hovins cpa Hey What a job count but ask why quote atheists Like hawking to prove god exists Well, I don't think that is uh important that I just quote atheists. I think many Form formidable scientists Have discovered many things and we can quote them And it doesn't mean that they needs to have as a philosophy as a religion to be tears Gotcha and thanks for your super chat Frank's 92 Says good job. Leo. Hope to see more debates from you on this channel. Great debut You got a fan of hope to be invited to more Absolutely. We're glad to have you two you guys back. It's always a pleasure and Floom 666. Thanks for your super chat. Didn't see a comment. Whether it be just support for the channel We appreciate it if you want to add a comment just shoot it into the old live chat as a normal chat and tag me Z leaping bear. Thanks for your super chat said what is the complexity of god? Is he more simple than the universe? Is he more probable? the uh, then Is he more probable this Quote simple on quote god with his complexity or for the universe All right. Thanks for that question. I think it's a good question And code of course is not made of parts. He's spirit. And so he is not Complex, it's a simple entity. It just uh composed of a mind and the mind is not complex Gotcha and thanks so much for your super chat from Athena goddess of wisdom and warfare Says how do I get in contact with you Leo? I think that they would like your email um Yeah, I I can um I don't really know because I don't see their name in chat. I I mean I could give them You know, I just don't really want to say it out loud on In the live chat because I don't want everybody to have it but um, I'm sure there could be some way I could get in contact with them. You got it. So Athena either email me or if you put your email in the comments then leo can look it up afterward And last I think that might be it for super chats. Let me just double check really quick and refresh it Strangely, I can't see oh, we do have one more. Sorry about that Kevin We for for some reason. I don't know if it's just me because I can't tell But my let my live chat isn't like refreshing. I'm not seeing any more Comments from anybody in the live chat, which is weird. It's just like kind of frozen However, they are showing up in the creator studio. So Kevin Guilfau, thanks for your super chat said Otangelo, you didn't answer my last question You only presented more assumptions if your argument can be boiled down to the sentient puddle It relies on assuming I don't I don't understand the objection. I said in order to have a puddle you need a fine tuned big bang so Before anything physical exists you need already fine tuning and you have to explain that Can I jump in here really quick as to the whole puddle analogy? So that's kind of like my with the fish in the ocean Where it's it's asking is the ocean designed for the fish or did the fish evolve To be capable of surviving in the ocean So that's kind of that analogy that I gave is kind of a different version of the whole puddle Just wanted to throw that out there really quick Gotcha, uh, let's see I can give you a chance to respond if you'd like to otangelo. I just got the chat to work again Well, I can quote an entire Explanation of the puddle thinking and why it doesn't Why it doesn't sound but I think we don't have enough time for that But I think the relevant thing is to understand that in order to have life evolving on planet earth We need to have a universe and the big bang which is finally tuned So that is the first thing that we need to have and so you have to explain How did the big bang be finally tuned in the first place? Gotcha, and Kevin Gilgilfoo. Sorry I mispronounced it. Thanks for letting me, uh, know how to properly pronounce your name Do appreciate it and Kevin let's see. Oh, I think yep. We just got that one in so thanks for that Zee leaping bear. Thanks for your super chat. They sent another one. They said quote God is simple. A mind is not complex I guess we can get to know God in film then. Thanks Gotcha next step. Uh, let's see And yeah, somebody else said that sometimes the chat freezes up for them too. That's weird That's the first time I've ever seen it in all of my time on youtube, which is way too many years of my life Thank you for that. We are going to next go into the standard questions. Call me emo. Thanks for your question said Otangelo if the fine-tuning argument is sufficient Why invoke God so frequently in biology and cosmology? Couldn't God just create a universe that Can generate its own complexities? um, well Pistic evolution is they make that claim they say that God created that basic chemicals and then left them to their own evolutionary behavior and based on that then the life of all but the thing is that The problem starts with the origin of life and the probability to have a minimal proteome Is one to the 10 to the 350,000 so there is an That's that's in the realm of the impossible So that that hypothesis can be excluded based on the probabilities to have the basic building blocks of life and the machines and seven fabrics By chance that's not possible Gotcha and flume 666. Thanks for your super chat who said thanks for all the shows And otangelo is a troll Gotcha. I don't think so. I think otangelo Sincere, uh, let's see Let's see We uh, what was it? But thank you. Glad you appreciate the shows folks. We're always if you ever want to email me folks I'm always I have to be honest So many the vast majority of the good ideas for this channel are other people There are people have emailed them in or something. It's not me. I'm just a guy sending emails out in the background Okay, so if you have ideas on how to improve the channel feel free. I'm like super teachable I know that sometimes in the chat it when someone like is like if they do it in a mean way I'm just like, oh, okay. Here we go. But if you do it in a polite way I'm always happy to hear any feedback And it doesn't have to be like overly polite or anything feel free Feel free to email me at moderndaydebate at gmail.com as we really I gotta tell you I'm serious folks This channel is like in a very real way. It's like a community channel in the sense that one I mean it runs off of the debaters Passionate debaters coming on and making their cases. That's what makes it fun And then the other thing is so many great ideas come from you folks And so I just really appreciate that whether it be in the it's it's hard for me to read all the comments after debates So if you want to be sure that I'll get it I always check email and I try to get back to every single email for real. So um Yeah, I mean we've got just like kind of things that I'm like looking at in the future Like trying to decide in terms of like Should we do one thing i'm considering is like should we do A third of our debates being like political debates And then a third of them being Same like these philosophy of religion type debates like debates on god's existence And then maybe a third being kind of miscellaneous like flatter Conspiracy theories like the illuminati this thursday and we might have debate on furries coming up Yeah, for real. Can I ask a quick question? Yeah, you bet. Is t jump gonna be in that debate on the illuminati Gotcha Um, yes, he will be and so that's the one that's what I thought If you're watching uh at home, you're seeing the watch page on the bottom right of your screen I think that's the one I put on there today. Yeah, you're seeing the uh promo poster Oh, yeah, i'm stupid. I could have just looked at that and answered my own question No, no, I when I debate I always believe there leo It's uh James I James there is um, uh 80s edge. They have A debate with me potential truthful or troll. So Um, if someone of the audience doubts if I'm a troll or not just watch that video Gotcha. I Definitely glad you let us know that and uh, but yeah, so I'm pumped folks I'm excited about the summer We've got a lot of great debates that are coming up and so yeah, absolutely. It's always fun But yeah, let us know though if you're kind of like man, we need more Someone said more fight the flat earth and team skeptic Please they are supposed to come on this coming sunday So that should be a good tag team debate and we might even get craig or fight the flat earth This friday against austin or wits it gets it on flatterer So that should happen. We're hoping this friday that'll happen. That should be an epic one during the day trying to think of anything else We are definitely looking for new topics. We are at a total loss and it's a bummer We so I basically had Their their channel. This is their channel name. So it's like self self deprecating. They got a good sense of humor. Their name is uh Those annoying vegans and they're a couple and they're very pleasant. They're very polite and very congenial very terrific, so What I'd like to do is have them come on, but we can't find people who will take on the vegans And I kind of like yeah, it's like yeah, it's not easy to argue against vegans actually So I appreciate that people at least take them serious But if there's anyone out there that's like, hey, I'll prep and I'll do a debate on veganism and I will take the I guess you could call it anti-veganism position if you're out there Please email me at modern day debate at gmail and then jpp 3030. Thanks for your super chat just said Super chat for responding Appreciate that. Uh, let's see responding to the questions. I'm confused, but I appreciate it either way plume Plume 666 thanks for your super chat said I'm serious. I've watched most of your content and no Otangelo from atheist experience. So I know he's a troll. Otangelo, is this true? For the record, I don't think you're a troll. I thought you were you're sincere and respectful, so Okay, thank you And they don't take these kind of criticism serious. So I'm I'm fine I think they're trolling you they're trolling you by calling you a troll. Let's see. What is the uh, You got another someone said james. What about islam versus christianity as a topic? I am curious to get your feedback in the live chat or from you otangelo and leo We don't do a ton of religion versus religion debates anymore like christian versus atheist christian versus jew And the reason is uh, most of the viewers I think I'm not positive I think most are atheists and they like having a dog in the fight so to speak and so That's why I like haven't done a ton of like we we don't usually do like christian versus muslim or hindu Without it being a triple threat because that way we can have christian versus muslim versus atheist Which can be a challenging kind of social dynamic because you know, um, but Let us know folks if you like what your thoughts are on that if you're as an atheist If you're always wanting to have a dog in the fight, I don't blame you. I mean, that's kind of how I am or if I was Seeing something that was relevant. I would want my position represented if I if possible I still want somebody to debate me on whether or not the universe had a beginning my position would be no Was that you that ran a sense nephilim free backed out? I don't know if he's here Oh, that was you. Yeah, you've been pretty patient and getting in into a debate. Thanks for your patience I remember trying to set that up. No problem And pineapple on pizza debate. Maybe april first we might do that one We Trying to think of other ones though. We are moving in a more political direction It's I think just going to kind of mix things up because we often we often say, gosh There are some months where it's like almost everything is creation versus evolution, which is fun But anything can be done too much. So let us know though folks always open ideas We hope you have a great rest of your your day That's all for questions actually so unless I missed anybody's forgiving if I did but Want to say thanks for being here folks. Thanks especially to our speakers though as uh, they just make it fun We appreciate them being here. So thanks so much leo filius and otangelo Thanks for hosting me and thanks for agreeing otangelo like I said I thought you were very sincere and very respectful and I also thought that you were Well educated on the subjects and capable of keeping up with technicalities, which is something that I don't necessarily find very often So I very much appreciate and respect you for that. Well, I must say that I was unprepared and It is quite some time that I am not Focusing myself on the fine-tuning argument. So I had just since last night to prepare myself for for that debate but My focus is more on biogenesis and evolution of these kind of topics and if james Enjoyed my participation. It was the first time that we had a one-to-one talk here on james channel then I feel free to invite me again and it will be fun to discuss something that they have more Dedicated time on it to study it Gotcha and flume 666. Thanks for your last minute super chat. I always love when we get a debate Let me just okay. Good. My volume is back. It's always juicy when we get a debate call out when somebody in the live chat Actually offers or uh, what's the word I'm looking for challenges someone to a debate a duel They slap them in the face with their gloves Flume 666 says I'm open for a beginning debate Namely regarding the universe and I'm on the yes Side so leo you might have someone there for your topic if you want Sounds good. Ideally forgive me guys. I'll I'll be just completely sincere I Ideally if it's a tag team debate, I think it would be best because I think that it's like I worry that because it's away from our main flagship topic of like the religion debates I'm like kind of like oh should maybe this would be better I was a tag because it'll draw more people if more people are But like kind of represented you could say but we'll see well lovely Well, we'll set it up in one way shape or form. So thanks guys Want to say thanks for hanging out with us folks keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care