Believing in intelligent creation is way simpler that the unprovable multiverse theory. The degree of belief and faith for believing I'm multiverse is way much more than simply believing in God.
How is a tri-omni God more simple than anything natural? And how did you determine the probability of any of those things? The confidence with which you can say something does not measure its truth.
Two equations that have been empirically confirmed, when combined, produce the multiverse theory. That’s a whole lot more likely, useful, and explanatory than “a magic wizard did it for mysterious reasons.”
Multiverse theory is based on Math. And math is used to prove and predict all aspects of our universe. "Intelligent creation" is based solely on asumptions and claims. And those arent evidence.
Damned if I don't agree with you fred. I often comment to my friends who are believers that my faith is far greater than theirs. My firm belief is that the scientific method, critical thinking, and true skepticism have a far better likelihood to yield accurate findings and predictions about the nature of the physical universe than do wishful thinking, strict adherence to scriptural doctrine, or reliance on influencers (gurus, pastors, politicians, celebrities) to do the thinking for us. And I agree also that "intelligent creation" is way simpler to understand than all them confusing, made up, unproved theories. But just so we're on the same page let me try to break it down: 1. There's a god that is invisible and comes from nothing(nowhere). 2. This god created everything (including and especially we humans, who are reportedly made in this god's image) and made all the rules for how the universe works and for how humans are supposed to live and treat each other. 3. I've spent the last 50+ years reading and studying the rule book that was inspired by this god and I have determined for myself that simpler isn't necessarily truer or more accurate, and it's almost always dumber. Peace!
Does the expansion of the universe affect fine tuning? If carbon is so essential to life and obviously plants need carbon to exist then wouldn't the current move to reduce carbon affect plants and consequently humans/animals?
Hello John, great video! Can you do something on the flat earth theory please? I see a movement in Christianity supporting this theory but it seems inferential based. Thank you.
Meyer's arguments from calculations that are focused on the probability of getting this particular universe. How do we know that other universes could not result from different settings? There is so much we don't know and it is OK to leave it at that for now. More work needs to be accomplished before we can definitively say, "This is the way it is."
You seem to place a lot of faith in science! So do I. I don't personally know calculus and trigonometry, yet I believe the world is an average of 93 million miles from the sun in it's elliptical orbit. I believe that science shapes our understanding of hundreds of things that we encounter and take for granted in our daily lives. So, like you, I usually take scientists at their word. I do, however, question certain findings of science. I ask, for instance: "How do they know that life could not exist if these numbers were slightly different? Maybe that's not really true". I think the only way to know for sure would be to find a star that's the same size and mass as our sun, that has a planet exactly the same as Earth ( age,size, mass, elemental composition etc.) and put it in orbit at an average distance that deviates from 93mm(closer or further) and see if life comes about after a few hundred million years. Then scientists could observe and report their findings. Then we would know, for sure, if any of that is true. I try not to make assumptions, though. I find it more useful to read what scientists actually say, than it is to take the word of someone attempting to support their pet theory with a sciency sounding assertion, while presenting no real data. IMHO one needs to study long and hard before science can be of any use in answering life's big questions.
To all the people like me that have no formal education in physics. Almost all the physicists on this planet do not agree with this man. That is good enough for me to reject this mans claims.
for one, that's literally not true. and for two, any and all arguments for scientific proof of god existing are by definition unfalsifiable. the argument he's making is that it's genuinely plausible based on our scientific evidence that the universe had some kind of intelligent design. the standard model of particle physics still has some important holes in it like the quantum gravity problem so we simply need more evidence to *disprove* the existence of god, and that's what this man is arguing.
@@Farvadude _'it's genuinely plausible based on our scientific evidence that the universe had some kind of intelligent design'_ Yes, just as it it's genuinely plausible based on our scientific evidence that unicorns exist. The evidence for ether is simply not there. _'we simply need more evidence to _*_disprove_*_ the existence of god'_ We simply need any real evidence to *prove* a God does exist.
@@johnhammond6423 no, it isn't genuinely plausible unicorns exist or ever existed. there's no plausible evidence for that. if there was, we'd be able to see it in the fossil record somewhere--but we both know you selected unicorns because that's the default everyone comes up with when attempting to make the claim you're making. you could at least have been more creative. either way come up with a better metaphor. when considering things that are unfalsifiable, it's worth looking at other examples: we've never been able to find any evidence suggesting the 3 laws of thermodynamics aren't ironclad. but we've also never gotten the chance to explore inside black holes or other extreme environments to confirm those laws. they're unfalsifiable pragmatically because humanity doesn't have the ability to explore abnormal regions of the universe fully to confirm in edge cases whether our laws of physics are truly laws rather than just theories.
@@Farvadude _'come up with a better metaphor'_ O.K. how about the tooth fairy? _'it isn't genuinely plausible unicorns exist'_ Unicorns are more plausible because unicorns would be a part of the natural world, unlike your God.
@@johnhammond6423 that metaphor is even worse, and your logic about the unicorn being something that could materially exist within the natural world doesn't make any sense in regards to what i said or the argument presented in the video. do you really not understand the argument being presented? it certainly seems like it. nothing in science is a certainty. we operate on 99.999...% information as if it were 100% true, because pragmatically it is. the fundamental constants fall within astronomically tiny margins that enable the creation of life. tell me why you're so certain this occurred merely by chance. i'm not even asserting i'm sure god exists. you're asserting that you're sure god does not exist and not actually addressing the fine-tuning argument in doing so. if the probabilities that the fundamental constants such as the cosmological and gravitational constant enable the creation of life are in fact as low as the evidence indicates, then the only argument opposing the intelligent design of the initial conditions' specificity that makes sense is the multiverse theory which states our universe is one of an infinite number of variations and thus life must necessarily exist in at least one (if not an infinite number) of the infinite variations on the initial conditions. they directly state they'll address the multiverse theory in the 5th video in the series, so until they do that i've reserved my judgment. but you're very certain of yourself for someone who can't come up with a metaphor that actually transposes onto the argument you're trying to oppose--which is exactly what i'd expect if you don't really understand what the argument is asserting.
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” To ignore THAT possibility, no matter how distasteful you might find it, discounts anything you bring to any further discussion. Occam's Razor certainly points towards a Supernatural Being having fine-tuned the universe for life.
Hallelujah! God is truly the Mighty Creator!
Believing in intelligent creation is way simpler that the unprovable multiverse theory. The degree of belief and faith for believing I'm multiverse is way much more than simply believing in God.
How is a tri-omni God more simple than anything natural? And how did you determine the probability of any of those things? The confidence with which you can say something does not measure its truth.
Two equations that have been empirically confirmed, when combined, produce the multiverse theory. That’s a whole lot more likely, useful, and explanatory than “a magic wizard did it for mysterious reasons.”
Multiverse theory is based on Math. And math is used to prove and predict all aspects of our universe.
"Intelligent creation" is based solely on asumptions and claims. And those arent evidence.
Damned if I don't agree with you fred. I often comment to my friends who are believers that my faith is far greater than theirs. My firm belief is that the scientific method, critical thinking, and true skepticism have a far better likelihood to yield accurate findings and predictions about the nature of the physical universe than do wishful thinking, strict adherence to scriptural doctrine, or reliance on influencers (gurus, pastors, politicians, celebrities) to do the thinking for us.
And I agree also that "intelligent creation" is way simpler to understand than all them confusing, made up, unproved theories. But just so we're on the same page let me try to break it down:
1. There's a god that is invisible and comes from nothing(nowhere).
2. This god created everything (including and especially we humans, who are reportedly made in this god's image) and made all the rules for how the universe works and for how humans are supposed to live and treat each other.
3. I've spent the last 50+ years reading and studying the rule book that was inspired by this god and I have determined for myself that simpler isn't necessarily truer or more accurate, and it's almost always dumber. Peace!
Does the expansion of the universe affect fine tuning?
If carbon is so essential to life and obviously plants need carbon to exist then wouldn't the current move to reduce carbon affect plants and consequently humans/animals?
Maranatha!
Hello John, great video! Can you do something on the flat earth theory please? I see a movement in Christianity supporting this theory but it seems inferential based. Thank you.
It seems "inferential" to whom? You?
The entire flat Earth concept is complete nonsense!
There is absolutely nothing to discuss!
100% nonsense!
Hey buddy I would check out some validated science sources for your curiosity in flat earth. John is not reliable source for such scientific interest.
Thank you.
Meyer's arguments from calculations that are focused on the probability of getting this particular universe. How do we know that other universes could not result from different settings? There is so much we don't know and it is OK to leave it at that for now. More work needs to be accomplished before we can definitively say, "This is the way it is."
There is faith and fantasy
Love your show .
-why is it a surprise that it is what it is?-it couldn't be any other way-
Is the Universe God?Is God da Universe?🤔👍
You seem to place a lot of faith in science! So do I. I don't personally know calculus and trigonometry, yet I believe the world is an average of 93 million miles from the sun in it's elliptical orbit. I believe that science shapes our understanding of hundreds of things that we encounter and take for granted in our daily lives. So, like you, I usually take scientists at their word.
I do, however, question certain findings of science. I ask, for instance: "How do they know that life could not exist if these numbers were slightly different? Maybe that's not really true". I think the only way to know for sure would be to find a star that's the same size and mass as our sun, that has a planet exactly the same as Earth ( age,size, mass, elemental composition etc.) and put it in orbit at an average distance that deviates from 93mm(closer or further) and see if life comes about after a few hundred million years. Then scientists could observe and report their findings. Then we would know, for sure, if any of that is true.
I try not to make assumptions, though. I find it more useful to read what scientists actually say, than it is to take the word of someone attempting to support their pet theory with a sciency sounding assertion, while presenting no real data. IMHO one needs to study long and hard before science can be of any use in answering life's big questions.
Willful ignorance, wonder of wonders Romans 1 verse 18
BS. That's all that needs to be said.
To all the people like me that have no formal education in physics.
Almost all the physicists on this planet do not agree with this man. That is good enough for me to reject this mans claims.
for one, that's literally not true. and for two, any and all arguments for scientific proof of god existing are by definition unfalsifiable. the argument he's making is that it's genuinely plausible based on our scientific evidence that the universe had some kind of intelligent design. the standard model of particle physics still has some important holes in it like the quantum gravity problem so we simply need more evidence to *disprove* the existence of god, and that's what this man is arguing.
@@Farvadude
_'it's genuinely plausible based on our scientific evidence that the universe had some kind of intelligent design'_
Yes, just as it it's genuinely plausible based on our scientific evidence that unicorns exist. The evidence for ether is simply not there.
_'we simply need more evidence to _*_disprove_*_ the existence of god'_
We simply need any real evidence to *prove* a God does exist.
@@johnhammond6423 no, it isn't genuinely plausible unicorns exist or ever existed. there's no plausible evidence for that. if there was, we'd be able to see it in the fossil record somewhere--but we both know you selected unicorns because that's the default everyone comes up with when attempting to make the claim you're making. you could at least have been more creative. either way come up with a better metaphor.
when considering things that are unfalsifiable, it's worth looking at other examples: we've never been able to find any evidence suggesting the 3 laws of thermodynamics aren't ironclad. but we've also never gotten the chance to explore inside black holes or other extreme environments to confirm those laws. they're unfalsifiable pragmatically because humanity doesn't have the ability to explore abnormal regions of the universe fully to confirm in edge cases whether our laws of physics are truly laws rather than just theories.
@@Farvadude
_'come up with a better metaphor'_
O.K. how about the tooth fairy?
_'it isn't genuinely plausible unicorns exist'_
Unicorns are more plausible because unicorns would be a part of the natural world, unlike your God.
@@johnhammond6423 that metaphor is even worse, and your logic about the unicorn being something that could materially exist within the natural world doesn't make any sense in regards to what i said or the argument presented in the video.
do you really not understand the argument being presented? it certainly seems like it. nothing in science is a certainty. we operate on 99.999...% information as if it were 100% true, because pragmatically it is. the fundamental constants fall within astronomically tiny margins that enable the creation of life. tell me why you're so certain this occurred merely by chance. i'm not even asserting i'm sure god exists. you're asserting that you're sure god does not exist and not actually addressing the fine-tuning argument in doing so.
if the probabilities that the fundamental constants such as the cosmological and gravitational constant enable the creation of life are in fact as low as the evidence indicates, then the only argument opposing the intelligent design of the initial conditions' specificity that makes sense is the multiverse theory which states our universe is one of an infinite number of variations and thus life must necessarily exist in at least one (if not an infinite number) of the infinite variations on the initial conditions.
they directly state they'll address the multiverse theory in the 5th video in the series, so until they do that i've reserved my judgment. but you're very certain of yourself for someone who can't come up with a metaphor that actually transposes onto the argument you're trying to oppose--which is exactly what i'd expect if you don't really understand what the argument is asserting.
This proves nothing except for our ignorance.
It is further proof that everything in existence is by intelligent design, not by chance.
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
To ignore THAT possibility, no matter how distasteful you might find it, discounts anything you bring to any further discussion.
Occam's Razor certainly points towards a Supernatural Being having fine-tuned the universe for life.