I am not a theist...but the argument goes like this. Since we can imagine an infinite number of other values for the cosmological constants, our universe was terribly improbable. It is more likely that a fine tuner designed this universe than it came about as a brute fact. p G/f > p N/f...where f is functional universe (our universe) G=God..N=natural...I don't buy it, but this is their argument and it seems intuitive at least.
Im starting to think the guy who made this video and who narrates it doesnt know what the hell he is talking about. I mean he is saying the Grand Canyon proves that there is no Intelligent Designer, how stupid are you?? loll
@mas03 He is pointing out the fact that complexity can arise without divine intervention. If you didn't get that, then perhaps you dont know what your talking about.
Complexity implies evolution, not a designer. The teleological argument is overrated. Even when invoking fine tuning, you could always assume there was an infinite time before the big bang for natural universes to form randomly until a good one comes.
I like how Douglas Adams dealt with the fine tuning argument the most. He described a puddle considering the whole it sat in, pondering how the hole fit it exactly, and concluding that the hole was designed to fit the puddle. We all know of course it was the other way around, the puddle fits the hole. Replace hole with universe and puddle with life, and say good bye to the fine tuning argument.
well I'm a modern deist and I love science and have yet to find evidence technically disproving exisistance of some higher power. At the same time clearly it's shown that there is no need for a higher power. Now, lets say god is not a being but a force and that force set in motion the big bang and took a back seat till inorganic planets where formed where it created microbes on some and not others. Not with humans in mind but in hopes the microbes would eventually evolve and become intelligent
@ravenheart93 "Now, lets say god is not a being but a force..."
The statement above shows that you have no idea what you mean by the word "God". You're basically willing to insert any phenomenon in there. If "god" is not a being, but a force... why call it "god " and not "nature"? Also.... why on earth do you want "forces" to be able to have "hopes" that microbes would evolve? Is this idea not horribly confused? Having hopes requires a first person perspective in my book.
@Gnomefro I was stating a theorem that even I don't believe is 100% accurate. My force theory is a little bit miss guided and is only out of what I think could be the more likely answer. That "God" is a force in nature that works as a highway instead of a hand. Maybe a force is not intelligent and maybe in has some involuntary reaction to put all we know into place. I just think that its unlikely a humanoid deity controls all and unlikely that the known universe was made without help.
Common man`s reasons why god does not exist A) total absence from from natural events, No sig of a god before, during or after natural events. B)The total absence of favoritism towards believers. Even church steeples need lightning rods for protection against god.C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. D) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept suffering of the guilty, but little children
It's a shame you never made a video on the Ontological argument. I would have liked to see how you would deconstruct it, as the whole thing is basicly circular reasoning!
GOD did not need a first cause! the 1st law of thermodynamics clearly posits that "in a closed system energy can not be created or destroyed" meaning: God is the eternal energy that ignited the big bang, the energy that can not be created or destroyed because it is eternal. What more proof do you need? I suppose u will come up with another argument, anything rather than to admit u may be wrong.
@laninarushy It's only inside the universe that is not a closed system. There can just as easily be different systems outside the universe that make it eternal ;)
Atheists want so much to convince themselves that THERE IS NO GOD so they toil and connive and waste time and energy making these videos. They spin their wheels in place in a FUTILE attempts to persuade others to follow in their Godless, pagan, materialistic "man is is a product of blind, unguided, purposeless driven chance" when the evidence of the contrary is so overwhelmengly obvious!!
"The God hypothesis fails to work better than any other.." ARE YOU SERIOUS?? are those other hypoteses prevalent in the world today? NO they are not! The prevailing meaningful consensus is the THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, of Christian Muslims and Jews is the CREATOR. No machine , no teams, no BS. So stop making up crap, it is so transparent and anyone with minimum IQ can see thru it.
This is the kind of rehtoric which makes these videos so worthless and ridiculous.
wow... interesting way of talking on your voice-over...
I've been watching all the videos on the teleological argument I can find... for "research" purposes...
It's been somewhat painful... like... mind-numbing... um... don't worry... I'm used to masochism. I was a Christian for over 18 years!
btw, I'd like to reiterate how you fucking disappointed me with your "moral skepticism" video!! Responding to your inane drivel is one of my highest priorities atm!
@w8amonth First of all never said anything about being an athiest, second of all it's blatantly clear that you're just some religious nut who takes pride in attacking scientists who give us our very way of life.
The only reason you're able to be arguing with me right now is because of science.
You clearly know nothing about evolution or have any knowlege of what a scientific theory is.
You also seem to have trouble constructing cooherent sentences.
@cluny2300 Evolution is outside of science punk! I'm very sure that the origin of the universe is blatantly supernatural. Quantum entanglement is observed.
The process of instant reaction between 2 parts of proton without being connected by force or yet another part. It doesn't even matter how far they are from each other Consciousness is proven to be the substance of the universe. Immaterial creates the reality of matter. Physicist would tell you so.
I'd like you to prove to me that you actually have an idea of what evolution is before you go on your pitiful rant in hopes to refute the basis of all modern biology.
You clearly don't understand quantum entanglement either as there's absolutely no need whatsoever to invoke "god" or any other supernatural event in order to understand it.
*He isn't that muscular. He's only muscular via maturation level and having additional testosterone level isn't equal to a steroid user. He still need to lift weights for just as the same 4 years as natural unroideds.
Intelligent Design - A study of law, order and pattern in the Universe including DNA and living cells as a result of intelligent causation or Creation from God. It's not religion.
Its possible. Just not probable. This kind of reasoning is called the "appeal to large numbers" fallacy. Remember those rules of logic you were going on about earlier? You are breaking them horribly by inserting your opinion in place of reasoning. And as this is the second time I have had to point that out in addition to the video, I am forced to assume you will never address this point. Goodday, I have no time for the willfully ignorant.
The universe was not fine tuned for life, life was fine tuned for the universe via natural selection.
If I have a six sided die, the probability of me rolling a "1" is 1/6. I know that because I divide the desired outcome from the amount of potential outcomes.
You can't apply probability to the universe because you don't know the number of potential outcomes, if there are any other. Perhaps this is the only way it could turn out.
Natural selection was an adaptation process that still follow the lockage or the Biogenesis - Reproduce after their own kind.
Variations happen but changes from one specie to get to another type of specie via mutation is a fallacy. Mutations are errors found in the genes NOT increase. They are corrected by cell when notice. It violates natural selection which is survival of the fittest.
Again. Do you even seriously think that we decended from apes?? You're stupid you're brainwashed and you're insane! Speciation is the same as macro evolution. Let's go back to the fossil record.
Ramapithecus was an ansestor of an urangutan! It's still in the text book as an ancestor of man! It's disproven at new age molecular biology and chemistry. All the technology arise, evolution is dying. Just accept it!
Do I seriously think that we descended from apes? My deluded friend, we didn't just descend from apes, we are still apes right now! This is not an opinion, it is an objectively verifiable fact and I defy you to give me a morphological definition of an ape without inadvertently including humans in the process.
Of course you can't find the video, you're just here to spam.
It's not just comparative anatomy either. It's molecular DNA, transitional fossils, embryology, ERV retroviruses, comparative chromosome analysis, and really all of science that testifies against you.
You obviously don't even know what a retrovirus is, otherwise you would know that it is that evidence alone that makes evolution an open and shut case.
Yes, you are an ape. Deal with it. You can disprove it by giving me a morphological definition of an ape to which humans don't meet the criteria.
No, a ridiculous claim is that life began 6k years ago in a magical garden with a talking snake. You being an ape is a fact. I gave you the method to falsify this, so provide me with that definition already.
2. ppsimmons is a notorious lying creationist, that is why he disables comments, so no one can debunk his bullshit in front of him. He uses bacteria and viruses interchangably: they are two very different organisms.
(Contd) 2. He says nylon eating bacteria adapted, not evolved, but that's all evolution ever was! Adaptation via mutation and natural selection. The fact is that the nylon bacteria did mutate a double copy of their digestive gene so that it would gain that capability.
3. By sending me this vid you obviously don't know what a retrovirus is. It is not a regular virus, it is the remnant of a virus
watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Finally, cells do not repair mutations, that is why 95% of your DNA .ctd
Evolution is not adaptation. It can only be seen by mutation that increase should be found progressively. The mutations that were found were errors that is fixed by the cell and if it then produce limbs, that will not be valuable.
No new species are arising on the process of mutation even if it 's beneficial on that muscle boy part that one is not mutation but genetic trait. That's some people got higher testosterone or fast fiber account. It's not mutation.
Muscle could be adapted and get the samee result environmentally through lifting heavy.
Ever considered that life in this universe is evolved to be best suited to the constants in the universe? That life was "designed" by Evolution by Natural Selection to our universe, and not that our universe was created to harbor life? You should watch a video called "stupid design".
I'm not joking. Intelligent Design is a proven position based on the evidences. Isaac Newton is a creationists. Albert Einstein is a creationists. Wernher Von Braun, Galileo, Copernicus, Maxwell, Francis Beacon, Lois Pasteur. I could quot their exact statements to see there is no other explanation but God.
Okay, if some evidence irrefutably leads to Intelligent Design, I presume you could easily provide it. Saying that great scientific minds were creationists, and therefore gives the creation myth validity, is what is called the "argument from authority" and does not constitute as evidence. A bit of Calculus was between Newton and agnosticism. Einstein has said that he is an agnostic. Even though these quotes couldn't be evidence for intelligent design, please provide them.
From half suppose that mathematics is a human invention, it is said that if human history was different, an entirely new math would have been discovered, theorems axiums, etc.
What do you mean by do not need to be sustained? God had supplied it through the uniformity of nature. He don't change so he uphold the universe in a consistent uniformed way throughout time. Chance means nothing in physics. If the laws of physics suddenly and arbitrarily changes, then past experimental results would tell us nothing about the future.
It is a tautological truth that the universe must be self consistent in order to exist. All the natural "laws" do is describe consistently observed behavior of this universe. They are ironically the easiest things in science to disprove, since only one repeatable observation is needed to disprove them. For example, Newtonian physics was proved to be inaccurate by Einstein. The laws themselves did not change, only our understanding of them. Your definition of god IS the natural laws themselves.
As an example of the laws of logic, you cannot have both A and not A at the same time and at the same relationship. Without the laws of logic, reasoning would be impossible. These are all common to a the transcendent truth. Einstein disproved theory that if the sun disappear the planets would lose their orbit right away. Though he did not disproved it, he strengthened it by applying the called space time fabric which is grounded on mathematics.
Science does one thing, and does it well: it describes what we see in the universe, and seeks to explain it. Math is a TOOL that scientists like Einstein use(d) to describe the universe, but it is still a construct. In other words, its not the fabric of space time that is based on math, math reflects the nature of space and time to make it something we can understand. Just like language.
Nature implies a designer because there are laws f nature governing it, NOT, blind forces of chance. Again laws of nature Jeremiah 23:24 This is where God normally accomplish his will in the universe. Are we to believe that the planets did not follow mathematical laws before Kepler discovered that P2=A3?
When frozen, water forms ice with 6 side symmetry because of the laws of chemistry.
God is does not change, so he sustains the universe in a consistent way so science is possible to rely to it.
If god does not change, then he cannot be an intelligent entity for the same reason rocks are not intelligent. In order to be intelligent, the part of you we call a mind must be able to change in a process called thinking. A lack of change means that no processes are happening, including the process we call thinking, and your god becomes little more than word on paper, at best.
This also fails the test of Occams Razor, since natural laws by definition do not need to be "sustained."
That's not the case. The meaning of (can't be changed) is that He's already sufficient intelligence, the perfection of all logic = omniscience. Man is bound by time and he can only rely on the laws of physics which God had built in the universe. Our understanding of the universe is finite yet science can be discovered and is one with the laws of nature. It was discovered, not invented. Mathematics reflects the thoughts of the Lord. Every thing you see is made by super calculating designer.
Like language, the rules of math were written by us, and then tools for manipulating math were derived from consistent application of said rules. For instance, that our number system is base 10 is arbitrary. It could just as easily be base 8. Also, if you knew anything about logic you would understand that you have just added a redundant term to your equation; the laws of nature are REQUIRED to have a self-consistent universe. The god you are describing now is SYNONYMOUS with the universe itself
Mathematics is written but it's based on the constants. I gave you an example: P2=A3 which is the constant for planet orbits. E=MC2 is discovered through the constants. This means that other laws of nature apply on other laws of nature at relativity. You're so idiot. Chance mean nothing, I gave you video. Laws of logic also is an instinctive rational thinking that is because we are made in God's Image, we are able to reason rationally in finite way of course.
Where did I ever say anything about chance jackass? Only you pulled out that red herring. And by the way, if you knew anything about quantum physics you would know that the universe practically RUNS on chance. Our intuition is a poor substitute for logic (indeed, that is a large part of your problem) and logic is hardly instinctive at all. Besides, you have never once shown any evidence of any of your assertions: logic alone can't prove anything about the world.
Quantum physics is quantum. If you Believe in the quantum physics rather than science, you would also believe in an infinite number of flying spaghetti monsters. Mverse was a frigging joke wake up! God is not a spaghetti monster he is immaterial because he created matter. Mverse or string string theory is just one of the ways to exploit and get around the math constants. Even Hawkings believe in the concept of imagination. He quoted, "Imaginary time" which is not science.
Wow, the longer you talk the clearer it becomes you haven't the slightest clue about anything you are arguing against. String theory =! Quantum mechanics, you joke of a debater. Quantum mechanics is one of the things that makes the computer you are posting this drivel from work. Also, even if you could prove a god exists, you still don't have anything that could pin an identity to it; that's the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument you reference.
(cont) That is the very defined limits of that accuracy. The rational reason is God? Why do you fear accepting it? Everything is designed seen at the cosmic background explorer(COBE). If you look at it, it's like looking at God or the very precise design of it.Were talking about subjects on Quantum Physics not quantum mechanics.String theory is or Mtheory is not physics, it's borrowed from eastern cult, "the multiple world" religion.
"The rational reason is God? Why do you fear accepting it?"
Why is it that christians like you just can't resist the urge to assume you know everything there is to know about the other person you are talking to? Honestly, when I look at the cosmos, I do not see the majesty of god. I see a strange and wonderful universe. Far from being afraid of God, I really don't care if he exists or not. And seriously? Mtheory being part of a cult? That's... just...
Wait, by chance you aren't by any chance talking about the "universe is an accident" strawman, are you? Its hard to tell, because even when I try looking at the video you posted the link is broken. If so, I highly suggest you look up the "anthropic principal." Suffice to say, its no accident tha this universe is fine tuned, because if it wasn't we couldn't be having this conversation.
It is because of this that a life long dedicated atheist converted to Catholicism and began believing in God. Let's say you cover the whole of Russia with small coins, and then you pile it up until it reaches the moon, then make one billion systems of this. Paint one of the coins red and ask your flying friend or the flying grenade of chance friend to find it. Chances is 1 part of 10 to the 40 of finding.
"Paint one of the coins red and ask your flying friend or the flying grenade of chance friend to find it. Chances is 1 part of 10 to the 40 of finding."
Stop right here. As is usual, it seems the person I am arguing with did not watch the video the comment is supposedly about or you would understand that just because the odds of something are astronomical does NOT mean they are impossible or else no one would ever win the lottery.
The point here is that the universe is created in a supreme accuracy of 10 to the 40 in order that we can have life. Chance and time only explains the angry gods and exploding volcanoes. Life cannot arise through these naturalistic frame works. Proteins cannot form by themselves.
W8amouth, you assume that life formed by chance. This is false. I suggest you watch cdk007's videos on what is called "abiogenesis". When a response such as yours seeps in ignorance, it gets laughed at on atheist videos. If you educate yourself and provide good arguments, you will find that it is much easier to respond to arguments against your position.
@Freemont100 are you really that dense? the lottery is designed to be won, by the lottery designers!! if that was not the case nobody would buy tickets, the odds are calculated so the odds are in favor of someone wining the lottery. The same way the universe did not happened by chance BUT it was designed to exist by the Creator, or Designer.
@laninarushy "The same way the universe did not happened by chance BUT it was designed to exist by the Creator, or Designer. "
Bullshit. This is a classic example of selection bias that the Anthropic Principal exists to warn against: by definition, we can only observe a universe where we exist. It could have been otherwise. You need a lot stronger evidence to prove that the universe was designed, especially when we KNOW the mechanisms that allowed it to evolve to its current state.
@Freemont100 "we KNOW the mechanisms"... that is BS, those mechanisms have not yet been proven; all science has are theories & hypotheses, NO 100 % proof beyond any doubt forthcoming. Not on the origin of man, evolution, creation of the universe, nor on the fossil record. But u atheists have no qualms believing Science, but u want 100% proof on God! who are the fools here? To the atheists regret, slowly but surely science is proving God, will u believe then?
@laninarushy "all science has are theories & hypotheses, NO 100 % proof beyond any doubt forthcoming"
Oh, for the love of... go look up the word "theory." It does NOT mean what you think it means. There is NOTHING that we can be more sure of than a theory. The only thing we can be "100% certain" of is that we exist, and that's it.
If you can't be arsed to look up even the most basic meaning of the terms you criticize, then don't waste my time.
@laninarushy P.S. as a matter of fact, most atheists do not ask that you show god's existence to 100% certainty. The problem is, no one has showed it to ANY degree of certainty, and the arguments people have used have all resorted to flawed reasoning. There probably is someone out there who has that high a standard of evidence, but if so that person is just as ignorant of science as you sound like.
@laninarushy "that is BS, those mechanisms have not yet been proven; all science has are theories & hypotheses"
All of science is hypotheses with varying degree of support, proofs only exist in mathematics. Among other things, gravity is not proven. However, it's amusing that the mechanisms of evolution are proven mathematically. Look up the various theorems that form the foundation of genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
@laninarushy Evolutionary theory has as strong support as the best of theories in natural science though, so your objection really is laughable. This is why academic institutions insist that evolutionary biology be taught in schools all over the world. You are of course free to live in your fantasy world in which "science is about to prove God", but to even make such a statement implies that you think you can formulate a falsifiable hypothesis about God. Good for you - publish and get famous.
@laninarushy The universe was simple produced by something of which we have absolutely no way of knowing anything about. We cant say what the purpose of the universe is or we can't infer anything about the nature of the thing that produced it. So to say it is a designer is really begging the question. We simply dont know, just accept it and remain agnostic in regards to our knowledge.
This video presents a much stronger argument against design and fine-tuning of a theistic God than a Deistic creator.
Two problems I notice are:
a. Nykytyne2 proposes arguments against an all knowing, all loving and all powerful God. This assumes too much about the nature of God/creator(s) of the universe.
b. He uses human life as an example and not life in general.
The design is the water cycle. What causes the water to freeze, thaw, flow, etc.....The systems (ocean currents, rock cycle, wind patterns) on the planet point to a designer. The earth is not just here it is working in a certain manner. What caused it to begin to rotate, orbit, etc.? The systems (water cycle) not the finished products (ice formations) point to a designer.
Yeah yeah, i know, 'who designed the laws of gravity' but what you and Craigtube are then describing is a non-intervening god who merely set up the laws of nature. This is deism, not theism.
The "non intervening god" must be like us (or we must be like him). Where did our immaterial parts (conscience, intelligence, morality, emotions, sight, hearing, etc)come from. Material things (like rock an gas) may have produced our skeltons but where did our non material parts come from? We are the image of God. If I am describing deism then we must be like that god. If there is something out there that is eternal and bigger than us we are his subjects
2:00 - The cave was not designed by anyone. It is part of the nature of the universe, and how the universe behaves. That puts us back to the design of the Universe.
I apologize for the way my previous comments sounded but I had to shorten them to fit the Character limit.
I did have more to say but after typing I accidentally closed my browser and am far to lazy to retype it all. Sorry you cant hear some of my interesting theories, I'm sure you will stay awake all night wondering about them.
3.Why would God create such things as famine, disease, and the need to kill in order to live? Imagine PacMan without Inky Clyde or the rest, imagine playing the piano with only 1 key. You wouldn't because it is no fun.
4.Your comparison of life as a miracle to winning the lottery, however someone has to win the lottery. No matter how many time you try, There does not have to be life.
Since at the end, you told some philosophical theories you created, I will now list some of mine.
First I would like to say that I do NOT believe in God, I am simply informing you observed errors in your logic.
1.You say that caverns are complex but do not require a designer, though many would argue that God is the architect and glaciers or water his tools.
2.You ask why if God is an all powerful being whose eventual goal is us as we are now, than why did he not skip the tedious process and simply create us as we are now? You could fast forward to the end of a movie, but would you?
Speaking of dating methods, we assume there was no equilibrium reached in the atmosphere and that the level of CO2 was always the same in history which is a fallacy, the unexistant geological time table is another proof of that, simply verify that when you observe petrified trees standing upright through what would be considered many millions of years worth of layers, trees passing thru coals and dirt simply reveal the catastrophism that nations around the world corroborate as the global flood
it is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and unprovable, undefendable, just look at that beautiful T-REX found by Dr Mary Schweitzer with blood cells, soft tissue, liquids in the blood vessels, 17 times she tested in acidic solution to make sure she was seeing the reality of what was the remains of a pregnant T-REX, WHERE ARE THE 65 MILLIONS OF YEARS?
First off, macro evolution is defendable, such as with different dating techniques on fossils, and with the evolutionary ancestor table, etc. Second, you simply deny macro evolution on the basis that it's just on par with a fantasy, wtf? Evolution is not untested, and yes, it was so long ago that no one was there to test it, that's why we having ways of getting around that fault...
Macro-evolution is undefendable in this that no transitional fossil from one kind to another as ever been found and if you got any evidence on that, it is fraudulent, nothing has ever been produced in 150 years of Darwinism. The dating techniques can only go so far as 10 000 years in an acurate fashion, different ages have been given on animals that were alive, the samples had revealed millions of years on living creatures, when we speculate on things unobserved, it is no longer science
Sad that a human being has to go through so much brain gymnastic to deny the obvious work of the God of the Bible who says how He did it, claims to see the end from the beginning, claims to be God Who manifested Himself in the flesh, died and was raised from death to give us eternal life and tells us how it is all going to end, the biggest tragedy being our unbelief because of our rebellious pride. You can deceive yourself but you will still have to give Him a reason why you rejected Jesus
Sad to see another human being denying science just because his Bible has the so-called description of the works of the cosmos. And that someone would deny science and accept superstition over it.
You assume i hate science but in fact i love empirical science, not fairy tales for grown ups, if you were to say that micro-evolution is observable and testable, i would agree 100% with you but when it comes to cosmological evolution, Macro-evolution and all the rest of the evolutionary non-sense such as the geological time table i simply say HOgwash,, it is still in the realm of fantaisies, far away and so long ago that there were no conscious observers to empiricly test anything,
ok i agree with everything your saying but couldn't you say that if complexity implies a designer that god from the understanding form drived from religion is complex in everyway so he/she/it to must have a disigner but for god to be the all powerful all knowing form that suposidly started life he must be the first cause going from this we see that there is no logic behind the the theory? so can you explain to me an arguement against that sorry if its stupid or for any missspellings im only 15
To say that natural processes alone can produce complexity is to beg the question. But I think you have misrepresented the teleological argument in this vid. To be dealt 2, 4, 5, Q, 9 in a hand of poker is improbable, yet unsurpising, but to be dealt a royal flush every hand for an entire game smells fishy. That is what the teleological argument is. I think it is a persuasive argument, when presented accurately.
your arguments are sound!!! however you must realize that creationists who use these arguments to support the existence of god are not trying to convince those who's reason leads them to believe that there is no logic behind the theory of god, its for those who already believe and need reassurance. the religious mind is dying, so they are trying to count their loses and keep what they already have.
@brahimbug "..count their loses".. U call logical that we are the product of self replicating cosmic goo? that we have no souls, or spirit? that there is no absolute moral law? that the universe is a accident? that the monkeys are ur close relatives? that random mutations (which are extremely rare and fatal) advanced natural selection and r responsible for evolution? , that the universe made itself out of thin air? . WOW!
@brahimbug No wonder why atheists are such a minority, thank God, I guess every village has to have its idiots. It is one thing to believe that there is no God but to try to brainwash others, is the ultimate case of egomaniacal disorder. NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE IS NO GOD, no one ever has and no one ever will, so give it up boys, use ur energy in more productive endeavors.
Hmm, I've actually seen an interview of Dr. Michio Kaku on other "baby universes". The space satellite LISA (Laser Interferometry Space Antenna) in 2011 is hoped to find the umbilical chords linked to perhaps a mother cosmos or baby cosmoses that spawned from us, so in the future maybe we could perform the experiment (6:50). For more insight into it scope Kaku's name in the search bar with "Universe to Multiverse".
Every godless atheist knows that JesusPhile and Edward Currant are satirists. Many theists, however, cannot understand satire and mistake those 2 for the real deal. I suppose that theists are just too dumb to get satire. This reminds me, many conservatives do not understand that "The Colbert Report" is a satirical show.
weakest point in 'fine tuned' argument, is that a god should be able to place his 'children' in any universe, doesnt matter if it supported life or not.
Very interesting series! I find it much more useful to speak of these matter on an epistemological and ontological level rather than on what one believes.
sorry to leave so many comments, but I don't have a video camera as I can't afford one, and the comment box is insufficient for any real thoughtful comment. I could've messaged you it, but I figured I'd put it out here for all to see and pick apart. I'd like to take the time to thank you for making these, I thought it was very interesting, and I anxiously await when the next in the series will show up in my comment box. God Bless.
Mmmmm...the main problem I see with your arguments is that most of them are begging the question or assuming the truth of the premise that need to be proved; that a god exists...
Before anything can be attributed anything to a deity, one must at least establish a coherent and positive ontology for such a being and then at least posit a sound syllogism based on said ontology...
Yes, you're right. But this video assumes the premise that God doesn't exist, and then seeks to explain everything that religion explains in another way, all I'm trying to do is demonstrate that if you accept the premise that God exists, the universe can still be explained using logic. At some point, the laws of physics (namely cause and causation, and the law of conservation of mass) have to be broken, which still allows for religon to be a legitimate arguement, rather than superstition.
This is the normal process any claim usually undergoes; one doesn't go around assuming that everything exists unless substantiation under the form of sound arguments and evidence arise. Basically, the default position for any claim is disbelief.
The crux of the problem isn't the existence of the universe. It is the deity that is posited as first cause to explain it. Unless this premise is soundly demonstrated to be true, assuming its truth is begging the question and fallacious....
Also you seem to be conflating the concepts of religion and deities. They aren't mutually exclusive to each other.
Furthermore, proving the existence of a deity is one thing, proving that it is the one as describe by a particular religion is another one altogether.
In any case, unless the ontology I mentioned earlier has been established, arguing for or against a deity, as philosophically fascinating it might be, is trite at best.
But if the universe can still be explained without God, then God becomes a superfluous explaination, one that in fact creates more questions, such as what accounts for God's nature and the constants that determine it's existence. If the universe can be logical without God, what is the use of the God explaination?
which sounds insane, but its true. each human being is just one of six billion alive now, out of God knows how many ever existed and will exist, on one planet, in an infinite universe. None of us are the least bit significant to the overall working of the universe. You ask why god created the universe with Earth specifically in mind. He didn't. He created the universe with EVERYTHING specifically in mind. everything in the universe has a purpose, even if we don't know what it is yet.
You also ask why horrible things exist. This is such a lame arguement from atheists. God did not create the world to be perfect. It's not supposed to be. Heaven is perfect. Once you get into heaven, that baby with the birth defects is just as functional as anyone else, and can partake in the euphoria that is Gods love. The biggest problem with that is that its arrogant, and assumes that God exists only to tend to our problems, when really, all human life is meaningless to the entire universe
the problem with your complexity arguement is that I believe God created them, you have not offered any evidence otherwise, you just state that you don't believe god created them. Then you ask why would God create the universe in such lengths, well the simple answer would be to say "we can't understand His methods", and although its true, its a bullshit response. The reason why, is that its not such a rediculous method. To believe that it is, is to believe that God is limited by time.
Explanation of the cruel world - We initially had paradise, man rebelled, this is the program now. God teaches His nature by letting you see to what extent you can develop noble characteristics. They cannot be understood in a world without adversity, or developed of your own ability, only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Goal: Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
There is a great Gary Larson cartoon about stalactites and stalagmites:
Two cave-men are walking in a cave. One is about to walk into a stalactite. The other says to him: "Watch out, there is a...a..Gee, I keep forgetting which are the ones growing up or hanging down."
you should really join the history channel and construct a series of documenteries of science that (like this video) interacts with the viewer so that they are inspired to do whatever you want them to do. you are telling the truth and people want the truth. you'd also get paid for it.
alot of assumptions based on just logic... the christian belief teaches that logic is made from the devil, so catch 20/20... its a problem. focus on easier and more provable arguements!!
I appreciate all the thought you put into this video. I've alway been a fan of thinking. More people should try it out and see if thinking is not for them too:)
rejecting argument that designer created our telos still leaves the problem of telos' existance. no matter how hard you try, human intelligence must still create some form of "theology" no matter how scientifically enlightened. to allegorize, explanation that wearing a cape keeps child's head warm in the winter time does not explain mother's love for that child asking to wear a cape ;-p
One small point - crystals, like the beautiful gypsum formations in Lechuguilla Cave, aren't complex - they are structurally one of the simplest things found in nature.
Although I agree that the apparent 'designed-ness' of those perfect geometrically satisfying structures appeals to the agency-seeking sense in all of us. I remember being in awe as a kid just looking at a few grains of salt under a microscope.
What were the chances, at the time of the Big Bang, that so many billions of years later, I would be in these two square meters of space (in the whole universe) that I occupy at this nanosecond, writing a response to your YouTube video? Probably either one in a centillion, or one in one (if this is merely the way the atoms would have gone no matter what). Anyway, I'm here.
And by the way, when I saw the "disturbing image alert", I didn't know how disturbing it would be.
3:50 - Science has shown only that nature's creativity is at least partially intrinsic to it. This does not disprove God, but requires any posited creator not be entirely separate from the ongoing unfolding of the cosmos. The failed theistic argument is due to adherance to the design paradigm, which posits an aloof spiritual architect designing nature from outside. Contemporary science doesn't make theology obsolete, but requires that it update its conception of Spirit (theism>panentheism).
I don't buy the fine tuning argument. I think a cosmos that does not develop life is improbable even if I was sure there are more than one (which I am not).
Great Vid Nick! I felt as if I was watching an intriguing episode of Nova! As far as the crystal-cave example go's...it shows an active natual process that "creates" beautiful semmetry without intelligent interferance or promotion.
I am not a theist...but the argument goes like this. Since we can imagine an infinite number of other values for the cosmological constants, our universe was terribly improbable. It is more likely that a fine tuner designed this universe than it came about as a brute fact. p G/f > p N/f...where f is functional universe (our universe) G=God..N=natural...I don't buy it, but this is their argument and it seems intuitive at least.
adstanra 1 month ago in playlist REFUTING - Fine-Tuning
I'm sure it seems stupid to those too stupid to understand it.
RDeathbringer 3 months ago
Im starting to think the guy who made this video and who narrates it doesnt know what the hell he is talking about. I mean he is saying the Grand Canyon proves that there is no Intelligent Designer, how stupid are you?? loll
mas03 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mas03 He is pointing out the fact that complexity can arise without divine intervention. If you didn't get that, then perhaps you dont know what your talking about.
ultradevon04 2 months ago
So where's the video on the ontological argument? I'm enjoying this series. :)
chadeboi 7 months ago
Good job provng your opponents point
Nicklas07 9 months ago
A weak argument fluffed up with big words.......
well done.
hes1like1a1star 10 months ago 3
Complexity implies evolution, not a designer. The teleological argument is overrated. Even when invoking fine tuning, you could always assume there was an infinite time before the big bang for natural universes to form randomly until a good one comes.
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
I like how Douglas Adams dealt with the fine tuning argument the most. He described a puddle considering the whole it sat in, pondering how the hole fit it exactly, and concluding that the hole was designed to fit the puddle. We all know of course it was the other way around, the puddle fits the hole. Replace hole with universe and puddle with life, and say good bye to the fine tuning argument.
tipoomaster 1 year ago 4
well I'm a modern deist and I love science and have yet to find evidence technically disproving exisistance of some higher power. At the same time clearly it's shown that there is no need for a higher power. Now, lets say god is not a being but a force and that force set in motion the big bang and took a back seat till inorganic planets where formed where it created microbes on some and not others. Not with humans in mind but in hopes the microbes would eventually evolve and become intelligent
ravenheart93 1 year ago
@ravenheart93 "Now, lets say god is not a being but a force..."
The statement above shows that you have no idea what you mean by the word "God". You're basically willing to insert any phenomenon in there. If "god" is not a being, but a force... why call it "god " and not "nature"? Also.... why on earth do you want "forces" to be able to have "hopes" that microbes would evolve? Is this idea not horribly confused? Having hopes requires a first person perspective in my book.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@Gnomefro I was stating a theorem that even I don't believe is 100% accurate. My force theory is a little bit miss guided and is only out of what I think could be the more likely answer. That "God" is a force in nature that works as a highway instead of a hand. Maybe a force is not intelligent and maybe in has some involuntary reaction to put all we know into place. I just think that its unlikely a humanoid deity controls all and unlikely that the known universe was made without help.
ravenheart93 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Common man`s reasons why god does not exist A) total absence from from natural events, No sig of a god before, during or after natural events. B)The total absence of favoritism towards believers. Even church steeples need lightning rods for protection against god.C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. D) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept suffering of the guilty, but little children
lizazoon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't seem to know anything other than that God doesn't exist, lol.
HolyRevelation 1 year ago
Comment removed
HolyRevelation 1 year ago
It's a shame you never made a video on the Ontological argument. I would have liked to see how you would deconstruct it, as the whole thing is basicly circular reasoning!
Nightmare060 1 year ago
How would you respond to the argument that "god wants us to be our own moral agents"?
Nightmare060 1 year ago
GOD did not need a first cause! the 1st law of thermodynamics clearly posits that "in a closed system energy can not be created or destroyed" meaning: God is the eternal energy that ignited the big bang, the energy that can not be created or destroyed because it is eternal. What more proof do you need? I suppose u will come up with another argument, anything rather than to admit u may be wrong.
laninarushy 1 year ago
@laninarushy It's only inside the universe that is not a closed system. There can just as easily be different systems outside the universe that make it eternal ;)
Nightmare060 1 year ago
Atheists want so much to convince themselves that THERE IS NO GOD so they toil and connive and waste time and energy making these videos. They spin their wheels in place in a FUTILE attempts to persuade others to follow in their Godless, pagan, materialistic "man is is a product of blind, unguided, purposeless driven chance" when the evidence of the contrary is so overwhelmengly obvious!!
laninarushy 1 year ago
"The God hypothesis fails to work better than any other.." ARE YOU SERIOUS?? are those other hypoteses prevalent in the world today? NO they are not! The prevailing meaningful consensus is the THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, of Christian Muslims and Jews is the CREATOR. No machine , no teams, no BS. So stop making up crap, it is so transparent and anyone with minimum IQ can see thru it.
This is the kind of rehtoric which makes these videos so worthless and ridiculous.
laninarushy 1 year ago
thumbs up for the cave segment! w00t!
wow... interesting way of talking on your voice-over...
I've been watching all the videos on the teleological argument I can find... for "research" purposes...
It's been somewhat painful... like... mind-numbing... um... don't worry... I'm used to masochism. I was a Christian for over 18 years!
btw, I'd like to reiterate how you fucking disappointed me with your "moral skepticism" video!! Responding to your inane drivel is one of my highest priorities atm!
AdderallApocalypse 1 year ago
fantastic. is there a transcript?
RationalTheism 1 year ago
looks like w8amonth has watched some Kent Hovind. You automatically have just proven you are not worth any intelligent persons time.
UncomfortableSilence 1 year ago
You have no Basis at all! LIE DECEIT FRAUD! EVOLUTION IS NOT PROVEN!
w8amonth 1 year ago
@w8amonth lmao you are an idiot
cluny2300 1 year ago
@cluny2300 Evolution is invalid claim!:
watch?v=b5PKukgkEbU
The fathers f science were creationists including Lord Kelvin and Wernher Von Braun the founder of NASA:
watch?v=gL-h7gNbD4o
w8amonth 1 year ago
Regardless of their personal beliefs evolution is supported by mountains of evidence nearly comparable to that of gravity.
Is gravity an invalid claim too?
cluny2300 1 year ago
@cluny2300 gravity is proven a theory. Atheist admits that to ME!
The fact that quantum entanglement proved my point btw. Science proves God where current science is.
w8amonth 1 year ago
@w8amonth First of all never said anything about being an athiest, second of all it's blatantly clear that you're just some religious nut who takes pride in attacking scientists who give us our very way of life.
The only reason you're able to be arguing with me right now is because of science.
You clearly know nothing about evolution or have any knowlege of what a scientific theory is.
You also seem to have trouble constructing cooherent sentences.
cluny2300 1 year ago
@cluny2300 Evolution is outside of science punk! I'm very sure that the origin of the universe is blatantly supernatural. Quantum entanglement is observed.
The process of instant reaction between 2 parts of proton without being connected by force or yet another part. It doesn't even matter how far they are from each other Consciousness is proven to be the substance of the universe. Immaterial creates the reality of matter. Physicist would tell you so.
PHD graduates:
watch?v=ZdEl8OlQlLc
w8amonth 1 year ago
@w8amonth
I'd like you to prove to me that you actually have an idea of what evolution is before you go on your pitiful rant in hopes to refute the basis of all modern biology.
You clearly don't understand quantum entanglement either as there's absolutely no need whatsoever to invoke "god" or any other supernatural event in order to understand it.
cluny2300 1 year ago
@cluny2300 Entanglement operates outside space time by some unknow thought or communication process:
watch?v=n426PazcFXE
Evolution is a slippery word.
There are actually 6 types of evolution:
Cosmic, stellar, organic, chemical, macro and micro all of which are gaps and ridiculous claims!:
watch?v=b5PKukgkEbU
w8amonth 1 year ago
Oh the muscular kid.
*He isn't that muscular. He's only muscular via maturation level and having additional testosterone level isn't equal to a steroid user. He still need to lift weights for just as the same 4 years as natural unroideds.
w8amonth 1 year ago
Allow me to send you a PM showing how wrong you are, 500 characters doesn't cut it.
In any case it should be obvious to any objective viewer why creationists like ppsimmons are intellectual pariahs: they are lying cowards.
Raptor302 1 year ago
Supported by the impossibility of this adaptation process to produce evolution of bacteria to animal evolution which is impossible organic evolution:
watch?v=oF3JFCJQASg
w8amonth 1 year ago
This is the intelligent process called reverse transduction.
watch?v=eS1GODinO8w
Instead of putting the slippery word evolution there. STUDY SCIENCE! It's nothing but an error caused. No increase in the genome found.
w8amonth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stars falling down!:
watch?v=ZV0hUldrYp4
w8amonth 1 year ago
Bombs are raining!:
watch?v=r8xStPfP4eU
watch?v=n426PazcFXE
watch?v=KJ-ih8ojt4U
watch?v=JVhxL9AoF_w
w8amonth 1 year ago
Intelligent Design - A study of law, order and pattern in the Universe including DNA and living cells as a result of intelligent causation or Creation from God. It's not religion.
Science - Search for truth about our world.
w8amonth 1 year ago
watch?v=lDZS3NmxPv0
w8amonth 2 years ago
Nobody ever win 1 million dollars at lottery, 250 times his life! That's the number of complexities and intelligence within the simplest organism.
w8amonth 2 years ago
Its possible. Just not probable. This kind of reasoning is called the "appeal to large numbers" fallacy. Remember those rules of logic you were going on about earlier? You are breaking them horribly by inserting your opinion in place of reasoning. And as this is the second time I have had to point that out in addition to the video, I am forced to assume you will never address this point. Goodday, I have no time for the willfully ignorant.
Freemont100 2 years ago
That's not reasoning. That is the fine tuning:
watch?v=D_K2sPiZ9Hc
Notice the part where it says, "10 to the 120"
w8amonth 2 years ago
"That's not reasoning. That is the fine tuning"
The universe was not fine tuned for life, life was fine tuned for the universe via natural selection.
If I have a six sided die, the probability of me rolling a "1" is 1/6. I know that because I divide the desired outcome from the amount of potential outcomes.
You can't apply probability to the universe because you don't know the number of potential outcomes, if there are any other. Perhaps this is the only way it could turn out.
Raptor302 1 year ago
Natural selection was an adaptation process that still follow the lockage or the Biogenesis - Reproduce after their own kind.
Variations happen but changes from one specie to get to another type of specie via mutation is a fallacy. Mutations are errors found in the genes NOT increase. They are corrected by cell when notice. It violates natural selection which is survival of the fittest.
What Fine tuning is:
watch?v=Bl0Sz659Qgw
w8amonth 1 year ago
"changes from one specie to get to another type of specie via mutation is a fallacy."
Your argument is a fallacy, we've already observed speciation and new species emerge. This isn't speculation, this is fact.
"Mutations are errors found in the genes NOT increase. They are corrected by cell when notice."
No they are not. Why do you think 95% of your DNA is junk DNA?
Raptor302 1 year ago
Again. Do you even seriously think that we decended from apes?? You're stupid you're brainwashed and you're insane! Speciation is the same as macro evolution. Let's go back to the fossil record.
Ramapithecus was an ansestor of an urangutan! It's still in the text book as an ancestor of man! It's disproven at new age molecular biology and chemistry. All the technology arise, evolution is dying. Just accept it!
w8amonth 1 year ago
Do I seriously think that we descended from apes? My deluded friend, we didn't just descend from apes, we are still apes right now! This is not an opinion, it is an objectively verifiable fact and I defy you to give me a morphological definition of an ape without inadvertently including humans in the process.
Raptor302 1 year ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
CUNTS! What an answer. I'm not gonna take you seriously. Here's a video to debunk you comparative anatomy bullshit!:
I can't find the video. LATER!
w8amonth 1 year ago
Of course you can't find the video, you're just here to spam.
It's not just comparative anatomy either. It's molecular DNA, transitional fossils, embryology, ERV retroviruses, comparative chromosome analysis, and really all of science that testifies against you.
Raptor302 1 year ago
Pointing to the credentials that points against evolution!
I can't find the video explaining speciation.
Again, you've said were still apes. This argument was over! I'm not taking this seriously at all!
w8amonth 1 year ago
You obviously don't even know what a retrovirus is, otherwise you would know that it is that evidence alone that makes evolution an open and shut case.
Yes, you are an ape. Deal with it. You can disprove it by giving me a morphological definition of an ape to which humans don't meet the criteria.
Raptor302 1 year ago
I'm not an ape. That's ridiculous claim!
Here's a video for viruses:
watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU
A COMPLETE PROPAGANDA!
I can't find the video for speciation and 95% similarity of humans to chimp debunk!
w8amonth 1 year ago
"I'm not an ape. That's ridiculous claim"
No, a ridiculous claim is that life began 6k years ago in a magical garden with a talking snake. You being an ape is a fact. I gave you the method to falsify this, so provide me with that definition already.
2. ppsimmons is a notorious lying creationist, that is why he disables comments, so no one can debunk his bullshit in front of him. He uses bacteria and viruses interchangably: they are two very different organisms.
(Contd)
Raptor302 1 year ago
Do you seriously think that humans like atheists are apes! FAIRYTALE!
2. ppsimons probably don't want any spam on his videos or any other reason.:
watch?v=8tyVVlRw6hU
There you go. He spoke about the miracles of evolution fairy tale.
w8amonth 1 year ago
(Contd) 2. He says nylon eating bacteria adapted, not evolved, but that's all evolution ever was! Adaptation via mutation and natural selection. The fact is that the nylon bacteria did mutate a double copy of their digestive gene so that it would gain that capability.
3. By sending me this vid you obviously don't know what a retrovirus is. It is not a regular virus, it is the remnant of a virus
watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Finally, cells do not repair mutations, that is why 95% of your DNA .ctd
Raptor302 1 year ago
Evolution is not adaptation. It can only be seen by mutation that increase should be found progressively. The mutations that were found were errors that is fixed by the cell and if it then produce limbs, that will not be valuable.
You showed me that retrovirus has RNA not DNA.
Here's a video for that:
watch?v=D4LNIuye8BI
Substitute.
w8amonth 1 year ago
is junk DNA. We went over this already.
Mutations:
watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs
Get your education from someone who is not a lying coward that needs to disable comments.
Raptor302 1 year ago
No new species are arising on the process of mutation even if it 's beneficial on that muscle boy part that one is not mutation but genetic trait. That's some people got higher testosterone or fast fiber account. It's not mutation.
Muscle could be adapted and get the samee result environmentally through lifting heavy.
w8amonth 1 year ago
Ever considered that life in this universe is evolved to be best suited to the constants in the universe? That life was "designed" by Evolution by Natural Selection to our universe, and not that our universe was created to harbor life? You should watch a video called "stupid design".
GaseousAnomaly001 1 year ago
I'm not joking. Intelligent Design is a proven position based on the evidences. Isaac Newton is a creationists. Albert Einstein is a creationists. Wernher Von Braun, Galileo, Copernicus, Maxwell, Francis Beacon, Lois Pasteur. I could quot their exact statements to see there is no other explanation but God.
w8amonth 1 year ago
Okay, if some evidence irrefutably leads to Intelligent Design, I presume you could easily provide it. Saying that great scientific minds were creationists, and therefore gives the creation myth validity, is what is called the "argument from authority" and does not constitute as evidence. A bit of Calculus was between Newton and agnosticism. Einstein has said that he is an agnostic. Even though these quotes couldn't be evidence for intelligent design, please provide them.
GaseousAnomaly001 1 year ago
From half suppose that mathematics is a human invention, it is said that if human history was different, an entirely new math would have been discovered, theorems axiums, etc.
w8amonth 2 years ago
Exactly. The world is not based on math, math is based on the world in an attempt by us humans to describe it better.
Freemont100 2 years ago
FINISHED!
w8amonth 2 years ago
watch?v=ncsuh_5l6Hw
w8amonth 2 years ago
What do you mean by do not need to be sustained? God had supplied it through the uniformity of nature. He don't change so he uphold the universe in a consistent uniformed way throughout time. Chance means nothing in physics. If the laws of physics suddenly and arbitrarily changes, then past experimental results would tell us nothing about the future.
w8amonth 2 years ago
It is a tautological truth that the universe must be self consistent in order to exist. All the natural "laws" do is describe consistently observed behavior of this universe. They are ironically the easiest things in science to disprove, since only one repeatable observation is needed to disprove them. For example, Newtonian physics was proved to be inaccurate by Einstein. The laws themselves did not change, only our understanding of them. Your definition of god IS the natural laws themselves.
Freemont100 2 years ago
As an example of the laws of logic, you cannot have both A and not A at the same time and at the same relationship. Without the laws of logic, reasoning would be impossible. These are all common to a the transcendent truth. Einstein disproved theory that if the sun disappear the planets would lose their orbit right away. Though he did not disproved it, he strengthened it by applying the called space time fabric which is grounded on mathematics.
w8amonth 2 years ago
Science does one thing, and does it well: it describes what we see in the universe, and seeks to explain it. Math is a TOOL that scientists like Einstein use(d) to describe the universe, but it is still a construct. In other words, its not the fabric of space time that is based on math, math reflects the nature of space and time to make it something we can understand. Just like language.
Freemont100 2 years ago
Nature implies a designer because there are laws f nature governing it, NOT, blind forces of chance. Again laws of nature Jeremiah 23:24 This is where God normally accomplish his will in the universe. Are we to believe that the planets did not follow mathematical laws before Kepler discovered that P2=A3?
When frozen, water forms ice with 6 side symmetry because of the laws of chemistry.
God is does not change, so he sustains the universe in a consistent way so science is possible to rely to it.
w8amonth 2 years ago
If god does not change, then he cannot be an intelligent entity for the same reason rocks are not intelligent. In order to be intelligent, the part of you we call a mind must be able to change in a process called thinking. A lack of change means that no processes are happening, including the process we call thinking, and your god becomes little more than word on paper, at best.
This also fails the test of Occams Razor, since natural laws by definition do not need to be "sustained."
Freemont100 2 years ago
That's not the case. The meaning of (can't be changed) is that He's already sufficient intelligence, the perfection of all logic = omniscience. Man is bound by time and he can only rely on the laws of physics which God had built in the universe. Our understanding of the universe is finite yet science can be discovered and is one with the laws of nature. It was discovered, not invented. Mathematics reflects the thoughts of the Lord. Every thing you see is made by super calculating designer.
w8amonth 2 years ago
Like language, the rules of math were written by us, and then tools for manipulating math were derived from consistent application of said rules. For instance, that our number system is base 10 is arbitrary. It could just as easily be base 8. Also, if you knew anything about logic you would understand that you have just added a redundant term to your equation; the laws of nature are REQUIRED to have a self-consistent universe. The god you are describing now is SYNONYMOUS with the universe itself
Freemont100 2 years ago
Mathematics is written but it's based on the constants. I gave you an example: P2=A3 which is the constant for planet orbits. E=MC2 is discovered through the constants. This means that other laws of nature apply on other laws of nature at relativity. You're so idiot. Chance mean nothing, I gave you video. Laws of logic also is an instinctive rational thinking that is because we are made in God's Image, we are able to reason rationally in finite way of course.
w8amonth 2 years ago
Where did I ever say anything about chance jackass? Only you pulled out that red herring. And by the way, if you knew anything about quantum physics you would know that the universe practically RUNS on chance. Our intuition is a poor substitute for logic (indeed, that is a large part of your problem) and logic is hardly instinctive at all. Besides, you have never once shown any evidence of any of your assertions: logic alone can't prove anything about the world.
Freemont100 2 years ago
Quantum physics is quantum. If you Believe in the quantum physics rather than science, you would also believe in an infinite number of flying spaghetti monsters. Mverse was a frigging joke wake up! God is not a spaghetti monster he is immaterial because he created matter. Mverse or string string theory is just one of the ways to exploit and get around the math constants. Even Hawkings believe in the concept of imagination. He quoted, "Imaginary time" which is not science.
w8amonth 2 years ago
Wow, the longer you talk the clearer it becomes you haven't the slightest clue about anything you are arguing against. String theory =! Quantum mechanics, you joke of a debater. Quantum mechanics is one of the things that makes the computer you are posting this drivel from work. Also, even if you could prove a god exists, you still don't have anything that could pin an identity to it; that's the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument you reference.
Freemont100 2 years ago
(cont) That is the very defined limits of that accuracy. The rational reason is God? Why do you fear accepting it? Everything is designed seen at the cosmic background explorer(COBE). If you look at it, it's like looking at God or the very precise design of it.Were talking about subjects on Quantum Physics not quantum mechanics.String theory is or Mtheory is not physics, it's borrowed from eastern cult, "the multiple world" religion.
w8amonth 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The rational reason is God? Why do you fear accepting it?"
Why is it that christians like you just can't resist the urge to assume you know everything there is to know about the other person you are talking to? Honestly, when I look at the cosmos, I do not see the majesty of god. I see a strange and wonderful universe. Far from being afraid of God, I really don't care if he exists or not. And seriously? Mtheory being part of a cult? That's... just...
Amazing. You really are nuts.
Freemont100 2 years ago
Wait, by chance you aren't by any chance talking about the "universe is an accident" strawman, are you? Its hard to tell, because even when I try looking at the video you posted the link is broken. If so, I highly suggest you look up the "anthropic principal." Suffice to say, its no accident tha this universe is fine tuned, because if it wasn't we couldn't be having this conversation.
Freemont100 2 years ago
The link is here:
watch?v=ncsuh_5l6Hw
Search fine tuning.
It is because of this that a life long dedicated atheist converted to Catholicism and began believing in God. Let's say you cover the whole of Russia with small coins, and then you pile it up until it reaches the moon, then make one billion systems of this. Paint one of the coins red and ask your flying friend or the flying grenade of chance friend to find it. Chances is 1 part of 10 to the 40 of finding.
w8amonth 2 years ago
"Paint one of the coins red and ask your flying friend or the flying grenade of chance friend to find it. Chances is 1 part of 10 to the 40 of finding."
Stop right here. As is usual, it seems the person I am arguing with did not watch the video the comment is supposedly about or you would understand that just because the odds of something are astronomical does NOT mean they are impossible or else no one would ever win the lottery.
Freemont100 2 years ago
The point here is that the universe is created in a supreme accuracy of 10 to the 40 in order that we can have life. Chance and time only explains the angry gods and exploding volcanoes. Life cannot arise through these naturalistic frame works. Proteins cannot form by themselves.
w8amonth 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The point here is that the universe is created in a supreme accuracy of 10 to the 40 in order that we can have life."
Now you are just refusing to even comprehend what I'm saying. ANTHROPIC PRINCIPAL. GOOGLE IT.
"Life cannot arise through these naturalistic frame works. Proteins cannot form by themselves."
Get your head out of the bible, and read a bio textbook. ANY bio textbook. This kind of creationist idiocy is patently false.
Freemont100 2 years ago
W8amouth, you assume that life formed by chance. This is false. I suggest you watch cdk007's videos on what is called "abiogenesis". When a response such as yours seeps in ignorance, it gets laughed at on atheist videos. If you educate yourself and provide good arguments, you will find that it is much easier to respond to arguments against your position.
GaseousAnomaly001 1 year ago
I don't give a shit about your opinions in abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is evolution. This time, organic.
There are 6 types of very laughable evolution:
Cosmic Evolution (Big Bang)
Chemical Evolution(molecule to man evolution)
Organic Evolution(Abiogenesis)
Stellar Evolution(Origin of stars and planets)
Macro Evolution(Animals changing to another type of animals)
Micro Evolution(changes within the Animals)
All of the above were merely superstition and has no evidences.
w8amonth 1 year ago
There's a reason why creationists are academic pariahs, and you demonstrate that well.
Raptor302 1 year ago
@Freemont100 are you really that dense? the lottery is designed to be won, by the lottery designers!! if that was not the case nobody would buy tickets, the odds are calculated so the odds are in favor of someone wining the lottery. The same way the universe did not happened by chance BUT it was designed to exist by the Creator, or Designer.
laninarushy 1 year ago
@laninarushy "The same way the universe did not happened by chance BUT it was designed to exist by the Creator, or Designer. "
Bullshit. This is a classic example of selection bias that the Anthropic Principal exists to warn against: by definition, we can only observe a universe where we exist. It could have been otherwise. You need a lot stronger evidence to prove that the universe was designed, especially when we KNOW the mechanisms that allowed it to evolve to its current state.
Freemont100 1 year ago
@Freemont100 "we KNOW the mechanisms"... that is BS, those mechanisms have not yet been proven; all science has are theories & hypotheses, NO 100 % proof beyond any doubt forthcoming. Not on the origin of man, evolution, creation of the universe, nor on the fossil record. But u atheists have no qualms believing Science, but u want 100% proof on God! who are the fools here? To the atheists regret, slowly but surely science is proving God, will u believe then?
laninarushy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@laninarushy "all science has are theories & hypotheses, NO 100 % proof beyond any doubt forthcoming"
Oh, for the love of... go look up the word "theory." It does NOT mean what you think it means. There is NOTHING that we can be more sure of than a theory. The only thing we can be "100% certain" of is that we exist, and that's it.
If you can't be arsed to look up even the most basic meaning of the terms you criticize, then don't waste my time.
Freemont100 1 year ago
@laninarushy P.S. as a matter of fact, most atheists do not ask that you show god's existence to 100% certainty. The problem is, no one has showed it to ANY degree of certainty, and the arguments people have used have all resorted to flawed reasoning. There probably is someone out there who has that high a standard of evidence, but if so that person is just as ignorant of science as you sound like.
Freemont100 1 year ago
@laninarushy "that is BS, those mechanisms have not yet been proven; all science has are theories & hypotheses"
All of science is hypotheses with varying degree of support, proofs only exist in mathematics. Among other things, gravity is not proven. However, it's amusing that the mechanisms of evolution are proven mathematically. Look up the various theorems that form the foundation of genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@laninarushy Evolutionary theory has as strong support as the best of theories in natural science though, so your objection really is laughable. This is why academic institutions insist that evolutionary biology be taught in schools all over the world. You are of course free to live in your fantasy world in which "science is about to prove God", but to even make such a statement implies that you think you can formulate a falsifiable hypothesis about God. Good for you - publish and get famous.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@laninarushy The universe was simple produced by something of which we have absolutely no way of knowing anything about. We cant say what the purpose of the universe is or we can't infer anything about the nature of the thing that produced it. So to say it is a designer is really begging the question. We simply dont know, just accept it and remain agnostic in regards to our knowledge.
ultradevon04 2 months ago
...you abandon all religious perceptions of what God is like the teleological argument for an intelligent creator(s) becomes far stronger.
revo1974 2 years ago
This video presents a much stronger argument against design and fine-tuning of a theistic God than a Deistic creator.
Two problems I notice are:
a. Nykytyne2 proposes arguments against an all knowing, all loving and all powerful God. This assumes too much about the nature of God/creator(s) of the universe.
b. He uses human life as an example and not life in general.
When...
revo1974 2 years ago
It is not coincidental: We are impressed by beauty and complexity because we are ourselves pattern-matching machines built by evolution.
Saktoth 2 years ago
The design is the water cycle. What causes the water to freeze, thaw, flow, etc.....The systems (ocean currents, rock cycle, wind patterns) on the planet point to a designer. The earth is not just here it is working in a certain manner. What caused it to begin to rotate, orbit, etc.? The systems (water cycle) not the finished products (ice formations) point to a designer.
bigrevkev55 2 years ago
@bigrevkev55
Gravity. Gravity causes orbits, rotation, etc.
Yeah yeah, i know, 'who designed the laws of gravity' but what you and Craigtube are then describing is a non-intervening god who merely set up the laws of nature. This is deism, not theism.
Saktoth 2 years ago
The "non intervening god" must be like us (or we must be like him). Where did our immaterial parts (conscience, intelligence, morality, emotions, sight, hearing, etc)come from. Material things (like rock an gas) may have produced our skeltons but where did our non material parts come from? We are the image of God. If I am describing deism then we must be like that god. If there is something out there that is eternal and bigger than us we are his subjects
bigrevkev55 2 years ago
2:00 - The cave was not designed by anyone. It is part of the nature of the universe, and how the universe behaves. That puts us back to the design of the Universe.
CraigTube 2 years ago
I apologize for the way my previous comments sounded but I had to shorten them to fit the Character limit.
I did have more to say but after typing I accidentally closed my browser and am far to lazy to retype it all. Sorry you cant hear some of my interesting theories, I'm sure you will stay awake all night wondering about them.
THRE3THEIMMORTAL 2 years ago
3.Why would God create such things as famine, disease, and the need to kill in order to live? Imagine PacMan without Inky Clyde or the rest, imagine playing the piano with only 1 key. You wouldn't because it is no fun.
4.Your comparison of life as a miracle to winning the lottery, however someone has to win the lottery. No matter how many time you try, There does not have to be life.
Since at the end, you told some philosophical theories you created, I will now list some of mine.
THRE3THEIMMORTAL 2 years ago
First I would like to say that I do NOT believe in God, I am simply informing you observed errors in your logic.
1.You say that caverns are complex but do not require a designer, though many would argue that God is the architect and glaciers or water his tools.
2.You ask why if God is an all powerful being whose eventual goal is us as we are now, than why did he not skip the tedious process and simply create us as we are now? You could fast forward to the end of a movie, but would you?
THRE3THEIMMORTAL 2 years ago
Speaking of dating methods, we assume there was no equilibrium reached in the atmosphere and that the level of CO2 was always the same in history which is a fallacy, the unexistant geological time table is another proof of that, simply verify that when you observe petrified trees standing upright through what would be considered many millions of years worth of layers, trees passing thru coals and dirt simply reveal the catastrophism that nations around the world corroborate as the global flood
Serge1965 2 years ago
Sorry, i did not mean to write in capital letters for the last part of my second post, i apologize
Serge1965 2 years ago
it is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and unprovable, undefendable, just look at that beautiful T-REX found by Dr Mary Schweitzer with blood cells, soft tissue, liquids in the blood vessels, 17 times she tested in acidic solution to make sure she was seeing the reality of what was the remains of a pregnant T-REX, WHERE ARE THE 65 MILLIONS OF YEARS?
Serge1965 2 years ago
First off, macro evolution is defendable, such as with different dating techniques on fossils, and with the evolutionary ancestor table, etc. Second, you simply deny macro evolution on the basis that it's just on par with a fantasy, wtf? Evolution is not untested, and yes, it was so long ago that no one was there to test it, that's why we having ways of getting around that fault...
BurntTreeProduct 2 years ago
Macro-evolution is undefendable in this that no transitional fossil from one kind to another as ever been found and if you got any evidence on that, it is fraudulent, nothing has ever been produced in 150 years of Darwinism. The dating techniques can only go so far as 10 000 years in an acurate fashion, different ages have been given on animals that were alive, the samples had revealed millions of years on living creatures, when we speculate on things unobserved, it is no longer science
Serge1965 2 years ago
Sad that a human being has to go through so much brain gymnastic to deny the obvious work of the God of the Bible who says how He did it, claims to see the end from the beginning, claims to be God Who manifested Himself in the flesh, died and was raised from death to give us eternal life and tells us how it is all going to end, the biggest tragedy being our unbelief because of our rebellious pride. You can deceive yourself but you will still have to give Him a reason why you rejected Jesus
Serge1965 2 years ago
Sad to see another human being denying science just because his Bible has the so-called description of the works of the cosmos. And that someone would deny science and accept superstition over it.
BurntTreeProduct 2 years ago
You assume i hate science but in fact i love empirical science, not fairy tales for grown ups, if you were to say that micro-evolution is observable and testable, i would agree 100% with you but when it comes to cosmological evolution, Macro-evolution and all the rest of the evolutionary non-sense such as the geological time table i simply say HOgwash,, it is still in the realm of fantaisies, far away and so long ago that there were no conscious observers to empiricly test anything,
Serge1965 2 years ago
ok i agree with everything your saying but couldn't you say that if complexity implies a designer that god from the understanding form drived from religion is complex in everyway so he/she/it to must have a disigner but for god to be the all powerful all knowing form that suposidly started life he must be the first cause going from this we see that there is no logic behind the the theory? so can you explain to me an arguement against that sorry if its stupid or for any missspellings im only 15
lovessfornow 2 years ago
"LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLaughable" :D
menkooomigen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i like these videos
DoubleAgent244 2 years ago
To say that natural processes alone can produce complexity is to beg the question. But I think you have misrepresented the teleological argument in this vid. To be dealt 2, 4, 5, Q, 9 in a hand of poker is improbable, yet unsurpising, but to be dealt a royal flush every hand for an entire game smells fishy. That is what the teleological argument is. I think it is a persuasive argument, when presented accurately.
evangelical1 2 years ago
LOVE THIS MAN!
CuteChadz 2 years ago
your arguments are sound!!! however you must realize that creationists who use these arguments to support the existence of god are not trying to convince those who's reason leads them to believe that there is no logic behind the theory of god, its for those who already believe and need reassurance. the religious mind is dying, so they are trying to count their loses and keep what they already have.
brahimbug 2 years ago 3
@brahimbug "..count their loses".. U call logical that we are the product of self replicating cosmic goo? that we have no souls, or spirit? that there is no absolute moral law? that the universe is a accident? that the monkeys are ur close relatives? that random mutations (which are extremely rare and fatal) advanced natural selection and r responsible for evolution? , that the universe made itself out of thin air? . WOW!
laninarushy 1 year ago
@brahimbug No wonder why atheists are such a minority, thank God, I guess every village has to have its idiots. It is one thing to believe that there is no God but to try to brainwash others, is the ultimate case of egomaniacal disorder. NO ONE CAN PROVE THERE IS NO GOD, no one ever has and no one ever will, so give it up boys, use ur energy in more productive endeavors.
laninarushy 1 year ago
@laninarushy lol.. kay?
brahimbug 1 year ago
Hmm, I've actually seen an interview of Dr. Michio Kaku on other "baby universes". The space satellite LISA (Laser Interferometry Space Antenna) in 2011 is hoped to find the umbilical chords linked to perhaps a mother cosmos or baby cosmoses that spawned from us, so in the future maybe we could perform the experiment (6:50). For more insight into it scope Kaku's name in the search bar with "Universe to Multiverse".
xXSceilusXx 2 years ago
I like that last evil-demon-creates-idiots-to-torment-the-skeptical theory. Sounds perilously close to truth. . . .
Please make more of these. I, for one, really need all the smartening up I can get.
beetlecommathe 2 years ago
Great videos!
tonip42 2 years ago
Good video and all that.
Btw, you realise Jesusophile is satirical?
Dubhuir 2 years ago
Okay, you got me, I'll subscribe. Sheesh.
No, seriously. Great stuff. Logical and well delivered.
AJustPrimate 2 years ago
Every godless atheist knows that JesusPhile and Edward Currant are satirists. Many theists, however, cannot understand satire and mistake those 2 for the real deal. I suppose that theists are just too dumb to get satire. This reminds me, many conservatives do not understand that "The Colbert Report" is a satirical show.
Walabio 2 years ago
weakest point in 'fine tuned' argument, is that a god should be able to place his 'children' in any universe, doesnt matter if it supported life or not.
logoth80 2 years ago 3
Very interesting series! I find it much more useful to speak of these matter on an epistemological and ontological level rather than on what one believes.
wynd2007 2 years ago
sorry to leave so many comments, but I don't have a video camera as I can't afford one, and the comment box is insufficient for any real thoughtful comment. I could've messaged you it, but I figured I'd put it out here for all to see and pick apart. I'd like to take the time to thank you for making these, I thought it was very interesting, and I anxiously await when the next in the series will show up in my comment box. God Bless.
FaithWillSetYouFree 2 years ago
Mmmmm...the main problem I see with your arguments is that most of them are begging the question or assuming the truth of the premise that need to be proved; that a god exists...
Before anything can be attributed anything to a deity, one must at least establish a coherent and positive ontology for such a being and then at least posit a sound syllogism based on said ontology...
wynd2007 2 years ago
Yes, you're right. But this video assumes the premise that God doesn't exist, and then seeks to explain everything that religion explains in another way, all I'm trying to do is demonstrate that if you accept the premise that God exists, the universe can still be explained using logic. At some point, the laws of physics (namely cause and causation, and the law of conservation of mass) have to be broken, which still allows for religon to be a legitimate arguement, rather than superstition.
FaithWillSetYouFree 2 years ago
This is the normal process any claim usually undergoes; one doesn't go around assuming that everything exists unless substantiation under the form of sound arguments and evidence arise. Basically, the default position for any claim is disbelief.
The crux of the problem isn't the existence of the universe. It is the deity that is posited as first cause to explain it. Unless this premise is soundly demonstrated to be true, assuming its truth is begging the question and fallacious....
wynd2007 2 years ago
Also you seem to be conflating the concepts of religion and deities. They aren't mutually exclusive to each other.
Furthermore, proving the existence of a deity is one thing, proving that it is the one as describe by a particular religion is another one altogether.
In any case, unless the ontology I mentioned earlier has been established, arguing for or against a deity, as philosophically fascinating it might be, is trite at best.
wynd2007 2 years ago
But if the universe can still be explained without God, then God becomes a superfluous explaination, one that in fact creates more questions, such as what accounts for God's nature and the constants that determine it's existence. If the universe can be logical without God, what is the use of the God explaination?
Staunts 2 years ago 7
which sounds insane, but its true. each human being is just one of six billion alive now, out of God knows how many ever existed and will exist, on one planet, in an infinite universe. None of us are the least bit significant to the overall working of the universe. You ask why god created the universe with Earth specifically in mind. He didn't. He created the universe with EVERYTHING specifically in mind. everything in the universe has a purpose, even if we don't know what it is yet.
FaithWillSetYouFree 2 years ago
What specifically leads you to determine that everything has a purpose?
Staunts 2 years ago 3
You also ask why horrible things exist. This is such a lame arguement from atheists. God did not create the world to be perfect. It's not supposed to be. Heaven is perfect. Once you get into heaven, that baby with the birth defects is just as functional as anyone else, and can partake in the euphoria that is Gods love. The biggest problem with that is that its arrogant, and assumes that God exists only to tend to our problems, when really, all human life is meaningless to the entire universe
FaithWillSetYouFree 2 years ago
the problem with your complexity arguement is that I believe God created them, you have not offered any evidence otherwise, you just state that you don't believe god created them. Then you ask why would God create the universe in such lengths, well the simple answer would be to say "we can't understand His methods", and although its true, its a bullshit response. The reason why, is that its not such a rediculous method. To believe that it is, is to believe that God is limited by time.
FaithWillSetYouFree 2 years ago
great video, I like the way you handled the basic physical constants argument.
I was sort of expecting the mention of strong anthropic principle at some point though.
ohtarelenion 2 years ago
awesome vid
TheRetardedChristian 2 years ago
First two Doubt 101 vids were insanely great (really!)—are you God?
premed2 2 years ago
Explanation of the cruel world - We initially had paradise, man rebelled, this is the program now. God teaches His nature by letting you see to what extent you can develop noble characteristics. They cannot be understood in a world without adversity, or developed of your own ability, only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Goal: Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
slack7639 2 years ago
Yaaarrrr!
That baby will replace the whale in my nightmares!
VadimDubois 2 years ago
This man is a genius...
drekke13 2 years ago
If I was making this video, I would have included the formation of snowflakes as an example in this video.
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Very articulate and exhaustive final word, Nykytyne2, too bad it won't be viewed as a final word by many believers...
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
God does exist... you eat babies if you disagree.
swivelingchairguy 2 years ago
I quite like children but I could never eat a whole one.
Perhaps we could share.
Large fries and a beer?
draagon66 2 years ago 3
8:11 - Gilligan's Island FTW!
CB563 2 years ago
There is a great Gary Larson cartoon about stalactites and stalagmites:
Two cave-men are walking in a cave. One is about to walk into a stalactite. The other says to him: "Watch out, there is a...a..Gee, I keep forgetting which are the ones growing up or hanging down."
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
you should really join the history channel and construct a series of documenteries of science that (like this video) interacts with the viewer so that they are inspired to do whatever you want them to do. you are telling the truth and people want the truth. you'd also get paid for it.
boomhoward22 2 years ago
alot of assumptions based on just logic... the christian belief teaches that logic is made from the devil, so catch 20/20... its a problem. focus on easier and more provable arguements!!
kezdodik1 2 years ago
Yeah, fuck Descartes!
Arfalarf 2 years ago
A pleasure to watch as always Nyk. Well... except for a couple of images.
simeoneous 2 years ago
One could assume all those examples are from a god, but it's begging the question. Teleological argument is circular reasoning.
jbz3 2 years ago
Sure. I believe in an unconscious machine "god". I just call it nature.
jbz3 2 years ago 3
I appreciate all the thought you put into this video. I've alway been a fan of thinking. More people should try it out and see if thinking is not for them too:)
aaaaicit2 2 years ago
rejecting argument that designer created our telos still leaves the problem of telos' existance. no matter how hard you try, human intelligence must still create some form of "theology" no matter how scientifically enlightened. to allegorize, explanation that wearing a cape keeps child's head warm in the winter time does not explain mother's love for that child asking to wear a cape ;-p
jogayot 2 years ago
Excellent stuff.
One small point - crystals, like the beautiful gypsum formations in Lechuguilla Cave, aren't complex - they are structurally one of the simplest things found in nature.
Although I agree that the apparent 'designed-ness' of those perfect geometrically satisfying structures appeals to the agency-seeking sense in all of us. I remember being in awe as a kid just looking at a few grains of salt under a microscope.
TroisVitesse 2 years ago
"They are structurally one of the simplest things found in nature"
Glad you noticed that. I think people overestimate the complexity of the Universe.
wholethinker 2 years ago
What were the chances, at the time of the Big Bang, that so many billions of years later, I would be in these two square meters of space (in the whole universe) that I occupy at this nanosecond, writing a response to your YouTube video? Probably either one in a centillion, or one in one (if this is merely the way the atoms would have gone no matter what). Anyway, I'm here.
And by the way, when I saw the "disturbing image alert", I didn't know how disturbing it would be.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Thank you for not being yet another speedtalker
Im sure Im not the only who dossent have english as a 1st language.
nice work
painterQjensen 2 years ago
3:50 - Science has shown only that nature's creativity is at least partially intrinsic to it. This does not disprove God, but requires any posited creator not be entirely separate from the ongoing unfolding of the cosmos. The failed theistic argument is due to adherance to the design paradigm, which posits an aloof spiritual architect designing nature from outside. Contemporary science doesn't make theology obsolete, but requires that it update its conception of Spirit (theism>panentheism).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
I don't buy the fine tuning argument. I think a cosmos that does not develop life is improbable even if I was sure there are more than one (which I am not).
prodigyat9 2 years ago
Great Vid Nick! I felt as if I was watching an intriguing episode of Nova! As far as the crystal-cave example go's...it shows an active natual process that "creates" beautiful semmetry without intelligent interferance or promotion.
Thereminator101 2 years ago
To be honest i think God just baked a cake, and forgot it in the oven and its slowly burning and in the end will be ruined.
Oh well. :)
Haraldur34 2 years ago