Can Design Point to God? | Episode 1404 | Closer To Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- What is the teleological argument, also known as the argument from design? To argue for God, the easy way appears to be ‘design’, the obvious order and apparent purpose of the world. How could all of this be if there were no God? Quite easily, says science. What’s the deep thinking on both sides? Featuring interviews with Owen Gingerich, Ernan McMullin, Colin McGinn, and Paul Davies.
Season 14, Episode 4 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#God #Design
Even questioning metaphysical materialism is a dangerous task for a public intellectual. The fact that Mr. Kuhn even broached the topic stands as a mark of courage.
Kunh is Closer to Rubbish every time!
Some people believe the earth is flat. What bravery! Maybe they should receive Nobel Prizes?!
What do you mean by apparent design?
Are we only playing with the words.
Why we do not face the fact that there is a designer.
What is the problem to be a designer.
I suppose it is courageous, compared with what is usually encountered within the academy or among the self-appointed intelligentsia. Even here, though, Kuhn does tend to not attack the arguments of materialists nearly as vigorously as those of non-materialists, even though strict materialism can easily be shown to be self-defeating.
Dr Kuhn is an absolute Legend!
Thankyou Dr. Kuhn for an excellent collection of discussions and reflections.
Love love this channel, I fall asleep every night listening to it..✨✨💯💯👌👌❤️❤️
Same here 😂😂
Same!!
I really like the music piece. This sad tune signifying our confused and bewildered existence
Wonderful documentary, as always!!! Really interesting !!!
I can't start my morning without watching one of roberts videod 🌞
These videos deserve more credit, such a great video! it also needs more subscribers
So sad that people so smart think materialism alone can explain the origin of life
John M. Very true. No progress from science has been made on answering that question for over 60 years!
25:50 Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the only American I've ever heard use 'full stop' rather than 'period.'
Michael Shermer says it a lot too. Search for his debates about the existence of God to find many examples.
The reason it's more plausible, if you were inclined to believe in a creator, that this creator would most likely be God and not an alien or dispassionate force, is because of the design of the human species. The creator of this universe would have to have intimate knowledge of the intricacies of the universe including the laws that govern the universe as well as the entire emotional, intellectual, physiological, and physical characteristics that make up the complexity that is the human being. This creator itself, would either have these attributes and/ or surpass them.
I personally attribute the fine tuning of the fundamental forces to an intelligent mind of some kind. It's the most likely explanation in my opinion.
Not really because Universe could be a means of existence itself. We are talking about billions of years so random things do occur.
@@williamjames4031 How do we know where we stand in time? There could have been eons before this universe was created. Edit: It won't be long when we will create robots that have AI in them and holodecks/hologram worlds of our own.
@@williamjames4031 Random things? You realize randomness is merely a function of not knowing? There is no such thing as randomness.
Nothing can point to God
Since there is nothing other than God
This makes me smile. It is quite wonderful to live in the moment. I jump and dance and... marvel.
Any sincere and objective discussion of God should begin with an agreement on the description of the God whose existence is to be considered. It should proceed to consideration of rational evidence for the existence of the God whose existence is under consideration. Most discussions about the existence of God need go no further than that.
The only answer is that we simply do not know. A belief is just a belief.
Great program. If the scientic method is predicated on "intelligent" processes, then we can assume that "intelligent" process must exist "somewhere" in the universe...
Yes, this is the way to think.
Very insightful comments, actually. Science itself is predicated on the 'rationality and intelligibility of the universe' and also on 'the indispensibility of mathematics for science'. These two things are enough as pointers to design in nature.
@@Graewulfe false. Science assumes a bunch of metaphysical baggage that enables it to work.
@@JustinHerchel science pays no tribute to any "metaphysical baggage". Science is bounded only by empirical validation. Whenever an assumption contradicts observations it is the former that must be thrown away, not the later. Let's say your metaphysics postulate absolute space and time. That was ok before Einstein, but now we know it's wrong. And no amount of philosophy will save it.
@@ferdinandkraft857
Scientific gheytheists: sCiEncE aSSuMeS nO mEtApHySicAl bAggAGe.
The 'scientifically unprovable' metaphysical assumptions of the scientific method:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.
All creation are so precise and perfect structurally and functionally it is only possible with omnipotent.
Agreed. I like to think of a GIraffe. Evolutionists believe that animals change according to their environment over time. Why would a Giraffe have a long neck? To reach foilage far up in the trees, right? Why would an animal change its structure if it's out of its environment for change? Don't make sense. Same with birds. The birds' structure is so perfect to fly. It has to be designed.
@@peaceonearth351 scientist only try to explain existing phenomena and law of Universe with theories. That's why when new theory comes old theories become wrong. Reality only God who designed knows.
The fact is that we have deficiencies in our design, it's much proof that a all knowing and all powerful God exists!
Colin McGinn points to what I see as a major weakness to the fine-tuning argument for God, this being the rather the logical view that while the chances appear remotely low for our existing, nevertheless here we are, thusly, to report and reflect on it, which would be impossible in all universes where the fine-tuning constants were incompatible with life. … … Hence, one must rely more heavily on other arguments for God in order to be persuasive about theistic origins, similarly to the conclusion drawn by Ernan McMullin in the interview prior to McGinn.
Not really. The requirement for detailed information is absolutely necessary for life. Detailed information is not created by chance events. It requires mind.
So called space aliens would not fulfill that demand because THEY THEMSELVES would require information to become in existence.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 That's just your presupposition. Some say mind is required, others say otherwise.
@@Westrwjr It depends on how you define “information.” There are different categories of information according to Claude Shannon.
Not surprisingly, some people who don’t understand Shannon information theory get the categories confused.
Does it take a kind of “intelligence” to create the model of a snow flake? Unlikely. They occur with the crystalline natural laws that have been a part of nature for millions of years.
Will a cyclone create a functioning 747 in an empty field if you bring in all the parts and drop them into piles in a sports stadium next door?
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 Excellent response. It tells me I am dealing with an individual who thinks before he speaks. Unfortunately, some would argue that given enough time (the solution for all a-theists), the parts will ultimately fit themselves together. This is what might be termed neo-spontaneous generation. And unlike your 747 argument, they would claim that the properties of basic building blocks of matter are unique in self assembly in ways that brought us chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and evolution. Clearly, you're already aware of such an argument, and once again, some do believe this magic (neo-spontaneous generation) and some will never.
@@Westrwjr In my years taking organic chemistry and biochemistry, I found the laboratories very challenging. It was very difficult for me to create a few grains of aspirin, for example.
I was stuck in organic lab while some friends of mine who were not taking a science curriculum were riding the trains through Europe backpacking and meeting great looking girls.
Organic chem lab is very, very touchy. it is dreadfully easy to destroy a batch and have to start over again. And the temperature requirements, drove me nuts.
My personal experience in chemistry did NOT suggest that various chemicals would react with each other in predictable order or result. Some of my classmates brought in ASA and carved a few grains into their final sample, and came out with a good weight. Mine was only average, but I did not cheat.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Why do we humans assume that we're capable of understanding the universe or creation. What's worse is: we're assuming that some ancient people understood more than we do while we can't even show that they were right.
exactly...........religion is a way to control humans and their minds. They have to keep coming up with this ridiculous crap to maintain control of the gullible.
@@yavenay that should have been the first episode of the science of stupid. Rwligion
@@Graewulfe yup all we do is make baby steps towards plausibility and even some things we think we know pretty good may proof slightly different tomorrow. But it is allways better than pretending to know things you cannot possibly know because you believe in magic.
@@Graewulfe true and nothing is more fund than to come up with new better ideas. You would think that by now humanity should know that 2000 plus old ideas are outdated
@S Gloobal God is the hypothese thus the burden of proof is with the believer. Stop Turning it around.
People ask the question what created God as if God is bound by spacetime parameters so it starts to exist at a specific point in space and time and is subject to atomic decay. If God exists he existed forever without having been created so the question who created God doesn't logically apply.
God's design is so good that there had to be 5 mass extinctions for mankind to appear.
5 recorded mass extinctions. Dont forget the rest if time god flubbed up on purpose to make us speculate about him
Thanks to that we have lots of fossil fuels. But if we appeared before mass extinction of dinosaurs we would be extinct too??
@@Diamondraw4Real I don't believe anything really perishes. It's all coded information from a programmer. The information is stored and remembered. Edit: The Bible states that books are opened on every account an individual has done on Judgment Day. The books are stored information.
Thank the universe or the gr8 designer for these vids.. 👌😊😊
It’s pretty hard to imagine essentially how flawless life works that it was any accident
Life is far from flawless, please do some research.The “accident” had plenty of time for correction, in fact almost 4 1/2 billion years.
I am a man of Science but my gut feeling is that, their is a Creator. I cannot explain it , but it is so according to me.What I experience in my life , leads me to believe in a Creator . I don't know the How and the What but It is So according to me.
The Human race has progressed becoz of Science but there are somethings that Science cannot explain as of now. Maybe a time will come that Science will come with an answer but till that day comes, it's still a big mystery.
One thing more about the Universe, Whatever the Universe is , is our point of view and that's is selfish and narrow.
I somewhat contemplate such a thing but then I think even if there is a creator it we still may be a biological after effect and still our consciousness dies with our body, we go nowhere afterwards, we are just as relevant as the rocks floating in space for what we'd consider forever. I wish we went on somewhat retaining what we consider ourselves to each individual but I don't think anything is so simple, that's only something a human could believe, we are limited by our own biology and ability to comprehend and understand.
God (as I define) and science are same, I don't believe in personal God.
Well said
I don't argue with people if there is a creator. The creator is supposedly all knowing. He would know that I think humans are full of crap and would never use a human being to convince of his existence. He knows that I have an extremely low opinion of humans and would never believe anything a human told me about his existence. He would make it known to me. Which brings another issue, given that I think he has psychopath tendencies, I could never worship such a god. So yes, I would acknowledge but I still wouldn't worshop him. He's a demon in white skinned clothing.
Intelligent religious people are such a pleasure to debate with. There is a patience and calmness that believers carry, which I envy. I cannot being myself to believe either way, I hope there is a God, but I’m far from convinced.
Presupposing the answer in the question.
Even from a rational deduction, design at minimum suggests a Designer. But then, man focuses on the marvels of a mechanical satellite and ignores the grandeur of design and function throughout the cosmos. In fact, man does this all the time... plagiarizing, and ignoring the source for personal gain.
Thank you
"Why the multiverse is religion, not science"
Sabine Hossenfelder
@Stefano Portoghesi Discover the existence of God in only three stages: believing in any hypothesis precedes the process of experience.
Faith exists in any hypothesis.
Faith in God’s hypothesis is justified.
You must understand the methodology of science firstly hypothesis secondly verification or experiment.
@Stefano Portoghesi Discover the existence of God in only three stages: believing in any hypothesis precedes the process of experience.
Faith exists in any hypothesis.
Faith in God’s hypothesis is justified.
@Stefano Portoghesi There is a set of facts about which religion is talked about and it is supported by science. For example, it spoke about the story of Adam and Eve, the faith of atheists in the evolution of Darwin's absolute faith without evidence.
Yes, of course!
God is by definition, the best designer you can get !!
There is nothing greater conceived than God.
GOD Loves Those Who are interested in HIM.it is Good to keep on Knowing GOD until you Believe in HIM.for No One can Prove HIMSELF but GOD HIMSELF to Those Who Believes in HIM.Have Faith and Hope About GOD until You Believe in HIM.Eternal LIFE in Which HE can Give is More important than the Temporal Life of the Flesh.
Design of God put people togetherness!
The universe creating itself is the truth to me. Consciousness and energy creating matter to understand what is and what could be. The glorious play unfolds to its utter astonishment n joy
I see I made a comment three months ago. Now that I rewatch this episode, I am very impressed with the idea that the universe we find ourselfs in could be fine tuning itself over the billions of years based on "quantum fuzziness".
I like this concept better than either "intelligent design by God" or "multiverse". I'm concluding that we have consciousness and can study our environment and we can replace some of the quantum fuzziness with our individual inputs to fine tune it more to our individual liking.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has a big issue with anything improving, becoming more complex, ordered, and structured over long periods of time, billions of years is a fantasy dreamed up by people who detest the idea of a creator and similar minded people dream up new concepts to blur the reality that Gods signature is all around us. A teaspoon of your DNA code would require trillions of flash drives to store and your body processes more instruction per second than EVERY computer combined on the entire planet, super computers use mega-watts of electricity and your system outperforms any technology ever devised using a mere 20 watts. Revel in Gods creations, not the silly words of men who try to explain the creator away with one idea after another.
@@spamm0145 I'm saying that humans can fine-tune the universe. How that came about, I'll never understand. God as the creator is an option.
Rip, amazing people of truth
This video ignores the requirement for biological information encoded in DNA and the highly unlikely creation of the requisite proteins required for life to come into existence and continue to exist.
Darwin had no idea about the chemical biological information required for life.
I don’t blame Darwin for this but Kuhn should either know or learn about it.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
God is all that is,from the atom that sparked in the the triple-darkness of nothingness to space and time itself,from the elements know to man to all life that exists,even the consciousness that your experiencing at this moment is God.
Stimulating conversations, but it all boils down to mere mortal opinions; like Socrates would say, "only God knows the Truth."
The multiple universes Nonsese takes more faith than to believe in the creator God.
If there are multiple universes then the possibility for God to exist would be 100%.
Even the word salad has word salad. How many ways can you say many words and say nothing.
Your dismissal of arguments is probably due to a lack of intellectual curiosity. They definitely seem to be to be saying something, even if I disagree with some of their arguments. Are all arguments you disagree with "saying nothing"?
@@LameBushido But they are not proposing actual arguments that was my point. I have watched quite a few of their videos ( due to intellectual curiosity) and they are all just useless word salad. They never really address the points of said videos.
I agree with you, Stephanie.
JOB 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the band's of Orion? 32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? 33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
Of course.
You’d have to be stubborn in the extreme not to recognize this obvious fact .
We are The Sims...with consciousness.
They miss a simple point. String theory rely on higher dimensions. In higher dimensions time does not exist. If God is a being from higher dimension, then all of the arguments against Him, becomes scientifically possible.
Infinite universes are not random. That's like saying a set of infinite ordered numbers are random. Even if a random number is generated, one that we have never seen before, we can still know all numbers before and after it. What we call order, reality, good and normal can only exist in an infinite set of "disorder", "imaginary", "bad" and "strange".
1) All design is due to God, 2) All design is due to nature ( apart from human design ), 3) Some design is due to God and some design is due to nature.
3 can only be true if gods exist.
So far, this doesn't look like it is the case at all.
An absolutely wasteful program which does not come close to analyzing the serious arguments of intelligent design. He spoke to one lukewarm believer followed by several physicists obsessed with infinite multiverses. What if there is only one universe, how does one explain fine tuning then? Never asked of course. “Perhaps the Universe just is.” What a colossal cop out.
There is not one single conscious being on this planet that does not remember not existing. Therefore all beings have always been 100% infinite. Whether designed or not the pattern of rebirth is all around us in nature. We’re like the groove on a record and gravity is the needle pushing down, consciousness is the music that spills out. The litmus test for a untied consciousness is not being able to read one another’s minds; it’s to continue and expand that consciousness to other parts of the universe and do good. Love is the biggest weapon in the evolution of our consciousness because we without it we wouldn’t find life worth living for.
Graewulfe So you remember not existing?
False conclusion.
Ferdinand Kraft So you remember not existing?
@@mreasytimes3522 do you remember basic logic?
Ferdinand Kraft Basic logic tells me there’s not a time you’ve never not existed in your own mind. It’s called common sense.🤷🏼♀️
As an atheist, I love these documentaries.
How can we recognize design in tall structures such as buildings and bridges, or paintings, cars, computers, phones, clothes..we all know that these things were MADE on purpose! a mind behind it..and yet when it comes to the earth, life etc..there was no designer?🤯🤯🤯
Order emerges from chaos and physics laws alone explain the emergence, no need for a Designer.
@@cristianm7097 where did the physical laws come from?
@@iamBlackGambit Even if there is a God that created the physics laws, it doesn't imply God also created life forms. Species can emerge randomly from physics laws.
@@cristianm7097 where did the physical laws come from is what I asked. Also life begets life. Life on earth had to have come from a pre existing life source.
@@iamBlackGambit Life can emerge from dead matter. You make a big assumption saying that only life can create life.
This backwards causation thing needs a deeper explanation, doesn't make any sense to me
Can design point to God?
Of course, anything can point to God.
Everything can point to a non-existing thing, if people believe that this thing exists, without any good evidence.
yes, existence is closer to the truth, IMHO...and we may get even closer if we replace the loaded word "GOD" with the proper concept of "SOURCE"...could you please ask your interviewees whether they believe a (The?) "SOURCE" exists? And if not, then how does it all come into "existence" (in line with your closing remarks)? I guess this is a question for a philosopher....doesn't a "SOURCE" need to exist by definition?
Makes sense only if you use logical fallacy of special pleading on whatever you mean when you say source. To be intellectually honest, the only reasonable thing to say is "I don't know and we need to continue using reliable methods until we can answer questions".
God is just a term used for something more superior than us, so there absolutely 100% is a God. Can you jump off something and fly? Nope. Can you keep from dying? Nope. Can you leave earth whenever you want? Nope. These are all proofs we aren't in control of our lives that we have a creator.
I have often heard the phrase from cosmologists - "give us one miracle and we will take from there." A common position now is that the universe began from nothing." However, the one question, asked in this video, "why is the universe here?" remains unanswered by cosmologists and probably every human on the planet. Scientists use the scientific method to reach possible conclusions to their current hypothesis and provide data to support their positions. However, still no one can answer the question why is the universe here? Perhaps humans and super / quantum computers do not have the ability to see further than the data they provides a foundation to their comfort level. And they all return to faith. I suspect that at some point every human being will be able to see beyond that data, i.e. when they meet God.
Hahaha.that is wishfull thinking. Science moves slowly. Every god that ever have been hypothesised have eventually lost validity when people knew and understand more. So they even began creating more powerful God's. Science has proven them all wrong. So now theist place there God's outside of the universe in order to make them untouchable. God is never wel described. Soon as he is debunked theist just change his definition. Nothing more. There exist no proof for a god. There exist an overwhelming amount of proof for the creation of gods by man. Just use the same scepticism you have for any other god for your own god and -poof- he's gone.
"A common position now is that the universe began from nothing." A common assertion by theists but incorrect. We just don't know. Not knowing the cause is not saying there is no cause.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Except any 'personal' or rather superstitious notions of god crumble because you can find them plausible as metaphorical, archetypical, or of the like. The philosophical questions that emerge hold up the wall no matter the odds, and very likely beyond physicality god's existence requires a leap of faith, certainly poetic. In lesser words, you cannot bash the incomprehensible and truly unknowable. It is perfect because it is, and rather obvious as one may conclude that, I find that it so happens to be.
The values we find are the values we subscribe to the system we find ourselves in. Improbablity is just another value we’ve added into the system we’ve found ourselves in.
Theism says you can’t get something from nothing. Then they proceed to pull a god creator straight out of nothing and then have him construct the whole universe out of nothing. And they say atheism takes faith, religion the comedy that just keeps delivering the laughs.
That was a good compilation 👍
What is the difference between design designer and God?
The fact that laws to govern the universe or multiverse exists itself demands intelligent design or else how do any laws come about. Don’t get me started on how we are self aware which is another proof as again it is immaterial yet exists.
Your reasoning is fallacious (argument from incredulity). Why does a universe with laws demand intelligent design? Why can’t laws simply be an aspect of the universe?
The intro and outro violin is annoying as hell. I try to listen to these while I'm going to sleep but that God damned music always wakes me up every 20 minutes..
Check out Lex Fridman. I listen to him before falling to sleep 😄
God created the Universe, and Satan created the violin in the video.
@@rursus8354 Rursus And he's playing it too!
Try white noise?
I love your channel. I think slowly but surely we're hetting closer to truth. I think you should talk to a gentleman called Tom Campbell, the author of My Big Toe (Theory Of Everything) He's got some pretty interesting ideas about reality and consciousness. Take good care and keep up the good work
Excellent question nobody can answer
In an esoteric belief in God we are all God. We are God individualized in human form or any form to experience life in every minute detail possible.
Multiple universes, multiple dimensions, multiple points of view.
The Infinite experiencing itself through us, with us, and in us.
I've used the many clues left in bibles and philosophies to come to my conclusions. I'm not saying I'm right you are wrong or even the possibility of the reverse.
I believe we all have our own path to find God within ourselves and the universe in which we live.
Infinte possibilities, infinite time and infinite ways in which to experience. Just my thoughts as I continue my journey into tomorrow. Peace and love to all who will accept it.
The statement "Physics predicts multi-universes..." is not right, it is just pure hypothesis to escape from idea of any active design agent. It is impossible to prove multi-universes.
Exactly right
Whatever it points, the target must to be overwhelming.
And the actual configuraction of our conscience is not enough to work with it.
Scientists talking about multiple universes like they got knowledge that they really exist, they taking about dark matter like it really exists, no one particle has been found ,another ghost Ghost dark energy, everyone can build universes how many they want, just let free our minds and dreams
Darwin’s arguments have always been philosophical in nature and have never really reflected anything true about the physical world. Natural selection (which was not Darwin’s to begin with) does not in any sense undermine design and this is true because of what the mechanism actually does. Dawkins has said that things simply look designed but aren’t really. But if they look designed, why can’t they truly be designed? If a thing is able to function and operate in a particular environment, why is it wrong to say that it was made/designed for that purpose? The very fact that our universe has order to it, as opposed to being random, is an indicator that things work on purpose of they and it have been designed.
Very wrong!
GeoCoppens Please explain.
Lion of Judah the appearance of design is not design. If you are going to claim design you must provide some evidence for such design. The universe contains both order and randomness but even if there was just order, why would that be an indicator for purpose? The universe could simply be ordered by its nature
@@ggentry5189 Exactly, and so simple!
@@TheHistoryguy10 You like the idea that there is a designer, but where would he be?
How does nobody get this: "Be it Darwin or the Multi-verse, you will never answer the question of what came before these things. Science can only show how God did it."
Because a lot of folks unwittingly box themselves in when they insist science must be the only way to understand everything. It's like they have a ruler and it works great for what it's designed to do but they insist that it can measure temperature as well....sigh.
@@signpost5596 Yes, it's almost as if the majority of the population were specifically intended to be incapable of understanding. As if there is were something bigger at play, something they couldn't see even when shown plainly.
No one seems to talk about the entropy principle much. Surely this points to a more complex beginning. The other stuff is just a philosophical sideshow.
@@petersmith8070 Funny, you mention that. Just the other day I had an epiphany relating to the first law of thermodynamics.
@@petersmith8070 What if there are parts of our universe that entropy doesn't exist and our universe is not constant?
An individual's "psychologically incapable of accepting" is not a logical argument for or against god. So in the end first interviewee has basically contributed little to discussion.
Second interviewee: Universe is harmonious and fine tuned for human existence? Really? Try to be anywhere near a supernova explosion, collapse of a star, inside the core of the earth. Universe will kill life instantly. IMO there is reversal of logic when people think of fine tuning of constants. It is true that the current values of the set of cosmological constants we have, generated the current universe - with galaxies, stars, planets, living systems, sentient life, humans (on earth). This is an obvious, trivially true statement about this universe. What is profound about that? If the constants were varied independently and/or together who knows what kinds of universes would have ended up existing. Some of them could have been such that they are short lived and there is not enough time for any interesting, complex things to emerge. However that does not preclude the possibility that some of them could have been even better suited for emergence of what we would call life or intelligent life. There is no requirement that the intelligent life form has to be human like. So to me this argument that the universe is fine tuned for humans argument is a non-sequitur and a trivially true and not profound. Physicists "sometimes" block the question about "why there is universe at all?". Sure. But it also means that they sometimes don't. In fact, Lawrence Krauss deal with that in his book "Something from Nothing". As an aside, I disagree with Lawrence where he changes the definition of "nothing" and then writes the book based on that definition - nothing wrong with (pun) that but it does not answer the sense of the question when people ask "why there is something rather than nothing?". His "nothing" is not same as philosophical "nothing" or common sense "nothing" we have in mind when we ask that question.
West world got me thinking we’re all robots now 🤦🏽♂️
Epiphenomenal meat drones.
Self-constructing biological robots.
@@peaceonearth351 🤯🤯🤯
Very interesting
LOVE
How people manage to be vegetarian? I tried it, but i can't tolerate the same vegetables more than two days in a row. So i always need to look for different plants, and i dont like the taste of majority of them.
Unfortunately, most of the veggies in supermarkets taste like crap. They're grown with too much fertilizer and water so they don't have to struggle and engage with the microbiology in the soil, and so lack phytonutrients. Like much in the stores, it is gut filler rather than food.
Veganism is hard. Find a compromise between personal comfort and animal hell until we have artificial meat/animal proteins.
I feel the theists arguemts untimely reduce to an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Fine turning is just half the story, and somewhat of a red herring. More significant is a multitude of process needed to actualise life, and consciousness. My own favourite being the triple alpha process. I don't find talk of randomness and multiple universes at all persuasive. The Universe is if anything unreasonably large! and as Boltzmann pointed out, it is much more likely that a single intelligent being pops into existence rather than the intricate creation we see before us. Any objective reading of the data must conclude that the creationist view of the Universe is pretty well proved. But all this depends on our traditional notion of time, which I suspect is drastically misguided. The last (and probably best) speaker touched briefly on this.
No wonder someone said, 'The dirty little secret of cosmology is that if you don't want God then you must have a multiverse!' Davies' position is interesting but theism is a more parsimonious explanation IMO. His is similar to Tom Nagel's natural teleology. But a single entity, a 'superior reasoning power', an infinite Mind as the ground of all being and is in fact Being itself as the bedrock explanation is to me a more meaningful explanation. The LOGOS of John 1:1-14.
Adaptation and evolution are changes to the genetic code. I understand natural selection as for which animals get to live or breed. I understand adaptation as for a bird developing a different shaped beak to be more able to eat the available foods in a changing environment. What I don’t understand is how organisms develop brand new abilities that they didn’t previously have. How does an animal go from gliding to flying? How does an animal go from hiding to the ability to change colors to blend in? Someone must be thinking of the new ideas right? Someone must be writing new code.
A self existent and eternal (time independent) entity, whether it is a universe, cyclical universe or multiverse should be unchanging as time is the measure of change!!!.
Beautiful program Mr.Robert. It's hard for us humans to fathom that life has no meaning or purpose, thus we Need God, whether He's there or Not. Most of us wish that God is real becoz of our nature.For me personally, I believed that life is some sort of simulation and someone or somebody create this simulation and the universe is conscious in some level and in some ways or another flows from there.
This shouldn't be called "closer to truth." It should be called "farther from the truth."
i think therefore i design
If multiverses encompass all things possible, is God possible in at least one of them?
No. But this multiverse theory is just that, a theory to try to make sense of the collapsing wave function in Quantum Mechanics. The multiverse is a branch of philosophy as there can never be observations or direct evidence of the multiverse. In Quantum Mechanics, I believe the Copenhagen Interpretation to be true.
Yes, I Was The Coder.. But I Needed a very Good Designer To Make Pretty. HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS.. BUT CERTAINLY KNOWS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. YEAH.. DERREN BROWN BRILLIANT MOST TALENTED PERSON ON EARTH. THE DESIGNER I GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR THE BEAUTY... OUTSIDE!!!
i thought you found a hint of hope in the existence of consciousness. there seems to be no follow up of that one
The multiverse idea is very like a religion
so... this one is special?
a multiverse would disprove a god. well.. it would lower the likelihood of a god being behind it.
@@fraser_mr2009 If that is what you want then believe it
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
It's all out of our league but maybe one day science will get there but I don't think anytime soon
Sure, if one has preconceived confirmation bias intentions.
How does multiverse cancel design when you have not answered the question why anything at all the so called multverse which is not anyway a testable theory is a thought experiment at best I guess too much star trek in addittion lets say multiverse is a real thing you still need a cause which if im to use whats most likely it would be something outside the universe same problem as with one universe everything has a cause or u can be intellectually dishonest and say it came from nothing then later say nothing means something
I would rather ask not so much if there is a God, but if god is ethical. (Secular laws and punishment regarding abandonment of people in danger, seem to be more concerned about injustice than the lack of intervention and rescue coming from any supernatural, all powerful entity).
If there is no god, he can't be ethical to begin with. Therefore, the question of existence is paramount.
But the ethics question most definitely is very important, because of the ethical pretence of theists.
Christians for example call their god good, while it is abundantly clear that this made up thing is a mass murderous and torturous beast.
This has consequence in real life, and the extremely bloody and murderous history of christianity is very revealing.
@@andreasplosky8516
"mass murderous and torturous".
If that's your understanding of the Hebraic/Christian God, you completely misunderstand the Old Testament Scriptures. The ancient Hebrew Israelites who wrote the Bible, were surrounded by their enemies who wanted to kill them or take them captive. They obviously wanted wrath and judgement to come down on their enemies and they prayed for their covenantal God to do just that, to pass divine judgement and wrath on their enemies. Look at the historical context that the Hebrew Israelites were in because they were in a constant state of tribulation, war, and captivity. What do you expect the ancient Hebrews to pray for?
I believe in stupid design, not intelligent design. The design of this universe is idiotic and, therefore, so is the designer, if any.
Discover the existence of God in only three stages: believing in any hypothesis precedes the process of experience.
Faith exists in any hypothesis.
Faith in God’s hypothesis is justified.
@@mustafaelbahi7979 You need to repent.
It makes more sense if Satan created the universe, because we get to understand truth more as we get older...then we die. I could understand a God that wanted progeny ie a universe that evolved us to in the end know as much as God, but as I understand it, heaven is more of a resort that doesn't encourage further growth. Not that I believe in either Satan or God, just saying.
@@afriedrich1452 Of course it is present in the hypotheses .that Einstein said that God does not play dice.
@@mustafaelbahi7979 God prefers roulette.
Closer to speculation is closer to the truth. In my opinion, God, or whatever you want to call this conscious we call reality, is God, separating itself from itself to create an unimaginable amount of scenarios to learn and understand. BOOM! There is your big bang theory for you to study.
'God' as a Lord in the Sky?! Nah. Mysterious natural force, (.for now)? Some now calling it The Universe being conscious and creating/creative? Hm.
Does it all seem due to a divine design , even looking at evolution;, sure. That's where you can connect 'God' and science, if so inclined. Do we need a God to have faith and morals and values? No. Etc etc
Designoid
Oh for heaven’s sake. Doesn’t anyone read Hume’s Dialogues anymore.
I believe in God. I don't believe he would allow direct evidence or should I say empirical evidence that he exist.
I have no religion...and to clarify I am not a Christian.
Thank you for another of your videos in the series asking profound and existential questions for consideration. Well done, as always. This one is about the "Design" argument for God or Supreme Creator.
As your video touches on, in today's age the classical Design argument has morphed into the question of the fine-tuning argument and weak anthropic principle. What explains the apparent, exquisite "knife-edge" fine-tuning of the constants of nature and initial conditions?
And in particular the extra-ordinarily precise and minuscule cosmological constant (Lambda): 10 to the minus 122 Plank length squared? (Of course, this assumes that our human observations and data are indeed accurate and reliable in telling us that the cosmos is fine-tuned for us as carbon-based life.)
Here's my 2 cents of musings on your 5 choices for an answer to fine-tuning, hopefully with a modicum of plausibility.
(I'll add a 6th choice too. Heck, I'll even venture a percentage of probability for each).
Fine-tuning explanations:
1. Brute fact. Random accident. It just is. Go home. (The mathematical probability for this scenario to happen in our universe, if we're truly in the only universe, is so small that I rate it at far below 1%).
2. Necessity. It had to be "that way"; indeed, it can only be "that way". A Grand Unification Theory of Physics that we haven't figured out yet conclusively explains it all. (I rate the probability of this one as under 5% - that we can ever "know" such a theory or that one even really exists. Yes, we humans have gained massive amounts of knowledge about the nature of reality in the past 300 years since the advent of science. But we, at our present state of evolution as a species, actually keep learning how little we really know - we didn't even know until recently that dark energy and matter consists of the vast majority of the observable cosmos.)
3. Creator/God Being, Entity or Force. Perhaps not necessarily all-powerful, all-knowing or all-good. I frankly don't like the word "God" - it carries millennia of baggage and mental burdens for too many people, religions, institutions. I'll use the term "primordial designer". (As for probability - well this topic has been debated by the best minds of our species since the beginning of time, right? No one really, truly knows. So I'll call it 50/50. Probability rating: 50%)
4. Multiple Universes. A near-infinite, perhaps up to 10 to the 500th power, number of distinct reality spaces and laws of nature with their constants. We just happen to be lottery winners in the right universe. A variety of current scientific theories seem to trend us into this direction such as - super-string theory, the cosmological constant value, eternal chaotic inflation (Guth/Linde), Everett Many Worlds quantum theory. (I rate the probability of this one at 60%, mostly based on the chances that this can actually be falsified with on-coming technological advancements - perhaps more accurate measurement of the perturbations in the CMBR, the coming new James Webb space telescope experiments, and more sub-atomic particle testing in the LHC.)
5. The Self-Creating Universe. After a quantum or other primordial origin, the Universe continuously adjusts and fine-tunes itself for life, intelligence and consciousness. Thus, it explains itself. Backwards causation of Paul Davies. Similar to the Participatory Universe of John Archibald Wheeler. Or even the Biocentric Universe of Robert Lanza. (I rate this one at less than 50%, perhaps 40%. A self-creating universe winds up "begging the question" - it just assumes that there initially is a primordial origin - which it then fails to ultimately adequately explain.)
ADD 6. The Theory of Good. The Existence of Good and the Need for All-Goodness requires and explains the fine-tuned nature of the Universe for life, intelligence and consciousness. Actually, it also requires and explains a Multiverse cosmic landscape as well. This is a hybrid of the writings of John Leslie (Infinite Minds) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (The Phenomenon of Man and his Omega Point hypothesis).
This theory is: the only purpose, meaning and justification for all-existence, all-reality and evil is: the Good - and the Need for the Evolution of the All-Good. And the Universe (and Multiverse) spirals to a point of unification Chardin called "Omega" - culmination of all the good generated and projected by all the Universes over time. (This one is pure metaphysical cosmology and speculative philosophy. But I like it because for me it offers full explanatory power and a satisfying conclusion. I guess I'm a kid at heart who wants a "fairy tale" ending. I'll be generous and rate it a probability of 50%).
That's it. Thanks for reading, and for the video!
RELIGIONS USE THE WORD GOD / GOOD , UPDATED NATURAL SCIENCES DEFINE THE SAME ENTITY AS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN , SPIRITUAL THINKERS BELIEVE IN A WORLD GOUVERNED BY A DIVINE SPIRIT , PSEUDO-SCIENCE FOLLOWERS / ATHEISTS THINK THE BIG BANG THEORY TALE B..S IS THE ANSWER , THE AGNOSTIC PREFERS SITTING ON THE FENCE , STUDIES , RESEARCH & ANALYSIS LED ME TO CONCLUDE & BELIEVE IN THY CONSCIOUS COSMOS WITH IT'S OWN UNIVERSAL LAWS THAT HAVE & WILL ALWAYS GOUVERN ALL THAT EXISTS , EXISTENCE / LIFE IS A REALITY THAT NOT EVEN A GENIUS MIND COULD NOT DENY , KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY WITH INFORMATION THAT COULD HAVE ONLY COME FROM A PRIMORDIAL SOURCE , THAT CAN NOT BE DEFINED BY THE ILLUSION OF MANKIND / MIND , IGNORANCE IS NOT A BLISS , IT'S EITHER A CHOICE , OR A MISS-FORTUNE THAT ONE CAN ONLY ASSUME , BETWEEN US THERE ARE NOW SEVEN THEORIES YET THEY OUGHT TO BE / COULD BE SIMPLIFIED INTO : " ALL IN " ONE " IN ALL " BEINGS IN HARMONY WITH MOTHER NATURE...@ +.
Is design a miraculous intervention into a natural system? Is a universe that can be tampered with one that can be called a natural system?
At least God should be on the list of possibilities but the scientists are completely close-minded towards this possibility. Even if you are holding a theory with strong conviction, if you exclude the design possibility, it makes your overall position untenable. You are no longer a rational being.
@@credterfeYour post is a very concise statement of your position. Should scientists take the occurrence of miracles as possible? God says I do miracles. Science says There are no miracles. It says nature is natural, and that 'nature is natural' is the foundation of rationality.
19:30 Turtles All the Way Down
Turtle all the way down. This is an argument for children. If A implies B, it means that A precedes B. God is out of time. He made time in the Big Bang, so "He is".
Is pure existence closer to truth? Interesting question. IMHO, the words of our languages have a field of their own and the physics of languages is a subject for study. Once humanity creates AI based self replicated knowledge and bots humanity will not need logic to prove any kind of existence. Truth is everywhere and closeness or separateness might be illusory.
Even if the multiple universes theory is reality then the possibility of God would exist then.