Indian atheist debates Evangelical Christian - Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 жов 2024
- Watch part 1 of this debate here - • Indian atheist debates...
In this episode of the Indian Atheist debates series, I talk once more with Otangelo about intelligent design, the possibility of time having infinite regress, and if complexity inherent in nature indicates an intelligent creator of the universe.
#IndianAtheist #IndianAtheistDebates #Vimoh
Support this channel at / vimoh
Or make a one-time donation at vimoh.stck.me
I am Vimoh, an Indian atheist and my videos have to do with religion, atheism, Indian culture, and sometimes contemporary political happenings.
Below are some videos from this channel that every Indian atheist must watch.
✔️ Videos for the Indian atheist - • Delving Deeper
✔️ How I became an atheist - • My journey between rel...
✔️ Why I am not a "Hindu atheist" - • Why I am not a Hindu A...
✔️ Why I am not a "Hindu atheist" (part 2) - • Belief in karma = beli...
✔️ The Indian atheist problem - • The Indian atheist pro...
✔️ Why atheism is important - • You can't fight irrati...
@Vimoh, like this very much! Nicely done on the advocacy of the 'frame of reference' argument where we are presented with only this one universe event - thus limiting our ability to draw inferences on the degree of its alleged 'tuning'. We are doomed to an anthropocentric perspective of our universe! We humans seem to be the only sentient beings capable of sharing with each other the awareness of our own beings/memory in a manner that can influence our environment. Plus, we are conditioned by evolution to make sense of our universe from an inside-out direction - being the centre of our awareness and everything else being in relation to 'us'. This is a fairly unavoidable situation and I wouldn't hold it against those who cannot see past this.
The goal of course is to become increasingly aware of this inherent weakness and as scientists and critical thinkers try to step outside of this solipsistic paradigm by considering that there might indeed have been (or are right now!) a billion trillion other universes that had (or have) knobs turned at different levels that did not support the conditions that are conducive to the start of 'our' version of time and matter and are therefore not in existence inside frames of references that we can draw any form of inference from... because we are not part of them. Our universe IS because conditions were conducive for it to start.
This 'goldilocks' phenomenon, just like the 'aware puddle' (15:11) that you mention, has a parallel even in our insignificant solar system inside the Milky Way galaxy (which is just the right distance away from its nearest neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy) with a sun that is just the right size and the earth just the right distance away from it to allow for our 'carbon' based life to get a chance at beginning and evolving. Here, we have to realize that the Earth was not placed just so for us... we happened on Earth because it was just so! 'Our kind' of life did not evolve on the other planets in the solar system because 'our kind' of knobs (temperature, pressure, minerals, oxygen, water, etc) were not twiddled to allow such life to succeed.
This paradigm switch is difficult to be thrown in most folks' minds which would have allowed them to grasp naturalistic explanations of our universe and avoid the superstitious pitfalls that come from some intelligent design proponent riding piggyback on the Kalaam cosmological argument of first cause and from there jumping to a sort of intelligence who sits twiddling the knobs of the universal constants and from there to jump to some anthropomorphic deity who deigns to communicate with us in this realm of time and space through some delusional humans who succeed in convincing a few other humans to toe the line of a divine and holy message of social conformance which then gets ossified in civilizations on the short-term (over several centuries) as legacies of mindsets and practices that inform our decisions and behavior. Thus, we will continue to see the meme of religion succeed over the next few generations even though major chunks of humankind has moved into a more rational mindset.
Sorry for the rant... but had to get it out there! Keep up the good work. Subscribed!
Thanks for the rant. :)
I disagree. We can take the fine-tuning of the universe as a scientific fact, confirmed by many many scientists. The only question is, where you go with this, and if it leads to a fine-tuner, or, if you prefer, to a multiverse. Read Luke Barnes, or Martin Rees. There is extensive scientific literature out there. No framework or reference point is needed.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Unfortunately for you Otangelo, it is. The universe APPEARS to be fine tuned. We don't know if it is. To a worm living in shit, the shit may look fine tuned for his comfort by an intelligent creator. Doesn't necessarily mean it is.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom so you agree that it can either lead to a fine-tuner or a multiverse (perhaps even a cyclical universe of sorts). But the point is we don't (and possibly can't) know which one it is. That doesn't make both possibilities equally likely.
Concluding that it was a fine-tuner just adds another layer of assumption without really answering anything. How was the fine-tuner created? If they always existed then why couldn't the multiverse have just always existed?
Intelligent design assumes a higher intelligence just exists out of nowhere, and attributes to it whatever is convenient based on the gaps of knowledge at any given point of history, always moving the goal posts whenever science proves them wrong, never being consistent.
@@aliens_capam we don't need to know. Having the best explanation is enough. A fine-tuner is the most parsimonious explanation if you ask me.
This is how debates should go. Most of the times, one speaker will try to dominate over other, silence other one, overtalk and mock other person. Contrary this is a refresher.
Finally I found a place where debates are more sensible and informative. I have seen several debates where rationalists debates with believers but those debates feels more like fight and less like a genuine debate. However, urs is different and gives a true insight into position of both parties. Great job vimoh.
FINALLY! someone who actually forces for someone to admit their position has changed.
I get so frustrated in these discussions where people change their positions and the discussions just go on like nothing has changed. GREAT JOB!!
Really enjoyed this conversation. It exposes Otangelo's bulldog determination to continue the assertion of a god, by highlighting the difference between knowing and being able to show he knows.
Ontangelo is repeating old narratives, But since these are theistic classics 😂 it’s okay to hear again.
There are no new narratives. It's just repackaging. The argument from complexity is the watchmaker argument.
@@vimoh right. The watchmaker argument has never been debunked. Neither by you nor anyone else. Prove me wrong.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom I just told you. Order doesn't imply intelligence. If it did, you would have to conclude every rock was made in a factory. And that every rabbit was handcrafted. The watchmaker argument has been debunked thousands of times. You asserting the opposite without addressing the reason provided changes nothing. You are still free to come on my live stream and talk about this face to face. Come whenever I am live and taking callers.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom my invisible motorcycle helmet has wings , sometimes takes off and goes upon mount yunkai , has an ice cream and comes back after a vacation. Debunk me this ! ....
Anything that is ever asserted, without evidence to back it up, needs to be debunked. And the watchmaker argment is essetially an assertion of idea. Even then, the watchmatker argmnt has been debunked a million times . You need to stop reading only material related to what supports your position and instead read arguements against it .
@@_Stargazer_. haha.ok.
Yes there are flaws in the old man's argument and there's always will be until the evidence but apart from that this is how a debate should go on.
About the multiverse thing, I think it is too self important to assume it doesn't exist. Since if big bang can happen once, why not more? And, if it is possible that there are several other Universes that pop in and out of existence, each with a different set of laws of physics,then some might have a different number for Planck's constant and some a different number for mass of a proton, etc. Only in the Universes where the conditions are just right, like in ours, can life happen and question about it's origins. It's like a cosmic natural selection. Also about the Indian state lottery argument, there are about 200! amount of permutations that are possible, the chances that one person gets them all right are small but not zero.
And where I do not understand Otangelo is, if there was a divine creator, why is his/her existence possible without another creator, but not of the Universe? The universe is not intelligent but the creator is, what is more unlikely to exist without an intelligent creator: a non-intelligent universe or another intelligent creator?
Now you apply Occam's razor and will see that God is a more parsimonious explanation. On top of that, a multiverse would also require an explanation of its existence. You have just kicked the can lower down, without explaining anything.
Great vimoh ♥️👌
I had a friend who told me to meditate to get all the answers. To this I told him that why should I have to go through a procedure to proove your claim? Its your responsibility to get me the evidences about what you're claiming. Then he said, to find that highest power/diety/entity one needs to meditate themselves. He did and realised something which I would able to realise only if I meditate. How do I address to such claims?
Just try it. I tried hindu shiv mantra meditation for a year and half. Except more calmness in my outlook, nothing changed. Just try it, and if it doesnt work, tell them it did not work for me. But i bet they will then say you didnt do it correctly lol
that is the no true scotsman fallacy
He is just arguing on the basis of survivorship bias right?
Any configuration of universal constants which resulted in our existence, would be the only ones we would even be around to observe. It's just a prerequisite from which we cannot make any conclusions.
Any number of previous/other potential universes (which we have no way to know about), unfavourable to our existence would never even have a chance to be observed by their inhabitants.
Claiming that these constants were just "fine-tuned" by an intelligent creator, is just another lazy god-of-the-gaps argument introducing additional complexity into something that might as well be explained by chance.
Exactly.
Perfectly put. And even in the scenario of us being the only observers and this being the only universe, at least the math shows that the parameters don’t necessarily have to have exact same values as now to support current life. It would still support life if they move around in a range of acceptable values. Also, if we change the fundamental constants slightly in a particular way then then it would have been even more favorable for life - meaning this current state is definitely not the “finest” tuned either. It also shows that simultaneous changing of the some of those fundamental parameters would still possibly support life forms (not necessarily carbon based ones). None of these suggests that this universe is “fine tuned” for us or our kind of life forms in particular.
@@avsg2427 it absolutely does !
The universe is designed to accommodate carbon based life .
If gravity was too strong silicon and carbon would not form ANYWHERE in the universe.
You have a poor appreciation of life
@@cedriceric9730 No it doesn’t. You are simply spouting hypothesis from handful of old papers which only try to vary one of the fundamental cosmological constant at a time and come to that conclusion. Gravity is only one such parameter. There are other papers which showed varying multiple of these parameters simultaneously would negate that hypothesis. I don’t have a poor appreciation of life, you just want to feel special. The jury is completely out on this one.
Nice circular argument. The quest is why there are hundreds of parameters that are just right, amongst an infinite number that could be picked, that would either lead to no universe at all, or one without atoms, stars, planets, and life.
Angelo is full of circular reasoning
Time is relative. It's relational. Anything relative can not be eternal.
Time IS relative. But how does that mean it CAN'T be eternal?
@@vimoh any thing relative is subject to entropy. Time and entropy are so closely linked, sometimes I can't distinguish the two. Time as any other phenomena is impermanent. Anything eternal is imperishable. Eternity seems like a thing beyond time. Unaffected by time. Hence eternal. Does time exist in a black hole? What happens to time in and around the black hole? Even black holes perish. Can time exist once the universe ceases to exist?
@@xabdulraheem Your first sentence itself is an assumption
The statement "Anything that is relative is subject to entropy" is not entirely accurate. Entropy is a concept from thermodynamics that measures the level of disorder or randomness in a system. It is associated with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase over time.
Entropy is typically applied to physical systems and processes, such as the mixing of gases, heat transfer, or chemical reactions. It provides a measure of how the energy or particles in a system are distributed and how likely they are to be in a particular state.
While it is true that entropy is often associated with relative changes in a system, it is not limited to relativistic phenomena. The concept of entropy applies to a wide range of systems, both relative and absolute.
In physics, relativity refers to the theory of special relativity or general relativity, which deals with the behavior of objects and the nature of space and time under certain conditions, particularly at high speeds or in the presence of strong gravitational fields. Entropy, on the other hand, is a concept from thermodynamics that is applicable in various contexts, including relativistic and non-relativistic systems.
So, while there may be cases where entropy is considered in relation to relativistic phenomena, the statement that anything relative is subject to entropy is overly broad. Entropy is a concept that applies to a wide range of systems and processes, regardless of their relativity.
pimple thinks the face was built for it ?
A car isn't fine tuned to drive
It just appears to be fine tuned
We know where cars come from. We don't know where universes come from. There is a category error in your argument.
@@vimoh it's absurd reasoning , for example. Even if you see UFO in sky you still won't conclude aliens exist
@@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED. So no, if I see something unidentified flying in the sky,. I won't automatically conclude that life exists on other planets.
@@vimoh yes I know , even seeing something unidentified "Flying" object , you won't be able to conclude a designer
@@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality Did you miss the part where we both agree that it is UNIDENTIFIED? Why would you reach any conclusion when you have not identified what you are seeing?
I think Vimohs position coild have been argued better. There was no need to bring in the point that Stephen Hawking was an atheist. Yes the universe is fine tuned for our existence. But that doesnt mean that its created by god. Parameters could have been different and then it would have been fine tuned for something else.
Accommodating fine tuning is a slippery slope. That is why I didn't go there. The quote he presented contains the word coincidence. So I was kind of going by what Hawking said.
If the expansion rater was different, there would be no universe. If the masses and fundamental forces would be different, there would be no atoms, and no life.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom How do you know there would be no universe? Maybe it would be a different kind of existence. Maybe it's not possible for the expansion rate to be different. You are claiming to know something you can't know. How do you discount all other possibilities?
The eternal point itself gives it out. If you need some beginning to the universe, then why don't you need a beginning to god? There itself lies a fallacy! The correct answer, according to what we know so far, is that we do not know, yet. It's that simple.
If the Big bang is true, then the universe must be a perfect sphere in simplistic terms and it must have a centre. Have the scientists been able to identify the centre of the universe and it's shape?
If it is not a sphere and a amoeboid shape expanding in random directions then how does all matter traces back to a single point if we roll back time? All matter may not converge in a single point but several points.
No. That's not what the big bang means. get your basics right first.
@@vimoh Do you know what is the shape of the universe or not? Yes or No?
No. And neither do you.
Yes they have and it's somewhere around earth since everywhere we look the universe is rushing away from us!
@@cedriceric9730 No
But even if we ASSUME that the universe is actually fine tuned how can we confirm that it is fine tuned for humans or any life form it could just be tuned for the Solar system or something
1st time evah hearing of Vimoh. Anotha win for atheists 🤘😎
We need more discussion about human gods
We have no evidence that it was fine-tuned and nobody can explain how the fine-tuning would have actually worked. So... no, we have no good reason to assume that it was fine-tuned. Doesn't Otangelo also believe that Noahs ark was found? Or was that somebody else?
You're in total disagreement with all modern science yet still manage to think of yourself as making a thoughtful argument.
This is typical
What a dumb thing you wrote!!
Watch atheist experience for better arguments
He kinda funny