Scientific Proof Of God? REALLY?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Hey... Atheists... do you want actual, scientific, touchable proof of a god? then look no further, because Eric and Melissa here have exactly that... apparently... Though, I wasn't convinced.
The teleological argument is great... in that it's really not... but they try it here and I say why some of it sounds silly... It might have some new stuff you've never heard, or it may be repeated stuff you have heard... but it's got some British snip to say why it's a little dumb.
Original Video here - • Does God Exist? How Sc...
More design arguments - • All Atheists Need (to ...
Atheist responses - • Atheist Responses
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/thes...
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - Scientific Proof Of God? REALLY?
Tags - scientific,proof of god,atheist,atheists,atheism,proof,god claim,claims of god,how to prove god,teleological,teleological argument,how to prove atheists wrong,using science to prove god,Intelligent design,debunking intelligent design,scientific proof of intelligent design,is there a god,eric metaxas,the skeptick,skeptick,british floating circle,skeptic,sceptic,theist vs atheist,atheist vs theist,christian vs atheist,atheist vs christian,religion,religious
I apologise for having to speed up the clips... UA-cam kept hitting me with strikes and it's been a LONG week!
Anyway - I appreciate you, as always!
That's OK. They didn't say anything of importance anyway.
@@georgem2334 None of them ever do.
I prefer it, less time to listen but I can understand what they're saying
Thanks for that. I was thinking that these guys were talking so fast that they were talking without thinking. But, acknowleding what they were talking about, l knew they were talking without thinking anyway.
Considering the lack of substance, that speed was fine.
I've never heard someone so confidently state "This hole must've been perfectly designed for me, because look at how perfectly I fill it" before
Exactly! The fine tuning argument is amazing in that it manages to be fractally fallacious.
Premise: The constants of the universe are precisely set so that life can exist. Therefore they were set by God.
Problems:
How do we know that the constants _could_ be different and aren't fundamental attribute of reality?
The idea that the constants were "set" means that there must have been a conscious entity to choose the values. (So we presume a god in our proof that there's a god!)
Assuming that the constants could be different and that an entity chose these values, how do we know that life _of some kind_ couldn't evolve with different values?
Even assuming that it is possible for the constants to be different and this is the only universe in which life could exists, and that an entity chose the values, what proof is there that the constants were chosen *so that* life could exist?
Assuming that the constants could be different, and that they were actively set and that they were set so that life could exist, how do we know that they were set so that life could exist on Earth specifically (since we don't know that life doesn't exist elsewhere).
And, assuming that the constants could be different, and that they were actively set, and that they were set so that life could exist, and that the intention was that life would exist on Earth, how do we know that it was the god of the Bible?
And, after all of that, why is 99.9999% of the universe (and most of Earth) incompatible with human life?
They seem to LOVE that explanation when very little of this very planet is hospitable for humans. Never mind the universe that could wipe life off it entirely in one shot without even noticing. The ego of it boggles the mind that they think that way
First off their god could just be a highly advanced technological species with no godly powers just a desire to build universes secondly as Hitchens put it, even if it was determined the universe was created by some unknown entity they would still have all their work in front of them. Universe created = Adam and his transgender clone talking snakes global flood virgin birth dead guy waking up after 3 day nap good luck and make sure to show your work. 😂
@@js8270 laugh now to cry later?
Godless idiot hipocricy and Logic: I am watching a video where I can not see the creator but I do not doubt it... But in the case of the Universe and God, well there is no creator... you are so lost...
Spoiler Alert: No scientific proof of God was given. Anyone surprised?
NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY!
I'll be surprised if they ever manage to show any real evidence of their floaty sky wizzard, yes I know that's not how you spell it but if it was good enough for Rincewind, it's good enough for me.
I would say they didn't really present any science in the first place. Just some vague and inaccurate claims about it.
And they didn't present an argument or evidence, let alone a proof.
And I am not even slightly startled that they produced another goose egg.
how can anyone prove or disprove go by science? tell us and let's laugh to the other classical BS of this cult called "Atheism" I am waiting. you are really lost.
@@TheSkepTick how can anyone prove or disprove go by science? tell us and let's laugh to the other classical BS of this cult called "Atheism" I am waiting. you are really lost.
I love the part where one dummy said magic is real and the other dummy called her a deep thinker.
hahaha good one 👍
Don't they realize that the math that we use to figure out the universe is DESCRIPTIVE not Prescriptive? The reason it fits so well is that we are describing these natural forces in a way that we can understand. Not that the forces were made to fit our math. Wow, they really have no concept...lol
No. They don’t realize that, even when it’s explained to them over and over.
RIGHT! And I'd bet my boots if I go and have a look at that conversion between Penrose and low bar Bill, he'd not be speaking in anywhere near as conciliatory a tone, as this woman suggests. If I know Penrose, he's being polite and trying not to offended Craig, but not tipping his hat to a designer.
I've seen a video where one of them tried to claim that because water boils (at sea level) at 100 C, and freezes at 0 C, this shows that god designed stuff. Apparently no one explained that humans made up that temperature scale so that it would work like that.
@@pineapplepenumbra Everything backwards they have. EVERYTHING!
@@skepticusmaximus184 How very true.
The universe is not fine-tuned for us, we are fine-tuned for the universe.
We are barely fine tuned for the warmer and drier bits of Earth.
Well said.
Calling a situation where life exists only on one infinitesimal speck in an unimaginably vast universe "fine tuned" seems a stretch comparable to her idiotic universe-spanning tape measure.
sssshh if religists work that out they might give them ideas.
A million thumbs up for this. These idiots can’t comprehend this perspective so defer to ‘God did it’ claims. The confirmation bias runs deep here. Considering that less than 15% of the planet’s surface is habitable without our own intervention, how is this fine tuned? Tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, or earthquakes and tsunamis kill thousands every year. And those happen in areas that are most habitable. What a bunch if petty tripe to justify their juvenile belief in a made up daddy spirit.
Their awe at mathematics blew me away.
"The thing we designed to do the thing that it does, does the thing that it was designed to do."
Incredible.
What especially bothers me about their amazement with mathematics is that basically any operation in the entire field is just an extrapolation of counting.
Addition is counting. Subtraction is counting backwards. Multiplication is counting multiple times. Division is counting backwards multiple times. Exponents are counting multiple times, done multiple times. Logarithms are that, split back up. The list goes on.
Basically they're shocked that we can count things and compare a count of something to a count of something else. They're shocked that the fundamental forces are proportional such that atoms can exist, but they would be shocked no matter what the values are. They think it's impressive that the numbers we calculate for those constants have a lot of digits behind the decimal, but somehow don't think it's weird that their perfectly designed universe almost exclusively doesn't give us nice round numbers for any calculations.
People who think like this see perfection in nature where it doesn't exist. She talked about finding rationality while imposing rationality where it doesn't exist. We find patterns in things and she thinks it's uncanny that we see patterns even when they don't match reality.
Nautilus shells don't follow the golden ratio, but people will insist that they're so close as to prove that it has tangible power in nature. Never mind that it's just one of the simplest ways to make a number that isn't roundly divisible... And that there are infinitely many such ratios (silver, bronze, etc.) - none of which apply to the shells.
They also tend to think that orbits of celestial bodies are perfect and prove perfect design, while they live on a planet which varies wildly in orbital distance and has a moon that varies hugely in orbital distance. Plus, the Moon and the wobble of the Earth's axis cause the length of a day to change measurably every year. The number of days in a year is neither a round number nor a constant, and the number of milliseconds in a day is neither a round number nor a constant.
Maths is amazing.
Wigner wrote about the fact that we often find new applications for well-known mathematical concepts. Even today the solution to some math problem that was invented for fun and giggles, could turn into an insightful tool.
The golden ratio for example can be used to improve packing density. Evolution doesn't have to make a concious decision to use something close to the golden ratio. If it saves energy or helps to reproduce by maximising the amount of seeds per area, that would be enough. And it is also easy to imagine that a pattern seeking animal would react if they recognize this pattern somewhere.
Scientific illiteracy is seen as a badge of honor in religious cicles.
Godless idiot hipocricy and Logic: I am watching a video where I can not see the creator but I do not doubt it... But in the case of the Universe and God, well there is no creator... you are so lost.
The sad thing about it is they also believe they're the ones that actually understand science.
I literally had one yesterday telling me to essentially throw out all of my knowledge of science So I can think like a child Because I need to humble myself.. Quite frankly I had to explain very very basic concepts. Now I will profess this with I aint got no issue with the guy hes actually not a friend but I'd call him a buddy
@@borttorbbq2556 So they admitted that ignorance is the most important quality of a theist.
@@chrisose basically
"If I can pretend to believe there's a gap, you can believe I'm going to stick my particular god in it. Hard."
without lube
@@setojurai goes without saying.
They ought to do the morning after walk of shame.
She is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, and a member of the core writing team for The Worldview Bulletin and the Contributing Writers team at Christian Research Institute. She's in a unique position to fail dramatically continually and manage to make a living at it.
it's good to know exactly where all the thick people who are a danger to laboratories are kept.
Wow! so she really is a proper little liar for the baby jesus, beats earning an honest living stacking shelves I guess?
Was she a test subject at plastic surgery school too?
Fire is possible on Earth. Therefore it is obvious that Prometheus must exist, because he gave it to us. Fine tuning rules!
And eagles eat liver. Double proof!
Scientific misunderstanding for the existence of god. There, i fixed it.
Allow me to correct you further. Disunderstanding. Mis- implies a mistake, error, simply being wrong. It's the wrong prefix. This is _dis-_ understanding, intentional not-understanding of science. It's like if a firefighter who hated you tries to put out the fire on your house by hooking his hose to a tank of gasoline.
@@EdwardHowton Disunderstanding. I like the word. I will try to not forget it.
@@cy-one how can anyone prove or disprove go by science? tell us and let's laugh to the other classical BS of this cult called "Atheism" I am waiting. you are really lost.
@@EdwardHowton Yeah, you got it. Disunderstanding - a very apt word for the goal of apologetics: making people *intentionally* misunderstand the stuff that disproves their childish beliefs.
@David Sommen
I've never heard this word. Today by vocabulary has increased by one word 😀
I'm never going to win Apologetics Bingo if they keep saying the same things...my "Look at the trees" box has been dabbed so much it's falling off 😂
Look at that box, it is falling off _so perfectly_ ... 😂
But... but... Look at the trees, though...
Should I point out that the box is made of paper…
…which comes from trees…
I love sped up apologists! We should make this a thing that happens more often. It makes their nonsense WAY more entertaining! Stupid at rapid speed!!!
Right? I might be on to something here!
@@TheSkepTick please speed them up to chipmunk speeds. :D
@@TheSkepTick you seewhat are you doing with this BS called atheism, most of people who comment in those stupid videos of yours have real nothing to say, are you that blind to do not see that?
Alos helps the videos to stay unde rhalf an hour
It does mean the pain is over sooner, which is worthwhile.
Being a flawed thinker doesn't excuse Eric from being a flawed thinker.
come on man, give the guy a break, if this is his first time using a brain you have to expect some hiccups.
@@HarryNicNicholas
Using it as a hatrack doesn't count.
😆
That little smug ‘but we know better’ was just sublime irony, loved it😂
Yeah they just can't admit that their invisible sky wizard is the very definition of a sadist.
well that's because their hole-y book says he isn't therefor he isn't because the book says so doncha know
They redefine “good” to mean “anything god does” so being sadistic is good when god does it
You know, I've been saying for some time that God created the original Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. I came up with this hypothesis after reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and The (Christian) Bible. Adams' work introduced us to the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. The Bible, on the other hand, doesn't account for God's whereabouts and actions on that seventh day. I hypothesize that God created the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster (PGGB) on that seventh day (those first six days were hard ones, after all!) and, since it was the PERFECT PGGB, it has kept Him PERFECTLY pissed ever since.
There's only one problem: God is a MEAN drunk. It's not that God couldn't DO better: it's that He WANTED to make the rest of the universe a load of crap that humans would never really be able to understand. So there's little reason to think these two would comprehend the idea that we invented mathematics in order to better describe what we observe in the universe -- not the other way around.
As for Zaphod Beeblebrox inventing the PGGB, it's true that he introduced the PGGB to the REST of God's creation; however, since God was already snockered when the brainwave about the PGGB started its way throughout spacetime, the idea of the PGGB was a bit . . . flawed. When that brainwave reached the portion of spacetime Zaphod occupied. he got a corrupted idea of the drink. And what WE got was a PGGB that DOES leave one hung over.
But the PGGB God created DIDN'T leave one with a hangover -- how can you get hungover if your drunken state never ends? But what God DIDN'T know was that He's ". . . a bugger when He's pissed."
I seriously question someone’s understanding of the word “intelligent” when they claim the universe is “intelligently designed”.
They have no idea what that word means. ID is for people that aren't able to think.
'if gravity was slightly different, then it would be different.'
Wow.
Godless idiot hipocricy and Logic: I am watching a video where I can not see the creator but I do not doubt it... But in the case of the Universe and God, well there is no creator... you are so lost.
So basically the life capable of research emerged where it is possible for life capable of research to emerge. Got it. Yep that is proof of God. That's irrefutable.
Godless idiot hipocricy and Logic: I am watching a video where I can not see the creator but I do not doubt it... But in the case of the Universe and God, well there is no creator... you are so lost.
The look of guile on Eric "sucker punch" Metaxis is just priceless. The man is a gormless idiot, and he's trying to explain the universe to us heathens. The appearance of design is not the same as design. Thanks for another great Sunday morning video, Mr. Tick
No worries! (Did I say that right?)
How does the Universe even "appear" designed anyway?
99.9% of Earth's surface alone will kill you, unless you bring the appropriate equipment and supplies with you. Almost everywhere on Earth is either too hot, too cold, too dry, or too wet for us to live in our natural state. Not to mention all the things TheSkepTick mentioned, like disease, natural disasters, cancer - "Exposure" is literally a cause of death, when you are stuck outside without the suitable resources to survive.
And that's not even getting into all the inconveniences of life, like how we need to kill things to gain sustenance, or how our body naturally breaks down over time, or how certain parts of our bodies may not function properly - or stop functioning over time, or how keeping our body in suitable physical shape (exercise) can hurt, or how we have a natural predisposition to enjoy unhealthy food more than healthy food, or how we can't see if it's too dark OR too bright, how we can be permanently blinded just by looking at the Sun, and so, so much more.
And then there's the rest of the Universe, which will kill us even faster.
You, Sir Sic, Paulogia and Drew are the absolute oasis on the internet ❤
Mind if I nominate Viced Rhino, SciManDan and Mr. Sensible as members of the pantheon of reason -- subordinate to Lisa, The Rainbow Giraffe (LBUH), of course?
Try Logicked, maybe some Aron Ra if you're into heavier stuff.
@@bladerunner3314, Logicked is one of my regular sites for good debunking, but I see Logicked as more of a prophet of Lisa, The Rainbow Giraffe (LBUH). But if you're looking for another prophet to follow, I've found that Prophet of Zod (PoZ) is a good choice. He may not be a prophet of Lisa The Rainbow Giraffe (LBUH), but PoZ isn't one of the over-the-top kinds of debunkers.
@@johndemeritt3460 It's buybull study time with the friendly atheist.
She said trillions of light years, the observable universe isn't that big. It is billions, of light years, 94 billion light years. Makes me think that if can't even get that right then she doesn't know what she it talking about. Who'd have thought?
Innumeracy is perhaps the least of her problems.
Of course there is no indication that our universe ISN’T infinite with an infinite number of stars and planets. Its just that everything past 46.5 billion lightyears is receding from us faster than the speed of light.
@@oscargordon yes
That's the thing that always gets me about the fine tuning argument: they say there's this infinitesimal chance of all these universal constants being the values they are that allows for life. But here's the thing: we have no idea what sorts of values those constants even COULD take on, nor do we know what sort of range each constant could have and still have life. We don't even know if some of the constants are connected in some way we don't currently understand, so that if constant A is value x, they constant B must necessarily be value y. So, how do you even begin to try to calculate probability on that? You don't, you just make stuff up.
The whole bloody argument of fine tuning is just personal incredulity. "I can't belive this reality is just here as it is, so someone must have done it."
I love how the guy keeps acting like them splashing in their ankle deep pool is like staring into the abyss.
goddamn, the Watchmaker's argument? that was debunked over three HUNDRED years ago in ancient Greece!
Would that be three thousand years? Pretty sure it wasn't ancient anymore in 1720.
@@ziploc2000 i did say 'over', regardless, it was debunked a really long freaking time ago, so why do these idiots keep bringing it up?
find out when the first watch was made and then you will know when it was debunked.... cant debunk something before it was invented...
@@bunnykiller the base concept of the argument can't still be debunked, and it was, but certain very stupid Creationists still cling to the argument as if it actually was a good argument when in reality its a nonargument and really quite foolish.
I find it funny when they use the fine tuned arguement, If God created humans and the universe he would not need to "fine tune" the universe it would also be way better tuned than it is. Keep up the good vids
I like the way that she brings up all these things when there are specific ranges that allow life on this planet, yet we can only inhabit around 40% of the total land area.
And less than 30% of the surface is actually land we can stand on.
And we can only survive without assistance on the surface - not the literal trillions of cubic kilometers under the ground, in the water, or above the first few kilometers high of atmosphere.
And the habitability has been changing over time. A few thousand years ago, most of Russia, Greenland, and Canada were inhospitable ice sheets.
And even then, the habitable parts still consistently murder us with storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, floods, etc.
Now days. A few thousand years back and you would be dead if dropped on many places that would be called safe today.
@@PabloSanchez-qu6ib Yeah, I hear Mexico was a blast around 66 million years ago. 😜
Such a tired argument, but I guess it still resonates with theists. Thanks for continuing the work. :)
I don't think there's been a new apologetic since the dark ages
Simply claiming that the Universe is fine tuned, is not an argument.
I'm getting rather tired of apologists going on about how they think the universe is fine tuned, but never presenting an argument.
As far as I can tell, what they usually claim, is no more than, if things were different, they would be different.
And that's the thing isn't it. There's no argument until they actually demonstrate both why there is an impossibility inherent in things being different and why there's reason to believe that the constants are entirely free to vary.
Even then it would only demonstrate that things *could* be different and that it is lucky - for life - that they aren't. They'd still have all the work left to demonstrate that the only reasonable explanation for why things are as they are is a god.
And that's another problem, a lot of their arguments are just claims based on their beliefs or misunderstanding of science and/or reality.
Seeing Sir Sic and Creaky suddenly turn up in there is like Mr Who'sTheBoss RickRolling us on every video. You should do that more often. 🙂
When did they demonstrate that the values throughout the universe that we observe could be anything other than what we observe? Just because you can imagine it doesn't make it possible.
Godless idiot hipocricy and Logic: I am watching a video where I can not see the creator but I do not doubt it... But in the case of the Universe and God, well there is no creator... you are so lost.
If there was a god, and he was merciful, he'd have taught Melissa about makeup.
That's what it is.
Bro....
Or paper bags.
Those eyebrows. What was she thinking?
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings god works in mysterious ways. Maybe he wanted us to have a laugh? 😂
What i can't comprehend is why they think this is a good argument, if we couldn't survive in these conditions we would've gone extinct or never evolved. Then there might have been other creatures who would think exactly the same about themselves instead... It sounds so moronic it hurts, but in a good way😅
The moment someone mentions trillions of light years immediately rings the 'I have no understanding of science' bell.
All this talking and talking, and yet they can't provide a single piece of evidence for their claims...
So many words, so much technobabble, like a Creationist's version of Star Trek.
@@scottdelahunt586 Have they tried reversing the polarity of the Jesus?
Gotta love how this magic being is all knowing and all powerful, while simultaneously helpless to make us/life any other way than under these exact specifications. Funny that.
"Oh look! I fit perfectly into this puddle shaped hole. How could this be?!". Says the puddle in a puddle shaped hole.
The Finely Tuned Argument is so transparently empty, it drives me crazy people thinks it has any weight at all. Whenever it shows up, I can’t help but recall the fantastic classical music comedian (yes, there is such a genre) Anna Russell who wrote some lyrics to her faux Gilbert & Sullivan opera: “Things would be so different if they were not as they are…”
Had me at “educated Christians” ! Haha 😆
You do realize that a huge portion of scientists are Christians right? Dr. Mary Switzer is an example. This comment is ignorant. Sadly even a lot of yec are educated James tour for example.
@@borttorbbq2556 I’m referring to the Evangelicals hun. You seem outta sorts.
It's fascinating that she goes into the whole "watchmaker" argument, because I just watched JMike on 'Atheist Experience' point out how absurd it is.
Christians argue that everything looks designed, but then if everything is designed by a Creator, then how would they recognise something that's not designed? There wouldn't be something not designed, then. They'd have no basis for comparison.
It is an excellent point, really. Their argument doesn't stand up to reason.
This planet that we live on, is soooooo finely tuned just for us to exist, that we cannot live on 80% of it
And in the rest of the universe.
@@MrCanis4 lol Yeah the rest of the universe that will immediately kill us
How little does this guy think of his audience that he constantly has to call these ideas complicated and hard to understand, how hard a different world is to imagine, how hard math is, or that people don't understand what GRAVITY is?
It can be difficult for people to understand how little this guy thinks of his audience.
There is a simple way to rebute the Gravity argument : We do not know G, the Gravitational constant, with that level of precision. In 2018, the best measure for G was 6.67430(15) x 10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2. In that scientific notation, the (15) refers to the uncertainty on the last 2 digits (±0.00015) so the actual value very likely lies somewhere between 6.67415 and 6.67445. Simply speaking, the standard uncertainty on G is 0.00030/6.67430 = 45 ppm = 45 = 0.0045%. On a ruler of the size of the observable universe, so 94 billion light years, the uncertainty on G would be 4 millions lights years.
So how did they come with that one inch figure? Gravity is a very weak force so the trick is to compare it to a stronger force such as electromagnetism. Also, you need to to choose particles with the smallest possible mass and the largest possible charge. For two electrons, the ratio of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces is around 10^42. Now, let's consider that our giant 3.5015 x 10^28 inches (=94 billions light-years) ruler represents electromagnetism. On that ruler, gravity would be 0.00000000000028 inches. so moving gravity by one inch means multiplying its strength by 1000000000000. This is of course a stupid argument. Its like saying that a bacteria must be designed because it would be crushed if its weight was changed by 1/1000000 of the mass of a blue whale (that would be 150g) .
Did Eric ask, "How long is it?". That's an awkwardly personal question.
3:20 Chemistry is most definitely not dependent upon the gravitational constant. Chemical reactions can be affected by gravity, in the sense that gravity could keep two reactive substances of different densities mostly apart, but a gravitational field is not the gravitational constant and even so, changing it by a few percent (or even 50%) would not do much.
She may have meant to say electromagnetism (having forgotten her high school physics), in which case the constant she wants to claim is fine-tuned is the fine structure constant, but guess what? The strength of the electromagnetic interaction changes naturally anyway! Changing the fine structure constant by a few percent is only going to affect some chemical reactions and at some energies (which translates to different reaction speeds at different temperature ranges).
Would this be enough to stop life on Earth from arising? Maybe, if the constant changed enough to stop water behaving as it does at the Earth's common range of surface temperatures, but that would just mean that a different set of pressure ranges would need to apply too. Life exists in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, at temperatures of several hundred degrees and pressures of a hundred atmospheres, just as life can exist at the top of Mount Everest, where the pressure is so low that water boils at 30 degrees Centigrade.
She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.
So she screwed up at 7:52 she says that the earth is in just the right place for there to be liquid water for the "emergence of life " well I thought they believed that all life was created not emerged which is it lady ?
So far as we can tell, life arose about four thousand million years ago, when the young Sun was much cooler and the Earth as we know it wouldn't be in the "Goldilocks zone". Luckily. the atmosphere contained enough carbon dioxide and methane to compensate. Life could start, but would have been destroyed by the increasingly hotter Sun if it hadn't luckily used up the carbon dioxide and methane fast enough to compensate. It doesn't look like fine tuning, it looks like lucky accidents.
my Demonstration on how everything is not finely tuned is how different elements can be so problematic for the human body. Arsenic is toxic because of the fact that it replaces phosphorus because it has the same electron configuration it but the problem is because it is a larger atta it forms weaker bonds and when the arsenic takes the place of phosphorus inside of those molecules it tends to fall apart because of the fact that the electron bond is so weak. If everything was so finely tuned it would make absolutely no sense to have other more problematic elements be able to be substituted in our necessary molecules in our bodies. The same thing goes for lead and calcium. The reason why I led is so toxic is because it shares the same arrangement as calcium and its will substitute for calcium when the calcium is supposed to be there. Great example is the fact that carbon monoxide is so dangerous because it forms a stronger Bond and it replaces our oxygen. If things were so finely tuned we wouldn't have carbon monoxide being able to substitute for oxygen and kill people. this demonstrates that it's not finely tuned and it just so happens to be that way because that's the way that it is because if it God finely-tuned these things that way that God is an absolute idiot
Put science and why the hell would God make all of the radioactive elements? There's no need for them they only cause problems! They don't actually have any benefits because of God was actually intelligent we would actually have an energy source so that you wouldn't have to rely on the dangerous radioactive elements that leave us with the problem of where do we put this crap after we're done with it! What kind of an idiot God makes these dangerous substances that we don't even need!
*'Just saying things and adding a God into it'*
Apologetics in a sentence
"So, what is this fine-tuning argument?"
"Well, it's blah blah blah blah"
"So, a load of bullshit then?"
Honestly, I do find it quite funny how as a non-native English speaker I can still quite perfectly understand what those baboons are talking about, which is quite telling of how slowly they talk and how much fluff they use
If there were an omnipotent god it would be more impressive if it created life where it would seem to be impossible like on the surface of a star or in the cold vacuum of space. Funny that it chose a “Goldilocks” blue planet where life could come about and survive without omni intervention.
Do these intellectual giants never realize that when they say things like “if the Earth was just a little bit closer to earth, this planet couldn’t support life” or “if just one of the marks in a tape measure was changed, life would be impossible” what they are really saying is “my god would have been powerless to create life if he had made things just a little different”?
One thing that gets me about apologists and other theists is how they really don't understand the difference between an opinion or a fact. They'll take the opinions of scientists as inherently scientific facts.
Premise zero of the fine tuning argument is that a universe creating being would necessarily want to create a universe with life in it. But of course, the only reason for making this assumption is that we live in such a universe.
Such a being could however want to create any kind of universe, so if we accept that the fine tuning of the universe is evidence of a fine tuner, then the next question is ”who fine tuned the fine tuner to want this specific universe?”.
Scientist: Here is a horse, and here is a cart.
Theist: No, no, it’s the other way around!
Q: Have you ever heard of The Fine Tuning Argument?
A: Yes. That's an argument based on a probability you can't know because with a sample size of only one observable universe you can't determine a probability distribution for its "possible" physical constants. By the way, have you ever heard of the Weak Anthropic Principle?
Incidentally, I know that as a population we're somewhat lacking in a deep understanding of the scientific method and lax with language, but any time someone says "Scientific proof of X!", that's a dead giveaway they're at least sloppy with science and don't have proof, at least if the proof is in the affirmative. Science is inductive, not deductive. It's best understood as demonstrating assertions to be false, not true, based on contrary evidence. What's left after other propositions have been demonstrated false is "the best explanation we have so far", not "proof". This is why claims must be falsifiable to fall within the domain of examination by science. The God Hypothesis fails to be falsifiable, which is likely why so many people insist on believing.
Godless idiot hipocricy and Logic: I am watching a video where I can not see the creator but I do not doubt it... But in the case of the Universe and God, well there is no creator... you are so lost....
@@godlover-gh3br got anything else better than the tired old watchmaker argument?
19:23 Indeed! I see your point, and agree with you on the whole, but consider this: we often get frustrated with fictional characters from movies or books, even though they don't exist. It's not so much the character we're mad at, but what they stand for or trigger in us. Fiction is a kind of mirror, letting us understand ourselves and each other better. These imaginary figures can spark real emotions, but feeling anger towards something, like a concept of God-whether Christian or otherwise-doesn't mean we believe in it or make it any more real.
It really is amazing that life exists in a world that supports life. How could anyone see that and NOT believe in a god?
I love how he very clearly didn't get a single word of what she was going on about with the tape measure. Not that her example made much sense anyway.
there is no way to know that the "fine tuning" argument is valid because we have only one universe to observe. We know that _our_ universe operates within these parameters and could not exist _as we know it_ if the parameters were different. But there is no way for us to know that a universe and life could not operate outside of these parameters.
“If things were different, then things would be different. Therefore god!”
Again and again I convince myself that creationists absolutely must have dug right down to the very bottom of their abyss of dishonesty……and then I see a video like this. 🤦♂️
DID I JUST HEAR HER SAY THAT CONTROLLED HOT FIRE WASN'T NESSISCARY? AS OPPOSED TO WHAT KAREN? FUCKING COLD FIRE?!
Well, "hot" is a relative term I suppose.
"3 worlds, 3 mysteries" is objective evidence that really smart people can hold really dumb ideas.
"Why does math so perfectly fit the universe!?"
Dude, its because we made it to fit the universe.
I remember a conversation with a former friend of mine, who is a Young Earth Creationist, a few years ago. I say former friend because although he's mostly a nice guy, his views on Jews, homosexuals and trans people made me decide to keep my distance and not associate with him anymore.
Anyway, we're sitting in the pub and the conversation went a bit like this... (I paraphrase because I can't remember the exact words):
Him: The universe is so finely tuned for life, you can't deny that a god had to be involved.
Me: Seriously? You think that _this_ is "fine tuned"?
Him: Of course! Just think of the odds of us being here. This planet is so finely tuned for us that we thrive on it!
Me: This planet? So the _planet_ is finely tuned, not the universe per se?
Him: Oh no, the universe is.
Me: Really? Why would you think that? Let's imagine a scenario. Imagine being naked. You'd have to be naked because that's how you were created, right? So... Imagine you're naked and you find a teleport. This teleport will transport you to anywhere in the entire universe in an instant. What's your chances of survival?
Him: Umm... Well... what I meant was that this _planet_ is fine tuned for us.
Me: But you just said it was the entire universe....
Him: Yes, yes, but I really only meant the part that we're in.
Me: Right. Ok, let's do the experiment again. That teleport will transport you completely naked anywhere on _Earth_ at random. You've still only got around a 10-15% chance of survival. Chances are you'll end up in the ocean or in the middle of a desert or deep inside an inhospitable jungle. Do you still want to tell me how "fine tuned" this place is for us?
Him: Hmm..... Actually, you make a really good point there. I'll have to give this some consideration.
Naturally, at that point I thought "Yes!! I've made him think! Maybe soon he will come out of his delusion!"
Three days later, I walked into the pub and he was sitting there telling someone about how the universe is fine tuned for human life. I give up.
With all their blathering about "fine tuning", I'm reminded of the final lines of "The Galaxy Song" by Eric Idle and John Du Prez: What's their names must "Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space/Because there's bugger all here on Earth!"
"Heavy. There's that word again."
Fine-tuning is what creators with limited options need to worry about, not omnipotent ones. Why would an all-powerful creator bother with fine-tuning a universe so his creations can (barely) live in a teeny-tiny subsection of it, when he could instead tune his creations to survive a much wider range of conditions and let them live anywhere they want? Or just make everything much more habitable?
So because if you insert random values into our most advanced models about chemistry and physics they won't work the way we are used to (or at all) means that the values in reality had to be specifically set. Nevermind that we don't know the fundamental principle behind how the values are set or even if they can be set differently. Nevermind the possibility that the constants could be interconnected with the mechanics of the universe in such a way that the mathematical formulas would be different (rendering the models based on fixed formulas we know incorrect indeed) and plethora of other explanations
Godless idiot hipocricy and Logic: I am watching a video where I can not see the creator but I do not doubt it... But in the case of the Universe and God, well there is no creator... you are so lost.
Oh, the fine tuning is controversial all by itself. For one thing most of those constants could vary up to 10% and still result in a similar universe (her inch thing is a lie). At least mathematically, because there is of course no reason to assume the constants CAN be different. You can't have tuning if there are no other possibilities. Speaking of which, the term tuning assumes a predetermined goal, which sneaks the desired conclusion (by theists) into their argument, which is a logical fallacy I can't recall the name of. For all we know there's an infinite different ways universes form and the ones that happen to be able to support life sometimes develop it. This argument, as so often, is a god of the gaps fallacy on top of the previously mentioned one, saying we don't know why the constants are this way therefor god.
Do you think she'd look surprised if I pointed out that she drew her eyebrows on too high?
I thought the whole “if the earth was slightly to the left or slightly to the right there could be no life 😔” was fake. The earth’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular, so we go way more than a few inches left or right from a circular orbit throughout the year. No mass extinctions.
The premise of the multiverse in comics is that the fundamental constants are slightly different, resulting in slightly different universes.
I will never get the math argument. We made a thing to do a thing, and then people are shocked that the thing we made to do the thing does the thing we made it to do.
Or, "We made a tool to help us describe how things are. Isn't it amazing that things are the way our tool describes them?"
I like to paraphrase Steven Weinberg's classic sayings: "For stupid people to say smart things takes education. For smart people to say stupid things takes religion."
He's basically standing out there, well past the edge of our current understanding of the cosmos, making declarations and saying, "This isn't speculation! This is science!"
"Why aren't they teaching this? This is science... They don't teach it. Why?"
Because it's not science; it's conjecture.
While I'm not christian nor follow any religion, I'm still a theist and find the fine tuning a highly compelling argument demonstrating some form of Creator designing and laying framework for the universe, but from deistic perspective. However interesting to hear perspectives from both theist and atheist sides, always been wondering why there's such a division between those 2 camps.
its compelling it has several flaws you have to assume that this set of functions and constants are the only ones that allow life to exist when you havent even compared it to a universe were these functions and constants are different. theres a severe lack of data to suggest the universe is fine tuned and if it was fine tuned its fine tuned for death not life.
13:40 "for those who don't know that name, he's a famous living physicist". I'm not sure she understands what 'famous' means.
Edit: I should have added 'inter alia'.
This woman has students?! That is kind of frightening.
I would call that child abuse.
5:13 - "Who can imagine a million miles? It's 3000 miles across the country!"
Yeah, so that, 300 times. Someone who travels a lot might cover a million miles in a few years. It's a vast distance in human terms, sure, but we can *imagine* it, because numbers exist and tools for visualizing them exist.
. Scientifically Speaking; a "constant" is any anything we measure that is unchanging (or is at the 'fundamental' limit of our ability to discern). So the speed of light is a "constant" or the rate at which a crystal vibrates when imbued/imbedded with energy to run the "Clock Cycle" in any digital-electric device is also a constant. Now, (in my opinion) these constants state more about our ability to do science, our ability to understand the natural world and the constants state more about us as observers that exist in the universe then they state about a higher-level entity making universal decisions. So my next question to the Creationists is: like how did God know to make the Speed of Light = 299,792,458 m/s or Avogadro's Constant = 6.02214076 × 1023 mol-1 [which I believe we use to find the precise value of the mass in (kg)] ? ... cuz, We used the methods of science and math to find these numbers so they're actual somewhat arbitrary since they are results of experimentation and shouldn't be taken as example as of a Creator, an I.D. or of a God. since if one of these constant were to change then we don't actual know what would happen in Reality, we can only only simulate or imagine a possible alternate universe... and even a multi-universe, if you will
8:08 Mars is also in the Goldilocks zone funnily enough.
"It's far more precise to always measure and express distance in femto-angstroms."
---Albert Einstein
We absolutely need absolutely no gravity for chemistry to work.
Sure, planet-formation and all that jizz would be different, but we have friggin people oin space, so we can throw out gravity in its fullest, and nothing would necessarily change, thank you.
And for the other forces: substantial change in their forve (weak, strong, electromagnetic) is still allowed, and atoms and stuff would still form.
My flying spaghetti monster will eat your rainbow unicorn for brunch.
Basically it's the old *"GOD DUN DID IT"* "Because I say so. Using big words, that make me look and seem smart." D'oh! 🤯
When your confidence greatly exceeds your competence.
The gravity bit is very wrong, if gravity was a lot weaker we wouldn't have gotten stars and thus no heavier elements, but it's need to be significantly weaker, not just slightly weaker.
Also when we model chemical reactions we ignore gravity, it's so weak it makes no difference to the outcome so why bother. If gravity was even weaker or slightly stronger it wouldn't affect chemistry in the slightest.
If the gravitational constant was "moved by 1 inch," the measuring tape would only be 556 feet 2 inches, long.
That woman could be the poster-child of "smug arrogance of vacuous babble".
They keep saying "complex" when they mean "simple thing it shows how bad my education is that I didn't know+stupid thing I tacked on that makes no sense."
From what I've read, scientists have found other values for the various constants that would allow chemistry and life to happen, so this argument isn't even valid anymore.
Don't apologise for speeding up the clips - it got their nonsense over quicker! I must say that they seemed very fond of their own voices and their own ideas and justifying everything by grabbing on words from science - the science they do not understand!
Still, even if we accept that there are problems in the universe with 'fine tuning' it is not permission to blame a deity for it all while being unable to show a deity exists. Mind, they are in good company as no other people can show a god exists either! Maybe they could consider the possibility that they are wrong....
Gotta love it when apologists basically say "here's something a scientist said that proves that God is real, even though the scientist who said it still doesn't believe in God."
We only know the gravitational constant to a handful of significant figures, and shes talking about how it couldn't be changed by a tiny fraction without causing life to be impossible?
Then she goes on to say that the universe is trilions of light years in size.
Their basic lack of understanding is laughable.
#1 problem with any fine tuning argument: Demonstrating that any tuning is possible at all.
There's a whole bunch of problems that follow, but there's no point in going to any of them until *anyone* demonstrates that the characteristics of the universe can actually be anything but what they are. Until that is shown to be true, everything else is just bloody guesswork on top of guesswork.
@3:40 I agree, especially since the other constants are very possibly interlinked, you adjust one, that adjusts the others to balance it out.
The thing I get from the “fine tuning”argument is that it puts their god in a box.They are saying this is the only way things can be.