Actually gravity plays virtually no part in particle interaction, it's mostly electro-magnetic in nature. And a 2006 paper entitled 'A Universe Without Weak Interactions' (Harnik, R. et al) explains that a universe without the Weak Nuclear Force would be largely unchanged from our own. Therefore half of the forces that govern the universe aren't required to sustain life.
@PascalsWager5 I think he was trying to point out the difference between the intuition on the probability of Gods existence and the complex religion that says with absolute certainty God exists. Its easy to justify the first, the second not so much.
Bible’s stories Old Bible story: "He... hanged the Earth upon nothing " / Job 26:7 / New Bible story: According to the many scientific experts however, space and time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang It is possible to say, "He... hanged the Big Bang upon nothing " This situation is strange But if we think that ‘nothing’ is a Reference Frame ( Vacuum) then the situation will be different # Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts / Richard Feynman /
I am an outspoken Athiest. I am a subsriber to Philhellenes and normally agree with him, but the stuff claiming that if the universe existed any other way life would not be possible is rubbish, people ask why the Earth is just the right distance from the sun, answer, because if it had been further away or closer, life would have evolved that was suited for higher or lower tempuratures. That is a far more scientific viewpoint than to make claims based on one example.
@hydrogenpi16 That has always been my thought on the fine tuning question. If the Universe had been fine tuned another way and came into existence, life would have started from that particular point and evolved and been fine tuned for that particular Universe. Just because it's very narrowly balanced for THIS particular form of the Universe doesn't mean it wouldn't have been just as successful tuned another way for another form of the Universe.
@hydrogenpi16 Well even in our universe, we see certain planets that have probable cases of containing life. Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, has some of these types of conditions minimally, but most organisms that can survive the extreme conditions of Europa are archaea bacteriums. But remember, fine-tuning is relative to only the laws of *this* universe. Another universe could* exist with its own laws, but that would be unobservable to us.
The ending just made me have a brain-gasm. I think scientists should replace the term 'fine-tuning'. Fine tuning implies some sort of intervention, but what Phil explained was basically that it is actually a specific condition where all the variables and constants of the universe have to be set for life to have ability to exist. Any other condition would've been impossible, so god has no choice in the matter and would've have to follow the law of physics to 'create'. Absolutely brilliant!!!
One of your conclusions is flawed. God could have omnipotently created a goldilocks universe - against our logical assumption that this would be stupid.
About that ending part. I realize this is probably a slim chance at it, but there is one possibility of an Omnipotent creator. Just one that like to follow a few rules. This being something like a programming language for computers. First the language is made, and then the language is used to define what happens. Taking this, couldn't the creator, maybe, have created physics and then arranged it in such a way to make life from it?
Speculating an explanation, as you did, is a constructive step towards progress - provided you have the sense to recognise you could be wrong - you were, and you admitted it.
Well done.
Try that with the religious fruitcakes that pollute our planet.
What do we gain by following our logic to no hope? At least thats how I feel about it. Id rather feel comfort in a God that loves me than loose my hope of purpose, not manufactured purpose by man. Keep your cold lifeless logic, Id rather be insane by beliving Gods supernatural world and having crazy love for people. God Bless you. P.S. : I love this scripture for what I am saying: 1 Corinthians 1:18-31
@Lovestruedefinition Why do you need a faith to have a purpose? Why do you need faith to have crazy amounts of love for people?
No one is saying you can't love or have hope. They're saying they want you to be free; they want you to be able to experience; they want you to understand how important you really are. No one is saying you can't believe. They just want you to also believe in yourself.
Logic and reason are the tools we use to discern reality from fantasy. You have embarrassingly (in my opinion) admitted that you would prefer to believe a comforting lie than to accept reality.
- The bible is the most disgusting book i have ever read.
-Numbers 31 31:17 kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
@qarohc God has the right to all life. I could die a horrible death right now and God would not be wrong. Logic and reason can be good like all things but has been twisted by man to fulfill their own world view. I will not trust that. I live by faith. Humanism is foolishness and death, Nothing more.
more superstitious hopeful thinking that a dictator in the sky is there to save you from eventual death, as long as you give up your one and only true life in the hopes that he wont torture you for eternity.
Hmm... in proof of that statement, one of them has marked your original comment as spam... That really pisses me off. I mean, Christians, if you take offense to a comment, by all means post another comment to refute the offensive comment. But marking as spam is just juvenile behavior. That's like admitting that the truthfulness of the comment burns to the core and you just can't stand looking at it.
Number of books, texts, journals, magazines and papers needed to understand just a single field of science: anywhere from, at least 4 years of undergraduate study's worth, to an entire life's worth
Number of books needed to be read to understand Christianity: just 1
And yet christians have the audacity to criticize all aspects of science from the big bang to quantum physics.
For question 2... you said the forces of nature couldn't be changed or else we'd all be dead. Well humans seem to not get utterly decimated on the Moon, or in space for that matter. I find it hard to believe that changing the gravitational force constant would be so bad for life. Besides, who says life can't evolve to deal without such that even if WE died, couldn't it find a way? It's like assuming ALL life requires water. What if it evolved to not, somewhere on some distance planet?
@ZellMurasame I understand your misunderstanding because I once had EXACTLY the same one!
It's not about being able to walk or breath in a slightly higher or lower gravity. It's about nuclear fusion in stars. If gravity, for instance, were a little weaker, stars would not fuse all the elements we seem to need for complex biochemistry to occur (life). OR if gravity were slightly stronger, stars would burn up and die too quickly for life, let alone intelligence, to evolve. It's a fine balance.
@philhellenes I can see where your coming from, but is it really improbable that if our star took a million years longer to form and thus the Earth took longer to accrete, would a bunch of self-replicating chemical reactions not have come about because of this shift in absolute time? Or would our star dying a million years sooner mean that life can't evolve? Isn't our sun about 5 billion years from dying? Would a 1% shortening of that life mean we couldn't evolve in the same ~4.5 billion years?
1 & 2: No such thing as absolute time, and again, it is not about the rate of the formation of the Earth, or gravity effecting rates of chemical change, it's about nuclear fusion rates AND its products in stars.
3. Dying, yes, but Earth will be uninhabitable in half that time as the sun heats up.
4. The effect of a 1% change in the strength of gravity would have FAR greater than 1% effect on the life expectancy of a star and the elements they can create.
@philhellenes life, at its most basic, is a series of self-replicating patterns. I can hardly see why "life" would be impossible with different laws of physics. Granted, entirely *different* patterns would emerge, drastically so, but patterns would still emerge. Perhaps anti-matter would have been predominant rather than matter, or perhaps subatomic particles would never have coalesced into matter, but even so, within the confines of that system, NEW patterns would likely emerge.
@TransparentChocolate I'm not saying "life" (of some kind) could not exist with different or even wildly different laws. I think of it like harmonics points on the string of a musical instrument (where the energy waves meet and balance). There's several such points but the places where they fall are very narrow, a little sharp or flat and the harmonic is gone, and compared to the total length of the string (all possible notes) they are few.
@philhellenes Because the universe is not fine-tuned for life, natural selection has fine-tuned life for the universe. Only the patterns that are suited to the system will emerge and propagate. It's for this reason that I can imagine, even with tweaked constants, something rather like "life" emerging, but bearing no resemblance whatsoever to life as we know it.
@TransparentChocolate The cosmological constant has 119 zeros after the decimal. It is TINY. Yet, Steven Weinberg calculated that if it had 118, or 120 zeros, we wouldn't be here. THAT is a fine balance. That tiny change would mean no stars, no elements heavier than helium. That means no carbon, no complex chemistry. Change the rules slightly, here, and any conceivable life disappears. The Universe would be too...simple. But, as you said, change them a LOT and maybe something else appears.
@philhellenes Fair enough, that I can completely agree with. So it's not there is only one possible set of constants that could give rise to enough complexity for life, it's simply that those spaces of possibility are so few and far between that moving even slightly from the one we're on would miss the sweet spot.
Of course, from an anthropic perspective, that's exactly WHY we find ourselves here, because we couldn't be anywhere else.
@TransparentChocolate yes it is i also agree with you, that being so and life being this complicated to accomplish, that it literally kicks the possibility of hell or a physicall heaven straight to the comic books, this is what religons dont get, once we really see, we really see, and there is nothing they can say, NOTHING! to validate there idea of the big G, ......................................................................"its fire not magic"
Not to throw a mon\key wrench in, but there are 593,493 words in the Old, 181,253 in the New, 774,746 all together. Not that it makes a difference in the argument, but having the New being 5 times longer than the old set off an alarm bell.
i heard somewhere that research said that there was no need for the weak nuclear force in order for some kind of life to develop. i cant remember where though
I've heard that too, but if offered the opportunity to step into a Universe without the weak force I wonder if the proponents would have the balls to do it.
Without the weak nuclear force there may be no radioactive to decay to keep the Earth's core molten. So no magnetic field to protect the Earth (and a lot of ice). Also, the weak force plays a part in neutrino creation, which in turn are important for supernovae, and without them...no heavy elements outside of stars to make planets.
Without the weak force, there are no main sequence stars. Stars are massive enough to overcome the electromagnetic force that keeps planets intact and not exploding in thermonuclear fireballs. The weak force is what holds them up instead of letting them collapse to neutron stars, where the strong force holds them up. Without main sequence stars, you can't have the fusion of heavier elements. It's either hydrogen or a giant neutron star or a black hole. I don't think you can live there.
@mynameisdarthtater: Without the weak force there would be no radioactivity. That would have meant that the Earth's core would have cooled long before now, no doubt among a whole lot of other things.
innit true religions get tax exempt status fro no reason, and also governemts shouldnt take taxpayer money to fund religious organisations. church maintenance should be paid by those involved, no-one else.
Church's are afforded the same services as everyone else, local and state funded police, fire etc.property tax is not levied either as it is for EVERY other property owner. Churches are a business in that they take in revenue by providing services & sales of items and public functions, bingo, bake sales, etc...
During the Fukushima disasters there was a media moment where an organizer made sure to communicate that while they appreciate aid packages, shipping bibles would take space and weight where water, food or blankets would be better received.
Religion while the intent may be good, often does more harm. Just look at what the Catholic church is doing in Africa regarding condom use. They are in effect committing genocide.
first we don't know of any other current or past life outside of earth. although possible on mars and or outer moons. even if we did these are such a tiny part of our universe. it would be better to say the universe was fine tuned for stars, hydrogen or fusion. earth was made for bacteria and not man. etc.
we don't yet know enough about the properties of the universe to say that they can't go a little in any direction, but we have a good start.
It doesn't even matter. Assume the properties of the universe COULD be wildly different and still have life.
Would that stop the question? Would we not still wonder why Blornthast Omega Five had been so generously designed with its comfortably warm magma seas and its refreshingly cool fluorine-xenon atmosphere?
Or go the other way. Suppose the universe isn't capable of supporting life at all. Now who notices? Who would ever be able to say, "Hey, why isn't the universe capable of letting me live?" Just how long do trees survive on the surface of the sun? And how do they get there? If it had been created by God, why surely there would be magical fireproof trees on the sun. But no, the universe is devoid of magic, and the reality is that wood burns, and life has to fit physics.
It's not gold. It's cheesecake. It's a side effect of developing a theory of mind during our long enculturation, yet before really knowing what a theory of mind is in the abstract. That is our intuition of "something out there" behind the scenes... and evolution has favored intuition and curiosity as a cost efficient survival strategy by "rewarding" mechanisms.
Mental cheesecake... but it tastes so good, the merchandising/capitalizing opportunities emergent are practically deterministic.
quit refuting creationist they would not except any evidence ever if some other god came down and did miracles they would still say there god is real and this is a lie creationists all of u (some exceptions) r fucking idiots
Wonderful video. I also think it's interesting that the factorial difference btwn TFPs 2 words (God Exists) and the 1M of the Bible (which contains all the information he will ever need) is NOTHING in comparison to the 1M in the Bible and the Trillions in scientific literature. As Henry Rollins once famously said, its overwhelming and pisses me off that there is so much truth and knowledge out there, and no matter how much you learn, you are only scraping the tip of the iceberg.
Questions for theist. Religion has claimed science tries to pull ppl from god, only to accept its results later. Religion has also used science to back its claims. So isn't science useful. Why not let scientists work and accept the results? Are theist afraid they will be let down by religion? Differentiate religion from god, and, science cant prove/disprove any gods existence. Religion--- wont disprove and cant prove any gods existence. So why cant the two get along? Please respond.
Wow this debate has a different feel to it from other debates on this subject. I'm like on the edge on my seat waiting for the next video. lol Don't be to hard on TogetherForPeace or he might stop arguing. Normally I usually say why bother arguing with them but you might actually get through to him. He seams like a good guy who has just been fooled by to much erroneous logic. Keep it up phil! *subscribes*
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The speaker's view of God is so limited, it fits his arguments perfectly. Another way to say it, is that the speaker must hold a limited view of God in order to validate his arguments. He sees a god subject to the laws of the universe not creating nor preeminent over those laws.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, God is separate from His creation. Your statement is pantheistic. That's not what I said. Granted, He limits Himself to be separate from His creation. If you're a Creator, you can define your own limits.
Ah, so God is NOT everything, but It can DO everything! How silly of me.
How can God be separate from Its creation AND still talk to you or even be aware of you? How can God do everything and still impose a limit on itself that it could undo at any time?.
@philhellenes That's just what god is! It is everything (and eveything that ever will be) and nothing. I for one agree with most of the views you speak of in your videos, but to say there is no god? I could see that only working if you're looking at things in a philosophical or dichotomus point of view, cause god can exist and not have existed in the same instant, but unless there in no such thing as there never being 'nothing' (which is a scary thought) I can't see how....*Continued*
@philhellenes Sorry if this is a little late coming to the show, but I have a question.
If God exists outside His creation (the Universe), then how does he exist? jdavies says that God exists separately from his creation, then wouldn't God therefore exist OUTSIDE the Universe?
I don't know if anyone has pointed that out before, but that 'fine tuning' argument presented in this video sounds as if you assumed that only life, as we know it, is possibile and not any other life (for example not based on carbon) can exists if any of 'dials' is changed, which may or may not be true. :)
i think he may be referencing something a bit bigger than switching around temp i thought the same for a bit while watching this but i think he means things like if atoms didn't stick together or strings simply unraveled ^^ but who knows even then it might be possible.
Hi, not everyone who reads the Bible understands what is in it, but only if you seek then the doors shall be open to you. Read 1 Cor 1:19-31. God is not a magician, God uses our laws for things to happen. God bless,
The idea that god had no choice is a little off. To make that arguement you state a premise that god exists. Ofcourse we are just indulging that for the sake of arguement. In doing so though you assume that the laws of logic are eternal and not created by god. Which would make god incomplete. If you assume god did exist then he created everything including the laws of logic. God is the original creator before which was nothing by al religious standards. Running out of space, hope I got point acs
That was exactly what I was thinking. A theist could easily reply to that argument with: "Ah, but the laws ITSELF were created by God and thus he of course set them in such a manner as described. He had the choice to set them in any way he wanted and still have life, as he is not confined by ANY law we know, because he creates the conditions life needs."
If he is omniscient and all powerful then everything is as he wants it to be after all.
I agree. An omnipotent being could have easily constructed life in an entirely different way that we can't even begin to imagine.
I'm only bringing this up for the sake of argument, though.
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
its not gods birthday but his son. and Christmas isn't gods or his sons birthday, it was around April or march, the church just says it he was borne on that day because its a pagan holiday. the church stole so many pagan symbolizes its sad that they would do that just to convert more followers.
but i do think Santa does give god more toys then we do
@mf523 2.) No, Santa is a cheapskate and gets him two gifts on the same day. And that opens up a third, Why hasn't God quite inviting him to his birthday party to begin with?
many ppl asume that gravity/magnetism and other constants are fine-tuned, or simply happened to be that way.
however since we still have no clue what causes gravity, speculating if it could be set different is just speculating.
atm we are trying to find out if those 'probably constant forces' could be set up different in the big bang. maybe they are just a result of something we dont know yet, maybe they arent constant. what if particles age? change very slowly, lose energy? etc
All this fine tuning thing is ridiculous. We do not live because the universe is finely tuned. We see it as finely tuned because it allowed us to live. But really, that's just a human bias. It's like saying that the odds of getting a Royal Flush are small, when they really are the same as any other set of cards. It's the meaning that we give to the Royal Flush that matters, and that's the special meaning we attribute to life that matters. Saying otherwise is rather pretentious, I think.
All I'm saying is that the set of "force-values" that result in humans is VERY narrow., thus, if god wanted humans to worship him, he had VERY little choice in the "settings" used.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No offense, but who are you? Do you have authority to speak on this subject? I'm just making sure that you know what you're talking about, or if you just read a lot of books on the subject.
Everyone with brains can talk about wether fairytales exist or not. We do not study russelsteepotology so why do we need to study theology to talk about the subject.
Great point about the physical constants. Although as others here have said life COULD evolve with different initial parameters but it would be very different to how we think of life to be. However, say for example that the gravitational constant was slightly different. We would look different. But didn't God make man in his own image? Then the point still stands that he had no choice in the physical constants. It's an excellent point!
Hey I am an God fearing American and i believe that it is my Christian duty to bomb Iran and make them into Christians because we all know that war and religion leads to peace.... (sarcasm)
The world is bundle of sunshine and rainbows where Jesus protects us from all the big baddies out there like Muslims, Pagans and Gay people, because they're all evil and we Americans are all good. Hurray for America! Let's all go to a picnic and eat watermelon. (cough-sarcasm-cough) Get it? Ignorant people can be happy because they only need to see one side of an issue.
Wow. An atheist who actually understands some of us Theists/Deists/Believers-in-God and the rational discourse of our thought (even if he disagrees).
It took thousands of videos, 1 year of heart break (I was in love with a wonderful athiest girl), to get to where I am. I may not have got the girl back (it was religion and parents that made things difficult- it was AFTER the break up that I realised my stupidity), but here I am!
The practice of Zazen, zen meditation, is the practice of experiencing your consciousness without the input of the "self". Pure consciousness. It is objective because it doesn't separate experience into "self and other".
What you're describing could be interpreted as spirituality, but it is not synonymous with religion by a long shot. Some religions may, however, be based around the concept.
Atheism gives hope. it gives hope that one day we can reach a civilised standard where we dont take these crazy violent religious scriptures seriously. where we base our knowledge on science and not some ancient superstition. it is about being high on life without having to have god. fuck religion.
Good video, however, I disagree with the ascertation that life is only possible with the particular constants that compose our universe. I believe that even if these constants were shifted, life could still exist, just not in the form we know it as. Note, this is not me advocating creationism, just saying that the outlawing of any variation in the physical structure is arrogant at best, idiotic at worst.
Perhaps I should have said OUR constants are required to make Humans (presumably the Christian God's worshiper of choice, rather than, say, a blob of sentient goo).
Remember when you've heard that religion was the answer to common questions involving weather, astronomy, and geography among other things throughout history? Such as, Zeus causes thunderstorms, Sobek allows the Nile river to flow, and Loki was the reason for fire. Then after some time has past science cleared it all up for us. Well, give it some more time... It'll eventually answer those last few questions you might have. Then bye bye religion. Just wait...
Religion is the business of fear, and scaring people into believing in what you want them to is wrong. I find all religions to be wrong, but christianity is the most overblown. I found this video to be extremely interesting.
why is "we" the only idea of life people can fathom. They never believed life could exist at great depths ON OUR OWN FUCKING PLANET untill around the 70's when they found life around warm mini volcanoes devoid of sunlight, the real question is whether or not our idea of reality is all powerfull enough to make scientific endeavor just a reinforcement of our limiting reality vision. Bloody God worshippers and scientists have one thing in common, delusionary in their opptimism and arrogance
science like god cannot be thought of outwith what we make of it, the delusion comes in the beliefs we put upon them as tools for human progress and what the word progress acctually means, one school says should we the other says can we, technology is just a tool and those in power have all the toys. The idea that science is somehow a way to utopia is a joke
bullshit. science isint just about making earth destroying toys, its about understanding our existence. somthing religion tries to do but fails. religion is no way to utopia, it doesent work. science is essential to reach utopia.
What a lofty and hilarious thought, science is all about understanding just as God is all about love, oooh but wait technology is the use of science just as fundamentalism is the use of God so what your saying is a joke, THE HUMAN MIND is the only hell or heaven there can ever be to a human, but hey i recon some biotech brain enhancements could work just as well as religeons brain washing. We have all the tools we could ever want grow up
your an idiot, religion is pointless. you need technology to understand the planet and the universe. fundamentalism IS NOT the use of god you idiot. religion goes against god! it denies and shuns the truth of our planet away. it makes up bullshit mythological stories and lies to make people follow it. how can religion be the word of god when all its facts are bullshit. fucking idiot.
if you had a brain bigger than your mouth you would realise that fundamentalism means all the words you have just used to have a go at it with, go get a dictionary and then agree with me you moron
ever heard of the dark ages? thats what happens when religion is in control COMMON SENSE! religion is sadistic bullshit that degrades our morals and ethics. its too outdated. its not even compatible with reality. religon=fake fantasy land. science= reality
i completely agree with you about organised religion, as to science being reality is a bit of a joke considering the very basis of atoms make up is still a mystery. Science is completely apart from its use, its like the hand book and the actions taken from it, if you read the bible there are beautifull things said about how to treat one another, the problem comes when powerful people see a controll tool and use it for their own means, I guess science has never been abused in this way HAS IT?DOH
it's strange....time is the function of the universe, creation and destruction is the continuous process of it. Even when things are destroyed somethin new is created....like the universe created itself and its destroying itself...recreation...if god created the universe he created it to do exactly what is happening right now...cause god is supposed to be perfect..there are no mistakes in perfect...jehovah who?
In a Hawking interview (on israeli TV) he made a fantastic point that since the universe is based on constants, God cannot intefere with the universe he created.
Constants would no longer be constant, things would happen without observable cause, predictions could not be made, science would fail.
Cause and effect would be irrelevant, there would be no continuous chains of events. At some point God would have broken causality and made everything unexplainable.
Real answers require a lot of research - require hundreds if not thousands of books. Why would a Christian do that? Everything is nicely summed up in ONE book, written by poetic ancient people.
I'm fascinated by those who still cling to the Bible after studying science. Yes, fine tuning negates omnipotence. Yet, Jesus can break the laws of physics all he wants without doubt, because God can do anything. Suuuuuure. Great video, but it'll probably go in one ear and out the other.
Ah, I think I got it! God (assuming a God) was bound by the laws of physics to make the universe as it is to support life. At the very least this is a great counter-argument to the so-called Anthropic Principle.
How can you argue the necessity of creation, when you can't explain the existence of creation of a supreme being itself. Why can't you believe that the universe is a complete random event and that life plays a very small part in the universe?
I believe too that the universe is completely random (cause and effect) and that our life is a VERY small part of the bigger picture. Most people can't see or accept such a view out of some form of self-pride or insecurity.
Religion is a product of man to control man on an instinctual level separate from man-made laws.
Dude if god could creat the univers and all the other crap. than it wouldmt be very hard to make himself into a mortal. you have to understand that God can do anything. And when I mean anything, I mean anything. God created science so therefor can allso controll it.
religion only exist to explain what science cant explain at that point in time,eventually someday religion should be gone forever hopefully as its been the cause of so much death and pointless torture.
I don't really get the point about fine-tuning. I know Christian apologists will talk about out how if any of the laws were different then like could not be. But I'm not clear on how that argument disproves God's omnipotence. I don't know, I kind of get it but not clearly.
I also appreciated your philosophical argument on fine tuning. I'm not aware of anybody else highlighting it, but your point has merit. One that is similar stems from evolution, in that most chances are humans would not have lived. So, really, God had only one impressively fine-tuned shot. Far from free...
"The attempt to operate in the realm of substance pragmatically as if it were the realm of phenomena -- that is the definition of magic. The interrelation of science and power, and the consequent cancerous growth of the utilitarian segment of existence, has injected a strong element of magic culture into modern civilization." -- Eric Voegelin
"Is it true that mankind demands, and will always demand, miracle, mystery and authority? ... Surely it is true. Today, man gets his sense of the miraculous from science and machinery, radio, airplanes, vast ships, zeppelins, poison gas, artificial silk: these things nourish man's sense of the miraculous as magic did in the past." -- DH Lawrence
But in its popular presentation, is natural science not characterized as "miraculous?"
Natural science is a system of quantification of natural phenomena which are observable and repeatable. Metaphysical assertions such as Galileo's absolute center and Newton's absolute rest have no place in natural science so long as we call it such -- but it does have a place in such pursuits as alchemy. Remember that Galileo and Newton were both hermeticists.
Actually, what we observe informs us and our imaginations lead us to hypothesise something new. You can't observe electrons, ever, but, you can observe their effects. What you need isn;t that leap to a new hypothesis and theory, but a leap that also includes tests and predictions you *can* test for.
Actually gravity plays virtually no part in particle interaction, it's mostly electro-magnetic in nature. And a 2006 paper entitled 'A Universe Without Weak Interactions' (Harnik, R. et al) explains that a universe without the Weak Nuclear Force would be largely unchanged from our own. Therefore half of the forces that govern the universe aren't required to sustain life.
Some "fine tuning", eh?
Xanatos712 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xanatos712 "Actually, gravity plays virtually no part in particle interaction; it's mostly electromagnetic in nature." ---Xanatos712
The word "magnetic" at the end of electromagnetic shows that there's gravitation in particle interaction since magnetic is a gravitational force.
Rookerfy 1 month ago
You'd really have to count the assertions in the bible, not the no of words
PascalsWager5 2 months ago
@PascalsWager5 I think he was trying to point out the difference between the intuition on the probability of Gods existence and the complex religion that says with absolute certainty God exists. Its easy to justify the first, the second not so much.
mko 2 months ago
socratus1 4 months ago
@socratus1
In short you're argument is..."Its ok if the Bible is wrong, because we can always change what it means"?
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
I am an outspoken Athiest. I am a subsriber to Philhellenes and normally agree with him, but the stuff claiming that if the universe existed any other way life would not be possible is rubbish, people ask why the Earth is just the right distance from the sun, answer, because if it had been further away or closer, life would have evolved that was suited for higher or lower tempuratures. That is a far more scientific viewpoint than to make claims based on one example.
hydrogenpi16 7 months ago 2
@hydrogenpi16 That has always been my thought on the fine tuning question. If the Universe had been fine tuned another way and came into existence, life would have started from that particular point and evolved and been fine tuned for that particular Universe. Just because it's very narrowly balanced for THIS particular form of the Universe doesn't mean it wouldn't have been just as successful tuned another way for another form of the Universe.
Science is awesome.
ciaochowbella 7 months ago
Comment removed
shoulderkolibri 7 months ago
@hydrogenpi16 Well even in our universe, we see certain planets that have probable cases of containing life. Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, has some of these types of conditions minimally, but most organisms that can survive the extreme conditions of Europa are archaea bacteriums. But remember, fine-tuning is relative to only the laws of *this* universe. Another universe could* exist with its own laws, but that would be unobservable to us.
shoulderkolibri 7 months ago
@hydrogenpi16 oh dear, you just dont get it do you?
64andes 6 months ago
The ending just made me have a brain-gasm. I think scientists should replace the term 'fine-tuning'. Fine tuning implies some sort of intervention, but what Phil explained was basically that it is actually a specific condition where all the variables and constants of the universe have to be set for life to have ability to exist. Any other condition would've been impossible, so god has no choice in the matter and would've have to follow the law of physics to 'create'. Absolutely brilliant!!!
shoulderkolibri 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
shoulderkolibri 7 months ago
Comment removed
shoulderkolibri 7 months ago
Comment removed
shoulderkolibri 7 months ago
I just watched this. I'm glad you figured out the audio after this. God, it's awful with the audio pumping while listening to it via headphones.
NBM397 8 months ago
Haha Togetherforpeace is a total dimwit!! !!
Ekenedil 8 months ago
One of your conclusions is flawed. God could have omnipotently created a goldilocks universe - against our logical assumption that this would be stupid.
calmreason 9 months ago
About that ending part. I realize this is probably a slim chance at it, but there is one possibility of an Omnipotent creator. Just one that like to follow a few rules. This being something like a programming language for computers. First the language is made, and then the language is used to define what happens. Taking this, couldn't the creator, maybe, have created physics and then arranged it in such a way to make life from it?
kinro4 10 months ago
@kinro4
No.
Because you, obviously, cannot explain the physical (or otherwise) presence and origin of your "creator".
tellnet 8 months ago
@tellnet That hole always sinks the ship, it seems.
kinro4 8 months ago
@kinro4
Speculating an explanation, as you did, is a constructive step towards progress - provided you have the sense to recognise you could be wrong - you were, and you admitted it.
Well done.
Try that with the religious fruitcakes that pollute our planet.
tellnet 8 months ago
@tellnet I'd rather not. They tend to stray from the "admitting when one is wrong" bit.
kinro4 8 months ago
What do we gain by following our logic to no hope? At least thats how I feel about it. Id rather feel comfort in a God that loves me than loose my hope of purpose, not manufactured purpose by man. Keep your cold lifeless logic, Id rather be insane by beliving Gods supernatural world and having crazy love for people. God Bless you. P.S. : I love this scripture for what I am saying: 1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Lovestruedefinition 10 months ago
@Lovestruedefinition Why do you need a faith to have a purpose? Why do you need faith to have crazy amounts of love for people?
No one is saying you can't love or have hope. They're saying they want you to be free; they want you to be able to experience; they want you to understand how important you really are. No one is saying you can't believe. They just want you to also believe in yourself.
101Pilgrim 10 months ago
@Lovestruedefinition
Logic and reason are the tools we use to discern reality from fantasy. You have embarrassingly (in my opinion) admitted that you would prefer to believe a comforting lie than to accept reality.
- The bible is the most disgusting book i have ever read.
-Numbers 31 31:17 kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
qarohc 9 months ago
@qarohc God has the right to all life. I could die a horrible death right now and God would not be wrong. Logic and reason can be good like all things but has been twisted by man to fulfill their own world view. I will not trust that. I live by faith. Humanism is foolishness and death, Nothing more.
Peace be with you
Lovestruedefinition 7 months ago
@Lovestruedefinition
what a load of rubbish.
more superstitious hopeful thinking that a dictator in the sky is there to save you from eventual death, as long as you give up your one and only true life in the hopes that he wont torture you for eternity.
Children believe in far less pathetic things.
May you grow up.
qarohc 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lovestruedefinition If you died a horrible death right now, I would not fault god.
fdasherv 7 months ago
I wonder if it is physically possible for the universe to be created by a race of time traveling beings who's existence
Is mutually contingent upon them having created the universe? Science is fun:)
fcpictures 1 year ago
Genius!
Nemesishk 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple
Ah... but how many Christians have even *read* that one book?
mtszabo 1 year ago
@mtszabo to begin with, how many christians can even read?
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple
Hmm... in proof of that statement, one of them has marked your original comment as spam... That really pisses me off. I mean, Christians, if you take offense to a comment, by all means post another comment to refute the offensive comment. But marking as spam is just juvenile behavior. That's like admitting that the truthfulness of the comment burns to the core and you just can't stand looking at it.
mtszabo 1 year ago
@mtszabo when the religious can't accept reality, they try to censor it, No surprise there.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Number of books, texts, journals, magazines and papers needed to understand just a single field of science: anywhere from, at least 4 years of undergraduate study's worth, to an entire life's worth
Number of books needed to be read to understand Christianity: just 1
And yet christians have the audacity to criticize all aspects of science from the big bang to quantum physics.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
For question 2... you said the forces of nature couldn't be changed or else we'd all be dead. Well humans seem to not get utterly decimated on the Moon, or in space for that matter. I find it hard to believe that changing the gravitational force constant would be so bad for life. Besides, who says life can't evolve to deal without such that even if WE died, couldn't it find a way? It's like assuming ALL life requires water. What if it evolved to not, somewhere on some distance planet?
ZellMurasame 1 year ago
@ZellMurasame I understand your misunderstanding because I once had EXACTLY the same one!
It's not about being able to walk or breath in a slightly higher or lower gravity. It's about nuclear fusion in stars. If gravity, for instance, were a little weaker, stars would not fuse all the elements we seem to need for complex biochemistry to occur (life). OR if gravity were slightly stronger, stars would burn up and die too quickly for life, let alone intelligence, to evolve. It's a fine balance.
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes I can see where your coming from, but is it really improbable that if our star took a million years longer to form and thus the Earth took longer to accrete, would a bunch of self-replicating chemical reactions not have come about because of this shift in absolute time? Or would our star dying a million years sooner mean that life can't evolve? Isn't our sun about 5 billion years from dying? Would a 1% shortening of that life mean we couldn't evolve in the same ~4.5 billion years?
ZellMurasame 1 year ago
@ZellMurasame 4 questions?
1 & 2: No such thing as absolute time, and again, it is not about the rate of the formation of the Earth, or gravity effecting rates of chemical change, it's about nuclear fusion rates AND its products in stars.
3. Dying, yes, but Earth will be uninhabitable in half that time as the sun heats up.
4. The effect of a 1% change in the strength of gravity would have FAR greater than 1% effect on the life expectancy of a star and the elements they can create.
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes life, at its most basic, is a series of self-replicating patterns. I can hardly see why "life" would be impossible with different laws of physics. Granted, entirely *different* patterns would emerge, drastically so, but patterns would still emerge. Perhaps anti-matter would have been predominant rather than matter, or perhaps subatomic particles would never have coalesced into matter, but even so, within the confines of that system, NEW patterns would likely emerge.
TransparentChocolate 1 year ago
@TransparentChocolate I'm not saying "life" (of some kind) could not exist with different or even wildly different laws. I think of it like harmonics points on the string of a musical instrument (where the energy waves meet and balance). There's several such points but the places where they fall are very narrow, a little sharp or flat and the harmonic is gone, and compared to the total length of the string (all possible notes) they are few.
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes Because the universe is not fine-tuned for life, natural selection has fine-tuned life for the universe. Only the patterns that are suited to the system will emerge and propagate. It's for this reason that I can imagine, even with tweaked constants, something rather like "life" emerging, but bearing no resemblance whatsoever to life as we know it.
TransparentChocolate 1 year ago
@TransparentChocolate The cosmological constant has 119 zeros after the decimal. It is TINY. Yet, Steven Weinberg calculated that if it had 118, or 120 zeros, we wouldn't be here. THAT is a fine balance. That tiny change would mean no stars, no elements heavier than helium. That means no carbon, no complex chemistry. Change the rules slightly, here, and any conceivable life disappears. The Universe would be too...simple. But, as you said, change them a LOT and maybe something else appears.
philhellenes 1 year ago
@philhellenes Fair enough, that I can completely agree with. So it's not there is only one possible set of constants that could give rise to enough complexity for life, it's simply that those spaces of possibility are so few and far between that moving even slightly from the one we're on would miss the sweet spot.
Of course, from an anthropic perspective, that's exactly WHY we find ourselves here, because we couldn't be anywhere else.
A thoroughly satisfying answer, thank you.
TransparentChocolate 1 year ago
@TransparentChocolate yes it is i also agree with you, that being so and life being this complicated to accomplish, that it literally kicks the possibility of hell or a physicall heaven straight to the comic books, this is what religons dont get, once we really see, we really see, and there is nothing they can say, NOTHING! to validate there idea of the big G, ......................................................................"its fire not magic"
JWshark2012 1 year ago
Riveting! Thanks :o)
lokir 1 year ago
Hi Philhellenes,
Fantastic stuff, thank you very much.
utubenagoya 1 year ago
Not to throw a mon\key wrench in, but there are 593,493 words in the Old, 181,253 in the New, 774,746 all together. Not that it makes a difference in the argument, but having the New being 5 times longer than the old set off an alarm bell.
puncheex 1 year ago
a few science books ?
tell me.
markushanrath 1 year ago
good one :)
naybobdenod 1 year ago
God doesn't have to be the silver bearded man in the sky. The god that I'm about is the one that is the instant of and after of the Big Bang.
TheNostalgiaJunkie 1 year ago
ppl don't still believe in 'the gods' ......do they.....crazy
JosephW99 2 years ago 8
i heard somewhere that research said that there was no need for the weak nuclear force in order for some kind of life to develop. i cant remember where though
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago
I've heard that too, but if offered the opportunity to step into a Universe without the weak force I wonder if the proponents would have the balls to do it.
Without the weak nuclear force there may be no radioactive to decay to keep the Earth's core molten. So no magnetic field to protect the Earth (and a lot of ice). Also, the weak force plays a part in neutrino creation, which in turn are important for supernovae, and without them...no heavy elements outside of stars to make planets.
philhellenes 2 years ago
Without the weak force, there are no main sequence stars. Stars are massive enough to overcome the electromagnetic force that keeps planets intact and not exploding in thermonuclear fireballs. The weak force is what holds them up instead of letting them collapse to neutron stars, where the strong force holds them up. Without main sequence stars, you can't have the fusion of heavier elements. It's either hydrogen or a giant neutron star or a black hole. I don't think you can live there.
rkyeun 2 years ago
@mynameisdarthtater: Without the weak force there would be no radioactivity. That would have meant that the Earth's core would have cooled long before now, no doubt among a whole lot of other things.
puncheex 1 year ago
Tax religion now!
nolobede 2 years ago 93
innit true religions get tax exempt status fro no reason, and also governemts shouldnt take taxpayer money to fund religious organisations. church maintenance should be paid by those involved, no-one else.
fluentinsound 2 years ago 4
@fluentinsound
Church's are afforded the same services as everyone else, local and state funded police, fire etc.property tax is not levied either as it is for EVERY other property owner. Churches are a business in that they take in revenue by providing services & sales of items and public functions, bingo, bake sales, etc...
TAX 'em like everybody else, PERIOD!
nolobede 2 years ago 3
@nolobede AGREED!!!!!!!
stainglassfox 1 year ago
@nolobede
I know I'm one year old but I completely and ab-so-lutely agree. They are so filhty rich it's disgusting. They should also, by law, pay taxes.
rpaslux 9 months ago
@nolobede Religion already does that to itself. Money misguidedly spent i feel; but at least a good portion of it goes to good causes (I hope).
NickmeisterX16 1 week ago
@NickmeisterX16
During the Fukushima disasters there was a media moment where an organizer made sure to communicate that while they appreciate aid packages, shipping bibles would take space and weight where water, food or blankets would be better received.
Religion while the intent may be good, often does more harm. Just look at what the Catholic church is doing in Africa regarding condom use. They are in effect committing genocide.
nolobede 1 week ago
I think volcanos are greater than myself. I think the band Volcano! is greater than my band..
jacobromu 2 years ago
fine tuning doesn't make much since.
first we don't know of any other current or past life outside of earth. although possible on mars and or outer moons. even if we did these are such a tiny part of our universe. it would be better to say the universe was fine tuned for stars, hydrogen or fusion. earth was made for bacteria and not man. etc.
we don't yet know enough about the properties of the universe to say that they can't go a little in any direction, but we have a good start.
yellowdart137 2 years ago 4
@yellowdart137
It doesn't even matter. Assume the properties of the universe COULD be wildly different and still have life.
Would that stop the question? Would we not still wonder why Blornthast Omega Five had been so generously designed with its comfortably warm magma seas and its refreshingly cool fluorine-xenon atmosphere?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@yellowdart137
Or go the other way. Suppose the universe isn't capable of supporting life at all. Now who notices? Who would ever be able to say, "Hey, why isn't the universe capable of letting me live?" Just how long do trees survive on the surface of the sun? And how do they get there? If it had been created by God, why surely there would be magical fireproof trees on the sun. But no, the universe is devoid of magic, and the reality is that wood burns, and life has to fit physics.
rkyeun 1 year ago
they r all wrong...its gold...
religion is gold...
u have the opportunity to empty the pockets of stupid sheep without getting arrested for theft...
religion ...is gold...
robot014 2 years ago 13
@robot014 You are right.
saaitar 2 years ago
It's not gold. It's cheesecake. It's a side effect of developing a theory of mind during our long enculturation, yet before really knowing what a theory of mind is in the abstract. That is our intuition of "something out there" behind the scenes... and evolution has favored intuition and curiosity as a cost efficient survival strategy by "rewarding" mechanisms.
Mental cheesecake... but it tastes so good, the merchandising/capitalizing opportunities emergent are practically deterministic.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
quit refuting creationist they would not except any evidence ever if some other god came down and did miracles they would still say there god is real and this is a lie creationists all of u (some exceptions) r fucking idiots
patrickledford420 2 years ago
Wonderful video. I also think it's interesting that the factorial difference btwn TFPs 2 words (God Exists) and the 1M of the Bible (which contains all the information he will ever need) is NOTHING in comparison to the 1M in the Bible and the Trillions in scientific literature. As Henry Rollins once famously said, its overwhelming and pisses me off that there is so much truth and knowledge out there, and no matter how much you learn, you are only scraping the tip of the iceberg.
4jonah 2 years ago 3
Questions for theist. Religion has claimed science tries to pull ppl from god, only to accept its results later. Religion has also used science to back its claims. So isn't science useful. Why not let scientists work and accept the results? Are theist afraid they will be let down by religion? Differentiate religion from god, and, science cant prove/disprove any gods existence. Religion--- wont disprove and cant prove any gods existence. So why cant the two get along? Please respond.
UrDevilsAdvocate 2 years ago
Wow this debate has a different feel to it from other debates on this subject. I'm like on the edge on my seat waiting for the next video. lol Don't be to hard on TogetherForPeace or he might stop arguing. Normally I usually say why bother arguing with them but you might actually get through to him. He seams like a good guy who has just been fooled by to much erroneous logic. Keep it up phil! *subscribes*
esplin227 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The speaker's view of God is so limited, it fits his arguments perfectly. Another way to say it, is that the speaker must hold a limited view of God in order to validate his arguments. He sees a god subject to the laws of the universe not creating nor preeminent over those laws.
jdavies212msu 2 years ago
You have a limited view of God too, UNLESS you say, "God is EVERYTHING", in which case its a meaningless statement.
philhellenes 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, God is separate from His creation. Your statement is pantheistic. That's not what I said. Granted, He limits Himself to be separate from His creation. If you're a Creator, you can define your own limits.
jdavies212msu 2 years ago
Ah, so God is NOT everything, but It can DO everything! How silly of me.
How can God be separate from Its creation AND still talk to you or even be aware of you? How can God do everything and still impose a limit on itself that it could undo at any time?.
philhellenes 2 years ago 8
@philhellenes That's just what god is! It is everything (and eveything that ever will be) and nothing. I for one agree with most of the views you speak of in your videos, but to say there is no god? I could see that only working if you're looking at things in a philosophical or dichotomus point of view, cause god can exist and not have existed in the same instant, but unless there in no such thing as there never being 'nothing' (which is a scary thought) I can't see how....*Continued*
TheNostalgiaJunkie 1 year ago
@philhellenes there not being a god (not the god of the bible or any other dogmatic religion) can fly.
TheNostalgiaJunkie 1 year ago
@philhellenes Sorry if this is a little late coming to the show, but I have a question.
If God exists outside His creation (the Universe), then how does he exist? jdavies says that God exists separately from his creation, then wouldn't God therefore exist OUTSIDE the Universe?
Kentohn 1 year ago
@jdavies212msu to limit oneself creates a paradox of omnipotence
7omnia7 1 year ago
I don't know if anyone has pointed that out before, but that 'fine tuning' argument presented in this video sounds as if you assumed that only life, as we know it, is possibile and not any other life (for example not based on carbon) can exists if any of 'dials' is changed, which may or may not be true. :)
Vejita12 2 years ago
i think he may be referencing something a bit bigger than switching around temp i thought the same for a bit while watching this but i think he means things like if atoms didn't stick together or strings simply unraveled ^^ but who knows even then it might be possible.
ev11 2 years ago
Knock out indeed!
But I'm sure Jack made a video disputing your scientific reason, and claimed victory for himself.
If you could reason with religious people
there would be no religious people.
bigboy45454545 2 years ago 5
oh, no video response to this one, i guess it's case closed then. Go Phil :D
Szminsky 2 years ago
4th round knock out. :)
philhellenes 2 years ago
Hi, not everyone who reads the Bible understands what is in it, but only if you seek then the doors shall be open to you. Read 1 Cor 1:19-31. God is not a magician, God uses our laws for things to happen. God bless,
basiladeeb 2 years ago
The idea that god had no choice is a little off. To make that arguement you state a premise that god exists. Ofcourse we are just indulging that for the sake of arguement. In doing so though you assume that the laws of logic are eternal and not created by god. Which would make god incomplete. If you assume god did exist then he created everything including the laws of logic. God is the original creator before which was nothing by al religious standards. Running out of space, hope I got point acs
glgamecoder 2 years ago
That was exactly what I was thinking. A theist could easily reply to that argument with: "Ah, but the laws ITSELF were created by God and thus he of course set them in such a manner as described. He had the choice to set them in any way he wanted and still have life, as he is not confined by ANY law we know, because he creates the conditions life needs."
If he is omniscient and all powerful then everything is as he wants it to be after all.
Ofc I'm actually on your side here philhellenes.
Hyardacil 2 years ago
I agree. An omnipotent being could have easily constructed life in an entirely different way that we can't even begin to imagine.
I'm only bringing this up for the sake of argument, though.
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Judges 1: 19 (KJV)
Omnipotent!
havvyweponsman 2 years ago
Everything about the concept, story of, and rules regarding 'god' are senseless and illogical. There is nothing beyond this reality.
Christheatheist1 2 years ago
This is possible one of the best vids I have ever seen on the philosophy of Theism.
Ekendil 2 years ago
But the most important questions still remains unanswered by both camps:
1.What does God ask Santa Claus for at Christmas?
2. Does God get more toys then the rest of us on Xmas because it is his birthday?
mf523 2 years ago 89
its not gods birthday but his son. and Christmas isn't gods or his sons birthday, it was around April or march, the church just says it he was borne on that day because its a pagan holiday. the church stole so many pagan symbolizes its sad that they would do that just to convert more followers.
but i do think Santa does give god more toys then we do
p0tter91 2 years ago
I think that depends on if god has been naughty or good :P
I think he is on the naughty list.. :P (...cough... Noa's ark...)
HemsefromdesreveR 2 years ago
@mf523 question #3 Why does God need a Starship?
emperorkang 1 year ago
@emperorkang
KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!
MdP2 1 year ago
@mf523 2.) No, Santa is a cheapskate and gets him two gifts on the same day. And that opens up a third, Why hasn't God quite inviting him to his birthday party to begin with?
NoNamesLeft0102 1 year ago
many ppl asume that gravity/magnetism and other constants are fine-tuned, or simply happened to be that way.
however since we still have no clue what causes gravity, speculating if it could be set different is just speculating.
atm we are trying to find out if those 'probably constant forces' could be set up different in the big bang. maybe they are just a result of something we dont know yet, maybe they arent constant. what if particles age? change very slowly, lose energy? etc
logoth80 2 years ago
Maybe the universes where the god isn't an asshole are too boring to harbor life.
ananiasacts 2 years ago 9
All this fine tuning thing is ridiculous. We do not live because the universe is finely tuned. We see it as finely tuned because it allowed us to live. But really, that's just a human bias. It's like saying that the odds of getting a Royal Flush are small, when they really are the same as any other set of cards. It's the meaning that we give to the Royal Flush that matters, and that's the special meaning we attribute to life that matters. Saying otherwise is rather pretentious, I think.
arsenelupin123 2 years ago
All I'm saying is that the set of "force-values" that result in humans is VERY narrow., thus, if god wanted humans to worship him, he had VERY little choice in the "settings" used.
philhellenes 2 years ago
who says you need 'authority' to voice your opinion, and to rebuttle in a debate?
Timothysiddall 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No offense, but who are you? Do you have authority to speak on this subject? I'm just making sure that you know what you're talking about, or if you just read a lot of books on the subject.
eatthatmeatball 2 years ago
Everyone with brains can talk about wether fairytales exist or not. We do not study russelsteepotology so why do we need to study theology to talk about the subject.
Evilanious 2 years ago 7
Great point about the physical constants. Although as others here have said life COULD evolve with different initial parameters but it would be very different to how we think of life to be. However, say for example that the gravitational constant was slightly different. We would look different. But didn't God make man in his own image? Then the point still stands that he had no choice in the physical constants. It's an excellent point!
jamgilp 2 years ago
Hey I am an God fearing American and i believe that it is my Christian duty to bomb Iran and make them into Christians because we all know that war and religion leads to peace.... (sarcasm)
i really am an American though
theabomation 2 years ago
The world is bundle of sunshine and rainbows where Jesus protects us from all the big baddies out there like Muslims, Pagans and Gay people, because they're all evil and we Americans are all good. Hurray for America! Let's all go to a picnic and eat watermelon. (cough-sarcasm-cough) Get it? Ignorant people can be happy because they only need to see one side of an issue.
theabomation 2 years ago
So how is it that your trashing america when other countries as well believe in the same things. If you live in america, then shame on you!
And you think your smart "(cough-sarcasm-cough) Get it?"
fogfrogblog 2 years ago
quote: "only one combination will result in life"
well, life as we know it :) There may be a near infinite number of universes that result in life. However, it may look a lot differant than us.
ndjarnag 2 years ago 4
Wow. An atheist who actually understands some of us Theists/Deists/Believers-in-God and the rational discourse of our thought (even if he disagrees).
Excellent video, 5 stars.
MisterBusta 3 years ago 2
It took thousands of videos, 1 year of heart break (I was in love with a wonderful athiest girl), to get to where I am. I may not have got the girl back (it was religion and parents that made things difficult- it was AFTER the break up that I realised my stupidity), but here I am!
therock27374 3 years ago 8
Man this is a really good video!
Ekendil 3 years ago
bullshit..religion is a fixed set of ignorant beliefs based on NOTHING , not *looking into yourself*
*lookinginto yourself* is spirituality
nekftw 3 years ago
Science and religion are both SUPPOSED TO BE a search for OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
Looking out into the world is called SCIENCE.
Looking inward into yourself is called RELIGION.
JanuaryJackOLantern 3 years ago
that's the way it OUGHT to be... if only...
chosetec 3 years ago
there's no way looking inward into yourself could be considered objective...
punkrockdrummmer 3 years ago
The practice of Zazen, zen meditation, is the practice of experiencing your consciousness without the input of the "self". Pure consciousness. It is objective because it doesn't separate experience into "self and other".
There is no "self" no "I and Not-I".
Therefor it is objective.
JanuaryJackOLantern 3 years ago
Except that's not what religion is.
What you're describing could be interpreted as spirituality, but it is not synonymous with religion by a long shot. Some religions may, however, be based around the concept.
BrianTheGoldfish 3 years ago
Looking inwards is called MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
kuzuboshii 3 years ago 4
...or radiology....
middlekk 3 years ago
Thats what YOU would call it.
RastafariPoet 2 years ago
Why do things like that allways remind me of the catholic church and Galeleo - only with the tables turned?
Supenmanu 3 years ago
we havent even left our solar system so who are we to claim and assume god and its expectations. for fuck sakes get a brain.
hamisharn 3 years ago
Atheism gives hope. it gives hope that one day we can reach a civilised standard where we dont take these crazy violent religious scriptures seriously. where we base our knowledge on science and not some ancient superstition. it is about being high on life without having to have god. fuck religion.
hamisharn 3 years ago
Good video, however, I disagree with the ascertation that life is only possible with the particular constants that compose our universe. I believe that even if these constants were shifted, life could still exist, just not in the form we know it as. Note, this is not me advocating creationism, just saying that the outlawing of any variation in the physical structure is arrogant at best, idiotic at worst.
MatthiasFarland 3 years ago
Perhaps I should have said OUR constants are required to make Humans (presumably the Christian God's worshiper of choice, rather than, say, a blob of sentient goo).
philhellenes 3 years ago
A proper edit.
Thank you.
MatthiasFarland 3 years ago
Remember when you've heard that religion was the answer to common questions involving weather, astronomy, and geography among other things throughout history? Such as, Zeus causes thunderstorms, Sobek allows the Nile river to flow, and Loki was the reason for fire. Then after some time has past science cleared it all up for us. Well, give it some more time... It'll eventually answer those last few questions you might have. Then bye bye religion. Just wait...
Makonu2 3 years ago
I pray that day will come soon.
Pun intended. :)
ltflermy 3 years ago
So take that "creationism" bullshit and Shove it theists!
Man, I love it when they do the whole...
"BLASPHEMER! Youl Burn in hell! QQ"
...when they reply to my comments.
Ahahaahahaahahha!
What a bunch of deluded morons.
Bye bye religion! You Shaln't be missed!
M1cR0S0fT4Ev3r 3 years ago
Religion is the business of fear, and scaring people into believing in what you want them to is wrong. I find all religions to be wrong, but christianity is the most overblown. I found this video to be extremely interesting.
diabeticmonkey 3 years ago
Odin wouldn't let them put lies in their book.
tyrbolo 3 years ago 2
why is "we" the only idea of life people can fathom. They never believed life could exist at great depths ON OUR OWN FUCKING PLANET untill around the 70's when they found life around warm mini volcanoes devoid of sunlight, the real question is whether or not our idea of reality is all powerfull enough to make scientific endeavor just a reinforcement of our limiting reality vision. Bloody God worshippers and scientists have one thing in common, delusionary in their opptimism and arrogance
keflar5 3 years ago
what? science isint delusionary, its theories based on evidential facts... whats wrong with that, thats the universal way of finding how things tick.
hamisharn 3 years ago
science like god cannot be thought of outwith what we make of it, the delusion comes in the beliefs we put upon them as tools for human progress and what the word progress acctually means, one school says should we the other says can we, technology is just a tool and those in power have all the toys. The idea that science is somehow a way to utopia is a joke
keflar5 3 years ago
bullshit. science isint just about making earth destroying toys, its about understanding our existence. somthing religion tries to do but fails. religion is no way to utopia, it doesent work. science is essential to reach utopia.
hamisharn 3 years ago
What a lofty and hilarious thought, science is all about understanding just as God is all about love, oooh but wait technology is the use of science just as fundamentalism is the use of God so what your saying is a joke, THE HUMAN MIND is the only hell or heaven there can ever be to a human, but hey i recon some biotech brain enhancements could work just as well as religeons brain washing. We have all the tools we could ever want grow up
keflar5 3 years ago
your an idiot, religion is pointless. you need technology to understand the planet and the universe. fundamentalism IS NOT the use of god you idiot. religion goes against god! it denies and shuns the truth of our planet away. it makes up bullshit mythological stories and lies to make people follow it. how can religion be the word of god when all its facts are bullshit. fucking idiot.
hamisharn 3 years ago
if you had a brain bigger than your mouth you would realise that fundamentalism means all the words you have just used to have a go at it with, go get a dictionary and then agree with me you moron
keflar5 3 years ago
ever heard of the dark ages? thats what happens when religion is in control COMMON SENSE! religion is sadistic bullshit that degrades our morals and ethics. its too outdated. its not even compatible with reality. religon=fake fantasy land. science= reality
hamisharn 3 years ago
i completely agree with you about organised religion, as to science being reality is a bit of a joke considering the very basis of atoms make up is still a mystery. Science is completely apart from its use, its like the hand book and the actions taken from it, if you read the bible there are beautifull things said about how to treat one another, the problem comes when powerful people see a controll tool and use it for their own means, I guess science has never been abused in this way HAS IT?DOH
keflar5 3 years ago
it's strange....time is the function of the universe, creation and destruction is the continuous process of it. Even when things are destroyed somethin new is created....like the universe created itself and its destroying itself...recreation...if god created the universe he created it to do exactly what is happening right now...cause god is supposed to be perfect..there are no mistakes in perfect...jehovah who?
mongrole 3 years ago
In a Hawking interview (on israeli TV) he made a fantastic point that since the universe is based on constants, God cannot intefere with the universe he created.
Constants would no longer be constant, things would happen without observable cause, predictions could not be made, science would fail.
Cause and effect would be irrelevant, there would be no continuous chains of events. At some point God would have broken causality and made everything unexplainable.
But we see constants!
digitised 3 years ago 10
well put . i couldnt agree more
sheild34 3 years ago
Real answers require a lot of research - require hundreds if not thousands of books. Why would a Christian do that? Everything is nicely summed up in ONE book, written by poetic ancient people.
I'm fascinated by those who still cling to the Bible after studying science. Yes, fine tuning negates omnipotence. Yet, Jesus can break the laws of physics all he wants without doubt, because God can do anything. Suuuuuure. Great video, but it'll probably go in one ear and out the other.
DarkMatter2525 3 years ago 4
Ah, I think I got it! God (assuming a God) was bound by the laws of physics to make the universe as it is to support life. At the very least this is a great counter-argument to the so-called Anthropic Principle.
Take that, Polkinghorne!
nightflight83 3 years ago
The ultimate question.
How can you argue the necessity of creation, when you can't explain the existence of creation of a supreme being itself. Why can't you believe that the universe is a complete random event and that life plays a very small part in the universe?
JimmyeDallas 3 years ago
I believe too that the universe is completely random (cause and effect) and that our life is a VERY small part of the bigger picture. Most people can't see or accept such a view out of some form of self-pride or insecurity.
Religion is a product of man to control man on an instinctual level separate from man-made laws.
VegaSec 3 years ago
Dude if god could creat the univers and all the other crap. than it wouldmt be very hard to make himself into a mortal. you have to understand that God can do anything. And when I mean anything, I mean anything. God created science so therefor can allso controll it.
TheDogp2k 3 years ago
You'll never understand why I found your comment so funny.
philhellenes 3 years ago
O yeah. I fucked up on one part. Wouldmt. Wtf why did I do that?
TheDogp2k 3 years ago
religion only exist to explain what science cant explain at that point in time,eventually someday religion should be gone forever hopefully as its been the cause of so much death and pointless torture.
godofwrath 3 years ago
I don't really get the point about fine-tuning. I know Christian apologists will talk about out how if any of the laws were different then like could not be. But I'm not clear on how that argument disproves God's omnipotence. I don't know, I kind of get it but not clearly.
nightflight83 3 years ago
This is very, VERY good.
I also appreciated your philosophical argument on fine tuning. I'm not aware of anybody else highlighting it, but your point has merit. One that is similar stems from evolution, in that most chances are humans would not have lived. So, really, God had only one impressively fine-tuned shot. Far from free...
schrodcat 3 years ago
"The attempt to operate in the realm of substance pragmatically as if it were the realm of phenomena -- that is the definition of magic. The interrelation of science and power, and the consequent cancerous growth of the utilitarian segment of existence, has injected a strong element of magic culture into modern civilization." -- Eric Voegelin
neothomist1275 3 years ago
No wonder Voegelin had trouble getting published. What mush.
middlekk 3 years ago
"Is it true that mankind demands, and will always demand, miracle, mystery and authority? ... Surely it is true. Today, man gets his sense of the miraculous from science and machinery, radio, airplanes, vast ships, zeppelins, poison gas, artificial silk: these things nourish man's sense of the miraculous as magic did in the past." -- DH Lawrence
neothomist1275 3 years ago
Well, DH Lawrence was a very good writer. And that is certainly closer to the mark than Voegelin.
Just because we know how something works, that doesn't make it any less beautiful.
We know how galaxies form and how stars begin to shine. Doesn't make the night sky any less wonderful.
But it isn't 'miraculous'. Because 'miraculous' means 'unexplainable'. And science is all about explaining.
So, in the end, DH is wrong, too.
middlekk 3 years ago
But in its popular presentation, is natural science not characterized as "miraculous?"
Natural science is a system of quantification of natural phenomena which are observable and repeatable. Metaphysical assertions such as Galileo's absolute center and Newton's absolute rest have no place in natural science so long as we call it such -- but it does have a place in such pursuits as alchemy. Remember that Galileo and Newton were both hermeticists.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
Yes. In its popular presentation by the media, science is often characterized as "miraculous".
However, you must remember that the reporters who present these "miracles" are in the media because they flunked science.
middlekk 3 years ago
Actually, what we observe informs us and our imaginations lead us to hypothesise something new. You can't observe electrons, ever, but, you can observe their effects. What you need isn;t that leap to a new hypothesis and theory, but a leap that also includes tests and predictions you *can* test for.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago