I knew everything you said, but you’re idea organization is so much greater than mine. I want to just pull you out of my pocket for these conversations I partake in.
I absolutely LOOVEE your argumentative/debating style. Honestly, it's so inspiring. Usually like to listen/read your arguments if I'm stuck on an essay.
It's not just that God decided to tell us about him. It's how it was apparently done. Told to a very small number of people in a very smart part of the world where already other faiths existed. It seemed to evolve the same way other faiths did but we are expected to believe this one is the 'right ' one?
Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism from the Hebrew Bible. It started out as small ,one man Abraham who grew into many nations. 12 tribes : 12 Apostles into millions of Christians! Jesus said salvation comes through the Jews/ Hebrews!
But YOUR beliefs are the beliefs that are the correct ones, right? Every 'skeptic's' values come from the religion of the culture they are in, the same as everybody else, so don't put yourself above everyone when you're not. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with skeptics; they criticize 'religion' as if all value systems, including their own, were not formed the very same way. Such an argument doesn't prove anything, in fact, it's not even an argument at all since it has no rationality or conclusion. As usual the poorly educated deconstruct then think they've made a point. It's difficult to take seriously the pigeons that think they have won the chess game by shitting all over the board.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away Ok, but by definition atheism is a lack of belief, not an active disbelief. So you can't blame Alex of being consistent with the meaning of atheism. Furthermore, he explains why it seems a bit far-fetched that a supernatural entity created everything in the universe just for us.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away >>>This is a language trick alone. No, it is using the right definition of the term. You may not like it, but a definition is a definition… Using the right term is important with philosophical discussions, don't you think? >>>In order to say: I am not convinced of a God, then you must be suggesting a creation without a creator is possible When you say that, you use the word « creation » and doing so, you assume a creator (by definition). If you want to talk about the Universe, it’s different. Furthermore, who says that before our universe began, there was nothing ? There are many models which describe the begining of our universe without assuming that there was nothing at all 😉 >>>That Alex finds that far fetched is simply a useless opinion. No, it’s not. If you want to use the Ockham's razor principle, this fact contribute to illustrate why a God creating the universe just for us seems weird. And we musn't forget that this is a clip, not the whole discussion.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away you can't prove a negative. You can only prove something exist - remember the black swan? Unfortunately, there's no compelling argument in favor of God that can't easily be dismissed.
They're completely outclassed. Great cases as always Alex. The problem is that most theists don't subscribe to the timeline you're refering to, so most of this falls by the wayside, despite overwhelming evidence. Their worldview is inherently anthropocentric by definiton, according to their scripture.
Alex, you absolutely NAIL IT! The second you begin to breakdown the rational behind why the "fine tuning" argument is not valid the host (presumably) just smiles and doesn't actually take in a word what your saying.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away Douglas Adams puddle analogy is not about data. It's about causality. It's like throwing a dart at the wall and then drawing a bullseye around it.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away The fine tune argument is about reversed causality. It's similar to say that it is so amazing that rivers follow state lines! Therefore somebody have had designed rivers that way. Alphabet soup vs DNA???? DNA is NOT a message. DNA is NOT result of a randomness. The evolution is not random but it doesn't mean that is has a purpose. Life on Earth is the result of billion years of evolution. It should not surprise you that it "perfectly fits" earth's environment. And the same think is about the whole Universe.
@@tjblues01 The problem with that is that it misunderstanding the fine tuning argument. It isn't just that the universe is fine tuned for us, its that it is fine tuned for itself. If any of a hundred or so values were even slightly different, the universe would collapse on itself. It isn't that the universe would be different, its that it wouldn't exist at all. It isn't that we threw a dart at a wall and drew a target, its that there is a wall in the first place.
@@pappy374 He's doing well establishing himself as a unique and talented speaker. If echoing a role model has helped him reach his current achievements, more power to him.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away The problem is contrarians are considered more sexy than nuanced, balanced thinkers who endlessly um and ah over details.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away he’s claiming everything that we “know”. We can’t claim more than that as fact. Surely burden of proof had to be with someone claiming some new info
I hadnt heard that argument before about anthropomorphizing being an argument against monotheism. I had always heard it as an argument against the older/polytheistic religions. In retrospect it is a fairly convincing argument to me. thanks.
Of all universes that ever could have been, there are only two possibilities. Either they contain intelligent life or they don't. In the ones that don't, nobody cares and in the ones that do, their inhabitants are wondering why their universe is so fine tuned ...
If the back-end model for the "theory of everything" allows for the possibility that the values could have been otherwise, then sure, it may be amazing. But we don't know they could have been otherwise. If the model does not allow for any other values except what we have, then they would be completely benign. In the latter case, what would be amazing is the model and the fact that we figured it out.
@@oldboy9267 I can read yes, but I don't understand what he is asking. "physical manifestation of evidence" and "what I did with Jesus Christ". What does that have to do with the ludicrous ideéa that the universe is fine tuned for humans?
I don't understand why anyone thinks the 'fine tuning' argument is remotely compelling. It seems to arbitrarily posit that life is a GOAL of the universe, rather than a CONSEQUENCE of the universe, as it clearly is. If a type of life emerges within a universe with a particular set of physical laws, it is totally logical that the life in question would be compatible with those laws. To put it another way, how could a form of life arise in a universe and be at odds with the fundamental laws of that universe? That would be utterly nonsensical. With all credit to Alex, and he speaks very well indeed, but he's not making a 'Hitchens-esque' argument; he is making exactly the same argument Hitchens did.
The "fine tuning" or "watchmaker" argument reminds me of The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy book where Arthur Dent meets a talking puddle who puts forward his argument as to how amazing it is that his shape was perfectly and intelligently designed to fit the hole he occupies. Makes me smile how Christians want to use such a self-centred and weak argument for the existence of "god".
God he is good. I'm in awe of Alex ability to cut to the heart of the bullshit and expose it in such a witty manner. He is way better than Hitchens who converted much too late to be of any practical use. I like Russell Brand too but Alex is too good
@@i00lo60 "God", "shit" and "fuck" are interchangeable here :) Unfortunately our language is littered with expletives and outbursts that use "god" and other things.
We don't know about the fine tune of the universe and remarkably fit for our life. The only thing we know is something in life already happened, currently happening and don't know about what's next? We certainly know of our birth and dead and we have a specific life of once upon a time. Life is very short and we live only once, whatever, brought up by our parents and we endeavor for happiness or otherwise. I wonder why there is life at all as far as my concerned deeper into before and after life which is specifically immortal without any biology (mortal recycle)? My only contribution that I know is "the existence of life and the challenges that I felt until my last breadth without any satisfaction to the question that fit the answer why we are here ."
Help me here im struggling with one thing.. im not a mathematician or a philospher by far.. but if i live in a universe where life is possible (and extremely rare as it seems) why can't that be coincidence ? Why could we not be the only life in a one shot universe.. somebody has to be? It's a genuine question not a rebuttal or anything.
Some theist would argue that the constants in physics are precisely tuned to allow for live to live. If the constants were changed atoms couldnt bind with eachother or everything would collapse in on itself. They say that this is unlikely and therefore god did this with intent. The problem i have with this argument is that it speaks of likelyhood without us knowing how these constants occur at all. We have only seen these constans form once, so we dont know if they can actually be any diffrent.
If you look at how much of our universe is actually suited for our form of life, it is such a vanishingly small percentage that the claim of fine tuning seems ridiculous on the face of it (as a first approximation, take the volume of Earth's biosphere and divide by the volume of the sphere centered on the sun and containing no other planetary systems). But the argument also requires that a) there are other possible configurations that were not "chosen", b) that *none* of the other possible configurations would support something that would qualify as "life", and c) that our universe is the only universe. All of these are unproven assumptions. So rather than try to explain fine tuning, I dismiss it as being founded on multiple unproven assertions and not compatible with the facts in evidence. And that's before taking into account the fact that by definition we can only ever evolve in a universe that is not completely antithetical to our form of life, so when we look around and see that we have in fact evolved in such a universe (our universe being only mostly antithetical to our form of life), we should not be surprised or expect some hidden meaning to arise from that fact.
Astronomers have now found that there are more suitable planets on which life can exist. More suitable than Earth. If then, humans were the special creation, why were we not placed on one of these more life suitable planets. Why were humans, if a special creation, given a "second-rate" (or perhaps lower) planet to live on.
(ignoring the rest of the horrid arguments defending this side of the discussion, yet still being fair to it) Is it far fetched to call it a "challenge" of sorts? Something along the lines of "You start with a fine planet and get to better planets over time"? I'd like to hear your thoughts. And again, an atheist talking here.
@@patrikgrguric535 The "challenge" is likely to become part of the religious philosophy once it becomes accepted and common knowledge that "better" planets exist. It is in reality a mighty challenge for humans to get to one of these planets. We are (after thousands of years) still only "dipping our toes" into space travel, and any life suitable planet is going to be light-years of travel away from Earth. I, personally, cannot see humans ever doing such a journey, because it would be a one-way trip perhaps generations in "length". But I would gladly jump on the "ship" myself. Being over 70 would probably count me out though.
Quite frankly, the science behind the operation of a mercury vapour lamp is far more interesting and consequential than anything theists have ever concocted to fabricate reasons to defend believe in any particular religious conviction. And the mercury vapour lamp is real.
@@keithboynton yes, very interesting thought. I thought too, people say this place is for souls to grow, to eventually rejoin the absolute (God, whatever), but that would mean that God is incomplete, like your saying. Maybe that's the answer then, that God isn't this ultimate/perfect/complete thing, but is imperfect, and even God itself isn't done growing/evolving.
It’s just not surprising that with the universe being what it is, whatever it is, things in it would evolve to fit that something and not something else. The willingness to incredulously assume that this is the only way things could be simply because a change to the existing balance would - surprise - change the existing balance, and the claim to somehow realiably be understanding the range of possibility and probability against which such a “fineness” may be reliably measured, is either very highly suspect or rather deliberately obtuse if not just simply downright stupid. Anthropocentrism at the end of the day - is not a “finely tuned” proposition and nor is the idea of some divine teleology.
I have never heard it expressed more clearly. One of the most laughable traits of the religiously inclined is their mock humility as they assert, with staggering arrogance, that mankind is God's plan and the universe is fine-tuned with us in mind.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away OK, let me make it clear for you. Firstly, when someone says an idea is laughable they are, always, speaking subjectively. All humour is subjective. Secondly, I did not invent the notion that mankind is God's plan. Just read the Bible, or any other holy book for that matter. The root of most religions is that God created everything and that humans are the pinnacle of that creation. If you think I made that up, I'm afraid your knowledge of religion is woefully lacking.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away OK, I feel you are picking at straws here but so be it. I will change my comment thus; all cultures have a creation myth and most of them involve gods, either as agents of creation or as overseers, even the ones where a pantheon of gods are clearly man writ large, such as the Roman, Greek and Norse myths. And in a great many of these traditions, humans are seen as the ultimate creation or at least the chosen of the gods. For people who believe they are the reason for creation it is nonsense for them to claim humility, as many Christians do. My original comment, which you took exception to, for a reason you did not clarify, merely pointed out that for religious people to pretend humility whilst believing the whole universe is fine-tuned for human life is ridiculous.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away A very interesting reply and worthy of an in depth response. It is a long one and i apologise in advance. To take your points individually: Using the word 'acknowledge' in this context presupposes that a higher power exists. There is no evidence of this and everything we know of the universe so far may be explained without recourse to the supernatural. Where we don't have answers there is no justification for inserting God. I don't know, therefore God, or the God of the gaps theory is lazy thinking. There is no humility in believing in a higher power. If your life was terrible, it would be perfectly reasonable to believe in a creator and hate him for it There is absolutely no humility at all in the Abrahamic religions. To believe, without proof, that your God is the only one and that you are chosen, or that only you have the right holy book and the right way of worship or that the world was created for humans, as in Genesis, is the very opposite of humility. Denying a higher power is not a lack of humility. One cannot be humble before something one does not believe in. There is not one single atheist on the planet that thinks they have more knowledge than God. For two reasons. First, because atheists tend to prefer education over dogma and no educated person would ever think they knew everything. Second, because atheists do not deny God or refuse to accept him. They simply choose not to believe in a God on insufficient evidence. This is where I go on a little rant. you can skip it if you wish. I had to re-read your final paragraph a couple of times because it disturbed me. From your words I am presuming you to be a Christian and I will answer on that basis. I deeply object to the idea that we are born as sinners and must kowtow to a creator for forgiveness. It is the worst tyranny. Let me explain my thinking. God created everything, including the first humans. He gave them free will, so they would choose to worship him and not be robots and then he deliberately placed temptation in their way. Then, when they exercised the free will he had given them and succumbed to the temptation he had provided, he not only punished them for their 'sin' but every human thereafter. So terrible was the sin of eating a forbidden fruit (which he lied about while the serpent told the truth) that he had to sacrifice his son to himself in order that it be forgiven. Furthermore, unless you believe the God of the Old Testament to be a different god, this god of love is happy to commit genocide and command his followers, like Joshua, to do the same. Happy to trick Abraham, even though must already have known the man's heart. Happy to allow the torture of people, like Job, to prove a point. And, in the final analysis, is happy for billions of humans to be either cast down or left behind when the end comes, for simply not being aware of him in older days or not being given sufficient evidence to change their beliefs today. By now you will have realised that I am not a believer. But I am not an atheist, I am an anti-theist. I am happy that God does not exist because the God we know from the Bible is a rage filled, genocidal maniac. And he only gets worse in the New Testament, when dead is no longer an end to suffering. Now we may be tormented for eternity. I am sorry if this offends you, genuinely. i respect people's right to believe and I have no right to mock a person's personal faith. But I find the religions of the world to be little more than institutions for corruption and the achievement of power and wealth.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away I understand. I did say in my comment that it was a lot and I gave you the option of not reading it. You clearly did so and I thank you. This is again a long reply but I hope more reasonable. I apologise if you felt I was mocking you. That was sincerely not my intent. I do have genuine issues with the Bible and I do not agree that my view is skewed, merely a different but equally valid approach. I suppose it comes down to ones mindset whilst reading. I was born a Jew and for 20+ years I believed the Bible without question but as I learned more of the world and of other faiths I began to ask questions and to read with a more critical view, rather than simple acceptance. If you ever want to have that discussion, as to whether God or the serpent lied about the consequences of eating the fruit, please reach out. i promise to be open minded and not to rant. I do not rage about God or the Bible and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Please understand that it is impossible to get angry about something one does not believe. You are, of course, correct that little of what I have to say is new. However, I have thought long and hard and done a great deal of reading on the subject and been involved in many debates over many years. I do not parrot my responses and I would suggest that the same criticism may be levelled at those who believe implicitly in the Bible, or anything else. Discussions on religion and Biblical analysis have been happening since the Enlightenment showed that there was an alternative to religious thinking and that science had merit in understanding the world. Your response to my comment regarding God of the gaps was interesting. You are right that science cannot yet explain how life originated. However, science is a process, with much work being done to find answers. Just because that answer has yet to be found does not make the answer a miracle. To look at a problem and see there is no known answer and then call it a miracle, rather than continue to work the problem, is precisely the point of the God of the gaps fallacy. You state that science and not faith requires proof. I agree. And that is the very nature of science. Faith, on the other hand, may be defined as belief without evidence. And that beings us to the very crux of our disagreement. I prefer the search for answers rather than accepting things because I am told to. Whether a person follows the word of God in a book, the preaching of a priest or even if that person genuinely believes that God speaks directly to them, that person is ultimately required to believe without question. Proverbs 3:5-6. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight". I cannot do that. I will not give up my enquiring mind to follow and I absolutely will not submit. Galileo lived in a time when not obeying the church could get you killed and he still said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". Lastly, I apologise again if my previous comments were too severe. I always try to be respectful of people, if not always their beliefs. I do not accept that religious matters should be taken differently from any other discussion but that is no excuse for rudeness.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away I agree that this is not the place fore in-depth discussion and that we cannot keep this going but i wanted to say thank you and also that i agree with a great deal of what you said. Even though I do not believe in God, I also do not think that science can be a replacement for faith. Too many atheists have a cold and bleak view of the world but I see wonder everywhere. When i look at a glorious sunset I feel spiritual and I'm in awe. My feelings do not link me to God but to an understanding of the complexity of the universe and how incredibly fortunate I am to be there at that time and to possess an, albeit slim, understanding of the science behind the experience. We now know that the universe is not only expanding but speeding up. If there are humans around in a couple of million years they will look out on uninterrupted blackness and will have no way of seeing stars and galaxies and clusters and no way of knowing what we know about the universe. That is truly humbling. Whilst I do not accept the 'truth' of the Bible and I recognise in it much which is deeply immoral and disturbing, I have never dismissed it entirely. Along with passages of genocide and other horrors there is much to be inspired by and much to learn from. I do question whether the God of love and peace may be reconciled with what we know of God from the Old Testament but that does not detract from the beauty of the writing and the positive messages that also exist. I suppose it comes down to cherry picking, as with every holy book. Everyone, even the fundamentalists, choose which passages to use as inspiration and guidance and which to ignore because they are troubling to our modern morality and world view. As an aside, unlike many atheists, I do believe Jesus was a real person. That does not mean I accept his divinity but there are passages in the New Testament that paint a difficult picture of him, such as refusing to heal a Canaanite woman because, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”. The woman's faith changed his mind but to include something that might paint Jesus badly seems to me to add credibility. Your assessment of science and faith is refreshing. I would presume that you believe science will, eventually, prove God's existence, or at least his existence will one day be revealed and answer all those who doubt. Naturally, I do not agree but I fully accept that it is not necessary to hate God or faith in order to pursue answers through science. I would, however, make a distinction between belief in God and religion. Personal faith is precisely that, personal. No-one has the right to deny a person their faith. Religion is about control and power exercised through dogma and proscription and I do have a problem with anyone telling me what to think. Today, most religions have lost their power but we should remember how they behaved when they still possessed the power to dominate men's lives. It was not pretty. I am pleased that we managed to move passed the argument caused by my ill-judged words and that we end on a note of agreement, at least in some areas. I would be pleased and honoured to continue if you wish it but, if not, I hope your faith continues to bring you peace and meaning.
In other words, the fact that the universe appears so finely tuned does appear to suggest design, but that we should disregard this argument if we assume that the goal of the design was humanity?
@@maciejcholewa3796 : In Roger Penrose's CCC Theory, the Universe did not come from Nothing, it came from "incredibly complex geometry", 1:10^10^124. Penrose says this is a "demonstrable fact".
Is Alex saying that if there is a God, the Earth should have presented itself in a perfect finished form and the heavens should never exist as they are pointless? Can someone clarify.
@@keithboynton It could be argued that such an arrangement is used to make humans reflect at the impossibility of humans without a designer despite the vast scale of the universe.
The question wasn't about humans being the purpose of the universe (if we can even use the word "purpose" on an atheistic world view.) The question was, is it a fluke that it happened to produce us, questions of "purpose" are an entirely different matter. Justin's question is asking if we came about by chance. And "chance" makes no presupposition of "purpose." In regards to the concerns of there being so much unnecessary creation and lack of efficiency in the universe (if God created this all for humans...) Well, those objections of efficiency are only concerning for someone with limited time and limited resources. Neither, of which, God is limited by.
@@DanielEBurnette I believe there are 4000 of them. That is my belief system. In my remote area of the planet, this tribe believes that there are 4000 gods. Why do you think differently?
@@BOeRNsupremacy Why do I think differently? This is getting a little off topic. My post is in response to Alex's objection to God based on efficiency. But to answer the question you brought up- Because you have the issue of an infinite regress of causes which is reconciled by a first uncaused cause. A philosophical concept Aristotle called the "unmoved mover." Besides that: God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe. God is the best explanation for the objectivity of moral values and duties. And, I would argue, that if it is even possible that God exists, then God exists necessarily. And when you do a conceptual analysis of, for example, the cause of the universe, you find a single agent, which points to a monotheistic God, which is incompatible with the idea of 4000 gods. So I think we have good reason to believe there is a God, but none for believing there are 4000. So, getting back to what I asked you: do you think there are 4000 gods? And did you have any objections to the response I gave to Alex's points he raised about God not being efficient enough for his standards?
This interpretation is very anthropocentric. What if an "intelligent" being(s) created the universe with such complexity to see the formation and evolution of billions of civilizations? Maybe they've created billions of such simulations with some goal in mind? Or maybe we're just the interesting part of a multiverse where all possible values for the fundamental physical constants are possible.
if you are talking about an all knowing all mighty god-like figure, what would be the purpose of such a simulation when the results should already be known to it? We simulate stuff because we do not know all the effects all the relevant interactions have. An all knowing creature would not need to simulate. If you are just meaning some sort of being which itself acts like a human researcher with us in a snow globe then I'm with you that this is possible. But since I do not have any clues for such an existence I consider this more of a phantasy than a relevant probability.
@@diman2 And, not to mention, even if that scenario is possible, it wouldn't give any reason for these "gods" to be worshipped. It still leaves the gap between deism and theism.
@@diman2 I'm not talking about the religious interpretation of God, rather about your latter suggestion. There are clues - the fine-tuning of the natural constants, the holographic principle, the ratio of anti-matter to regular matter even the Copenhagen interpretation. I'm not saying it's highly likely, I'm saying that it would make sense if there's no multiverse. If the universe we live in is the only universe and if there's no underlying mechanism that explains why the natural constants have just the perfect values for complexity to emerge then it gets very likely. The more you get into quantum physics, the more you understand that the universe could've been a very boring place. It seems that for complexity to emerge, everything should be JUST right - the big bangs should've produced more matter than anti-matter, which is not what our models predict, all the natural constants should have the values they currently have, even slight tuning of those values produce a universe that has no matter or a universe in which matter doesn't really interact with itself. Needless to say, no complex structures can emerge in such universes, let alone life. The holographic principle might be another clue. It postulates that any information in an encapsulated 3D space can be stored on the 2D surface of that 3D space. This suggests that all the information in the universe can be stored on a 2D surface, no matter if the universe is finite or infinite - 2D surfaces can be infinite as well. Of course, this isn't any evidence for the simulation theory, those are just some hints that it might not be as unlikely as some people think.
@@theostragonidis7548 No, I'm sorry - I did not want to suggest you were talking about some loving Christian god et cetera. I am slightly leaning towards some sort of deism myself but solely in the sense that it impresses me that we can have a compact mathematical formulation of - by now only visible matter - on a tea cup, i.e. the standard model of particle physics. Considering your points, three of them - the fine-tuning, the holographic principle and the copenhagen interpretation - are solely theoretical ideas to solve problems, claims to be demonstrated. But it is not clear whether the constants have to have the numerical values they have, or what gravity is (I'm no expert on the holographic principle but I think it somehow relates to string physics and gravity), or what happens to the quantum wave after interaction. The matter-antimatter ratio is in fact observed and giving an explanation for this is actually the motivation for PhD thesis. In general, looking for a deity to explain observed phenomena has always been done and in every case it has been resolved by a physical argument which gives you the "god of the gaps" argument. Claims about how the phenomena could be explained sometimes sound so crazily elegant that there has to be some kind of "simulation design" behind it but after they become reality it loses this nimbus. You may remember the "god particle"? Well, now it is just the Higgs boson. The fact that there even is a way to describe phenomena in a structural manner is the only reason for me to slightly "believe" but not be convinced that some "start it, forget it" deity "exists", whatever that means.
@@fmcco002 Totally. The nice thing about deism is that most of the related claims cannot ever be falsified. Theism on the other hand in many cases is at least partially testable and usually failed big time. That is the benefit of science - it can update itself anytime since it never (at least nowadays) claims to be certain of anything.
Where’s the fine tuning with the fact stars are blowing up every single second in the universe? What’s the purpose behind this infinite waste of stars ?
@@ProfezorSnayp _* you don't really need a big brain to speak about god. You certainly don't need one to believe in god.*_ That is true. Evolutionary speaking, our ancestors wouldn't survive if reality didn't manifest well enough for them to understand it. Intelligence is merely one, but important facet of survival. Still, you have to try really hard to ignore the fact that creation requires creator. The mental gymnastics necessary for such a feat eludes most people. The up side is that you get to define good and evil on your own. Sure, you're repeating the sin that got first humans expelled from heaven. You're also indulging in the deadliest of the mortal sins- pride. You have to believe that you're smarter than God to define good and evil on your own. Bible warns that nothing good happens when you live in lies. _Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it._ Matthew 7:13-14 If walking "the narrow road to life" is good, surely the opposite is also true. When you defy reality and define what is good and evil yourself, you're living in lies. You're merely expecting punishment for your trespass against reality. You can call that the wraith of God, or you can call it natural consequences of living in lies. The more outrageous and evil that you call good, the more dire the consequences you'll face. Didn't study for an exam, but you're sure you've got it? The test you take in school will reveal flaws in your beliefs and manifest reality. You can experience the consequences of living in lies today. No need to wait for the afterlife where you become set in your ways- the ways you are establishing today. Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
universe is as much fine tune as a 1 millions cards deck is fine tuned to be that way after you shuffle it, we fit the "chaos" and the "randomness" that happened to be this way, otherwise we wouldnt be here to observe it, simple has that, nothing more. We want to see a pattern where there isnt. There is no "force" governing anything, if it does, then it is not sentient or whatever you want to call it. It is just energy being unstable and did something.
Siyano : The Universe did not come from "chaos", it came from "incredibly complex geometry", 1:10^10^124, according to Roger Penrose. He says this is a "demonstrable fact". This geometry was there BEFORE the Big Bang, is in the Universe now, and at the End when everything else dissipates, only that geometry will remain.
Dawkins talked about a guy with a PhD in geology and how this guy said something like "all the evidence in the universe could point to an old earth, but I'd still believe in a young earth because that's what the bible says." This is what made me fully understand how brainwashed religious people are
@@LawnFlamingoPoop Yea... I think for some people, their willingness to believe in something that gives sense to their worldview, trumps over willingness to seek truth. I think that's what they perceive, and what they've come to idolize as "faith".
I didn’t hear him say anything other than espouse his opinion on why God or an intelligent designer doesn’t make sense to him. Nothing he said would alter my belief one iota.
Fine tuning " Argument" would be more appropriately called as the fine tuning joke People believe in a god because they want to, not because there is even a whiff of evidence Did anyone ever believe in a god they didn't want to believe because the evidence was stronger ? Did any christian ever think Vishnu is the Supreme God despite wanting to believe in Yahweh ? Did they ever think Odin was the One true god ? Exactly
Hmmm, I think Alex needs to take some Physics lessons. There does not need to be any uindiscovered Fine Tuning Law. Physics is Physics and we evolved to fit into those laws of physics.
@@MrCmon113 Which is irrelevant as I'm not talking about other physical circumstances I'm talking about the laws of physics we have and ones we evolved from and into.
@@specklecoated5toedyak794 , it is actually the only one that matters. All matter is derivative, therefore it isn’t logical to conclude it has always existed when every piece of evidence points to the opposite. To be a naturalist you must believe in the greatest magic trick of all time...everything popped into existence from nothing. I simply don’t have that much faith.
@@TheOnlyStonemason I didn't say it didn't matter, I said it isn't knowable. You don't need to believe that it came from nothing. We don't know how the universe came to be, and neither do you, sir.
SpeckleCoated5ToedYak , in an absolute sense we can know very little. You are free to believe whatever you like. My point is that it is completely inconceivable that matter has always existed. To be a committed naturalist one must believe in the greatest magic trick of all...that the world popped into existence from nothing. It is a necessary conclusion to be a naturalist. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to believe it but that is the necessary logical conclusion.
@@specklecoated5toedyak794 , the how/why question is the only one that matters. Famous atheist scientists like Hawkings and Kraus recognize this and assert the universe created itself from nothing. Completely illogical and nonsensical. Nonsense is nonsense even when stated by brilliant people. There is no belief of any theist of any variety that is as fantastical as the universe popping into existence from nothing. The ultimate magic trick!
Except it did lead to us. So there is that. I don't believe in that story. 99.9% extinction is a pure assumption based on the necessary steps for universal common ancestry's needed intermediaries.
But why would the fact that it led to us matter? That just means that our existence is the consequence of the universe being the way it is, not that the universe was designed to lead to our existence.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Imagine you were consciousness itself - God if you will. What reality would you create for yourself? You would create exactly THIS. You would divide yourself into many different parts so you had 'company' and weren't alone in the universe. You would tune the laws of physics so you had sound, colour, texture etc. You would create a reality for yourself that you would want to live in. Good and bad. Not just the good. We are all one thing. One expression of infinite intelligence. Of consciousness itself. WE are god. Creating its own reality.
@@keithboynton Imagine there is nothing, but then nothing realised it existed. What would it do? It would create a reality for itself. What reality would it create? This reality! It's the perfect solution. It could exist alone for eternity or it could divide itself into smaller parts. There can be no good without bad. There can be no light without dark. They both have to exist or neither can exist at all.
Sadly it appears that the crude idea of the Christian Theist God has somehow become a roadblock for atheists like Alex to explore the idea and implications of a finely tuned universe. They are so wedded to the notion of randomness behind existence that something so startling and fantastic as the odds of existence itself has to be glossed over and deliberately downplayed to not give Theists some ammunition.
Your brilliant argument can only be opposed by the inevitable 6k years old age of the earth or that god gave us false clues for a 13,8 b. years old universe just for fun
if you don’t agree with them i still wouldn’t label them as funny. His most recent video addresses this mindset and i highly recommend watching it. no hate
@@carsteng9494 vegans see us as murders. They say that we are killing animals. We need to eat animals but maybe in future science can make meat thən we stop with eating animals. But vegans are hating us stopveganteror!!!
@@almightyscience8454 We don’t “need” to eat animals. We choose to, since society affords us the convenience of being able to be very selective in our own diets. We’re omnivores, we can survive without eating the flesh of other living creatures. So that argument has no weight whatsoever.
@@alanheyes694 I have respect for vegan people but I want that they have also respect to us. I love alex and his videos I support him but I do not think same with him about veganism.
@@almightyscience8454 I respect the people that aren't aware of the damage and suffering they are causing, i definitely do not respect someone who is knowingly causing suffering to innocent sentient beings for the mere reason of enjoying the taste of their dead body parts.
I’m skeptic about athiests like this who are trying to to avoid the burden of proof , ie not prepared to take responsibility for what they say, and avoid philosophy, really just manipulate
I’m skeptical about thiests who are trying to to avoid the burden of proof , ie not prepared to take responsibility for what they say, and using philosophy to really just manipulate.
If the universe isn’t finely tuned it won’t exist, matter won’t exist, there won’t be a thing as solid state, liquid state, nor gaseous state. You are literally making 0 sense. For me fine tuning argument is pretty strong.
I knew everything you said, but you’re idea organization is so much greater than mine. I want to just pull you out of my pocket for these conversations I partake in.
It comes with experience. I recommend taking part in disussions yourself, it really helps in my case.
I coudn't have put it better myself. We need a Alex Oconnor app on our phones lol
MrHandsomeboynow Cannot argue with you or Alex on these issues. 🍺
I absolutely LOOVEE your argumentative/debating style. Honestly, it's so inspiring. Usually like to listen/read your arguments if I'm stuck on an essay.
Can’t wait to see your best clips all in a unified list, Alex!
It would be cool if they would be grouped by topic
@@LordMarvel That would be very nice, indeed!
The resemblance to Hitchens' style of argument is uncanny, and of course entirely deliberate, and I love it.
It’s great, the Hitchslap being resurrected in Alex
it was a quotation without reference.
I was about to say the same. He sounded just like him, in the end.
Super happy to be able to support this new channel. A huge supporter of you already so I'm excited
Alex. I'm amazed by your knowledge and ease to presente it or share it.
Excellent.
It's not just that God decided to tell us about him. It's how it was apparently done. Told to a very small number of people in a very smart part of the world where already other faiths existed. It seemed to evolve the same way other faiths did but we are expected to believe this one is the 'right ' one?
And, appeared to different people at different times in different ways. And each of them is the only right one. Just ask them.
Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism from the Hebrew Bible.
It started out as small ,one man Abraham who grew into many nations.
12 tribes : 12 Apostles into millions of Christians!
Jesus said salvation comes through the Jews/ Hebrews!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Sounds quire similar to Islam.
Things that make you go, "hmmmmm".
But YOUR beliefs are the beliefs that are the correct ones, right? Every 'skeptic's' values come from the religion of the culture they are in, the same as everybody else, so don't put yourself above everyone when you're not. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with skeptics; they criticize 'religion' as if all value systems, including their own, were not formed the very same way. Such an argument doesn't prove anything, in fact, it's not even an argument at all since it has no rationality or conclusion. As usual the poorly educated deconstruct then think they've made a point. It's difficult to take seriously the pigeons that think they have won the chess game by shitting all over the board.
@@stevedoetsch Dunning-Kruger? What is that?
Man, Alex is amazing. I´ve learn so much about religion, atheism, philosophy and rhetoric with his videos. What a great time to be alive.
This speach is speachless. I love the way you present your argument and it makes perfect sense.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away Ok, but by definition atheism is a lack of belief, not an active disbelief. So you can't blame Alex of being consistent with the meaning of atheism.
Furthermore, he explains why it seems a bit far-fetched that a supernatural entity created everything in the universe just for us.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away
>>>This is a language trick alone.
No, it is using the right definition of the term. You may not like it, but a definition is a definition…
Using the right term is important with philosophical discussions, don't you think?
>>>In order to say: I am not convinced of a God, then you must be suggesting a creation without a creator is possible
When you say that, you use the word « creation » and doing so, you assume a creator (by definition). If you want to talk about the Universe, it’s different. Furthermore, who says that before our universe began, there was nothing ? There are many models which describe the begining of our universe without assuming that there was nothing at all 😉
>>>That Alex finds that far fetched is simply a useless opinion.
No, it’s not. If you want to use the Ockham's razor principle, this fact contribute to illustrate why a God creating the universe just for us seems weird.
And we musn't forget that this is a clip, not the whole discussion.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away you can't prove a negative. You can only prove something exist - remember the black swan? Unfortunately, there's no compelling argument in favor of God that can't easily be dismissed.
They're completely outclassed. Great cases as always Alex.
The problem is that most theists don't subscribe to the timeline you're refering to, so most of this falls by the wayside, despite overwhelming evidence.
Their worldview is inherently anthropocentric by definiton, according to their scripture.
Alex, you absolutely NAIL IT!
The second you begin to breakdown the rational behind why the "fine tuning" argument is not valid the host (presumably) just smiles and doesn't actually take in a word what your saying.
Is it more Rational for intelligent species to come from a mind/ personal being or from random natural processes!
@@davidjanbaz7728 mind/person or being but not a personal god!
Wow! Well Stated Young Man, Cheers.
I think we're all just Douglas Adams's puddle, essentially.
Let's hope the sun rises slowly then...
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away Why? Would you care to share your thoughts?
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away Douglas Adams puddle analogy is not about data. It's about causality. It's like throwing a dart at the wall and then drawing a bullseye around it.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away The fine tune argument is about reversed causality. It's similar to say that it is so amazing that rivers follow state lines! Therefore somebody have had designed rivers that way.
Alphabet soup vs DNA???? DNA is NOT a message. DNA is NOT result of a randomness. The evolution is not random but it doesn't mean that is has a purpose.
Life on Earth is the result of billion years of evolution. It should not surprise you that it "perfectly fits" earth's environment. And the same think is about the whole Universe.
@@tjblues01 The problem with that is that it misunderstanding the fine tuning argument. It isn't just that the universe is fine tuned for us, its that it is fine tuned for itself. If any of a hundred or so values were even slightly different, the universe would collapse on itself. It isn't that the universe would be different, its that it wouldn't exist at all. It isn't that we threw a dart at a wall and drew a target, its that there is a wall in the first place.
Maximum video length on Twitter is 2mins & 20secs. Maybe you can consider that. Thanks.
Alex, you beat Hitchens’ eloquence in this clip
Reminds me of that Hitchens speak.
@@pappy374 It's healthy to take inspiration from role models.
@@pappy374 He's doing well establishing himself as a unique and talented speaker. If echoing a role model has helped him reach his current achievements, more power to him.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away The problem is contrarians are considered more sexy than nuanced, balanced thinkers who endlessly um and ah over details.
Can’t wait for more clips
Brilliant responses!!
Fantastic argument, Alex. I am awarding you a PhD in Argumentation and Debate.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away he’s claiming everything that we “know”. We can’t claim more than that as fact. Surely burden of proof had to be with someone claiming some new info
That was quite frankly a flawless argument. Massively impressed!
I hadnt heard that argument before about anthropomorphizing being an argument against monotheism.
I had always heard it as an argument against the older/polytheistic religions.
In retrospect it is a fairly convincing argument to me. thanks.
This guy's intellect and ability to articulate ideas is extraordinary. Keep it coming, Alex!
I absolutly love that last argument!!
Of all universes that ever could have been, there are only two possibilities. Either they contain intelligent life or they don't. In the ones that don't, nobody cares and in the ones that do, their inhabitants are wondering why their universe is so fine tuned ...
This is just the thoughtfulness and honesty that makes me, a Christian throughoutly appreciate and enjoy what say.
Just brilliant Alex.
If the back-end model for the "theory of everything" allows for the possibility that the values could have been otherwise, then sure, it may be amazing. But we don't know they could have been otherwise. If the model does not allow for any other values except what we have, then they would be completely benign. In the latter case, what would be amazing is the model and the fact that we figured it out.
Beautiful!
In the spirit of “Hitchslap” can we say that he “Alex-ecuted” that argument?
Will atheists ever grow up.
@@urbanitecrusher5709 I will grow up when your god makes me!!!
@@rixbase I'll make you, you little middle-class toadie.
@@urbanitecrusher5709 how? Through prayer?
@@urbanitecrusher5709 I’ll grow up when you evolve
Damn! This is a good one!
Dayum son
Well spoken
Very well said
You're on fire recently
- "To me that seems a little far-fetched"
LOL No kidding 😀
Are you the physical manifestation of evidence, and what did you do with Jesus Christ?
@@spencer.eccles
?
@@Evidence1 You heard what he asked.
@@oldboy9267
I can read yes, but I don't understand what he is asking. "physical manifestation of evidence" and "what I did with Jesus Christ".
What does that have to do with the ludicrous ideéa that the universe is fine tuned for humans?
Mic drop moment.
Good one!
Christopher Hitchens vibes! Love the argument!!!
I don't understand why anyone thinks the 'fine tuning' argument is remotely compelling. It seems to arbitrarily posit that life is a GOAL of the universe, rather than a CONSEQUENCE of the universe, as it clearly is. If a type of life emerges within a universe with a particular set of physical laws, it is totally logical that the life in question would be compatible with those laws. To put it another way, how could a form of life arise in a universe and be at odds with the fundamental laws of that universe? That would be utterly nonsensical. With all credit to Alex, and he speaks very well indeed, but he's not making a 'Hitchens-esque' argument; he is making exactly the same argument Hitchens did.
That other guys headphone are about to stop working haha the way he constantly messes with the wires
Brilliantly said.
Ok! Let’s just push everything you just said aside and get to the next factless objection.
Wow someone just got hitch slapped
The "fine tuning" or "watchmaker" argument reminds me of The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy book where Arthur Dent meets a talking puddle who puts forward his argument as to how amazing it is that his shape was perfectly and intelligently designed to fit the hole he occupies.
Makes me smile how Christians want to use such a self-centred and weak argument for the existence of "god".
God he is good. I'm in awe of Alex ability to cut to the heart of the bullshit and expose it in such a witty manner. He is way better than Hitchens who converted much too late to be of any practical use. I like Russell Brand too but Alex is too good
what God ?
@@i00lo60 "God", "shit" and "fuck" are interchangeable here :) Unfortunately our language is littered with expletives and outbursts that use "god" and other things.
We don't know about the fine tune of the universe and remarkably fit for our life. The only thing we know is something in life already happened, currently happening and don't know about what's next? We certainly know of our birth and dead and we have a specific life of once upon a time. Life is very short and we live only once, whatever, brought up by our parents and we endeavor for happiness or otherwise. I wonder why there is life at all as far as my concerned deeper into before and after life which is specifically immortal without any biology (mortal recycle)? My only contribution that I know is "the existence of life and the challenges that I felt until my last breadth without any satisfaction to the question that fit the answer why we are here ."
Help me here im struggling with one thing.. im not a mathematician or a philospher by far.. but if i live in a universe where life is possible (and extremely rare as it seems) why can't that be coincidence ? Why could we not be the only life in a one shot universe.. somebody has to be? It's a genuine question not a rebuttal or anything.
Some theist would argue that the constants in physics are precisely tuned to allow for live to live. If the constants were changed atoms couldnt bind with eachother or everything would collapse in on itself. They say that this is unlikely and therefore god did this with intent.
The problem i have with this argument is that it speaks of likelyhood without us knowing how these constants occur at all. We have only seen these constans form once, so we dont know if they can actually be any diffrent.
exactly the antropocentrism of it ...
If you look at how much of our universe is actually suited for our form of life, it is such a vanishingly small percentage that the claim of fine tuning seems ridiculous on the face of it (as a first approximation, take the volume of Earth's biosphere and divide by the volume of the sphere centered on the sun and containing no other planetary systems). But the argument also requires that a) there are other possible configurations that were not "chosen", b) that *none* of the other possible configurations would support something that would qualify as "life", and c) that our universe is the only universe. All of these are unproven assumptions. So rather than try to explain fine tuning, I dismiss it as being founded on multiple unproven assertions and not compatible with the facts in evidence. And that's before taking into account the fact that by definition we can only ever evolve in a universe that is not completely antithetical to our form of life, so when we look around and see that we have in fact evolved in such a universe (our universe being only mostly antithetical to our form of life), we should not be surprised or expect some hidden meaning to arise from that fact.
*Mic Drop* if ever there was!
Christopher Hitchens would be so proud 😌
I thought I saw Billie Joe Armstrong in the thumbnail., and is just Alex
What a great Hitchens like speech
Just because you are here doesn't mean it's 'fine-tuned' for you
Yes it does
@@MarkNOTW nope, 99.9% of other species couldn't do it. We're next
@@MarkNOTW so if it's so fine tuned why can't you breath underwater which constitutes 70% of Earth's surface? For me it's pretty lame design;)
@@maciejcholewa3796 Why hasn’t this entity called nature caused us to be able to breathe underwater? Why can’t fish breathe air?
@@ENZOxDV9 The universe is fine tuned for life to even exist. Certain species going extinct for one reason or another is irrelevant.
...what's that in my hands?...oh, that must be my ass that's just been handed to me....
Astronomers have now found that there are more suitable planets on which life can exist. More suitable than Earth.
If then, humans were the special creation, why were we not placed on one of these more life suitable planets. Why were humans, if a special creation, given a "second-rate" (or perhaps lower) planet to live on.
(ignoring the rest of the horrid arguments defending this side of the discussion, yet still being fair to it)
Is it far fetched to call it a "challenge" of sorts? Something along the lines of "You start with a fine planet and get to better planets over time"? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
And again, an atheist talking here.
@@patrikgrguric535 The "challenge" is likely to become part of the religious philosophy once it becomes accepted and common knowledge that "better" planets exist.
It is in reality a mighty challenge for humans to get to one of these planets.
We are (after thousands of years) still only "dipping our toes" into space travel, and any life suitable planet is going to be light-years of travel away from Earth.
I, personally, cannot see humans ever doing such a journey, because it would be a one-way trip perhaps generations in "length".
But I would gladly jump on the "ship" myself. Being over 70 would probably count me out though.
Is that the lead singer of KAWALA?
Quite frankly, the science behind the operation of a mercury vapour lamp is far more interesting and consequential than anything theists have ever concocted to fabricate reasons to defend believe in any particular religious conviction. And the mercury vapour lamp is real.
I'm a sort of optimistic agnostic, but if God is perfect and all powerful, why would he not have created a perfect world?
@@keithboynton yes, very interesting thought. I thought too, people say this place is for souls to grow, to eventually rejoin the absolute (God, whatever), but that would mean that God is incomplete, like your saying. Maybe that's the answer then, that God isn't this ultimate/perfect/complete thing, but is imperfect, and even God itself isn't done growing/evolving.
You can not use existence. As evidence for a God/Gods.
People really need to wrap their heads around this.
You're like a blend of Hitchens and Dawkins. Damn. That's fun to watch.
It’s just not surprising that with the universe being what it is, whatever it is, things in it would evolve to fit that something and not something else. The willingness to incredulously assume that this is the only way things could be simply because a change to the existing balance would - surprise - change the existing balance, and the claim to somehow realiably be understanding the range of possibility and probability against which such a “fineness” may be reliably measured, is either very highly suspect or rather deliberately obtuse if not just simply downright stupid. Anthropocentrism at the end of the day - is not a “finely tuned” proposition and nor is the idea of some divine teleology.
I have never heard it expressed more clearly. One of the most laughable traits of the religiously inclined is their mock humility as they assert, with staggering arrogance, that mankind is God's plan and the universe is fine-tuned with us in mind.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away OK, let me make it clear for you.
Firstly, when someone says an idea is laughable they are, always, speaking subjectively. All humour is subjective.
Secondly, I did not invent the notion that mankind is God's plan. Just read the Bible, or any other holy book for that matter. The root of most religions is that God created everything and that humans are the pinnacle of that creation. If you think I made that up, I'm afraid your knowledge of religion is woefully lacking.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away OK, I feel you are picking at straws here but so be it. I will change my comment thus; all cultures have a creation myth and most of them involve gods, either as agents of creation or as overseers, even the ones where a pantheon of gods are clearly man writ large, such as the Roman, Greek and Norse myths. And in a great many of these traditions, humans are seen as the ultimate creation or at least the chosen of the gods.
For people who believe they are the reason for creation it is nonsense for them to claim humility, as many Christians do.
My original comment, which you took exception to, for a reason you did not clarify, merely pointed out that for religious people to pretend humility whilst believing the whole universe is fine-tuned for human life is ridiculous.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away A very interesting reply and worthy of an in depth response. It is a long one and i apologise in advance.
To take your points individually:
Using the word 'acknowledge' in this context presupposes that a higher power exists. There is no evidence of this and everything we know of the universe so far may be explained without recourse to the supernatural. Where we don't have answers there is no justification for inserting God.
I don't know, therefore God, or the God of the gaps theory is lazy thinking.
There is no humility in believing in a higher power. If your life was terrible, it would be perfectly reasonable to believe in a creator and hate him for it
There is absolutely no humility at all in the Abrahamic religions. To believe, without proof, that your God is the only one and that you are chosen, or that only you have the right holy book and the right way of worship or that the world was created for humans, as in Genesis, is the very opposite of humility.
Denying a higher power is not a lack of humility. One cannot be humble before something one does not believe in.
There is not one single atheist on the planet that thinks they have more knowledge than God. For two reasons. First, because atheists tend to prefer education over dogma and no educated person would ever think they knew everything. Second, because atheists do not deny God or refuse to accept him. They simply choose not to believe in a God on insufficient evidence.
This is where I go on a little rant. you can skip it if you wish.
I had to re-read your final paragraph a couple of times because it disturbed me. From your words I am presuming you to be a Christian and I will answer on that basis.
I deeply object to the idea that we are born as sinners and must kowtow to a creator for forgiveness. It is the worst tyranny. Let me explain my thinking.
God created everything, including the first humans. He gave them free will, so they would choose to worship him and not be robots and then he deliberately placed temptation in their way. Then, when they exercised the free will he had given them and succumbed to the temptation he had provided, he not only punished them for their 'sin' but every human thereafter.
So terrible was the sin of eating a forbidden fruit (which he lied about while the serpent told the truth) that he had to sacrifice his son to himself in order that it be forgiven.
Furthermore, unless you believe the God of the Old Testament to be a different god, this god of love is happy to commit genocide and command his followers, like Joshua, to do the same. Happy to trick Abraham, even though must already have known the man's heart. Happy to allow the torture of people, like Job, to prove a point. And, in the final analysis, is happy for billions of humans to be either cast down or left behind when the end comes, for simply not being aware of him in older days or not being given sufficient evidence to change their beliefs today.
By now you will have realised that I am not a believer. But I am not an atheist, I am an anti-theist. I am happy that God does not exist because the God we know from the Bible is a rage filled, genocidal maniac. And he only gets worse in the New Testament, when dead is no longer an end to suffering. Now we may be tormented for eternity.
I am sorry if this offends you, genuinely. i respect people's right to believe and I have no right to mock a person's personal faith. But I find the religions of the world to be little more than institutions for corruption and the achievement of power and wealth.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away I understand. I did say in my comment that it was a lot and I gave you the option of not reading it. You clearly did so and I thank you.
This is again a long reply but I hope more reasonable.
I apologise if you felt I was mocking you. That was sincerely not my intent. I do have genuine issues with the Bible and I do not agree that my view is skewed, merely a different but equally valid approach.
I suppose it comes down to ones mindset whilst reading.
I was born a Jew and for 20+ years I believed the Bible without question but as I learned more of the world and of other faiths I began to ask questions and to read with a more critical view, rather than simple acceptance.
If you ever want to have that discussion, as to whether God or the serpent lied about the consequences of eating the fruit, please reach out. i promise to be open minded and not to rant.
I do not rage about God or the Bible and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Please understand that it is impossible to get angry about something one does not believe.
You are, of course, correct that little of what I have to say is new. However, I have thought long and hard and done a great deal of reading on the subject and been involved in many debates over many years. I do not parrot my responses and I would suggest that the same criticism may be levelled at those who believe implicitly in the Bible, or anything else.
Discussions on religion and Biblical analysis have been happening since the Enlightenment showed that there was an alternative to religious thinking and that science had merit in understanding the world.
Your response to my comment regarding God of the gaps was interesting. You are right that science cannot yet explain how life originated. However, science is a process, with much work being done to find answers. Just because that answer has yet to be found does not make the answer a miracle.
To look at a problem and see there is no known answer and then call it a miracle, rather than continue to work the problem, is precisely the point of the God of the gaps fallacy.
You state that science and not faith requires proof. I agree. And that is the very nature of science. Faith, on the other hand, may be defined as belief without evidence. And that beings us to the very crux of our disagreement.
I prefer the search for answers rather than accepting things because I am told to. Whether a person follows the word of God in a book, the preaching of a priest or even if that person genuinely believes that God speaks directly to them, that person is ultimately required to believe without question.
Proverbs 3:5-6. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight".
I cannot do that. I will not give up my enquiring mind to follow and I absolutely will not submit.
Galileo lived in a time when not obeying the church could get you killed and he still said,
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use".
Lastly, I apologise again if my previous comments were too severe. I always try to be respectful of people, if not always their beliefs. I do not accept that religious matters should be taken differently from any other discussion but that is no excuse for rudeness.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away I agree that this is not the place fore in-depth discussion and that we cannot keep this going but i wanted to say thank you and also that i agree with a great deal of what you said.
Even though I do not believe in God, I also do not think that science can be a replacement for faith. Too many atheists have a cold and bleak view of the world but I see wonder everywhere. When i look at a glorious sunset I feel spiritual and I'm in awe. My feelings do not link me to God but to an understanding of the complexity of the universe and how incredibly fortunate I am to be there at that time and to possess an, albeit slim, understanding of the science behind the experience.
We now know that the universe is not only expanding but speeding up. If there are humans around in a couple of million years they will look out on uninterrupted blackness and will have no way of seeing stars and galaxies and clusters and no way of knowing what we know about the universe. That is truly humbling.
Whilst I do not accept the 'truth' of the Bible and I recognise in it much which is deeply immoral and disturbing, I have never dismissed it entirely. Along with passages of genocide and other horrors there is much to be inspired by and much to learn from.
I do question whether the God of love and peace may be reconciled with what we know of God from the Old Testament but that does not detract from the beauty of the writing and the positive messages that also exist. I suppose it comes down to cherry picking, as with every holy book. Everyone, even the fundamentalists, choose which passages to use as inspiration and guidance and which to ignore because they are troubling to our modern morality and world view.
As an aside, unlike many atheists, I do believe Jesus was a real person. That does not mean I accept his divinity but there are passages in the New Testament that paint a difficult picture of him, such as refusing to heal a Canaanite woman because,
“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”.
The woman's faith changed his mind but to include something that might paint Jesus badly seems to me to add credibility.
Your assessment of science and faith is refreshing. I would presume that you believe science will, eventually, prove God's existence, or at least his existence will one day be revealed and answer all those who doubt. Naturally, I do not agree but I fully accept that it is not necessary to hate God or faith in order to pursue answers through science. I would, however, make a distinction between belief in God and religion. Personal faith is precisely that, personal. No-one has the right to deny a person their faith. Religion is about control and power exercised through dogma and proscription and I do have a problem with anyone telling me what to think. Today, most religions have lost their power but we should remember how they behaved when they still possessed the power to dominate men's lives. It was not pretty.
I am pleased that we managed to move passed the argument caused by my ill-judged words and that we end on a note of agreement, at least in some areas.
I would be pleased and honoured to continue if you wish it but, if not, I hope your faith continues to bring you peace and meaning.
In other words, the fact that the universe appears so finely tuned does appear to suggest design, but that we should disregard this argument if we assume that the goal of the design was humanity?
Universe doesn't in slightest appear finely tuned. All is chaos witch some places of being a little more stable.
@@maciejcholewa3796 : In Roger Penrose's CCC Theory, the Universe did not come from Nothing, it came from "incredibly complex geometry", 1:10^10^124. Penrose says this is a "demonstrable fact".
If there is a god we will learn about it from science, not ancient fairy stories and con artists.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away That definition of skepticism is very convenient for you.
@It Grew Legs And Walked Away what you described is Cartesian skepticism.
Do you reckon that most atheists were raised as theist?
Is Alex saying that if there is a God, the Earth should have presented itself in a perfect finished form and the heavens should never exist as they are pointless? Can someone clarify.
@@keithboynton It could be argued that such an arrangement is used to make humans reflect at the impossibility of humans without a designer despite the vast scale of the universe.
Earth is fine tuned for fish.
The question wasn't about humans being the purpose of the universe (if we can even use the word "purpose" on an atheistic world view.) The question was, is it a fluke that it happened to produce us, questions of "purpose" are an entirely different matter. Justin's question is asking if we came about by chance. And "chance" makes no presupposition of "purpose."
In regards to the concerns of there being so much unnecessary creation and lack of efficiency in the universe (if God created this all for humans...) Well, those objections of efficiency are only concerning for someone with limited time and limited resources. Neither, of which, God is limited by.
Which God? There's like 4000 of them.
@@BOeRNsupremacy Why do you think there are 4000 Gods?
@@DanielEBurnette I believe there are 4000 of them. That is my belief system. In my remote area of the planet, this tribe believes that there are 4000 gods. Why do you think differently?
@@BOeRNsupremacy Why do I think differently? This is getting a little off topic. My post is in response to Alex's objection to God based on efficiency. But to answer the question you brought up- Because you have the issue of an infinite regress of causes which is reconciled by a first uncaused cause. A philosophical concept Aristotle called the "unmoved mover." Besides that: God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe. God is the best explanation for the objectivity of moral values and duties. And, I would argue, that if it is even possible that God exists, then God exists necessarily. And when you do a conceptual analysis of, for example, the cause of the universe, you find a single agent, which points to a monotheistic God, which is incompatible with the idea of 4000 gods. So I think we have good reason to believe there is a God, but none for believing there are 4000.
So, getting back to what I asked you: do you think there are 4000 gods? And did you have any objections to the response I gave to Alex's points he raised about God not being efficient enough for his standards?
This interpretation is very anthropocentric. What if an "intelligent" being(s) created the universe with such complexity to see the formation and evolution of billions of civilizations? Maybe they've created billions of such simulations with some goal in mind? Or maybe we're just the interesting part of a multiverse where all possible values for the fundamental physical constants are possible.
if you are talking about an all knowing all mighty god-like figure, what would be the purpose of such a simulation when the results should already be known to it? We simulate stuff because we do not know all the effects all the relevant interactions have. An all knowing creature would not need to simulate.
If you are just meaning some sort of being which itself acts like a human researcher with us in a snow globe then I'm with you that this is possible. But since I do not have any clues for such an existence I consider this more of a phantasy than a relevant probability.
@@diman2 And, not to mention, even if that scenario is possible, it wouldn't give any reason for these "gods" to be worshipped. It still leaves the gap between deism and theism.
@@diman2 I'm not talking about the religious interpretation of God, rather about your latter suggestion. There are clues - the fine-tuning of the natural constants, the holographic principle, the ratio of anti-matter to regular matter even the Copenhagen interpretation. I'm not saying it's highly likely, I'm saying that it would make sense if there's no multiverse. If the universe we live in is the only universe and if there's no underlying mechanism that explains why the natural constants have just the perfect values for complexity to emerge then it gets very likely. The more you get into quantum physics, the more you understand that the universe could've been a very boring place. It seems that for complexity to emerge, everything should be JUST right - the big bangs should've produced more matter than anti-matter, which is not what our models predict, all the natural constants should have the values they currently have, even slight tuning of those values produce a universe that has no matter or a universe in which matter doesn't really interact with itself. Needless to say, no complex structures can emerge in such universes, let alone life. The holographic principle might be another clue. It postulates that any information in an encapsulated 3D space can be stored on the 2D surface of that 3D space. This suggests that all the information in the universe can be stored on a 2D surface, no matter if the universe is finite or infinite - 2D surfaces can be infinite as well. Of course, this isn't any evidence for the simulation theory, those are just some hints that it might not be as unlikely as some people think.
@@theostragonidis7548 No, I'm sorry - I did not want to suggest you were talking about some loving Christian god et cetera. I am slightly leaning towards some sort of deism myself but solely in the sense that it impresses me that we can have a compact mathematical formulation of - by now only visible matter - on a tea cup, i.e. the standard model of particle physics.
Considering your points, three of them - the fine-tuning, the holographic principle and the copenhagen interpretation - are solely theoretical ideas to solve problems, claims to be demonstrated. But it is not clear whether the constants have to have the numerical values they have, or what gravity is (I'm no expert on the holographic principle but I think it somehow relates to string physics and gravity), or what happens to the quantum wave after interaction. The matter-antimatter ratio is in fact observed and giving an explanation for this is actually the motivation for PhD thesis.
In general, looking for a deity to explain observed phenomena has always been done and in every case it has been resolved by a physical argument which gives you the "god of the gaps" argument. Claims about how the phenomena could be explained sometimes sound so crazily elegant that there has to be some kind of "simulation design" behind it but after they become reality it loses this nimbus. You may remember the "god particle"? Well, now it is just the Higgs boson. The fact that there even is a way to describe phenomena in a structural manner is the only reason for me to slightly "believe" but not be convinced that some "start it, forget it" deity "exists", whatever that means.
@@fmcco002 Totally. The nice thing about deism is that most of the related claims cannot ever be falsified. Theism on the other hand in many cases is at least partially testable and usually failed big time.
That is the benefit of science - it can update itself anytime since it never (at least nowadays) claims to be certain of anything.
Alex is fantastic philosophically, but here he strode into an equally brilliant polemical argument. Rather Hitchens esque I must say!!
Where’s the fine tuning with the fact stars are blowing up every single second in the universe? What’s the purpose behind this infinite waste of stars ?
'...a little far fetched'. Indeed
Not to mention the 350,000+ different species of beetles God deemed necessary xD
The EVIL & HORROR OF ROMANS 1:18-32 & Of Course ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS 🔥🤗🔥
You should add Romans 1: 16,17
The universe was designed for me. I'm awesome.
He's not even trying to use his brain... I don't think he is dull, and yet... When he speaks about God...
Well you don't really need a big brain to speak about god. You certainly don't need one to believe in god.
@@ProfezorSnayp _* you don't really need a big brain to speak about god. You certainly don't need one to believe in god.*_
That is true. Evolutionary speaking, our ancestors wouldn't survive if reality didn't manifest well enough for them to understand it. Intelligence is merely one, but important facet of survival.
Still, you have to try really hard to ignore the fact that creation requires creator. The mental gymnastics necessary for such a feat eludes most people. The up side is that you get to define good and evil on your own.
Sure, you're repeating the sin that got first humans expelled from heaven. You're also indulging in the deadliest of the mortal sins- pride. You have to believe that you're smarter than God to define good and evil on your own. Bible warns that nothing good happens when you live in lies.
_Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it._ Matthew 7:13-14
If walking "the narrow road to life" is good, surely the opposite is also true. When you defy reality and define what is good and evil yourself, you're living in lies. You're merely expecting punishment for your trespass against reality. You can call that the wraith of God, or you can call it natural consequences of living in lies. The more outrageous and evil that you call good, the more dire the consequences you'll face.
Didn't study for an exam, but you're sure you've got it? The test you take in school will reveal flaws in your beliefs and manifest reality. You can experience the consequences of living in lies today. No need to wait for the afterlife where you become set in your ways- the ways you are establishing today. Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
universe is as much fine tune as a 1 millions cards deck is fine tuned to be that way after you shuffle it, we fit the "chaos" and the "randomness" that happened to be this way, otherwise we wouldnt be here to observe it, simple has that, nothing more. We want to see a pattern where there isnt. There is no "force" governing anything, if it does, then it is not sentient or whatever you want to call it. It is just energy being unstable and did something.
Siyano : The Universe did not come from "chaos", it came from "incredibly complex geometry", 1:10^10^124, according to Roger Penrose. He says this is a "demonstrable fact". This geometry was there BEFORE the Big Bang, is in the Universe now, and at the End when everything else dissipates, only that geometry will remain.
Game. Set. Match.
First cause started it all. 😊
How can you sit there, a christian, listen to that and afterwards still say "idk makes sense to me, clearly god"?
Dawkins talked about a guy with a PhD in geology and how this guy said something like "all the evidence in the universe could point to an old earth, but I'd still believe in a young earth because that's what the bible says."
This is what made me fully understand how brainwashed religious people are
@@LawnFlamingoPoop Yea... I think for some people, their willingness to believe in something that gives sense to their worldview, trumps over willingness to seek truth. I think that's what they perceive, and what they've come to idolize as "faith".
I didn’t hear him say anything other than espouse his opinion on why God or an intelligent designer doesn’t make sense to him. Nothing he said would alter my belief one iota.
@@keithboynton ohhh is that what that was??
Fine tuning " Argument" would be more appropriately called as the fine tuning joke
People believe in a god because they want to, not because there is even a whiff of evidence
Did anyone ever believe in a god they didn't want to believe because the evidence was stronger ?
Did any christian ever think Vishnu is the Supreme God despite wanting to believe in Yahweh ?
Did they ever think Odin was the One true god ?
Exactly
Okay, Job... Calm down lol
🔥🔥🔥🔥
"Ok."
Hmmm, I think Alex needs to take some Physics lessons. There does not need to be any uindiscovered Fine Tuning Law. Physics is Physics and we evolved to fit into those laws of physics.
This kind of debate is always hindered by the confusion of how the term "law" is used in physics and in everyday language.
It's you who is uneducated. Other physical circumstances wouldn't allow for life at all.
@@MrCmon113 Which is irrelevant as I'm not talking about other physical circumstances I'm talking about the laws of physics we have and ones we evolved from and into.
Choice. This is just choice content.
The comments section looks like Reddit.
Alex, why/how does anything exist? Do you really believe the universe popped into existence from nothing?
The "how" question is impossible to answer, Alex at least and unlike the religious, isn't pretending he has an answer where one isn't warranted.
@@specklecoated5toedyak794 , it is actually the only one that matters. All matter is derivative, therefore it isn’t logical to conclude it has always existed when every piece of evidence points to the opposite. To be a naturalist you must believe in the greatest magic trick of all time...everything popped into existence from nothing. I simply don’t have that much faith.
@@TheOnlyStonemason I didn't say it didn't matter, I said it isn't knowable. You don't need to believe that it came from nothing. We don't know how the universe came to be, and neither do you, sir.
SpeckleCoated5ToedYak , in an absolute sense we can know very little. You are free to believe whatever you like. My point is that it is completely inconceivable that matter has always existed. To be a committed naturalist one must believe in the greatest magic trick of all...that the world popped into existence from nothing. It is a necessary conclusion to be a naturalist. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to believe it but that is the necessary logical conclusion.
@@specklecoated5toedyak794 , the how/why question is the only one that matters. Famous atheist scientists like Hawkings and Kraus recognize this and assert the universe created itself from nothing. Completely illogical and nonsensical. Nonsense is nonsense even when stated by brilliant people. There is no belief of any theist of any variety that is as fantastical as the universe popping into existence from nothing. The ultimate magic trick!
Do you understand what Faith actually is....?
Yes, it's believing without evidence. Basically you can believe in any bullshit that there is.
🔥🔥🔥👌👌
Except it did lead to us. So there is that. I don't believe in that story. 99.9% extinction is a pure assumption based on the necessary steps for universal common ancestry's needed intermediaries.
But why would the fact that it led to us matter? That just means that our existence is the consequence of the universe being the way it is, not that the universe was designed to lead to our existence.
God's chosen great ape 😆😆
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Imagine you were consciousness itself - God if you will. What reality would you create for yourself? You would create exactly THIS. You would divide yourself into many different parts so you had 'company' and weren't alone in the universe. You would tune the laws of physics so you had sound, colour, texture etc. You would create a reality for yourself that you would want to live in. Good and bad. Not just the good. We are all one thing. One expression of infinite intelligence. Of consciousness itself. WE are god. Creating its own reality.
@@keithboynton Imagine there is nothing, but then nothing realised it existed. What would it do? It would create a reality for itself. What reality would it create? This reality! It's the perfect solution. It could exist alone for eternity or it could divide itself into smaller parts. There can be no good without bad. There can be no light without dark. They both have to exist or neither can exist at all.
Life is fine tuned to the universe. Just saying.
Life is barely adapted to environment, slight change in it and we die;)
u won urself an abo
Sadly it appears that the crude idea of the Christian Theist God has somehow become a roadblock for atheists like Alex to explore the idea and implications of a finely tuned universe. They are so wedded to the notion of randomness behind existence that something so startling and fantastic as the odds of existence itself has to be glossed over and deliberately downplayed to not give Theists some ammunition.
Your brilliant argument can only be opposed by the inevitable 6k years old age of the earth or that god gave us false clues for a 13,8 b. years old universe just for fun
Good luck Alex but only reason that I follow you is I am an atheist and your english is cool. Your vegan videos are funny.
if you don’t agree with them i still wouldn’t label them as funny. His most recent video addresses this mindset and i highly recommend watching it. no hate
@@carsteng9494 vegans see us as murders. They say that we are killing animals. We need to eat animals but maybe in future science can make meat thən we stop with eating animals. But vegans are hating us stopveganteror!!!
@@almightyscience8454 We don’t “need” to eat animals. We choose to, since society affords us the convenience of being able to be very selective in our own diets. We’re omnivores, we can survive without eating the flesh of other living creatures. So that argument has no weight whatsoever.
@@alanheyes694 I have respect for vegan people but I want that they have also respect to us. I love alex and his videos I support him but I do not think same with him about veganism.
@@almightyscience8454 I respect the people that aren't aware of the damage and suffering they are causing, i definitely do not respect someone who is knowingly causing suffering to innocent sentient beings for the mere reason of enjoying the taste of their dead body parts.
Why preach Atheism?!
I’m skeptic about athiests like this who are trying to to avoid the burden of proof , ie not prepared to take responsibility for what they say, and avoid philosophy, really just manipulate
I’m skeptical about thiests who are trying to to avoid the burden of proof , ie not prepared to take responsibility for what they say, and using philosophy to really just manipulate.
@@heteroclitus I agree with you 100 %
If the universe isn’t finely tuned it won’t exist, matter won’t exist, there won’t be a thing as solid state, liquid state, nor gaseous state. You are literally making 0 sense. For me fine tuning argument is pretty strong.