You're listening to, atheistically speaking. Oh, Okay, so we had a few comments we wanted to go through today and David, how about you

tackle the first one?

Great, so this is a comment on atheistically speaking by Darcy. This is a comment relating to an older episode of

ours, the William Lane Craig episode. So the comment reads, on the fine-tuning

argument William Lane Craig misses at least two possibilities, the multiverse, which you alluded to, and the fact that the universe isn't actually fine tuned.

The second one sounds a little off, but it is essentially the conclusion if you consider that you can

you can't change one variable while holding the others constant and result in a viable life

containing universe. But you can change all of the variables at once to find a new equilibrium where life is possible.

This is Victor Stinger's argument, I believe.

If the universe could have fallen into any one of a vast array of different configurations like this, the fine-tuning argument becomes less persuasive.

Not to mention that we don't currently know enough about fundamental physics to know if the variables are independent in such a way

that if one has a certain value, then the others must have values that fall in a certain range.

Another point, though not an argument against fine-tuning per se is simply,

do you really think the universe is fine-tuned to be comfortable for life?

Have you seen the universe?

We are restricted to a certain habitable bands of a single planet.

Go anywhere else, and we died pretty much instantly.

This is a universe, an all-powerful being came up with for us?

Are you kidding? He's all powerful, right? I call

this the argument from Are you a moron or argumentum at Stoltis S.

Yeah, okay, I actually thought of a couple things.

One thing I also didn't talk about then because, you know, we were, we've been talking

...