I'm an agnostic, but this actually seems like quite a bit of evidence for the existence of God. I'm not trying to debate anybody, but can anybody actually inform me of an objection to the statement he's making? A legitimate one, you know like the arguments that have flaws but still get put in textbooks. Anyone?
@Pythagoras211 Dr. Craig has a website filled with more compelling arguments both scientific and philosophical called reasonablefaith(dot)org if you're interested.
i just wanna punch him in the face. we evolved the way we did BECAUSE of the way the universe is "tuned." If it was different there is no reason to believe that life other than how we know it would not evolve. And i would venture to guess that in this theoretical alternate world there would be people saying that there universe is fine tuned to there life.
"Life" adjusts its environment, not the other way around.
And out of the infinite number of planets and situations to have the possible chance of "Life starting" is actually not as impossible or rare, as it seems.
Saying something has a 1 in 1 trillion chance to happen, doesn't mean, it's not plausible, when that "Chance" is gambles repeatedly OVER a trillion times (Infinite)
Which makes that BS number look like reverse.
It's impossible for life to NOT start, with those odds.
why would god need to fine tune anything? couldn't he just make it be? couldn't he just create us to live in a bucket of acid if he so desired. this notion of fine tuning suggests that god has to follow some rules. where did the rules come from? god's god? seems a bit far fetched to me. thankfully i don't believe the foolish bronze age stories.
@mark902 He did just "make it be". As far as we know, the big bang came from literally nothing. All the laws of physics also came from nothing. After that, everything was fine tuned. It's more impressive to create a universe and laws out of nothing, then, 13 billion years later, their interactions with each other create ridiculously complex beings. So to believe in God, you have proof that he "made it be" and proof that he is capable of fine tuning.
@zozefup i've been reading this for two days and i can't figure out if you are for, or against the idea of creationism. i'm gathering that you are saying that god started the big bang and has been fine tuning ever since. i really don't know what to think of that. why don't i have eyes as good as an owls? why can't i breath under water? why can't i fly? why can't i regenerate limbs? these would be pretty useful abilities that other creatures have. so i'm missing the intelligence of this design.
@GeeHadForDummies Wow - what a hypocrite. Are you that stubborn or blinded by religious intolerance that you're unable to see that its because of people who think as you do that your son was sent to a war based upon religious hatred? You poor, twisted man.
@GeeHadForDummies Wow, you're an angry little man arent you. So are you able to hold a rational conversation or is all you have a pathetic tyrade of insults and wishes of harm? I guess you must be a religious fundamentlaist. Blow up any abortion clinics lately? How about fly some airplanes into buildings full of innocent people?
@GeeHadForDummies I''ve got at least 12 years more education on the subject of biology than he has. You must be a reigiotard - nothing to offer by way of intelligent conversation just personal insults. And you claim you get your morals from where?
@beerandgirls93 It doesn't matter how wonderful or beautiful you may consider the universe to be, that does not mean it was designed. I could accidentally drop a tin of paint from a great height and the resultant splash of colour could be considered to be a beautiful work of art, but it wasn't designed, it was an accident.
He is stating FACTS. Multiuniverses are a THEORY which is NOT proven.
On one hand you denounce there is NO God cause there is NO prove, YET you throw multiverses as a viable xplanation for fine tuning even though there is no proof of multiuniverse.
Gotta love the atheists, picking and choosing what they want....lolol
The existence or otherwise of a multiverse IS NOT a scientific theory as you claim – it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis only becomes a scientific theory once proven using the scientific method (feel free to Google what the scientific method is). So you’re wrong – no sane scientist or rational human being claims that the existence of a multiverse is a proven scientific fact – you’re putting forward a straw man argument since science does not claim that you says it does.
He is not stating facts, he is stating OPINIONS. It is an OPINION, nothing more, that "fine tuning points at a creator." While I agree that life is incredible and awe-inspiring, I do not believe it points at a "designer." As incredible as life and the universe is, the many flaws in life and nature do NOT, in my OPINION, prove an intelligent being is behind all of it.
Does no one ever point out to this loon that he is assuming the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligent life ? If that was its purpose wouldn't the universe be more productive if life was not so dependent on these 'finely tuned' conditions ? Why design life to be dependent on the conditions on Earth and then only create one Earth-like planet ? How can anyone consider hurtling around a nuclear furnace on a lump of rock to be intelligent design ?
This argument is almost sound. Current hypotheses do allow for other explanations, such as the multiverse which others have mentioned, which would explain this fine tuning.
If there are many other universes, with their own physical laws, we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in one which, against all odds, permits life to exist. If the multiverse exists, the fine tuning argument is subject to the anthropic principle, and fails.
Why do these people always site the existence of our planet as proof of god? Do they realize how big the fucking universe is? Life isn't precise and designed, the fact is in a space of practically infinite size everything has to happen somewhere. Life just happened here thats all. It didn't happen anywhere else we know of because it simply couldn't. If Life hadn't occurred here, there would be no one here to examine why it didn't. Just because you exist, doesn't mean you were designed.
The fact that we don't know whether the physical constants of the universe can have any other values than what they have renders his argument completely useless.
I wonder if he understand either subject. Religion or science. You can't make a case for God using science and you can't make a case for science using theology. Whatever discovery science produces, Craig's God will be on the out limits of it. He's being a complete assclown for making blind assumptions on faith and then trying to back up faith with evidence. Faith doesn't require evidence. Evidence is the opposite of faith, Jackass.
"Craig received a BA in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois in 1971 and two MA degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975 and 1976, in philosophy of religion and church history. He earned a Ph.D. at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984."
If he gets a Ph.D in Alchemy, he would be the most qualified person in the world to talk about science.
@aaronk1994 He studies Philosophy., Theology and Communications!!! Since when has this s made him a scientist, or qualified to talk about science in an informed manner.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tafftastic And theoretical physics and cosmology. So... I guess that's not a fail for Craig. But sadly a fail for you. And your mum and dad who gave this comment the thumbs up.
@TooManyTights That’s an outright lie - unless you include the fact he may have read a book or two he has no formal qualifications whatsoever in the topic that he claim s to be an expert on and is talking about. Typical creationist lies yet again. This guy is not qualified to talk about the subject in hand presenting himself as an authority in any way – period.
So only scientists can speak about scientific discoveries? When did this become a norm? Is this not just a person taking a scientific discovery and reasoning upon it? What is wrong with doing this?
@v01741r31 What 'Dr' Craig is doing is attempting to do is paint himself as an expert in the scientific fields that he talks about, yet has no formal qualifications in, and make claims and suggestions that are contrary to the scientific consensus. In scientific terms - he's talking arse..
@tafftastic You dismiss his arguments because he is not a scientist. However, his arguments are all true. Granted, he did not discover the fine tuning of the universe, but that doesn't mean the fine tuning doesn't exist. These are well known arguments that were first presented by scientist. On youtube, you can find many qualified scientist who present the same arguments (William Lane Craig is just better presenting). If you believe what he is saying is false, do some research. It is not.
@tafftastic In effect,you're saying,that a person shouldn't speak on film or cuisine,if they don't own filming studios,or if they aren't themselves,chefs..These are,poor objections here..My degree,isn't in mathematics,yet,i am able to speak on a great deal of mathematics,at expert level..Dr,Craig,is using sophomoric science,to make his point..Are,we not allowed to use what portions of mathematics and science,we did learn in school,or through reading science magazines,in discussions,simply becau
@tafftastic se our our degrees aren't in these fields..If this is so,my next question,would be,why did we learn these things at all?(Since we're not allowed to use them in discussions or elsewhere in life)That he doesn't have any degrees in sciences or maths,is not a good enough reason to dismiss his argument,as invalid.You would only be justified in doing so,if what he is saying,is wrong..These,are not false scientific facts,sorry to say..
@MsOluwatoyin The issue in hand is the fact he presents himself as talking from a position of authority, when he has none, and that the facts he claims to be presenting as truth are diametrically opposed by those people who are actually qualified with the subject matter he purports to be knowledgeable about. All he is left with are his own personal opinions, which are not based in fact. Much the same as all 'beliefs' - they’re not evidence based.
@tafftastic Should he speak,with his tail between his legs,when touching on a topic,in which he hasn't a degree in?He's in a debate..Debates,are competitive,usually..So,it would hardly,do for him,to even participate in the talk,if he isn't allowed to present his ideas,with confidence.Which claims,did he make,that are opposed by scientists?
@tafftastic Lastly,you said:"All he is left with are his own personal opinions, which are not based in fact. Much the same as all 'beliefs' - they’re not evidence based." Do you,believe this??
@aaronk1994 He doesn have a single Phd - he has a Thd - a qualification in spernatural beings. In the real world that counts for nothing. He's a teacher of fairy stories in a fairy story college, nothing more than that.
Remember folks! Any kind of argument from design like this "fine tuning" argument is just merely an exercise in confirmation bias!
Confirmation bias = looking only at evidence that affirms one's belief. Instead of also looking for contradictory evidence that challenges one's beliefs. The scientific method relies on both kinds of evidence.
Is there any evidence of "stupid design" or "coarse tuning"? You bet there is!!!
Again...If this is a result of a design by an intelligent agency....the this is a piss poor design. Look at all that wasted space....and for what? So a infantesimal speck of dust can have us living on it? Dr. Craig you are one of the most arrogant persons in the universe. More arrogant and ego-centric than the god you claim exists.
@MegaVenom777 Emptiness is an expression of love. Are you hearing yourself? What did you get your valentine last year? Was it an empty box of chocolates?. Was it dead roses? If a god appreciated life, anywhere near how we appreciate chocolate and roses (common offerings of love), he would make life much more common than it appears to be in the universe.
@danielkyleh I think it is pretty loveing that god created the light {sun} and light at night {starsplus moon} i wouldnt call it emptyness{full of planets and stars to show his power} sure there isnt no other people on the planets but thats why he created us. if you dissagree thats kool but its the truth.
The universe is so precise in it's design to support intelligent life that 99.999999 %of it DOESN'T..... (I don't know exactly how many decimal places it would take to prove this to a person like Craig.... Pick a number of decimals and I will add one more because the universe is expanding as we speak.)
@danielkyleh You want a big number? Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe, PhD, ScD, in their book "Evolution from Space", caculated the odds of getting the kind of life we see here on earth by ramdom chance alone is 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power. Hoyle later wrote that number is bigger than the number of all the atoms in the known universe. Hoyle and his partner proposed life is older than the earth and is cosmic in it's origin and came to this planet via "panspermia" on comets and space rock
@boblackey1 That's pretty cool, man. Just getting the type of planet needed to support life is a very similar number. it is extremely unlikely for intelligent life to occur but to take that extreme unlikelihood and debase it with a supernatural myth does no justice at all to the beauty of nature. How amazing it is. Cheers.
@TheTenchimuyo Science is agnostic towards the belief of a deity. Scientists, are different. Like Philisiphyman76 explained, he's trying to use science to disprove science.
how could anyone possibly know that a universe with different physical properties could not support life? We only know of 1 universe and that universe has life. We have no other universe to compare this one to. Also being that I have studied mathematics (mainly statistical probability) I would like to know how he was able to calculate these probabilities. You would have to know every variable at the moment of the big bang to calculate such probabilities.
Check out andromedaswake, he has a good refutation of this nonsense. In brief: "fine tuning" does not mean what Craig thinks it means. It simply means that the models used by scientists to describe the universe and its history do not yet include a mechanism that explain certain features of it, such as the universal constants.
I find a certain weakness in this argument, because we can only look at this unverse and how it works. There is no real idea of what the "other universes" would look like. We maybe a result of this universe, but if these physical constants were different there might be a different unverse with different type of "life".
cont.3)False conflation: conflating newtonian laws of physics with all laws of physics. and yes, idiot, the gravitational constant IS a law of physics. Thermodynamics says that the amount of mass in the universe is contant, and newton saud that it's all product of their masses-y
And, while we're at it, he has false everything else too
these quantities are soo infinitesimal that they are almost falling out of WLCs head 'cuz their his brain. now onto the fallacies:
1) false dilema: he gives ONLY 3 possibilities, it is just as possible that a magic worm gulped up all other universes but our own
2) biased definition: unlike a rational person, who for this exercise would count ALL self-aware self-replicating phenomena as intelligent life, WLC counts only our for,
Disproving science with science, it's like trying to disprove a hammer by hitting it with another hammer. Science does NOT say that the universe came about by random chance, it says that it came about as the result of matter and energy conforming to natural laws.
The most interesting thing about this lecture was what he DIDN'T say. For instance, it is quite possible we have many universes, even an infinite number, so it is not therefore surprising that at least one of them has the right conditions for life, by pure chance alone. I wonder why he neglected to mention that argument?
His argument is badly flawed, he is only looking at what supports his argument. I have no respect for such a biased person.
@keithmayes WOW. So it is ok for athiests to believe by pure faith that there are many universes. Yet it is not ok for christians to believe by faith that there is a God. Hmmmm, so using faith or a lack of evidence on the part of christians isn't the problem then. Instead it's the mere fact that we belive in a God that is the problem.
@kjordon1 the problem is you don't get it. We don't just believe in stuff based on blind faith or what a 2000 yr old book says. But based on experiment and mathematics they have arrived at the hypothisis that other universes could exist. However that could be wrong they don't know yet. That's why in science we call everything a theory even though all the evidence points in one direction science accepts that it still might be wrong. The bible doesn't. Thats the difference
@philosophyman76 The real truth behind the atheistic arguments is not that you people reject the God theory because is unscientific, but it's because the theory includes God. For why else would you people accept other faith based, untested, unscientific theories such as infinite oscillations and infinite universes?
@kjordon1 Infinate universes was arived at independantly by quantum theorists. Monotheism was arived at independantly by one Phaoroh and one Hebrew guy. which is more "scientific" to you
@kjordon1 When did i commit such a fallacy? FYI when i say see "x" i usually mean go to the upper right-hand corner of your screen, see the google search bar and type "x" into it. even better, if you are less lazy than I, go into a completely dark room in your house, get a flashlight, a piece of paper, and scissors. make two cuts on the piece of paper, parallel to one another, and shine the flashlight through them on your wall. if you see many lines of light, you did it right. TBC
@kjordon1 Cont. now why would this be? after all, if it only has one slit, it will only make one line?well, science decided to investigate. They tried it with electrons, and got THE SAME result. Scientists, curious as they were, decided to bounce some light off of the electrons. however, when they did the electrons just made two lines on the wall. the multiple lines happened even when they did this particle by particle, but not when they tried to observe it in intermediate phases. TBC
@kjordon1 Cont. sorry for the long comment, but I don't want to force you to look anything up. People are perplexed, so here come these dudes, Feynman and Heisenberg. Feynman posits that if a particle CAN go to either point A or point B, it goes both places. but why can't we see it inbetween? Heisenberg thought that it is something called a waveform, which, when hit or "Observed" it "Chooses" a position. But why is one position better than another?T.B.C
@kjordon1 Cont. Physicists today think that it plays out in other universes, every possibility, every postion that a particle could be in. you can't just say "That's rediculous, god exists" No, you have to prove yourself
@kjordon1 No. you just don't get it. My point is that Dr. Craig claims " fine tuning" is the only option, therefore the universe must have been created by God. My point is that with an infinite number of universes the correct conditions will happen by chance, therefore fine tuning is not required. I made no reference to God as that does not affect my argument, my only point is that his logic is seriously flawed, and that is an unarguable fact, whether or not you happen to like it.
Of course he didn't mention it. It's devastating to his argument!
And keep in mind, Craig isn't about promoting good scholarship, verifiable theories, or increasing an understanding in the universe. Craig is about winning as many converts to Christianity as possible. Therefore, he doesn't feel obligated to mention the gaping hole in his argument, because he doesn't care whether he speaks the truth or not, so long as everyone becomes Christian.
@keithmayes Please. Next time a find a sign on a road that seems to have a characteristic order or arrangement, I'll postulate that it arrived there by purely naturalistic means, given that there's an infinite number of universes that contain the sign, and an infinite number of universes that do not.
@CarlosMarti123 . Your argument is ridiculous, just because a road sign is man made has nothing whatever to do with the universe that the man lives in being either deliberately created by some intelligence or created by chance. If you wish to make a point at least try and make it sensible.
@keithmayes Is this a joke? Craig has addressed the multiplication of probabilistic resources by appealing to a multiverse on COUNTLESS occasions. You obviously aren't familiar with Dr. Craig's work. Try reading before accusing. Hey - you do read, right?
@TooManyTights Were you born sarcastic , arrogant and a know-it-all prat or have you had to work on it? Craig claims that the universe must have been designed by an intelligence, It makes no difference if he refers to multiple universes, he is a creationist. With many universes it would be no surprise if at least one of them was suitable for life. He destroys his own argument.
@keithmayes, Craig has already shown in another video that a cyclic universe that existed in infinite past is not logically consistent. If it were so the present universe would not exist. It will take an infinte time to get into the present time. The idea of an infinite number of universes, which has yet to be proven, cannot be used to disprove his argument. We could not even prove that our universe is inside a super or hyper space that contains all the multiverses that you speak of.
"I've been looking at some of this guy's videos on Youtube. He is brilliant. Very articulate and thought provoking. "
No, he isn't. His 'arguments' boil down to one fallacy: The argument from incredulity. "This is amazing; therefore God did it." Not true, and not scientific at all.
Perhaps the universe is too random to be precisely formed.
Science isn't too clever to accept God, it's just that it doesn't explain anything. Who created whoever sparked the big bang? Also, by the cyclic universe model, this could be the millionth attempt at a universe, eventually it was going to be right for life by pure chance.
@857frank Actually, by the cyclic universe model, time moves in a circle. hence this is the first and last universe ever, and after it there will be the first and last, Etc.
@ChicagoFusion the Big Bang singularity will emit all configurations with equal probability, and, therefore cannot be guaranteed to result in a life-permitting universe. The unpredictability of the first states of the universe is incompatible with divine creation, since God would want to ensure a life-permitting universe.
@ChicagoFusion be specific, which physicle equation says " All matter is attracted to all other matter in the universe with a force preportional to the distance between them, so atheists are angry and used to be catholics QED
This could be the googolth universe and it is indeed by pure chance it contains the requirements for life. There is enough time in eternity for any chance occurrence and we wouldn't know about the previous universes. It's natural selection on a big scale. Also a caring designer with a completely free hand wouldn't have designed a universe with billions of years of animals tearing each other apart. And don't even mention human suffering because believers say with a smile it's due to mans sin.
If there really was an omnipotent, intelligent designer, WLC would have been created with an extremely flexible spine, allowing him to stick his head up where it obviously belongs.
this guy needs to do some "fine tuning" of his understanding of science. speaking in generalities is also very dangerous. "never opine short of certainty...-Al Swearengen
I hate the god idea, but I think the irresponsible BOOM idea is a fucking joke.
Anythings possible, the universe could simply be the larger form of the atom, and all galaxies and matter existing within are just another nucleus/proton/electron system on a massive scale(compared to ourselves), existing alongside other cells or universes, that make up an apostrophe on an aliens essay paper.
Scale, time and everything is relative. I bet microbes think they're the biggest, if they could think.
"I hate the god idea, but I think the irresponsible BOOM idea is a fucking joke"
Problem is... you don't know what the thing you've labeled as "a fucking joke" really is, but that didn't stop you. An expansion of matter isn't really an "irresponsible boom" at all.
"Anything's possible"? Is that really your argument? We already know magic doesn't exist. Ever studied the laws of physics?
Also... microbes don't really have process of thought. They need brains for that.
the universe is really fucking big and really really old, the chance of this planet supporting life and a few others around it having water on them... actually happened!. btw, this finely tuned universe really knows how to kill its animals.. since pretty much all of them are extinct. craig, this world was not made with us in mind!!!, just like that ditch out the front of your house was not made for that perfect puddle of water.
christian apologetics get repetetive .. william lane craig is a pro at shuffling sillyology around to make it sound like he has 'evidence' for his bearded god. i sometimes have to pause his video, go back a few times to realise what he's actually on about, this is when he pulls out his shotgun and starts blowing strawmen to pieces... atheisms view of the world is so hopeless, dark and bleak, no douche, i'm just not trying to live my life as a slave, being a teachers pet for a celestial dictator.
Craig's God suffers from the same problem as a finely-tuned universe; his personality is inexplicably fine-tuned to create this version of the universe, and not any other. In other words, if God's attributes (personality, power, abilities) were slightly different, he would have created a totally different universe. Thus, Craig must, by his own argument, admit that God was created (fine-tuned) by another god, who was created by another god... etc
How ignorant can a man be, and still be competent enough to dress himself in the morning? I mean, he can put a suit on, yet he can't even understand the scientific method?
@lip333 Science is ALWAYS proofing that science works. Science is just observing testing, and repeating. everytime something works that proves science. Everytime something doesn't work and we figure out why that's science. so what do you mean with that statement?
@kjordon1 you seem to not know the difference betwwen science and theology. His crap about fine tuning is nonsence. life as we know it only exists on a minute planet on only a portion of it's surface. How can you say something that is 99.999...% devoid of life is "fine tuned" for life? there are 4 forces in our universe strong, week, electromagnetic, gravity. science has already proved that life can exist without gravity and weak. If your going to use science u should probaly study science first
@philosophyman76 So if a God created everything it is unscientific to suggest that God did it. When did science become a biased seeker of lies because the God theory cannot be tested in a test tube? Why do I say "biased"? Well that's because your theory of many universes is unscientific because there is no evidence for it and it is untestable.
@kjordon1 Evidence, as far as you can look up on something called Google, is that quantum waveforms, that's one particle in many positions at once (and these have ben proven too. dee "Double slit experiment light") when observerd collapse on one position. the theory ist that the others go into seperate universes.
@arachnophile01 You call that real proof? What if the other particles turn into energy? What if the same particles move from one position to another at light speed so it seems to be in many positions at once? Besides, this "proof" only makes the natualistic theories more ridiculous - one particle being in many positions at the same time. It's much more plausible that a God exist than a particle be in just two positions at the exact same time.
@kjordon1 and that's where you are wrong. it is testable. Maybe not yet but this is where theist always fail to understand that technology gets better. Our knowledge increases. And when we can test the theories of quantum physics then if the theories are wrong theists will say "see wrong." if there proven right then they'll just move the goal posts and say well God created those other universes. That's why GOD is never a good answer to anything
@philosophyman76 Believing in God doesn't prevent us from understanding the world or the universe. Unlike today, the majority of the scientists in the 13th, 14th, 15th, all the way up to the 19th century were theists, and they made great breakthroughs and learned much about nature. If I believe God created the universe, how is that going to stop me from finding out how he did it? Theistic scientistis are very curious too you know. I'm not a scientist and even I'm curious.
@kjordon1 this isn't about theISTS this is about theISM. is it logical. it'd be like me saying "Just denying global warming for no reason is illogical" and you saying"no,I know plenty of logical global warming-deniers
@philosophyman76 I argue with athiests a lot and one of the erroneous things you people say a lot is that once we say "God did it" then we don't figure out how things happen and science ends. That's so untrue that I think you people say that simply because you hate the idea of God. God made our bodies, yet I am very curious on how the body reproduces and grows and how our brain and liver functions, etc.
@kjordon1 that is an ascertain and it is not correct. God did not create my body. My parents did. And we know all the mechanisms to create bodies. So where does your god fit in? he made humans? nope we know evolutionary biology created humans and all the diversity on earth. Lots of evidence for that. You god is not needed for explaining anything. Thats why WLC has to use him to explain the origin of the universe. and even there he uses the scientific evidence to try and back that claim
@philosophyman76 you think you know everything do you? yes your parents created your body with the help of God, God laid the foundation by creating the first human beings, you are no where close to God's knowledge, you are not on his level, so just because something is not logical to you doesnt mean you can rule out the existance of God, God gave mankind knowledge. dont put all your faith in science, and dont try to disprove or be little things you know very little about, get yourself a bible
@zipitup75 know i don't think I know everything. you do. except your explanation for everything you don't know is "god did it" which is no explanation at all. God didn't "create" the first humans. We evolved. Random mutation + natural selection "created the first human beings. And getting a bible doesnt teach you anything. we didnt cure small pox using the bible. we didn't land on the moon bc of the bible. All we get from the bible is some children stories not knowledge
@philosophyman76 I know Dr Craig's logic is flawed OK. But what I hate is when athiests are hypocritical enough to use this same bad logic to eliminate God as a possibility theory and establish their own faith based atheistic theories, hoping without evidence that there are more universes or that the universe always oscillates.
@philosophyman76 We actually don't know how much of the universe has life. it could be .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% or 99.9999999999%. however, one cannot assume that, on a sample size of one planet the universe is fine tuned for life using bullshit physics (like deciding what is necesary and what isn't)
@arachnophile01 No we know that most of the universe is filled with empty space. Even if we found microbes on mars or europa we know that life does not exist in most places. even on this planet that is full of life there are still places it doesn't exist. The Sun has no life on it and there is no life in the vacuum of space so even if every planet and moon had life on it in the entire universe 99% of the solar system and the universe has no life.
@philosophyman76 You people say "we can't detect God, therefore he doesn't exist." So I can say we NEVER see anything in multiple locations at the same time, so it never happens. Hey I'm only using the SAME logical tactics the athiests use. Why is it so wrong when creationists use it? Oh, I know. It is simply because we put God in the equation and you people despise God.
@kjordon1 you still don't understand how science works do you? We do "see" things existing in multiple places at one time. ON a sub atomic level. We use instruments to "see" these things. That's what the arachnophile is trying to explain to you with the double slit experiment that you won't watch. It goes against our logic bc our logic is designed to work on our level of understanding. We don't understand that in blackholes you can see back in time bc that is on such a large level it doesnt TBC
cont. make sense to a human. We don't have any "miracles of god" to examine and look at. we understand how 99% of our world works without god. And just sticking god in where we don't understand doesn't explain those things. Saying GOD did that is equivalent of saying santa did that. you first have to show that there is a god who would have the ability to do such a thing, then how it was done. THats what science does. they observe something and then see why it happens that way.
@kjordon1 You are wrong, scientists do perform experiments which actually do demonstrate that particles can be in more that one place simultaneously according to Quantum Mechanics. I suggest that you do a search for Young's Double Slit experiment which demonstrates that a single photon can pass through 2 locations at the same time.
This fine tuned idea is so stupid. It's like saying if you found a single atom of a particular element in a galaxy then that galaxy was fine tuned for that atom. Also his argument that if the forces were off by just a bit then the universe would not be life permiting is BS. First, I ask how would he know that? we're never seen or detected another universe. second, if the earths temperature when up by 50C a lot of life couldn't exist but there are some that can live in that temperature.
Yeah Intel-a-gent duh Zion-er. They have to try and move into science because they lost the moral standing when Moses had two ol' ladies after he killed the Egyptian straw boss...think about it folks...
@willam9 yeh or they no science and then realize science works and there religious beleifs are total shit and were completely immoral and illogical and the world has one better person
One more thing, his whole theory of intelligent design hinges upon him stating that he himself is actually an intelligent life form. God is an acronym standing for 'goof on duty', he is making himself like god.
Guys like this get paid by people who want other people to remain stupid, respecting established hierarchy where they get the power & the spoils while you are a slave. They use association, transference & projection to psych people into paying them for being straight up bold face liars. God is just something that the greediest anal-retentive excuses of humanity use to get pawns to kill other pawns in their wars. If there was a creator that thinks like Craig, extinction is the inevitable plan.
that would be like looking at a forest of dead trees and that one tree with life in it is some how so beautiful that you ignore all the other dead trees and say this is a finely tuned forest
I'm an agnostic, but this actually seems like quite a bit of evidence for the existence of God. I'm not trying to debate anybody, but can anybody actually inform me of an objection to the statement he's making? A legitimate one, you know like the arguments that have flaws but still get put in textbooks. Anyone?
Pythagoras211 2 months ago
@Pythagoras211 Dr. Craig has a website filled with more compelling arguments both scientific and philosophical called reasonablefaith(dot)org if you're interested.
AratoSlayer 1 month ago
hes whole debate can be invalidated by the size of universe, the chance of us being alone is 0.0000000000000000001%
wakuzaki 3 months ago
i just wanna punch him in the face. we evolved the way we did BECAUSE of the way the universe is "tuned." If it was different there is no reason to believe that life other than how we know it would not evolve. And i would venture to guess that in this theoretical alternate world there would be people saying that there universe is fine tuned to there life.
red666111 5 months ago
So because something to happen by chance is too small, therefore it can't happen? logic?
Tr1963Rh4pPy 6 months ago
"Life" adjusts its environment, not the other way around.
And out of the infinite number of planets and situations to have the possible chance of "Life starting" is actually not as impossible or rare, as it seems.
Saying something has a 1 in 1 trillion chance to happen, doesn't mean, it's not plausible, when that "Chance" is gambles repeatedly OVER a trillion times (Infinite)
Which makes that BS number look like reverse.
It's impossible for life to NOT start, with those odds.
eivarden 6 months ago
why would god need to fine tune anything? couldn't he just make it be? couldn't he just create us to live in a bucket of acid if he so desired. this notion of fine tuning suggests that god has to follow some rules. where did the rules come from? god's god? seems a bit far fetched to me. thankfully i don't believe the foolish bronze age stories.
mark902 7 months ago
@mark902 He did just "make it be". As far as we know, the big bang came from literally nothing. All the laws of physics also came from nothing. After that, everything was fine tuned. It's more impressive to create a universe and laws out of nothing, then, 13 billion years later, their interactions with each other create ridiculously complex beings. So to believe in God, you have proof that he "made it be" and proof that he is capable of fine tuning.
zozefup 6 months ago
@zozefup i've been reading this for two days and i can't figure out if you are for, or against the idea of creationism. i'm gathering that you are saying that god started the big bang and has been fine tuning ever since. i really don't know what to think of that. why don't i have eyes as good as an owls? why can't i breath under water? why can't i fly? why can't i regenerate limbs? these would be pretty useful abilities that other creatures have. so i'm missing the intelligence of this design.
mark902 6 months ago
@GeeHadForDummies Wow - what a hypocrite. Are you that stubborn or blinded by religious intolerance that you're unable to see that its because of people who think as you do that your son was sent to a war based upon religious hatred? You poor, twisted man.
BumJungle 7 months ago
@GeeHadForDummies Wow, you're an angry little man arent you. So are you able to hold a rational conversation or is all you have a pathetic tyrade of insults and wishes of harm? I guess you must be a religious fundamentlaist. Blow up any abortion clinics lately? How about fly some airplanes into buildings full of innocent people?
BumJungle 7 months ago
@GeeHadForDummies I''ve got at least 12 years more education on the subject of biology than he has. You must be a reigiotard - nothing to offer by way of intelligent conversation just personal insults. And you claim you get your morals from where?
venomfanex 7 months ago
@beerandgirls93 It doesn't matter how wonderful or beautiful you may consider the universe to be, that does not mean it was designed. I could accidentally drop a tin of paint from a great height and the resultant splash of colour could be considered to be a beautiful work of art, but it wasn't designed, it was an accident.
keithmayes 8 months ago
Nothing more than the argument from incredulity - or argument from ignorance. Just because life is amazing does NOT MEAN GOD DID IT.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 8 months ago
He is stating FACTS. Multiuniverses are a THEORY which is NOT proven.
On one hand you denounce there is NO God cause there is NO prove, YET you throw multiverses as a viable xplanation for fine tuning even though there is no proof of multiuniverse.
Gotta love the atheists, picking and choosing what they want....lolol
Rostos1978 9 months ago
@Rostos1978
The existence or otherwise of a multiverse IS NOT a scientific theory as you claim – it is a hypothesis. A hypothesis only becomes a scientific theory once proven using the scientific method (feel free to Google what the scientific method is). So you’re wrong – no sane scientist or rational human being claims that the existence of a multiverse is a proven scientific fact – you’re putting forward a straw man argument since science does not claim that you says it does.
venomfanex 9 months ago
@Rostos1978
He is not stating facts, he is stating OPINIONS. It is an OPINION, nothing more, that "fine tuning points at a creator." While I agree that life is incredible and awe-inspiring, I do not believe it points at a "designer." As incredible as life and the universe is, the many flaws in life and nature do NOT, in my OPINION, prove an intelligent being is behind all of it.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 8 months ago
Does no one ever point out to this loon that he is assuming the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligent life ? If that was its purpose wouldn't the universe be more productive if life was not so dependent on these 'finely tuned' conditions ? Why design life to be dependent on the conditions on Earth and then only create one Earth-like planet ? How can anyone consider hurtling around a nuclear furnace on a lump of rock to be intelligent design ?
digitaljez 9 months ago
fine tuned compared to what?? How many coarsely tuned universes does he know about?
Hufflewaffle 9 months ago
I guess no one ever wins the lottery either then. It's just too damn improbable!
floppel 9 months ago
OK mr sciency guy, what is the probability that the christian, and muslim god, just poofed into existence?
MrTattooConnection 10 months ago
This argument is almost sound. Current hypotheses do allow for other explanations, such as the multiverse which others have mentioned, which would explain this fine tuning.
If there are many other universes, with their own physical laws, we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in one which, against all odds, permits life to exist. If the multiverse exists, the fine tuning argument is subject to the anthropic principle, and fails.
doloafing 11 months ago
Why do these people always site the existence of our planet as proof of god? Do they realize how big the fucking universe is? Life isn't precise and designed, the fact is in a space of practically infinite size everything has to happen somewhere. Life just happened here thats all. It didn't happen anywhere else we know of because it simply couldn't. If Life hadn't occurred here, there would be no one here to examine why it didn't. Just because you exist, doesn't mean you were designed.
pooleinthehizzle 11 months ago
Finely tuned universe, the universe is unimaginably random. I don't know where he got this from that the entire universe is tuned.
AstrophelTDeath 1 year ago
The fact that we don't know whether the physical constants of the universe can have any other values than what they have renders his argument completely useless.
RussianAssassin21 1 year ago
this on creationist arguments bias lol
ClosetKitty 1 year ago
I wonder if he understand either subject. Religion or science. You can't make a case for God using science and you can't make a case for science using theology. Whatever discovery science produces, Craig's God will be on the out limits of it. He's being a complete assclown for making blind assumptions on faith and then trying to back up faith with evidence. Faith doesn't require evidence. Evidence is the opposite of faith, Jackass.
danielkyleh 1 year ago
This basically proves God exists and falsifies evolution nonsense.
7TJBarba 1 year ago
Ahhhhh the classic, 'its too complimicated, and I’m too dumb to count big, so must be a lie, and God dunnit ' argument.
And such hypocrisy using science to disprove science, and a lack of a basic understanding in mathematics to argue against maths.
Logic fail.
tafftastic 1 year ago
I'll go for option 4:
"The person making this argument is a retard who wouldn't know science if it hit him in the face"
amandarandom89 1 year ago
@amandarandom89 Yeah, he's so stupid.
No wonder he has 2 PHDs.
aaronk1994 1 year ago
@aaronk1994 "..has 2 PHDs."
"Craig received a BA in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois in 1971 and two MA degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975 and 1976, in philosophy of religion and church history. He earned a Ph.D. at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984."
If he gets a Ph.D in Alchemy, he would be the most qualified person in the world to talk about science.
saintpine 1 year ago
@aaronk1994 He studies Philosophy., Theology and Communications!!! Since when has this s made him a scientist, or qualified to talk about science in an informed manner.
Yet another creationist fail.
tafftastic 1 year ago 19
@tafftastic yep your very right its like letting a real estate agent perform a root canal on dental patient's mouth.
ClosetKitty 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tafftastic And theoretical physics and cosmology. So... I guess that's not a fail for Craig. But sadly a fail for you. And your mum and dad who gave this comment the thumbs up.
TooManyTights 9 months ago
@TooManyTights That’s an outright lie - unless you include the fact he may have read a book or two he has no formal qualifications whatsoever in the topic that he claim s to be an expert on and is talking about. Typical creationist lies yet again. This guy is not qualified to talk about the subject in hand presenting himself as an authority in any way – period.
venomfanex 9 months ago 11
@tafftastic
So only scientists can speak about scientific discoveries? When did this become a norm? Is this not just a person taking a scientific discovery and reasoning upon it? What is wrong with doing this?
Let me know.
v01741r31 7 months ago
@v01741r31 What 'Dr' Craig is doing is attempting to do is paint himself as an expert in the scientific fields that he talks about, yet has no formal qualifications in, and make claims and suggestions that are contrary to the scientific consensus. In scientific terms - he's talking arse..
tafftastic 7 months ago
@tafftastic You dismiss his arguments because he is not a scientist. However, his arguments are all true. Granted, he did not discover the fine tuning of the universe, but that doesn't mean the fine tuning doesn't exist. These are well known arguments that were first presented by scientist. On youtube, you can find many qualified scientist who present the same arguments (William Lane Craig is just better presenting). If you believe what he is saying is false, do some research. It is not.
zozefup 6 months ago
@tafftastic In effect,you're saying,that a person shouldn't speak on film or cuisine,if they don't own filming studios,or if they aren't themselves,chefs..These are,poor objections here..My degree,isn't in mathematics,yet,i am able to speak on a great deal of mathematics,at expert level..Dr,Craig,is using sophomoric science,to make his point..Are,we not allowed to use what portions of mathematics and science,we did learn in school,or through reading science magazines,in discussions,simply becau
MsOluwatoyin 3 months ago
@tafftastic se our our degrees aren't in these fields..If this is so,my next question,would be,why did we learn these things at all?(Since we're not allowed to use them in discussions or elsewhere in life)That he doesn't have any degrees in sciences or maths,is not a good enough reason to dismiss his argument,as invalid.You would only be justified in doing so,if what he is saying,is wrong..These,are not false scientific facts,sorry to say..
MsOluwatoyin 3 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin The issue in hand is the fact he presents himself as talking from a position of authority, when he has none, and that the facts he claims to be presenting as truth are diametrically opposed by those people who are actually qualified with the subject matter he purports to be knowledgeable about. All he is left with are his own personal opinions, which are not based in fact. Much the same as all 'beliefs' - they’re not evidence based.
tafftastic 3 months ago
@tafftastic Should he speak,with his tail between his legs,when touching on a topic,in which he hasn't a degree in?He's in a debate..Debates,are competitive,usually..So,it would hardly,do for him,to even participate in the talk,if he isn't allowed to present his ideas,with confidence.Which claims,did he make,that are opposed by scientists?
MsOluwatoyin 3 months ago
@tafftastic Lastly,you said:"All he is left with are his own personal opinions, which are not based in fact. Much the same as all 'beliefs' - they’re not evidence based." Do you,believe this??
MsOluwatoyin 3 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin Absolutely. Feel free to attempt to prove otherwise.
venomfanex 3 months ago
@venomfanex I'm sorry..Try to prove what,to teh contrary?I can't find any previous commentary to you,from me..
MsOluwatoyin 3 months ago
@aaronk1994 He studies Philosophy, Theology and Communications!!!
Since when has this made him a scientist, or qualified to talk about science in an informed manner.
Yet another creationist fail.
tafftastic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaronk1994 He studies Philosophy, Theology and Communications!!!
Since when has this made him a scientist, or qualified to talk about science in an informed manner.
Yet another creationist fail.
tafftastic 1 year ago
@aaronk1994 He doesn have a single Phd - he has a Thd - a qualification in spernatural beings. In the real world that counts for nothing. He's a teacher of fairy stories in a fairy story college, nothing more than that.
MrBeeblebrook 9 months ago
Ohh what a moron
knuthoem85 1 year ago
Remember folks! Any kind of argument from design like this "fine tuning" argument is just merely an exercise in confirmation bias!
Confirmation bias = looking only at evidence that affirms one's belief. Instead of also looking for contradictory evidence that challenges one's beliefs. The scientific method relies on both kinds of evidence.
Is there any evidence of "stupid design" or "coarse tuning"? You bet there is!!!
Mthooz 1 year ago
He can't understand science, so his answer: must be god...nice!!!
spareaxe 1 year ago
BS, there's no fine-tune universe because we don't have a poorly-tune universe or perfectly-tune universe to compare to. what a stupid...
jojoinhere 1 year ago
Again...If this is a result of a design by an intelligent agency....the this is a piss poor design. Look at all that wasted space....and for what? So a infantesimal speck of dust can have us living on it? Dr. Craig you are one of the most arrogant persons in the universe. More arrogant and ego-centric than the god you claim exists.
danielkyleh 1 year ago
@danielkyleh In the bible that emptyness in space is to show gods power and love for us.
MegaVenom777 1 year ago
@MegaVenom777 Emptiness is an expression of love. Are you hearing yourself? What did you get your valentine last year? Was it an empty box of chocolates?. Was it dead roses? If a god appreciated life, anywhere near how we appreciate chocolate and roses (common offerings of love), he would make life much more common than it appears to be in the universe.
danielkyleh 1 year ago
@danielkyleh I think it is pretty loveing that god created the light {sun} and light at night {starsplus moon} i wouldnt call it emptyness{full of planets and stars to show his power} sure there isnt no other people on the planets but thats why he created us. if you dissagree thats kool but its the truth.
MegaVenom777 1 year ago
The universe is so precise in it's design to support intelligent life that 99.999999 %of it DOESN'T..... (I don't know exactly how many decimal places it would take to prove this to a person like Craig.... Pick a number of decimals and I will add one more because the universe is expanding as we speak.)
danielkyleh 1 year ago
@danielkyleh You want a big number? Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe, PhD, ScD, in their book "Evolution from Space", caculated the odds of getting the kind of life we see here on earth by ramdom chance alone is 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power. Hoyle later wrote that number is bigger than the number of all the atoms in the known universe. Hoyle and his partner proposed life is older than the earth and is cosmic in it's origin and came to this planet via "panspermia" on comets and space rock
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 That's pretty cool, man. Just getting the type of planet needed to support life is a very similar number. it is extremely unlikely for intelligent life to occur but to take that extreme unlikelihood and debase it with a supernatural myth does no justice at all to the beauty of nature. How amazing it is. Cheers.
danielkyleh 1 year ago
even religious people cant agree who god is, they should at least settle this before arguing with atheists
johnyu812 1 year ago
@johnyu812 - and what do athiests and evolutionists agree on? The age of rocks or even fossils???
nikkiluuu 1 year ago
@johnyu812
nikkiluuu 1 year ago
See even science has to acknowledge that there is a god
TheTenchimuyo 1 year ago
@TheTenchimuyo Science is agnostic towards the belief of a deity. Scientists, are different. Like Philisiphyman76 explained, he's trying to use science to disprove science.
jesuriah 1 year ago
Ha ha! That W.L Craig..........
I can't remember when I've last heard bollocks spoken so fluently!
The universe is fine tuned to exist....................gerrraway???!!! - That must be why it exists eh?
Go figure!!!??
Tobytrim 1 year ago
how could anyone possibly know that a universe with different physical properties could not support life? We only know of 1 universe and that universe has life. We have no other universe to compare this one to. Also being that I have studied mathematics (mainly statistical probability) I would like to know how he was able to calculate these probabilities. You would have to know every variable at the moment of the big bang to calculate such probabilities.
systematic101 1 year ago
Is the universe too precisely WHAT, to be randomly formed?
What an illogical question Craig is asking!!
If my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle. But she hasn't so she's my aunt.
Was it random chance or is it "design"?
What is , is!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Check out andromedaswake, he has a good refutation of this nonsense. In brief: "fine tuning" does not mean what Craig thinks it means. It simply means that the models used by scientists to describe the universe and its history do not yet include a mechanism that explain certain features of it, such as the universal constants.
LordZentei 1 year ago
I find a certain weakness in this argument, because we can only look at this unverse and how it works. There is no real idea of what the "other universes" would look like. We maybe a result of this universe, but if these physical constants were different there might be a different unverse with different type of "life".
snakeguy76 1 year ago
cont.3)False conflation: conflating newtonian laws of physics with all laws of physics. and yes, idiot, the gravitational constant IS a law of physics. Thermodynamics says that the amount of mass in the universe is contant, and newton saud that it's all product of their masses-y
And, while we're at it, he has false everything else too
arachnophile01 1 year ago
these quantities are soo infinitesimal that they are almost falling out of WLCs head 'cuz their his brain. now onto the fallacies:
1) false dilema: he gives ONLY 3 possibilities, it is just as possible that a magic worm gulped up all other universes but our own
2) biased definition: unlike a rational person, who for this exercise would count ALL self-aware self-replicating phenomena as intelligent life, WLC counts only our for,
TBC
arachnophile01 1 year ago
Disproving science with science, it's like trying to disprove a hammer by hitting it with another hammer. Science does NOT say that the universe came about by random chance, it says that it came about as the result of matter and energy conforming to natural laws.
Fierfek1972 1 year ago
Too finely tuned to be chance alone? Says who?
The most interesting thing about this lecture was what he DIDN'T say. For instance, it is quite possible we have many universes, even an infinite number, so it is not therefore surprising that at least one of them has the right conditions for life, by pure chance alone. I wonder why he neglected to mention that argument?
His argument is badly flawed, he is only looking at what supports his argument. I have no respect for such a biased person.
keithmayes 1 year ago 15
@keithmayes WOW. So it is ok for athiests to believe by pure faith that there are many universes. Yet it is not ok for christians to believe by faith that there is a God. Hmmmm, so using faith or a lack of evidence on the part of christians isn't the problem then. Instead it's the mere fact that we belive in a God that is the problem.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 the problem is you don't get it. We don't just believe in stuff based on blind faith or what a 2000 yr old book says. But based on experiment and mathematics they have arrived at the hypothisis that other universes could exist. However that could be wrong they don't know yet. That's why in science we call everything a theory even though all the evidence points in one direction science accepts that it still might be wrong. The bible doesn't. Thats the difference
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 The real truth behind the atheistic arguments is not that you people reject the God theory because is unscientific, but it's because the theory includes God. For why else would you people accept other faith based, untested, unscientific theories such as infinite oscillations and infinite universes?
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 Infinate universes was arived at independantly by quantum theorists. Monotheism was arived at independantly by one Phaoroh and one Hebrew guy. which is more "scientific" to you
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@arachnophile01 Hmmmm, argument from authority? Don't you know that that is a fallcy? Besides, it's God who authors the bible, not man.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 When did i commit such a fallacy? FYI when i say see "x" i usually mean go to the upper right-hand corner of your screen, see the google search bar and type "x" into it. even better, if you are less lazy than I, go into a completely dark room in your house, get a flashlight, a piece of paper, and scissors. make two cuts on the piece of paper, parallel to one another, and shine the flashlight through them on your wall. if you see many lines of light, you did it right. TBC
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@kjordon1 Cont. now why would this be? after all, if it only has one slit, it will only make one line?well, science decided to investigate. They tried it with electrons, and got THE SAME result. Scientists, curious as they were, decided to bounce some light off of the electrons. however, when they did the electrons just made two lines on the wall. the multiple lines happened even when they did this particle by particle, but not when they tried to observe it in intermediate phases. TBC
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@kjordon1 Cont. sorry for the long comment, but I don't want to force you to look anything up. People are perplexed, so here come these dudes, Feynman and Heisenberg. Feynman posits that if a particle CAN go to either point A or point B, it goes both places. but why can't we see it inbetween? Heisenberg thought that it is something called a waveform, which, when hit or "Observed" it "Chooses" a position. But why is one position better than another?T.B.C
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@kjordon1 Cont. Physicists today think that it plays out in other universes, every possibility, every postion that a particle could be in. you can't just say "That's rediculous, god exists" No, you have to prove yourself
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@kjordon1 No. you just don't get it. My point is that Dr. Craig claims " fine tuning" is the only option, therefore the universe must have been created by God. My point is that with an infinite number of universes the correct conditions will happen by chance, therefore fine tuning is not required. I made no reference to God as that does not affect my argument, my only point is that his logic is seriously flawed, and that is an unarguable fact, whether or not you happen to like it.
keithmayes 1 year ago
@keithmayes
Of course he didn't mention it. It's devastating to his argument!
And keep in mind, Craig isn't about promoting good scholarship, verifiable theories, or increasing an understanding in the universe. Craig is about winning as many converts to Christianity as possible. Therefore, he doesn't feel obligated to mention the gaping hole in his argument, because he doesn't care whether he speaks the truth or not, so long as everyone becomes Christian.
imperator332 1 year ago
@keithmayes Please. Next time a find a sign on a road that seems to have a characteristic order or arrangement, I'll postulate that it arrived there by purely naturalistic means, given that there's an infinite number of universes that contain the sign, and an infinite number of universes that do not.
Epistemology fail.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 . Your argument is ridiculous, just because a road sign is man made has nothing whatever to do with the universe that the man lives in being either deliberately created by some intelligence or created by chance. If you wish to make a point at least try and make it sensible.
keithmayes 9 months ago
@keithmayes Is this a joke? Craig has addressed the multiplication of probabilistic resources by appealing to a multiverse on COUNTLESS occasions. You obviously aren't familiar with Dr. Craig's work. Try reading before accusing. Hey - you do read, right?
TooManyTights 9 months ago
@TooManyTights Were you born sarcastic , arrogant and a know-it-all prat or have you had to work on it? Craig claims that the universe must have been designed by an intelligence, It makes no difference if he refers to multiple universes, he is a creationist. With many universes it would be no surprise if at least one of them was suitable for life. He destroys his own argument.
keithmayes 9 months ago
@keithmayes Wow. Foam at the mouth much?
TooManyTights 9 months ago
@TooManyTights Your inane and childish comments are an accurate indicater of your level of intelligence, you are a moron.
keithmayes 9 months ago 2
@keithmayes, Craig has already shown in another video that a cyclic universe that existed in infinite past is not logically consistent. If it were so the present universe would not exist. It will take an infinte time to get into the present time. The idea of an infinite number of universes, which has yet to be proven, cannot be used to disprove his argument. We could not even prove that our universe is inside a super or hyper space that contains all the multiverses that you speak of.
csdr0 8 months ago
I've been looking at some of this guy's videos on Youtube. He is brilliant. Very articulate and thought provoking.
MidnightWatcher322 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MidnightWatcher322
"I've been looking at some of this guy's videos on Youtube. He is brilliant. Very articulate and thought provoking. "
No, he isn't. His 'arguments' boil down to one fallacy: The argument from incredulity. "This is amazing; therefore God did it." Not true, and not scientific at all.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist I'm actually waiting for his next argument "either god did it, or a squared circle did it. squared circles are impossible, I win
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@arachnophile01
LOL
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
Waste of my time. I go back worshiping my Invisible Flying Pot Full of Spaghetti.
Bye.
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
anyone want popcorn ?
mystictouch9 1 year ago
Perhaps the universe is too random to be precisely formed.
Science isn't too clever to accept God, it's just that it doesn't explain anything. Who created whoever sparked the big bang? Also, by the cyclic universe model, this could be the millionth attempt at a universe, eventually it was going to be right for life by pure chance.
857frank 1 year ago
@857frank Actually, by the cyclic universe model, time moves in a circle. hence this is the first and last universe ever, and after it there will be the first and last, Etc.
arachnophile01 1 year ago
This guy is just a giant man-sized nonsequitor.
*yawn* mind-numbingly boring.
Deetwo7 1 year ago
Atheists, you can no longer hide behind science. Modern physics has exposed you for what you really are .... Just another angry former Catholic.
ChicagoFusion 1 year ago
@ChicagoFusion the Big Bang singularity will emit all configurations with equal probability, and, therefore cannot be guaranteed to result in a life-permitting universe. The unpredictability of the first states of the universe is incompatible with divine creation, since God would want to ensure a life-permitting universe.
thus there is no sky genie in physics
SuperSharko 1 year ago
@ChicagoFusion be specific, which physicle equation says " All matter is attracted to all other matter in the universe with a force preportional to the distance between them, so atheists are angry and used to be catholics QED
arachnophile01 1 year ago
This could be the googolth universe and it is indeed by pure chance it contains the requirements for life. There is enough time in eternity for any chance occurrence and we wouldn't know about the previous universes. It's natural selection on a big scale. Also a caring designer with a completely free hand wouldn't have designed a universe with billions of years of animals tearing each other apart. And don't even mention human suffering because believers say with a smile it's due to mans sin.
857frank 1 year ago
@857frank the question you must ask yourself my fellow human is who sparked the big bang...
alessandrogiordano 1 year ago
it is amazing how ignorant this man is
InsideReality 1 year ago
cvbvbnghdggfgftfdf
AtheosZero 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtheosZero cvbvbnghdggfgftfdf to you, too.
arachnophile01 1 year ago
Christians love this stuff because he sounds super smart and witty, unfortunately he's a dumbass.
Letsmakeasamich 2 years ago
If there really was an omnipotent, intelligent designer, WLC would have been created with an extremely flexible spine, allowing him to stick his head up where it obviously belongs.
Archaeosix 2 years ago
Bullsh!t. This guy has no idea what he's talking about. Where did his PhD come from, Patriot University?
Ripley747 2 years ago
wtf is he going on about? life can survive in 0 gravity...
MegaHazzer123 2 years ago
this guy needs to do some "fine tuning" of his understanding of science. speaking in generalities is also very dangerous. "never opine short of certainty...-Al Swearengen
artwdog 2 years ago
Who says anything about supernatural?
Shit is way too perfect, both mathematically and scientifically.
Saying some huge bang happened and then we all just got here by luck is fucking stupid. God is a just as stupid idea.
I THINK that some higher race either created us, planted us, or assisted us to become what we are. No spooky one man bullshit.
Just fucktastic scientist aliens. Maybe were an experiment. Maybe a reality tv show like South Park laughs at.
It's not possible to know.
dano555666 2 years ago
@dano555666 "It's not possible to klnow" unlike you're mom
arachnophile01 1 year ago
There's no need to invoke supernatural causality to explain the universe.
superfisto 2 years ago
Craig is a twat,fine tuning bullshit artist.
Rockster969 2 years ago
The laws of nature have "nothing" to do with the gravity constant?
What?
sonic8005 2 years ago
I hate the god idea, but I think the irresponsible BOOM idea is a fucking joke.
Anythings possible, the universe could simply be the larger form of the atom, and all galaxies and matter existing within are just another nucleus/proton/electron system on a massive scale(compared to ourselves), existing alongside other cells or universes, that make up an apostrophe on an aliens essay paper.
Scale, time and everything is relative. I bet microbes think they're the biggest, if they could think.
dano555666 2 years ago
"I hate the god idea, but I think the irresponsible BOOM idea is a fucking joke"
Problem is... you don't know what the thing you've labeled as "a fucking joke" really is, but that didn't stop you. An expansion of matter isn't really an "irresponsible boom" at all.
"Anything's possible"? Is that really your argument? We already know magic doesn't exist. Ever studied the laws of physics?
Also... microbes don't really have process of thought. They need brains for that.
sonic8005 2 years ago
the universe is really fucking big and really really old, the chance of this planet supporting life and a few others around it having water on them... actually happened!. btw, this finely tuned universe really knows how to kill its animals.. since pretty much all of them are extinct. craig, this world was not made with us in mind!!!, just like that ditch out the front of your house was not made for that perfect puddle of water.
lukeism2 2 years ago
Nicely said. It's fascinating how irrational wishful thinking can make somebody. Dinesh D'Souza is another prime example.
CertainUncertainty 2 years ago
christian apologetics get repetetive .. william lane craig is a pro at shuffling sillyology around to make it sound like he has 'evidence' for his bearded god. i sometimes have to pause his video, go back a few times to realise what he's actually on about, this is when he pulls out his shotgun and starts blowing strawmen to pieces... atheisms view of the world is so hopeless, dark and bleak, no douche, i'm just not trying to live my life as a slave, being a teachers pet for a celestial dictator.
lukeism2 2 years ago
If by chance the universe did not permit life, we would not be here to ask why.
It is just as likely that the universe was created by chance than by a god. Well, that is until you start to ask who created god.
spenceII 2 years ago
Craig's God suffers from the same problem as a finely-tuned universe; his personality is inexplicably fine-tuned to create this version of the universe, and not any other. In other words, if God's attributes (personality, power, abilities) were slightly different, he would have created a totally different universe. Thus, Craig must, by his own argument, admit that God was created (fine-tuned) by another god, who was created by another god... etc
This is mostly just God-of-the-gaps rhetoric.
jetboyJ22 2 years ago
@jetboyJ22 correct although not good logic its his logic against him obviously neithyer is true
patrickledford420 2 years ago
He has a doctorate in philosophy, nothing scientific here at all.
ToraAlbatou 2 years ago
Let me paraphrase:
"I don't understand science or nature. Big numbers make my head hurt. Thus, God did it."
FermiAnyon 2 years ago
Wow...life can operation fine without the weak force...
Anyway the Anthropic Principle pwns this up and down.
zapo147 2 years ago
Stupid stupid stupid stupid. Oh my god. Stupid.
How ignorant can a man be, and still be competent enough to dress himself in the morning? I mean, he can put a suit on, yet he can't even understand the scientific method?
Valstein0 2 years ago
what a schmuck. So he's trying to use science to tell us that science doesn't work.
philosophyman76 2 years ago 15
@philosophyman76 Actually science can't prove science works.
lip333 1 year ago
@lip333 Science is ALWAYS proofing that science works. Science is just observing testing, and repeating. everytime something works that proves science. Everytime something doesn't work and we figure out why that's science. so what do you mean with that statement?
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 NO. He was using scientific facts to tell us that the popular scientific THEORIES do not work.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 you seem to not know the difference betwwen science and theology. His crap about fine tuning is nonsence. life as we know it only exists on a minute planet on only a portion of it's surface. How can you say something that is 99.999...% devoid of life is "fine tuned" for life? there are 4 forces in our universe strong, week, electromagnetic, gravity. science has already proved that life can exist without gravity and weak. If your going to use science u should probaly study science first
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 So if a God created everything it is unscientific to suggest that God did it. When did science become a biased seeker of lies because the God theory cannot be tested in a test tube? Why do I say "biased"? Well that's because your theory of many universes is unscientific because there is no evidence for it and it is untestable.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 Evidence, as far as you can look up on something called Google, is that quantum waveforms, that's one particle in many positions at once (and these have ben proven too. dee "Double slit experiment light") when observerd collapse on one position. the theory ist that the others go into seperate universes.
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@arachnophile01 You call that real proof? What if the other particles turn into energy? What if the same particles move from one position to another at light speed so it seems to be in many positions at once? Besides, this "proof" only makes the natualistic theories more ridiculous - one particle being in many positions at the same time. It's much more plausible that a God exist than a particle be in just two positions at the exact same time.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 and that's where you are wrong. it is testable. Maybe not yet but this is where theist always fail to understand that technology gets better. Our knowledge increases. And when we can test the theories of quantum physics then if the theories are wrong theists will say "see wrong." if there proven right then they'll just move the goal posts and say well God created those other universes. That's why GOD is never a good answer to anything
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 Believing in God doesn't prevent us from understanding the world or the universe. Unlike today, the majority of the scientists in the 13th, 14th, 15th, all the way up to the 19th century were theists, and they made great breakthroughs and learned much about nature. If I believe God created the universe, how is that going to stop me from finding out how he did it? Theistic scientistis are very curious too you know. I'm not a scientist and even I'm curious.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 this isn't about theISTS this is about theISM. is it logical. it'd be like me saying "Just denying global warming for no reason is illogical" and you saying"no,I know plenty of logical global warming-deniers
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 I argue with athiests a lot and one of the erroneous things you people say a lot is that once we say "God did it" then we don't figure out how things happen and science ends. That's so untrue that I think you people say that simply because you hate the idea of God. God made our bodies, yet I am very curious on how the body reproduces and grows and how our brain and liver functions, etc.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 that is an ascertain and it is not correct. God did not create my body. My parents did. And we know all the mechanisms to create bodies. So where does your god fit in? he made humans? nope we know evolutionary biology created humans and all the diversity on earth. Lots of evidence for that. You god is not needed for explaining anything. Thats why WLC has to use him to explain the origin of the universe. and even there he uses the scientific evidence to try and back that claim
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 you think you know everything do you? yes your parents created your body with the help of God, God laid the foundation by creating the first human beings, you are no where close to God's knowledge, you are not on his level, so just because something is not logical to you doesnt mean you can rule out the existance of God, God gave mankind knowledge. dont put all your faith in science, and dont try to disprove or be little things you know very little about, get yourself a bible
zipitup75 1 year ago
@zipitup75 know i don't think I know everything. you do. except your explanation for everything you don't know is "god did it" which is no explanation at all. God didn't "create" the first humans. We evolved. Random mutation + natural selection "created the first human beings. And getting a bible doesnt teach you anything. we didnt cure small pox using the bible. we didn't land on the moon bc of the bible. All we get from the bible is some children stories not knowledge
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 I know Dr Craig's logic is flawed OK. But what I hate is when athiests are hypocritical enough to use this same bad logic to eliminate God as a possibility theory and establish their own faith based atheistic theories, hoping without evidence that there are more universes or that the universe always oscillates.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 We actually don't know how much of the universe has life. it could be .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% or 99.9999999999%. however, one cannot assume that, on a sample size of one planet the universe is fine tuned for life using bullshit physics (like deciding what is necesary and what isn't)
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@arachnophile01 No we know that most of the universe is filled with empty space. Even if we found microbes on mars or europa we know that life does not exist in most places. even on this planet that is full of life there are still places it doesn't exist. The Sun has no life on it and there is no life in the vacuum of space so even if every planet and moon had life on it in the entire universe 99% of the solar system and the universe has no life.
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@philosophyman76 You people say "we can't detect God, therefore he doesn't exist." So I can say we NEVER see anything in multiple locations at the same time, so it never happens. Hey I'm only using the SAME logical tactics the athiests use. Why is it so wrong when creationists use it? Oh, I know. It is simply because we put God in the equation and you people despise God.
kjordon1 1 year ago
@kjordon1 you still don't understand how science works do you? We do "see" things existing in multiple places at one time. ON a sub atomic level. We use instruments to "see" these things. That's what the arachnophile is trying to explain to you with the double slit experiment that you won't watch. It goes against our logic bc our logic is designed to work on our level of understanding. We don't understand that in blackholes you can see back in time bc that is on such a large level it doesnt TBC
philosophyman76 1 year ago
cont. make sense to a human. We don't have any "miracles of god" to examine and look at. we understand how 99% of our world works without god. And just sticking god in where we don't understand doesn't explain those things. Saying GOD did that is equivalent of saying santa did that. you first have to show that there is a god who would have the ability to do such a thing, then how it was done. THats what science does. they observe something and then see why it happens that way.
philosophyman76 1 year ago
@kjordon1 You are wrong, scientists do perform experiments which actually do demonstrate that particles can be in more that one place simultaneously according to Quantum Mechanics. I suggest that you do a search for Young's Double Slit experiment which demonstrates that a single photon can pass through 2 locations at the same time.
Science is based on evidence not just belief.
hexkid 1 year ago
@arachnophile01 and i know that your agreeing with me it's just symantics
philosophyman76 1 year ago
This fine tuned idea is so stupid. It's like saying if you found a single atom of a particular element in a galaxy then that galaxy was fine tuned for that atom. Also his argument that if the forces were off by just a bit then the universe would not be life permiting is BS. First, I ask how would he know that? we're never seen or detected another universe. second, if the earths temperature when up by 50C a lot of life couldn't exist but there are some that can live in that temperature.
systematic101 2 years ago
Yeah Intel-a-gent duh Zion-er. They have to try and move into science because they lost the moral standing when Moses had two ol' ladies after he killed the Egyptian straw boss...think about it folks...
wiscokiddd 2 years ago 2
i love it when people like this use science to prove their point. they only end up proving how poorly they understand science.
willam9 2 years ago
what do you use to prove your point??
landis346 2 years ago
@willam9 yeh or they no science and then realize science works and there religious beleifs are total shit and were completely immoral and illogical and the world has one better person
patrickledford420 2 years ago
One more thing, his whole theory of intelligent design hinges upon him stating that he himself is actually an intelligent life form. God is an acronym standing for 'goof on duty', he is making himself like god.
wiscokiddd 2 years ago
Oh yeah...thats scientific...NOT
Craighill9 2 years ago 2
Guys like this get paid by people who want other people to remain stupid, respecting established hierarchy where they get the power & the spoils while you are a slave. They use association, transference & projection to psych people into paying them for being straight up bold face liars. God is just something that the greediest anal-retentive excuses of humanity use to get pawns to kill other pawns in their wars. If there was a creator that thinks like Craig, extinction is the inevitable plan.
wiscokiddd 2 years ago
that would be like looking at a forest of dead trees and that one tree with life in it is some how so beautiful that you ignore all the other dead trees and say this is a finely tuned forest
unicep12345 2 years ago 2