Fine-Tuning - Evidence For God's Existence?





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jun 21, 2009

http://facebook.com/ScienceReason ... The Fine-Tuning Argument And The Cosmic Anthropic Principle: Evidence For God's Existence? - Richard Dawkins @ American Atheist (AA) Conference 2009 in Atlanta, Georgia (Part 5)

Filmed and edited by Josh Timonen.

Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:

Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He was voted Britain's leading public intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine and was named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" for 2007.

Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene", which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term "meme". He is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker", he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics.

Dawkins is an atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement. In his 2006 book "The God Delusion", he contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion − as a fixed false belief.


If you enjoy the video and would like to support the work of The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, please purchase the program on DVD at http://richarddawkins.net/store/

  • Category

  • License

    • Standard YouTube License

Comments • 751

Why is the universe "tunned". Simple: thermodynamics does that job. NOT SOME FUCKING GOD. And is NOT fine tunned. Is tunned like SHIT for life. 99.9999999...% of the universe is HOSTILE to life.
View all 42 replies
Hide replies
This is totally laughable. Joke. Joke. Joke. My word. It's pathetic. Richard,  There is a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% Chance....that fine tuning such as we have could have been done totally directed by anything intelligent.  And you're hanging on to the .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance that it happened randomly in some way you can't explain at all.  And all you have to say is? What? There might be alternative universes!  we may be just a bubble in a bubble bath! really now.  Wonderful. lol and you call us crazy.  So get back to us on that.  I'm going with sound logic and a normal rational approach Mr. Bubble man.  The answer to this is so simple is literally banging you in the nose you just can't handle it.  If it's that fine tuned it's because what preceded it had the intelligence to be able to fine tune that way.  If you found a perfectly tuned guitar you wouldn't say "there could be alternate guitar universes and only this one survived and this is the only  one we see...so therefore...enter bullshit here.." It's simple. Give it up. You lost. It's over. Fine tuning OBLITERATES atheism. Makes a mockery of it. The game is over. Thiesm won. You're holding on to strings of nonsense and word games as we see on full display here...to avoid what is so simple and obvious to theist scientists through the century..; That our intelligent universe comes from an intelligent being. Because unintelligent forces don't create intelligence universrresres. Why is that so hard for you people to get through your fucking skulls! I know why....because it comes with baggage you dont' want.  Well...to fucking bad. There's a being with inteliglence wactchin you, ok? Deal with it.  You guys seem to have no problem believeing intellgent aliens are watching us so I don't see what the big  deal is. Get over it. Thiesms is right. You wanna argue about religion. That's fine. That's a different discussion. But don't make a mockery of yourself like this..
View all 17 replies
Hide replies
AltNRG Account
Dawkins: "For example if the gravitational constant was a little bit different there would be no stars, there would be no galaxies, the entire universe would just be a uniform splurge of hydrogen for example, You would'nt have stars, your wouldn't have chemistry you would'nt have the formation of the hevy elements, you could'nt have life, and they do the same "trick" for half a dozen other physical constants"I would love to here dawkins explain how these SCIENTIFIC FACTS are "Tricks"Dawkins has avoided these FACTS with an accusation of "making tricks" but offers no explanation of his own and moves quickly on.
Lauro Neto
When I was young I thought Dawkins was such a smart guy. Well, Im feeling bad for him now. He is just a militant atheist with no commitment with the truth whatsoever.
View all 2 replies
Hide replies
It takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe in Dawkins unproven, so incredibly fantastical that real physicist do not buy much of it, hypothetical nonsense.. He is so bigoted against there being a Creator, he is dishonest w/ himself & his followers.. For example, there is absolutely no issue w/ there being God, nor does it "pass this issue up one level". If he truly was seeking truth, this answer had already been long resolved, by men who are still considered the Greatest Thinkers of History (ONLY that which has a beginning require a cause; God, being the constant, the eternal, Whom did not have a beginning, is the source. This is why the Universe having a beginning was so upsetting for evolutionists and atheists).
View all 6 replies
Hide replies
Spenser Mitchell
So where do all of these bubbles in that make more universes come from. Are we to believe that there are trillions of universes? It just seems straight up implausible.
View reply
Hide replies
John Nelson
This is quite evidently fallacious. The Anthropic Principle is NOT an argument for atheism, showing once again that Dawkins is NOT a philosopher. As philosopher John Leslie points out, using the anthropic principle against design 'sounds like arguing that if you faced a firing squad with fifty guns trained on you, you should not be surprised to find that you were alive after they had fired. After all, that is the only possible outcome you could possibly have observed - if one bullet had hit you, you would be dead. However, you might still feel that there is something which very much needs explanation; namely why did they all miss? Was it by deliberate design? For there is no inconsistency in not being surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, and being surprised to observe that you are still alive'. He can retort to a multiverse if he wishes, but as Ed Harrison (cosmologist) notes: "The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument". 
View all 2 replies
Hide replies
Thomas Lux
Multiverse lol. What a theory haha. So so so silly.
View reply
Hide replies
Uday Saroj
What's up with the third explanation? I mean, you can't just say that the universe isn't fine tuned for life. You need to offer a basis for such a belief, as in the other explanations.
Thiago Correia
+sonicgentile  "Agreed, I love how Dawkins dismisses the conclusion of a creator by the need of then describing the creator. Then goes to suggest a multi-verse without ever considering the need to explain this multi-verse." It doesn't seen to be a speech for unschooled laypeople, it may have deceived you to think that way. The arguments that dismisses creation and makes multi-verse plausible were already made and they're well understood by the crowd he's speaking to (at least their sense of humour leads me to think that way lol). If your answer to the question "What could've caused the apparent fine tuning for life of the universe?" is god, you're begging the questions "How did god come about prior to  everything we know that exists (aka out of nothing)? " and "What's the cause for god's existence?" It just push forward the question and does not answer it. If existence always implies causation, god's existence needs explanation of its cause, if not, the universe doesn't need an explanation for its existence. If you pick a quick description of matter/energy (can't be created or destroyed by natural means, only transformed) that's the best definition of eternal that I can think of. If you know the big band theory, the idea of an "expanding bubble of matter" may not sound odd to you. Well, no law of physics prohibit the existence of more  "expanding bubbles of matter" and since the expansion of those "bubbles" creates its own space they wouldn't share the same space of our universe, what makes them unknown to us. It doesn't explain the "fine tuning",  just makes it immeasurably more likely to happen for not being an one-to-one occurrence, as the k point of the "fine tuning" argument being just a case of probability.  Even though it's not even close to be a satisfactory answer, it's far beyond "god did it, believe me"
View all 4 replies
Hide replies
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...