Robin Collins and atheist Peter Millican discuss the fine-tuning of the universe for life

You might remember Peter Millican from the debate he had with William Lane Craig. I ranked that debate as one of the 3 best I have ever seen, along with the first Craig  vs Dacey debate and the second Craig vs Sinnott-Armstrong debate.

Details:

Science has revealed that the fundamental constants and forces of the cosmos appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned to allow a universe in which life can develop. Is God the best explanation of the incredibly improbable odds of the universe we live in being a life-permitting one?

Robin Collins is a Christian philosopher and a leading advocate of the argument for God from cosmic design. Peter Millican is an atheist philosopher at Oxford University. They debate the issues.

From ‘Unbelievable?’ on ‘Premier Christian Radio’, Saturday 19th March 2016.

The debate:

As usual when the atheist is an expert, there is no snark or paraphrasing in the summary.

Summary

Brierley: What is the fine-tuning argument?

Collins: the fine-tuning is structure of the universe is extremely precisely set to allow the existing of conscious, embodied agents who are capable of moral behavior. There are 3 kinds of fine-tuning: 1) the laws of nature (mathematical formulas), 2) the constants of physics (numbers that are plugged into the equations), 3) the initial conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning exists not just because there are lots of possibilities, but there is something special about the actual state of affairs that we see. Every set of laws, parameters and initial conditions is equally improbable, but the vast majority of permutations do not permit life. The possible explanations: theism or the multiverse.

Brierley: How improbable are the numbers?

Collins: Once case is the cosmological constant (dark energy density), with is 1 part in (10 raised to 120th power). If larger, the universe expands too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form after the Big Bang. If smaller, the universe collapses in on itself before life could form. Another case is the initial distribution of mass energy to give us the low entropy we have that is necessary for life. The fine-tuning there is 1 part in (10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power).

Brierley: What do you think of the argument?

Millican: The argument is worth taking very seriously. I am a fan of the argument. The other arguments for God’s existence such as the ontological and cosmological arguments are very weak. But the fine-tuning argument has the right structure to deliver the conclusion that theists want. And it is different from the traditional design argument tended to focus on biological nature, which is not a strong argument. But the fine-tuning argument is strong because it precedes any sort of biological evolution. Although the design is present at the beginning of the universe, it is not visible until much later. The argument points to at least deism, and possibly theism. The argument is not based on ignorance, it is rooted in “the latest results from the frontiers of science” (his phrase).

Brierley: Is this the best argument from natural theology?

Collins: The cosmological argument makes theism viable intuitively, but there are some things that are puzzling, like the concept of the necessary being. But the fine-tuning argument is decisive.

Brierley: What’s are some objections to the fine-tuning argument?

Millican: The argument is based on recent physics, so we should be cautious because we maybe we will discover a natural explanation.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: The cosmological constant has been around since 1980. But the direction that physics is moving in is that there are more constants and quantities being discovered that need to be fine-tuned, not less. Even if you had a grand unified theory, that would have to be have the fine-tuning pushed into it.

(BREAK)

Millican: Since we have no experience of other laws and values from other universes, we don’t know whether these values can be other than they are. Psychologically, humans are prone to seeing purpose and patterns where there is none, so maybe that’s happening here.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: It is possible to determine probabilities on a single universe case, for example using multiple ways of calculating Avogadro’s number all converging on the same number makes it more probable.

Millican: Yes, I willing to accept that these constants can take on other values, (“principle of indifference”). But maybe this principle be applied if the improbability were pushed up into the theory?

Collins: Even if you had a grand theory, selecting the grand theory from others would retain the improbability.

Brierley: What about the multiverse?

Millican: What if there are many, many different universes, and we happen to be in the one that is finely-tuned, then we should not be surprised to observe fine-tuning. Maybe a multiverse theory will be discovered in the future that would allow us to have these many universes with randomized constants and quantities. “I do think that it is a little bit of a promissary note”. I don’t think physics is pointing to this right now.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Collins: I agree it’s a promissary note. This is the strongest objection to the fine-tuning argument. But there are objections to the multiverse: 1) the fine-tuning is kicked back up to the multiverse generator has to be set just right to produce universes with different constants, 2) the multiverse is more likely to produce a small universe with Boltzmann brains that pop into existence and then out again, rather than a universe that contains conscious, embodied intelligent agents. I am working on a third response now that would show that the same constants that allow complex, embodied life ALSO allow the universe to be discoverable. This would negate the observer-selection effect required by the multiverse objection.

Brierley: Respond to that.

Millican: I don’t see why the multiverse generator has to be fine-tuned, since we don’t know what the multiverse generator is. I’m not impressed by the Boltzmann brains, but won’t discuss. We should be cautious about inferring design because maybe this is a case where we are seeing purpose and design where there is none.

Brierley: Can you negate the discoverability of the universe by saying that it might be psychological?

Collins: These things are not psychological. The selected value for the cosmic microwave background radiation is fine-tuned for life and for discoverability. It’s not merely a discoverability selection effect, it’s optimal for discoverability. If baryon-photon value were much smaller, we would have known that it was not optimal. So that judgment cannot be explained by

Millican: That’s a very interesting new twist.

Brierley: Give us your best objection.

Millican: I have two. 1) Even if you admit to the fine-tuning, this doesn’t show a being who is omnipotent and omnisicient. What the fine-tuning shows is that the designer is doing the best it can given the constraints from nature. If I were God, I would not have made the universe so big, and I wouldn’t have made it last 14 billion years, just to make one small area that supports life. An all-powerful God would have made the universe much smaller, and much younger. 2) The fine-tuning allows life to exist in other solar systems in other galaxies. What does this alien life elsewhere mean for traditional Christian theology? The existence of other alien civilizations argues against the truth of any one religion.

Brierley: Respond to those.

Collins: First objection: with a finite Creator, you run into the problem of having to push the design of that creature up one level, so you don’t really solve the fine-tuning problem. An unlimited being (non-material, not composed of parts) does not require fine-tuning. The fine-tuning is more compatible with theism than atheism. Second objection: I actually do think that it is likely that are other universes, and life in other galaxies and stars, and the doctrine of the Incarnation is easily adaptable to that, because God can take on multiple natures to appear to different alien civilizations.

Other resources (from WK)

If you liked this discussion, be sure and check out a full length lecture by Robin Collins on the fine-tuning, and a shorter lecture on his very latest work. And also this the Common Sense Atheism podcast, featuring cosmologist Luke Barnes, who answers about a dozen objections to the fine-tuning argument.

Testimony of IRS whistleblowers about Hunter Biden bribery investigation

I heard there was some news on Thursday night about the IRS investigation of bribery allegations against Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. And there was also news about whether Joe Biden was in the room while Hunter Biden was conducting his business deals. I’m trying to stay on top of this, so that I can know enough to discuss the details with people who ask me what it’s all about.

Here’s an article by Margot Cleveland in The Federalist.

She says:

The Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office hid an FBI report that the Ukrainian oil and gas company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden each $5 million bribes, documents released by the House Ways and Means Committee reveal. That revelation eclipses the catalog of other claims of misconduct and political favoritism levied by two IRS whistleblowers, as detailed in the transcripts the House committee released Thursday — and suggests the bribery claims were never investigated.

The information about the bribes was never provided to IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley, “nor to any of the IRS agents acting under his supervision, nor to the FBI agents working with the IRS investigators.” Even though they were the ones who would be expected to investigate it.

More:

Further, Shapley’s investigative team was precisely the group to investigate the allegations contained in the FD-1023, as his group is “known as the International Tax and Financial Crimes group,” and consists of “12 elite agents who were selected based on their experience and performance in the area of complex high-dollar international tax investigations.”

The FBI did their part to protect Hunter Biden by labeling the bribery charges against Joe Biden and Hunter Biden as “disinformation”:

The scandal is not limited to Delaware, however. A related scandal connects to another whistleblower who claims that in “August 2020, FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment which was used by a FBI Headquarters (‘FBI HQs’) team to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease.”

Every indication suggests it was the FD-1023 that the FBI HQ’s team falsely labeled disinformation, which raises the specter that individuals in the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office were colluding with FBI HQ to protect the Biden family. It is now up to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s whistleblower to close the circle.

So, Margot thinks that the reason why the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office didn’t pass the bribery charges on for investigation, is because they were colluding with the FBI to protect the Biden family.

Another interesting story about Biden corruption came out on Thursday. Do you remember how Joe Biden claims that he didn’t know anything about his son’s business deals? That he never talked to him about it?

Well, consider this from the Washington Free Beacon.

Photographs on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop place him at his father’s Wilmington, Delaware, residence on the day he invoked President Joe Biden’s name in a text message, threatening his Chinese business partner to come down on him with their full weight if the business partner did not fulfill his “commitment.”

In that message, sent on July 30, 2017, to an official, Henry Zhao, working with a Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC Energy—linked to Chinese military intelligence—Hunter Biden said he was sitting next to his father and that “we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.”

The message became public on Thursday, when Congress made public testimony from an IRS whistleblower, Gary Shapley, who obtained the message during his investigation of Hunter Biden’s various tax crimes. Hours after the message was sent, Hunter Biden was pictured at his father’s home sitting behind the wheel of the president’s beloved 1967 Corvette Stingray with family members.

[…]If Joe Biden was sitting next to his son as he sent the message as it suggests, it would be a fatal blow to the president’s repeated claims that he never discussed overseas business deals with his son, and the photographs of Hunter Biden at what appears to be a family gathering at the Delaware home is the strongest indication that he was in close proximity to his father when he threatened the Chinese businessman.

It’s very interesting, now that we know about these things, to think about all the pious Christians who told us that voting for a President isn’t about voting for specific policies or Supreme Court judges. It’s really about voting for a good moral and spiritual leader. That’s what we were told by the pious #evangelicalsForBiden. Now we’re finding out what sort of morality they were wanting us to vote for. Just look at the underage girls on Hunter Biden’s laptop. That’s what they support as a “return to civility”.

What are Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the Biden family being investigated for?

Whenever I want to understand what’s going on with corruption in the Biden administration, I turn to The Federalist, and look directly for Margot Cleveland’s column. And she doesn’t disappoint! This is a good primer on the Hunter Biden corruption story, so if you don’t know the full story, read this post. And then we’ll both have somewhere to look if we need to debate it.

So, here’s the article from The Federalist by Margot Cleveland.

She starts with some background:

In 2018, the feds launched an investigation into Hunter Biden, which the son of the now-president publicly disclosed in December 2020, following his father’s election. On Tuesday, news broke that Hunter Biden had agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax counts and had entered a pretrial diversion agreement on a separate firearms count, unleashing outrage from the right over the absence of any money-laundering or bribery counts. But even worse is the U.S. attorney’s failure to file these charges against the Biden son in 2019, which suggests shielding Joe Biden from scandal is the operative principle of the Department of Justice and FBI.

Do federal laws apply to the son of the Democrat president?

The two tax misdemeanor charges spanned only a page-and-a-half and alleged in count one that the president’s son, during the 2017 calendar year, received taxable income exceeding $1.5 million and willfully failed to pay income taxes on that amount in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Count two mirrored count one but charged Hunter with failing to pay the income taxes due on his 2018 calendar year earnings.

Wow, if you or I did that, we’d probably spend about 20 years in a federal penitentiary.

Do federal laws apply to the son of the Democrat president?

Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss filed separate information charging Hunter with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2), for knowingly possessing a firearm, “knowing that he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance…” Sources say, however, that under the pretrial diversion agreement, Hunter Biden will not plead guilty to that felony gun charge, with prosecutors instead dismissing the count “if he remains drug-free and doesn’t commit additional crimes for two years.”

It’s amazing. Normally in cases like this, my understanding is that the minimum sentence for a gun felony is SEVERAL years in jail, even for a first offense, and even if you plead out.

An interesting connection has emerged between American foreign policy and money received from foreign sources is emerging:

Weiss’s decision to charge Hunter with two tax misdemeanors only weeks after Americans learned that a “highly credible” confidential human source had reported that the Ukrainian owner of Burisma paid the father-son duo each $5 million in bribes looked like an obvious attempt to quell the growing scandal that threatened to engulf the president.

The interesting thing about those charges is that these payments  from foreigners were known BEFORE the 2020 election. But for some reason, federal law enforcement declined to do anything about them:

Weiss sat on those charges before the 2020 election that points to the top Delaware prosecutor protecting the Biden family.

Not just those charges, but the income tax charges too:

Why then did the Delaware U.S. attorney fail to charge the Biden son in 2019 with those crimes? The answer seems clear: politics.

And if politics drove the U.S. attorney to refrain from charging Hunter before the 2020 election, how could politics not also affect every aspect of the investigation into the now-president’s son, including evidence implicating President Joe Biden?

Now, when I look at those millions of dollars being funneled through Biden family members, it makes me wonder whether Joe Biden has been selling out our foreign policy interests to the highest bidder.

Here is what Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said, (reported by The Federalist):

“Since the FBI’s investigation into Hunter Biden began nearly five years ago, I and my colleagues in Congress have uncovered extensive government and bank records indicative of money laundering as well as foreign business schemes that, in any other circumstance, would raise serious criminal and counterintelligence concerns,” Grassley said. “Hunter’s laptop, which the FBI has had since 2019, contains records corroborating much of this evidence, as well as evidence of other serious criminal violations.”

Got that?

“extensive government and bank records indicative of money laundering as well as foreign business schemes that, in any other circumstance, would raise serious criminal and counterintelligence concerns”

More:

The Iowa lawmaker, who has spent half a decade investigating the first son, went on to highlight recent whistleblower reports from the DOJ and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that claim federal investigators have sabotaged any potential for a significant indictment.

In May, an IRS whistleblower spoke publicly on CBS News about efforts within the DOJ to hamper the federal tax probe.

“There were multiple steps that were slow-walked — were just completely not done — at the direction of the Department of Justice,” said Gary Shapley. “These deviations from the process,” he added, “seemed to always benefit the subject.”

More whistleblowers from within the FBI have made similar allegations that the Department of Justice is working to shield the Biden family from thorough investigations. The plea deal on Tuesday comes as President Joe Biden himself faces credible bribery allegations from his time as vice president.

SIX additional Biden family members being investigated:

House Republicans who reviewed “suspicious activity reports” housed within the Treasury Department about Hunter Biden’s finances say they’ve expanded their own investigation of the Biden family to “six additional” members.

One of the the first tasks of the next Republican president will be to clean out corruption in high places in our government. We really have to pick someone who is fearless, and punish the Democrat traitors to the maximum extent of the law. And maybe next time, think twice about electing Godless secular leftists to high positions in government. They clearly don’t have the capability for morality that we need in our political leaders.