+Joseph Baldomero There is Genesis where god says let there be light, and he saw it was good: (first day) And THEN he made the SUN! (on the fourth day)
For any living, thinking being, in any conceivable situation, the fine tuning argument will always seem to support the idea that there is a creator, regardless if it is true. It's like a fuel gauge stuck in the 'F' position. It will always look like you have gas, even if your tank is empty.
Pick a random number between 0 and 9. The chances of getting 8 is 10%. Nothing special, right? but now do that 20 times. I got the numbers 2; 1; 6; 1; 0; 0; 3; 7; 6; 8; 4; 9; 9; 3; 5; 7; 9; 3; 2; 4. The chances for that are about 0,000000000000000001%. Clearly, this can't just happen by random chance. I clearly controlled the numbers, for I am god.
I'm watching this video more than 13 yrs. after it was made and I love how you call them "movies". Early UA-cam. P.S. Your videos are absolutely brilliant.
I’d like to know as well. Namely what convinced him despite all his reasoning and agreements over the years. If you share your source, you might save a lot of atheists from the fires of hell.
Can i just say im super pissed i didnt find this channel earlier. My childhood was a suburban, christian upbringing and truth be told it never made sense. I didnt feel a "god" around me, and it seemed redoculous that an all loving god would send you to eternal damnation for being skeptical of his existance with no proof. I have been an hesitiant atheist for years now, but couldnt quite finalize the decision because it didnt make sense to me that so many people were so convinced of it. Now upon seeing the rediculousness and contratictions of the bible i can finally accept what i am. I was always too nervous because i had been brainwashed by the faith.
your not going to hell for not believug in god, your going to hell for your sin, god cannot have that in heaven so he sent his son to die for your sin, that thru faith in him you may be saved. because of your sin you cannot see god for it would kill you as he is too pure, and holy...jesus took your spot so when u see heaven you will be chaporned by jesus and god loves in jesus. so now after that you can communicate with god thru jesus and live to tell about it...
@@joelunit8144 So God made him fallible so that he naturally can't see him and the only way to forgive him for being the way he was created was to perform a human sacrifice and because of that ritual now God is capable of forgiving and not sending him to the place he chose to create to be tortured for eternity?
The fact that the universe happened to have life is lucky... for life. The universe didn't benefit. If it gave birth to sentient star beings, born in nebukad, then it would be lucky for them. If no life ever happened, no one would benefit or lose. Who says there "has" to be life? It exists, so what?
There really is no hard evidence of fine tuning at all. We have not explored all of the possible variations of possible parameters and do not know what number of possible combinations and what tolerances of parameters might result in stable universes that allow for something we might call life to form and persist in are. A simulation exploring such possibilities is probably currently beyond our technology so the fine tuning argument currently fails.
+Rob Darling, Wow, meaningless new age nonsense. That requires a new definition of life so different that even using the word life makes no sense. I admit that life is currently very poorly defined, primarily, I think, because any definition is purely arbitrary. There is, however, no compelling reason to move the definition of life so far outside the confines of a state of matter that existed starting at some point during abiogenesis on earth (and presumably very similar states in the origins of life elsewhere in the universe). I also think it would be very difficult to find a state during the early universe to attach the life label to, whereas you could pick almost any state inside the realm of abiogenesis and be justified in defining that as the beginning of life on the earth.
I finally went from questioning Christianity to knowing it wasn't real beyond a shadow of a doubt about 8-10 years ago. All your videos helped me along the way. I started questioning around the age of 18, but as someone who was born and raised as a Christian, it's impossible to go from 100% belief to 100% disbelief within a single day. It took time... 3, maybe 4 years worth of time for me to stop questioning and finally realize that Christianity had no more validity than any other single religion, and I didn't believe in any other single religion at all. I enjoy coming back and watching these now and then. Good memories. Thanks, man.
Nice. Thanks for the comment. Yep, it took me 3 or 4 years, and then lingered and lingered beyond that in some ways. Twenty years later, I'm still aware that my mind gravitates towards thoughts of meaningfulness and intention being behind the universe that I'm sure is a result of Christian cultural upbringing. All the best
It's actually interesting, I went from God is true and enjoying my bible study groups to wth is this BS in about 3 days. It started in Malachi which challenged my idea of an omni benevolent unconditionally loving God and actually reminded me of my psych studies (not courses just independent research spurred by child hood trauma). Doubting God for even a second felt wrong but the passage didn't sit right.
@mike derocco I am sure that you have read it, but if you haven't, read the few lines after "God is dead" in Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra." I am not a big Nietzsche fan, but it is a really good passage. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead?wprov=sfla1
So your religion is to not collect stamps? Because you hate stamps? And you want to violate postal laws that our ancestors venerated, as all good sentient beings throughout the cosmos would undoubtedly do? Well, I'm just glad that there is still time for you to understand the Plan that stamps have for your life. If you hold a stamp up to a light source, you will notice that it probably has 4 sides. But if you look more closely, you will see 4 corners! Do you think that is an accident? Don't you see that any map of the world will have 4 cardinal directions! There are 4 seasons in a year- and it's all because Stamps made everything. Stamps bless you.
John H Have you ever considered all of the terrible things that Stamps want to do to you, if you do not obey them? It isn't that they want to, they just have to. You should mail several letters (to anyone) ASAP, as your immortal soul is probably already in danger. I recommend using lots of extra stamps.
+Horatio Trismegistus and always be sure to obey chain letters. The stamps will be angered if you do not send it to the required number of friends and family.
To be honest, the fine-tuning argument is not something that convinces me at all. We live on a speck of dust within a speck of dust in a small corner of the universe. Firstly, all of that space is not habitable, secondly, half of the planets within our speck of dust are not habitable, and thirdly, a large portion of the land in our blue speck of dust is not habitable. If a God really did make the world in an attempt to make it look fine-tuned, he did a bad job. Also, as it has been said many times before, the universe isn't fine-tuned for us; we're fine-tuned for it, another testament to Evolutionary biology. And finally, everyone points to the precision of the Big Bang, how if it were a bit faster or slower, it wouldn't have happened. It's purely arrogant to suggest that this is how it was 'meant' to be. Maybe the universe nearly happened a million times before that, but those problems occurred those times and the universe failed. To suggest that our reality is what was 'meant to be' is folly. So, yeah. I don't get the fine-tuning argument at all. It's rooted in arrogance and pompous self-importance. Nevertheless, another good video, Stamp.
I agree with everything you wrote. I wish I could amend the video slightly so as to not give the impression I am all that swayed by the fine tuning thing. I guess I've read and thought about it much more since making the vid than I had beforehand.
Hey bud, I really have always enjoyed your work. The fine-tuning argument is the most compelling theists have nonetheless. I can certainly understand why they'd get behind it. Thanks for your time and effort :)
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” - Douglas Adams
I'm personally a deist. So my beliefs are that we are not special (no life on the universe is). Just that the universe was designed by something (a God or gods if you will), but they didn't fine tune anything. I view the universe almost like a computer program with equations and formulas. If certain conditions are met, a galaxy is formed; if more conditions are met, a star is formed; if more conditions are met, a planet is formed; if even more conditions are met, the planet becomes habitable; yet more conditions and life single cellular pops up; so on until you get complex life and even life that that is like humans. These types of formulas are I'm work for everything that is in the universe and the power that put it all into motion may or may not know about us and they probably aren't as complex as their creation. It just makes sense to me.
I bet people appear to view faith as a virtue because evolutionarily speaking a person who tends to have faith in things beyond reason and logic isn't as likely to betray you the moment you stop being beneficial
A Finely Tuned Universe: Evolution has confused a lot of people, even many non-religious folks assume that it involves some sort of betterment in each step of the process. It does not. We are not more "advanced" simply because we build things, form relationships, paint pictures or engage in leisure. We are nothing more than a process of cell multiplication that has proven fairly well adapted to the environments in which we survive. To say that the universe has been "finely tuned" in our favor is the height of absurdity. There are far more places on this planet let alone our universe where humans will die than where they can live. And those few spots on this planet that will not kill you are: THE ONLY KNOWN PLACES IN THE UNIVERSE YOU CAN HOPE TO SURVIVE. Just because chemistry on this planet evolved to support a form of life that could question the nature of the universe does not mean that the entire universe was created just to foster our irrelevant pondering of it. We are here because we live in a universe for which we are compatible and it would be impossible for us to live anywhere else. If the laws of this universe were different we would not be here to question it. Our existence on this planet proves only one thing - that we have adapted to the conditions it has presented thus far - not that the entire universe has been created to facilitate our presence.
Show me a baby pigeon.... Laws are written by people. The universe came long before there were people. People did not invent the universe. If all the people on this planet suddenly died the entire universe would continue to exist for billions of more years without ever noticing our existence or absence. We are incredibly small and insignificant bags of chemical reactions that for the most part are not even smart enough to realize our place in the universe without demanding that some all knowing god created the entire thing just for us.
wiskysadie Me and the bible do not agree on the point and it is ignorant to say otherwise. The bible says the totality of creation was wished into being in six days. I refute that wholeheartedly as does the entire scientific community. Further, the description you just gave is just one of two creation stories contained within the bible, in the same dang chapter. To cite it as some sort of fact while ignoring the contradicting story just words away in the same story is asinine. The bible is an ego boost for people that can't accept that we are not special or unique within the universe. It started with the earth at the center of everything for you folks and continues to this day with the idea that the entirety of the universe was created just for you. It wasn't. We are a by product, the the planetary excrement of a insignificant solar system in a typical galaxy lost within a giant cluster of galaxies likely buried in a sea of universes. The only gods are the ones you invent to explain the concepts you can not grasp.
wiskysadie Perhaps you have one of the misprinted Bibles. In most versions it says that God created all the plant life and trees bearing fruit on Day 3 and then He let them die in the minus 450 degrees F of cold space in the darkness, then the next Day He remembered to create the Sun to finally give warmth and light to Earth and He replanted again. Although He took a whole day to make little planet Earth, He added 950 quadrillion Stars and galaxies as a mere afterthought also. The Bible writers knew nothing about space or the actual number of Stars and imagined them as small points of light stuck in a canopy over the flat circular disk of Earth. Only about 4000 stars are visible to the naked eye, so naturally they thought the Biblical God did it as easily as putting up Christmas lights. The Qur'an later copied the Bible's error and says that the Moon is farther away than the Stars.
Fido Barks "We are a by product, the the planetary excrement of a insignificant solar system in a typical galaxy lost within a giant cluster of galaxies likely buried in a sea of universes. The only gods are the ones you invent to explain the concepts you can not grasp." It's too bad we can't give out trophies for "The most bad ass youtube quote that sounds like it should be read by Brad Pitt's character from Fight Club" award ;) lol bravo! and I totally agree.
Well there's no reason to discard the possibility that a billion year civilization is behind things, like De Grasse Tyson once said, even our own advances in science and technology in a 100 year span are staggering, imagine what could a more intelligent species do after millions of years, they would look like gods to us no doubt.
Of course the software engineer hypothesis means there must also be a clueless corporate headquarters, making completely unreasonable demands such as, "make there a God who perfectly engineers every synapse in people's brains, but also make sure there is free will, but make sure people are punished for exercising their free will, and make it so faith is required, but make absolutely no reason for faith to be practiced besides a handful of trite logical fallacies." hmm... come to think of it, your software engineer hypothesis stands on really firm ground.
Reminds me of a joke. Three engineering students debate what kind of engineer would God have to have been in order to create mankind. The first says, "look at the bones, and the joints, and the muscles. This has mechanical engineer all over it!" The second says, "look at the workings of the brain, its ability to learn or recognize any and every pattern. We have to have been made by a software engineer." The third says, "guys, guys. Only a city engineer would run the sewege lines through the entertainment district."
I noticed the date on this. When you posted this video I lived in a remote area in Far North Queensland with my soulmate. We had no Internet access and minimal phone service, so of course, my soulmate and I didn't see your videos. She was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor nine days after you posted this. Yes, that's completely irrelevant, but I wish she was alive today to see these. She would have loved and appreciated the amount of work you put into creating these videos as much as I do. I'm sharing your videos where I can so that hopefully, some folk that haven't seen your work get to appreciate it too.
I guess that's the point, like in terms of pseudoscience where their statistics comes from placebos and people's feelings about it. He's saying you can't prove something is real by saying when I say his name I feel funny feelings.
epsilon8998 whats the difference does it make, if u believe in god or not. a prick will always be a prick no matter which god they believe, and a good men still a good man even they don't believe in god
Never mind all of your perfectly presented arguments, entertaining (yet controlled) snark, and adorable animation -- THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING *VOLTRON* !!!
Hi NonStampCollector, I just wanted to say thank you for making these videos because they and similar videos from other creators helped me escape Christianity and theism altogether. Looking back at my earlier comments from 7 years ago makes me feel extremely embarrassed at how antagonistic and illogical I used to be. I could delete them, but they serve as a reminder to who I used to be and who I don't wish to return to. Thanks again and sorry to the atheists I attacked in the past.
Yeah. Amazing. Especially the way that scientists have confirmed that women really were made from a single man's rib, and that snakes used to talk in magical gardens. Yes, the bible really is an amazing book of prescience. How DID they know exactly how many birds needed to be ritually killed in order to cure leprosy? Incredible.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:18-21 NKJV Let's talk about biblical prophecies 🤦🏾♂️
Alexander Thomas why would god knowingly create people that he knew would “know him” but still reject him. He is all knowing right? That means he would know before creating us that we would eventually reject him? Before you claim we reject him because we have free will, imagine this scenario: you are god and you know everything that is going to happen in all of time. You are also all powerful and all good. You create a man and, because you are all knowing, you see every event of his life. You know before creating him that he is going to murder 30 people. You are all powerful and are able to stop him from murdering 30 people. on top of that you are all good, so it would seem by obligation you would not create him because if you do you would knowingly create a murderer. If you are the god of the bible , you would create him anyways, why? It’s in one of your 10 commandments to not murder. Why would a all knowing all powerful and good god create such a monster of a person? In the same sense, why would you create someone you know will not believe in you? It seems cruel to create someone who is peaceful all of there life but destined to be tortured for all of eternity just because they are not convinced you exist. Meanwhile that murderer you knowingly created ends up believing in you just before he is executed and gets to spend an eternity in bliss despite all of the pain and suffering he has caused.
@@chrisbirk9511 Chris check it out, God made everything perfect in the beginning,He gave us human beings the ability to make choices. I don't call it free will,because God is sovereign over all. He could have easily created a bunch of robots that would worship him but would you like a life with no choices? The fall of mankind was foreknown by God. The crucifixion of Christ, the atonement for God’s elect, was foreordained by God.All people will one day glorify God (Psalm 86:9), and God purposes “to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). God’s wrath and God’s mercy display the riches of His glory, but we cannot see either without the fall of mankind. We would never know grace if we had never needed grace. Therefore, all of God’s plan-including the fall, election, redemption, and atonement of mankind-serves the purpose of glorifying God. When man fell into sin, God’s mercy was immediately displayed in God’s not killing him on the spot. God’s grace was immediately evident in the covering He provided for their shame (Genesis 3:21). God’s patience and forbearance were later on display as mankind fell deeper and deeper into sin. God’s justice and wrath were on display when He sent the flood, and God’s mercy and grace were again demonstrated when He saved Noah and his family. God’s holy wrath and perfect justice will be seen in the future when He deals with Satan once and for all (Revelation 20:7-10).
@Ted Icarus Romans 1 tells us by everything that is created. If you look around at the room you are in, every single item didn't magically appear. It had a creator, just like you and I.
@Ted Icarus For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:18-21
The answer to the fine tune argument is the anthropic principle. We observe a universe around us that is very fine tuned to support life because if it were not, there wouldn't be life to observe it.
Yes, by the very definition that we are alive and conscious, no matter how rare life is, we simply *have* to be in the one universe with life, because if we werent, we wouldnt be alive
@@MartinLeong25 How did you arrive at that conclusion? Us being here proves that we live in a universe that is fine tuned to support the very specific conditions for life to arise. That doesn't mean life can't still be an extremely rare occurence. Something being possible isn't the same as something being probable.
@@spocksvulcanbrain The universe is fine tuned in a way that life is possible in the first place. No amount of adaption would make it possible for life to start if atoms didn’t even exist. That’s what I mean when I say that our universe is fine tuned to support life. The actual life that flourishes in our universe then adapts to it’s environment of course, I was never arguing against that
Im not done watching this video as a write this but this guy and all his videos seem very well though out and methodical. I also love that he openly invites criticism and counter arguments to his statements. I am really glad that youtube has allowed people like this to disseminate their ideas to people all across the world.
People always use this odd idea of "fine tuning" to justify the existence of a god. A lot of people seem to forget that the universe doesn't exist FOR us. We simply exist as a byproduct BECAUSE of the universe. If the laws of physics were different, the universe would have evolved differently, and maybe some strange form of life would have developed that could only exist in that universe. If you accept the multiverse theory, this fine tuning idea becomes even more of a silly idea, because then, even if our laws of physics were somehow the only laws that could allow any sort of life, it would be obvious as to why we developed within this universe rather than any other.
The irony is that a theist would call you arrogant for claiming to know that the universe is not fine tuned for us, even though all observations support this and therefore it's reasonable to assume it as fact. We can't live anywhere in the immensely large universe outside our tiny atmosphere without bringing our own oxygen and protection from deadly radiation, space debris heat, cold, etc. We can't even say that this planet is fine tuned for life. Sure, at the moment it seems to be, in some places, some of the time, if there are no draughts, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. Of course those are all the products of Adam's sin for listening to a woman who listened to a talking snake, which doesn't make sense if you consider how many christians get killed by them. Unless maybe they didn't pray *hard* enough, just like the starving naked christian children in Africa who are still waiting for Jesus to fulfil his promise of feeding and clothing those who ask, but then again, god and jesus never said that forgiveness or food was given only to those who prayed hard enough. Only christians say such things. Only theists *know* what created the universe and which god is the true god and which of the thousands religions is the true one and which holy book is the right one and how it should be interpreted and how to get into heaven and that heaven and hell exist, even though there is *no* observation that supports any of that. Asserting something as fact that which is not evidently true, that's not faith or something you believe. It's arrogant and intellectually dishonest.
Assuming that the "fine tuning" question is even reasonably phrased is like assuming that a human would survive in a place where it would be instantly die.
maxwell simon I agree with your point about the multiverse theory. However if you believe in the multiverse theory you therefore must believe in heaven and hell. (Not like in the Bible and not like that we are going to one of them after death, but multiverses implies heaven and hell since in one of these universes may devolop life that cannot die due to the properties of the universe in question and the conditions of life up there may resemble heaven or hell for real. Did u get the idea?.) Peace !
Wender Lima Well yes and no. While there is an inexhaustible number of possible universes, such that some may be heavenly or hellish, I - like you already said - don't believe that any of us go there after dying. But that sort of phenomenon is already true on Earth as well; there are good places to live and bad places to live, so it's not unreasonable to assume that universes may act the same as well. Peace ti you as well.
Not a theist, but in response to your wondering about the fine tuning... I like the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, like bubbles in champagne. Each one of them has a different set of physical properties. Like different ratios of matter & anti-matter, etc. And since there is an infinite number of universes then some of them are bound to have the right conditions for star formation & life.That's my favorite possible explanation so far.
If I were to generate a random one million digit long sequence of numbers 0-9, the chance of me getting whatever sequence I get is 1/10^1,000,000 (1 out of 10 to the one-millionth power). Just because this low probability event happened, doesn't mean a god willed it.
I love what Laurence Krauss had to say about the fine tuning argument. He said(slightly off quote) "The reason the universe seems so perfect for us, is because we're here to measure it". The point he was making was that the universe is so perfect for us because that's what we evolved in. If the laws were different and a different life evolved and they began to measure these things, they would ask the same question. I find this to be a wonderfully clean explanation for it, though I'd love to hear some rebuttals.
The fine tuning argument is very easy to debunk by simply pointing out that the universe is not fine tuned to fit us, but that we are fine tuned to fit the universe. The Universe was there first, and we developed in accordance with the rules of said universe. We only exist because the properties of the universe allow us to exist. If the properties of the universe were different, then life like we know it might be impossible. But that doesn't mean that life in general would be impossible.
The so-called "fine tuning" argument doesn't make me pause for an instant. Anyone making it is a fool, is wilfully ignoring that only some of this planetary hydrosphere, some of the time, is conducive to life, while the rest of this planet and of the whole universe is inplacably hostile.
I don't care where we came from or why we're here. It's not relevant to my existence, I am simply here, I'm just trying to live my life to the fullest and treat others the way I want to be treated.
I don't see many Theists stepping up to the plate. And I seem to be a few years late for the party. I will say that I thoroughly enjoy your videos. All of them are well done and thought out. I think the fine-tuning of the universe argument has lost ground in recent years. The universe is far from finely tuned. Its full of Entropy and Chaos. Everywhere you look. If the universe was finely-tuned, it would become static. Having reached perfection. Once matter reaches a state of perfection, it has nothing else to achieve. Nothing is perfect. Nor will ever be. There is no blueprint for perfection. Which once again blows up the existence of "God". A perfect being can only create perfection, by definition. Divine intelligence would have created everything in the universe in the state of perfection. There would be no room for error. The universe would have been created static. Everything in the universe created perfectly. Unless this perfect being is prone to mistakes. The only Constant in the Universe is Change. (and maybe the speed of light) IDIC
"Faith" is the religious word for gullibility, and nothing more. If I went around telling people that I have an elephant in my closet, who would believe me? If you asked to see this elephant and I said that it was invisible, and you asked how it got there and I said that it had always been there, even before there was a closet, and by the way, YOU had an elephant in YOUR closet too, would you believe me? Would you call someone who believed me "faithful" or just sadly gullible?
First let me make one thing absolutely clear - I'm a 100% cast iron, carved in stone, 24 carat atheist. However for the purpose of this debate I'm willing to accept that the Christian claim that the eye means there must have been a designer and God was that designer, OK? The Holy Bible says that God made man in His own image, so two arms, 2 legs, two eyes etc. Who designed God's eyes??? In addition, why did God not give man the best eye He designed? Why did we not get the best nose He designed or for that matter did he not give us the best hearing when He gave us dominion over all the animals? We are, at best average!!!
@111437438847044021423 Bottle Nose Dolphins have an extremely large brain and its cerebral cortex and frontal lobe are 40% bigger than a human. The cerebral cortex is the area of the brain responsible for social communication, abstract information processing, problem solving, and higher lever intelligence. Plus, echo location, great hearing, and sight. Who/what told you we were downgraded as animals so we'd be inspired to "exercise our minds?" lol
David MacDonell Dolphins have awesome hearing and site. All that there brains need humans however were not given the best eyes, but we were given the gift of nature. The fact that sand can be melted into glass and glass bends light and if we look trough this light bending melted sand we can see millions of times further than Dolphins ever dreamed!
wiskysadie Another attempt to justify a reason why god and his methods haven't to be questions or criticized! If god gave us the intelligence to make glass to turn into telescopes to see these far away galaxies that god made then why did god's men on Earth then force all the results underground for centuries!! It's an argument that just doesn't hold water!!! The simple answer to the e sight question is that that is how our sight evolved. We simply don't need the eyesight of a hawk or the echo-location of a dolphin. If something happens in the future to make us go underground then we would lose the power of sight bit by bit as some animals have done and we would evolve other methods of obtaining what we need. While we are at it - if god made all the heavens and Earth lets do the math. Our galaxy has a billion billion stars. There are said to be trillions of galaxies I god took a millisecond to make a million stars then it would take a million seconds to make our galaxy which is 16.6 hours. You now need to work out how many billions of hours it took to make the others at the same rate, I couldn't be bothered!!!
Maybe there was a universe before this one and in that universe gravity was just a little bit stronger. That Universe may have expanded for just three or four billion years before collapsing back in on itself and then 'bang', this universe begins. Maybe this is one in a long line of progressively less gravitationally strong universes. Maybe this is just one of many parallel universes. Either way the point I'm making is that why even suggest that the universe is "fine tuned"? I think that phrases like "fine tuned" are unnecessary and play right into the hands of the religious. Every fine tuned universe needs a tuner, blah, blah, blah. I don't see a problem with the anthropic principal, the universe is just so and that is how come we are fortunate enough to exist in it and marvel at how fortunate we are to exist in it.
I got this strange theory, I mean hypothesis. So scientists say the the universe, being time and space, was created from a singularity. Within our universe there are singularities which are black holes which form from gravity gone wild. And since time and space are relative, the closer you are to a large mass the slower times goes (I've heard in theory times stops in a black hole (but we really don't know what happens in one)) and when the black hole reached a certain mass then it could create time and space through a release of its stored energy. Black holes could create more universes within them selves. They would have a big expansion but instead of being outward it could be inward (or it may be outward as the this universe is currently expanding and it would just be an expansion in an expansion idk im no scientist). Then inside these universes the cycle would continue making an infinite loop. Dat shit would be crazy O.o
Adding to your comment, considering humans are limited to earth and require special man made equipment to even begin to explore the universe, that of which "god" has created specifically for mankind, it doesn't seem to be all that fine tuned. Even the majority of earth is uninhabitable for man, deserts, the arctic, all the oceans, none of which without mans ingenuity would we even be able to use.
There's the theory of the Big Crunch, which suggests that the universe will eventually contract on itself, and become once more as it was back before the Big Bang. Hence, the cycle will then repeat itself.
+Nic Stroud, writes _"Maybe this is one in a long line of progressively less gravitationally strong universes. Maybe this is just one of many parallel universes._ _Either way the point I'm making is that why even suggest that the universe is "fine tuned"?"_ it's simplier than that, we have no evidence that the gravitational constant can be anything other than what it is. We have exactly one sample. No information can be gleamed from that except that this gravitational constant is possible. So even presuming that the gravitational constant can be something else is a fallacy.
NonStampCollector Though I have occasionally heard some prominent atheists point to the fine tuning argument as perhaps the most compelling, I fail to see why. I suppose it might be akin to being the best physicist in a class of Down's Syndrome patients, but I find it to be so obviously flawed that it amazes me that anyone pays any attention to it. This is why: Reason #1 At it's heart, the fine tuning argument, if expressed as a syllogism fails due to a severe question begging fallacy, because the very first premise would have to be that life was an intended consequence of the universe. By that logic, one could argue that bread is fine tuned to be a home for mold. By assuming that life is an intended purpose of the universe, you have assumed the conclusion in the premise. Reason #2 A much more common objection - what evidence is there that this universe is fine tuned for life? Aside from the many reasons commonly given about how bad this universe actually seems to be for life, there is the very simple fact that we can't know what universes are possible. Fine tuning arguments tend to be based on the idea that if we slightly alter one parameter, the universe would not be stable, or galaxies, stars and planets would not form - fine. But what if we alter ALL the parameters? What if there can be universes with totally different laws of nature and different fundamental forces? Maybe it would be possible to have a universe in which every cubic millimeter is suitable for life! Perhaps ours is the worst possible universe for life in which life is still possible. Reason #3 - There is no reason to consider this universe any less probable than any other possible universe, so even if the big bang was a one time event, this outcome is no more surprising than any other. But what if it was not? As Hawking and many other physicists have noted, many of the possible variations they have contemplated would result in unstable universes that would collapse in short order. For all we know, there were a billion "big bangs" before this that failed to produce a stable universe. Reason #4 Another common objection - the possibility of a multiverse. So this argument not only is flawed in its basic construction, but several plausible alternative explanations for the state of this universe exist. So, frankly, I find this perhaps less compelling than the Kalaam argument - poor as that is. Sorry to go on so long.
+Pat Doyle The main reason for me that the fine tuning argument fails, is that it assumes that the universe was created to hold life. As anyone with an ounce of scientific curiosity has discovered, life will alter itself to fit the environment, but the environment has yet to alter itself to accommodate life.
whiterabbit75 I agree - that was my first objection. It is a question begging fallacy. One could as easily say that an unstable universe was "fine-tuned" to collapse. Or that this universe was fine tuned to fuse hydrogen into heavier elements. That would make more sense, since it seems to do a lot more of that than producing life. One MUST assume intent to even make this argument, so you are assuming the conclusion in the premise.
Pat Doyle It's worded a bit differently from how you did it, but I can see now that it was essentially the same reason. It just really bugs the heck out of me when people use unsupported presuppositions.
whiterabbit75 Me too. Worst of all in this case most of them don't think they are doing that. The notion that our existence is a good thing is so inherent to human nature that it permeates the thinking of even atheist scientists on this subject. I have read quotes from people like Hawking referring to the "fine tuned" constants as "fortuitous" - to whom? Only to us. Even if there were a creator, it is possible that life isn't something it wanted - we may be a contaminant in its experiment. To call this condition fortuitous would be like having a lottery drawing in which no tickets were sold, and calling whatever numbers come up "lucky" because that combination was so unlikely.
+Pat Doyle The fine tuning argument proves Earth has an intelligent designer because the ocean floor is fine tuned to be the exact shape to hold the earth's ocean. There's even the Marianas trench, exactly the perfect shape in exactly the perfect location to make room for the deepest part of the ocean to fit inside it.
The fine tuning, if anything, is actually more of an argument against a designer than for it. Think of it as a fridge. A huge fridge. And inside that huge fridge only a tiny surface of less than a square millimetre is actually cold enough to cool food, the rest ist just ... wasted space. That's what the universe is if it was actually created. A design? Perhaps. But if so, a terribly bad one. Just like this planet with its molten core and all the resulting problems of volcano eruptions, continental drift and associated earthquakes. Oh, never mind 70% of it being filled with toxic water and the water we, the humans this planet was made for, need makes up less than 3% - most of it trapped in ice and snow and unreachable. This has been designed for us? I want to speak to the management! Now!
You can live life the way you want to live the short time we are here instead of being a slave of worship, all your money and time to the church is spend fighting progress for society
I've always been an atheist since my parents are too. But I've never really thought bad about religion, I've just never felt that there was a god. But now after seeing your videos, I'm glad to be an atheist, Christianity just seems so extremely dumb (and the other religions are probably similar)
I dunno, Buddhism is pretty cool. Mostly it’s just self improvement. Don’t be a jerk, go meditate or something. There is no deity, or guilt. Just introspection and being considerate towards others. I can get behind that. 😊
@@cchance9618 Depends on what form of Buddhism you follow. It can be more of a traditional religion if you believe that Buddha was a god (which some do), or it can be more down to earth like a Spiritualism thing of just finding inner peace with no greater religion thing. Some Buddist dont even believe in reincarnation or a literal nirvana. But yea, it just depends on which sect you follow. But its still got some wacky beliefs in there at the end of the day that arent substantiated. There is no REASON to really be a Buddhist. Its find if you still like meditation stuff to clam your mind or whatever, but no reason to tack on all the other unsubstantiated claims just cuz you like meditation and introspection. But as far as many other religions go, its definitely one of the better ones out there.
I was there when Voltron sacrificed himself, unto himself, to appease Himself. Voltron the one true god! or 5 true gods..depending on how you interpret the scriptures!
your doing God's work brother!!! love your videos. please please keep doing them. I love the way in which you challenge theists without being mean, loud, or annoying. keep up the good fight
1:02. Speaking of that, I am currently going to an all Christian school. My science class is walking on holy ground. In the science book, these people are referencing Aristotle, and saying that his reasoning, is wrong... I can't wait to learn mainly false science. Help me.
+Smartgaming You have my sympathies. My suggestion would be to divide yourself. While in school, do what they say, "learn" what they "teach", and at home, or in your free time, study real science. I'm sure a google search will turn up many sites dedicated to this sort of thing.
whiterabbit75 It is funny. The classes do not correlate. Meaning: My history teacher is going over Aristotle, and he actually respects Aristotle, and says that his logical structure is flawless. He brings up that the syllogism won't work when dealing with a false pretence. However, my biology book says different. This book says that Aristotle is wrong, and it gives two laughable examples. "Logical reasoning constitutes truth to some people. If it makes sense, or if it can be figured out, they think it is true" Since mathematics is logical, some would say it is true. For example, it is said that 2+2=4. If, 2 +,=, and 4 can be defined, the truth of this mathematical statement is demonstrated. But numbers can be made to give inaccurate descriptions oh what exists. By 'cooking the books,' a company can look profitable when it is nearly bankrupt. What may appear to logical mathematically may not be true. Logical reasoning is usually classified as either inductive or deductive" Shoot me now.... "Deductive reasoning begins with premises assumed to be true and draws conclusions about particulars. One of the first recorded illustrations of deduction is contributed to Aristotle, describing his teacher: Major premise: All men ae mortal Minor premise: Socrates s mortal Conclusion: Socrates is mortal If, however, the statements in logical reasoning are not exclusive enough, the conclusion may exhibit faulty logic and be false. Major premise: All feathered creatures can fly Minor premise Ostriches have feathers Conclusion: Ostriches can fly" Just like that, Aristotle and his legacy diminished by a 9th grade biology book. Just like that, every single scientist in the world has been approaching problem solving in the wrong way. An ignorant logical fallacy just single handedly fucked the universes brain up. Applause*
Smartgaming In order to make religion work, a certain amount of cognitive dissonance is required. For instance, what they think proves their religion to be true and factual will not work for other religions, because all other religions are demonstrably false (in their eyes). It's how they are able to reconcile their beliefs with reality.
whiterabbit75 Funny, their religion says there is only one whole truth. But in order for them to prove their religion to be true, they have to use relative truth!
Honestly, with Yahwehs logic in the Bible and Old Testament, it’s perfectly plausible in a fictional sense that he wasn’t the only god to create the universe in his lore….. especially since he wasn’t the first god mankind invented. One look at the Fable of Gilgamesh, the oldest story in the world, and you can not only see that the world was a lot older than what the Christians believed, but also that there were older gods that went off on their own paths to become newer deities (Ishtar -> Aphrodite + Ares), and that many of the stories from back then inspired some parts of the Bible. One of the more interesting parts of Gilgamesh’s tale is when he meets an immortal man and his wife in his search for immortality. According to the man, who tells Gilgamesh his tale about how he became immortal, the man got told by one of the main deities at the time to build a boat because one of the other deities was going to flood the entire planet. The man and his wife did so, built a boat and put people and animals on it, and survived the massive flood. Afterwards, being among the last living people on Earth, the gods gave him and his wife immortality, and restored the world back to its rightful order. If this story sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the original inspiration for Noah and his Ark, which did the exact same thing, except for a different deity: Yahweh. Another thing, the Greek and Roman, the Hindu, Japanese, Native religions and the Norse all had creation mythology that sorta lines up with each other in a weird way, especially with Christianity. Norse and Greek mythology in particular line up with Christian mythology because they A) All share relative Heavens and Hell dimensions, B) They all have their own all-powerful ruler deities with slightly lesser but still incredibly powerful deities that rule alongside them (Zeus and the Olympians for Greek; Odin and the other Norse gods; Yahweh and his angels), and C) They all have similar mythology to each other (Giants and Titans, Angels and Valkyries, forbidden heavenly apples to mortals, etc.). No matter how much Christians want to deny it, their religion was shaped by other gods, religions, and mythos just as well as their own. What, a guy in the sky who smites mortals and rules over the entirety of a realm in the sky? Sounds like Zeus and Yahweh have a lot in common, and don’t forget to leave Odin and the Norse out of this too: an all-knowing warrior god with Angelic warrior-beings with wings that take fallen warriors up to paradise, a place where the truly fortunate get to party till the end of the world? Sounds like a cooler Heaven to me. And the Underworld, ruled by Hades and Persephone, a place where the dead get to rest after dying? Sounds like a cooler, older version of Hell that I’d much rather go to, in part for the Greek architecture. And, what’s this, one of the first women ever created did something out of curiosity that they weren’t supposed to, even though they didn’t know that it was wrong and thus had no idea of its consequences, and by doing that let unspeakable evils into the world, all as part of a trick by a creator deity that wanted to punish them and the rest of humanity? To anyone whose studied Greek mythology and at least heard about the Christian origin of man know about The Box and the Apple… and this analogy only goes to show that Christianity isn’t just its own religion influenced by other mythologies: it’s a religion that copies and takes whatever it wants away from other religions and myths. If you can get so specific that the Adam and Eve and the Apple myth mimics the myth of Pandoras Box, besides the fact that one has an apple and the other has a box, right down to the grain of it, they are related and/or connected in a way that is unrefutable. And, as such, it becomes that much harder to prove just YOUR deity exists, alone, when your religions own stories have been influenced, inspired and taken from countless others that came before. Perhaps one day, one could prove that we really created or at least influenced by the real Abrahamic God, but they would be hard pressed to state that their god is the only one.
in church they never taught is about any of the contradictory stuff, or really most of the horrible things; which I guess is a way stop teenagers from questioning anything. Then I found this part of the internet, and it's just like, "holy shit, everything they have tried to teach me is B.S.
Time spent reading the Bible would be better spent reading Clifford, maybe then people will realize what’s wrong with basing belief on insufficient evidence
Why oh why is it that theists lay design claim to only the beautiful and magnificent such as life and the universe? What about poverty, disease, war, rape, murder, torture, terrorism, etc? No, theists advise those failings were definitely not in God's design. They are apparently results of human short comings. And God will not step in to resolve these because he gave Man freewill to do as he pleases. Well, except for burning in Hell for eternity unless you worship Him. No exceptions to this one. Do what I say and you will be rewarded, but don't do as I say and you will be punished. Slavery at it's highest level. Not really a lot of freewill there that I can see! If God designed everything including man and man is flawed, the design is flawed. Full stop. So by that rational if the design is flawed the designer must be flawed. Therefore if God is the designer and the design is flawed, God cannot be God as God must be perfect in every way. In simpler words, if God designed all and it's not perfect, He cannot be God. My last words on the matter. The universe and all it contains including life is so full of complexity, so beautifully structured and so finely balanced. A theists belief regarding this is there is no way something so complex and balanced could have evolved on it's own so it obviously must have been designed and made by a greater being. The theists reasoning for this? It's way too complex to have evolved on it's own so is it must have been designed and made by something even infinitely more complex! The universe is so complex it couldn't possibly exist without a God being responsible but apparently it's okay for God who is infinitely more complex to just exist! With this logic, God help us. No wait.........
Although this video is 6 years old this question was posed to all theist even though it is clearly directed towards Christianity. The Torah does not say what or who created anything, this is omitted. Nor does the Torah make any claims about there only being one God, in fact it is quite clear that the Torah references the existence of many deities that were prevalent in the areas that the Torah was written in. If you speak Hebrew the opening line of Torah reads far more like this "In a beginning created were forces, beyond sky, and fertile space". And far less like the Christian English interpretation of, "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". However, once more in the Torah there is a clear omission about the who or what created these things. So to answer your question "prove that one God created the universe"? This question does not make any sense within the confines of Judaism. It is unclear what created the universe and it is equally unclear as to what "God" is, or what "God" is referencing. In reference to the opening line of Torah, there is no personal pronoun in that sentence. Elohim, which non-Hebrew speaking Christians insist means God, is actually a pluralized verb. How a pluralized verb can be a creator is confusing. I understand that many Christians have the all the answers, but Judaism usually leaves people, especially Jews, with more questions than answers. This is most likely why the Jewish state of Israel is the most secular and atheist country in the world.
I think your answer is very revealing and something that I have thought about myself: that most Christians (and other religious people today) have a completely different understanding of monotheism than the original peoples who founded these religions. We understand it as "belief i one god" when it is more like "loyalty to one god." It's simply a matter of individual tribes choosing to worship one god above others - it doesn't mean they don't believe in other gods, only that their's is the supreme one. Christians - Sun god (Ra). Jews - Saturn (the sabot is on SATURday). Muslims - Moon god (the crescent moon - duh).
Let us make man in our image....then later the bible says..Look they have become like us. And the Adam and Eve story.. Cain went to the land of Nod and got married to who? It seems to me that the bible is a story of Jewish history to exhaust themselves and make them proud. It sure has worked.
Lol, Heather, When I was 9, I asked Sister Mary-Magdalene, where Cain got the woman he had sex with. She threw her teeth at me! then she realized it was a bad mistake, snatched it out of the air like a hawk would a dove & slammed it back in her mouth. I got a standing ovation from the rest of the class. I gave them my best Valantine the Great bow. She spent the rest of the day banging her head against the wall.
Cain would have married his sister. The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. So it all began with incest according to their fairy tale.
just to clarify so I don't get lit up by a shitload of atheists, I'm not a theist... I'm not an atheist either. I'm a philosopher. Some points worth noting here: Paley's Watchmaker is very parallel with the theme of this. There haven't been very strong atheistic-arguments against that imo. Though there are some arguments out there that challenge it, most of them are pretty absurd and weak, unfortunately. Another point that lends to the "1 God" thing would be our current belief that the universe derives from the big bang. Assuming that there was a big bang, and there was only one, or only one that pertains to our universe, that would be pretty strong evidence for a uniform, single creator... Honestly, even as a non-theist, this is pretty easy to poke holes into, and for one very obvious reason. Theist's Gods are described as being unlimited, omniscient, omnipotent, and super-temporal. Any being that elects to be unseen, and fits this description, is simply beyond any human capability of proving or disproving. Personally, when I tend to have to debate a theist, I don't bother with trying to disprove God, but rather just prove that if there were a God, it's nature couldn't be that of theirs. That's the most reasonable way to dismantle such a dishonesty. I mean, think of it like this: most theists believe in two Gods, but deny one. They think the "devil" or whatever entity, is at war with their perfectly good God. However, if God knows all things that are, were, or will be, has power over all things, exists beyond the boundary of time... and created it's adversary (the devil) then.... it's not only intrinsically not "at war" with such a being, but created it for it's own devices. There's only two possibilities: either God created all evil that shall ever be, knowing full well that it would destroy the world and cause great suffering and cataclysm to the things he claims to love most... or God is simply not supreme, and the Devil and God are only near-equals at war, meaning neither is righteous, nor all-powerful. With that out of the way, if you worship a God that demands worship from you, who is a jealous God, who punishes those who go against his will, who admonishes war, who tolerates cruelty or mistreatment of those deemed unholy or heretics... Then... you clearly worship "the deceiver" as those things are inherently evil actions that must be justified only by "God's command." I mean... if you believe in a God vs Devil... and your religion has even the most questionable moral principle involved, it's safe to say you're worshipping the deceiver at that point. IE, why prove to Christians that their fake God isn't real, when you could just prove to them that they worship the fake devil instead? I assure you, they lose a lot more sleep when they realize their own ammunition is so easily used against them.
It is amazing that the arguments have not changed for more than a thousand years. In that time, science has advanced and can produce evidence while religion has been stagnant since it was invented.
God: -Expects people to worship him as savior -Orders the killing of Millions -Rules by absolute power -Creates arbitrary rules to keep his own power -Promotes expanding of this culture by force Hitler: -Expects people to worship him as savior -Orders the killing of Millions -Rules by absolute power -Creates arbitrary rules to keep his own power -Promotes expanding of this culture by force
A potential answer to the challenge... nearly 10 years too late: From what I understand, you’re just asking that IF the fine tuning argument could be proven, then why does it necessarily have to be one creator as opposed to 2 or more? The reason for this is: to create a universe with space, matter, and time, the creator would have to be outside of these things because if the creator made space, matter, and time, then those things cannot possibly make this creator up. This therefore makes the creator an infinite being as he is not restricted by space, matter, or time, which is where we get the terms “omniscient,” “omnipotent,” and “omnipresent” to define God. To be a separate being from something else, you naturally must differ from another being in some way. If you differ from someone, then you lack something that they have because you can’t both be different and not lack a quality of another being. To be infinite, you can’t lack anything because if you did then you are not infinite, so therefore only one creator must exist (assuming the fine tuning argument is correct) because an infinite being cannot be different from another being or else neither being is infinite and therefore neither would be capable of creating a universe that has space, matter, and time since they would have had to have at least one of those qualities to differ from the other creator. This would make polytheism impossible because, like I said in the beginning, you cannot create one of those qualities if you are not outside of them.
Definitely an interesting perspective on the issue I hadn't considered that much, namely, the conclusion that there can only be one god because the attributes required to be a god cannot be shared by multiple beings. If I understand your argument correctly, it could be written as the following syllogism: 1. It takes an infinite being to create space, matter, and time 2. An infinite being cannot lack any qualities 3. To be separate from something else, something must differ/be distinguishable from them in some way 4. If something does not lack any qualities, it is indistinguishable from any other thing that doesn't lack any qualities 5. Therefore, there can be one and only one infinite being that created space, matter, and time. Because of time constraints, and also because this is a UA-cam comment and not a formal context where I am more inclined to be thorough, I am not currently going to write a detailed response to each of the points I take issue with, namely (1), (2), and (4). However, the biggest issue I'll address is with premise (2). @A 01 gave a summary of an argument against (1), though I don't necessarily agree with how it was phrased. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt in that "qualities" is a bit of a misnomer. It seems very dubious to suggest that any being, infinite or finite, can be (omni)benevolent and (omni)malevolent, ambitious and also aimless, stable and also unstable, spontaneous and also inhibited, fair and also unfair, knowledgeable and also ignorant, square-shaped and also circle-shaped and also triangle-shaped, the list goes on. Perhaps I am misusing qualities in the sense it is meant: perhaps this refers more to the elements/properties of infinite nature. For instance, an infinite being is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and perhaps a bit more. But if that's the case, we have a key flaw in that there are then qualities the being wouldn't necessarily have. In order for the premise to hold, one would either have to either resolve every possible contradiction in qualities, or arbitrarily choose one outcome of each possible contradictory set of qualities, or argue that qualities as we think of it doesn't make sense in an infinite being's nature. Though with the latter, we again run into the issue of it being feasible for an infinite being to lack some qualities.
@@AbdulmajeedSarhan I struggle to accept that. Omnibenevolence and omnimalevolence may cancel out to a perfectly neutral being, but that means the being has the quality of neutrality, and neither the quality of benevolence nor malevolence.
A 01 I get what you’re saying, however I would argue that if multiple infinities existed, then they would exist in our universe. You do have a point, and because a good human mind will always be able to admit that there things we cannot possibly know (e.g. multiple infinities, unknown universal laws, etc.) then there’s always a possibility that a monotheistic creator doesn’t exist, but I would say that we can know (assuming the fine tuning argument is correct) with very great accuracy that one does. The reason for this is because of Occam’s razor, which basically states that the thing with the least number of assumptions is usually correct. While unknown things to man could possibly exist that would disqualify my argument, they are extremely unreasonable and unlikely until they are proven.
Exalted Toast from what I understand, you’re saying that everything HAS to lack qualities because if not they would have to have the positive and negative qualities, which would then contradict each quality which isn’t possible? You make a good point, and you may very well disagree with me on what I say, but I would still say that the monotheistic creator cannot lack anything. I am a Christian and therefore believe that God is all just and good, so how can I possibly say that God is infinite and therefore lacks nothing, yet also claim that He is not unjust, meaning He would lack that quality? I would say that the issue comes from the wording of these qualities. What I mean by this is that it isn’t necessarily just vs unjust, but rather just vs the lack of just. All that needs to exist is the positive quality and then the lack of that quality is then just a choice made by the monotheistic creator or his creations.
A 01 when I say “exists outside the universe” I do not mean physically always outside of it since it is constantly expanding. But rather I’m saying it is not made up of space, matter, or time, therefore able to be “outside” of the universe since it isn’t made up of it. Anything not made up of this would therefore be infinite because it has no constraints other than constraints it makes for itself. I don’t consider Occam’s razor to be law, but that doesn’t mean it’s not relevant in this discussion because if we were to try to disprove a monotheistic god by saying there are things that could be outside the universe that don’t exist inside the universe, then yeah sure that very well could be, but we have no proof of that and therefore it isn’t really probable nor is it logical to argue such a thing. I appreciate your response and the thoughtful discussion though :)
cont. 3. Length, or separation in space, is literally dependent upon the motion of an object. A ruler has different lengths depending on its motion. The closer something comes to moving at the speed of light, the flatter it becomes, similar to the 2D picture. IF a ruler could reach the speed of light, it would become completely flattened and its length would be zero relative to us. Distance only can be determined relative to motion of the frame of reference.
I find it extraordinary that there aren't more deists in this country. People who believe in the supernatural...but don't conform to a specific religion. I'm an atheist...but agnostic. The question of 'is there a God' is one that simply can't be answered and then to go and say, not only to you 'know' there is a God....but he's definitely a man, there is only one, he likes a certain group of humans, he has a list of things he hates, he hates gay people, etc. It would be like saying "I know there has to be life in the universe other then on Earth ...and they wear red shoes, have four arms, speak French, and will land in New Mexico in 2053 on a Friday when they visit us...I know it!" I cannot imagine holding such specific beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary.
+Patrick Kilduff I think most people, if actually pressed, fall less under the "The terms of the bible are true" category, more under the "I'm not talking about religion, but *God*, man" crowd. It's a popular choice because it allows God to represent whatever the person wants it to, thus making it both perfectly tangible and yet un-corruptable. They don't *have* to answer for the barbarianism of Numbers or the lunacy of Leviticus. They don't have to pretend that Jesus didn't say he was a sword coming to cleave families in half. God has changed dozens of times in "his" own writings, because God represents what people think is good. Thus, in a world of billions of voices competing with each other, God has become nebulous. He represents what each person thinks is ultimately correct. Imagine two kids on a playground arguing about Smash Brothers. They each claim they know more than the other because their dad works for Nintendo. Each of them constantly try to one-up each other about how high-up their dad works in Nintendo's ranks. Then along comes a third child that reminds both of them that they live in suburban Idaho, and that neither of their dads could possibly work for Nintendo. Both of the previous kids now turn and scream that the third kid can't prove they don't. That's modern religion. Just on the fringe of deniability, without relying on a source. True Deism.
+Allen S Does the bible actually claimthat it is god's word? I think that's what chirches do. What god was in old testament times was the sanction to do anything ang have other people do anything. The leaders believing less or not at all but relying on the less intellectuall well off to do their bidding based on claims of celestial mandate for genocide or whatever their whim was that week.
Let's have some fun with logic. Let’s define, for argument’s sake, that “goodness” or the “positive property” is defined as the absence of “bad” properties (e.g.needless suffering, injustice, etc.). Because of this definition, objects' properties of goodness can change given the context. Thus “perfection” is defined as the set where there are no “bad” elements, thus, of all “good” (|N| = 0 and |G| = infinity|), and “best” can be defined as the upper bound of “goodness” which, in turn, equals the lower bound of “badness”, of elements within a given set. Now, If the universe was the best possible universe, something that has the best properties or lowest number of negative properties of an infinite number of universes, and it is possible for a perfect universe to exist, then by definition, that best universe would be the perfect universe if the perfect universe were to exist. However, if a perfect universe does not exist, then it would be impossible for the best universe to be a perfect universe, as the number of bad properties is greater than 0. If we then define God as the ultimate good (|N| = 0), then if a perfect universe were to exist, then God would also exist in that universe as God is defined as all of good (In definition, God encompasses all elements of the “perfect” set). On the contrary, if the perfect universe were not to exist, then it would be impossible for God to exist, as God is defined as all of good, and given a lack of a “bad” property is in itself a “good” property, God would have infinite “good” properties. However, as the given universe is not the perfect universe, the number of bad properties in said universe is greater than 0, meaning that the set of “good” properties of this universe is a proper subset of the perfect set “all of good”, and because God is defined as the perfect set, then God cannot exist in this universe as the number of “good” properties that God has would be greater than that of the universe he is in, which is impossible. So, if our current universe was perfect, then God (in this definition) could exist, if not then it is impossible for God to exist. (I wrote this at 5 am there might be some (a lot) of errors there. I personally think that the universe is definitely *not* perfect, so it is impossible for God to exist?
I think that's a good idea. Though it'd require you either dumbing yourself down and using misinformed logic, or excessive use of mathematics regarding infinity and that there lack of multiple things. I reckon we're inside of an exploding atom, well not really since I can't actually tell if we are, but I'm a dumb human and can't be trusted with literally anything. I can't even say for sure that something is a certain colour, let alone know complex workings of the universe to any accuracy that the human brain can't even interpret.
When he said that if people make q claim about history that goes against everyones judgement, we dont just claim that person is entitled tk believe whatever they want and we have no right to question it... i checked how long ago the video was made. 11 years... yup, its been a long time since the existence of an objective, real sequence of events was thought of as a given.
Why would God (a brilliant all knowing all powerful God) place humans on a planet that has most of its water undrinkable? People fight and die for this precious commodity. Built just for us indeed. Finely tuned.
I've never been impressed by the idea of intelligent design or the idea of a deity "fine tuning" the universe. The galaxy is proof that randomness and chaos can sometimes create the perfect situation for life to start and thrive. If a creator existed to fine tune the universe, I would imagine that there wouldn't be so many examples of lifeless star & planetary systems. Luv your vids, NSC!
ok look people the galaxies spiral like twirling up spagetti on a fork the planets and moons even asteriods are shaped like meatballs that is the only proof you need that the flying spagetti monster exist
To Godrules- You are playing semantics. Agnostic vs. Atheist is totally beside the point of this video's challenge. As one who considers himself an atheist, I say fine. Call me agnostic instead. I don't care. I say "atheist" because I do not hold a belief in a god (we merely have a difference in definition). I do not positively assert that no god exists because it is logically possible that the universe was created by a god, but it is just as possible it was created by universe creating fairies. You're argument is totally a a complaint about definitions, and irrelevant. What's more, you are simply shifting the burden of proof as described in the video. The reason I do not believe in a god is because there is no credible evidence to support the idea, despite how many people find the belief comforting. What evidence do you have that 1 god exists and created the universe? If you fail to provide credible evidence, no one is obliged to take the claim seriously. And as said in the video, I do not have to disprove god's existence. Something that does not exist leaves no evidence, and that is precisely the point! The only way to demonstrate something's non-existence is by failing to demonstrate it's existence. That's why the burden of proof rests on the one claiming god exists. We're listening. What evidence do you have? Now, if/when we question your evidence and point out its flaws, please don't be offended. If it is flawed, then it fails to evidence the claim; that's just fact of the matter. If the claim is true, then there should be some solid, un-flawed evidence somewhere. I have yet to see any.
Are you fucking serious? He was never asserting that any god existed. He just tried to get people to examine their beliefs by clarifying how they knew one very specific part of it: whether it was a singularity or a multitude. He has no burden of proof to bear. By how egregiously you strawmaned him one could wonder if you actually watched his videos.
I remember seeing a tidbit about how if the initial rate of expansion immediately after the Big Bang were even a miniscule amount smaller, the expansion would end, the immense gravity pulling every bit of matter in the would-be universe back to that infinitely small, dense point, resulting in no universe at all. The conclusion from this theist post was that the universe was clearly fine-tuned. Never saw a mention of that fact pointing to a potential cycle. Makes you wonder how many times the universe micro-Banged before the quantum fluctuations were “finely tuned” to allow a proper Big Bang leading to the universe we experience today.
Thank you NonStampCollector, for being SPECIFIC about which religions you were challenging, the Abrahamic, monotheistic trio, Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm. They are different but they have plenty in common as well. Hate when people lump all religions together, certainly some could be put in the same families, but they DO have different doctrines and different results in culture.
Thank you for not shitting on all theists. I'm a plytheistic Pagan who doesn't proselytize, but often has to defend her beliefs from a certain friend of hers. I don't make the claim that my beliefs are correct and THE truth and try to make others believe it, I simply believe what I believe, and I also happen to believe in science. Paraphrasing Carl Sagan, science can definitely lend dimension and power to spiritual beliefs. I find it annoying when atheists lump all theists together, as if the average Pagan theists behaves quite the same way as the average christian theist. Which in my experience, most of us don't. Anyway, this is another reason I really appreciate your videos. You are fair. Truly fair.
Polytheism makes more sense. If you believe a single god made and controls everything then when you observe things that are screwed up you must conclude god is incompetent. If you believe there are a dozen gods arguing about who is in charge then things being screwed up and appearing random makes perfect sense.
In other words, separation can only be quantified and assigned meaningful numerical values if an entity can change its configuration within the construct's structure by some set of rules/relationship. Since change requires time, this means even some other construct other than space would still require time to exist. Space without time has no meaning, which is why they are intimately related, and called space-time.
Suppose there is some other construct other than space which could allow for separation or numerical values to be assigned to creators which made them distinct. These numerical values would only have meaning within a set of rules which defines the relationship of the values. But a set of rules/relationships require time. For example, within the construct of space, the numerical values "3 feet" and "6 feet" only have meaning by relating to how much time it takes to traverse each distance.
How many gods does it take to change a light bulb?
Because I've prayed to three already and my room is still dark.
Is there one specifically for the bill? I could use a reference :P
One - he simply declares darkness a sin.
Joseph Baldomero Did you pray "let there be light? " lol
+Joseph Baldomero
There is Genesis where god says let there be light, and he saw it was good:
(first day)
And THEN he made the SUN!
(on the fourth day)
Evol Bob so basically he needs to say "let there be light" ,then change the bulb and there will be light. Or make a bulb 😁
The fine-tuning argument in a nutshell: The universe must be exactly like it is, to be exactly like it is... therefore God.
It does not prove God, but it makes it even more possible. I am a pandeist.
Bad arguments never help your position.
NeoDemocedes It is not a bad argument
For any living, thinking being, in any conceivable situation, the fine tuning argument will always seem to support the idea that there is a creator, regardless if it is true. It's like a fuel gauge stuck in the 'F' position. It will always look like you have gas, even if your tank is empty.
Pick a random number between 0 and 9. The chances of getting 8 is 10%. Nothing special, right? but now do that 20 times. I got the numbers 2; 1; 6; 1; 0; 0; 3; 7; 6; 8; 4; 9; 9; 3; 5; 7; 9; 3; 2; 4. The chances for that are about 0,000000000000000001%. Clearly, this can't just happen by random chance. I clearly controlled the numbers, for I am god.
I'm going with 42, and thanks for all the fish.
*So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Diego O' Land HEY! Don’t forget your towel!!!...
See you at the restaurant at the end of the universe...
Yeah it’s somebody else’s problem
C Geer wanna get high?
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
Marina Jensen But its more fun when you continue to crush that without evidence with contrary evidence.
I think this phrasing is better: "That which is asserted without evidence..."
Hitchen’s Razor, my favorite tool in a debate. They can’t rebut it and it leaves them silent.
I miss Hitch
Well how would you define evidence then?
I'm watching this video more than 13 yrs. after it was made and I love how you call them "movies". Early UA-cam.
P.S. Your videos are absolutely brilliant.
Too bad I didn't know this channel existed 13 years ago
Hes a christian now, you should watch his new videos
@@hackkitts9254 Oh, really? Well, what's that channel called and how would YOU know this? 😏
Its litteraly this channel@@johnpaulyates1655
I’d like to know as well. Namely what convinced him despite all his reasoning and agreements over the years. If you share your source, you might save a lot of atheists from the fires of hell.
Can i just say im super pissed i didnt find this channel earlier. My childhood was a suburban, christian upbringing and truth be told it never made sense. I didnt feel a "god" around me, and it seemed redoculous that an all loving god would send you to eternal damnation for being skeptical of his existance with no proof.
I have been an hesitiant atheist for years now, but couldnt quite finalize the decision because it didnt make sense to me that so many people were so convinced of it. Now upon seeing the rediculousness and contratictions of the bible i can finally accept what i am. I was always too nervous because i had been brainwashed by the faith.
your not going to hell for not believug in god, your going to hell for your sin, god cannot have that in heaven so he sent his son to die for your sin, that thru faith in him you may be saved. because of your sin you cannot see god for it would kill you as he is too pure, and holy...jesus took your spot so when u see heaven you will be chaporned by jesus and god loves in jesus. so now after that you can communicate with god thru jesus and live to tell about it...
@@joelunit8144 So God made him fallible so that he naturally can't see him and the only way to forgive him for being the way he was created was to perform a human sacrifice and because of that ritual now God is capable of forgiving and not sending him to the place he chose to create to be tortured for eternity?
Congratulations! I recommend checking out r/atheism (on Reddit)
This is me
ridiculousness* I wouldn't do this but you spelt it wrong twice so I hope this helps
The universe was NOT fine tuned for life. Life adapted TO a very very small fraction of a percentage of the observable universe.
The fact that the universe happened to have life is lucky... for life. The universe didn't benefit. If it gave birth to sentient star beings, born in nebukad, then it would be lucky for them. If no life ever happened, no one would benefit or lose. Who says there "has" to be life? It exists, so what?
There really is no hard evidence of fine tuning at all. We have not explored all of the possible variations of possible parameters and do not know what number of possible combinations and what tolerances of parameters might result in stable universes that allow for something we might call life to form and persist in are. A simulation exploring such possibilities is probably currently beyond our technology so the fine tuning argument currently fails.
KC10930 maybe, just maybe, the Universe is life.
+Rob Darling, Wow, meaningless new age nonsense. That requires a new definition of life so different that even using the word life makes no sense. I admit that life is currently very poorly defined, primarily, I think, because any definition is purely arbitrary. There is, however, no compelling reason to move the definition of life so far outside the confines of a state of matter that existed starting at some point during abiogenesis on earth (and presumably very similar states in the origins of life elsewhere in the universe). I also think it would be very difficult to find a state during the early universe to attach the life label to, whereas you could pick almost any state inside the realm of abiogenesis and be justified in defining that as the beginning of life on the earth.
Rob Darling: yeah....no. Not by any definition of "life." Fail.
I finally went from questioning Christianity to knowing it wasn't real beyond a shadow of a doubt about 8-10 years ago.
All your videos helped me along the way. I started questioning around the age of 18, but as someone who was born and raised as a Christian, it's impossible to go from 100% belief to 100% disbelief within a single day. It took time... 3, maybe 4 years worth of time for me to stop questioning and finally realize that Christianity had no more validity than any other single religion, and I didn't believe in any other single religion at all.
I enjoy coming back and watching these now and then. Good memories. Thanks, man.
Nice. Thanks for the comment. Yep, it took me 3 or 4 years, and then lingered and lingered beyond that in some ways. Twenty years later, I'm still aware that my mind gravitates towards thoughts of meaningfulness and intention being behind the universe that I'm sure is a result of Christian cultural upbringing.
All the best
Yeah, that is a good point and I've actually considered that, before. Thank you and all the best to you, as well.
It's actually interesting, I went from God is true and enjoying my bible study groups to wth is this BS in about 3 days. It started in Malachi which challenged my idea of an omni benevolent unconditionally loving God and actually reminded me of my psych studies (not courses just independent research spurred by child hood trauma). Doubting God for even a second felt wrong but the passage didn't sit right.
@mike derocco
I am sure that you have read it, but if you haven't, read the few lines after "God is dead" in Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra." I am not a big Nietzsche fan, but it is a really good passage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead?wprov=sfla1
ua-cam.com/video/eQVm8RokoBA/v-deo.html
So your religion is to not collect stamps? Because you hate stamps? And you want to violate postal laws that our ancestors venerated, as all good sentient beings throughout the cosmos would undoubtedly do? Well, I'm just glad that there is still time for you to understand the Plan that stamps have for your life. If you hold a stamp up to a light source, you will notice that it probably has 4 sides. But if you look more closely, you will see 4 corners! Do you think that is an accident? Don't you see that any map of the world will have 4 cardinal directions! There are 4 seasons in a year- and it's all because Stamps made everything. Stamps bless you.
+Horatio Trismegistus you sire might be an incredible or just a an idoit
John H Have you ever considered all of the terrible things that Stamps want to do to you, if you do not obey them? It isn't that they want to, they just have to. You should mail several letters (to anyone) ASAP, as your immortal soul is probably already in danger. I recommend using lots of extra stamps.
+Horatio Trismegistus and always be sure to obey chain letters. The stamps will be angered if you do not send it to the required number of friends and family.
Luke Weaber I am glad, Sir, that your soul is not lost like the rest of these reprobates!
XD lmao
To be honest, the fine-tuning argument is not something that convinces me at all. We live on a speck of dust within a speck of dust in a small corner of the universe. Firstly, all of that space is not habitable, secondly, half of the planets within our speck of dust are not habitable, and thirdly, a large portion of the land in our blue speck of dust is not habitable. If a God really did make the world in an attempt to make it look fine-tuned, he did a bad job.
Also, as it has been said many times before, the universe isn't fine-tuned for us; we're fine-tuned for it, another testament to Evolutionary biology.
And finally, everyone points to the precision of the Big Bang, how if it were a bit faster or slower, it wouldn't have happened. It's purely arrogant to suggest that this is how it was 'meant' to be. Maybe the universe nearly happened a million times before that, but those problems occurred those times and the universe failed. To suggest that our reality is what was 'meant to be' is folly.
So, yeah. I don't get the fine-tuning argument at all. It's rooted in arrogance and pompous self-importance. Nevertheless, another good video, Stamp.
I agree with everything you wrote. I wish I could amend the video slightly so as to not give the impression I am all that swayed by the fine tuning thing. I guess I've read and thought about it much more since making the vid than I had beforehand.
NonStampCollector I get ya. We change our opinions and understanding of facts all the time. But the content has been great thus far! Kudos.
Hey bud, I really have always enjoyed your work. The fine-tuning argument is the most compelling theists have nonetheless. I can certainly understand why they'd get behind it.
Thanks for your time and effort :)
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
- Douglas Adams
I'm personally a deist. So my beliefs are that we are not special (no life on the universe is). Just that the universe was designed by something (a God or gods if you will), but they didn't fine tune anything. I view the universe almost like a computer program with equations and formulas. If certain conditions are met, a galaxy is formed; if more conditions are met, a star is formed; if more conditions are met, a planet is formed; if even more conditions are met, the planet becomes habitable; yet more conditions and life single cellular pops up; so on until you get complex life and even life that that is like humans. These types of formulas are I'm work for everything that is in the universe and the power that put it all into motion may or may not know about us and they probably aren't as complex as their creation. It just makes sense to me.
"Faith" is not a virtue.
"Atheist" is not a bad word.
Faith is depravity
Yes it is. It is a bad word.
So is abortion, gay sex, shellfish, and Hillary Clinton.
I bet people appear to view faith as a virtue because evolutionarily speaking a person who tends to have faith in things beyond reason and logic isn't as likely to betray you the moment you stop being beneficial
@@metal665lica lmao wat
@@metal665lica uh "Hillary Clinton" and "Gay sex" are 2 words each --- gotcha!!!
If Atheism is so good, why isn’t there an Atheism 2? Checkmate.
wow. You must be a lot of fun at parties.
@@LordDavidVader
Swoosh/...
@@RonLarhz really? Wow.
@@LordDavidVader
The joke went over your head
@@R0230R oh I know. It was a super complicated joke to figure out. Can you explain it to me?
A Finely Tuned Universe:
Evolution has confused a lot of people, even many non-religious folks assume that it involves some sort of betterment in each step of the process.
It does not.
We are not more "advanced" simply because we build things, form relationships, paint pictures or engage in leisure. We are nothing more than a process of cell multiplication that has proven fairly well adapted to the environments in which we survive.
To say that the universe has been "finely tuned" in our favor is the height of absurdity. There are far more places on this planet let alone our universe where humans will die than where they can live. And those few spots on this planet that will not kill you are:
THE ONLY KNOWN PLACES IN THE UNIVERSE YOU CAN HOPE TO SURVIVE.
Just because chemistry on this planet evolved to support a form of life that could question the nature of the universe does not mean that the entire universe was created just to foster our irrelevant pondering of it.
We are here because we live in a universe for which we are compatible and it would be impossible for us to live anywhere else. If the laws of this universe were different we would not be here to question it.
Our existence on this planet proves only one thing - that we have adapted to the conditions it has presented thus far - not that the entire universe has been created to facilitate our presence.
Show me a baby pigeon....
Laws are written by people.
The universe came long before there were people.
People did not invent the universe.
If all the people on this planet suddenly died the entire universe would continue to exist for billions of more years without ever noticing our existence or absence.
We are incredibly small and insignificant bags of chemical reactions that for the most part are not even smart enough to realize our place in the universe without demanding that some all knowing god created the entire thing just for us.
wiskysadie Show me a law that wasn't made by humans.
wiskysadie Me and the bible do not agree on the point and it is ignorant to say otherwise. The bible says the totality of creation was wished into being in six days. I refute that wholeheartedly as does the entire scientific community.
Further, the description you just gave is just one of two creation stories contained within the bible, in the same dang chapter. To cite it as some sort of fact while ignoring the contradicting story just words away in the same story is asinine.
The bible is an ego boost for people that can't accept that we are not special or unique within the universe. It started with the earth at the center of everything for you folks and continues to this day with the idea that the entirety of the universe was created just for you.
It wasn't.
We are a by product, the the planetary excrement of a insignificant solar system in a typical galaxy lost within a giant cluster of galaxies likely buried in a sea of universes.
The only gods are the ones you invent to explain the concepts you can not grasp.
wiskysadie Perhaps you have one of the misprinted Bibles. In most versions it says that God created all the plant life and trees bearing fruit on Day 3 and then He let them die in the minus 450 degrees F of cold space in the darkness, then the next Day He remembered to create the Sun to finally give warmth and light to Earth and He replanted again. Although He took a whole day to make little planet Earth, He added 950 quadrillion Stars and galaxies as a mere afterthought also. The Bible writers knew nothing about space or the actual number of Stars and imagined them as small points of light stuck in a canopy over the flat circular disk of Earth. Only about 4000 stars are visible to the naked eye, so naturally they thought the Biblical God did it as easily as putting up Christmas lights. The Qur'an later copied the Bible's error and says that the Moon is farther away than the Stars.
Fido Barks "We are a by product, the the planetary excrement of a insignificant solar system in a typical galaxy lost within a giant cluster of galaxies likely buried in a sea of universes.
The only gods are the ones you invent to explain the concepts you can not grasp."
It's too bad we can't give out trophies for "The most bad ass youtube quote that sounds like it should be read by Brad Pitt's character from Fight Club" award ;)
lol bravo! and I totally agree.
You’re one of the most articulate ppl I’ve ever heard. I wish you were still making vids
Same!
@@shovel_salesman Lots of luck! I guess we were all praying to the correct god!
Just released a new one!
If there is anything even remotely close to a god in existence, then it is far more likely that it is it is a software engineer or a team of them.
The Nerd God rises!
Well there's no reason to discard the possibility that a billion year civilization is behind things, like De Grasse Tyson once said, even our own advances in science and technology in a 100 year span are staggering, imagine what could a more intelligent species do after millions of years, they would look like gods to us no doubt.
Of course the software engineer hypothesis means there must also be a clueless corporate headquarters, making completely unreasonable demands such as, "make there a God who perfectly engineers every synapse in people's brains, but also make sure there is free will, but make sure people are punished for exercising their free will, and make it so faith is required, but make absolutely no reason for faith to be practiced besides a handful of trite logical fallacies."
hmm... come to think of it, your software engineer hypothesis stands on really firm ground.
Reminds me of a joke. Three engineering students debate what kind of engineer would God have to have been in order to create mankind.
The first says, "look at the bones, and the joints, and the muscles. This has mechanical engineer all over it!"
The second says, "look at the workings of the brain, its ability to learn or recognize any and every pattern. We have to have been made by a software engineer."
The third says, "guys, guys. Only a city engineer would run the sewege lines through the entertainment district."
But then who created the engineers
I noticed the date on this. When you posted this video I lived in a remote area in Far North Queensland with my soulmate. We had no Internet access and minimal phone service, so of course, my soulmate and I didn't see your videos. She was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor nine days after you posted this. Yes, that's completely irrelevant, but I wish she was alive today to see these. She would have loved and appreciated the amount of work you put into creating these videos as much as I do. I'm sharing your videos where I can so that hopefully, some folk that haven't seen your work get to appreciate it too.
Sorry to hear that Brad...😔
It's impossible for theists to answer this question satisfactorily because their entire position rests on the need to accept their faith claims.
I guess that's the point, like in terms of pseudoscience where their statistics comes from placebos and people's feelings about it. He's saying you can't prove something is real by saying when I say his name I feel funny feelings.
Martin White: but I know you're real, because when I say YOUR name, I have funny feelings.
find and refute my comment, please
epsilon8998 whats the difference does it make, if u believe in god or not. a prick will always be a prick no matter which god they believe, and a good men still a good man even they don't believe in god
Monotheists, you mean? Polytheists easily sidestep this one.
Never mind all of your perfectly presented arguments, entertaining (yet controlled) snark, and adorable animation -- THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING *VOLTRON* !!!
Hi NonStampCollector, I just wanted to say thank you for making these videos because they and similar videos from other creators helped me escape Christianity and theism altogether. Looking back at my earlier comments from 7 years ago makes me feel extremely embarrassed at how antagonistic and illogical I used to be. I could delete them, but they serve as a reminder to who I used to be and who I don't wish to return to. Thanks again and sorry to the atheists I attacked in the past.
Voltron is not real???????? ....faint......
And I was just about to tell my local municipal representative to pass a law stating that everyone must take a day off to worship Voltron...
ua-cam.com/video/eQVm8RokoBA/v-deo.html
Optimus Prime and Bumblebee knocked on my door and asked me if I wanted to hear about our lord and savior, Voltron.
You should have let them in-- Voltron is our true lord and savior- as the offspring child of Mekhane, the Goddess of Machines.
I can give you the Sarah Palin answer to that question:
"Ohh, all of 'em. Most of 'em. Whatever comes across my desk."
I thought the Sarah Palin answer was, "Let me gyet bæck to you!"
Ah, Sarah Palin. People would respect her so much more if she was a porn star 😬 (no disparity meant against porn stars).
Yeah. Amazing. Especially the way that scientists have confirmed that women really were made from a single man's rib, and that snakes used to talk in magical gardens.
Yes, the bible really is an amazing book of prescience.
How DID they know exactly how many birds needed to be ritually killed in order to cure leprosy? Incredible.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 1:18-21 NKJV
Let's talk about biblical prophecies 🤦🏾♂️
Alexander Thomas why would god knowingly create people that he knew would “know him” but still reject him. He is all knowing right? That means he would know before creating us that we would eventually reject him? Before you claim we reject him because we have free will, imagine this scenario: you are god and you know everything that is going to happen in all of time. You are also all powerful and all good. You create a man and, because you are all knowing, you see every event of his life. You know before creating him that he is going to murder 30 people. You are all powerful and are able to stop him from murdering 30 people. on top of that you are all good, so it would seem by obligation you would not create him because if you do you would knowingly create a murderer. If you are the god of the bible , you would create him anyways, why? It’s in one of your 10 commandments to not murder. Why would a all knowing all powerful and good god create such a monster of a person? In the same sense, why would you create someone you know will not believe in you? It seems cruel to create someone who is peaceful all of there life but destined to be tortured for all of eternity just because they are not convinced you exist. Meanwhile that murderer you knowingly created ends up believing in you just before he is executed and gets to spend an eternity in bliss despite all of the pain and suffering he has caused.
@@chrisbirk9511 Chris check it out, God made everything perfect in the beginning,He gave us human beings the ability to make choices. I don't call it free will,because God is sovereign over all. He could have easily created a bunch of robots that would worship him but would you like a life with no choices?
The fall of mankind was foreknown by God.
The crucifixion of Christ, the atonement for God’s elect, was foreordained by God.All people will one day glorify God (Psalm 86:9), and God purposes “to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ” (Ephesians 1:10).
God’s wrath and God’s mercy display the riches of His glory, but we cannot see either without the fall of mankind. We would never know grace if we had never needed grace. Therefore, all of God’s plan-including the fall, election, redemption, and atonement of mankind-serves the purpose of glorifying God. When man fell into sin, God’s mercy was immediately displayed in God’s not killing him on the spot. God’s grace was immediately evident in the covering He provided for their shame (Genesis 3:21). God’s patience and forbearance were later on display as mankind fell deeper and deeper into sin. God’s justice and wrath were on display when He sent the flood, and God’s mercy and grace were again demonstrated when He saved Noah and his family. God’s holy wrath and perfect justice will be seen in the future when He deals with Satan once and for all (Revelation 20:7-10).
@Ted Icarus Romans 1 tells us by everything that is created. If you look around at the room you are in, every single item didn't magically appear. It had a creator, just like you and I.
@Ted Icarus For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 1:18-21
The answer to the fine tune argument is the anthropic principle. We observe a universe around us that is very fine tuned to support life because if it were not, there wouldn't be life to observe it.
Yes, by the very definition that we are alive and conscious, no matter how rare life is, we simply *have* to be in the one universe with life, because if we werent, we wouldnt be alive
if the universe is fine tuned for life there should be everywhere in the universe
yet so far we have not flund anyone but ourselves
@@MartinLeong25 How did you arrive at that conclusion? Us being here proves that we live in a universe that is fine tuned to support the very specific conditions for life to arise. That doesn't mean life can't still be an extremely rare occurence. Something being possible isn't the same as something being probable.
You're wrong. That's not fine-tuning, that's adaptation. You're starting from the wrong end of the answer.
@@spocksvulcanbrain The universe is fine tuned in a way that life is possible in the first place. No amount of adaption would make it possible for life to start if atoms didn’t even exist. That’s what I mean when I say that our universe is fine tuned to support life. The actual life that flourishes in our universe then adapts to it’s environment of course, I was never arguing against that
I know I'm late to this party, but, WELL SAID SIR.
"Christianity Debate".
I'd only just put it out before this one.
I've been an outspoken Avoltronist since the 80s
Im not done watching this video as a write this but this guy and all his videos seem very well though out and methodical. I also love that he openly invites criticism and counter arguments to his statements. I am really glad that youtube has allowed people like this to disseminate their ideas to people all across the world.
This is a difficult challenge. The universe was obviously designed by committee
And some weren't paying attention.
People always use this odd idea of "fine tuning" to justify the existence of a god. A lot of people seem to forget that the universe doesn't exist FOR us. We simply exist as a byproduct BECAUSE of the universe. If the laws of physics were different, the universe would have evolved differently, and maybe some strange form of life would have developed that could only exist in that universe. If you accept the multiverse theory, this fine tuning idea becomes even more of a silly idea, because then, even if our laws of physics were somehow the only laws that could allow any sort of life, it would be obvious as to why we developed within this universe rather than any other.
The irony is that a theist would call you arrogant for claiming to know that the universe is not fine tuned for us, even though all observations support this and therefore it's reasonable to assume it as fact.
We can't live anywhere in the immensely large universe outside our tiny atmosphere without bringing our own oxygen and protection from deadly radiation, space debris heat, cold, etc.
We can't even say that this planet is fine tuned for life. Sure, at the moment it seems to be, in some places, some of the time, if there are no draughts, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.
Of course those are all the products of Adam's sin for listening to a woman who listened to a talking snake, which doesn't make sense if you consider how many christians get killed by them.
Unless maybe they didn't pray *hard* enough, just like the starving naked christian children in Africa who are still waiting for Jesus to fulfil his promise of feeding and clothing those who ask, but then again, god and jesus never said that forgiveness or food was given only to those who prayed hard enough. Only christians say such things.
Only theists *know* what created the universe and which god is the true god and which of the thousands religions is the true one and which holy book is the right one and how it should be interpreted and how to get into heaven and that heaven and hell exist, even though there is *no* observation that supports any of that. Asserting something as fact that which is not evidently true, that's not faith or something you believe. It's arrogant and intellectually dishonest.
Assuming that the "fine tuning" question is even reasonably phrased is like assuming that a human would survive in a place where it would be instantly die.
maxwell simon I agree with your point about the multiverse theory. However if you believe in the multiverse theory you therefore must believe in heaven and hell. (Not like in the Bible and not like that we are going to one of them after death, but multiverses implies heaven and hell since in one of these universes may devolop life that cannot die due to the properties of the universe in question and the conditions of life up there may resemble heaven or hell for real. Did u get the idea?.) Peace !
Wender Lima
Well yes and no. While there is an inexhaustible number of possible universes, such that some may be heavenly or hellish, I - like you already said - don't believe that any of us go there after dying. But that sort of phenomenon is already true on Earth as well; there are good places to live and bad places to live, so it's not unreasonable to assume that universes may act the same as well. Peace ti you as well.
maxwell simon
Prove that you don't go to this heaven or hell after you die.
Checkmate Atheists!
Also, it just keeps happening
Not a theist, but in response to your wondering about the fine tuning... I like the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, like bubbles in champagne. Each one of them has a different set of physical properties. Like different ratios of matter & anti-matter, etc. And since there is an infinite number of universes then some of them are bound to have the right conditions for star formation & life.That's my favorite possible explanation so far.
If I were to generate a random one million digit long sequence of numbers 0-9, the chance of me getting whatever sequence I get is 1/10^1,000,000 (1 out of 10 to the one-millionth power). Just because this low probability event happened, doesn't mean a god willed it.
I did the math, that's a pretty big number
I love what Laurence Krauss had to say about the fine tuning argument. He said(slightly off quote) "The reason the universe seems so perfect for us, is because we're here to measure it". The point he was making was that the universe is so perfect for us because that's what we evolved in. If the laws were different and a different life evolved and they began to measure these things, they would ask the same question. I find this to be a wonderfully clean explanation for it, though I'd love to hear some rebuttals.
The fine tuning argument is very easy to debunk by simply pointing out that the universe is not fine tuned to fit us, but that we are fine tuned to fit the universe.
The Universe was there first, and we developed in accordance with the rules of said universe.
We only exist because the properties of the universe allow us to exist. If the properties of the universe were different, then life like we know it might be impossible. But that doesn't mean that life in general would be impossible.
The so-called "fine tuning" argument doesn't make me pause for an instant. Anyone making it is a fool, is wilfully ignoring that only some of this planetary hydrosphere, some of the time, is conducive to life, while the rest of this planet and of the whole universe is inplacably hostile.
I don't care where we came from or why we're here. It's not relevant to my existence, I am simply here, I'm just trying to live my life to the fullest and treat others the way I want to be treated.
😑😯
I agree. Its and interesting thing to think about, but our main goal should be to maximise happiness for all people.
I don't see many Theists stepping up to the plate. And I seem to be a few years late for the party. I will say that I thoroughly enjoy your videos. All of them are well done and thought out. I think the fine-tuning of the universe argument has lost ground in recent years. The universe is far from finely tuned. Its full of Entropy and Chaos. Everywhere you look. If the universe was finely-tuned, it would become static. Having reached perfection. Once matter reaches a state of perfection, it has nothing else to achieve. Nothing is perfect. Nor will ever be. There is no blueprint for perfection. Which once again blows up the existence of "God". A perfect being can only create perfection, by definition. Divine intelligence would have created everything in the universe in the state of perfection. There would be no room for error. The universe would have been created static. Everything in the universe created perfectly. Unless this perfect being is prone to mistakes. The only Constant in the Universe is Change. (and maybe the speed of light) IDIC
"Faith" is the religious word for gullibility, and nothing more. If I went around telling people that I have an elephant in my closet, who would believe me? If you asked to see this elephant and I said that it was invisible, and you asked how it got there and I said that it had always been there, even before there was a closet, and by the way, YOU had an elephant in YOUR closet too, would you believe me? Would you call someone who believed me "faithful" or just sadly gullible?
NonStampCollector - Your intellect is amazing! I have enjoyed your videos immensely for years. Great work!
We all secretly know the universe was made by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you're just too ashamed to admit it. R'amen.
R’amen brother George
hi fellow pastafarian
Your god is dead, I eated him.
*it's possible to prove that the Abrahamic God doesn't exsist, although there is currently no way to prove that A God/gods exsist.*
First let me make one thing absolutely clear - I'm a 100% cast iron, carved in stone, 24 carat atheist.
However for the purpose of this debate I'm willing to accept that the Christian claim that the eye means there must have been a designer and God was that designer, OK?
The Holy Bible says that God made man in His own image, so two arms, 2 legs, two eyes etc.
Who designed God's eyes??? In addition, why did God not give man the best eye He designed? Why did we not get the best nose He designed or for that matter did he not give us the best hearing when He gave us dominion over all the animals?
We are, at best average!!!
We didn't get the best eye,nose,hearing so that we could exercise our minds. Our eyes are not the best but we can see the most distant galaxies.
@111437438847044021423 Bottle Nose Dolphins have an extremely large brain and its cerebral cortex and frontal lobe are 40% bigger than a human. The cerebral cortex is the area of the brain responsible for social communication, abstract information processing, problem solving, and higher lever intelligence.
Plus, echo location, great hearing, and sight.
Who/what told you we were downgraded as animals so we'd be inspired to "exercise our minds?" lol
David MacDonell Dolphins have awesome hearing and site. All that there brains need humans however were not given the best eyes, but we were given the gift of nature. The fact that sand can be melted into glass and glass bends light and if we look trough this light bending melted sand we can see millions of times further than Dolphins ever dreamed!
wiskysadie I'm pretty sure that wasn't even an argument.
wiskysadie Another attempt to justify a reason why god and his methods haven't to be questions or criticized!
If god gave us the intelligence to make glass to turn into telescopes to see these far away galaxies that god made then why did god's men on Earth then force all the results underground for centuries!!
It's an argument that just doesn't hold water!!!
The simple answer to the e sight question is that that is how our sight evolved. We simply don't need the eyesight of a hawk or the echo-location of a dolphin. If something happens in the future to make us go underground then we would lose the power of sight bit by bit as some animals have done and we would evolve other methods of obtaining what we need.
While we are at it - if god made all the heavens and Earth lets do the math.
Our galaxy has a billion billion stars. There are said to be trillions of galaxies
I god took a millisecond to make a million stars then it would take a million seconds to make our galaxy which is 16.6 hours. You now need to work out how many billions of hours it took to make the others at the same rate, I couldn't be bothered!!!
Trawling the comments 14 years later... not a whole lot to be seen in terms of attempts to meet the challenge... what a shocking development.
Don't you dare even suggest that the pink unicorn doesn't exist!!!
I come back and am still satisfied :)
Maybe there was a universe before this one and in that universe gravity was just a little bit stronger. That Universe may have expanded for just three or four billion years before collapsing back in on itself and then 'bang', this universe begins.
Maybe this is one in a long line of progressively less gravitationally strong universes. Maybe this is just one of many parallel universes.
Either way the point I'm making is that why even suggest that the universe is "fine tuned"?
I think that phrases like "fine tuned" are unnecessary and play right into the hands of the religious. Every fine tuned universe needs a tuner, blah, blah, blah.
I don't see a problem with the anthropic principal, the universe is just so and that is how come we are fortunate enough to exist in it and marvel at how fortunate we are to exist in it.
I got this strange theory, I mean hypothesis.
So scientists say the the universe, being time and space, was created from a singularity. Within our universe there are singularities which are black holes which form from gravity gone wild. And since time and space are relative, the closer you are to a large mass the slower times goes (I've heard in theory times stops in a black hole (but we really don't know what happens in one)) and when the black hole reached a certain mass then it could create time and space through a release of its stored energy. Black holes could create more universes within them selves. They would have a big expansion but instead of being outward it could be inward (or it may be outward as the this universe is currently expanding and it would just be an expansion in an expansion idk im no scientist). Then inside these universes the cycle would continue making an infinite loop. Dat shit would be crazy O.o
Modulating Toast Sometimes just thinking about it can make your head hurt.
Adding to your comment, considering humans are limited to earth and require special man made equipment to even begin to explore the universe, that of which "god" has created specifically for mankind, it doesn't seem to be all that fine tuned. Even the majority of earth is uninhabitable for man, deserts, the arctic, all the oceans, none of which without mans ingenuity would we even be able to use.
There's the theory of the Big Crunch, which suggests that the universe will eventually contract on itself, and become once more as it was back before the Big Bang. Hence, the cycle will then repeat itself.
+Nic Stroud, writes _"Maybe this is one in a long line of progressively less gravitationally strong universes. Maybe this is just one of many parallel universes._
_Either way the point I'm making is that why even suggest that the universe is "fine tuned"?"_
it's simplier than that, we have no evidence that the gravitational constant can be anything other than what it is. We have exactly one sample. No information can be gleamed from that except that this gravitational constant is possible.
So even presuming that the gravitational constant can be something else is a fallacy.
That was so thorough, I almost shed a tear.
NonStampCollector Though I have occasionally heard some prominent atheists point to the fine tuning argument as perhaps the most compelling, I fail to see why. I suppose it might be akin to being the best physicist in a class of Down's Syndrome patients, but I find it to be so obviously flawed that it amazes me that anyone pays any attention to it. This is why:
Reason #1
At it's heart, the fine tuning argument, if expressed as a syllogism fails due to a severe question begging fallacy, because the very first premise would have to be that life was an intended consequence of the universe. By that logic, one could argue that bread is fine tuned to be a home for mold. By assuming that life is an intended purpose of the universe, you have assumed the conclusion in the premise.
Reason #2
A much more common objection - what evidence is there that this universe is fine tuned for life? Aside from the many reasons commonly given about how bad this universe actually seems to be for life, there is the very simple fact that we can't know what universes are possible. Fine tuning arguments tend to be based on the idea that if we slightly alter one parameter, the universe would not be stable, or galaxies, stars and planets would not form - fine. But what if we alter ALL the parameters? What if there can be universes with totally different laws of nature and different fundamental forces? Maybe it would be possible to have a universe in which every cubic millimeter is suitable for life! Perhaps ours is the worst possible universe for life in which life is still possible.
Reason #3 - There is no reason to consider this universe any less probable than any other possible universe, so even if the big bang was a one time event, this outcome is no more surprising than any other. But what if it was not? As Hawking and many other physicists have noted, many of the possible variations they have contemplated would result in unstable universes that would collapse in short order. For all we know, there were a billion "big bangs" before this that failed to produce a stable universe.
Reason #4
Another common objection - the possibility of a multiverse.
So this argument not only is flawed in its basic construction, but several plausible alternative explanations for the state of this universe exist. So, frankly, I find this perhaps less compelling than the Kalaam argument - poor as that is. Sorry to go on so long.
+Pat Doyle
The main reason for me that the fine tuning argument fails, is that it assumes that the universe was created to hold life. As anyone with an ounce of scientific curiosity has discovered, life will alter itself to fit the environment, but the environment has yet to alter itself to accommodate life.
whiterabbit75
I agree - that was my first objection. It is a question begging fallacy. One could as easily say that an unstable universe was "fine-tuned" to collapse. Or that this universe was fine tuned to fuse hydrogen into heavier elements. That would make more sense, since it seems to do a lot more of that than producing life.
One MUST assume intent to even make this argument, so you are assuming the conclusion in the premise.
Pat Doyle
It's worded a bit differently from how you did it, but I can see now that it was essentially the same reason. It just really bugs the heck out of me when people use unsupported presuppositions.
whiterabbit75
Me too. Worst of all in this case most of them don't think they are doing that. The notion that our existence is a good thing is so inherent to human nature that it permeates the thinking of even atheist scientists on this subject.
I have read quotes from people like Hawking referring to the "fine tuned" constants as "fortuitous" - to whom? Only to us. Even if there were a creator, it is possible that life isn't something it wanted - we may be a contaminant in its experiment.
To call this condition fortuitous would be like having a lottery drawing in which no tickets were sold, and calling whatever numbers come up "lucky" because that combination was so unlikely.
+Pat Doyle The fine tuning argument proves Earth has an intelligent designer because the ocean floor is fine tuned to be the exact shape to hold the earth's ocean. There's even the Marianas trench, exactly the perfect shape in exactly the perfect location to make room for the deepest part of the ocean to fit inside it.
The fine tuning, if anything, is actually more of an argument against a designer than for it. Think of it as a fridge. A huge fridge. And inside that huge fridge only a tiny surface of less than a square millimetre is actually cold enough to cool food, the rest ist just ... wasted space. That's what the universe is if it was actually created. A design? Perhaps. But if so, a terribly bad one. Just like this planet with its molten core and all the resulting problems of volcano eruptions, continental drift and associated earthquakes. Oh, never mind 70% of it being filled with toxic water and the water we, the humans this planet was made for, need makes up less than 3% - most of it trapped in ice and snow and unreachable. This has been designed for us? I want to speak to the management! Now!
lol, yep doesnt a suppos-ed love us😂😂
So well spoken. This was beautiful.
Actually it was an AGILE Scrum team of gods that worked together in sprints to make the universe.
Proof my atheism is accurate. I don't believe that gods exist. What do I win?
..? The first sentence is a sentence fragment, what did you mean?
You can live life the way you want to live the short time we are here instead of being a slave of worship, all your money and time to the church is spend fighting progress for society
I've always been an atheist since my parents are too. But I've never really thought bad about religion, I've just never felt that there was a god. But now after seeing your videos, I'm glad to be an atheist, Christianity just seems so extremely dumb (and the other religions are probably similar)
I dunno, Buddhism is pretty cool. Mostly it’s just self improvement. Don’t be a jerk, go meditate or something. There is no deity, or guilt. Just introspection and being considerate towards others. I can get behind that. 😊
@@cchance9618 Depends on what form of Buddhism you follow. It can be more of a traditional religion if you believe that Buddha was a god (which some do), or it can be more down to earth like a Spiritualism thing of just finding inner peace with no greater religion thing. Some Buddist dont even believe in reincarnation or a literal nirvana.
But yea, it just depends on which sect you follow.
But its still got some wacky beliefs in there at the end of the day that arent substantiated. There is no REASON to really be a Buddhist. Its find if you still like meditation stuff to clam your mind or whatever, but no reason to tack on all the other unsubstantiated claims just cuz you like meditation and introspection.
But as far as many other religions go, its definitely one of the better ones out there.
I was there when Voltron sacrificed himself, unto himself, to appease Himself. Voltron the one true god! or 5 true gods..depending on how you interpret the scriptures!
your doing God's work brother!!! love your videos. please please keep doing them. I love the way in which you challenge theists without being mean, loud, or annoying. keep up the good fight
1:02. Speaking of that, I am currently going to an all Christian school. My science class is walking on holy ground. In the science book, these people are referencing Aristotle, and saying that his reasoning, is wrong... I can't wait to learn mainly false science. Help me.
+Smartgaming
You have my sympathies. My suggestion would be to divide yourself. While in school, do what they say, "learn" what they "teach", and at home, or in your free time, study real science. I'm sure a google search will turn up many sites dedicated to this sort of thing.
whiterabbit75 It is funny. The classes do not correlate. Meaning: My history teacher is going over Aristotle, and he actually respects Aristotle, and says that his logical structure is flawless. He brings up that the syllogism won't work when dealing with a false pretence. However, my biology book says different. This book says that Aristotle is wrong, and it gives two laughable examples.
"Logical reasoning constitutes truth to some people. If it makes sense, or if it can be figured out, they think it is true" Since mathematics is logical, some would say it is true. For example, it is said that 2+2=4. If, 2 +,=, and 4 can be defined, the truth of this mathematical statement is demonstrated. But numbers can be made to give inaccurate descriptions oh what exists. By 'cooking the books,' a company can look profitable when it is nearly bankrupt. What may appear to logical mathematically may not be true. Logical reasoning is usually classified as either inductive or deductive"
Shoot me now.... "Deductive reasoning begins with premises assumed to be true and draws conclusions about particulars. One of the first recorded illustrations of deduction is contributed to Aristotle, describing his teacher:
Major premise: All men ae mortal
Minor premise: Socrates s mortal
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal
If, however, the statements in logical reasoning are not exclusive enough, the conclusion may exhibit faulty logic and be false.
Major premise: All feathered creatures can fly
Minor premise Ostriches have feathers
Conclusion: Ostriches can fly" Just like that, Aristotle and his legacy diminished by a 9th grade biology book. Just like that, every single scientist in the world has been approaching problem solving in the wrong way. An ignorant logical fallacy just single handedly fucked the universes brain up. Applause*
Smartgaming
In order to make religion work, a certain amount of cognitive dissonance is required. For instance, what they think proves their religion to be true and factual will not work for other religions, because all other religions are demonstrably false (in their eyes). It's how they are able to reconcile their beliefs with reality.
whiterabbit75 Funny, their religion says there is only one whole truth. But in order for them to prove their religion to be true, they have to use relative truth!
Smartgaming
Well, Christianity is founded on relative truth (in that it's true that they married their relatives).
So 10 years later ...
Has anyone made a response? I cant seem to find any. Pleases let me know if you know of any responses
This is by far the most consistently thoughtful channel on UA-cam. Thank you for your work, friend.
Honestly, with Yahwehs logic in the Bible and Old Testament, it’s perfectly plausible in a fictional sense that he wasn’t the only god to create the universe in his lore….. especially since he wasn’t the first god mankind invented. One look at the Fable of Gilgamesh, the oldest story in the world, and you can not only see that the world was a lot older than what the Christians believed, but also that there were older gods that went off on their own paths to become newer deities (Ishtar -> Aphrodite + Ares), and that many of the stories from back then inspired some parts of the Bible.
One of the more interesting parts of Gilgamesh’s tale is when he meets an immortal man and his wife in his search for immortality. According to the man, who tells Gilgamesh his tale about how he became immortal, the man got told by one of the main deities at the time to build a boat because one of the other deities was going to flood the entire planet. The man and his wife did so, built a boat and put people and animals on it, and survived the massive flood. Afterwards, being among the last living people on Earth, the gods gave him and his wife immortality, and restored the world back to its rightful order. If this story sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the original inspiration for Noah and his Ark, which did the exact same thing, except for a different deity: Yahweh.
Another thing, the Greek and Roman, the Hindu, Japanese, Native religions and the Norse all had creation mythology that sorta lines up with each other in a weird way, especially with Christianity. Norse and Greek mythology in particular line up with Christian mythology because they A) All share relative Heavens and Hell dimensions, B) They all have their own all-powerful ruler deities with slightly lesser but still incredibly powerful deities that rule alongside them (Zeus and the Olympians for Greek; Odin and the other Norse gods; Yahweh and his angels), and C) They all have similar mythology to each other (Giants and Titans, Angels and Valkyries, forbidden heavenly apples to mortals, etc.).
No matter how much Christians want to deny it, their religion was shaped by other gods, religions, and mythos just as well as their own. What, a guy in the sky who smites mortals and rules over the entirety of a realm in the sky? Sounds like Zeus and Yahweh have a lot in common, and don’t forget to leave Odin and the Norse out of this too: an all-knowing warrior god with Angelic warrior-beings with wings that take fallen warriors up to paradise, a place where the truly fortunate get to party till the end of the world? Sounds like a cooler Heaven to me. And the Underworld, ruled by Hades and Persephone, a place where the dead get to rest after dying? Sounds like a cooler, older version of Hell that I’d much rather go to, in part for the Greek architecture.
And, what’s this, one of the first women ever created did something out of curiosity that they weren’t supposed to, even though they didn’t know that it was wrong and thus had no idea of its consequences, and by doing that let unspeakable evils into the world, all as part of a trick by a creator deity that wanted to punish them and the rest of humanity? To anyone whose studied Greek mythology and at least heard about the Christian origin of man know about The Box and the Apple… and this analogy only goes to show that Christianity isn’t just its own religion influenced by other mythologies: it’s a religion that copies and takes whatever it wants away from other religions and myths. If you can get so specific that the Adam and Eve and the Apple myth mimics the myth of Pandoras Box, besides the fact that one has an apple and the other has a box, right down to the grain of it, they are related and/or connected in a way that is unrefutable.
And, as such, it becomes that much harder to prove just YOUR deity exists, alone, when your religions own stories have been influenced, inspired and taken from countless others that came before. Perhaps one day, one could prove that we really created or at least influenced by the real Abrahamic God, but they would be hard pressed to state that their god is the only one.
in church they never taught is about any of the contradictory stuff, or really most of the horrible things; which I guess is a way stop teenagers from questioning anything. Then I found this part of the internet, and it's just like, "holy shit, everything they have tried to teach me is B.S.
Time spent reading the Bible would be better spent reading Clifford, maybe then people will realize what’s wrong with basing belief on insufficient evidence
Why oh why is it that theists lay design claim to only the beautiful and magnificent such as life and the universe?
What about poverty, disease, war, rape, murder, torture, terrorism, etc?
No, theists advise those failings were definitely not in God's design. They are apparently results of human short comings.
And God will not step in to resolve these because he gave Man freewill to do as he pleases.
Well, except for burning in Hell for eternity unless you worship Him.
No exceptions to this one.
Do what I say and you will be rewarded, but don't do as I say and you will be punished. Slavery at it's highest level.
Not really a lot of freewill there that I can see!
If God designed everything including man and man is flawed, the design is flawed. Full stop.
So by that rational if the design is flawed the designer must be flawed.
Therefore if God is the designer and the design is flawed, God cannot be God as God must be perfect in every way.
In simpler words, if God designed all and it's not perfect, He cannot be God.
My last words on the matter.
The universe and all it contains including life is so full of complexity, so beautifully structured and so finely balanced.
A theists belief regarding this is there is no way something so complex and balanced could have evolved on it's own so it obviously must have been designed and made by a greater being.
The theists reasoning for this? It's way too complex to have evolved on it's own so is it must have been designed and made by something even infinitely more complex!
The universe is so complex it couldn't possibly exist without a God being responsible but apparently it's okay for God who is infinitely more complex to just exist!
With this logic, God help us.
No wait.........
Didn't you know? God is into BDSM
Right?
Thank God I'm an Atheist so I don't have to do mental gymnastics daily.
We need you back NonStampCollector guy.
Who decided the universe had a beginning? Why does all of this conjecture have to lead to a conclusion that is understandable to the human mind?
Although this video is 6 years old this question was posed to all theist even though it is clearly directed towards Christianity. The Torah does not say what or who created anything, this is omitted. Nor does the Torah make any claims about there only being one God, in fact it is quite clear that the Torah references the existence of many deities that were prevalent in the areas that the Torah was written in. If you speak Hebrew the opening line of Torah reads far more like this "In a beginning created were forces, beyond sky, and fertile space". And far less like the Christian English interpretation of, "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". However, once more in the Torah there is a clear omission about the who or what created these things. So to answer your question "prove that one God created the universe"? This question does not make any sense within the confines of Judaism. It is unclear what created the universe and it is equally unclear as to what "God" is, or what "God" is referencing. In reference to the opening line of Torah, there is no personal pronoun in that sentence. Elohim, which non-Hebrew speaking Christians insist means God, is actually a pluralized verb. How a pluralized verb can be a creator is confusing.
I understand that many Christians have the all the answers, but Judaism usually leaves people, especially Jews, with more questions than answers. This is most likely why the Jewish state of Israel is the most secular and atheist country in the world.
I think your answer is very revealing and something that I have thought about myself: that most Christians (and other religious people today) have a completely different understanding of monotheism than the original peoples who founded these religions.
We understand it as "belief i one god" when it is more like "loyalty to one god." It's simply a matter of individual tribes choosing to worship one god above others - it doesn't mean they don't believe in other gods, only that their's is the supreme one.
Christians - Sun god (Ra). Jews - Saturn (the sabot is on SATURday). Muslims - Moon god (the crescent moon - duh).
Atheists: “Stop thinking god did it.”
Theists: “Stop thinking! God did it!”
🤣
Most underrated channel on UA-cam right here
theists dont like proof
Because it Threatened Sense Of ?
Let us make man in our image....then later the bible says..Look they have become like us. And the Adam and Eve story.. Cain went to the land of Nod and got married to who? It seems to me that the bible is a story of Jewish history to exhaust themselves and make them proud. It sure has worked.
Exalt not exhaust 👹 it was his fault
Lol, Heather, When I was 9, I asked Sister Mary-Magdalene, where Cain got the woman he had sex with. She threw her teeth at me! then she realized it was a bad mistake, snatched it out of the air like a hawk would a dove & slammed it back in her mouth. I got a standing ovation from the rest of the class. I gave them my best Valantine the Great bow. She spent the rest of the day banging her head against the wall.
XD when I ask that, some christians just tell me god started making other people after the first two.
Cain would have married his sister. The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. So it all began with incest according to their fairy tale.
just to clarify so I don't get lit up by a shitload of atheists, I'm not a theist... I'm not an atheist either. I'm a philosopher.
Some points worth noting here: Paley's Watchmaker is very parallel with the theme of this. There haven't been very strong atheistic-arguments against that imo. Though there are some arguments out there that challenge it, most of them are pretty absurd and weak, unfortunately.
Another point that lends to the "1 God" thing would be our current belief that the universe derives from the big bang. Assuming that there was a big bang, and there was only one, or only one that pertains to our universe, that would be pretty strong evidence for a uniform, single creator...
Honestly, even as a non-theist, this is pretty easy to poke holes into, and for one very obvious reason. Theist's Gods are described as being unlimited, omniscient, omnipotent, and super-temporal. Any being that elects to be unseen, and fits this description, is simply beyond any human capability of proving or disproving.
Personally, when I tend to have to debate a theist, I don't bother with trying to disprove God, but rather just prove that if there were a God, it's nature couldn't be that of theirs. That's the most reasonable way to dismantle such a dishonesty. I mean, think of it like this: most theists believe in two Gods, but deny one. They think the "devil" or whatever entity, is at war with their perfectly good God. However, if God knows all things that are, were, or will be, has power over all things, exists beyond the boundary of time... and created it's adversary (the devil) then.... it's not only intrinsically not "at war" with such a being, but created it for it's own devices.
There's only two possibilities: either God created all evil that shall ever be, knowing full well that it would destroy the world and cause great suffering and cataclysm to the things he claims to love most... or God is simply not supreme, and the Devil and God are only near-equals at war, meaning neither is righteous, nor all-powerful.
With that out of the way, if you worship a God that demands worship from you, who is a jealous God, who punishes those who go against his will, who admonishes war, who tolerates cruelty or mistreatment of those deemed unholy or heretics... Then... you clearly worship "the deceiver" as those things are inherently evil actions that must be justified only by "God's command."
I mean... if you believe in a God vs Devil... and your religion has even the most questionable moral principle involved, it's safe to say you're worshipping the deceiver at that point.
IE, why prove to Christians that their fake God isn't real, when you could just prove to them that they worship the fake devil instead? I assure you, they lose a lot more sleep when they realize their own ammunition is so easily used against them.
"I don't play sports, but I also don't don't play sports" lol
It is amazing that the arguments have not changed for more than a thousand years. In that time, science has advanced and can produce evidence while religion has been stagnant since it was invented.
God:
-Expects people to worship him as savior
-Orders the killing of Millions
-Rules by absolute power
-Creates arbitrary rules to keep his own power
-Promotes expanding of this culture by force
Hitler:
-Expects people to worship him as savior
-Orders the killing of Millions
-Rules by absolute power
-Creates arbitrary rules to keep his own power
-Promotes expanding of this culture by force
Bro, the same thing 💀💀💀💀😊
Don’t forget
- loves god
A potential answer to the challenge... nearly 10 years too late:
From what I understand, you’re just asking that IF the fine tuning argument could be proven, then why does it necessarily have to be one creator as opposed to 2 or more? The reason for this is:
to create a universe with space, matter, and time, the creator would have to be outside of these things because if the creator made space, matter, and time, then those things cannot possibly make this creator up. This therefore makes the creator an infinite being as he is not restricted by space, matter, or time, which is where we get the terms “omniscient,” “omnipotent,” and “omnipresent” to define God. To be a separate being from something else, you naturally must differ from another being in some way. If you differ from someone, then you lack something that they have because you can’t both be different and not lack a quality of another being. To be infinite, you can’t lack anything because if you did then you are not infinite, so therefore only one creator must exist (assuming the fine tuning argument is correct) because an infinite being cannot be different from another being or else neither being is infinite and therefore neither would be capable of creating a universe that has space, matter, and time since they would have had to have at least one of those qualities to differ from the other creator. This would make polytheism impossible because, like I said in the beginning, you cannot create one of those qualities if you are not outside of them.
Definitely an interesting perspective on the issue I hadn't considered that much, namely, the conclusion that there can only be one god because the attributes required to be a god cannot be shared by multiple beings.
If I understand your argument correctly, it could be written as the following syllogism:
1. It takes an infinite being to create space, matter, and time
2. An infinite being cannot lack any qualities
3. To be separate from something else, something must differ/be distinguishable from them in some way
4. If something does not lack any qualities, it is indistinguishable from any other thing that doesn't lack any qualities
5. Therefore, there can be one and only one infinite being that created space, matter, and time.
Because of time constraints, and also because this is a UA-cam comment and not a formal context where I am more inclined to be thorough, I am not currently going to write a detailed response to each of the points I take issue with, namely (1), (2), and (4). However, the biggest issue I'll address is with premise (2). @A 01 gave a summary of an argument against (1), though I don't necessarily agree with how it was phrased.
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt in that "qualities" is a bit of a misnomer. It seems very dubious to suggest that any being, infinite or finite, can be (omni)benevolent and (omni)malevolent, ambitious and also aimless, stable and also unstable, spontaneous and also inhibited, fair and also unfair, knowledgeable and also ignorant, square-shaped and also circle-shaped and also triangle-shaped, the list goes on. Perhaps I am misusing qualities in the sense it is meant: perhaps this refers more to the elements/properties of infinite nature. For instance, an infinite being is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and perhaps a bit more. But if that's the case, we have a key flaw in that there are then qualities the being wouldn't necessarily have. In order for the premise to hold, one would either have to either resolve every possible contradiction in qualities, or arbitrarily choose one outcome of each possible contradictory set of qualities, or argue that qualities as we think of it doesn't make sense in an infinite being's nature. Though with the latter, we again run into the issue of it being feasible for an infinite being to lack some qualities.
@@AbdulmajeedSarhan I struggle to accept that. Omnibenevolence and omnimalevolence may cancel out to a perfectly neutral being, but that means the being has the quality of neutrality, and neither the quality of benevolence nor malevolence.
A 01 I get what you’re saying, however I would argue that if multiple infinities existed, then they would exist in our universe. You do have a point, and because a good human mind will always be able to admit that there things we cannot possibly know (e.g. multiple infinities, unknown universal laws, etc.) then there’s always a possibility that a monotheistic creator doesn’t exist, but I would say that we can know (assuming the fine tuning argument is correct) with very great accuracy that one does. The reason for this is because of Occam’s razor, which basically states that the thing with the least number of assumptions is usually correct. While unknown things to man could possibly exist that would disqualify my argument, they are extremely unreasonable and unlikely until they are proven.
Exalted Toast from what I understand, you’re saying that everything HAS to lack qualities because if not they would have to have the positive and negative qualities, which would then contradict each quality which isn’t possible? You make a good point, and you may very well disagree with me on what I say, but I would still say that the monotheistic creator cannot lack anything. I am a Christian and therefore believe that God is all just and good, so how can I possibly say that God is infinite and therefore lacks nothing, yet also claim that He is not unjust, meaning He would lack that quality? I would say that the issue comes from the wording of these qualities. What I mean by this is that it isn’t necessarily just vs unjust, but rather just vs the lack of just. All that needs to exist is the positive quality and then the lack of that quality is then just a choice made by the monotheistic creator or his creations.
A 01 when I say “exists outside the universe” I do not mean physically always outside of it since it is constantly expanding. But rather I’m saying it is not made up of space, matter, or time, therefore able to be “outside” of the universe since it isn’t made up of it. Anything not made up of this would therefore be infinite because it has no constraints other than constraints it makes for itself. I don’t consider Occam’s razor to be law, but that doesn’t mean it’s not relevant in this discussion because if we were to try to disprove a monotheistic god by saying there are things that could be outside the universe that don’t exist inside the universe, then yeah sure that very well could be, but we have no proof of that and therefore it isn’t really probable nor is it logical to argue such a thing. I appreciate your response and the thoughtful discussion though :)
Polytheism - worshiping parrots...
ba-dum-tish, I'm here all week, do forget to try the chicken.
pantheism - worshiping pans
Athiesm- woshipping... um... erm... huh.
Worshipping Athe, the goddess of blood and ruination
cont.
3. Length, or separation in space, is literally dependent upon the motion of an object. A ruler has different lengths depending on its motion. The closer something comes to moving at the speed of light, the flatter it becomes, similar to the 2D picture. IF a ruler could reach the speed of light, it would become completely flattened and its length would be zero relative to us. Distance only can be determined relative to motion of the frame of reference.
Perfectly said/done NonStampCollector ᵔᴥᵔ ★★★★★
Katalyzt
I find it extraordinary that there aren't more deists in this country. People who believe in the supernatural...but don't conform to a specific religion. I'm an atheist...but agnostic. The question of 'is there a God' is one that simply can't be answered and then to go and say, not only to you 'know' there is a God....but he's definitely a man, there is only one, he likes a certain group of humans, he has a list of things he hates, he hates gay people, etc. It would be like saying "I know there has to be life in the universe other then on Earth ...and they wear red shoes, have four arms, speak French, and will land in New Mexico in 2053 on a Friday when they visit us...I know it!" I cannot imagine holding such specific beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary.
+Patrick Kilduff I think most people, if actually pressed, fall less under the "The terms of the bible are true" category, more under the "I'm not talking about religion, but *God*, man" crowd.
It's a popular choice because it allows God to represent whatever the person wants it to, thus making it both perfectly tangible and yet un-corruptable. They don't *have* to answer for the barbarianism of Numbers or the lunacy of Leviticus. They don't have to pretend that Jesus didn't say he was a sword coming to cleave families in half.
God has changed dozens of times in "his" own writings, because God represents what people think is good. Thus, in a world of billions of voices competing with each other, God has become nebulous. He represents what each person thinks is ultimately correct.
Imagine two kids on a playground arguing about Smash Brothers. They each claim they know more than the other because their dad works for Nintendo. Each of them constantly try to one-up each other about how high-up their dad works in Nintendo's ranks.
Then along comes a third child that reminds both of them that they live in suburban Idaho, and that neither of their dads could possibly work for Nintendo.
Both of the previous kids now turn and scream that the third kid can't prove they don't.
That's modern religion. Just on the fringe of deniability, without relying on a source. True Deism.
+Allen S Does the bible actually claimthat it is god's word? I think that's what chirches do. What god was in old testament times was the sanction to do anything ang have other people do anything. The leaders believing less or not at all but relying on the less intellectuall well off to do their bidding based on claims of celestial mandate for genocide or whatever their whim was that week.
+rimmersbryggeri Yes the bible claims it is the word of God, 2. Timothy 3.16 says"All of scripture(the entire bible) is inspired by God"
tanglyng
Ok I stand corrected.
:-) great character is always revealed in answer like your previous !
Let's have some fun with logic.
Let’s define, for argument’s sake, that “goodness” or the “positive property” is defined as the absence of “bad” properties (e.g.needless suffering, injustice, etc.). Because of this definition, objects' properties of goodness can change given the context. Thus “perfection” is defined as the set where there are no “bad” elements, thus, of all “good” (|N| = 0 and |G| = infinity|), and “best” can be defined as the upper bound of “goodness” which, in turn, equals the lower bound of “badness”, of elements within a given set. Now, If the universe was the best possible universe, something that has the best properties or lowest number of negative properties of an infinite number of universes, and it is possible for a perfect universe to exist, then by definition, that best universe would be the perfect universe if the perfect universe were to exist. However, if a perfect universe does not exist, then it would be impossible for the best universe to be a perfect universe, as the number of bad properties is greater than 0. If we then define God as the ultimate good (|N| = 0), then if a perfect universe were to exist, then God would also exist in that universe as God is defined as all of good (In definition, God encompasses all elements of the “perfect” set). On the contrary, if the perfect universe were not to exist, then it would be impossible for God to exist, as God is defined as all of good, and given a lack of a “bad” property is in itself a “good” property, God would have infinite “good” properties. However, as the given universe is not the perfect universe, the number of bad properties in said universe is greater than 0, meaning that the set of “good” properties of this universe is a proper subset of the perfect set “all of good”, and because God is defined as the perfect set, then God cannot exist in this universe as the number of “good” properties that God has would be greater than that of the universe he is in, which is impossible. So, if our current universe was perfect, then God (in this definition) could exist, if not then it is impossible for God to exist.
(I wrote this at 5 am there might be some (a lot) of errors there.
I personally think that the universe is definitely *not* perfect, so it is impossible for God to exist?
This is all COMPLETELY. OUT. OF. CONTEXT.!!!
Of course it is. I have a reputation to uphold.
@@NonStampCollector the fact that you still think respond to your old vids is amazing
No it's not. An app shows me every comment that comes in. As long as they keep coming I'll keep reading them and replying.
@@NonStampCollector it’s still great. All of your videos are amazing and hilarious. Keep it up!
even though I'm an atheist, I would like to take this challenge. would you mind if I gave it a shot in a response video?
I think that's a good idea. Though it'd require you either dumbing yourself down and using misinformed logic, or excessive use of mathematics regarding infinity and that there lack of multiple things.
I reckon we're inside of an exploding atom, well not really since I can't actually tell if we are, but I'm a dumb human and can't be trusted with literally anything. I can't even say for sure that something is a certain colour, let alone know complex workings of the universe to any accuracy that the human brain can't even interpret.
Well put!
When he said that if people make q claim about history that goes against everyones judgement, we dont just claim that person is entitled tk believe whatever they want and we have no right to question it... i checked how long ago the video was made. 11 years... yup, its been a long time since the existence of an objective, real sequence of events was thought of as a given.
I don't think that Christians can step up to that challenge considering they have to prove that one God also exist🤣🤣🤣
God spelled backwards is dog but gods spelled backwards is sdog, not dogs.
that's because the "s" in "sdog" stands for "sup"
Why would God (a brilliant all knowing all powerful God) place humans on a planet that has most of its water undrinkable? People fight and die for this precious commodity. Built just for us indeed. Finely tuned.
Let's say God does create everything... I would not call his design as being intelligent.
I've never been impressed by the idea of intelligent design or the idea of a deity "fine tuning" the universe. The galaxy is proof that randomness and chaos can sometimes create the perfect situation for life to start and thrive. If a creator existed to fine tune the universe, I would imagine that there wouldn't be so many examples of lifeless star & planetary systems. Luv your vids, NSC!
“One of the great challenges in life is knowing enough to think you're right but not enough to know you're wrong”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
You're too logical for this God. He prefers less thinking, more worship of how great he is and obedience to whatever he says.
ok look people the galaxies spiral like twirling up spagetti on a fork the planets and moons even asteriods are shaped like meatballs that is the only proof you need that the flying spagetti monster exist
This opened my eyes
Watching this a Trump ad came on at the funniest time.
"He wants to see proof and evidence that.... "SHES HAD 3 1/2 YEARS TO FIX THE BOARDER"".
To Godrules- You are playing semantics. Agnostic vs. Atheist is totally beside the point of this video's challenge. As one who considers himself an atheist, I say fine. Call me agnostic instead. I don't care. I say "atheist" because I do not hold a belief in a god (we merely have a difference in definition). I do not positively assert that no god exists because it is logically possible that the universe was created by a god, but it is just as possible it was created by universe creating fairies. You're argument is totally a a complaint about definitions, and irrelevant. What's more, you are simply shifting the burden of proof as described in the video. The reason I do not believe in a god is because there is no credible evidence to support the idea, despite how many people find the belief comforting. What evidence do you have that 1 god exists and created the universe? If you fail to provide credible evidence, no one is obliged to take the claim seriously. And as said in the video, I do not have to disprove god's existence. Something that does not exist leaves no evidence, and that is precisely the point! The only way to demonstrate something's non-existence is by failing to demonstrate it's existence. That's why the burden of proof rests on the one claiming god exists. We're listening. What evidence do you have? Now, if/when we question your evidence and point out its flaws, please don't be offended. If it is flawed, then it fails to evidence the claim; that's just fact of the matter. If the claim is true, then there should be some solid, un-flawed evidence somewhere. I have yet to see any.
Are you fucking serious? He was never asserting that any god existed. He just tried to get people to examine their beliefs by clarifying how they knew one very specific part of it: whether it was a singularity or a multitude. He has no burden of proof to bear. By how egregiously you strawmaned him one could wonder if you actually watched his videos.
Because the bible says so. 💥 boom. I'll take my trophy now.
Holy shit you solved it
I can’t tell if you’re being ironic or not
Someone finally proved it
I remember seeing a tidbit about how if the initial rate of expansion immediately after the Big Bang were even a miniscule amount smaller, the expansion would end, the immense gravity pulling every bit of matter in the would-be universe back to that infinitely small, dense point, resulting in no universe at all. The conclusion from this theist post was that the universe was clearly fine-tuned. Never saw a mention of that fact pointing to a potential cycle. Makes you wonder how many times the universe micro-Banged before the quantum fluctuations were “finely tuned” to allow a proper Big Bang leading to the universe we experience today.
And not even Aquinas was able to go from the Deist god to the Theist's god, and this video expressly mentioned that.
If there is a multiverse the perfect fine tuning argument also falls apart.
Thank you NonStampCollector, for being SPECIFIC about which religions you were challenging, the Abrahamic, monotheistic trio, Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm. They are different but they have plenty in common as well. Hate when people lump all religions together, certainly some could be put in the same families, but they DO have different doctrines and different results in culture.
Thank you for not shitting on all theists. I'm a plytheistic Pagan who doesn't proselytize, but often has to defend her beliefs from a certain friend of hers. I don't make the claim that my beliefs are correct and THE truth and try to make others believe it, I simply believe what I believe, and I also happen to believe in science. Paraphrasing Carl Sagan, science can definitely lend dimension and power to spiritual beliefs. I find it annoying when atheists lump all theists together, as if the average Pagan theists behaves quite the same way as the average christian theist. Which in my experience, most of us don't. Anyway, this is another reason I really appreciate your videos. You are fair. Truly fair.
Polytheism makes more sense. If you believe a single god made and controls everything then when you observe things that are screwed up you must conclude god is incompetent. If you believe there are a dozen gods arguing about who is in charge then things being screwed up and appearing random makes perfect sense.
I be watching your UA-cam “Movies”!😂
In other words, separation can only be quantified and assigned meaningful numerical values if an entity can change its configuration within the construct's structure by some set of rules/relationship. Since change requires time, this means even some other construct other than space would still require time to exist. Space without time has no meaning, which is why they are intimately related, and called space-time.
"...I hope some theists will take ist seriously and give it some reasonable responds." - That made me laugh. Especially the "reasonable" part. ^^
Suppose there is some other construct other than space which could allow for separation or numerical values to be assigned to creators which made them distinct. These numerical values would only have meaning within a set of rules which defines the relationship of the values. But a set of rules/relationships require time. For example, within the construct of space, the numerical values "3 feet" and "6 feet" only have meaning by relating to how much time it takes to traverse each distance.