Richard Dawkins --- The Anthropic principle

[1spiders1]

This guy talks pure shit.

[HebrewTiger]

Standard Multiverse metaphysical hypothesis cop out, when faced with direct evidence, make up a hypothetical escape plan. Totally unscientific in it's very method. All dawkins is really saying is this. "There must be a way to debunk this, I have no evidence to support anything I subscribe to, but I just cannot believe this universe was the result of intelligent design, so I shall try to find a way around a Creator"

[TruthHungryChannel]

@HebrewTiger totally agree everything he says in this video is completely unscientific and it doesn't get rid of the problem of the anthropic principle it only kicks it upstairs now Dawkins needs to explain what is producing these "billions of universes" which if this were true (apsolutely no evidence for it) would need a even greater deal of fine tuning.

[HebrewTiger]

@TruthHungryChannel Yes there is also a huge flaw in the multiverse hypothesis model, a flaw that many people simply overlook, the whole model is based on presuppositions, they are assuming that most of the other multiverse worlds are poorly tuned. if there is an actual multiverse, how do they know every single one of them is not infact just as fine tuned as this real universe? They do themselves no favours with these types of speculations their assumptions answer zilch, just beg more questions

[TruthHungryChannel]

@HebrewTigerthat's also something to consider but that's not the point i was making, the multi universe theory doesn't get rid of the problem of fine tuning you now need a multi universe initiator for lack of a better word some sort of "device" that is repeatedly producing these universes which would have to be even MORE fine tuned then the universes themselves, having the ability to spit out purposeful, structural, useful universes you name it one after the other for eternity, i don't think so.

[HebrewTiger]

@TruthHungryChannel You mean a catalyst? or a prime mover? I agree with this, I think the multiverse world ensemble hypothesis just causes more problems, and begs more questions. Not to mention it being purely speculative, and you're right I have brough that point up on occasions during debate, it actually increases the fine tuning and just adds more fuel to the mathematical improbability case argument, I do not take this hypothesis of a multiverse seriously at all, it is a fruitless ponder.

[TomFynn]

@HebrewTiger Listen again: What he does here is to give a brief summary of speculations(!) currently entertained by physicists at the forefront of knowledge. At no point does he say or imply that there is evidence or that he has it, or that it is consensus in the scientific community.

[HebrewTiger]

@TomFynn The only reason this is entertained by anybody is as a means to avoid a Creator. Dawkins lay followers consider the multiverse model as credible theory, I have to correct about 10 Dawkins fanboys a weak who assert that the Multiverse model is a Theory. Just search multiverse theory on google quickly, and see howmany psuedoscientist actually call this model a scientific theory, I have even heard Dr.s who hold Phd claim this is a scientific theory in debates. it's not a theory.

[Arcexey]

@HebrewTiger The scientific community and entire world alike can avoid a creator simply by not saying a word and doing nothing, so let's sweep it off the table that research on the multiverse theory is due to not wanting to accept a creator.

[58jf59]

Dawkins has made one of the very many easy-to-make mistakes in using this firing squad analogy.

It misleads people into thinking that the outcomes are 'man is shot' or 'man is not shot' as if they're the shooters whose existence isn't contingent on the outcome.

[TomFynn]

@58jf59 The outcomes he compares are "all shooters miss" (highly unlikely) and at least one shooter does not miss (the general result). Your point is?

[58jf59]

@TomFynn In the analogy we are the person being shot at, and can ONLY observe that we are not shot. It is "highly unlikely" that all shooters miss **ONLY** to anyone who the guns aren't aimed at, and they could rightly draw conclusions from that if that happened. This is exactly what most people understandably get confused about.

But all it means is that YOU can't draw any inference about a cause for YOUR existence, if there is one, simply from the fact that YOU do exist. Sorry for the CAPS.

[TomFynn]

@58jf59 Th point is that if you find something happening to you that you deem to be unlikely, and say, well it must have happened because it happened you have not answered *why* it happened. And that the answer to why is more desirable. Not that saying "God did it" ever answered that question.

[58jf59]

@TomFynn I think you're maybe still missing the point of the anthropic principal, it's not about something happening to you, it's about you being created. Likelihood only applies to a scenario with more than one outcome. As far as you are concerned with your own existence, there is only one outcome. Hence likelihoods just have no meaning. If however you were to witness something, that's entirely different and your point would apply because you could witness it not happening. Odd isn't it?

[Dash277]

I'm am decidedly not a fan of Mr Dawkins but i have to at least say I appreciate his view here. If you dont believe in god so be it, but many simply discount the anthropic principle.

[julesindahouse]

By definition there can be no empiricism of the other universes, whether they exist or not. They would be invisible to us and everything within our universe. I'm sure you're just being antagonistic suggesting that Dawkins is any type of creationist. I personally feel agnostic about all of this stuff and I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't go as far as that in what he 'believes'.

[amercury7]

So we are supposed to believe in a zillion other universes that exist or are being created which explains the problems of the Anthropic principle? Sounds like a creationist mythical goof! Science stands on empiricism, where is the evidence of even one other "universe"? Of course I will be branded a "creationist" for even questioning the great Richard Dawkins. The guy actually claims to be scientific and says this? He is a evolutionary creationist!

[SocraticBass]

The rest of Leslie's argument goes unmentioned here, but he raises a good point I think. The man on the firing squad begins to calculate the probability that all 10 of his marksmen miss. The number is absurdly ridiculous. Then a second possible explanation comes to him -- that his executioners might really be on his side. He asks himself, "Which is more likely?" Most rational people would agree, that given the improbability - they must be on his side. Such it is with the laws of the universe.

[acidclarkie]

I like the anthropic principle, things only exist once they have been observed. I do understand that the multiverse can explain why our universe is so well tuned,ie... because given time and the amount of universes with different laws that one universe would end up like ours.But then you have to ask where did all those other universe come from. who is the mother universe.It's these question that puzzle me again. so i like the Anthropic principle.

[BigBangNeverHappend]

Intresting video though

[BigBangNeverHappend]

Atheism is a religion for the blind

[unamaxify]

@BigBangNeverHappend

funny how you call the ones that actually can see blind.

theistic religion is for the ones to affraid to look.

And no Atheism is just a word to expresse non-beleive, so it can't be a religion.

[BigBangNeverHappend]

@unamaxify You are the blind.

[unamaxify]

@BigBangNeverHappend

No, i can see just fine.

You still call the ones that actually can see blind.

[BigBangNeverHappend]

@unamaxify 'You are a relinutter. You are blind.

[JosiahPlummer1988]

@BigBangNeverHappend

Why exactly do you believe that atheism is a "religion for the blind?" Not only is such a statement shamelessly vitriolic, it also makes no sense: describing atheism as a "religion" in any way is erroneous. Also, if you are suggesting that religion is for people "with vision," which religion are you referring to? Because the illuminating light of all the religions taken together would be quite blinding, wouldn't it?

[BigBangNeverHappend]

@JosiahPlummer1988 Religion is for the workingclass. The sheeple so to speak.

[JosiahPlummer1988]

@BigBangNeverHappend

So religious people are like sheep (and thus blind) while atheism is simultaneously a religion for the blind? I can't be the only person noticing a contradiction here.

[BigBangNeverHappend]

@JosiahPlummer1988 Atheism is a religion. 

[Betelgeuse921]

@BigBangNeverHappend Really? Just because in this case everything counts as religion if it is about people's belief or disbelief in something. Like (dis)belief in love, humanity, sincerity, etc. These all form our way of thinking and what we accept about the world as true.

[JosiahPlummer1988]

@BigBangNeverHappend

Atheism is not a religion. How in the name of logic did you arrive at that conclusion? That's like saying virginity is a sexual orientation.

[MirageScience]

@JosiahPlummer1988 I'm an atheist and I disagree with you. There does come along with atheism a different world view opposite theism. We can argue all we want about how we come to the differences and how atheism isn't dogmatic.. blah blah blah. But, you still build a world-view because you are an atheist, and it's still in relation to the belief/ non-belief in god.

I can explain more, and not to be rude or anything, but you are playing strict definition games. causing u 2 miss distinctions.

[JosiahPlummer1988]

@MirageScience

So, I shouldn't be discussing religions based on the definition of religions? Sorry, but that's how one weeds out people who are speaking out of their asses. Does atheism involve a belief in metaphysics? A deity? An afterlife? No. Ergo, atheism is not a religion. There's no debate here.

Besides, you seem to be confusing worldviews with religions.

[Betelgeuse921]

@MirageScience And just because something has a relation to belief or disbelief in god, it can must be called a 'religion'? I would rather call it a 'personal point of view'. Otherwise there would be as many religions as many people and the word 'religion' would make no sense at all.

[MirageScience]

@Betelgeuse921 semantics. religion has already covered this area with its definition, we don't need to be changing it up just because we don't like a word.

[Betelgeuse921]

@MirageScience Yes, exactly. Semantics. Religion is an assorted collection of beliefs, explanations, literature, morality and liturgy. Atheism only means the negation of the existence of god without anything listed above. So why am I religious if I am an atheist?

[MirageScience]

@Betelgeuse921 /user/Professoranton#p/c/CF12D­EBFDA149D70/25/BrwF-mogsoc

there is to many things to be said for anyone to jam into a you tube comment. Professor Anton points out through his videos many thing that modern atheism has which can fall right into a category of new age religion. There are many many things atheists which claim to be following logic and reason just simply assume, exactly as previous religions have.

[Betelgeuse921]

@MirageScience Yes, e.g. string theory has become quite a sort of religion in the last few decades. But the big difference is that following logic means searching for an answer while accepting a religion means accepting an answer. And while you can still change the assumptions needed for your logic you cannot change your religion without changing your attitude to the world as a whole.

[MirageScience]

@Betelgeuse921 i was not referring to changing assumptions needed for logic, w/e that is. I was talking about assumptions atheists make which can be demonstrated by science to be absolutely faulty, which is why in my previous comment I related these assumptions similar to those made by religions. 

I would seem to me that your latest comment only says you don't want such a thing to be true, and therefore it isn't. We shouldn't be ashamed of being wrong, we are as we know just little animals.

[Betelgeuse921]

@MirageScience I don't know what assumptions you mean then. And I don't know who are those atheists you mean. 'Atheists' is not a homogeneous group that can be classified as making certain assumptions that can be disproved by science. Among scientists themselves you can find atheists and believers too. Some make assumptions which are different from what others make. There are as many atheisms as many atheist people you can find. That is why it is not a religion.

[MirageScience]

@Betelgeuse921 by atheists i generally am referring to the new atheists, because we don't generally call Buddhists atheists. These atheists are pretty homogenous, and for the most part are scientific materialists, most of whom will ignore serious questions that for instance Christians don't. 1 question in particular question these people would ignore as if its a joke is why is there something rather than nothing.

I would suggest viewing some if not all of Corey Antons videos on YouTube,

[Betelgeuse921]

@MirageScience It is a serious misinterpretation of atheism if you think that atheists ignore this question. All the more because this is the basic question that underlies science, so it can hardly be taken as a joke. But this question still falls in the realm of philosophy and we can only hope that some day it will become a real scientific question. And it is even more serious if you think that "because God created the Universe" is a better answer than completely ignoring the question.

[reticulum78]

@MirageScience 'New' atheists form a homogeneous group? Where did you get that from? Calling someone an atheist is like calling an elephant 'not giraffe'. I don't think that Christians compose a homogeneous group but their group is still more homogeneous than that of atheists.

[MirageScience]

@JosiahPlummer1988 and it's not just you, it's a lot of recovering christians over the internet.

[weardrake]

@BigBangNeverHappend hehe...funny, if you are a christian, or any monotheistic western religion revolving around the same story of Jesus, God, The holy spirit etc...then isn't your religion based upon kindness and NOT judging others beliefs, looks, gender etc... and if you are Hindu, then you believe in karma, which means you shouldn't judge because its mean. That's just a few religions, i don't know of any religion permitting judgement of one another's beliefs,now kindly stop being anti-athiest

[Micahthetatter]

Funny how people just latch on to junk like this.

[unamaxify]

@Micahthetatter

funny how some people are to stupid to look past their own limitation and call everthing they can't understand "junk"

[Micahthetatter]

@unamaxify Pretty impressive observation for somone whos never met me, actually I call that judgement. If you believe this crap then go ahead, but just so you know there is no proof or even evidence of this claim. If I say there is a God then all I hear from atheists is "prove it". So, my challenge to you is to prove this JUNK. Bet you cant.

[unamaxify]

@Micahthetatter

well you want the burden of proof... ok ;)

your claim: anthropic principle is junk.

now you have to prove that it is junk.

I never claimed that the Anthropic principle is true.

The only claim I made: you being stupid. And the kind person you are,

you just proved that for me in your last comment.

[Micahthetatter]

@unamaxify allright Im stupid, andIm a horrible person. Not sure how my last comment proved that though, please elaborate.

[unamaxify]

@Micahthetatter

First: where is your "junk" proof (you know the one you asked for)

Second: your stupid for maneuvering yourself in the "proof corner"

when the only one who made a topic related positive claim was yourself.

just in case you forgot:

-> I INSIST that you prove your claim (Anthropic principle being "junk")

[Metrukuta]

Oh shit.

Cosmological Darwinism.

[gespilk]

1:40 How can one believe in the FOAM when there is not a shred of Evidence to support it. If the FOAM exists then the question is WHAT CREATED THE FOAM?

I am willing to ask the question of What created X or Y until we get to the real question of: WHY there is SOMEthing instead of NOthing. In other words what kind of force will make Particles to pop out of NOthing and more importantly what creates that force.

[TheCikedo]

@gespilk The ignorance of that argument cannot withstand any amount of logic put into it.

You're saying that something (presumably - matter) has to come from somewhere, it has to have a beginning? Why? Because that's what you're used to.

In that same sense, why doesn't God have to have a beginning? If he's eternal and forever alive - why can't the universe (any theory, string/big bang etc etc) have always been - in some form - existing (eternal also)? However - changing.

Moron. lol.

[gespilk]

@TheCikedo

I remember what educators taught 30 years ago. God was still there but there was no FOAM, strings, dark matter, dark energy and even Big Bang was a question. Back then there were much less objects in the sky and Pluto was a planet. Now it is a big mess.

Whatever that FOAM is, it has to be beyond ALL we know because laws of physics are created after a Big Bang event. Where is the FOAM?-Outside the Universe?

What made the FOAM?

WHAT forced NOTHING to express itself as SOMETHING?

[MrShineSilver]

Baby Universes are cute. Thumbs up if you agree

[RaubeeTM]

Hmm... scientific evidence for billions of parallel universes: none

[Achilles9924]

@RaubeeTM Anything that has very strong mathematical basis should be considered seriously. Einstein didn't consider the existence of blackholes a possibility but at the end we did find numerous evidence in the cosmos that suggests that they are there.

[RaubeeTM]

@Achilles9924 wow you can do mathematical equations about the metaphysical?? wow i didn't know that, you must of been there.. how is it like?? an how do you know there is a strong mathematical basis for it?? sources?? how do you know that our math applies the "hypothetical universes" out there, there must be different constants, different type of matter etc.. this is starting to justify the grounds of comparison with mythology.

[Achilles9924]

@RaubeeTM Well, I was talking about M-theory but you seem have taken my comment out of context. M-theory predicts parallel universes. You can google it. I think there is also a lecture by Ed Witten in youtube where he explains his theory. I'm not claiming to know anything. I'm just proposing that a physicist who has been considered as the successor of Einstein (Ed Witten) must be taken seriously. He may not be right but you can't prove otherwise can you? I can't. So it's a possibility.

[gespilk]

@Achilles9924

Where are the "parallel universes". They may require Hell of a lot of "space" (at least one more large spacial dimension). But we "know" there are only 3 large dimensions. All other dimensions are curled.

[rkyeun]

@gespilk

You can stack an infinite number of 2-D sheets into any nonzero volume. Even a very tiny curled extra dimension is plenty of room for infinitely many 3-D universes.

[gespilk]

@rkyeun

As I said earlier you just added "at least one more large spacial dimension" by using the word "volume". Could you please modify your 2-D example by using much smaller and curled dimensions compared to the 2 big dimensions in your 2-D model? Bare in mind that in the 2-D space a triangle should still have 180 as a sum of its angles (this is how our universe is). And another thing - the stack of 2-D dimensions should not intersect as it is in our 3-D.

Is such example even possible?

[rkyeun]

@gespilk

Okay, the inhabitants of Flatland seem to think they have a 2-D world, but there are extra curled dimensions that means their universe isn't 2D. If we assume the curled dimension is very small, perhaps 3nm, then there is room for infinite parallel planes of Flatland in the volume created by multiplying the area of flatland by the 3nm of height from the curled dimension.

Similarly, there would be room for infinite parallel spaces of a 3D universe in the hypervolume.

[ChatFreak101]

How can the Anthropic principle connect to alien life? **

[boblackey1]

@ChatFreak101 I would say the anthropic principle can connect to alien life because IF the laws of physics are just right, change so many of them just a little bit up or down and life would not exist, stars would not form etc, and we know the laws of physics are just right because I'm here typing and you are reading, life exists, then if life can exist here..why not on other planets?

[ChatFreak101]

How can the Anthropic principle connect to aliens???

[sarotran]

He is so boring... because what he knows is absolutelly nothing! Dawkins, prepare yourself because God loves you... He want to forgive all your stupidities.

[iLOVEgaynessNtheANUS]

@sarotran perhaps you should use proper grammar while you're calling someone stupid... just a thought...

[boblackey1]

@iLOVEgaynessNtheANUS I'm just a laymen. I don't have a degree in any of this and I doubt anyone who posts here does. We just listen to those who are experts and decide which ones and what parts of their arguments we can accept. But it seems clear to me that if the multi-universe theory is wrong (and there is no way now to know if billions of other universes exist other that the one we are in) then God must exist. That seems so clear to me. Anyone?

[iLOVEgaynessNtheANUS]

@boblackey1 That was well said (the first half of the post). However, I just saw a video that was talking about sending a satellite into space and being able to prove/disprove the multiverse theory. It is here:

/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ

[pgm98387]

Wow,

Dawkins talking about cosmology.....hmmmmm.

[davidw4364]

How do they know these alternate Galaxies have potential for evoulution?

[callumCGLP]

Because the laws of physics are the same everywhere, no matter where you are in the universe.

[davidw4364]

you mean the known universe? cause there is really no way of knowing if we havent tested.

[callumCGLP]

We know very well that the laws are the same everywhere. We knew many of the laws before we ever launched a spacecraft into orbit. When we did, our spacecraft flung around other planets just as predicted by Newtonian Gravitation.

If the laws weren't the same everywhere, none of our current observations or science would make any sense - things wouldn't work.

[secretsofwar10]

thats just crazy, God is real and so is Jesus, you can prove it!

[ReallyNow9]

I love Dawkins <3

[sylviabombs15]

dawkins is a pimp

his pimp juice is strong

respect