The answer is the anthropic principle =
It had to be that way for us to evolve here to then look at the universe and ask "why are we here?"
Likely the universe has had many iterations, and may even have regional laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

It's pretty much the same argument that goes into Evolution

Wait a fucking second here . . . there's no empirical evidence for for the multiverse theory, so it's thrown out, yet the SAME LACK OF EVIDENCE exists for an over-all creator and that explanation is embraced with open arms.

See a problem here, Spanky?

That's a pretty poor conclusion. I would have thrown in two other points:

1. If we hit the jackpot, we only got one spin so we've never known anything else. Given how vast the universe is with respect to space and time, is it so hard to believe that there are other dimensions so unknown and vast that of course there will be a universe that supports its own continued existence, and life? I would loosely liken it to the Drake Equation, which relies on huge numbers to demonstrate that even extremely improbable things are plausible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

2. I prefer to think that these constants are actually our own invention. We invented all numbers, units, and sciences to explain how we see things behave, but because of that we have to adjust our equations to fit the way the universe behaves. That implies that these constants are not adjustable, because they are not real in the first place -- they're just more imaginary ideas of our own invention.

For the anthropic principle to be a legitimate way of dealing with fine tuning, there needs to be a multiverse, but there is no evidence for a multiverse. Even if there was a multiverse, as the video pointed out, the Universe generator would be even more finely tuned than this one. You would have to explain the fine tuning of the Universe generator before you could dismiss the fine tuning in this Universe. Even still, the anthropic principle is not adequate to rule out design to begin with. I found an argument which explains why it is not adequate. The anthropic principle has a couple of basic principles in it:

1. we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.

2. We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.

For although the object of surprise in (2) might at first blush appear to be simply the contrapositive of the object of surprise in (1), this is mistaken. This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

3. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,

nonetheless it is equally true that

4. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.

Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (4) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

5. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence

Hi StukaFox,

The purpose of the fine-tuning argument is to provide evidence for a Creator. Evidence of design in the Universe would be positive proof for a designer.

ok, forget the multi-verse. Just assume the Universe is infinite, but we can only observe a section of it, 'the observable universe'.

The laws of physics may change in different parts of this infinite universe.
We are in the one pocket where we can be.

Correct --

And there's no empirical evidence of design. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada.

These statements are equally false from a scientific standpoint:

1. God created the universe for humans to live in.
2. My cat created the universe so she could get cat treats.

There's no empirical evidence for either theory.

whoa, wasn't expecting that conclusion.

Good work theists.

If I can spot a logical fallacy in their arguments, it must be huge.

"There is no scientific evidence for the existence of this multiverse, it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and the Universe Generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

also means

"There is no scientific evidence for the design and Designer of this universe, it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and the Designer itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning and would require a Designer itself that would require an enormous amount of fine tuning and would require a Designer itself that ... -> infinite regression"

And generally:

The weak anthropic principle only states that for us being able to observe this universe and wonder about why it seems to be so fine tuned to allow our existence it must have been tuned so fine to allow for our existence. It does not state how this came about and it most certainly does not call for a multiverse.

Chance cannot be ruled out. If something has happened, no matter how unlikely we think it might have been, it was just likely enough to have happened.

For it to become likely enough, there can be any number of reasons, two of them being universes existing in parallel (ie. a multiverse), as well as universes existing in series.

The problem that the maker of this video cannot see is that the theory of a designer only adds to the number of additional unproved assumptions on your effort to prove a number of unproved assumptions.

My favourite thing about this video is that no such claim is made. It's an argument for a creator that doesn't equate that creator with any god.

At least this is an appeal to reason rather than blind trust. Neither the multiverse nor the creator arguments were delved into in any detail, but what's said can at least be a starting point for a good debate.

For what it's worth, my first impression is that the tuning of a multiverse generator does not necessarily have to be more complex than the tuning of the observable universe. A random text generator will generate this message and many like it, and the anthropic principle can then come into play in the selection rather than the generator. On the other hand, I'd say a creator does need to be more finely tuned than the universe it creates as it requires intelligence.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, December 20th, 2014 2:54pm PST - promote requested by enoch.

In short, the argument just says that because we exist in these particular circumstances, then some being must be responsible for that. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

I would venture that these two statements are not "equally false", they are instead "not even wrong"..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

http://youtu.be/H864JH1tPYU?t=22m

100% agreed.
These numbers are human inventions applied to a cosmic reality that is out of our reach anyways....

Arguement from ignorance fallacy.begging the question facllacy...also ,the water always thinks the glass was made just for it. The universe isnt fine tuned for life, life is fined tuned for the universe.

<redacted>

Better to see kulpims link above

...and at 5:20 I tuned out.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Meta-Physics-Hans-Halvorson-and-Sean-Carroll-at-Caltech

(Meta)Physics: Hans Halvorson and Sean Carroll at Caltech has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

"There is no scientific evidence for the design and Designer of this universe, it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and the Designer itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning and would require a Designer itself that would require an enormous amount of fine tuning and would require a Designer itself that ... -> infinite regression"

This video doesn't include any suppositions about the nature of a designer, it simply purports that it is more probable that the fine tuning in the Universe that we observe in the Universe points to design rather than chance or necessity. If the designer is God, then the designer is eternal and the infinite regression you spoke about wouldn't apply.

Chance cannot be ruled out. If something has happened, no matter how unlikely we think it might have been, it was just likely enough to have happened.

Chance can be ruled out if we find design features in the Universe. This is an argument to prove just that.

The argument says that it is more probable that the fine tuning of the Universe is due to design rather than chance or necessity.

What are the criteria you are looking at that to tell you the Universe is not designed? What kind of Universe would you expect if it were designed versus the one we live in?

As was noted before, you can't prove a negative (what evidence are you using to prove the universe wasn't created by my cat?)

The second question is actually a really good one. I would expect to see the "signature" of the creator: something empirical that would point directly to a creator-being as opposed to a universe governed by. and explainable by, mathematical laws.

The video doesn't prove that. It presents the exact same proof for a creator as it does for the multiverse theory (none). Implication doesn't equal proof.

hehe, I think the platypus is a marvel of design. Only a creative genius could come up with a duck-beaver.

You can prove a negative. Here is one: there are no married bachelors

I think it is a valid question. If you know the Universe isn't designed, what criteria are you using? What is the difference between the Universe we are living in and one that would be designed. I am wondering how people rule that out, or why they seem to think it is a ridiculous question to begin with.

You can prove a negative: there are no married bachelors. The idea that your cat is the Creator of the Universe has no explanatory power. To have an argument that your cat is the Creator you need to provide positive reasons for it. The Universe is finely tuned: if design is an explanation than I wouldn't need to disprove anything and everything as being a potential Creator, I would simply need to examine the evidence for design to make a determination as to what kind of being this must be, and using Occams razor I could come to some definite conclusions about it.

The second question is actually a really good one. I would expect to see the "signature" of the creator: something empirical that would point directly to a creator-being as opposed to a universe governed by. and explainable by, mathematical laws.

How do you know that a Universe governed by laws isn't the signature of a Creator? Why would you expect to see a grand cosmos such as this, with such awesome beauty, whirling away with mechanical precision? The mere fact of its existence let alone its operation and stability is something too grandiose to be automatically regulated to some accident. The intelligibility of the Universe is also something you seem to be taking from granted. Why should we even be able to comprehend it as far as we do? Could it be that the Creator gave us that ability?

I would also ask you why you think that understanding the mechanism somehow explains away agency?

The video presents a philosophical argument that design should be preferred to chance or necessity. There is just as much proof in that sense for either, so why should you prefer chance or necessity. What argument would you use?

The platypus was the joke part. (I think you got that);-)
Please...first that's not proving a negative. That's about understanding the definition of a word....and second it is wrong...divorced men without children (but that had been married) are bachelors, married men with a bachelor's degree are bachelors, young married knights that follow another's banner are bachelors, as are married landless knights. D'OH! ;-)
I don't have to prove the universe isn't designed, nor do I say anything that definitive. (because one could say that the laws of physics are a form of design, so in that sense I do think the universe is 'designed', but not by a 'designer god'). If you feel the need for others like me to believe as you, it's up to you to prove it IS designed, and by who.
I do say there's no need for a 'designer', and it seems incredibly unlikely as well as completely unnecessary. I will also say all I've heard about 'god' only references stories told by men long ago (or anecdote), and trying to 'prove' some of those stories is not proving god. I can't say what might prove god...if he existed omnisciently he might know, but he's keeping quiet about it! ;-)
I also say incredible claims require incredible evidence, not anecdotal 'evidence'...conversely 'that which can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.' (Hitchens)

your arguement pre supposes someone, or science is claiming "chance" they are not.

The narrator proposes three hypotheses that would explain the "finely tuned" appearance of the universe. He analyzes the first hypothesis and decides it's impossible. He then analyzes the second hypothesis and decides it's impossible. Then he DOES NOT ANALYZE the third hypothesis, but just shows some beautiful photos of the universe and gives some quotes agreeing with the "design" hypothesis. He then decides it is true, even though the exact same analysis that he did for the "chance" hypothesis would eliminate the "design" hypothesis as well.

The narrator himself established one definition of implausibility: "There's no scientific evidence for X: it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and it requires fine tuning." That same test can be applied to the "design" hypothesis to determine by the same logic that it too is false. Any other argument is special pleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Some imprecise, false and misleading statements and baseless assertions in the video that are cogent to the argument:

0:20 "Scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have been dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range."

Imprecise. The highlighted bit implies that scientists have discovered an agent who did the "dialing", which is not the case. Rather, scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have values that fall within extremely narrow life-permitting ranges."

2:24 "... these and other numbers have been exquisitely balanced ...

Imprecise. Again, you cannot claim that they "have been balanced" without tautologically claiming a designer.

3:55 "The probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine tuning well beyond the reach of chance."

Assertion. For this statement to be true, someone would have to define when a probability becomes "too remote". We're talking about something that we don't understand, so it's not possible to determine that it is "too remote".

4:03 "So, in an effort to keep this option alive, some have gone beyond empirical science..."

Imprecise. Nobody decided the Multiverse was a good way to explain the appearance of fine tuning. The Multiverse arises unbidden out of other theories of mathematics, with the effect of making chance quite a viable possibility.

4:35 "... and this universe generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

False. A machine making massive numbers of universes only has to create one with our balance of numbers one time. If I can shoot a billion arrows at a target, I can afford for the sights on my bow to be much less finely tuned than if I only have one arrow, and if I have an infinite number of arrows, I don't need any fine tuning at all. I can shoot in random directions and be assured that I will hit the target by pure chance.

The chart about high and low order universes

False. A small universe with a single observer may be more likely, and may also exist in addition to our own. The fact that our universe is vast (relative to what, exactly?) doesn't mean others don't also exist.

AND Imprecise. You cannot measure the creation of universes on a time line. Time is created within our universe.

4:55: "... a vast, spectacularly complex, highly ordered universe ...

Assertion. Vase, complex and ordered in comparison to what? We don't know if ours is very complex compared to how complex a universe could be.

5:05: "So, even if the Multiverse existed ... it wouldn't do anything to explain the fine tuning."

False. That's exactly what it would do, or at least it would easily explain away the appearance of fine tuning as random chance.

AND Misleading. It should be phrased, "... to explain the appearance of fine tuning," which is what we're trying to explain.

I accept that our universe might have a creator. We could have been created as a simulation inside a computer, for instance, with the fundamental numbers fed into some universe simulation software and then Poof! Us!

I couldn't even make it to the full minute mark. I think the video posted and related where Sean Carroll responds to the idea of a fine tuned universe is a good response.

This video is likely made by the same sort of people who once argued that "just a few feet in either direction and life on Earth couldn't exist". Of course the Earth doesn't have a circular orbit, and our Sun's Goldilocks zone extends from just past Venus (Earth side) to past Mars. Leaving both Earth and Mars well within the habitable zone.

My bigger problem with the video is you are trying to get to point Z, and saying it had to go through A-Y first in specific order. This is an argument used frequently against Evolution. The huge odds you'd have to go through to get to a modern human in the time allowed is greatly against modern humans forming when they did. Problem is you are working from the end result back, rather than the starting point and going forward, and it you are also discounting some other forces of nature. I used to quote the mathematical problem myself when I was a Creationist, though an Old Earth one as I was long of the opinion that Young Earth Creationist make Christians look stupid.

I may be an atheist, but I have no problem with a God of the Gaps if people want to believe that. I however don't believe that Jehovah is that God (there's too much evidence against Him, such as the fact He couldn't or wouldn't reveal himself beyond a tiny little backwater tribe, not to people in the Americas or Asia or Europe, but to one tiny group of people, either He's a Racist, which makes Him unworthy of serving, or He's not any more real than any of the other so called Gods). Whatever, or Whomever may have kick-started the Universe into existence didn't do it for some divine plan for mankind. The arrogance that it takes to assume the Universe in all it's glory was created just to awe man, or for whatever other reasons related to man and our involvement with Jehovah is arrogance beyond belief.

EDIT: Perhaps the better related video would have been http://videosift.com/video/Pure-Imagination-1

@messenger excellently done. Two of my own additions:

- Billions of other observers? There is no evidence for that, and we'd seconds ago ruled out a multiverse for lack of evidence. We are only certain of our own observer status.

- An appeal to the plausibility of design (over 2 other choices) based on an argument for the implausibility of the constants? Is that a contradiction? It's some very tenuous reasoning at the very least. I think that is what some people have already said though, in my own words.

I also think @shinyblurry:

"3. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,

nonetheless it is equally true that

4. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive."

I consider these to be unfaithful to the comparison. The meanings and language are entirely different. If you are sentenced to death then you assume that you will die accordingly, without considering the infinitesimal chance that, for example:
- last minute pardon
- everyone got distracted by a loud explosion
- small and precise meteor strikes on each of your gunmen
- and on
- and on
- and on

Here's my version:

3. If you <still exist>, then you should not be surprised that you do not observe conditions incompatible to your existence - i.e. you do not observe that all of the bullets hit you in the face, obviously.

4. If you <still exist>, you should not be surprised to observe conditions congruent to your existence - i.e. you do observe that none of the bullets hit you in the face, obviously.

My point there being that if you accurately create the principle with your own executed/executioner theme, you end up with the exact same principle because it still refers to perceived existence as opposed to nonexistence.

I think there's enough evidence that I am not the only observer on Earth. There are something like 7 billion of us now -- at least, it's my observation that the rest of you all exist.

The argument for design is that the constants arising by accident is implausible and therefore could only have arisen due to a designer. I don't see anything tenuous in that part of the argument.

Another huge problem with the video:

3:05 "There are three live options: ..."

False. There are three hypotheses that have been brought to your attention. This is not an exclusive list. There may be other possibilities not yet considered. So eliminating two and then deciding the third must be correct is bad logic, so the video's whole argument fails even if "necessity" and "chance" can be properly eliminated and "design" not.

No, the argument says that the universe exists, and then makes the conclusion that it's fine tuned to be the way it is, but it treats that conclusion as though it's a premise.

You can't prove the existence of another observer, adhering strictly to logic. You can choose to acknowledge them as observers, but you can't prove it (Descartes). Your senses can (and presumably have, if you dream or see an optical illusion ever) been deceived.

The argument framed by the video fully allows us to accept without logical proof that we exist and that what we observe is reasonably representative of what's actually around us.

Your argument is solipsism, and from that standpoint, you cannot logically argue anything at all about the nature of the universe, period. You cannot even assert that you are an observer. The moment you claim you are an observer, you are claiming there is something to observe beyond your mind and that you can observe it. Observing means getting intelligible and representative information about it. Once you make that claim, you can claim that you are observing other observers.

The first 30 seconds of the video exposes the fallacy behind the argument.

"Scientists have come to the shocking realisation that each of these numbers has been carefully dialled to an astonishingly precise value"

That's what's called "begging the question", that is, concealing the conclusion one is trying to prove in the initial premise of the argument. There is no reason to believe that the constants have been carefully dialled.

That is not proving a negative.
What we are talking about here is a statement that is unfalsifiable. "There is a god/designer" is unfalsifiable, because you cannot disprove its existence or prove its non-existence.

But missing proof of something's non-existence is in no way prove of its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

This video DOES include suppositions about the nature of the designer simply by naming it the designer of our universe.

1. The designer must be even more complex that it's design.
2. The designer must be able to shape at least one universe.
3. ...

To simply state that this designer in itself is un-designed because it is eternal carries the same argumentative weight as saying that the universe was not designed because it wasn't.

Regarding the assumption that this video does prove that there are design features to be found throughout the universe, the other participants in this thread have shown more eloquently than I would be able to that thsi is not the case.

"The idea that your cat is the Creator of the Universe has no explanatory power. To have an argument that your cat is the Creator you need to provide positive reasons for it. The Universe is finely tuned: if design is an explanation than I wouldn't need to disprove anything and everything as being a potential Creator, I would simply need to examine the evidence for design to make a determination as to what kind of being this must be, and using Occams razor I could come to some definite conclusions about it."

And I would posit that any same test applied to the Judeo-Christian god would fail the test equally (given that "god did it" isn't a theory, it's a construct). For that matter, so would any other god you want to throw out there. Assuming an intelligent creator pre-dating the universe created the universe calls into question "How did this dude himself go about getting created?". That question can only basically be answered with "It's turtles all the way down".

How do you know that a Universe governed by laws isn't the signature of a Creator?

How do you know my cat didn't create it? Equal empirical evidence (none) of both constructs.

Why would you expect to see a grand cosmos such as this, with such awesome beauty, whirling away with mechanical precision? The mere fact of its existence let alone its operation and stability is something too grandiose to be automatically regulated to some accident.

Really? We happen to live in a time period called the Stelliferous Era in which stars exist. Too far in the past, they couldn't form; too far in the future, they will no longer form. So oddly enough, given that the conditions are at this particular time are favorable to life, life came into being and evolved. So if it's your belief that god created this universe to be human friendly, why'd he wait so long for the conditions to be right for us to exist? Why not just do it on Day 1? Or why didn't he wait longer? Why did the universe have to be human-friendly in the first place? He's god -- he can do anything, so why are humans bound to all these rules of math, physics and chemistry, like every single other bit of life from bacteria to Blue whales?

How do you know that a Universe governed by laws isn't the signature of a Creator?

How do you know it's not my incredibly clever, and possibly deific, cat? Again, same empirical proof (none).

Why would you expect to see a grand cosmos such as this, with such awesome beauty, whirling away with mechanical precision?

We live in a time where the universe is able to support life. Outside of this neatly-ordered era, we'd be plasma or neutrons.

McCoy: C'mon, Spock, it's me, McCoy. You really have gone where no man's gone before. Can't you tell me what it felt like?
Spock: It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference.
McCoy: You're joking!
Spock: A joke.....is a story with a humorous climax.
McCoy: You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?
Spock: Forgive me, Doctor. I am receiving a number of distress calls.
McCoy: I don't doubt it.

Asking the human race to answer questions like this right now is like asking a 2 year old what shade of red something is.

We're learning plenty but perhaps not ready to definitively answer any of the biggest questions. I'm certainly not buying into their opinions from a video like this. This video started to reek pretty quick.

I got all the way to 1:45 and could no longer listen to this clap trap. It's total BS 'science' put forth by someone who obviously does not understand the science he's 'explaining'.
As has been mentioned, nothing was 'dialed in' because physics forces values to remain in a narrow range. That's anthropomorphizing the laws of physics, and is simply ridiculous.
If the speed of light were different by a 'hairs breadth', it would change nothing. (I'll say that definitively because it is different depending on the medium the light travels through, btw)
If gravity were different, yes, the universe might be ever expanding or eventually collapsing, that does not erase the possibility of life, it only puts a time limit on the period that it might exist, under our current understanding of what's required for life. It might not actually limit life at all.
I hate pseudo science videos created by non scientific people with a purpose to confuse other non scientific minds into believing insanity. Downvote!

You can always tell when a video is idiotic when the youtube version has turned off comments.

This is a classic tautological argument. How do we know these are the only constants that allow for life? Do we have another universe to compare it against? If they mean Earth life, then even dumber.

How is this argument different from the following:

I take a shuffled deck of cards. I draw them one after another and place them face up. At the end I have arrived at a sequence that is incredibly unlikely.

Therefore, according to the logic in this video, we must have multiverses in which I deal billions of card combinations, or else there must be someone behind the scenes sorting the deck?

Extrapolating like this from a single data point (be it a card ordering, or a set of universal laws) is idiotic.

Ridiculous!

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' -Douglas Adams