You see the biggest and most obvious flaw in this argument is that it puts the cart before the horse, effectively assuming life exists to harbor life when the reality is that life came about and adapted to the universe (and the specific planetary conditions of earth or wherever life may have initially come from at the time of abiogenesis). But there's also the issue of you assuming that life is inherently meaningful or important to the universe, and not just another random aspect of it. Because let's be clear, if we change the starting conditions of the universe, the laws of physics themselves, then something else will still come about. The universe will still exist even if its unrecognizable to us, and if life comes about in that universe then it'll make the same stupid argument, that its version of the universe is specifically tailor made for it despite the fact that almost the entirety of the universe outside of one small, tiny, insignificant, little rock floating through it, is inhospitable to it. A fact that flies in the face of this argument as, if the universe was made to harbor life, it almost certainly would lend much more of itself to doing so.
What are you saying? the flaw in the Big Bang is that it says rationality comes from irrationality, which doesn’t make sense. Also, is there any better explanation for this obviously designed universe other than God? also, since you know so much, you said that if the laws were changed it would make something different and people would still use this argument. What would be different about a universe with changed laws? Could that exist? No it couldn’t, because this universe can only exist with these specific rules.
@KdnfollowsChrist Once again you've put the cart before the horse. Rationality is merely a concept humans have made up to interpret the world around us, it doesn't exist outside of our heads and changes based on our observations of reality. Now as for our particular universe only being possible with these specific rules you are right, different rules create different outcomes, but there has to be outcomes. No matter the starting conditions of the universe something will come about from it and the argument still applies. But the argument is flawed in the fact it assumes that any particular version of the universe is special and/or meaningful. Also the least rational explanation for the universe would be God, because ultimately the notion of God doesn't change anything about the universe beyond making it more complex and difficult to explain. Because as things stand now we don't really need to have a why for anything in the universe, the why is basically just "because that's how physics work", but with God we absolutely do need a why for everything. Why does the universe outside of Earth and our solar system exist? Why is so much of our reality uninhabitable by us? Why do stars explode and emit harmful radiation? And then past that you also must explain how God came to be, because if you want to argue that it's irrational for the universe to come from nothing then you must explain how it is rational for God, an infinitely more complex being than the universe, to come from the same thing.
@@KdnfollowsChrist The order and design of the universe does not point to a creator(I'm not denying the fact that God could exist, just saying the argument doesn't make sense), we would burn or freeze if we were any closer or farther from the sun BECAUSE we adapted to life in this situation, and your argument for gravity causing stars and planets to form "correctly", that is just our idea of correct, if the laws of physics were different, we would think that the "incorrect" stars and planets were correct.
@tnteviecat saying that the order and design of the universe doesn't point to a creator is like saying that 5+5=10 doesn't point to math, what else could explain it?
This is a really good point. But of course, some people are unfortunately too stubborn to listen, even when shown facts.
God bless :)
Facts, God bless! 💙
You see the biggest and most obvious flaw in this argument is that it puts the cart before the horse, effectively assuming life exists to harbor life when the reality is that life came about and adapted to the universe (and the specific planetary conditions of earth or wherever life may have initially come from at the time of abiogenesis). But there's also the issue of you assuming that life is inherently meaningful or important to the universe, and not just another random aspect of it.
Because let's be clear, if we change the starting conditions of the universe, the laws of physics themselves, then something else will still come about. The universe will still exist even if its unrecognizable to us, and if life comes about in that universe then it'll make the same stupid argument, that its version of the universe is specifically tailor made for it despite the fact that almost the entirety of the universe outside of one small, tiny, insignificant, little rock floating through it, is inhospitable to it. A fact that flies in the face of this argument as, if the universe was made to harbor life, it almost certainly would lend much more of itself to doing so.
What are you saying? the flaw in the Big Bang is that it says rationality comes from irrationality, which doesn’t make sense. Also, is there any better explanation for this obviously designed universe other than God? also, since you know so much, you said that if the laws were changed it would make something different and people would still use this argument. What would be different about a universe with changed laws? Could that exist? No it couldn’t, because this universe can only exist with these specific rules.
@KdnfollowsChrist Once again you've put the cart before the horse. Rationality is merely a concept humans have made up to interpret the world around us, it doesn't exist outside of our heads and changes based on our observations of reality.
Now as for our particular universe only being possible with these specific rules you are right, different rules create different outcomes, but there has to be outcomes. No matter the starting conditions of the universe something will come about from it and the argument still applies. But the argument is flawed in the fact it assumes that any particular version of the universe is special and/or meaningful.
Also the least rational explanation for the universe would be God, because ultimately the notion of God doesn't change anything about the universe beyond making it more complex and difficult to explain. Because as things stand now we don't really need to have a why for anything in the universe, the why is basically just "because that's how physics work", but with God we absolutely do need a why for everything. Why does the universe outside of Earth and our solar system exist? Why is so much of our reality uninhabitable by us? Why do stars explode and emit harmful radiation?
And then past that you also must explain how God came to be, because if you want to argue that it's irrational for the universe to come from nothing then you must explain how it is rational for God, an infinitely more complex being than the universe, to come from the same thing.
@@KdnfollowsChrist The order and design of the universe does not point to a creator(I'm not denying the fact that God could exist, just saying the argument doesn't make sense), we would burn or freeze if we were any closer or farther from the sun BECAUSE we adapted to life in this situation, and your argument for gravity causing stars and planets to form "correctly", that is just our idea of correct, if the laws of physics were different, we would think that the "incorrect" stars and planets were correct.
@tnteviecat what do you mean the order and design don't point to a creator, so I'm assuming they point to matter and energy by chance? 🤦♂🤦♂
@tnteviecat saying that the order and design of the universe doesn't point to a creator is like saying that 5+5=10 doesn't point to math, what else could explain it?