The fine-tuning argument and the analogy of the puddle

[6630mcdo]

LOL Stupid...design is based on complexity and low probability of occurring.

[SecularAstronomer]

@6630mcdo

"Absolutely! And the probability of this pothole so perfectly conforming to the vast complexity of my shape is astronomically low. It must have been designed for me!"

~The Puddle

...of course we humans know that it's the other way around; the puddle conformed to its environment (the pothole). Just as life has conformed to its environment, here on Earth.

I appreciate your misplaced incredulity and ironic declaration of my supposedly poor reasoning, though.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer This is so elementary sophomoric in comparison I am surprised anyone even uses it. The puddle has no elements of design, primary complexity containing as a function of design rather water can fit into ANY given recessive pattern found in nature. No philosopher contends this fallacy. You must contend there are three options: 1) Universe came from nothing without cause 2) Universe always existed 3) God created the universe. Hint: Infinities do not exist in reality.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer 1) We see evidence that there are millions of shapes to fit the water in the world. We do not see this for a design of the universe. You must multiply that existing possibilities by the odds. 2) Water can exist in any of the shapes. Life cannot exist in any universe given varying the constants. 3) The puddle or water cannot think of their own existence. Life has not conformed to its environment. You assume life can conform to any environment, which is false. They are limited.

[SecularAstronomer]

@6630mcdo

You have (as others have) mistakenly assumed that I intend the analogy to address the proposition of a being-designed universe (properties of the universe itself). As I have said repeatedly to others, I did not.

What I do intend it to address is the proposition that life (specifically) must have been being-designed, by virtue of its correspondence to the properties of this particular planet.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer You need to look at the properties and probabilities of life. 1) Universe came from nothing without cause 2) Universe always existed 3) God created the universe. Which option?

[SecularAstronomer]

@6630mcdo

Firstly, I must again stress that this is irrelevant to the analogy in this video. Secondly, there are many possibilities; that which later formed the modern universe (usually thought of as a singularity) either came into being, or never did. If it came into being, it was either causal or acausal; same with the initial expansion. If either were causal, it could have been a mind (a deity), or some other unknown cause.

I’m unwilling to bend a question mark into an exclamation point.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer Well, it is a metaphysical issue more than a scientific issue. Science must be repeatable and observable. The most basic metaphysical axiom is that 'being comes from being' and 'non-being has no causality or potentiality'. What is acausal? Can you give an example? And, infinities do not exist in reality. I believe Dr. Hilbert's Hotel explains it quite well.

[SecularAstronomer]

As for common ancestry, I argue that molecular phylogenetic data quite firmly establishes it as an accurate description of reality.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer I believe 'Darwin's Tree of Life' confuses a common ancestor with a common designer. Without DNA, there is no life. Without life, there is no natural selection. So, you cannot explain the very thing, namely DNA, without presuming its existence. Second, there is no evidence for such claims of evolution. Third, is evolution repeatable and observable? And, I do not mean adaptations of moths or viruses. Those are not mutations. Mutations are always harmful and cause less info.

[SecularAstronomer]

@6630mcdo

I apologize; I shouldn't have gotten into a discussion such as this, at this time. Once I'm through with exams in a week or so, I will be sure to continue this with a discussion of the model's testability, RNA world indication such as ARS configuration, beneficial mutation such as TRIM5α R332Q, and the various molecular phylogenetic evidences for common ancestry such as ERV distribution and LTR discontinuity, Alu distribution, the conservation of transposon insertion order, etc.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer Okay, no problem. Yes, get ready for your tests. Best of luck!

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer Evolution requires millions of years. And, assuming lots of small adaptations equal to a mutations is false. Which option did you pick? The video is directly linked to concept of God or no God, so the question is very relevant.

[SecularAstronomer]

The capacity of populations of organisms to respond to environmental pressures by changing in such a way that optimizes persistence in those environments is what shows that proposition to be false. The analogous portion of the perplexed puddle example is the capacity of a puddle to change in such a way that its shape corresponds to that of its container.

[dillinger9999]

god damn christian fascist eat bowl of dick up..

[circusOFprecision]

The fine tuning argument wasn't even represented. This is a straw man. The fine tuning argument is very much aware of all of the things going on "under their noses". The fine tuning argument simply observes that the way the universe is laid out is coincidentally precise for sentient life to emerge. it is based upon empirical evidence. Arguments that attempt to refute it are based upon philosophical assumptions such as evolution or complex mathematical theories (not empirical).

[SecularAstronomer]

@circusOFprecision

The form of the fine tuning argument that I was addressing in this video was the one reliant on the models of uncommon ancestry and creation via supernatural intervention—which, ironically, is widely held to be mutually exclusive to the proposition that the universe is even capable of the emergence of life. This is quite contextually obvious (in isolation, and even more so in light of my other videos).

[circusOFprecision]

@SecularAstronomer

That all sounds great except that I don't care what "form" of the argument you address, I was referring to the argument itself. The boundaries of nature are entangled in such a way that we are here on a planet filled with sentient life. You claim the entanglements are an accident, others claim they are designs.

[SecularAstronomer]

@circusOFprecision

"That all sounds great except that I don't care what "form" of the argument you address, I was referring to the argument itself."

When speaking of a 'form of an argument,' the term 'argument' denotes the underlying theme, where as the term 'form' denotes the aspects that set it apart from other arguments with the same theme.

[SecularAstronomer]

It is every bit as accurate to describe significantly differing arguments that share a theme as separate arguments, as it is to describe them as different forms of the same argument—it all depends on what one wishes to emphasize.

The fact is that the argument I responded to in this video is downright antithetical to the one you described.

[circusOFprecision]

@SecularAstronomer

@SecularAstronomer

I just couldn't jive with the whole puddle thing. It was wack from the start. Forget the argument, since you really want to dodge it anyways. That being said, trying to flip my straw man back on me dishonest, no? But I will cut you some slack. I noticed the heartfelt justice. It's just that there is no reason to delay the inevitable with appeals to emotion. So back to my original point. Where is the argument? It's not being represented here.

[SecularAstronomer]

@circusOFprecision

"I just couldn't jive with the whole puddle thing. It was wack from the start."

Decreeing that something is unrepresentative and inaccurate without backing your claim holds no weight with me.

[SecularAstronomer]

"That being said, trying to flip my straw man back on me dishonest, no?"

I explained how you misrepresented me in your criticism in detail, and then merely opined on the irony of basing said criticism on an accusation of misrepresentation on my behalf. Nothing I said was misleading or inaccurate.

This false accusation of dishonesty has no merit.

[SecularAstronomer]

"But I will cut you some slack. I noticed the heartfelt justice. It's just that there is no reason to delay the inevitable with appeals to emotion."

I really cannot imagine how you could have gleaned any trace of emotion out of my statements to you. They have been as matter-of-fact and analytical as my mindset while I wrote them. At no point have I appealed to, or engaged in, emotion.

This is another false accusation.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Forget the argument, since you really want to dodge it anyways... So back to my original point. Where is the argument? It's not being represented here."

I have explained this already, circusOFprecision. But I will do so again. Please read this more carefully than your previous attempt:

[SecularAstronomer]

I never intended to address the argument that "the way the universe is laid out is coincidentally precise for sentient life to emerge." This video was intended to—and did—address the argument that the universe cannot produce life, and that a deity simultaneously and supernaturally created the many different families and genera without employing natural mechanisms.

[SecularAstronomer]

It is clear that you misunderstood the intention of this video, and drew the false conclusion that I was intending to address a different argument that the one I was. Since it didn’t do so, you concluded that I was misrepresenting the argument (the one I never intended to address).

[SecularAstronomer]

Now that I have attempted to clear up your misconception, you have chosen to cling to your assumption, which forces you to regard my efforts to explain the obvious to you as an attempt to avoid accurately representing and addressing the argument you thought I was attempting to address, yet never really was.

I will say it again: the argument I addressed in this video is a Young-Earth creationist argument; one that its antithetical to the one you summarized, circusOFprecision

[circusOFprecision]

@SecularAstronomer

You attacked every single thing I said, fair enough. Ok, so you are addressing claims about special creation? I only have one question then, how does the puddle understand how to do science? It may seem like a stupid question, but just think about your analogy.

[SecularAstronomer]

As a tip, circusOFprecision; if something doesn't seem to be addressing a given thing—it was probably never intended to.

If you are not a Young-Earth creationist, then it’s safe to say that you are not the target audience of a video addressing a Young-Earth-creation-specific form of an argument.

[SecularAstronomer]

@circusOFprecision

p.s. And no I did not overlook the further irony that your criticism of my counterargument consists of an accusation of misrepresentation on my behalf (when you said: "This is a straw man."); which is itself a misrepresentation (presumably an unintentional one).

[brent5154]

Back up pal, What started the universe and then before that?

[cagefite007]

3.) What you do not take into account is the universe, and the tuned-constants which allow life to originate, evolve, and flourish. Even more importantly, you fail to debunk the fact that the universe itself, it's very existence is dependent on the laws that define it.

[cagefite007]

1.) Admittedly I can not speak for all, but the "fine-tuning argument" you debunk in this video most certainly isn't the one postulated by the educated.

2.) You are failing to address the larger picture of finely-tuned natural constants. Instead, you and the vast majority of athesist stay fixated on debunking an obviously flawed evolutionary complexity premise.

(continued...)

[SecularAstronomer]

@cagefite007

1) Why do you say that? Because it's wrong? If that's all, then I don't see how this is a criticism, as all counterarguments must necessarily contend that the arguments they refute are wrong.

2) Yes, my counterargument fails to address an argument it isn't countering; as it should be. Non sequiturs are unproductive.

3) Again, my video isn't addressing those arguments. But feel free to pose those arguments; just be sure not to exclude data on trail number from your calculations.

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

"...as all counterarguments must necessarily contend that the arguments they refute are wrong."

I never stated a counterargument to your video, I wasn't in attempt to refute it. My objective was aimed at pointing out the fallacy you have eluded to by lumping the "finely-tuned" argument into what you dismantle in your video.

As stated, you are then debunking a useless, dead agrument. Beating a dead fish to to describe it better.

(Continued...)

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

What do you want trials for? The fundamental constants which constuct our cosmos? Open up a rudimentary text book and you'll save me some typing. As for a statistical evaluation, quantum mechanics has shown us we are dealing with a near infinte possiblity. Design becomes a necessity.

[SecularAstronomer]

@cagefite007

"I never stated a counterargument to your video, I wasn't in attempt to refute it."

Nor did I state that you did. I spoke of counterarguments only in reference to the one this video poses.

[SecularAstronomer]

"My objective was aimed at pointing out the fallacy you have [alluded] to by lumping the 'finely-tuned' argument into what you dismantle in your video."

What? Posing a counterargument to a specific argument—as I have done in this video—is not a fallacy, simply because other augments exist with the same conclusion.

[SecularAstronomer]

"As stated, you are then debunking a useless, dead argument. Beating a dead fish to to describe it better."

No, I am refuting a fallacious argument. To criticize my refutation for being aimed at a fallacious argument, is to criticize it for being correct. And if you think this argument is not prevalent, you are simply wrong. I know this from what I continue rading and from the ongoing interactions I have with people. So not only is this video correct, but it is also relevant.

[SecularAstronomer]

"What do you want trials for? The fundamental constants which construct our cosmos?"

You spoke of life originating and flourishing, so any probability calculations you do mush take into account the effects of multiple molecular interactions and stellar/planetary environments/progressions. If you know of probability, then you know how important trails are in calculating it.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Open up a rudimentary text book and you'll save me some typing."

Now you're just getting cocky and dismissive. Well, I'm not going to make your augments for you. If you don't wish to make these arguments, that's your choice. Just remember who came to who's video initiating dialogue.

[SecularAstronomer]

"As for a statistical evaluation, quantum mechanics has shown us we are dealing with a near infinte possiblity. Design becomes a necessity."

Bringing up multi-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics only hurts the case for any fine-tuning argument, as the added trials make the otherwise unlikely a near certainty. And given that life would only form where it could, we still run into the same misconception about likelihood a lottery winner might face—only it's even more pronounced.

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

"Bringing up multi-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics only hurts the case for any fine-tuning argument,..."

I wasn't. I was attempting to illustrate the point of uncertainty within our universe.  The quantum world reveals the fact physical laws cannot be immutable.

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

"Well, I'm not going to make your augments for you. If you don't wish to make these arguments, that's your choice."

Fair enough.

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

You're missing the entire point. I'm not attempting to quote a probability for the orgin of life. Give biologist another two decades and the field of abiogenesis will be long from a mystery. That said, the orgin of life most definity does require specific, and delicately calibrated physical laws. Putting an exact probablity on those is near impossible. However, to say they are "phenomenally unlikely" is an exaggerated understatement.

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

*Definitely

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

"Posing a counterargument to a specific argument—as I have done in this video—is not a fallacy"

It most certainly is. If I decide to make a video debunking punctuated equilibrium, and go on to label it "evolution destroyed," that is a fallacy. What you argue against is the fine-tuning agrument for evolutionary complexity. One of the very many principles within the broader spectrum of the universal finely-tuned argument.

,

[cagefite007]

@SecularAstronomer

"Nor did I state that you did."

Yes, you did. You stated my position wasn't a critism or counter argument by labeling the prerequisites for such. I agreed.

[SecularAstronomer]

@cagefite007

"I was attempting to illustrate the point of uncertainty within our universe."

Of course. We've known that at least since Heisenberg, and I never implied otherwise. But how is that relevant?

"The quantum world reveals the fact physical laws cannot be immutable."

No, all it shows is that we don't fully understand the nature of the universe.

[SecularAstronomer]

"That said, the origin of life most definitely does require specific, and delicately calibrated physical laws. Putting an exact probability on those is near impossible. However, to say they are 'phenomenally unlikely' is an exaggerated understatement."

Putting an exact probability isn't necessary—only one where the degree of uncertainty is calculated and presented. Can you show me the calculations that put it as 'phenomenally unlikely?'

[SecularAstronomer]

Remember, the calculations must show life in other conditions impossible; if they don't, then trial number still comes in to those other scenarios, (what is unlikely in one trial, can be highly likely in many), given the number of planets, the diversity of their conditions, and the mind-blowing number of molecular interactions taking place in early days of this particular planet, and the possibility of that happening in those scenarios.

[SecularAstronomer]

"If I decide to make a video debunking punctuated equilibrium, and go on to label it 'evolution destroyed,' that is a fallacy. What you argue against is the fine-tuning argument for evolutionary complexity. One of the very many principles within the broader spectrum of the universal finely-tuned argument."

Right; again, (as was apparent in the video) I was only addressing "the fine-tuning argument for evolutionary complexity." Thus "the fine tuning argument" necessarily describes it accurately.

[SecularAstronomer]

I never thought anyone would quibble about it not explicitly stating the obvious; that it is in reference to a specific form of "the fine tuning argument."

Since when is refraining from stating the obvious (a slightly incomplete title to a form of an argument) a fallacy? It would be, if I stated that there were no other forms—but I did not.

[SecularAstronomer]

"Yes, you did. You stated my position wasn't a criticism or counter argument by labeling the prerequisites for such. I agreed."

No, you're misunderstanding the exchange. First, you said:

"...the 'fine-tuning argument' you debunk in this video most certainly isn't the one postulated by the educated."

[SecularAstronomer]

I responded with:

"If that's all, then I don't see how this is a criticism, as all counterarguments must necessarily contend that the arguments they refute are wrong."

I wasn't saying that your point #1 wasn't a criticism because it didn't contend that my argument was factually wrong—everything after the comma was in reference to my video. What I meant was that since my video was countering an argument, it must contend that the argument in question is factually wrong.

[SecularAstronomer]

And since I was questioning whether or not your determination of my video as one not "postulated by the educated" was solely based on the fact that the countered argument is factually wrong, my point was that simply being wrong cannot be a criticism of my video, and not also of all counterarguments.

You then said:

"I never stated a counterargument to your video, I wasn't in attempt to refute it."

[SecularAstronomer]

And accurately relied with:

"Nor did I state that you did. I spoke of counterarguments only in reference to the one this video poses."

This is accurate, because while I did imply that your point #1 was a criticism, I only used the term in its colloquial pejorative form. And that is very different from my usage of the term 'counterargument,' as I included "[contending] that the arguments they refute are wrong" in the definition.

[SecularAstronomer]

For example, attempting to refute an argument that someone is widely perceived as beautiful by contending that he or she is actually perceived as ugly, might be met with the criticism; "What a cruel thing to say." The person being critical may very well accept the factual validity of the counterargument.

[ogirv101]

I'm sorry but that was a flawed analogy. You fail to understand that the teleological and fine tuning argument is not mutual to the existence of life, but the Universe itself. Furthermore, fine-tuning of the Universe cannot be compared to a puddle.

How can you compare the precision of thermodynamic potential after the split second of the Big bang to a puddle of water? You're saying that something precise to 1:10^10^123 (!!!) is compareable to a puddle in water? That's laughable at least.

[SecularAstronomer]

"I'm sorry but that was a flawed analogy."

Alright; let's see how.

"You fail to understand that the teleological and fine tuning argument is not [exclusive] to the existence of life, but the Universe itself."

I was obviously not addressing that form of the argument. That should have been clear from this video. You are misrepresenting my position.

"Furthermore, fine-tuning of the Universe cannot be compared to a puddle."

I never said nor implied it was.

[SecularAstronomer]

"How can you compare the precision of thermodynamic potential after the split second of the Big bang to a puddle of water?"

I didn't.

"You're saying that something precise to 1:10^10^123 (!!!) is [comparable] to a puddle in water?"

No, I'm not saying or implying that at all.

"That's laughable at [best]."

I don't mind if the prospect of someone saying something I never said nor implied strikes you as funny.

[TCBLSA]

really good vid, thx.

[MicrosoftsourceCode]

Brilliant educational and very enlightening Well thought of and narrated 5/5

[EASYTIGER10]

Furthermore, as time goes by, the puddle becomes aware that there are countless other holes in the road, but none of those nearby seem to contain puddles like him.

And he comes to understand that this is because they are leaky, or too shallow to hold a puddle before it evaporates.

But he never asks, "well why were these other holes made then? Were they trial runs? This designer obviously isn't very good."

He's comfortable in his puddle, and as long as that stays, he's happy.

[JAMRAND]

The end result is the subject.

On one hand you have a puddle, on the other you have advanced life able to advance.

The analogy may be suffucient for the cynic , but is poor even to a skeptic.

[SecularAstronomer]

JAMRAND, you have merely stated that there is a difference between the subject in the analogy (a puddle and its pothole), and the actual subject that it is analogous too (living organisms and their environment). But it must be similar is some ways, yet different in others, for it to be analogous. For example, the following is not an analogy: "shooting yourself in the foot is like shooting yourself in the foot."

[SecularAstronomer]

What you have failed to do is explain how the subject in the analogy is different from the actual subject in a way that renders it not analogous. And keep in mind that all analogies break down at some level of scrutiny, which is why I intentionally didn't overextend mine.

[SecularAstronomer]

But perhaps you are misunderstanding the analogy. It simply points out that looking at how adapted living organisms are to their environment, and then concluding that it was the environment that was designed with/around them, ignores the many observable mechanisms by which living organisms adapt to their environment.

[SecularAstronomer]

Analogously, the puddle of water misinterprets the precise complimentary nature of its morphology with that of the pothole it resides in, as being indicative of co-design/creation, rather than that which it indicates when one takes more factors into consideration (like fluid dynamics): That the puddle conformed to the pothole's topography via purely natural means.

[SecularAstronomer]

To borrow your ill-founded statement; the analogy may be poor for the shallow thinker, but is more than sufficient for one who posses even minor depth of thought.

[JAMRAND]

There is a difference between a floating feather and a space shuttle.

I know you believe the laws of probability cannot be used for a past event.

Yet the laws of probability assure us that George Washington was our first president.

It is not probable that we would have all the documentation he was, if he were not.

[SecularAstronomer]

JAMRAND, once again, you are decreeing the presence of differences - something that every analogy must necessarily posses - without explaining how the differences render the hypothetical scenario not analogous.

It seems that you dislike my analogy, yet cannot provide even a basic explanation of how it isn't analogous. I maintain that it is analogous, and is a very apt analogy, at that.

[ogirv101]

@SecularAstronomer:

it is not analogous to organisms in the enviorment because you disregard something. Abiogenesis is completely probabilistic, and the puddle is compareable to abiogenesis and organisms and not evolution to organisms. By the way, puddles don't evolve to fit into their enviorment (lol).

Even if we did evolve to adapt to our enviorment, the initial conditions of life are fine-tuned. The argument goes for abiogenesis, it disregards evolution.

[SecularAstronomer]

"[It] is not analogous to organisms in the [environment] because you disregard something. Abiogenesis is completely probabilistic, and the puddle is [comparable] to abiogenesis and organisms and not evolution to organisms."

No, the puddle is an entity, and thus is comparable to entities. Abiogenesis and evolutions are processes (and no, it isn't completely probabilistic). How can you compare processes to entities?

[SecularAstronomer]

"By the way, puddles don't evolve to fit into their [environment] (lol)."

Of course they do... Puddles are made of water, which has an indeterminate shape. When body of water is moved into a new container, gravity forces it to evolve into the shape of that container.

Look up the definition of 'evolve' and focus on form 3, before responding:

tinyurl(DOT)com/ykcscpn

[SecularAstronomer]

"Even if we did evolve to adapt to our [environment], the initial conditions of life are fine-tuned. The argument goes for abiogenesis, it disregards evolution."

What do you mean "the argument goes for abiogenesis?" And what do you mean "the initial conditions of life are fine-tuned?"

[ogirv101]

@SecularAstronomer:

Sicne you have explained you're only arguing against the anthropic principle, I will take back the comments and special pleading fallacies I have created.

The fact that you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution still stands. Most of the arguments are for abiogenesis, and have little to do with evolution. Francis Collins uses the argument from fine tuning, but he is an evolutionist.

By the initial conditions, I mean there are necessary parameters for life to arise.

[ogirv101]

@SecularAstronomer:

Abiogenesis is a probabilistic event, life does not have to exist. Life can only arise in necessary conditions, for example the existence of sun is necessary for biodiversity like that which we observe on our planet.

No, puddles don't evolve. Puddles have the necessary conditions for water to exist in the first place, if there were no necessary condiitons in which water can be in, then there would be no puddle.

[Thymonico]

Douglas... :'(

42...

[phantomlimbpain]

. . . If I had any more tears left, I'd have shed them watching that video. Bravo, dude. Bravo.

[MotionFur]

Well done, my friend.

[shezaspaz]

thats one of my favorite DNA analogies..

[ooglebydoogleby]

is there an objective measurement of the rate of evolutionary adaptation and the increase in the rate after extinxtion events? is there an understanding of equilibrium in evolutionary forces and are some species viable only after they reach a saturation levell? disputing evolution is as futile as disputing someones hight. its not a question of if the theory is corect but how acurate it is given our curent understanding. nice vid

[telosnut]

I beleive it is only the self which creates fears. One often only realizes they're dreaming after they wake up from it and "realize" it was "only a dream". Imagine the possibilities if one could see through the fantasy of a dream and know that their present fears and discomforts mean nothing, do not really exist, and are just part of an illusion created by your mind. Why worry if your just going to "wake up" after?

And if this world is created by my mind, those enemies are just myself right? :)

[telosnut]

Great analogy adaptation. I very much liked it. 5/5 stars.

Regarding the posted analogy, the logical conclusion i've come to, relating closly to buddhist thought and practically all aborigninal beliefs , as well as, I beleive, everyone's unconscienceness belief, is;

life is a collective conscienceness and the ego is an illusion to aid physical matter or species in survival and manifestation into greater and finer complexity.

The main dualism being Love and Fear.

[telosnut]

Jon, Your narration speaks as if the puddle has an ego, and considers it's self separate from all else. thats its special in some way and does not see how it serve a purpose or function. But a puddle isn't just a puddle. it is an ever changing and moving state, if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been able to manifest into "a puddle" correct?

anything really, lacks inherient existence because it never exists in the same state. Thus moment of existence is drawn from a subjects perspective.YOU THE EGO

[lifeisgummo]

Where i agree with you on some points, i do not on others. My only input to my disagreement would be a quote by Carl Sagan: "We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it is forever"

[sagaforest]

love this vid.

[Pimpmastahanhduece]

so why cant the universe work on a predictable system and have been created by God. I mean if you believe in predestination by a higher power then wouldnt a world where you think you have free will be have a definite future that is calculable and definite compliment each other? i believe in partial predestination,

[Pimpmastahanhduece]

that all system are predictable except what is influenced by the will of a soul converted to action and a desired reaction,partial that you cant to do EVERYTHING,but anything that has a probability.even if something have an infinitely small chance to occur,any probability suggests 100% possibility meaning that they if nothing keeping from happening besides circumstances.So earth would always form because it was never influenced by the will of anything besides God who initiated it.

[Gabebro1]

brillant

[OsyenVyeter]

the sentient puddle is part of The Divine Quintet that I like to use that I feel addresses most of the - and most of the retorts xians make.

Puddle: whos meeting whos needs us or earth?

Invsbl pnk unicorn: dis/proveability of god

Spgtti mnstr: creative-post-evidence-interpr­etation but also the "take 1 god, you get all gods" thing

Last thursdayisim: young earth theory

Raptor Jesus: Dinosaur bible paradox

thank you for the first real good puddle movie ive found. this will be an asset.

[Knowntje]

great video and so true, but many theists would object to this on a cosmic scale, namely not the tuning of the earth but of the laws of physics which make the universe possible, unfortunately your analogy doesnt work for that

[moyshekapoyre]

Since I assume no theists have watched this vid, let me just point out what they would say: Earth is a particularly habitable environment... moreso than any planet we've found so far. Is that a coincidence? (of course my answer would be, yes)

[shadow7death]

GREAT VID! Loved it, and it's so true. Same as somecomputergeek. 5/5 and favorited.

[s4stem]

Very nice.

[somecomputergeek]

Great video. 5/5 and faved.

[bowdawg]

Hi, I really enjoy all of your videos. I would like to recommend one very special book to read, even if it's gonna be hard in the beginning, it's called Metu Neter and it perfectly puts together Astronomy, Physics, Math and all other sciences together with "Higher Intelligence" and knowledge of Ancient Egypt. I think you already know that in ancient world people knew that the Earth is not flat and had superior technology...

Peace and love

[atracts]

Excellent job! This analogy is too often used without proper explanation but you have done a thorough job. Your vid. will hopefully help some reasonable people to better understand the obvious flaws of ID arguments.

[95TurboSol]

Hi, atracts.

Thats proper explaination? It doesn't define a sigle thing in detail at all, what is this "flaws of ID arguments"?

So matter just decided to turn itself into life? Why would it do that, What does the universe have to gain from turning matter into intelligent life? Why would the little atoms and particals do that, just so it can make somthing intelligent enough to wonder why it exists then die and never even know it even existed? Theres no point to intelligence.

[IntellAGent2o71828]

That life has adapted is evidence of evolution not intellligent design.

[thinkeatingmachine]

I love you

[narcotect]

noo.. the flying spagetti monester did it

[Justinfh2point0]

Interesting

[eternalundylnglove]

it's refreshing to see some creative and quality work on t3h tubez again.

lead and others will follow

[trondreitan]

Excellent video. 5/5.

[ooglebydoogleby]

beutiful video. i am still adapting to my you tube environment but hopefully i can evolve to my own environmental niche. lovly.

[thegoodlocust]

But it COULD be magic. Maybe that puddle was created when "Jesus wept."

[templar555]

lol very funny ^_^

[AtheistCitizen]

ID reply: everyone knows puddles don't think, or something equally insightful

[ftpmedia]

Also known as the argument from design and the argument from improbability.

[arcooke]

Great video, but it felt a little incomplete.. I was expecting more when it ended.

[RonnieOfTheEarth]

Very nice, fågelbajs!

Soothing and comforting.

a little joke expression, in swedish it means birdpoo and it rimes with nice

[wildfishwish]

Thank you for this video!

[ReligionIsACrutch]

We shouldn't be surprised that a universe in which we find ourselves is one which is capable of supporting life.

We don't get to witness the countless failures of life to occur. We just get to witness the one time it works for us.

Anthropic principle FTW!

[Katalyzt]

Perfectly done/said. ★★★★★

Katalyzt

[MickB0529]

love the analogy! great stuff!

[ivarbt]

Perfect!

[Brianswers]

Great series

[someonesperson]

Perfect video. A+

[orajeladdict]

Great analogy. I'll remember this.

[DeletedDelusion]

Excellent video. Nice analogy.

[superfisto]

5/5

[lexiustia]

nice touch.

[philhellenes]

Short, but so very sweet. Good to hear your voice again. :)

[mconn2112]

Excellent. It's good to see a vid from you. It's been a while.

[Tweek617]

brilliant

[CousinoMacul]

Nice series.  Good to see you back.