I am going to put this simple there are trillions up on trillions of stars.
Just like one out of a trillion sperm cells creating a child is an inevitability so to is life happening on an orbiting planet around one of those stars an inevitability and if not here than some where else in the universe the chemical reaction inevitably going to happen. The flaw is they under count the number of stars and remove the factor of inevitably that is it.
The problem I had with migkiller's argument concerned the existence of the analogue (the human who is able to tamper with the system) and - to the best of our knowledge - the absence of god. In the first part (the lottery), the factors of improbability and the gambler's existence lead us to believe that the gambler tampered with the system. In the second part, improbability leads to design with only faith to support the existence of god. The former knows existence, the latter assumes.
Let's relate fine tuning to the lottery. It would be like a person trying to win the lottery by waiting until the drawing took place, then became privy to those winning numbers and then said, "I choose those numbers." Fine tuners are trying make an improbability claim to a random event that has already concluded. We statisticians call these data driven ideas. They're trying to prove an idea by using data that's suggesting the idea in the first place. Fine tuning is a paralogism. Period.
I wonder what theists think of the fact that the overwhelming majority of physicists in the National Academy of Sciences, the elite scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, are atheists? Because these theists act like God is the only explanation for the improbable physical constants, when in reality God is only one of three possible explanations, and is by far the least likely of the three.
@sam51092 It doesn't even make since if you assume God. God could of just created something with no life. I mean seriously what does God gain if he creates people who worship and pray to him? He is all powerful and perfectly content. Even if it's a deist amoral God there's no reason to create us rather than something else other than the way God happens to be or what he happens to like. God happens to exist eternally with desire X which is super improbable and came about by no reason.
TT9901--- you didn't really elborate why particle X is more special then humans. I mean you did say it was more rare to human life but that doesn't really explain anything. What are its properties that make it so special? how do these properties stack up against carbon based life (particularly humans) and if you were to say that it is special simply because it is rare then why should we objectively to think that it is special because of its rarity?
ok, fair question, but that's my point. they do not specify what makes human life "special" other then say that it is unlikely/rare, so it follows that anything more rare or unlikely must be more "special". do you follow?
Not to mention Asimov's essay "The Judo Argument" against the improbability of life. Creationists fail to take into account the restraints of the system when coming up with these huge improbabilities. For example, atoms do not combine randomly, they combine according to predictable and well tested laws. These laws influence the probable outcome of said process.
Nothing that has occurred in this universe is that unlikely, including the genesis and evolution of life. The only thing I see as being seemingly unlikely is the existence of this universe in this state, as nothing we have discovered thus far suggests the number of possible states of universes is any less than infinity. However, once we start to ask why this universe is in the state it's in, then we reach the boundary of our knowledge, and I don't think it's wise to posit any explanation.
When someone proposes the idea that our existence is extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance, I see this as a petitio principii fallacy. You can go on all day about how any tiny variation in a fundamental constant would make this universe impossible, but you haven't demonstrated that these constants can actually vary, or that if they could, that all values are equally likely. And, even if improbable by random chance, a conscious will is not required to influence the outcome.
However, if those constants can't vary, my next question is why can't they vary? What determined the properties of this universe to be such that they can't? If the universe just is that way, is there a reason it just is that way? Since I am not biased towards believing in god, I don't assume a god must have done these things or that a god is any more likely than other explanations, but the questions are still there.
Okay after the 2:31 mark my initial response is.... this is retarded. Just before 4:54 mark he made a good point in favor of ID. And again at 5:37. By 6:53 retarded again. The last 30 seconds seemed okay.
He was addressing the fallacy that any answer, no matter how fabricated and unfounded, is a better explanation than "I don't know" or probability. It isn't. He knows it, I know it and anyone with the least bit of intelligence knows that it isn't a good argument in favor of intelligent design.
If you think 4:54 was a good point for ID then you have very low standards for what makes a good argument, being as the point of that was to make a bad argument and say that that argument is essentially the same as the argument he's trying to criticize. I think he makes a good point if arguing against someone who assumes there is a good chance god exists. Usually the opposing argument tends to say that this universe is so unlikely, that even a god existing MUST be more likely than it.
well im a graphic designer. I am not influenced by a god. My thoughts and ideas dont come from god but i start off with a process. The process starts with a problem, my job and what ive been trained to do is design something that will solve the problem, you have to try not ony 1 but many. you could have 15 designs and ultimately only 1 will fit the criteria that is most likely to be created in reality. there is no god that can help with that problem, i designed it on my own.
I thought science did prove God's existence. I mean infinity in "nature" would prove with a reasonable certainty of 1:1 God actually does exist. All things being probable? Just me two cents... Peace
first off, no, that wouldn't prove God exists. (if you're thinking of the Cosmological Argument. it'd be good to know that's already been debunked down to a baseless speculation theory)
second off, where in nature does infinity occur? we speculate that matter is eternal but it's not like we can actually prove that that's the case. (unless we locate a process by which the universe's existence could be seen to be a cyclical, closed system.)
also, science is agnostic by definition and mandate. :)
Nature probably was the wrong term. But there are things that we see as infinite, space, numbers, scientists are speculate there are infinite dimensions etc. But I think dismissing it as baseless speculation is not strong enough to say its not the case as it could be said that it to is also a baseless conclusion because we just don't know. But it still remains with infinity thats its not just possible its probable.... Well thats what i believe, but what do I know... Peace
if you're referring to the cosmological argument not being baseless, that's incorrect (i only used baseless when mentioning the CA). the CA speculates that the universe began, which is true, but insignificant. it's really saying that Matter began, which isn't provable at true... so the argument is baseless
if you weren't referring to that then o well. anything is possible, not a lot of things are probable. wait for the LHC to start breaking some ground before getting too attached to anything
I confess in public that I strongly believe Jesus was the biological son of Joseph. I don't believe Jesus walked over the water. I confess in public that I believe Jesus died and his biological body was buried under good soil somewhere in Jerusalem or other city. I must confess, meanwhile, that I strongly believe there must have some interior truth to each and every individual where Jesus's walking over water and his resurrection are even inferior to this very same truth. That's Spirit!
I really don't like a certain 'closure' I feel in the creationist thinking mode, even though I can forgive him by his very fast attachment to a supernatural being world-creator. This world-creator wanted us to have an unconscious mind which is His special communication channel! I don't believe in a world-creator... God Is! World-creator is the metaphor we've created to target the non-comprehensible numinous. Thus the theologian P. Tillich says that "Personal God" is just an useful symbol.
Nice vid! Let us assume the arrows of explanation for physics are pointing to a certain Omega station reached right after uniting gravity and other forces. Say such Omega is just above Einstein's Equivalence principle stating "The reason why it [Existential Quantum] exists is the same it acts". No wonder the existence of a certain pressure from the unconscious mind which obliges the creationist or believer say the universe is designed for life. Existing & Acting are ontologically 50/50!
A common thread I find in pro and con creation by design arguments is a complete lack of holistic thinking on both sides. When I eat breakfast it is neither by pure chance nor predestined by some being somewhere other than myself as a product and part of the universe as it is now, regardless of whatever probabilities. Let the babes suckle their favorite tit for milk, these arguments are all farts in the wind, much ado about nothing.
It seems to be the vocation of The Universe to transmit more and more random combinations. When one part of the Universe (Which could be me or you) recognises it has formed something deemed as special; it has happened only subjectively. The Universe itself cannot point to evidence that life is special. Only mankind will.
If the universe was "designed for life" then why is it so inhospitable? You'd think that a universe designed for life would be much easier to live in. I think that it's great that we live in a universe in which life is possible but if it were "designed" for life i think we'd see much less harsh conditions FOR life.
i find it laughable that people come up with calculating the odds for life coming to being. often they turn out to be the people who also cleverly calculated that the earth was only a few thousand years old...
not usually. Many secular scientists like Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking (i guess you could arguably call them deists) also make calculations on the tiny odds.
I use a came of cards!. what is the likely hood of the same play of cards occurring again, near infinitesimal, that doe snot mean the game did not occur, nor does it imply in any way that the universe was designed for that game to happen!
I think it comes down to "what do people find easier to accept". If average joe is presented with a large stack of papers that is a long continuing equation for life the universe and everything, then to the side is given a single piece of paper with the word "GOD". Which option would he be more likely to take, that which is easy, or that which is right?
Obviously it depends on the person, but most people just don't care enough, and would rather have a stock answer to the big questions.
Is the Universe designed for Life,.......or is the Universe the way it is because that is the way it is,........and Life evolved to survive in the Universe the way it is???
Tooltime, your videos are awesome, they lack any professionalism, they're devoid of charm, they turn into crazy rants, and yet the meat of your arguments, the logic, is always excellent. You have a really good grasp of philosophy. I always find myself entertained. Keep up the excellent work.
Who is to say this is not just one of billions of universes? The real question here is how could any rational person try to explain how out of all the species that ever lived in the world, how could we be the only ones to evolve rational intelligence? My issue with the pure evolution argument is that there were many species living within the same conditions as us when we evolved first to walking apes and then mankind. There must of been a helping hand, how else could it be explained?
Moreso I should add that there were animals competitively superior on a survival basis (and inferior) that didn't develop large brains to survive, and yet that is the argument for our personal evolution as a species. Also, in the beginning when there were just a bunch of basic components of life floating in a hot tub, even with our best attempts to explain what was going on, we still have some extremely large and improbable leaps that can't be scientifically explained.
Science and religion by no means should cancel each other out while trying to explaine the universe. I would think it ignorant to think that God had a method of creating life by simply shouting some magic words. Clearly he had a specific design in mind and I don't know how life could of possibly evolved in the fashion it did within a closed system. lol God isn't a magician. The question really is if we are the original form of intelligent life or simply another species yet to become extinct?
If it were clear we'd be able to see it., it's not clear since there's ZERO evidence for an existence of a higher being/God/FSM/Chuck Norris Third Testicle.
There is nothing but evidence. Yes science proves a lot of stuff and if we have some idea how he accomplished what he did, but there is just too much unexplained to claim there is no proof.
I'll add to my previous reply that, yes, other animals do need social skills. The wolves have great social skills, but they also have bigger brains than the cat, who doesn't have the same social skills.
Also, who says, given time, that apes don't develop language, or other species. The fact is that we're the first sentient creatures on the planet Earth, but if the ant had developed sentience before we did, they'd be saying 'Oh, we're special!'
You're thinking about this in such a silly way, though. Do you think the whales go 'We're the biggest creature, we must have been designed, or how else could it have happened'? Ofcourse they don't. Neither do the Eagles with their fantastic eyesight or the chameleons with their colour changing. We are lucky to have our big brains, but only because the alternative was extinction. Animals adapt to their environment, and we needed to be smarter to survive, because we were much to weak on our own.
Your ignoring my entire argument. You can't take something like an eagle's eye site and say that makes them in any way superior to us. We happen to have a special type of eye site as well. Big brains are argued to be the way we adapted to life in a particular part of the world where some major climate changes occurred. I am talking about the animals there that underwent the same evolutionary forces. Given what we know about evolution there is no reason they shouldn't of followed a like path
There has been no greater proven survival factor than reason. The only other factor as strong would be high rate of reproduction, but that won't keep you alive, just keep your species alive.
Given the slow rate of development particularly shown by our species, if there was another species that were to evolve a large brain, it would of shown itself by now, but there isn't. Don't confuse the ability to recognize commands as intelligence.
"I am talking about the animals there that underwent the same evolutionary forces."
I just dumped a pile of sand out of a bucket. What confuses me is that not every grain of sand is now sitting at the apex of the pile, as every grain was subject to the same simple cause and acted upon by the same simple forces.
Another person who ignores the whole argument I put forward. Don't ignore when I stated "Moreso I should add that there were animals competitively superior on a survival basis (and inferior) that didn't develop large brains to survive"
There is no reason that we as a species should end up at the top of the pile. We were on the same level as any other species so then why were we the ONLY ones that evolved in such a way, any species would of greatly benefited.
What might also ask why the animal with the keenest eyesight is at the top of the pile. Or consider the monkey with the longest tail. Or the predator with the sharpest teeth. These questions are all exactly the same.
What is so special about YOUR special attribute, other than the fact that it is YOURS so you attach a feeling of importance to it?
Just to reanswer this question of "What is so special about YOUR special attribute, other than the fact that it is YOURS"... its an attribute that put us at the top of the food chain. No animal species when faced against mankind with our technology can claim superiority. Human beings can cure disease using complex chemistry, can travel into outer space using rockets, can dive down deeper than most marine life in submarines and have invented weapons more powerful than any predator.
Isaac I really think you are missing what I am stating here. To simplify, lets just take into consideration similar species of the time, there were many species of biped primates. However the competitive advantage that led to us was only found in one. If the species were physically very similar and faced a similar environment then why would one evolve and the other not. What I am simply trying to state is that evolution and paleontology as we know them are still closer to theory than science
"the species were physically very similar and faced a similar environment"
As grains of sand are very similar and face a similar environment when dumped from a bucket. So why does one grain end up at the apex and another in the middle?
Because they do NOT experience the SAME history of forces. In fact they CANNOT because they generate forces that influence EACH OTHER.
your sandbox theory is really flawed, it in no way applies here. As far as parasites being the top of the food chain, I must disagree with you once again. If mankind picked a particular species to eliminate on this planet they could do it. Its a tradeoff killing things like parasites and symbiotes because you never know when they can help in the further evolution of mankind. By definition a parasite gives nothing back, but parasites might be the key to unlocking DNA from the past.
I mean the following in the nicest sense without any animosity at all; really:
I've whacked you upside the head with a clue bat. However, your unwarranted sense of self importance comorbid with survivor's remorse has generated an I'm Special Field which deflects the cognitive impact.
As soon as you drop the idea that you're all that the solution to your questions ought to become facepalmingly obvious.
Perhaps you should hypothesize an alien planet to circumvent the field.
lol that was pathetic. Did you have to pull out the thesaurus for that comment? I should of realized I was wasting my time trying to discuss a complex matter with you as soon as I viewed your channel. Don't know why I wasted my time.
"Did you have to pull out the thesaurus for that comment?"
No. I have sufficient familiarity with both the language and the concepts I used said language to invoke to write without needing to use any reference materials.
Similarly, upon viewing your comments and your channel I suspected I would be wasting my time, but proceeded anyway for one simple reason;
I actually cared about trying to help you understand.
Overdrive. What you fail to understand here is that evolution doesn't have a goal, we got bigger brains, sharks got bigger teeth, cheetahs got more speed, and whilst I can appreciate that we could wipe cheetahs out if we wanted, you have to remember that we could be wiped out by a simple virus.
And also, it IS possible that another species could evolve sentience. Certain species of monkeys have language, they look after their old, mourn when an animal dies, bury them, they use tools, they have foresight. I was watching LIFE the other day and a type of monkey survived by getting a huge plant seed with a tough outer-shell (think coconut), checking if it was ripe, stripping the outer layer off, leaving it in the sun for a week, then coming back and using a rock to open it. That's smart.
There are certainly survival skills out there that resemble intelligence and I really am not in a position to say they truly aren't intelligent. This is actually the first time that I heard of a monkey that buries their dead. lol paleontologists say that by burying your dead with flowers indicates a belief in the afterlife, while I would say that its a defense from predators that would be attracted by corpses, the flowers mask the stench.
That is certainly an interesting concept. Take one of the famous primate researchers that actually sees evidence of community and intelligent behavior but also consider the fundamental attribution error which would indicate that the researchers presence has an effect. Perhaps non-verbal communication triggers action in the subject. A person without the first hand experience can not determine the level of intelligence of a species. Obviously I have not observed them.
lol when dealing with a person as diluted as Isaac, noone is the winner at the end. I should of known better than to try to debate with him. Some people think of themselves as intellectuals because they have a built in thesaurus, I rejected mine a long time ago - its a fine line between showing intelligence and being pretentious.
On the other end of the spectrum Lpoolboy is presenting an interesting concept. Perhaps we are the first, but not the only that has the potential to develop sentience. I suppose the only way we will find out what happens is by waiting. Do I think that the ability to memorize complex tricks is a form of intelligence, no. However the idea that some animal show the same tendancies as what was expected to exist in early man is very promising.
As a theist myself, I agree that all "logical" formulations of the argument from probability are essentially worthless. The only way in which an argument such as this has any value is when it is used as a psychological appeal, based on feelings rather than reason, but alas, an "argument" of that sort has no actual value.
I apologize for my short temper, but it is insufferably infuriating to repeatedly listen to arguments about how "intelligently designed" the universe has to be, by people who propose the existence of a being that doesn't require intelligence to achieve their goals.
When you say that the universe is "finely tuned", you're essentially saying that if gravity had ANY other value, the universe would fall apart like a house of cards... But houses of cards don't fall when you control **gravity**
Though the answer as to why the physical constants have their specific values has not been answered in any definitive fashion by the scientific community, what is interesting is things like the omniverse, where by a universe exists for every possible range in values for physical constants exists in parallel to our own universe...a completely untestable and speculative assertion...are put forth
as a solution it can not be said to be any less absurd than "god did it"
Actually the physical constants seem to favor the existence of complex elements and particular chemical reactions that are needed for life, that it is highly probable that carbon based life is likely to come to exist is the reason it is an interesting philosophical question.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, is a good example of explaining the odds of probability. A coin toss constantly turning up heads only appears improbable from the stand point of viewing it in a series. However looking at each individual toss by itself, it no longer seems odd for a coin to land on heads. Also it is a very entertaining movie if you missed it!
It was a good point to raise about how the mind works. What does it take for our minds to accept anything exists. Is there a scientific benchmark for existence of anything? How do I know you exist and is this based on criteria?
thx for the video response, but you didn't quite answer my question.
In fact, if we were to accept your argument, we would say that the people would NOT be justified to infer conspiracy from one guy winning the lottery every day for 100 years.
On what basis do you declare that intelligent life would be important to a cosmic designer?
Do you deny that our human intelligence relies on neuronal activity, and that supernatural intelligence wouldn't (by definition)... thereby negating any solid inferences between what natural and supernatural intelligences have in common in terms of behaviors, preferences, and value systems?
And your "design inference" still relies on a fundamental flaw: that the rules of the universe are beyond the control of the deity who's supposed to have created this all "from nothing". To describe a being as a "designer" is to describe them as being anything *but* capable of creating a universe from scratch.
as I said in the video, i don't see how one could do that without helping themselves to assumptions about theology.
sure, a personal god who wanted exactly this universe to exist might drop the probability down to one, but the question becomes what are the odd that there would be such a god with exactly those desires rather than some other god or the same one with some other set of desires.
"but the question becomes what are the odd that there would be such a god with exactly those desires rather than some other god or the same one with some other set of desires."
One is free to ask that question, but for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum by many here on youtube, it doesn't really damage the design hypothesis because the explanations dont themselves need explanations to be viable explanations.
"explanations dont themselves need explanations to be viable explanations"
Then how is it you expect to defeat the argument that the universe can come about by natural means? You're saying that probabilities can lend incredulity to such a possibility, and then you turn around and say that those very same probabilities are irrelevant when discussing a universe that doesn't come from natural means. Now if that ain't moving goal posts, then I don't know what is.
"Now if that ain't moving goal posts, then I don't know what is."
Its not because I'm not saying that the cosmic designer doesn't have a designer or some explanation of his features (for now at least). Improbabilities only damage a hypothesis when there's another hypothesis that explains a set of data that is more probable.
"Improbabilities only damage a hypothesis when there's another hypothesis that explains a set of data that is more probable"
That assertion fails on two accounts: you don't have to have an alternate explanation to prove that a given explanation is false (a six year old could prove that birds don't cause gravity, even if Newton couldn't figure out what did). Second, you've still not provided a hypothesis that is any more valid than ours.
As I said before, it is an acutely deceitful tactic to declare that probabilities are relevant to non-theistic explanations, and then declare that they are not relevant to theistic ones. Tooltime just explained why yours is so highly improbable, and you just responded with, "So?". Why are we to take you seriously when you hold such double standards? Even if you could disprove our hypothesis, you still would have done nothing to substantiate your own.
Remember that there is a distinct difference between saying that a god created our universe and saying that he intelligently designed it. And it is still entirely possible that the universe as it exists today wasn't meant to be as it is -- perhaps the creator has already gotten what he was after, and we are the mold that grows on the trash. An inadvertent, unintended bi-product (in which case, agnostic atheism would still be a relevant and sufficiently-justifiable philosophical conclusion)
Nothing created by the "perfect being" that would be known as God (keep in mind, the Bible says and infers that God is perfect many times) would have any "unintended bi-product" because it was created perfectly by the perfect creator how he perfectly wanted it to be.
So the universe, in the way God made it (if God did make it), IS meant to be as it is.
and it has been replied ad nauseum that this is lazy excuse making.
viable does not mean correct or most likely or the on we should infer to. no one is asking for an explanation of the explanation. I am saying we can simply reboot the argument and ask how likely said explanation is compared to its alternatives. if the likelihood of said explanation is less than or equal to an explanation such as randomness, then it is not really better and possibly worse.
Richard Dawkins addresses this problem (kind of) in his book the God Delusion. He points out that Chance is not the only alternative to Design. Rather, Natural selection is the only working, plausible (and very strongly at that) alternative to design. Also, he states that whatever Creationists are arguing to be "SO IMPROBABLE," it had to be designed, a being that could create the very thing they are talking about would have to be AT LEAST as improbable as that thing!
Any design argument is flawed because the designer that is supposed must be more complex than the design and thus be much more improbable.
Something else to think about, there are 117 elements and three atoms in a water molecule. Therefore the chances of a water molecule forming is 1 in 187,388,721 (117 ^ 3) or 0.000000000534% (that's 9 zeros). Argument for Poseidon anybody?
I once had a tomato that looked just like Richard NNixon, Clearly, that is so improbable, it must be the reason the universe exists. (And Adams did coin the puddle argument.)
A person couldn't even show one example of creation (something from nothing) to have a discussion about it. It's really nothing but a straw man. Who even says this crap could be different? Why would gravity be anything but relative? When does time occur, as explained by QM or does it go by God's watch? Ridiculous.
All events are more or less completely unbelievable to arise.
The problem is that one look at the finished result and realize all the obstacles that must be overcome to get there.
What is the chance that you made this video with just all these words just now?
What are the odds that you exist at all?
Regardless of which of all the billions of configurations of animals and plants that could flourish on this earth, we had (if we existed) found it equally unlikely that we feel today.
With that point about god being able to create an infinate number of variations of universes, one thing you could say is that the whole universe looks the same. Wouldn't that be boring? If I had lots of ideas for the universe, I would make different regions of the universe look different. Like people who use a different decorative theme for each room of their house... or a fucking planet.
My life is dependent on life in general existing first, my shit is dependent on my existing first, therefore the universe is fine-tuned for the shit i took last night. QED.
when i watch tooltime videos, I like to strip down naked, crack open a beer, and prank call macaulay culkin, deep breathing with thriller playing in the background
And my third point is that you can't argue there wouldn't be life if the constants were even minutely different. We wouldn't have the same life, but there remains the possibility that some other form of life much unlike our own would exist.
And if they could be any different, then there is the possibility that ours is not the only universe, and there exists others in which the constants and laws simply to not support the existence of life. If that is the case, then OF COURSE we are going to be in one universe that does. Otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.
I find the problem with the argument is that in order to make the argument you have to assume that the apparent universal laws and constants that are in question can actually be different. There is no proof that it these things could have actually been any different. If they couldn't have been, then the odds that we end up with life are essentially 100%.
the universe was designed for life....this is as ass backwards as it gets. if anything life was designt to fit the universe. I'm using the term "design" loosely.
(continued from previous post) What would you say about me as an engineer? Either you would say I was incompetent, or that I was purposely wasteful and malicious. You wouldnt say that I was good or perfectly intelligent.
This is a ridiculous nonsensical, argument. Your argument assumes that a universe full of life-bearing planets would be in some way superior to this universe with a (very likely) single life-supporting planet, when there's no reason to assume that. A prevalence of life throughout the universe would trivialize life, and make it less unique. Your hypothetical creation would suck balls compared to this one. Fail less creator wannabe
As the prevalence of bacteria throughout the Earth trivializes you as a specific life form.
In fact, you appear to be little more than something provided as a bacterial environment, as there are for more of them in you than there is you in "you."
even this single planet has made about 100bilion people...
and as IsaacBickerstaffEsq mentions... there are far more non-human living/dead creatures than there are humans... so i kind of feel life is already trivialized with just 1 planet. who are you to 100billion others? who are you to an uncountable number of other living creatures?
God cares for all his creations right? so why should he care about you in a non-trivial way? he's got untold quadrillions upon quadrillions more to care about.
"Your argument assumes that a universe full of life-bearing planets would be in some way superior to this universe with a (very likely) single life-supporting planet, when there's no reason to assume that."
The argument being offered by theists is that the universe is DESIGNED FOR LIFE. A universe with more than one life-bearing world is more efficient at fulfilling its function than a universe with just one.
(continued) Suppose I was an engineer building a car, and in the process of doing so I created several BILLION cars that would not even start (i.e. billions of lifeless planets), and I, from this very wasteful process produced only one functional car that was susceptible to early rust and malfunction (i.e. one planet with life that is replete with pain, suffering, and defects) (continued).
Your analogy is faulty. You are comparing God to a human engineer. Human engineers have limited time and resources and thus it would be wasteful to produce some many cars. God is eternal and omnipotent so he has no worries about wasting energy or time. Also , like WL Craig says , perhaps God is more of an artist or engineer. You look at the stars and say "What a waste of space". However many people (like me) say "o how pretty" and appreciate the artistic value of the world god created.
It is interesting that theists will only use the flawed design analogy just to prove their God, but they won't be honest about the inferences made by the design analogy, and they won't let those inferences play out to their fullest extent. If they did they would realize that if the universe is the product of design, then it demonstrates a designer that is cruel and wasteful (continued)
"Design is always going to be a better explanation than... anything" - you said it! Occam at work. Welcome to theism (or minimally deism or something), friend.
An intelligent being creating the universe adds multiple huge new assumptions. The universe always existing requires one tiny assumption. Occam's Razor supports the latter not the former.
False. Occam supports the former, and requires precisely the same amount of assumptions, that is a single one. A single one that is more compatible the observable universe than an infinite universe which we KNOW we do not have.
you can prove there aren't an infinite number of universes? REALLY NOW?
awesome. lets get together, compile your information and data, and go get a Nobel Prize :D. you're the first person to prove there aren't an infinite number of universes. you just beat out all of academia.
pardon, i added an "s" to the "universe" closest to the end of your statement
but i see you're not above rushing to call people idiots so i might as well comment on your terrible grammar. perhaps if that were in line then i'd be able to understand you better
for the record: Occam's Razor: that which is unnecessary should be removed. to put it simply.
i'm not an idiot, i just spent too much time trying to read "compatible the" and figuring out what it meant, then didn't read "universe" right
you actually missed the point of me saying that. first I don't think we should base our beliefs solely on what is probably. for another thing, I truly mean EVERYTHING, and for one, this would lead to an infinite regress of design, and also would make freewill impossible.
That argument also has no sence because they say life is higly improbable. Yet being living for eternity holding the knowledge of everything ever created is probable. :/
(continued from previous post) So just as we wouldnt be right in assuming the lottery was rigged if a person only one ONCE, we wouldnt be right in assuming that design has anything to do with our existence because life is so rare, and therefore within the realm of chance.
Your posts show a lack of understanding of the fine-tuning argument. The odds against ONE single cell of life ever existing, given the elements in the universe, the parameters of the universe etc. is extremely small. The odds of multicellular life existing even smaller. The odds of intelligent life vastly smaller still. Yeah, the odds of that occuring multiple times is even more remote, but the odds of any of them occuring JUST once is already extremely remote
I didnt say I knew the odds of life being 'created'. I said I know the odds AGAINST life (and further advanced, intelligent life) occuring in a naturalistic, deterministic, random, causal universe that has the characteristics of ours. Which can and has been determined.
you can't know the odds against something and not know the odds for something.
rolling a dice has a 1/6 chance for any single side and 5/6 chance for any side other than that picked side.
chance works in a pair system. if you know the odds of success, you know the odds of failure, because the two add up to 100%.
besides. it doesn't matter how small the odds of life forming is... the primordial Earth had a MASSIVE work-space with a MASSIVE amount of time. millions of winning tickets.
Again, you reveal a lack of understanding of the argument. The odds of life forming GIVEN a primordial Earth with certain parameters is small, even given the workspace. But the argument for fine-tuning doesn't assume a primordial Earth, rathe includes the odds that this universe would ever GET a primordial Earth, capable of sustaining life to begin with. The odds against THAT are infintessimal, so even if life were inevitable (1:1) given primordial Earth, it wouldnt affect the argument
referring to "this universe getting a primordial earth capable of sustaining life"
within the parameters of "the argument for fine-tuning"
so within the argument for fine-tuning, the odds against a primordial earth, capable of sustaining life, are infinitesimal....
so you're saying if everything is designed there could never be a primordial Earth capable of supporting life, even if life were inevitable on a primordial earth.
but we've already proven that if you follow Earth's path back you reach a primordial Earth which can be shown to have existed based on evidence we find in the soil.... hence why we ever coined the term "primordial earth" because it existed...
so we know the primordial earth existed which means that the universe cannot be designed because you said the primordial earth wouldn't exist if the universe had been designed.
unless God is just making the Earth look like it was once primordial... right?
Uh, no. I said the odds of a single primordial planet ever existing GIVEN a completely deterministic, naturalistic, causal universe, absent a supernatural cause, are infintessimal. The fact that one exists, despite the enormous odds against it occuring via purely natural processes, is evidence that purely natural processes aren't the best explanation. Just like luck isn't the best explanation of someone winning the lotto a billion times in a row
first of all... your statement of infinitesimal is baseless... unless you can actually give me some numbers or a video with some
second. the odds of a primordial Earth is not the same type of odds as the lottery. successive victories in the lottery become harder as you win. successive Prim.Earths do not
think of it from big bang to apocalypse. you have X number of planets and there is a % chance to be a prim.E. it's not a system of successive tries; it's a lot of entries into a single drawing.
i decided to look up the current estimate of the star count in known existence;
3 to 7 X 10^22 stars in existence
considering each one is a window of opportunity for the formation of a prim.E earth... the odds strike me as pretty good
or perhaps there's a different kind of life-supporting situation that can occur naturally and we were planted here by that earlier and thusly more advanced civilization.... the sad reality is the "ancient alien" theory actually holds water better than religion
Kuk you are not engaging the argument. Even if this was true, let's say the force of gravity was too great, the force would be so strong that it would not be possible for complex life like ourselves to form. If gravity was too low, planets would not be able to form. (Stars also tend to destabilize at high gravity).
I am going to put this simple there are trillions up on trillions of stars.
Just like one out of a trillion sperm cells creating a child is an inevitability so to is life happening on an orbiting planet around one of those stars an inevitability and if not here than some where else in the universe the chemical reaction inevitably going to happen. The flaw is they under count the number of stars and remove the factor of inevitably that is it.
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
The problem I had with migkiller's argument concerned the existence of the analogue (the human who is able to tamper with the system) and - to the best of our knowledge - the absence of god. In the first part (the lottery), the factors of improbability and the gambler's existence lead us to believe that the gambler tampered with the system. In the second part, improbability leads to design with only faith to support the existence of god. The former knows existence, the latter assumes.
Pichounator 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hahah, guy with the pubes growing around his chin ^^ TOTAL DOUCHE lol
grandmastersmith 1 year ago
Let's relate fine tuning to the lottery. It would be like a person trying to win the lottery by waiting until the drawing took place, then became privy to those winning numbers and then said, "I choose those numbers." Fine tuners are trying make an improbability claim to a random event that has already concluded. We statisticians call these data driven ideas. They're trying to prove an idea by using data that's suggesting the idea in the first place. Fine tuning is a paralogism. Period.
palui 1 year ago
I wonder what theists think of the fact that the overwhelming majority of physicists in the National Academy of Sciences, the elite scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, are atheists? Because these theists act like God is the only explanation for the improbable physical constants, when in reality God is only one of three possible explanations, and is by far the least likely of the three.
sam51092 1 year ago
@sam51092 It doesn't even make since if you assume God. God could of just created something with no life. I mean seriously what does God gain if he creates people who worship and pray to him? He is all powerful and perfectly content. Even if it's a deist amoral God there's no reason to create us rather than something else other than the way God happens to be or what he happens to like. God happens to exist eternally with desire X which is super improbable and came about by no reason.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Yes. Well said.
sam51092 1 year ago
TT9901--- you didn't really elborate why particle X is more special then humans. I mean you did say it was more rare to human life but that doesn't really explain anything. What are its properties that make it so special? how do these properties stack up against carbon based life (particularly humans) and if you were to say that it is special simply because it is rare then why should we objectively to think that it is special because of its rarity?
ahmarsidd 2 years ago
ok, fair question, but that's my point. they do not specify what makes human life "special" other then say that it is unlikely/rare, so it follows that anything more rare or unlikely must be more "special". do you follow?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Not to mention Asimov's essay "The Judo Argument" against the improbability of life. Creationists fail to take into account the restraints of the system when coming up with these huge improbabilities. For example, atoms do not combine randomly, they combine according to predictable and well tested laws. These laws influence the probable outcome of said process.
niqueth 2 years ago
Nothing that has occurred in this universe is that unlikely, including the genesis and evolution of life. The only thing I see as being seemingly unlikely is the existence of this universe in this state, as nothing we have discovered thus far suggests the number of possible states of universes is any less than infinity. However, once we start to ask why this universe is in the state it's in, then we reach the boundary of our knowledge, and I don't think it's wise to posit any explanation.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
Why would you see that the possibility of life is improbable in this universe then conclude that the universe was created specifically for life?
SolidSnakeRules 2 years ago
When someone proposes the idea that our existence is extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance, I see this as a petitio principii fallacy. You can go on all day about how any tiny variation in a fundamental constant would make this universe impossible, but you haven't demonstrated that these constants can actually vary, or that if they could, that all values are equally likely. And, even if improbable by random chance, a conscious will is not required to influence the outcome.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
However, if those constants can't vary, my next question is why can't they vary? What determined the properties of this universe to be such that they can't? If the universe just is that way, is there a reason it just is that way? Since I am not biased towards believing in god, I don't assume a god must have done these things or that a god is any more likely than other explanations, but the questions are still there.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
Okay after the 2:31 mark my initial response is.... this is retarded. Just before 4:54 mark he made a good point in favor of ID. And again at 5:37. By 6:53 retarded again. The last 30 seconds seemed okay.
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
He was addressing the fallacy that any answer, no matter how fabricated and unfounded, is a better explanation than "I don't know" or probability. It isn't. He knows it, I know it and anyone with the least bit of intelligence knows that it isn't a good argument in favor of intelligent design.
vooooom 2 years ago
If you think 4:54 was a good point for ID then you have very low standards for what makes a good argument, being as the point of that was to make a bad argument and say that that argument is essentially the same as the argument he's trying to criticize. I think he makes a good point if arguing against someone who assumes there is a good chance god exists. Usually the opposing argument tends to say that this universe is so unlikely, that even a god existing MUST be more likely than it.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
well im a graphic designer. I am not influenced by a god. My thoughts and ideas dont come from god but i start off with a process. The process starts with a problem, my job and what ive been trained to do is design something that will solve the problem, you have to try not ony 1 but many. you could have 15 designs and ultimately only 1 will fit the criteria that is most likely to be created in reality. there is no god that can help with that problem, i designed it on my own.
FletchRDG 2 years ago
I thought science did prove God's existence. I mean infinity in "nature" would prove with a reasonable certainty of 1:1 God actually does exist. All things being probable? Just me two cents... Peace
omababy 2 years ago
first off, no, that wouldn't prove God exists. (if you're thinking of the Cosmological Argument. it'd be good to know that's already been debunked down to a baseless speculation theory)
second off, where in nature does infinity occur? we speculate that matter is eternal but it's not like we can actually prove that that's the case. (unless we locate a process by which the universe's existence could be seen to be a cyclical, closed system.)
also, science is agnostic by definition and mandate. :)
kukulza 2 years ago
Nature probably was the wrong term. But there are things that we see as infinite, space, numbers, scientists are speculate there are infinite dimensions etc. But I think dismissing it as baseless speculation is not strong enough to say its not the case as it could be said that it to is also a baseless conclusion because we just don't know. But it still remains with infinity thats its not just possible its probable.... Well thats what i believe, but what do I know... Peace
omababy 2 years ago
if you're referring to the cosmological argument not being baseless, that's incorrect (i only used baseless when mentioning the CA). the CA speculates that the universe began, which is true, but insignificant. it's really saying that Matter began, which isn't provable at true... so the argument is baseless
if you weren't referring to that then o well. anything is possible, not a lot of things are probable. wait for the LHC to start breaking some ground before getting too attached to anything
kukulza 2 years ago
I wasn't really refering to anything in particular but my own ignorance it seems...lol. cheers for the insight
omababy 2 years ago
I confess in public that I strongly believe Jesus was the biological son of Joseph. I don't believe Jesus walked over the water. I confess in public that I believe Jesus died and his biological body was buried under good soil somewhere in Jerusalem or other city. I must confess, meanwhile, that I strongly believe there must have some interior truth to each and every individual where Jesus's walking over water and his resurrection are even inferior to this very same truth. That's Spirit!
mrqsilveira 2 years ago
I really don't like a certain 'closure' I feel in the creationist thinking mode, even though I can forgive him by his very fast attachment to a supernatural being world-creator. This world-creator wanted us to have an unconscious mind which is His special communication channel! I don't believe in a world-creator... God Is! World-creator is the metaphor we've created to target the non-comprehensible numinous. Thus the theologian P. Tillich says that "Personal God" is just an useful symbol.
mrqsilveira 2 years ago
Nice vid! Let us assume the arrows of explanation for physics are pointing to a certain Omega station reached right after uniting gravity and other forces. Say such Omega is just above Einstein's Equivalence principle stating "The reason why it [Existential Quantum] exists is the same it acts". No wonder the existence of a certain pressure from the unconscious mind which obliges the creationist or believer say the universe is designed for life. Existing & Acting are ontologically 50/50!
mrqsilveira 2 years ago
You've got an interesting point of view.
MattheusDaniel 2 years ago
A common thread I find in pro and con creation by design arguments is a complete lack of holistic thinking on both sides. When I eat breakfast it is neither by pure chance nor predestined by some being somewhere other than myself as a product and part of the universe as it is now, regardless of whatever probabilities. Let the babes suckle their favorite tit for milk, these arguments are all farts in the wind, much ado about nothing.
MattheusDaniel 2 years ago
It seems to be the vocation of The Universe to transmit more and more random combinations. When one part of the Universe (Which could be me or you) recognises it has formed something deemed as special; it has happened only subjectively. The Universe itself cannot point to evidence that life is special. Only mankind will.
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
AND you make excellent points in your video ToolTime- as usual!! :)
EvilFluff85 2 years ago
just watch the youtube video by one of my favourite youtube atheists Edward Current "god's cool designs"... awesome video- sums it in a funny way! :D
EvilFluff85 2 years ago
If the universe was "designed for life" then why is it so inhospitable? You'd think that a universe designed for life would be much easier to live in. I think that it's great that we live in a universe in which life is possible but if it were "designed" for life i think we'd see much less harsh conditions FOR life.
wonslung 2 years ago
It's a form of a Fallacy by way of Appeal to Incredulity.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
i find it laughable that people come up with calculating the odds for life coming to being. often they turn out to be the people who also cleverly calculated that the earth was only a few thousand years old...
illbetilbake 2 years ago
not usually. Many secular scientists like Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking (i guess you could arguably call them deists) also make calculations on the tiny odds.
facilisdescenus 2 years ago
99 per cent of life is now extinct. We are part of the special 1 per cent. Designed for life? Nice thought.
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
I use a came of cards!. what is the likely hood of the same play of cards occurring again, near infinitesimal, that doe snot mean the game did not occur, nor does it imply in any way that the universe was designed for that game to happen!
joebot1 2 years ago
I think it comes down to "what do people find easier to accept". If average joe is presented with a large stack of papers that is a long continuing equation for life the universe and everything, then to the side is given a single piece of paper with the word "GOD". Which option would he be more likely to take, that which is easy, or that which is right?
Obviously it depends on the person, but most people just don't care enough, and would rather have a stock answer to the big questions.
Vegetoacs 2 years ago
this is brilliant
cheeseit126 2 years ago
he he got pussy he wouldnt' be bitching in all his time consuming videos
apericubes 2 years ago
You should shave. Less facial hair = more pussy. Yeah
telomerase1978 2 years ago
Is the Universe designed for Life,.......or is the Universe the way it is because that is the way it is,........and Life evolved to survive in the Universe the way it is???
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Comment removed
symelian 2 years ago
Tooltime, your videos are awesome, they lack any professionalism, they're devoid of charm, they turn into crazy rants, and yet the meat of your arguments, the logic, is always excellent. You have a really good grasp of philosophy. I always find myself entertained. Keep up the excellent work.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
Who is to say this is not just one of billions of universes? The real question here is how could any rational person try to explain how out of all the species that ever lived in the world, how could we be the only ones to evolve rational intelligence? My issue with the pure evolution argument is that there were many species living within the same conditions as us when we evolved first to walking apes and then mankind. There must of been a helping hand, how else could it be explained?
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Moreso I should add that there were animals competitively superior on a survival basis (and inferior) that didn't develop large brains to survive, and yet that is the argument for our personal evolution as a species. Also, in the beginning when there were just a bunch of basic components of life floating in a hot tub, even with our best attempts to explain what was going on, we still have some extremely large and improbable leaps that can't be scientifically explained.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Science and religion by no means should cancel each other out while trying to explaine the universe. I would think it ignorant to think that God had a method of creating life by simply shouting some magic words. Clearly he had a specific design in mind and I don't know how life could of possibly evolved in the fashion it did within a closed system. lol God isn't a magician. The question really is if we are the original form of intelligent life or simply another species yet to become extinct?
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
"Clearly he had a specific design in mind"
If it were clear we'd be able to see it., it's not clear since there's ZERO evidence for an existence of a higher being/God/FSM/Chuck Norris Third Testicle.
ameldia 2 years ago
There is nothing but evidence. Yes science proves a lot of stuff and if we have some idea how he accomplished what he did, but there is just too much unexplained to claim there is no proof.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
I'll add to my previous reply that, yes, other animals do need social skills. The wolves have great social skills, but they also have bigger brains than the cat, who doesn't have the same social skills.
Also, who says, given time, that apes don't develop language, or other species. The fact is that we're the first sentient creatures on the planet Earth, but if the ant had developed sentience before we did, they'd be saying 'Oh, we're special!'
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
You're thinking about this in such a silly way, though. Do you think the whales go 'We're the biggest creature, we must have been designed, or how else could it have happened'? Ofcourse they don't. Neither do the Eagles with their fantastic eyesight or the chameleons with their colour changing. We are lucky to have our big brains, but only because the alternative was extinction. Animals adapt to their environment, and we needed to be smarter to survive, because we were much to weak on our own.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
Your ignoring my entire argument. You can't take something like an eagle's eye site and say that makes them in any way superior to us. We happen to have a special type of eye site as well. Big brains are argued to be the way we adapted to life in a particular part of the world where some major climate changes occurred. I am talking about the animals there that underwent the same evolutionary forces. Given what we know about evolution there is no reason they shouldn't of followed a like path
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
There has been no greater proven survival factor than reason. The only other factor as strong would be high rate of reproduction, but that won't keep you alive, just keep your species alive.
Given the slow rate of development particularly shown by our species, if there was another species that were to evolve a large brain, it would of shown itself by now, but there isn't. Don't confuse the ability to recognize commands as intelligence.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
"I am talking about the animals there that underwent the same evolutionary forces."
I just dumped a pile of sand out of a bucket. What confuses me is that not every grain of sand is now sitting at the apex of the pile, as every grain was subject to the same simple cause and acted upon by the same simple forces.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
Another person who ignores the whole argument I put forward. Don't ignore when I stated "Moreso I should add that there were animals competitively superior on a survival basis (and inferior) that didn't develop large brains to survive"
There is no reason that we as a species should end up at the top of the pile. We were on the same level as any other species so then why were we the ONLY ones that evolved in such a way, any species would of greatly benefited.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
"Another person who ignores the whole argument I put forward."
No, I did not. I understand your argument just fine and was attempting a Socratic illumination of its flaw, so that you might realize it for yourself.
"why were we the ONLY ones that evolved in such a way"
Essentially for the same reason that THAT grain of sand is the only one at the apex of the pile.
You are trying to understand it top down, It is cause and effect, not effect and cause.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
What might also ask why the animal with the keenest eyesight is at the top of the pile. Or consider the monkey with the longest tail. Or the predator with the sharpest teeth. These questions are all exactly the same.
What is so special about YOUR special attribute, other than the fact that it is YOURS so you attach a feeling of importance to it?
The question itself is, essentially, trivial.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
Just to reanswer this question of "What is so special about YOUR special attribute, other than the fact that it is YOURS"... its an attribute that put us at the top of the food chain. No animal species when faced against mankind with our technology can claim superiority. Human beings can cure disease using complex chemistry, can travel into outer space using rockets, can dive down deeper than most marine life in submarines and have invented weapons more powerful than any predator.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Isaac I really think you are missing what I am stating here. To simplify, lets just take into consideration similar species of the time, there were many species of biped primates. However the competitive advantage that led to us was only found in one. If the species were physically very similar and faced a similar environment then why would one evolve and the other not. What I am simply trying to state is that evolution and paleontology as we know them are still closer to theory than science
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
"us at the top of the food chain."
Go 'splain that to your symbiotes and parasites.
"the species were physically very similar and faced a similar environment"
As grains of sand are very similar and face a similar environment when dumped from a bucket. So why does one grain end up at the apex and another in the middle?
Because they do NOT experience the SAME history of forces. In fact they CANNOT because they generate forces that influence EACH OTHER.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
your sandbox theory is really flawed, it in no way applies here. As far as parasites being the top of the food chain, I must disagree with you once again. If mankind picked a particular species to eliminate on this planet they could do it. Its a tradeoff killing things like parasites and symbiotes because you never know when they can help in the further evolution of mankind. By definition a parasite gives nothing back, but parasites might be the key to unlocking DNA from the past.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Are you familiar with Douglas Adams' Somebody Else's Problem Field?
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
I just Wikipediaed it lol Curious as to how it fits in here?.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
I mean the following in the nicest sense without any animosity at all; really:
I've whacked you upside the head with a clue bat. However, your unwarranted sense of self importance comorbid with survivor's remorse has generated an I'm Special Field which deflects the cognitive impact.
As soon as you drop the idea that you're all that the solution to your questions ought to become facepalmingly obvious.
Perhaps you should hypothesize an alien planet to circumvent the field.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
lol that was pathetic. Did you have to pull out the thesaurus for that comment? I should of realized I was wasting my time trying to discuss a complex matter with you as soon as I viewed your channel. Don't know why I wasted my time.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
"Did you have to pull out the thesaurus for that comment?"
No. I have sufficient familiarity with both the language and the concepts I used said language to invoke to write without needing to use any reference materials.
Similarly, upon viewing your comments and your channel I suspected I would be wasting my time, but proceeded anyway for one simple reason;
I actually cared about trying to help you understand.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
lol you are not worth another response. Enjoy your bliss ;)
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Overdrive. What you fail to understand here is that evolution doesn't have a goal, we got bigger brains, sharks got bigger teeth, cheetahs got more speed, and whilst I can appreciate that we could wipe cheetahs out if we wanted, you have to remember that we could be wiped out by a simple virus.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
And also, it IS possible that another species could evolve sentience. Certain species of monkeys have language, they look after their old, mourn when an animal dies, bury them, they use tools, they have foresight. I was watching LIFE the other day and a type of monkey survived by getting a huge plant seed with a tough outer-shell (think coconut), checking if it was ripe, stripping the outer layer off, leaving it in the sun for a week, then coming back and using a rock to open it. That's smart.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
There are certainly survival skills out there that resemble intelligence and I really am not in a position to say they truly aren't intelligent. This is actually the first time that I heard of a monkey that buries their dead. lol paleontologists say that by burying your dead with flowers indicates a belief in the afterlife, while I would say that its a defense from predators that would be attracted by corpses, the flowers mask the stench.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
That is certainly an interesting concept. Take one of the famous primate researchers that actually sees evidence of community and intelligent behavior but also consider the fundamental attribution error which would indicate that the researchers presence has an effect. Perhaps non-verbal communication triggers action in the subject. A person without the first hand experience can not determine the level of intelligence of a species. Obviously I have not observed them.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
even if they were to bury them to not attract predators, thats still quite smart for an animal other than humans.
1MinDLesS1 2 years ago
wow....just...wow...
goombaslayer 2 years ago
.....lol indeed. Who do you think won?
joshcena33 2 years ago
lol when dealing with a person as diluted as Isaac, noone is the winner at the end. I should of known better than to try to debate with him. Some people think of themselves as intellectuals because they have a built in thesaurus, I rejected mine a long time ago - its a fine line between showing intelligence and being pretentious.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
On the other end of the spectrum Lpoolboy is presenting an interesting concept. Perhaps we are the first, but not the only that has the potential to develop sentience. I suppose the only way we will find out what happens is by waiting. Do I think that the ability to memorize complex tricks is a form of intelligence, no. However the idea that some animal show the same tendancies as what was expected to exist in early man is very promising.
ThOverdrive 2 years ago
Some great points but the argument does not deserve an answer because it begins with an unsubstansiable (is there such a word?) assumption.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
As a theist myself, I agree that all "logical" formulations of the argument from probability are essentially worthless. The only way in which an argument such as this has any value is when it is used as a psychological appeal, based on feelings rather than reason, but alas, an "argument" of that sort has no actual value.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
I apologize for my short temper, but it is insufferably infuriating to repeatedly listen to arguments about how "intelligently designed" the universe has to be, by people who propose the existence of a being that doesn't require intelligence to achieve their goals.
When you say that the universe is "finely tuned", you're essentially saying that if gravity had ANY other value, the universe would fall apart like a house of cards... But houses of cards don't fall when you control **gravity**
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago
lol. exactly bro. more like magical design.
different planets, stars, nebulas, blackholes, glossars, black matter etc. God is into decoration and design.
good comment bro.
jrev37 2 years ago
Hard not to give you 5 stars for this one. Nice analogy.
FallenAngel0fDoom 2 years ago
The Law of Infinite Probability:
Over infinite space and/or infinite time, anything that can happen, however unlikely, will happen.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago 2
can you demonstrate that?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Sure, just give me an infinite number of minutes...
DeistPaladin 2 years ago 4
I guess that depends if the thing you wish happen violates the inherent laws of the universe.
askegg 2 years ago
Though the answer as to why the physical constants have their specific values has not been answered in any definitive fashion by the scientific community, what is interesting is things like the omniverse, where by a universe exists for every possible range in values for physical constants exists in parallel to our own universe...a completely untestable and speculative assertion...are put forth
as a solution it can not be said to be any less absurd than "god did it"
mtheoryrules 2 years ago
So the point is not that it is improbable but that the debate is raised.
But rather why is it that that intinsic values of the physical constants seem to exist to favor the existence of life.
Given that these values if changed to a slight degree would make the existence of life as we know impossible not just improbable.
It seems rather interesting and note worthy if nothing else.
mtheoryrules 2 years ago
Actually the physical constants seem to favor the existence of complex elements and particular chemical reactions that are needed for life, that it is highly probable that carbon based life is likely to come to exist is the reason it is an interesting philosophical question.
For example look at Drakes equation.
mtheoryrules 2 years ago
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, is a good example of explaining the odds of probability. A coin toss constantly turning up heads only appears improbable from the stand point of viewing it in a series. However looking at each individual toss by itself, it no longer seems odd for a coin to land on heads. Also it is a very entertaining movie if you missed it!
raistlin072 2 years ago
It was a good point to raise about how the mind works. What does it take for our minds to accept anything exists. Is there a scientific benchmark for existence of anything? How do I know you exist and is this based on criteria?
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
thx for the video response, but you didn't quite answer my question.
In fact, if we were to accept your argument, we would say that the people would NOT be justified to infer conspiracy from one guy winning the lottery every day for 100 years.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Q1: How do we know the odds against winning the lottery?
Q2: What does it mean to infer something from the results?
Q3: What course of ACTION does the inference require?
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
1) we know how the lottery works and how numbers are chosen.
2) we know that the lottery can be rigged.
3) we know that agents exist who are capable of rigging it.
and mos of all,
4) we know that winning lotteries have significance to people, who would have the motive and reason to rig said lottery numbers in their favor.
I think such differences should be apparent upon a moment's reflection, thus why I asked if you were basis the inference upon probability alone.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
So could not the fact that the existence of intelligent life would be important to a cosmic designer itself found the design inference?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
On what basis do you declare that intelligent life would be important to a cosmic designer?
Do you deny that our human intelligence relies on neuronal activity, and that supernatural intelligence wouldn't (by definition)... thereby negating any solid inferences between what natural and supernatural intelligences have in common in terms of behaviors, preferences, and value systems?
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago
And your "design inference" still relies on a fundamental flaw: that the rules of the universe are beyond the control of the deity who's supposed to have created this all "from nothing". To describe a being as a "designer" is to describe them as being anything *but* capable of creating a universe from scratch.
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago
as I said in the video, i don't see how one could do that without helping themselves to assumptions about theology.
sure, a personal god who wanted exactly this universe to exist might drop the probability down to one, but the question becomes what are the odd that there would be such a god with exactly those desires rather than some other god or the same one with some other set of desires.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
"but the question becomes what are the odd that there would be such a god with exactly those desires rather than some other god or the same one with some other set of desires."
One is free to ask that question, but for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum by many here on youtube, it doesn't really damage the design hypothesis because the explanations dont themselves need explanations to be viable explanations.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
"explanations dont themselves need explanations to be viable explanations"
Then how is it you expect to defeat the argument that the universe can come about by natural means? You're saying that probabilities can lend incredulity to such a possibility, and then you turn around and say that those very same probabilities are irrelevant when discussing a universe that doesn't come from natural means. Now if that ain't moving goal posts, then I don't know what is.
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago
"Now if that ain't moving goal posts, then I don't know what is."
Its not because I'm not saying that the cosmic designer doesn't have a designer or some explanation of his features (for now at least). Improbabilities only damage a hypothesis when there's another hypothesis that explains a set of data that is more probable.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
"Improbabilities only damage a hypothesis when there's another hypothesis that explains a set of data that is more probable"
That assertion fails on two accounts: you don't have to have an alternate explanation to prove that a given explanation is false (a six year old could prove that birds don't cause gravity, even if Newton couldn't figure out what did). Second, you've still not provided a hypothesis that is any more valid than ours.
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago 2
As I said before, it is an acutely deceitful tactic to declare that probabilities are relevant to non-theistic explanations, and then declare that they are not relevant to theistic ones. Tooltime just explained why yours is so highly improbable, and you just responded with, "So?". Why are we to take you seriously when you hold such double standards? Even if you could disprove our hypothesis, you still would have done nothing to substantiate your own.
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago
Remember that there is a distinct difference between saying that a god created our universe and saying that he intelligently designed it. And it is still entirely possible that the universe as it exists today wasn't meant to be as it is -- perhaps the creator has already gotten what he was after, and we are the mold that grows on the trash. An inadvertent, unintended bi-product (in which case, agnostic atheism would still be a relevant and sufficiently-justifiable philosophical conclusion)
TrenchantAtheist 2 years ago
Nothing created by the "perfect being" that would be known as God (keep in mind, the Bible says and infers that God is perfect many times) would have any "unintended bi-product" because it was created perfectly by the perfect creator how he perfectly wanted it to be.
So the universe, in the way God made it (if God did make it), IS meant to be as it is.
onijester56 2 years ago
Wow, what's with all the double negatives in your comments. Stay in school.
FallenAngel0fDoom 2 years ago
and it has been replied ad nauseum that this is lazy excuse making.
viable does not mean correct or most likely or the on we should infer to. no one is asking for an explanation of the explanation. I am saying we can simply reboot the argument and ask how likely said explanation is compared to its alternatives. if the likelihood of said explanation is less than or equal to an explanation such as randomness, then it is not really better and possibly worse.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins addresses this problem (kind of) in his book the God Delusion. He points out that Chance is not the only alternative to Design. Rather, Natural selection is the only working, plausible (and very strongly at that) alternative to design. Also, he states that whatever Creationists are arguing to be "SO IMPROBABLE," it had to be designed, a being that could create the very thing they are talking about would have to be AT LEAST as improbable as that thing!
AstralOpeth 2 years ago
Any design argument is flawed because the designer that is supposed must be more complex than the design and thus be much more improbable.
Something else to think about, there are 117 elements and three atoms in a water molecule. Therefore the chances of a water molecule forming is 1 in 187,388,721 (117 ^ 3) or 0.000000000534% (that's 9 zeros). Argument for Poseidon anybody?
CarpeOmne 2 years ago
There isn't any reason to think life is improbable. There is no need to argue beyond that.
HConstantine 2 years ago 2
I once had a tomato that looked just like Richard NNixon, Clearly, that is so improbable, it must be the reason the universe exists. (And Adams did coin the puddle argument.)
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
Great video.
A person couldn't even show one example of creation (something from nothing) to have a discussion about it. It's really nothing but a straw man. Who even says this crap could be different? Why would gravity be anything but relative? When does time occur, as explained by QM or does it go by God's watch? Ridiculous.
notbill9465 2 years ago
All events are more or less completely unbelievable to arise.
The problem is that one look at the finished result and realize all the obstacles that must be overcome to get there.
What is the chance that you made this video with just all these words just now?
What are the odds that you exist at all?
Regardless of which of all the billions of configurations of animals and plants that could flourish on this earth, we had (if we existed) found it equally unlikely that we feel today.
MoveOrder 2 years ago
5* for the Doctor Who reference :)
krzw92 2 years ago
great video, I never knew that the universe was created for me :)
Greetings from the Netherlands
Charon42 2 years ago
long video is long
xXmilesdavisXx 2 years ago
Relevant video is relevant. If you can't concentrate for more than 9 minutes than I suggest you go watch videos of people falling over or something.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
With that point about god being able to create an infinate number of variations of universes, one thing you could say is that the whole universe looks the same. Wouldn't that be boring? If I had lots of ideas for the universe, I would make different regions of the universe look different. Like people who use a different decorative theme for each room of their house... or a fucking planet.
Daiblix 2 years ago
My life is dependent on life in general existing first, my shit is dependent on my existing first, therefore the universe is fine-tuned for the shit i took last night. QED.
mathmexican4234 2 years ago
Ok Ok I'm bored of having to pause then replay. What is the system to just simply watch a You Tube video? Nobody ever replies!
flyingfisbeefilms 2 years ago
A Universe fine-tuned for ME? For meeee? IT ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE NOW! :D
Never heard that counter-argument before. It's a keeper.
philhellenes 2 years ago 2
Tooltime is to Christians is like An 18-Wheeler is to a bike.
sidelingscroll 2 years ago
The whole arguement is a strawman. I think like .0000043%, or some shit like that is possibly habitable for humanity.
Who the fuck looks at that and thinks the universe was made for us???
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
when i watch tooltime videos, I like to strip down naked, crack open a beer, and prank call macaulay culkin, deep breathing with thriller playing in the background
MoreSciFiThanScience 2 years ago
Good points. If you don't really know the intentions of the fine tuner he could have just as easily created the universe for anything.
smpunditz 2 years ago
And my third point is that you can't argue there wouldn't be life if the constants were even minutely different. We wouldn't have the same life, but there remains the possibility that some other form of life much unlike our own would exist.
raythetse 2 years ago
And if they could be any different, then there is the possibility that ours is not the only universe, and there exists others in which the constants and laws simply to not support the existence of life. If that is the case, then OF COURSE we are going to be in one universe that does. Otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it.
raythetse 2 years ago
I find the problem with the argument is that in order to make the argument you have to assume that the apparent universal laws and constants that are in question can actually be different. There is no proof that it these things could have actually been any different. If they couldn't have been, then the odds that we end up with life are essentially 100%.
raythetse 2 years ago
I've always had that last problem with the God hypothesis and never heard someone word it before :D Why choose THIS universe?
unassumption 2 years ago
Ha, String Theory lol!
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
Excellent rebuttal.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Probability is mostly invoked after the fact
10sodot 2 years ago
i wish i had a 50/50 chance of getting laid soon
1GOD1JESUS 2 years ago
lol what are the odds of you having a 50/50 chance?
1n354a 2 years ago
ha ha ha lolol nice one! :)
1GOD1JESUS 2 years ago
fucking psilons......
bunchofdaises 2 years ago
Why low probability and unique properties are not sufficient to establish intelligent design:
watch?v=KhmWT71dgUs
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
the universe was designed for life....this is as ass backwards as it gets. if anything life was designt to fit the universe. I'm using the term "design" loosely.
Rajkozuluf 2 years ago
the odds of migkiller being a virgin for the rest of his life is 100%.
legalizemarijuananos 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) What would you say about me as an engineer? Either you would say I was incompetent, or that I was purposely wasteful and malicious. You wouldnt say that I was good or perfectly intelligent.
alphacause 2 years ago
This is a ridiculous nonsensical, argument. Your argument assumes that a universe full of life-bearing planets would be in some way superior to this universe with a (very likely) single life-supporting planet, when there's no reason to assume that. A prevalence of life throughout the universe would trivialize life, and make it less unique. Your hypothetical creation would suck balls compared to this one. Fail less creator wannabe
TheIllegit 2 years ago
As the prevalence of bacteria throughout the Earth trivializes you as a specific life form.
In fact, you appear to be little more than something provided as a bacterial environment, as there are for more of them in you than there is you in "you."
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
even this single planet has made about 100bilion people...
and as IsaacBickerstaffEsq mentions... there are far more non-human living/dead creatures than there are humans... so i kind of feel life is already trivialized with just 1 planet. who are you to 100billion others? who are you to an uncountable number of other living creatures?
God cares for all his creations right? so why should he care about you in a non-trivial way? he's got untold quadrillions upon quadrillions more to care about.
kukulza 2 years ago
"Your argument assumes that a universe full of life-bearing planets would be in some way superior to this universe with a (very likely) single life-supporting planet, when there's no reason to assume that."
The argument being offered by theists is that the universe is DESIGNED FOR LIFE. A universe with more than one life-bearing world is more efficient at fulfilling its function than a universe with just one.
Dashes000 2 years ago 2
(continued) Suppose I was an engineer building a car, and in the process of doing so I created several BILLION cars that would not even start (i.e. billions of lifeless planets), and I, from this very wasteful process produced only one functional car that was susceptible to early rust and malfunction (i.e. one planet with life that is replete with pain, suffering, and defects) (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
Your analogy is faulty. You are comparing God to a human engineer. Human engineers have limited time and resources and thus it would be wasteful to produce some many cars. God is eternal and omnipotent so he has no worries about wasting energy or time. Also , like WL Craig says , perhaps God is more of an artist or engineer. You look at the stars and say "What a waste of space". However many people (like me) say "o how pretty" and appreciate the artistic value of the world god created.
facilisdescenus 2 years ago
It is interesting that theists will only use the flawed design analogy just to prove their God, but they won't be honest about the inferences made by the design analogy, and they won't let those inferences play out to their fullest extent. If they did they would realize that if the universe is the product of design, then it demonstrates a designer that is cruel and wasteful (continued)
alphacause 2 years ago
Life is not unlikely.
kff 2 years ago
Comment removed
Wezzipooh 2 years ago
"Design is always going to be a better explanation than... anything" - you said it! Occam at work. Welcome to theism (or minimally deism or something), friend.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
An intelligent being creating the universe adds multiple huge new assumptions. The universe always existing requires one tiny assumption. Occam's Razor supports the latter not the former.
lordcheetah 2 years ago 2
False. Occam supports the former, and requires precisely the same amount of assumptions, that is a single one. A single one that is more compatible the observable universe than an infinite universe which we KNOW we do not have.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
you can prove there aren't an infinite number of universes? REALLY NOW?
awesome. lets get together, compile your information and data, and go get a Nobel Prize :D. you're the first person to prove there aren't an infinite number of universes. you just beat out all of academia.
-.-.....
kukulza 2 years ago
I invoked Occam and you asked me for proof in response showing you don't understand Occam. hence you fail. Fail less. Good advice
TheIllegit 2 years ago
pardon, i added an "s" to the "universe" closest to the end of your statement
but i see you're not above rushing to call people idiots so i might as well comment on your terrible grammar. perhaps if that were in line then i'd be able to understand you better
for the record: Occam's Razor: that which is unnecessary should be removed. to put it simply.
i'm not an idiot, i just spent too much time trying to read "compatible the" and figuring out what it meant, then didn't read "universe" right
kukulza 2 years ago
Thank you for actually understanding Occams Razor.
underpantssquirrel 2 years ago
you actually missed the point of me saying that. first I don't think we should base our beliefs solely on what is probably. for another thing, I truly mean EVERYTHING, and for one, this would lead to an infinite regress of design, and also would make freewill impossible.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
That argument also has no sence because they say life is higly improbable. Yet being living for eternity holding the knowledge of everything ever created is probable. :/
resistanceunion 2 years ago
Always used the same argument about the infinite choice, but our universe being specific. Glad to see someone else brought it up : )
Hellsadvocate 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) So just as we wouldnt be right in assuming the lottery was rigged if a person only one ONCE, we wouldnt be right in assuming that design has anything to do with our existence because life is so rare, and therefore within the realm of chance.
alphacause 2 years ago
Your posts show a lack of understanding of the fine-tuning argument. The odds against ONE single cell of life ever existing, given the elements in the universe, the parameters of the universe etc. is extremely small. The odds of multicellular life existing even smaller. The odds of intelligent life vastly smaller still. Yeah, the odds of that occuring multiple times is even more remote, but the odds of any of them occuring JUST once is already extremely remote
TheIllegit 2 years ago
You don't know the odds of life being created. Neither does anyone else.
And so what if it's rare? An event with the chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000 odds would have happened ~14 times since the Big Bang.
lordcheetah 2 years ago
I didnt say I knew the odds of life being 'created'. I said I know the odds AGAINST life (and further advanced, intelligent life) occuring in a naturalistic, deterministic, random, causal universe that has the characteristics of ours. Which can and has been determined.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
you can't know the odds against something and not know the odds for something.
rolling a dice has a 1/6 chance for any single side and 5/6 chance for any side other than that picked side.
chance works in a pair system. if you know the odds of success, you know the odds of failure, because the two add up to 100%.
besides. it doesn't matter how small the odds of life forming is... the primordial Earth had a MASSIVE work-space with a MASSIVE amount of time. millions of winning tickets.
kukulza 2 years ago
"you can't know the odds against something . . ."
Without a data population.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
Again, you reveal a lack of understanding of the argument. The odds of life forming GIVEN a primordial Earth with certain parameters is small, even given the workspace. But the argument for fine-tuning doesn't assume a primordial Earth, rathe includes the odds that this universe would ever GET a primordial Earth, capable of sustaining life to begin with. The odds against THAT are infintessimal, so even if life were inevitable (1:1) given primordial Earth, it wouldnt affect the argument
TheIllegit 2 years ago
"the odds against that are infinitesimal"
referring to "this universe getting a primordial earth capable of sustaining life"
within the parameters of "the argument for fine-tuning"
so within the argument for fine-tuning, the odds against a primordial earth, capable of sustaining life, are infinitesimal....
so you're saying if everything is designed there could never be a primordial Earth capable of supporting life, even if life were inevitable on a primordial earth.
cont in second comment..
kukulza 2 years ago
but we've already proven that if you follow Earth's path back you reach a primordial Earth which can be shown to have existed based on evidence we find in the soil.... hence why we ever coined the term "primordial earth" because it existed...
so we know the primordial earth existed which means that the universe cannot be designed because you said the primordial earth wouldn't exist if the universe had been designed.
unless God is just making the Earth look like it was once primordial... right?
kukulza 2 years ago
Uh, no. I said the odds of a single primordial planet ever existing GIVEN a completely deterministic, naturalistic, causal universe, absent a supernatural cause, are infintessimal. The fact that one exists, despite the enormous odds against it occuring via purely natural processes, is evidence that purely natural processes aren't the best explanation. Just like luck isn't the best explanation of someone winning the lotto a billion times in a row
TheIllegit 2 years ago
first of all... your statement of infinitesimal is baseless... unless you can actually give me some numbers or a video with some
second. the odds of a primordial Earth is not the same type of odds as the lottery. successive victories in the lottery become harder as you win. successive Prim.Earths do not
think of it from big bang to apocalypse. you have X number of planets and there is a % chance to be a prim.E. it's not a system of successive tries; it's a lot of entries into a single drawing.
kukulza 2 years ago
i decided to look up the current estimate of the star count in known existence;
3 to 7 X 10^22 stars in existence
considering each one is a window of opportunity for the formation of a prim.E earth... the odds strike me as pretty good
or perhaps there's a different kind of life-supporting situation that can occur naturally and we were planted here by that earlier and thusly more advanced civilization.... the sad reality is the "ancient alien" theory actually holds water better than religion
kukulza 2 years ago
Kuk you are not engaging the argument. Even if this was true, let's say the force of gravity was too great, the force would be so strong that it would not be possible for complex life like ourselves to form. If gravity was too low, planets would not be able to form. (Stars also tend to destabilize at high gravity).