@@captainwin6333 i think the religists recruit from janitor school these days, the professors and dr's i see debating on youtube can't be real dr's and professors.
@@zoomingby If any of those refutations were undeniable, unarguable, undebatable, then sure, however by no means has the fine tuning argument been properly conclusively refuted.
@@mobiustriple Virtually nothing in the religious space is going to be "undeniable" "undebatable" etc because bad faith argumentation is a thing. Refusing to capitulate on a strong point is a thing. You can never get someone to cry "uncle" in a religious debate because there's always some fallacious reasoning a person can hide behind, or they can simply reject your premises, or they can pivot to something obscure and tangentially related to muddy the waters. This is why people like Matt Dillahunty can absolutely destroy a religious caller's arguments, and they still leave the conversation being theists. This person has been shutdown 6 ways till Sunday and still it doesn't matter. Let's say the universe WAS fine tuned by some god, Christianity has no way to even prove that it was its god that fine tuned it. Christianity can't prove that other gods don't exist. All it can do is make assertions about its god without offering adequate proof.
I would suggest the constants have values that can be miss described as fine tuned, because all fields arose from the Higgs field at a single point in Spacetime. All shards of glass from a shattered window appear finely tuned to fit together, if one can not conceptualise a window.
I should note:- I am a proponent of the multiverse, though I call my theory, the 'Condensate Flare Theory', in which the Higgs, predates, & is the progenitor, of our & other flares/universes. The Higgs is induced to flare, by energy within itself not at ground state. I suggest this Higgs repulsive force can be seen as both Dark Matter & Dark Energy, also Gravity, which I claim is a repulsive force, Higgs Repulsion.
Fitting parts from a previously larger whole and building a larger whole from discreet, independent pieces that have never previously existed together are not symmetrical processes, so your analogy can't hold. Your analogy also seems to suggest that science is influenced by ignorance. If that is the case, what basis do you have for basing your reasoning on it, including its postulation of the Higgs field? Perhaps the Higgs field is really a manifestation of something else that has been mis-described as a consequence of scientific ignorance, and may not have given rise to the forces you claim for your desperate attempt to explain away the facts you're confronted with!And wouldn't you be delusional for believing what you claim about the Higgs field despite your assertion that scientific findings may be the artifacts of ignorance? 😂
The problem with this analogy is for a window, if we shatter it at any point in any way, there is a way to piece it together to form a window, however with the universe, if you change the values you don't get anywhere near the same result. Maybe ultimately at the end of the universe it ends up the same as any of the other possible universes created by varying the constants by either the universe eventually expanding until it reaches heat death or by contracting into an infinitesimal point, but the current state of the universe we're getting is something we don't believe is possible with a wide range of constants.
I am a proponent of a multiverse, though not any of the popular models. I sense the Higgs is in condensate at ground state & repulses everything not in that position, this results in quantum fluctuations & what I describe as flares but we currently call big bangs. I call my model the Condensate Flare Theory. I believe the Higgs field both predates our universe & is the progenitor of our universe. I see no reason the constants need to vary across a multiverse.
I should also note, that my theory is that Dark Energy, Dark Matter, & Gravity are representations of this Higgs repulsive force. Yes, that gravity is repulsive, & that Gravity Wells should be viewed as Pustules in the Higgs.
The reality is people hate God, they hate goodness, they want to be God of themselves, they dont want to submit to God. Especially the online atheist, so badly they dont want God to exist.
Maybe that’s true for someone people, but that’s not me and it’s not any of my other atheist and ex-Christian friends. I think you shouldn’t be so sweeping in dismissing the reasons that someone like me is an atheist.
I think you're a little misinformed. I'm not convinced that a God exists, even though *I want it to be true.* I want there to be an afterlife. I want there to be justice. I would love it if all my answers about the universe could just be answered by saying "God did that." but the more I've tried to find a convincing enough reason to believe in God, the more I've become convinced that one doesn't exist.
The contants could be like an equation 2+3+5=10. If you change one number you wont get 10, but if you change another number to compensate you will get 10. Thus 3+3+4=10. Considering that we dont even know the full equation yet , like the properties of dark matter and dark energy, we dont fully know what changing the numbers we do know about would do. Or like simultaneous equations where a common solution is the outcome.
This relies on the assumption that if we did have the full equation there would be a large range of values there would be a wider range of acceptable values. In addition to that, some if not all of those constants simply have to be within the "goldilocks range" we find them in as it is regardless what other physical constants happen to be.
Out of all of these debaters, David was the best. His arguments were rational and made sense. He explained scientifically and he explained God in the spectrum of Universe rather than blaming some religions & their believers or giving some stupid experiences & examples of debater's own life. Debate was on God not the religions or religious people. All the other debaters either explained what they believe or called the opposition ignorant, strange and delusional for their beliefs. Nobody gave a single sane scientific reason or any sane evidence of why God is a delusion. They were lacking evidence just because they don't understand What and how God is. The debater who blamed misery of the world unto religion by saying that most miserable people on Earth are the ones who believe in God. He just need to study history that most of the wars are not fought because of the religion. America dropped atom bombs on Japan as a result Japan was in miserable state, so did that misery happen coz Japanese were religious? (Btw japan was and is atheist), America invaded Iraq and killed millions, so Iraqis were in miserable state, bcoz of America or beacuse Iraqis are religious? Jews of Israel believe they are God chosen people and they occupied Palestine, beacuse they believe Palestine is the land God chosed for them, so they are genociding Palestinians since 1948 and Palestine is in miserable condition just because Palestinians are religious? Hunger and poverty rate is so high in America and people are in miserable state beacuse they are religious? Britain invaded Africa, enslaved Africans, cut their hands so Africa was in miserable state bcoz Africans were religious? Afghanistan was invaded by America and Soviet Union, as a result millions of Afghanistanis were killed and were in miserable state just because they were religious? America & others today eating Africa's resources and Africa is in miserable state coz africans are religious? On the contrary Saudi and UAE are the least crime rated countries coz they are religious? Or Arab nations have most of the world's resources (oil, gas) (that America is hungry about) so you think Arabs are so lucky coz they are religious? You must be delusional to believe that misery in the world is bcoz of Religion. It is all the game of System. Game of politics and power. All the poverty, hunger, instability, worst health conditions, insecurity are the products of Capitalism. That's a "debate of System" not the debate of: "religious people are in worst condition coz they believe in God so why would God put them in such state when they are the beleivers of God and vice versa". Seriously?! That's your argument that why God doesn't exist?!These so called Democrats capitalists and poltical leaders want people (whether religious or non religious) to be miserable to fill their pockets, not the God! and they will be sure punish in the Hell. God has told us to implement the system of God on Earth in which everyone lives in freedom, harmony and that will be the duty of his believers (who have established his System) to make sure that everyone gets the food, healthcare, shelter and human rights unlike a Capitalist system in which elites and Capitalists only cares about GDP and their economy no matter who dies of hunger and poverty. They don't care about distribution of resources. They only care about production. And you gonna ask me name one System of God that has implemented such system in which everyone was prosperous, free of poverty and hunger. So yeah that's Islamic System of Khilafah that ruled the world from 622 to 1924 AD. And this system also ended coz in the end their beleivers started compromising laws and rules of the God. But still their religion (rituals and worshipping) is alive but not the system. Islam is actually a social, political, economical system of God including religion. That's another debate. But atleast have some knowledge of world before claiming such things. Also the debaters who were representing Hinduism and Sikhism were more interested in proving their religions right rather than proving why God does exist. Hinduism seems confused to me coz they are like modern version of Christianity who allows everything in their religion surrounding the belief that God is love. Nothing is fixed in their religion, seemed like a philosophy more. They are ready to accept atheism too but not Abrahamic religions for whatever reason. As far i know Hinduism, it is more like spiritual thing like Buddhism rather than being a proper religion. As the matter of religion only Islam and Judaism are those religions that wouldn't dare to change a single thing in their theology. And in Quran (Islamic holy book), God commands his believers to establish and implement his System. In which they have no right to change a single law. And I ask you a simple question if someone kills your loved one would you punish him or not? Should you be called an evil for punishing that murderer? Why aren't you "loving enough" to let go of that murderer? Because this world is a test. Those who commit wrong must get the Punishment. In hell, We will be only punish if we do evil. God doesn't like to put someone in hell but he will put that person in hell who will put someone in this world in hell. These scientists couldn’t even cross the next galaxy yet and they talk about proximities and probabilities of Universe so confidently based on their hypothesis when they failed to explain why there is not even a single flaw in Universe or in the creation of God and what is the purpose of Life. Nobody gave a single reason why God doesn't exist or how science can replace God. Just beacuse you can't see God doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Some decades ago you didn't even see the Blackholes, white holes etc but they do exists too. If a person centuries ago told you that there is something in Universe called blackholes you wouldn't had believed him coz you had not seen Black holes yet. But coz you didn't see yet will not deny their existence. Then i don't know from where peope get the guts to deny the probability of God's existence at all. Btw about Black holes muslims used to believe them (not by the name of blackholes but the concept, function and physical appearance) coz they are written in their book Quran (1450 y/o) & some Muslim scientists researched on that stuff. Thank you for reading this long article of mine. I hope to see more debaters like David in Oxford Union in future.
"The debater who blamed misery of the world unto religion by saying that most miserable people on Earth are the ones who believe in God. He just need to study history that most of the wars are not fought because of the religion." So, your argument is that because most wars weren't fought because of religion, that means the most miserable people aren't the one who believe in God? Your point doesn't invalidate the argument. It's true. Most wars weren't fought because of religion, but the most religious countries in the world are consistently the most poor countries, often with ruthless leaders that want to kill their enemies. On the other hand, the most secular countries are usually rich and powerful and have the happiest population. You can look up the statistics yourself. And if you're too lazy to do that, I'll cite some of them.
@@MrAydinminer don't need to be so desperate!! The most secular countries have waged wars on these poor religious countries. I think you have been sleeping since years that you don't know most of the wars at middle east (religious countries) were imposed by the most secular countries America and Israel. Whole world knows it. Truth is not hidden anymore. What's America doing in Middle East? In fact why the hell is America in the middle east in the first place? And what Israel is doing there? And if the poor countries are poor because they are religious because God wants them to be poor. So according to this argument God exists. Secondly if God doesn't exist then all these wars are because of the wrong system. The point is this has nothing to do with God's existence. And you said that most of the wars that were fought because of the religion. You probably were talking about Israel who have been killing and have occupied Palestine because 3500 years ago their God told them that Israel is their promise land so they have to kill anyone from kids to older to occupy that place. And i don't think I've to tell you statistics of that because this is the most documented Genocide in history. And maybe you were talking about crusaders who used to wage wars in the name of Christianity. And look how they filled the streets of Palestine with blood in history and how this place has only been peaceful under Islamic Caliphate.
That's the poorest argument in the history of arguments. Science is a road, a road of discovery and what we don't know today, we know tomorrow and what we don't know tomorrow, we know the day after just as we know today what we didn't know yesterday. So yes, there are things sceintists do not know today, but you know what? They don't just throw their hands up in the air and give up on the intellectual pursuit of what is currently unknown. That's what the religious do. They don't know something, have no patience for it to become known/discovered or seem to believe that it will never be discovered. It's the willing surrender to ignorance that baffles me from the religious. They choose to believe in something that can not be proven over things that can or accepting things may not be known today, but one day they will be.
Their arguments are bad because they work backwards from the belief that God exists as a pre-supposition, therefore all hypotheses must be explained within that context. It's all post-hoc analysis/beginning with the conclusion before the premises. "I know god exists, therefore everything in the world around us must derive from the brute-force fact that he exists." For example: if suffering exists, its existence must be necessary and its existence must somehow comport with an all loving god, therefore it becomes my task to concoct an explanation that fits within those parameters. And so on and so on, ad nauseam. To the religious this way of thinking makes perfect sense, and it IS the only method, since the god belief itself cannot be questioned: after all, their certainty of eternal hellfire ensures that he finds his way into every analysis and equation.
@@Loveisall--- So what? People who eat cheeseburgers and play video games all day may be happier than the rest too. Further, I would fully expect people who believe that the creator of the universe is their wingman would be happier, just as I would expect children who believe in Santa to be happier too. Just as I would expect a crazy person who believes Superman is his best friend to be happier than most people. But whether people are happier is immaterial to whether or not god actually exists. And you've "seen" miracles, but literally have no way to prove that they're miracles. Guess what? People who believe in other gods have seen miracles performed by their gods too. You can't both be right. Interesting question: how do you two reach a conclusion as to whose god performs miracles and whose god is a delusion?
@@Loveisall--- So Mormons, Hindus, Muslims are all right in their belief, as long as they feel good? Heck, what if an atheist feels himself good in his position?
He seems to be pointing to "we dont know this therefore it justifies god", but his last statement for not accepting there could be an infinite number of universes where at least one would have the constants we have was "we have no contact with and cant know about", but a belief in god is exactly that
No it is not the same. The reason why is that presuming a supreme intelligence created something is based on an observable fact that we notice and percieve intelligence to be fact of life here on earth. We have evidence for intelligence, personality, will and desire. It is an inherent fact of life. So it is an extrapolation based on abundant evidence that intelligence is a feature of the universe and therefore is is plausible that there is a supreme intelligence that has a will, a personality, and desire that could have created something finetuned because we observe that intelligence does exactly that- fine tunes things. The infinite universe answer is simply a logical deduction from the premise that life could not have started through design and creation. There is literally NO observable evidence -- either mathematically or experimentally that points to a conclusion of infinite universes -- and it is an unfalsfiable claim. You can't prove that an infinite amount of objects exist because it would take an infinite mind with an infinite amount of time to do it and an infinite mind to understand that proof.
@@smilyle I agree there's no evidence of infinite universes and it's not something I would try and claim, but even if you think what you see is designed and fine tuned etc, it's still true that "there is no contact and you can't know of it", otherwise extrapolation etc would not be necessary and you could point directly to it
@@smilyleyes, there is apparently intelligent life on earth. But that is not evidence for your a god, let alone a very specific god. That is an assertion that you cannot substantiate in the slightest.
Einstein said, "the difference between ignorance and genius is, genius has its limits" Heymoron: history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm
What a very long-winded way of saying "God did it". Theists, nowadays, are just putting god before the equation of life and reality without having any real proof other than words. This is why math teachers tell you to show your work, kids.
"What a very long-winded way of saying "God did it".", bro do you not understand that that's what any theist argument is, in the same way any atheist argument is a long-winded way of saying "there is no god"...idk I feel like you're pointing out the obvious and not really making the point you think you're making.
The old argument : We can't explain it, therefore GOD. How they hell can you deduce that? And besides, please elaborate, we need a little bit more here!
It seems you missed the point here. You should look up to Leibtnitz Contingency & Ontological argument for this. We don't argue with the god of the gaps at all. We base our arguments for God’s existence that are based on what we do know.
@@Oatmealt I'm quite aware of these arguments and can accept them to some point, however can you describe in detail how you get from this argument to a God (or Gods) who seem to care about relatively petty things like for example what you do on Sundays?
@@fpeverini When you fully understand these arguments you will know how how strong is the evidence for God's existence.We all inherently know that he is Real. Let's first define the terms shall we ? Truth is that which correspondences to reality. Reality is something which tells the state of existence transcending nature & is that which manifests or lies beyond he limits of all possible experience & knowledge, beyond comprehension. Existence is state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. Presuppositions is a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or a course of action. It is something that is assumed in advance or taken for granted. But before diving in let's address a core issue that you don't presuppose and take everything for granted. Wait, I will hold up. When you say that you are not suppressing anything you presupposse that there is a standard of good & evil. Logic and Reason aren't products of science but are purely metaphysical in essence. Justice & Morality - Good & Evil are all metaphysical as well. You can't justify these things through scientific endeavors. Metaphysics is beyond science. As an atheist you cannot invoke that these exist in your worldview because there is no such thing as logic in science. When we do science we presupposse that logic exist. You can't ground these on science so why do you believe these metaphysics to be true? Since atheism is fundamentally related with naturalism which is that nothing exist beyond nature. Nature is all there is and science you atheist scream over theist. Those who discovered science were all Christians during the Age of Enlightenment. Theism started the scientific movement to begin with. As Christians we don't reject science, but we believe in science as a tool to exercise our knowledge through the metaphysical processes that is inherently God given. We can justify our worldview in God. God is the source of all metaphysics. God is also a Maximally Greatest Being which is the Uncaused First Cause of everything. The problem lies with atheism as atheist all believe in metaphysics as real without any evidence of it. Atheist invoke it everytime without even realizing it. Science cannot account for these things. Yet we all know inherently that God has give us this knowledge of metaphysics when he created Adam. The major flaw of atheism is an atheist steals things from theist worldview to make your case. Atheist steal from God to make their case. Have you ever asked why in a purely naturalistic worldview with is fundamental to atheism do you -believe that truth exist -believe that morality exist -believe that laws of logic exist - believe that reason and concious exist. And so on with respect to all metaphysics. An atheist simply believe in these things without any evidence. Atheism in its logical conclusion leads to pure nihilism. Even beliefs are part of metaphysics. An atheist can't account for a single thing and then you have the audacity to point at God and curse at him. Shame. Atheism is dead.
No it was an argument from inference to the best explanation. It is chance, design or necessity, it cant be necessity and it cant be chance, so design is all were left with.
@@Oatmealt you base your assertions on nothing, god himself doesn't allow evidence does he, why you folks keep making utterly stupid statement, that go against what your own god tells you, beats me, dumb i guess.
11:04 "We must choose either a hypothesis that says that there is an infinite number of universes... or you must believe that there is a god" Why *must* we? Can we not just admit that we don't know and that some things are beyond our comprehension? One of these seems more reasonable to me than the other but at the end of the day I would say it's a delusion to assume the truth of any specific conclusion.
This is NOT the god of the gaps fallacy. Theist argue from the information that they do know. We just don't invoke god as the gaps to be filled in, but we say that God is the ontological necessary for everything that begins to exist.
@@OatmealtMaybe we can bridge the gap. “God is the ontological necessity for everything that begins to exist” We understand theists are putting that forward. How can we determine if that sentence is true? True as in the sentence describes reality accurately.
“God doesn’t exist” isn’t a theory, hypothesis, or explanation for “fine tuning” of physical constants. But the fact that we don’t have an alternative explanation to “God did it” is not evidence that “God did it” is true.
The "fine tuning" argument is an argument from ignorance, and a grand non-sequitur or two. It presumes that we know every law of physics, and since those laws do not predict the values we measure that those values are not set by some unknown law but must be set by the will of a sentience. This assumes that there are no unknown laws, that the values in question could have been something else, and the range of that something else is large enough that the range for a viable universe per our present incomplete models is relatively narrow. That is one large heap of untested assumptions and a long leap to sentience being required to set the parameter value. Presumed tunability and presumed fineness and a leap to an intention by a mind that life is the target rather than a side effect of some other target. I agree with his counters to multiverses. His plausible explanation presumes its conclusion.
The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for Theists referring to Ultimate Reality as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of mind (by which they mean, in actual fact, a Universal, Infinite CONSCIOUSNESS). However, it is indeed possible (and factually, is the case) that the foundation of being is Pure Conscious Being Itself. Universal Consciousness Awareness (“Puruṣa” or “Brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristics belonging to Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated prehension, et cetera, and we humans are, in essence, identical in nature. In other words, we are, metaphorically, “God” (“Ahaṁ Brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit). Most postulations for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. According to Idealism, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a reasonable conclusion, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity, is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness.
Your understanding of what an argument from ignorance is, is wrongly applied to the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument is based on what we know to be true about the physical constants. It is a probablistic argument. Your argument is actually an appeal to ignorance. You are stating that the fine-tuning argument is false because we don't know what other laws there could be to prove the universe isn't fine tuned. Because we could discover laws in the future that falsify the fine tuning argument, therefore we can't propose finetuning as a plausibility. You have to refute a theory based off of available evidence or by discovering new evidence to the contrary. You can't refute a theory based off of the plausibity of constradictory evidence. What evidence is there that can be done experimentally that shows that fine tuning is wrong? There is none currently. All of the evidence and observation that we've done over hundreds of years show that the physical constants we know of appear to be fine tuned for life. The best explanation for that based off of evidence is intelligent design by a creator because there is plenty of observable evidence that intelligence is a feature of the universe and intelligence has the power to fine tune things for a specific purpose. There is overwhelming evidence of that from microbes on up to human beings. Is is a reasonable induction that where we see evidence of design implies a designer because that is based off of observation and can be experimented on to show that to be true. If you are going to argue that something that is fine tuned had no designer, you have to be able to prove experimentally how that is possible. You can't appeal to the multiverse hypothesis as a refutation of God unless you can demonstrate they exist otherwise it is an appeal to ignorance.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I do agree with some or youf analysis, so please don't take the following notices of your weak points as an attack on you, solely on the points being made., You provide no backing for "factually is the case" re the foundation of being being consciousness itself. You are drifting into solipsism, conflating that since humans are only aware of the universe indirectly via sensory experience being injected into the machinery that creates our consciousness that nothing actually exists other than thought process. That may be true, but if so then most of philosophy is as useless as it superficially appears even without that consideration. You provide no means to establish that the phrase "Pure Being" can apply to anything that the word 'existence' has any connection to. To talk about attributes of something that you haven't provided a means to perceive is pointless speculation. Beware of how implications can be true despite false premises. If a conclusion is true then you can form an infinite number of true implications with false premises. Truth is conditional upon the axioms applied to each statement. This has an analogy in cosmogenies- that your premised system can create a universe like ours is zero proof that your premised system is real in any sense. That a Pure Being of intellect might have through means totally not modeled bring about the universe as it is, is zero proof of the existence of any Pure Beings, intellectual or otherwise. Since nothing can be known about the intentions of such a Pure Being, nothing is added to the wealth of human knowledge by postulating that such exist.
@@smilyle I do often get the name of fallacies wrong, I am too lazy to look them up. You are attempting to shift the burden here. Those who claim that the parameters are tunable, and that their range is significantly greater than the range that supports life have a burden to demonstrate both of those facts. I am pointing out that they have some major premises for which nobody has presented any supporting data. All they have shown is that IF you make those rather large assumptions then you have to explain WHY the particular values are what they are. Since the initial goal was to explain why the values are what they are the assumptions of tunability provide no increase in human knowledge, they just provide fodder for wild speculation. -- You then go off the rails with "The best explanation for that based off of evidence is intelligent design by a creator because there is plenty of observable evidence that intelligence is a feature of the universe and intelligence has the power to fine tune things for a specific purpose." There is zero evidence in hand of intelligence being a feature of anything other than a handful of organic systems on Earth, and those organic systems can be shown to be prone to making bad models of such things. The prime source of tunedness in nature is "natural selection", the mindless positive feedback of past success on future success. Is there intelligence in a single celled organism following a gradient of chemical concentration to a food source? Is a slime mold solving a maze thinking about topology as they do so?
@@histreeonics7770 You are mischaracterizing the fine-tuning argument. Whether we call it fine-tuning or not. It is a scientific fact that there is no other possibility of life existing in this universe except under conditions that are highly mathematically specific. The argument isn't about whether the parameters are tunable. That is settled. There are no other possibilities of them being tuned another way in THIS universe and life being able to be supported. Those are the facts. People have done highly sophisticated mathematical models to show that no other version of this universe with these physical constants is possible in a way that supports life. The idea that they haven't demonstrated these facts is laughable. That the universe if fine tuned for life is a settled debate. Why is it fine-tuned. There are only two possibilities-- it is that way because of randomness or because of intelligent design. Randomness is not a good argument against rationality of intelligent design as a conclusion because randomness is subsumed by intelligent design. We know based off of observable evidence that intelligence is capable of creating random event generators and creating through randomization -- purposefully or not. There is no shifting the burden in that argument. If we are arguing for intelligent design, and you make a refutation that randomness makes our argument illogical -- then we have to show why it doesn't make it illogical and we have to show why it is unlikely that randomness is the answer. Mathematically it is shown that randomness is improbable, even if it is possible. Then, if it is possible, however small that may be, it still doesn't mean that randomness precludes God as an explanation. That an intelligent designer can use randomization to create is an evidence based belief -- so it is an logical inference that a being outside of creation could have done it. It is a probability. We aren't claiming that intelligent design is knowable with certainty. We are claiming that it is the most probable explanation. This isn't an argument about knowability, it is about probability. God is the most probable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe even if it happened randomly. If you are going to make the claim that other universes are a possible counter explanation, we don't have to consider that as evidence in a theoretical argument because there is no evidence that there are other universes or that their presence is relevant to our own universe in a causal way if they do exist. If there are other possible universes that can support life through different means -- it isn't relevant to whether this universe was created or not.
Interesting observation on string theory's prediction that there might be 10^500 diferent universes out there, and we just happen to be in the one that is best fitted for life, intelligent or orherwise. Unfortunately, according to some predictions, there ARE probably such a number of universes, but they would all happen to be made just with the same properties. Same size, same physical constants, same almost everything. Even same faulty thinking on the part of its smartest creatures. Thanks for the inspiring speech. More on this striking cosmology on demand.
@@mathewsamuel1386 No, its not at all. In fact that's an ignorant statement. If there is a 99.9 percent chance of rain, that percentage is the result of an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is almost certainly going to rain. That's how science works. The averages are based on evidence. If it's currently storming one town over and the doppler shows the storm moving towards your town, you can pretend that its the same as a 1% chance of rain, but you'd be stupid not to at the least, expect rain.
@@mathewsamuel1386 right but there are inherent differences between large probabilities and small ones. If I had a 99.9% chance of dying by jumping off a cliff I would be deluded for thinking I would survive. So no, there are differences. Anyway there is 0% probability that god exists as there is no tangible evidence for “gods” existence.
God is formless, he was there before 'space' was created, he is beyond 'space and time' he was there before big bang, actually, when there was nothing, even 'nothingness' was not, at that point what existed was pure conciousness. Which cannot be described in words, speech cannot reach there. He is the impersonal witness of whole universe, even before and after.
I haven't seen anyone claim that randomness means God isn't real. That's an absurd claim, and you seem to be making a strawman argument. Randomness *can* be a feature of intelligent design, and it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. But why do so many things about the world seem so counter-intuitive? Like for example, why do we have an appendix that has a scarily high chance to randomly fill up with bacteria and cause an infection? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Or tail bones? Unless you believe that the Adam and Eve story was biological and that God didn't really create humans, and evolution is real, there's not really a good explanation for a lot of the weird things in our biology. And also, why do some humans get diseases and die? Do you think they deserved it? Would you say that to their family? Or maybe you think heaven exists and that in reality, their death was a blessing from God. Well in that case, we shouldn't prevent cancer, because we could just die instead and experience eternal bliss. I'd love to hear an answer to any of my questions. And if you do have an answer, I might even get convinced because I really do want God and heaven and the afterlife to be real. That would be a relief, honestly.
Because science currently can’t explain something doesn’t mean you get to say god did it. That’s lazy. If I would have asked dark age Vikings what causes thunder, they would have told me Thor striking his hammer. We know better now, just like things we can’t answer now, I’m sure the answer won’t be magic.
@@TheLiteCrafter How can you say anything is true in metaphysically , be it evidence and claims if you don't even know what truth even means. If there is no truth that terms like claims and evidence don't mean anything at all. Atheism is purely based on materialism and naturalism, and anything that is immaterial can not exist yet things like truth and all metaphysical and abstract things do exist. Things like morality and justice do exist it impossible for materialism to justify immaterial realities that do exist. Well, at least answering my question, you will be able to see how ridiculous your questions are in first place. Claim -> to say that something is true, without having any proof. If you claim anything to be true, then the burden of proof lies on you since you acknowledge that the claim is in correspondence with ultimate reality.. The burden of proof is on you too to show me that there is no god. For example , if you walk in a crime scene, you see pieces of evidence in the crime scene . So let’s a detective. A says, given what I see here, A thinks the best suspect of this is husband did the crime . While in the crime scene the detective B says I disagree as he is also looking at the same evidence and saying no, the daughter is the suspect. Well, both of them have the burden of proof looking at the evidence. Both have different interpretations of reality. A has the case to make for why the husband did it. B has the case to make that why the daughter did it. Something very similar happens when we talk about theism and atheism. The crime scene here would be the universe and how it began and how it exists. As A & B who holds a different worldview We see the same features of the universe, we see it has a beginning, it’s fine tuned , life comes into existence from non life , life appearances to be designed existence of conscious beings , have moral obligations and so on.. These are the features of the universe that both theists and atheists have to explain in reality with reality. As a theist I have to make case why God is the best explanation and as an atheist you have the burden of proof to make as to why atheism makes the best explanation for the cause , ie your suspect is the criminal. You think that we can explain that with space , time , matter, and chemistry, that burden is on you. We both have burdens to show at what happened in the crime scene as A and B ie we both have burden to show that what explanation is the best for reality of our existence both of them are big claims about reality. Don’t be this dishonest to even say that you don’t have a burden of proof. Embrace your duty to make the case not just sit on one side and play skeptic all the time. If you wanna okay skeptical, then guess what? I can do that, too . So please be honest about admitting if at least that atheism is a claim , belief, worldview, and philosophy, and it also has an agenda and propaganda just as any other belief system. It's not merely a lack of belief. A lack of belief is a mere semantics played by the new atheists. It is plausible to say rocks lack belief, but it's not with humans since we all have a belief system and all humans have a worldview. Just as Aristotle said : “Nothing is what rocks dream about”.
Eyes on the front of the head in humans and other predators provide better depth perception, which is crucial for hunting and navigating complex environments. Also, what does it mean for logic to explain God? How does evolution assume logic? Please clarify.
@@MrAydinminer ok forget the word God. Imagine an ideal being what would that being be like? Self sufficient would be good. Sovereign. Transcendent. Infinite. Read Ps 139 first part of the chapter. What can it hurt if not real?
The fine tuning argument is such a trivial one. The claim that we can only find ourselves in this universe if we have PRECISELY this value for the strong force and PRECISELY that value for the weak force and so on and so forth to create PRECISELY this universe is certainly a true claim. But what's also true is that if those values were PRECISELY anything else they would bring about PRECISELY any other equally improbable universe which has just as much probability of producing life of some description in much the same way this one does. There's nothing to suggest that the outcome we witness here and now for the fundamental laws of nature are in any way special or remarkable compared to any other result. To claim that it is, is pure unfalsifiable speculation. Further - even if this outcome was special, it is still not an argument for god. Improbable events occurring are not a proof of divine intervention. The result we witness is certainly incalculably improbable but so are an innumerable number of other outcomes. Just because something is improbable, does not mean it is impossible without some kind of supernatural intervention. A very simple thought experiment to demonstrate this would be if I asked you to roll a 100-billion sided die. No matter what outcome you produce, that outcome will be incredibly unlikely. Does this mean a god must have interfered with your roll? No. You simply produced an unlikely random result - just as unlikely as every other outcome. Whatever result you produced, is it now proof of god because of how unlikely it is? Ofcourse not because the production of an unlikely result is certain when all outcomes are unlikely. Every single result would be a "proof" of god by this logic and so it becomes a tautology. You cannot produce any outcome which is likely because no such outcomes exist. The universe we inhabit is unlikely because it could not be anything but unlikely.
Your argument is just plain wrong and not the view of the experts on the matter. The experts say that if the constants were precisely different there would be no universe to speak of that can have life...PERIOD. There's not an alternative universe to speak of that we know about being possible or can concieve of. That is an appeal to ignorance. If you are going to make that claim, then you have to provide evidence for that alternative universe existing or being plausible. Your argument is speculative. You can't refute a fact based argument based on speculation of an alternative with no evidence of that alternative existing. That is unfalsifiable. The likelihood of a result is relative to the amount of time you had to observe that result. If a being could live to be 100 trillion years old, the roll of a 100 billion sided die would not create unlikely results relative to their perspective. And the result of that roll isn't random -- it is designed into the purpose of the die being built. The unlikeliness of the result is relative to the observer. And what is shows is that things can be made to be random by design or at least appear to be such. Just because something is random, it doesn't prove that it wasn't created to be random. Randomness doesn't prove the absence of intelligent design and is often a feature of intelligent design.
@@smilyle No - my intended point (and I did write it in my comment) is that there is nothing to suggest that this particular outcome for the laws of nature is particularly special in it's proclivity to produce life. It is you who are speculating that this outcome is special or rare in its ability to produce life. Your appeal to authority in saying that "experts tell us" that life wouldn't form is not the solid argument you think it is. We can only say that life wouldn't likely form AS WE KNOW IT, not that it wouldn't form at all. There are *relatively* few variations among the infinite possibilities of the laws of nature which would allow for a universe where carbon exists (as we know it) and, by extension, carbon based life (as we know it) can form which breathes oxygen and so forth. That tells us nothing of a completely alien universe's ability to maintain completely alien forms of life that are utterly incomprehensible within our reality. According to the scientific method itself, the only way we would be able to know of a universe's ability to produce life with completely foreign laws of nature would be to observe it. There is no way to predict it because all of our predictive scientific knowledge is based on our knowledge of our version of nature. However, a universe which abides by different laws of nature would, by definition, be considered supernatural to us. Science, by definition, cannot make any predictions about the supernatural and so there is no "expert" that can make any claim about the likelihood of life existing in a supernatural universe. So, once again, it is not knowable that this particular universe is special or unique in its ability to produce life. It doesn't seem sensible to make the assumption that among an infinite number of possible outcomes only this particular outcome has the ability to produce what we call life. I simply prefer not to make any assumptions about it one way or the other because, like I said, it is not knowable to us. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine but it is you who is speculating. Not me. I'm simply demonstrating why the argument that we live in such a special and precisely tuned universe is not a valid argument. I'm demonstrating that it is a completely fabricated assumption. I'm not making any argument of my own or any claims of my own in its place. Beyond that, even if we grant the idea (although, in reality we cannot) that we know this is a special outcome that doesn't form an argument for god. The occurrence of a remarkable or special outcome is perfectly acceptable without the need for a god to intervene. As for what you mentioned about probability being relative to the observer, you appear to be confused. The probability of a particular outcome of the roll of a die doesn't change with the lifetime of the observer. The probability of each outcome on a fair 100 trillion sided die is exactly 1 in 100 trillion. It always will be. I think you're confusing the concept of sampling a random variable multiple times with the concept of the probability of a particular outcome of a random variable. I'm not sure why you even mention this because it doesn't even address any of my points.
@@sockpastarock7082 You are still making an appeal to ignorance in this reply. We don't know if there are infinite possibilities of other universes. That is a speculation and not a fact. There could be no other possibilities just as well. This could be the only type of universe possible. There could be infinite variations of similar universes to ours, but that have the same type of physical constants as well. While it isn't knowable that this universe is special, it is euqally unknowable that it is not special. So your argument says nothing because you can't prove that there is a more probability that it isn't special -- which is the burden of proof that goes with your claim. You don't understand what makes an appeal to authority a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy when you base it on irrelevant characteristics about that authority figure to the argument at hand. There are times when authority figures are relevant to a specified topic because it is their area of expertise and appealing to what they have to say is rational and appropriate. You misrepresented their position on a topic and I simply corrected you about what they said on the topic. And I stated what the established science is -- that this universe is not possible when you adjust the physical constants. So I made a valid claim, and used authority testimony as support of that claim. God is a good and rational theory for the outcome we have here. That is because intelligence is a feature of our universe, randomness can be a feature of intelligent design, and order is also a feature of intelligent design. We observe that intelligence fine tunes things yet can purposefully creating randomness and random event generators in closed systems. To make the inference that the universe seems to have a perfect combination of design and randomness to support life and that therefore there is an intelligent creator is a scientific conclusion and a logical conclusion because it is based on an abundance of observable evidence and not speculation that has no evidence whats so ever. Just because an occurance happened randomly, it doesn't mean it wasn't designed to be a random outcome out of several possibilities. Even if we grant that that this is just one of several types of finetunings, it would still be rational to believe that it could have been done through a randomizer that was intelligently designed. While finetuning doesn't prove God, the idea that our universe is created at random doesn't make the presumption of God illogical by default because it is an evidence based belief that intelligent beings can create events through randomizers. As for the die, my point isn't about probability - it is about likelihood. I understand that the probability remains the same, but the concept of it being unlikely is relative to the observer. Given enough time to observe enough rolls of that die, or given the capacity to run enough simulations of that roll fast enough -- what makes any number showing up an unlikely outcome is relative to either the amount of time an observer has available to witness enough rolls or how fast they can witness enough rolls. Likelihood is a relative concept
@@smilyle I am not saying this outcome is or is not likely. I am saying it is unknowable and therefore when someone speculates that this outcome is highly unlikely and therefore requires significant tuning - that is an argument based on speculation because the premise of that claim is unknowable. My whole point is that it is unknowable. You say this is an appeal to ignorance as though that somehow dismisses my whole point but it doesn't. To say that a universe which produces life is unlikely or that it requires fine tuning is pure speculation. I am not the one making any claims about the probabilities one way or the other. Thus there is no burden upon me to prove any probabilities one way or the other. The burden upon me is to provide the epistemic argument for why I am refuting the claim upon epistemic grounds and I have done that. Because based on the epistemology of the scientific method, we cannot make any predictive claims whatsoever about the supernatural. There is no arguing out of that. Nice try though. The appeal to authority as I outlined it is a fallacy because no "expert" can have the relevant knowledge of the supernatural in order to say that a supernatural universe can or cannot produce life. Therefore, claiming that "experts say" life is unlikely in supernatural universes is a fallacy because by the epistemology of the scientific method there cannot exist anyone who is an expert about the supernatural. Your arguments about god being a rational conclusion are not well founded. You say it's a logical conclusion because intelligence is a feature of our universe but that would require you to speculate that this infers god as the logical reason for that. Such speculation is not justified because a random universe can produce the exact same intelligence. You might wish to say that this would be incredibly unlikely with pure randomness but then you would be making the fine-tuning argument and I would refer you back to my original point which is that you cannot know if it is likely or not. I don't contest the idea that a designer could design randomness. The existence of God is perfectly compatible within a purely random universe - that's one of the features of the argument of God's existence being unfalsifiable; it's compatible with any and all conceptions of the universe. It can, by design, literally never be disproved, much like the tooth fairy. However, randomness can also produce randomness without a designer. Intelligence and order are also products of randomness that we observe in nature as well so there is no need to speculate that a god or a designer exists here. It is certainly a possibility but it's not remotely a necessity. I'm not making a claim here about the existence or non-existence of a god. I'm simply refuting your argument that this reasoning produces any form of coherently logical argument for the existence of a god based on the reasoning you have provided. It simply does not move the needle one way or the other towards the existence or non-existence of a god. As for the die - yes, that's what I wrote above. You're not talking about the probability of an event. You're talking about the idea of taking a number of samples of outcomes of a random variable. I still don't see how this is relevant to supporting any of your arguments. If anything, suggesting that we have infinite (or otherwise a very large number of) attempts of rolling the die to produce this universe would support the idea that no intelligent design was needed to reach this particular outcome.
@@sockpastarock7082 1) You are strawmaning the creationist position on fine tuning, and you aren't correctly characterizing the fine-tuning position scientifically. It is a scientific fact that the universe is fine tuned for life. PERIOD. That isn't up for debate. There is no other possibility of a life existing in THIS universe based off of the physical constants we know exist. The innvocation of other potential or hypothetical universes is irrelevent to the discussion about whether this type of universe can support life or not had the physical constants be any different. So you are wrong that it is unknowable. The experts who study this for a living say based off of epistomology sound arguments that this universe, with these physical constants existing in the ratios and proportions that they do is the only possible way that this universe can support life. The argument is about why it is fine-tuned. The God theory is the best possible theory because it is based off of evidence that intelligent beings can fine tune things and design things, and that randomization doesn't not preclude intelligent design and can be a sign of intelligent design. The multiverse or infiniverse theory has no evidence to make a logical assumption and if it does the evidence is weak. 2) The idea of this universe being a special case is not relevant to that discussion. We don't invoke the idea of specialness in our arguments. The facts are that this universe can't support life without the fine-tuning that exists. You may be arguing that what we observe isn't fine-tuning but that it is by chance and happenstance -- but that is the point I am arguing -- chance and happenstance don't preclude intelligent design being a possibility. We aren't claiming to know that it is God with the level of certaintly you are requiring. We are making a probablistic argument that it is highly likely that it is design based off of evidence that randomization can't logically create the specificity of fine-tuning that we see. That conclusion is based off of very sophisticaed mathematical models. Could it be random -- yes but the probability is low based off of what we know about this universe and how it works. Intelligent design is a better theory than randomnessness because you can't show experimentally how randomness can create complex objects. There are people who've studied this --- it can't be shown scientifically. You have to demonstrate how randomness can create complex things and you can't. What we can demonstrate is that intelligence can create highly specific things. There is much more evidnece for that argument. It isn't a supernatural argument. It is evidence based. We know that intellgence exists -- and with all of the UAP showing up, that the universe has other intelligent life forms is gaining strenght as an idea. The argumen for randomness creating things isn't evidence based. It is speculative. You can't invoke hypotheticals possibilities to refute facts.
Religion is in a constant retreat with science. If it continues like this there won't be much left. btw 1^500 is so incredible much bigger than 1^120 you could say its inevitable to have such fine constants so he contradicted himself. but string theory is only a theory... like god. this was a poor performance
That isn't an argument. Here is an analogy as to why it isn't an argument. 100 highly trained marksmen stand roughly 10 feet from me and are told to shoot me. They all fire, yet I live, not a single shot has landed on me. I could try and figure out what happened and ponder this phenomena or I could simply shrug off the deeply puzzling mystery by saying "It isn't a mystery or surprising at all that they didn't hit me! If they did, I wouldn't be around to observe it!"
@@JamesSCameron1search up quantum immortality, of course everything in this universe has been fine tuned to fit our existence because if it didnt we wouldnt be around to witness it (although i recognize this argument rests on the multiverse theory)
Yeah... Long long time ago, many people look like you, ask about this title, why we workship something or someone who can not be seen... Jews asked to Moses, we wanted see God Allah... Give us, delicious foods... I wanna eat sky foods... Many... very very a lot... Just follow the kindness that brought by His prophets, those are good things that must be preserved, then your life and every thing around look more kind... People who asks about this, like you ask, they are worried about them selves, because run to far, outside... Blessing, not comes perhaps, they follow the curse, then they don't figure out... perhaps too... We are human, many sin... Try to be good... i wanna make equivalent, sorry, that's fine, right... then we will know the correct is, no blurr here again... Atheism better to be seen then we workship some thing beside God Allah, if those knowledge come then you don't implent good, you gotta sin, atheism will be wrong if they know... 🌐🇬🇧❤️
Freewill doesn't exist. Either something hidden precedes your thoughts (a process you have no control over), or your thoughts are random. In either case, you are not in control.
@@KonaduKofi Yes. However, it turns out there is no such thing as free will, so the fact that it would debunk something if it existed doesn't mean very much.
This guy is just bullshitting and vomiting here what he was told to shout out at! Makes no sense...just acronyms, jargons and false permutations to confuse the public!
The truth is that there are indeed infinite number of universes. And yes all those infinite universes and all their constituents are all MADE OF ONE CONSCIOUSNESS. We are all the same consciousness. Separation is an illusion. There is no other, there is only one metaphysical consciousness that is creating infinite physical realities. All planets, stars, galaxies, people and animals are all representations of that same one infinite consciousness. The truth is, that you are the universe experiencing itself in infinite forms. ❤❤❤
I do find it amusing to listen to earthworms, on both sides of the question, presume to debate the nature of the infinite universe. Not the observable universe, the infinite universe. That's all any of us are, relative to the questions of infinity, no smarter than earthworms.
Just Survivorship bias. He would not have been here to debate this issue if our universe had different physical constants. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
While Science can't explain and confirm the origin of the Universe, it is asinine to assert a god is the creator. Logan is posting a god of the gaps explanation and combining it with an argument from ignorance!
Is this seriously the level of debate at the Oxford union.
I'd expect the university's janitor would have produced a better argument.
@@captainwin6333 i think the religists recruit from janitor school these days, the professors and dr's i see debating on youtube can't be real dr's and professors.
New Oxford Union is not as old.
Ridiculous.
@@captainwin6333😂 “do you like apples?! Well I got a number. How do you like them apples?!”
The young man didnt provide a shred of evidence. But using classical old arguements repackaged in 2023.
Yup, he’s a twit. Would have thought he’d be a bit smarter than that.
The arguments will never improve since they don't proceed from reason, but from faith, which is literally the absence of evidence.
@santanoschsantosch3016 Still standing according to who? There are several refutations of fine tuning.
@@zoomingby If any of those refutations were undeniable, unarguable, undebatable, then sure, however by no means has the fine tuning argument been properly conclusively refuted.
@@mobiustriple Virtually nothing in the religious space is going to be "undeniable" "undebatable" etc because bad faith argumentation is a thing. Refusing to capitulate on a strong point is a thing. You can never get someone to cry "uncle" in a religious debate because there's always some fallacious reasoning a person can hide behind, or they can simply reject your premises, or they can pivot to something obscure and tangentially related to muddy the waters. This is why people like Matt Dillahunty can absolutely destroy a religious caller's arguments, and they still leave the conversation being theists. This person has been shutdown 6 ways till Sunday and still it doesn't matter. Let's say the universe WAS fine tuned by some god, Christianity has no way to even prove that it was its god that fine tuned it. Christianity can't prove that other gods don't exist. All it can do is make assertions about its god without offering adequate proof.
Not being able to explain the universe doesn't automatically mean God.
It does if the argument from ignorance fallacy dominates your thought process.
@@santanoschsantosch3016 Yeah, we know. Sky Daddy created the universe. Very convincing stuff.
@@zoomingby Sure, until you can show that you are existing without your dad's sperm and your mom's ova.
Life has always existed in the universe that's the only explanation but humans don't have the ability to comprehend such complex matters.
God of the Gaps...like wtf it's 2024 we don't need bullshit claims about a sky daddy watching us, especially in the bedroom
I would suggest the constants have values that can be miss described as fine tuned, because all fields arose from the Higgs field at a single point in Spacetime.
All shards of glass from a shattered window appear finely tuned to fit together, if one can not conceptualise a window.
I should note:- I am a proponent of the multiverse, though I call my theory, the 'Condensate Flare Theory', in which the Higgs, predates, & is the progenitor, of our & other flares/universes.
The Higgs is induced to flare, by energy within itself not at ground state.
I suggest this Higgs repulsive force can be seen as both Dark Matter & Dark Energy, also Gravity, which I claim is a repulsive force, Higgs Repulsion.
Fitting parts from a previously larger whole and building a larger whole from discreet, independent pieces that have never previously existed together are not symmetrical processes, so your analogy can't hold. Your analogy also seems to suggest that science is influenced by ignorance. If that is the case, what basis do you have for basing your reasoning on it, including its postulation of the Higgs field? Perhaps the Higgs field is really a manifestation of something else that has been mis-described as a consequence of scientific ignorance, and may not have given rise to the forces you claim for your desperate attempt to explain away the facts you're confronted with!And wouldn't you be delusional for believing what you claim about the Higgs field despite your assertion that scientific findings may be the artifacts of ignorance? 😂
The problem with this analogy is for a window, if we shatter it at any point in any way, there is a way to piece it together to form a window, however with the universe, if you change the values you don't get anywhere near the same result. Maybe ultimately at the end of the universe it ends up the same as any of the other possible universes created by varying the constants by either the universe eventually expanding until it reaches heat death or by contracting into an infinitesimal point, but the current state of the universe we're getting is something we don't believe is possible with a wide range of constants.
I am a proponent of a multiverse, though not any of the popular models.
I sense the Higgs is in condensate at ground state & repulses everything not in that position, this results in quantum fluctuations & what I describe as flares but we currently call big bangs.
I call my model the Condensate Flare Theory.
I believe the Higgs field both predates our universe & is the progenitor of our universe.
I see no reason the constants need to vary across a multiverse.
I should also note, that my theory is that Dark Energy, Dark Matter, & Gravity are representations of this Higgs repulsive force.
Yes, that gravity is repulsive, & that Gravity Wells should be viewed as Pustules in the Higgs.
The reality is people hate God, they hate goodness, they want to be God of themselves, they dont want to submit to God. Especially the online atheist, so badly they dont want God to exist.
Maybe that’s true for someone people, but that’s not me and it’s not any of my other atheist and ex-Christian friends. I think you shouldn’t be so sweeping in dismissing the reasons that someone like me is an atheist.
Actually. The reality is that there is no evidence for any God, including yours.
@@Martijnvw83 Ok, if you say so.
I think you're a little misinformed. I'm not convinced that a God exists, even though *I want it to be true.* I want there to be an afterlife. I want there to be justice. I would love it if all my answers about the universe could just be answered by saying "God did that." but the more I've tried to find a convincing enough reason to believe in God, the more I've become convinced that one doesn't exist.
The contants could be like an equation 2+3+5=10.
If you change one number you wont get 10, but if you change another number to compensate you will get 10.
Thus 3+3+4=10.
Considering that we dont even know the full equation yet , like the properties of dark matter and dark energy, we dont fully know what changing the numbers we do know about would do.
Or like simultaneous equations where a common solution is the outcome.
This relies on the assumption that if we did have the full equation there would be a large range of values there would be a wider range of acceptable values. In addition to that, some if not all of those constants simply have to be within the "goldilocks range" we find them in as it is regardless what other physical constants happen to be.
Oh no there's gaps in our knowledge! Quick stick God in it or everything will fall apart!!!
POV: you didn't actually listen to the argument
Out of all of these debaters, David was the best. His arguments were rational and made sense. He explained scientifically and he explained God in the spectrum of Universe rather than blaming some religions & their believers or giving some stupid experiences & examples of debater's own life. Debate was on God not the religions or religious people. All the other debaters either explained what they believe or called the opposition ignorant, strange and delusional for their beliefs. Nobody gave a single sane scientific reason or any sane evidence of why God is a delusion. They were lacking evidence just because they don't understand What and how God is. The debater who blamed misery of the world unto religion by saying that most miserable people on Earth are the ones who believe in God. He just need to study history that most of the wars are not fought because of the religion. America dropped atom bombs on Japan as a result Japan was in miserable state, so did that misery happen coz Japanese were religious? (Btw japan was and is atheist), America invaded Iraq and killed millions, so Iraqis were in miserable state, bcoz of America or beacuse Iraqis are religious? Jews of Israel believe they are God chosen people and they occupied Palestine, beacuse they believe Palestine is the land God chosed for them, so they are genociding Palestinians since 1948 and Palestine is in miserable condition just because Palestinians are religious? Hunger and poverty rate is so high in America and people are in miserable state beacuse they are religious? Britain invaded Africa, enslaved Africans, cut their hands so Africa was in miserable state bcoz Africans were religious? Afghanistan was invaded by America and Soviet Union, as a result millions of Afghanistanis were killed and were in miserable state just because they were religious? America & others today eating Africa's resources and Africa is in miserable state coz africans are religious? On the contrary Saudi and UAE are the least crime rated countries coz they are religious? Or Arab nations have most of the world's resources (oil, gas) (that America is hungry about) so you think Arabs are so lucky coz they are religious? You must be delusional to believe that misery in the world is bcoz of Religion. It is all the game of System. Game of politics and power. All the poverty, hunger, instability, worst health conditions, insecurity are the products of Capitalism. That's a "debate of System" not the debate of: "religious people are in worst condition coz they believe in God so why would God put them in such state when they are the beleivers of God and vice versa". Seriously?! That's your argument that why God doesn't exist?!These so called Democrats capitalists and poltical leaders want people (whether religious or non religious) to be miserable to fill their pockets, not the God! and they will be sure punish in the Hell. God has told us to implement the system of God on Earth in which everyone lives in freedom, harmony and that will be the duty of his believers (who have established his System) to make sure that everyone gets the food, healthcare, shelter and human rights unlike a Capitalist system in which elites and Capitalists only cares about GDP and their economy no matter who dies of hunger and poverty. They don't care about distribution of resources. They only care about production.
And you gonna ask me name one System of God that has implemented such system in which everyone was prosperous, free of poverty and hunger. So yeah that's Islamic System of Khilafah that ruled the world from 622 to 1924 AD. And this system also ended coz in the end their beleivers started compromising laws and rules of the God. But still their religion (rituals and worshipping) is alive but not the system. Islam is actually a social, political, economical system of God including religion. That's another debate. But atleast have some knowledge of world before claiming such things.
Also the debaters who were representing Hinduism and Sikhism were more interested in proving their religions right rather than proving why God does exist. Hinduism seems confused to me coz they are like modern version of Christianity who allows everything in their religion surrounding the belief that God is love. Nothing is fixed in their religion, seemed like a philosophy more. They are ready to accept atheism too but not Abrahamic religions for whatever reason. As far i know Hinduism, it is more like spiritual thing like Buddhism rather than being a proper religion. As the matter of religion only Islam and Judaism are those religions that wouldn't dare to change a single thing in their theology. And in Quran (Islamic holy book), God commands his believers to establish and implement his System. In which they have no right to change a single law.
And I ask you a simple question if someone kills your loved one would you punish him or not? Should you be called an evil for punishing that murderer? Why aren't you "loving enough" to let go of that murderer? Because this world is a test. Those who commit wrong must get the Punishment. In hell, We will be only punish if we do evil. God doesn't like to put someone in hell but he will put that person in hell who will put someone in this world in hell. These scientists couldn’t even cross the next galaxy yet and they talk about proximities and probabilities of Universe so confidently based on their hypothesis when they failed to explain why there is not even a single flaw in Universe or in the creation of God and what is the purpose of Life. Nobody gave a single reason why God doesn't exist or how science can replace God. Just beacuse you can't see God doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Some decades ago you didn't even see the Blackholes, white holes etc but they do exists too. If a person centuries ago told you that there is something in Universe called blackholes you wouldn't had believed him coz you had not seen Black holes yet. But coz you didn't see yet will not deny their existence. Then i don't know from where peope get the guts to deny the probability of God's existence at all. Btw about Black holes muslims used to believe them (not by the name of blackholes but the concept, function and physical appearance) coz they are written in their book Quran (1450 y/o) & some Muslim scientists researched on that stuff.
Thank you for reading this long article of mine. I hope to see more debaters like David in Oxford Union in future.
"The debater who blamed misery of the world unto religion by saying that most miserable people on Earth are the ones who believe in God. He just need to study history that most of the wars are not fought because of the religion."
So, your argument is that because most wars weren't fought because of religion, that means the most miserable people aren't the one who believe in God?
Your point doesn't invalidate the argument. It's true. Most wars weren't fought because of religion, but the most religious countries in the world are consistently the most poor countries, often with ruthless leaders that want to kill their enemies. On the other hand, the most secular countries are usually rich and powerful and have the happiest population. You can look up the statistics yourself. And if you're too lazy to do that, I'll cite some of them.
@@MrAydinminer don't need to be so desperate!! The most secular countries have waged wars on these poor religious countries. I think you have been sleeping since years that you don't know most of the wars at middle east (religious countries) were imposed by the most secular countries America and Israel. Whole world knows it. Truth is not hidden anymore. What's America doing in Middle East? In fact why the hell is America in the middle east in the first place? And what Israel is doing there?
And if the poor countries are poor because they are religious because God wants them to be poor. So according to this argument God exists. Secondly if God doesn't exist then all these wars are because of the wrong system. The point is this has nothing to do with God's existence.
And you said that most of the wars that were fought because of the religion. You probably were talking about Israel who have been killing and have occupied Palestine because 3500 years ago their God told them that Israel is their promise land so they have to kill anyone from kids to older to occupy that place. And i don't think I've to tell you statistics of that because this is the most documented Genocide in history.
And maybe you were talking about crusaders who used to wage wars in the name of Christianity. And look how they filled the streets of Palestine with blood in history and how this place has only been peaceful under Islamic Caliphate.
It's just a debate, they do it for fun.
That's the poorest argument in the history of arguments. Science is a road, a road of discovery and what we don't know today, we know tomorrow and what we don't know tomorrow, we know the day after just as we know today what we didn't know yesterday. So yes, there are things sceintists do not know today, but you know what? They don't just throw their hands up in the air and give up on the intellectual pursuit of what is currently unknown.
That's what the religious do. They don't know something, have no patience for it to become known/discovered or seem to believe that it will never be discovered.
It's the willing surrender to ignorance that baffles me from the religious. They choose to believe in something that can not be proven over things that can or accepting things may not be known today, but one day they will be.
Their arguments are bad because they work backwards from the belief that God exists as a pre-supposition, therefore all hypotheses must be explained within that context. It's all post-hoc analysis/beginning with the conclusion before the premises. "I know god exists, therefore everything in the world around us must derive from the brute-force fact that he exists." For example: if suffering exists, its existence must be necessary and its existence must somehow comport with an all loving god, therefore it becomes my task to concoct an explanation that fits within those parameters. And so on and so on, ad nauseam. To the religious this way of thinking makes perfect sense, and it IS the only method, since the god belief itself cannot be questioned: after all, their certainty of eternal hellfire ensures that he finds his way into every analysis and equation.
Strawmanning us and the argument entirely.
@@Loveisall--- So what? People who eat cheeseburgers and play video games all day may be happier than the rest too. Further, I would fully expect people who believe that the creator of the universe is their wingman would be happier, just as I would expect children who believe in Santa to be happier too. Just as I would expect a crazy person who believes Superman is his best friend to be happier than most people. But whether people are happier is immaterial to whether or not god actually exists. And you've "seen" miracles, but literally have no way to prove that they're miracles. Guess what? People who believe in other gods have seen miracles performed by their gods too. You can't both be right. Interesting question: how do you two reach a conclusion as to whose god performs miracles and whose god is a delusion?
@@Loveisall---
What I read: "it makes me feel good, so it must be true."
Do you think this is a reliable path to truth?
@@Loveisall---
So Mormons, Hindus, Muslims are all right in their belief, as long as they feel good?
Heck, what if an atheist feels himself good in his position?
He seems to be pointing to "we dont know this therefore it justifies god", but his last statement for not accepting there could be an infinite number of universes where at least one would have the constants we have was "we have no contact with and cant know about", but a belief in god is exactly that
No it is not the same. The reason why is that presuming a supreme intelligence created something is based on an observable fact that we notice and percieve intelligence to be fact of life here on earth. We have evidence for intelligence, personality, will and desire. It is an inherent fact of life. So it is an extrapolation based on abundant evidence that intelligence is a feature of the universe and therefore is is plausible that there is a supreme intelligence that has a will, a personality, and desire that could have created something finetuned because we observe that intelligence does exactly that- fine tunes things. The infinite universe answer is simply a logical deduction from the premise that life could not have started through design and creation. There is literally NO observable evidence -- either mathematically or experimentally that points to a conclusion of infinite universes -- and it is an unfalsfiable claim. You can't prove that an infinite amount of objects exist because it would take an infinite mind with an infinite amount of time to do it and an infinite mind to understand that proof.
@@smilyle I agree there's no evidence of infinite universes and it's not something I would try and claim, but even if you think what you see is designed and fine tuned etc, it's still true that "there is no contact and you can't know of it", otherwise extrapolation etc would not be necessary and you could point directly to it
@@smilyleyes, there is apparently intelligent life on earth. But that is not evidence for your a god, let alone a very specific god. That is an assertion that you cannot substantiate in the slightest.
wow this is the same level of arguments you would find in preschool
Einstein said, "the difference between ignorance and genius is, genius has its limits"
Heymoron: history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm
What a very long-winded way of saying "God did it". Theists, nowadays, are just putting god before the equation of life and reality without having any real proof other than words. This is why math teachers tell you to show your work, kids.
they've run out of things to justify belief.
"What a very long-winded way of saying "God did it".", bro do you not understand that that's what any theist argument is, in the same way any atheist argument is a long-winded way of saying "there is no god"...idk I feel like you're pointing out the obvious and not really making the point you think you're making.
Compared to Alex, this guy is embarrasing
The old argument : We can't explain it, therefore GOD. How they hell can you deduce that? And besides, please elaborate, we need a little bit more here!
It seems you missed the point here. You should look up to Leibtnitz Contingency & Ontological argument for this.
We don't argue with the god of the gaps at all. We base our arguments for God’s existence that are based on what we do know.
@@Oatmealt I'm quite aware of these arguments and can accept them to some point, however can you describe in detail how you get from this argument to a God (or Gods) who seem to care about relatively petty things like for example what you do on Sundays?
@@fpeverini When you fully understand these arguments you will know how how strong is the evidence for God's existence.We all inherently know that he is Real.
Let's first define the terms shall we ?
Truth is that which correspondences to reality.
Reality is something which tells the state of existence transcending nature & is that which manifests or lies beyond he limits of all possible experience & knowledge, beyond comprehension.
Existence is state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.
Presuppositions is a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or a course of action. It is something that is assumed in advance or taken for granted.
But before diving in let's address a core issue that you don't presuppose and take everything for granted.
Wait, I will hold up. When you say that you are not suppressing anything you presupposse that there is a standard of good & evil.
Logic and Reason aren't products of science but are purely metaphysical in essence.
Justice & Morality - Good & Evil are all metaphysical as well.
You can't justify these things through scientific endeavors. Metaphysics is beyond science. As an atheist you cannot invoke that these exist in your worldview because there is no such thing as logic in science. When we do science we presupposse that logic exist.
You can't ground these on science so why do you believe these metaphysics to be true?
Since atheism is fundamentally related with naturalism which is that nothing exist beyond nature. Nature is all there is and science you atheist scream over theist.
Those who discovered science were all Christians during the Age of Enlightenment. Theism started the scientific movement to begin with.
As Christians we don't reject science, but we believe in science as a tool to exercise our knowledge through the metaphysical processes that is inherently God given. We can justify our worldview in God. God is the source of all metaphysics. God is also a Maximally Greatest Being which is the Uncaused First Cause of everything.
The problem lies with atheism as atheist all believe in metaphysics as real without any evidence of it. Atheist invoke it everytime without even realizing it. Science cannot account for these things. Yet we all know inherently that God has give us this knowledge of metaphysics when he created Adam.
The major flaw of atheism is an atheist steals things from theist worldview to make your case. Atheist steal from God to make their case.
Have you ever asked why in a purely naturalistic worldview with is fundamental to atheism do you
-believe that truth exist
-believe that morality exist
-believe that laws of logic exist
- believe that reason and concious exist.
And so on with respect to all metaphysics.
An atheist simply believe in these things without any evidence. Atheism in its logical conclusion leads to pure nihilism.
Even beliefs are part of metaphysics. An atheist can't account for a single thing and then you have the audacity to point at God and curse at him. Shame. Atheism is dead.
No it was an argument from inference to the best explanation. It is chance, design or necessity, it cant be necessity and it cant be chance, so design is all were left with.
@@Oatmealt you base your assertions on nothing, god himself doesn't allow evidence does he, why you folks keep making utterly stupid statement, that go against what your own god tells you, beats me, dumb i guess.
Let me riddle you this if we took 10 steps forward then 5 backwards then 35 forward then 100 backwards then 50 forward then where and when would we be
10 steps back from where you started.
We would be right were we started
Because the end is the same as the beginning
what are you, some kind of nut? who cares?
@@GrahamRoss-or6uz jesus you're so profound makes me want to rush out, become a christian, then leave.
11:04 "We must choose either a hypothesis that says that there is an infinite number of universes... or you must believe that there is a god"
Why *must* we? Can we not just admit that we don't know and that some things are beyond our comprehension? One of these seems more reasonable to me than the other but at the end of the day I would say it's a delusion to assume the truth of any specific conclusion.
Great anecdotes...
The claim that a God created the universe creates another, bigger question; "Where did God come from?"
They claim that god did it without a shred of evidence that any god exists or that it created anything.
Oh, God, he/ she, binary whatever transcends 'time and space'. No evidence is necessary, lol.
@@jacobcohen9205 That's as close to a mic drop moment that a Christian can get.
Where did you come from your perants the BIG BANG WAS THE BIRTH OF GOD THE BIRTH OF OUR UNIVERSE
@@anonamouse5917 If you say so, Chuck.
This argument is a typical god of the gaps fallacy. Apologists been claiming this nonsense for millennia.
This is NOT the god of the gaps fallacy. Theist argue from the information that they do know. We just don't invoke god as the gaps to be filled in, but we say that God is the ontological necessary for everything that begins to exist.
@@OatmealtMaybe we can bridge the gap.
“God is the ontological necessity for everything that begins to exist”
We understand theists are putting that forward.
How can we determine if that sentence is true?
True as in the sentence describes reality accurately.
@@HIIIBEAR Ontological argument & Leibtnitz Contingency are enough to back up & logical conclude for the existence of God.
@@HIIIBEAR Before you go further I just want to point it out that under atheism there is no justification for the term truth exists.
@@Oatmealt you’re using an argument to determine truth about reality? Why not use reality to determine if the argument is true like we do for science?
“God doesn’t exist” isn’t a theory, hypothesis, or explanation for “fine tuning” of physical constants. But the fact that we don’t have an alternative explanation to “God did it” is not evidence that “God did it” is true.
Old arguments bring nothing new to the table or the alter, perhaps.
Yes it's true that science can't explain everything about universe.
One should read ancient Indian scriptures
Explanations without evidence are a dime a dozen. In another words, easy to find or make up, and worthless.
But every day, science can explain a bit more.
meh.
😂😂nice joke
I mean buddhism jainism charvaks ajiviks are great but science is far better
The "fine tuning" argument is an argument from ignorance, and a grand non-sequitur or two.
It presumes that we know every law of physics, and since those laws do not predict the values we measure that those values are not set by some unknown law but must be set by the will of a sentience. This assumes that there are no unknown laws, that the values in question could have been something else, and the range of that something else is large enough that the range for a viable universe per our present incomplete models is relatively narrow. That is one large heap of untested assumptions and a long leap to sentience being required to set the parameter value.
Presumed tunability and presumed fineness and a leap to an intention by a mind that life is the target rather than a side effect of some other target.
I agree with his counters to multiverses.
His plausible explanation presumes its conclusion.
The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for Theists referring to Ultimate Reality as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of mind (by which they mean, in actual fact, a Universal, Infinite CONSCIOUSNESS). However, it is indeed possible (and factually, is the case) that the foundation of being is Pure Conscious Being Itself. Universal Consciousness Awareness (“Puruṣa” or “Brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristics belonging to Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated prehension, et cetera, and we humans are, in essence, identical in nature. In other words, we are, metaphorically, “God” (“Ahaṁ Brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit).
Most postulations for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. According to Idealism, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a reasonable conclusion, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity, is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness.
Your understanding of what an argument from ignorance is, is wrongly applied to the fine tuning argument. The fine tuning argument is based on what we know to be true about the physical constants. It is a probablistic argument. Your argument is actually an appeal to ignorance. You are stating that the fine-tuning argument is false because we don't know what other laws there could be to prove the universe isn't fine tuned. Because we could discover laws in the future that falsify the fine tuning argument, therefore we can't propose finetuning as a plausibility. You have to refute a theory based off of available evidence or by discovering new evidence to the contrary. You can't refute a theory based off of the plausibity of constradictory evidence. What evidence is there that can be done experimentally that shows that fine tuning is wrong? There is none currently. All of the evidence and observation that we've done over hundreds of years show that the physical constants we know of appear to be fine tuned for life. The best explanation for that based off of evidence is intelligent design by a creator because there is plenty of observable evidence that intelligence is a feature of the universe and intelligence has the power to fine tune things for a specific purpose. There is overwhelming evidence of that from microbes on up to human beings. Is is a reasonable induction that where we see evidence of design implies a designer because that is based off of observation and can be experimented on to show that to be true. If you are going to argue that something that is fine tuned had no designer, you have to be able to prove experimentally how that is possible. You can't appeal to the multiverse hypothesis as a refutation of God unless you can demonstrate they exist otherwise it is an appeal to ignorance.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
I do agree with some or youf analysis, so please don't take the following notices of your weak points as an attack on you, solely on the points being made.,
You provide no backing for "factually is the case" re the foundation of being being consciousness itself. You are drifting into solipsism, conflating that since humans are only aware of the universe indirectly via sensory experience being injected into the machinery that creates our consciousness that nothing actually exists other than thought process. That may be true, but if so then most of philosophy is as useless as it superficially appears even without that consideration.
You provide no means to establish that the phrase "Pure Being" can apply to anything that the word 'existence' has any connection to. To talk about attributes of something that you haven't provided a means to perceive is pointless speculation.
Beware of how implications can be true despite false premises. If a conclusion is true then you can form an infinite number of true implications with false premises. Truth is conditional upon the axioms applied to each statement. This has an analogy in cosmogenies- that your premised system can create a universe like ours is zero proof that your premised system is real in any sense. That a Pure Being of intellect might have through means totally not modeled bring about the universe as it is, is zero proof of the existence of any Pure Beings, intellectual or otherwise.
Since nothing can be known about the intentions of such a Pure Being, nothing is added to the wealth of human knowledge by postulating that such exist.
@@smilyle I do often get the name of fallacies wrong, I am too lazy to look them up.
You are attempting to shift the burden here.
Those who claim that the parameters are tunable, and that their range is significantly greater than the range that supports life have a burden to demonstrate both of those facts. I am pointing out that they have some major premises for which nobody has presented any supporting data.
All they have shown is that IF you make those rather large assumptions then you have to explain WHY the particular values are what they are.
Since the initial goal was to explain why the values are what they are the assumptions of tunability provide no increase in human knowledge, they just provide fodder for wild speculation.
--
You then go off the rails with "The best explanation for that based off of evidence is intelligent design by a creator because there is plenty of observable evidence that intelligence is a feature of the universe and intelligence has the power to fine tune things for a specific purpose." There is zero evidence in hand of intelligence being a feature of anything other than a handful of organic systems on Earth, and those organic systems can be shown to be prone to making bad models of such things.
The prime source of tunedness in nature is "natural selection", the mindless positive feedback of past success on future success. Is there intelligence in a single celled organism following a gradient of chemical concentration to a food source? Is a slime mold solving a maze thinking about topology as they do so?
@@histreeonics7770
You are mischaracterizing the fine-tuning argument. Whether we call it fine-tuning or not. It is a scientific fact that there is no other possibility of life existing in this universe except under conditions that are highly mathematically specific. The argument isn't about whether the parameters are tunable. That is settled. There are no other possibilities of them being tuned another way in THIS universe and life being able to be supported. Those are the facts. People have done highly sophisticated mathematical models to show that no other version of this universe with these physical constants is possible in a way that supports life. The idea that they haven't demonstrated these facts is laughable. That the universe if fine tuned for life is a settled debate.
Why is it fine-tuned. There are only two possibilities-- it is that way because of randomness or because of intelligent design. Randomness is not a good argument against rationality of intelligent design as a conclusion because randomness is subsumed by intelligent design. We know based off of observable evidence that intelligence is capable of creating random event generators and creating through randomization -- purposefully or not. There is no shifting the burden in that argument. If we are arguing for intelligent design, and you make a refutation that randomness makes our argument illogical -- then we have to show why it doesn't make it illogical and we have to show why it is unlikely that randomness is the answer. Mathematically it is shown that randomness is improbable, even if it is possible. Then, if it is possible, however small that may be, it still doesn't mean that randomness precludes God as an explanation. That an intelligent designer can use randomization to create is an evidence based belief -- so it is an logical inference that a being outside of creation could have done it. It is a probability.
We aren't claiming that intelligent design is knowable with certainty. We are claiming that it is the most probable explanation. This isn't an argument about knowability, it is about probability. God is the most probable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe even if it happened randomly. If you are going to make the claim that other universes are a possible counter explanation, we don't have to consider that as evidence in a theoretical argument because there is no evidence that there are other universes or that their presence is relevant to our own universe in a causal way if they do exist. If there are other possible universes that can support life through different means -- it isn't relevant to whether this universe was created or not.
Nah, multiverse theory seems more plausible than god hardcoding it. Even some mythologies have multiverse theory in them.
well he'd be wrong, there is no god.
God of the gaps 🤦
Oxford the under educated
We are like 'blinds' in the story of ,'Elephant and six blinds ' namaste 🙏
Interesting observation on string theory's prediction that there might be 10^500 diferent universes out there, and we just happen to be in the one that is best fitted for life, intelligent or orherwise.
Unfortunately, according to some predictions, there ARE probably such a number of universes, but they would all happen to be made just with the same properties. Same size, same physical constants, same almost everything. Even same faulty thinking on the part of its smartest creatures.
Thanks for the inspiring speech.
More on this striking cosmology on demand.
If every time there was a 1% percent chance of rain my coworker walked around with an umbrella I would think he was being pretty delusional
Until you understand that a 1% chance of rain is no different from a 99.9 % chance of rain.
@@mathewsamuel1386 No, its not at all. In fact that's an ignorant statement. If there is a 99.9 percent chance of rain, that percentage is the result of an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is almost certainly going to rain. That's how science works. The averages are based on evidence. If it's currently storming one town over and the doppler shows the storm moving towards your town, you can pretend that its the same as a 1% chance of rain, but you'd be stupid not to at the least, expect rain.
@@mathewsamuel1386 hahaha what...?
@JimmyBobble Think about it...carefully. Probability is not certainty. It is always either ways. Get the drift?
@@mathewsamuel1386 right but there are inherent differences between large probabilities and small ones. If I had a 99.9% chance of dying by jumping off a cliff I would be deluded for thinking I would survive. So no, there are differences. Anyway there is 0% probability that god exists as there is no tangible evidence for “gods” existence.
4:00 ... the guy has my support
God is formless, he was there before 'space' was created, he is beyond 'space and time' he was there before big bang, actually, when there was nothing, even 'nothingness' was not, at that point what existed was pure conciousness. Which cannot be described in words, speech cannot reach there. He is the impersonal witness of whole universe, even before and after.
Randomness doesn't prove the absence of intelligent design and is often a feature of intelligent design.
I haven't seen anyone claim that randomness means God isn't real. That's an absurd claim, and you seem to be making a strawman argument.
Randomness *can* be a feature of intelligent design, and it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. But why do so many things about the world seem so counter-intuitive? Like for example, why do we have an appendix that has a scarily high chance to randomly fill up with bacteria and cause an infection? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Or tail bones? Unless you believe that the Adam and Eve story was biological and that God didn't really create humans, and evolution is real, there's not really a good explanation for a lot of the weird things in our biology.
And also, why do some humans get diseases and die? Do you think they deserved it? Would you say that to their family?
Or maybe you think heaven exists and that in reality, their death was a blessing from God. Well in that case, we shouldn't prevent cancer, because we could just die instead and experience eternal bliss.
I'd love to hear an answer to any of my questions. And if you do have an answer, I might even get convinced because I really do want God and heaven and the afterlife to be real. That would be a relief, honestly.
Oh yes, the "God" of the gaps.
How Many Days Live = If Sun Remove From Solar Planets?
Because science currently can’t explain something doesn’t mean you get to say god did it. That’s lazy.
If I would have asked dark age Vikings what causes thunder, they would have told me Thor striking his hammer. We know better now, just like things we can’t answer now, I’m sure the answer won’t be magic.
Did she ever had read darshan sastra, NO IF she had then she would have not be saying some of irrational thought of har.
Was that all? Cosmological argument? Was that your whole conjuring, Mr. Nerd?
Very interesting - even Dan Barker said this was the best opposition speech by far. The Fine Tuning Argument is a strong one and this was well put!
WHAT ABOUT THE CORE PUZZLE
God of the gaps.
Looks like the dude has some personal beef with Chloe. 😂
Is this an Irish accent?
Strawman Occam's razor fallacy.
Everything about GOD IS INSIDE OUT BACK TO FRONT AND UPSIDE DOWN
Everything thing is always in motion
Except logical thinking.
Well done David Logan ! Solus Christus. God bless.
lol, there is no god mate. 👹
@@HarryNicNicholas That's just your opinion.
@@HarryNicNicholas Back up your claims about it. You claim that there is no god.
@@OatmealtAnd you claim there is. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders my friend.
@@TheLiteCrafter How can you say anything is true in metaphysically , be it evidence and claims if you don't even know what truth even means. If there is no truth that terms like claims and evidence don't mean anything at all. Atheism is purely based on materialism and naturalism, and anything that is immaterial can not exist yet things like truth and all metaphysical and abstract things do exist. Things like morality and justice do exist it impossible for materialism to justify immaterial realities that do exist.
Well, at least answering my question, you will be able to see how ridiculous your questions are in first place.
Claim -> to say that something is true, without having any proof.
If you claim anything to be true, then the burden of proof lies on you since you acknowledge that the claim is in correspondence with ultimate reality..
The burden of proof is on you too to show me that there is no god.
For example , if you walk in a crime scene, you see pieces of evidence in the crime scene .
So let’s a detective. A says, given what I see here, A thinks the best suspect of this is husband did the crime . While in the crime scene the detective B says I disagree as he is also looking at the same evidence and saying no, the daughter is the suspect.
Well, both of them have the burden of proof looking at the evidence. Both have different interpretations of reality.
A has the case to make for why the husband did it.
B has the case to make that why the daughter did it.
Something very similar happens when we talk about theism and atheism.
The crime scene here would be the universe and how it began and how it exists.
As A & B who holds a different worldview
We see the same features of the universe, we see it has a beginning, it’s fine tuned , life comes into existence from non life , life appearances to be designed existence of conscious beings , have moral obligations and so on..
These are the features of the universe that both theists and atheists have to explain in reality with reality.
As a theist I have to make case why God is the best explanation and as an atheist you have the burden of proof to make as to why atheism makes the best explanation for the cause , ie your suspect is the criminal.
You think that we can explain that with space , time , matter, and chemistry, that burden is on you.
We both have burdens to show at what happened in the crime scene as A and B
ie we both have burden to show that what explanation is the best for reality of our existence both of them are big claims about reality.
Don’t be this dishonest to even say that you don’t have a burden of proof.
Embrace your duty to make the case not just sit on one side and play skeptic all the time.
If you wanna okay skeptical, then guess what? I can do that, too .
So please be honest about admitting if at least that atheism is a claim , belief, worldview, and philosophy, and it also has an agenda and propaganda just as any other belief system. It's not merely a lack of belief.
A lack of belief is a mere semantics played by the new atheists. It is plausible to say rocks lack belief, but it's not with humans since we all have a belief system and all humans have a worldview.
Just as Aristotle said : “Nothing is what rocks dream about”.
shordingers cat theory left the chat
Logic explains God.. evolution assumes logic. Why aren't are eyes on the sides of our heads?
Eyes on the front of the head in humans and other predators provide better depth perception, which is crucial for hunting and navigating complex environments. Also, what does it mean for logic to explain God? How does evolution assume logic? Please clarify.
@@MrAydinminer ok forget the word God. Imagine an ideal being what would that being be like? Self sufficient would be good. Sovereign. Transcendent. Infinite. Read Ps 139 first part of the chapter. What can it hurt if not real?
The fine tuning argument is such a trivial one. The claim that we can only find ourselves in this universe if we have PRECISELY this value for the strong force and PRECISELY that value for the weak force and so on and so forth to create PRECISELY this universe is certainly a true claim. But what's also true is that if those values were PRECISELY anything else they would bring about PRECISELY any other equally improbable universe which has just as much probability of producing life of some description in much the same way this one does. There's nothing to suggest that the outcome we witness here and now for the fundamental laws of nature are in any way special or remarkable compared to any other result. To claim that it is, is pure unfalsifiable speculation. Further - even if this outcome was special, it is still not an argument for god. Improbable events occurring are not a proof of divine intervention.
The result we witness is certainly incalculably improbable but so are an innumerable number of other outcomes. Just because something is improbable, does not mean it is impossible without some kind of supernatural intervention. A very simple thought experiment to demonstrate this would be if I asked you to roll a 100-billion sided die. No matter what outcome you produce, that outcome will be incredibly unlikely. Does this mean a god must have interfered with your roll? No. You simply produced an unlikely random result - just as unlikely as every other outcome. Whatever result you produced, is it now proof of god because of how unlikely it is? Ofcourse not because the production of an unlikely result is certain when all outcomes are unlikely. Every single result would be a "proof" of god by this logic and so it becomes a tautology. You cannot produce any outcome which is likely because no such outcomes exist. The universe we inhabit is unlikely because it could not be anything but unlikely.
Your argument is just plain wrong and not the view of the experts on the matter. The experts say that if the constants were precisely different there would be no universe to speak of that can have life...PERIOD. There's not an alternative universe to speak of that we know about being possible or can concieve of. That is an appeal to ignorance. If you are going to make that claim, then you have to provide evidence for that alternative universe existing or being plausible. Your argument is speculative. You can't refute a fact based argument based on speculation of an alternative with no evidence of that alternative existing. That is unfalsifiable. The likelihood of a result is relative to the amount of time you had to observe that result. If a being could live to be 100 trillion years old, the roll of a 100 billion sided die would not create unlikely results relative to their perspective. And the result of that roll isn't random -- it is designed into the purpose of the die being built. The unlikeliness of the result is relative to the observer. And what is shows is that things can be made to be random by design or at least appear to be such. Just because something is random, it doesn't prove that it wasn't created to be random. Randomness doesn't prove the absence of intelligent design and is often a feature of intelligent design.
@@smilyle No - my intended point (and I did write it in my comment) is that there is nothing to suggest that this particular outcome for the laws of nature is particularly special in it's proclivity to produce life. It is you who are speculating that this outcome is special or rare in its ability to produce life.
Your appeal to authority in saying that "experts tell us" that life wouldn't form is not the solid argument you think it is. We can only say that life wouldn't likely form AS WE KNOW IT, not that it wouldn't form at all. There are *relatively* few variations among the infinite possibilities of the laws of nature which would allow for a universe where carbon exists (as we know it) and, by extension, carbon based life (as we know it) can form which breathes oxygen and so forth. That tells us nothing of a completely alien universe's ability to maintain completely alien forms of life that are utterly incomprehensible within our reality.
According to the scientific method itself, the only way we would be able to know of a universe's ability to produce life with completely foreign laws of nature would be to observe it. There is no way to predict it because all of our predictive scientific knowledge is based on our knowledge of our version of nature. However, a universe which abides by different laws of nature would, by definition, be considered supernatural to us. Science, by definition, cannot make any predictions about the supernatural and so there is no "expert" that can make any claim about the likelihood of life existing in a supernatural universe.
So, once again, it is not knowable that this particular universe is special or unique in its ability to produce life. It doesn't seem sensible to make the assumption that among an infinite number of possible outcomes only this particular outcome has the ability to produce what we call life. I simply prefer not to make any assumptions about it one way or the other because, like I said, it is not knowable to us. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine but it is you who is speculating. Not me. I'm simply demonstrating why the argument that we live in such a special and precisely tuned universe is not a valid argument. I'm demonstrating that it is a completely fabricated assumption. I'm not making any argument of my own or any claims of my own in its place.
Beyond that, even if we grant the idea (although, in reality we cannot) that we know this is a special outcome that doesn't form an argument for god. The occurrence of a remarkable or special outcome is perfectly acceptable without the need for a god to intervene.
As for what you mentioned about probability being relative to the observer, you appear to be confused. The probability of a particular outcome of the roll of a die doesn't change with the lifetime of the observer. The probability of each outcome on a fair 100 trillion sided die is exactly 1 in 100 trillion. It always will be. I think you're confusing the concept of sampling a random variable multiple times with the concept of the probability of a particular outcome of a random variable. I'm not sure why you even mention this because it doesn't even address any of my points.
@@sockpastarock7082
You are still making an appeal to ignorance in this reply. We don't know if there are infinite possibilities of other universes. That is a speculation and not a fact. There could be no other possibilities just as well. This could be the only type of universe possible. There could be infinite variations of similar universes to ours, but that have the same type of physical constants as well. While it isn't knowable that this universe is special, it is euqally unknowable that it is not special. So your argument says nothing because you can't prove that there is a more probability that it isn't special -- which is the burden of proof that goes with your claim.
You don't understand what makes an appeal to authority a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy when you base it on irrelevant characteristics about that authority figure to the argument at hand. There are times when authority figures are relevant to a specified topic because it is their area of expertise and appealing to what they have to say is rational and appropriate. You misrepresented their position on a topic and I simply corrected you about what they said on the topic. And I stated what the established science is -- that this universe is not possible when you adjust the physical constants. So I made a valid claim, and used authority testimony as support of that claim.
God is a good and rational theory for the outcome we have here. That is because intelligence is a feature of our universe, randomness can be a feature of intelligent design, and order is also a feature of intelligent design. We observe that intelligence fine tunes things yet can purposefully creating randomness and random event generators in closed systems. To make the inference that the universe seems to have a perfect combination of design and randomness to support life and that therefore there is an intelligent creator is a scientific conclusion and a logical conclusion because it is based on an abundance of observable evidence and not speculation that has no evidence whats so ever. Just because an occurance happened randomly, it doesn't mean it wasn't designed to be a random outcome out of several possibilities.
Even if we grant that that this is just one of several types of finetunings, it would still be rational to believe that it could have been done through a randomizer that was intelligently designed. While finetuning doesn't prove God, the idea that our universe is created at random doesn't make the presumption of God illogical by default because it is an evidence based belief that intelligent beings can create events through randomizers.
As for the die, my point isn't about probability - it is about likelihood. I understand that the probability remains the same, but the concept of it being unlikely is relative to the observer. Given enough time to observe enough rolls of that die, or given the capacity to run enough simulations of that roll fast enough -- what makes any number showing up an unlikely outcome is relative to either the amount of time an observer has available to witness enough rolls or how fast they can witness enough rolls. Likelihood is a relative concept
@@smilyle I am not saying this outcome is or is not likely. I am saying it is unknowable and therefore when someone speculates that this outcome is highly unlikely and therefore requires significant tuning - that is an argument based on speculation because the premise of that claim is unknowable. My whole point is that it is unknowable. You say this is an appeal to ignorance as though that somehow dismisses my whole point but it doesn't. To say that a universe which produces life is unlikely or that it requires fine tuning is pure speculation. I am not the one making any claims about the probabilities one way or the other. Thus there is no burden upon me to prove any probabilities one way or the other. The burden upon me is to provide the epistemic argument for why I am refuting the claim upon epistemic grounds and I have done that. Because based on the epistemology of the scientific method, we cannot make any predictive claims whatsoever about the supernatural. There is no arguing out of that. Nice try though.
The appeal to authority as I outlined it is a fallacy because no "expert" can have the relevant knowledge of the supernatural in order to say that a supernatural universe can or cannot produce life. Therefore, claiming that "experts say" life is unlikely in supernatural universes is a fallacy because by the epistemology of the scientific method there cannot exist anyone who is an expert about the supernatural.
Your arguments about god being a rational conclusion are not well founded. You say it's a logical conclusion because intelligence is a feature of our universe but that would require you to speculate that this infers god as the logical reason for that. Such speculation is not justified because a random universe can produce the exact same intelligence. You might wish to say that this would be incredibly unlikely with pure randomness but then you would be making the fine-tuning argument and I would refer you back to my original point which is that you cannot know if it is likely or not. I don't contest the idea that a designer could design randomness. The existence of God is perfectly compatible within a purely random universe - that's one of the features of the argument of God's existence being unfalsifiable; it's compatible with any and all conceptions of the universe. It can, by design, literally never be disproved, much like the tooth fairy. However, randomness can also produce randomness without a designer. Intelligence and order are also products of randomness that we observe in nature as well so there is no need to speculate that a god or a designer exists here. It is certainly a possibility but it's not remotely a necessity.
I'm not making a claim here about the existence or non-existence of a god. I'm simply refuting your argument that this reasoning produces any form of coherently logical argument for the existence of a god based on the reasoning you have provided. It simply does not move the needle one way or the other towards the existence or non-existence of a god.
As for the die - yes, that's what I wrote above. You're not talking about the probability of an event. You're talking about the idea of taking a number of samples of outcomes of a random variable. I still don't see how this is relevant to supporting any of your arguments. If anything, suggesting that we have infinite (or otherwise a very large number of) attempts of rolling the die to produce this universe would support the idea that no intelligent design was needed to reach this particular outcome.
@@sockpastarock7082
1) You are strawmaning the creationist position on fine tuning, and you aren't correctly characterizing the fine-tuning position scientifically. It is a scientific fact that the universe is fine tuned for life. PERIOD. That isn't up for debate. There is no other possibility of a life existing in THIS universe based off of the physical constants we know exist. The innvocation of other potential or hypothetical universes is irrelevent to the discussion about whether this type of universe can support life or not had the physical constants be any different. So you are wrong that it is unknowable. The experts who study this for a living say based off of epistomology sound arguments that this universe, with these physical constants existing in the ratios and proportions that they do is the only possible way that this universe can support life. The argument is about why it is fine-tuned. The God theory is the best possible theory because it is based off of evidence that intelligent beings can fine tune things and design things, and that randomization doesn't not preclude intelligent design and can be a sign of intelligent design. The multiverse or infiniverse theory has no evidence to make a logical assumption and if it does the evidence is weak.
2) The idea of this universe being a special case is not relevant to that discussion. We don't invoke the idea of specialness in our arguments. The facts are that this universe can't support life without the fine-tuning that exists. You may be arguing that what we observe isn't fine-tuning but that it is by chance and happenstance -- but that is the point I am arguing -- chance and happenstance don't preclude intelligent design being a possibility. We aren't claiming to know that it is God with the level of certaintly you are requiring. We are making a probablistic argument that it is highly likely that it is design based off of evidence that randomization can't logically create the specificity of fine-tuning that we see. That conclusion is based off of very sophisticaed mathematical models. Could it be random -- yes but the probability is low based off of what we know about this universe and how it works. Intelligent design is a better theory than randomnessness because you can't show experimentally how randomness can create complex objects. There are people who've studied this --- it can't be shown scientifically. You have to demonstrate how randomness can create complex things and you can't. What we can demonstrate is that intelligence can create highly specific things. There is much more evidnece for that argument. It isn't a supernatural argument. It is evidence based. We know that intellgence exists -- and with all of the UAP showing up, that the universe has other intelligent life forms is gaining strenght as an idea. The argumen for randomness creating things isn't evidence based. It is speculative. You can't invoke hypotheticals possibilities to refute facts.
Pretty good for a 12 year old.
Religion is in a constant retreat with science. If it continues like this there won't be much left.
btw 1^500 is so incredible much bigger than 1^120 you could say its inevitable to have such fine constants so he contradicted himself. but string theory is only a theory... like god.
this was a poor performance
Why is noal harari has not been invited ,his description of how God and religion came into place could've been a very good insight to this debate
A wise man is someone who comes to realise he really knows NOTHING AT ALL
thanks for that, i'll be avoiding you in future.
ngl, i thought the video title is sarcasm
U just confirmed a belief.
Surely it's not surprising at all that the universe is so finely tuned? If it wasn't, we wouldn't be around to observe it.
That isn't an argument.
Here is an analogy as to why it isn't an argument.
100 highly trained marksmen stand roughly 10 feet from me and are told to shoot me. They all fire, yet I live, not a single shot has landed on me. I could try and figure out what happened and ponder this phenomena or I could simply shrug off the deeply puzzling mystery by saying "It isn't a mystery or surprising at all that they didn't hit me! If they did, I wouldn't be around to observe it!"
@@JamesSCameron1search up quantum immortality, of course everything in this universe has been fine tuned to fit our existence because if it didnt we wouldnt be around to witness it (although i recognize this argument rests on the multiverse theory)
Yeah... Long long time ago, many people look like you, ask about this title, why we workship something or someone who can not be seen... Jews asked to Moses, we wanted see God Allah... Give us, delicious foods... I wanna eat sky foods... Many... very very a lot... Just follow the kindness that brought by His prophets, those are good things that must be preserved, then your life and every thing around look more kind... People who asks about this, like you ask, they are worried about them selves, because run to far, outside... Blessing, not comes perhaps, they follow the curse, then they don't figure out... perhaps too... We are human, many sin... Try to be good... i wanna make equivalent, sorry, that's fine, right... then we will know the correct is, no blurr here again... Atheism better to be seen then we workship some thing beside God Allah, if those knowledge come then you don't implent good, you gotta sin, atheism will be wrong if they know... 🌐🇬🇧❤️
The ad hominem bullshit at the beginning just demonstrates the childishness of this person's worldview
Beautiful young lady
Freewill debunks a purely materialistic world view
No.
Freewill doesn't exist. Either something hidden precedes your thoughts (a process you have no control over), or your thoughts are random. In either case, you are not in control.
@@KonaduKofi Yes. However, it turns out there is no such thing as free will, so the fact that it would debunk something if it existed doesn't mean very much.
@@gfxpimp When you came to the understanding that infact there is no freewill, how did your life change?
@@daveyofyeshua I can't speak for the person you replied to, but for me it made me more empathetic towards other people.
This is a classic example of someone being educated in what to know rather than how to think.
Ok so is your reality the same as the reality of the female behind you I would say no
i think you might need psychiatry.
This guy is just bullshitting and vomiting here what he was told to shout out at! Makes no sense...just acronyms, jargons and false permutations to confuse the public!
The truth is that there are indeed infinite number of universes. And yes all those infinite universes and all their constituents are all MADE OF ONE CONSCIOUSNESS. We are all the same consciousness. Separation is an illusion. There is no other, there is only one metaphysical consciousness that is creating infinite physical realities. All planets, stars, galaxies, people and animals are all representations of that same one infinite consciousness. The truth is, that you are the universe experiencing itself in infinite forms. ❤❤❤
I do find it amusing to listen to earthworms, on both sides of the question, presume to debate the nature of the infinite universe. Not the observable universe, the infinite universe. That's all any of us are, relative to the questions of infinity, no smarter than earthworms.
So do you know that LIGHT AND DARKNESS ARE THE SAME ONLY ITS THE DEGREE VIBRATION THAT MAKES THEM DIFFERENT
What kind of pseudoscience is that?
BLOODY NEPHILIM
Is it a SULPHATE OR HYDROCHLORIDE PSEUDO
Maybe it has a 10+ PH
Don't you even know ABOUT HERMES THE EGYPTIAN
He looks like HARRY POTTER 😲
Just Survivorship bias. He would not have been here to debate this issue if our universe had different physical constants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
While Science can't explain and confirm the origin of the Universe, it is asinine to assert a god is the creator. Logan is posting a god of the gaps explanation and combining it with an argument from ignorance!