See what I mean? To the extent that some creationists try and have it both ways, it is also possible for some evolutionists (or really - naturalists) to also want to have it both ways.
I think it's inevitable that people who feel passionately about a topic, will sometimes try to have their arguments both ways.
I would think the best course in such cases is not to get too upset, but to just point out why it isn't smart to try and have things both ways. It has a bad effect on reasoning.
Yes! That includes myself sometimes. I think it's OK to use arguments by axiomatic pronouncement - PROVIDED that one admits to doing that. For instance, on that other video, if a certain interpretation of a property of God (or a property of something else, like mathematics) seems to be logically inconsistent, then I think it's OK to define it to be logically consistent. But to do that may require axiomatic pronouncements that cannot be independantly verified...
I don't see the problem with setting up some system of thought about a particular topic so that it becomes logically consistent with itself. But as that may sometimes require axioms to be setup as well, then unless it is blatantly obvious, one should come clean about the fact that axioms are being utilized. And as long as they cannot be independantly verified then the system of thought built on them becomes a belief system. (That's OK, unless people try to cover that up!)
@tubewatch59 This seems a little distant from the original topic, but I'll bite. :)
Everyone has a belief system, in the sense that everyone believes in certain things, and that those things are often interrelated in complex and sometimes flawed ways.
The question always comes down to, how logically sound is your belief system, and the degree of verifiability your belief system has. Also whether it could be dis-proven by new information.
The other reason I can think of why it might be that this argument isn't a fruitful lijne of reasoning, is because, similar to that other idea about God (that you'd have to first know everything, before you could then decide that God doesn't exist), this idea about the multiverse, kind of requires knowledge we cannot have (or would take too long for us to get) in order to make any deductiuons based on what we do now now. It's scrubbing existing reasoning based on unknowables). That's not good.
In a similar vein, this argument is more or less saying that one cannot claim God (or a designer) has had an influence on the universe, since before we could do that, we'd have to first go out and prove that there are not in fact an infinite (or very very large) number of other universes that each have random assortments of physical constants and conditions, such that our universe which seems special (because we're here observing it) really isn't all that special after all.
The problem with this kind of approach, is because though it is a conceivable possibility, it is similar to the kind of approach that claims that God likely exists because even though we haven't observed God (ignoring those people who claimed they have had direct dealings with God) we can't actually claim God doesn't exist because in order to do so, we would have to know the sum total of all of the facts in the universe, in order to claim God doesn't exist. It's true, but it's not too helpful.
I believe in many scientific principles. I believe that animals will adapt to their surroundings. I don't claim to know how life began but I do know for a fact that life doesn't originate from something that isn't/wasn't once living. There is no explanation for how that may have happened. I don't believe in aliens but the bible doesn't disprove them. One more "logical" point for you: Christians can afford to be wrong in their beliefs. Athiests can't.
@ocarinadude12 "One more "logical" point for you: Christians can afford to be wrong in their beliefs. Athiests can't."
Pascal's Wager. That "logical" point would get you tarred and feathered at any middle school debate club.
For the win:
IF I must believe to be saved then, which of all the gods with exclusive paths to salvation do I pick. For that matter how do you know you picked correctly?
IF it is your god, then which version? Christianity has 38,000+ sects, claiming to be the only true one
@moopism I don't have to believe that IF I must be saved, I just use that as a logical appeal to try to help someone find God. I know about the souls at stake and I'd do anything to help someone find God. I believe in faith but explaining faith to the faithless is like explaining sight to the blind.
In Christianity, all you need to do to be saved is believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins. Any Christian church agrees with that single method of salvation.
Just to put it bluntly, Darwin himself believed in a creator. A Grand Architect. Progressive education won't mention that to you though, because that detail is not helpful to the progressive agenda
You are an idiot. Everyone knows Darwin beleived in god. But he became an athiest when his daughter died since she was a product of incest. If god was so kind and loving, why ake it so a child born of siblings/cousins will suffer from a poor immune system? Seems like real crappy design on his part. Genetics solved that riddle proving natural processes make it that by inbreeding you weaken the gene pool. The bible doesn't tell you that. In fact it says incest is fine.
The fine tuning argument is silly. God is all power so he can make the universe any way he wants and it will work. God is not constrained by some set of laws that govern how universes work. If he wants it to work it will work regardless of the strong force or speed of light or what ever.
I agree, however it's still used, less as a "aha god is real" and more as a "how could chance alone produce this" kind of argument. However I find both angles to be silly, since it assume we know what universes COULD exist.
Who knows, compared to other universes, ours could be practically barren.
Either way, if the chances of life existing were high or low, so what. Why does life imply a supernatural creator. Life is basically just a chemical reaction that occurs when the conditions are right. Why is it considered special? For example, the element platinum is very rare, and a unique set of astronomical and geological processes gave rise to its existence. Does this mean that the existence of Pt proves a Pt god? No, the existence of a rare substance proves nothing except that it exists.
@georgetcr I know, however this is another way to answer their "arguments".
TBH, to claim you know all possible universes, is a great leap of arrogance, which revealing this does allot to illustrate the mind of a creationist. Beyond that, the simple logical flaws, I think have been pointed out WAY too many times, and are often ignored now :|
Simply put.... just as there are countless stars and galaxies, so there are likely to be countless multiverses. The question is, do they all have the same laws as our own? If not, perhaps our universe is only one of small number who's laws have enabled intelligent life to exist, and therefore to question its own origins. Those universes that have different laws maybe could not develop intelligent life to ask these question. This is also true of planets, only one is known to support life.
@ToneSpectra Yes... and on top of that, only life which is able to think in ways that allow it to question these things would be able to ask that, since intelligence can take many paths, and we don't know that these questions would be asked by all intelligent life... but yeah, I totally agree, it's a confirmation bias.
No one can make the claim that the universe is highly improbable to have occurred AFTER it's already materialized. That's as ridiculous as driving down the road and selecting another car at random, noticing its license plate and then claiming how unlikely it is to have come across that very plate from all the plates possible. The only way to make a legitimate claim would be to write the number down first, and then see that car's plate. Anything else is misusing the concept of probability.
There are infinite alternate universes, a centimeter of each dimension of 5-10 can be split infinite times, each being an alternate reality. That means that infinite of these have to have super-mega intelligent life in them.
See: "Roger Penrose Fine Tuning" (4:07) watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo
He says, "How special was it? You can actually work this out. It's so special that the odds against this special initial state coming about by chance are less that 1/10^10^123... I just wanted to give you some feeling for how special the initial stage of the universe was... But there's got to be fine tuning. This is fine tuning. This is incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe."
@AA32m7io1 Wow, nice thoughtless response to my video.
You might want to actually try to comprehend the message, before responding.
What you basically did was, say that "hey someone said that the chances of being at one point on a race track are so low, that it must be intelligence", when my argument was that "the universe of possibilities extend far beyond that narrow track, and that we don't know what are it's true starting limits"
"the universe of possibilities extend far beyond that narrow track, and that we don't know what are it's true starting limits."
.
This is an arbitrary statement. What is your empirical evidence to support such a claim?
.
Paul Davies says in "Taking Science on Faith" (NYT, Nov 2007), "Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on FAITH...until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
"The same question could be asked for how some claim that the fundamental constants could have been different values."
.
Straw man - creationists do not deny fundamental constants. The laws of nature are perfectly consistent with the Bible. I expect the universe to be organized in a logical, orderly fashion and to obey uniform laws because the universe was created by the power of God.
.
How did the laws of nature become so precise out of the chaos of the Big Bang?
@AA32m7io1"creationists do not deny fundamental constants"
No, creationists say that, since the constants are "so perfect", therefore they couldn't have come about naturally. That's the subject, and that's what I'm arguing about.
You also didn't seem to understand what I was saying, since I wasn't strawmaning creationism at all. Creationists say that the constants are too exact to come about without a creator, and I say that creationists are assuming that the constants could have been different
"creationist say the constants are 'so perfect', therefore they couldn't have come about naturally. That's the subject, and that's what I'm arguing about."
.
Okay, so where did they come from? Borrowing a bit from Paul Davies, what is a testable theory of the laws of the universe?
.
BTW, Roger Penrose is not a Christian or a creationist.
To assert that I know, would be about as arrogant as the creationist asserting that they know.
I simply argue that creationists claiming that a universe with complex form is unlikely, is a baseless one, since just as we don't know whether the constants could have been different, we also don't know how much more different the universe could have been. For instance, what I said during this video.
"To assert that I know, would be about as arrogant as the creationist asserting that they know."
.
So then why should I accept your claim that the origin of constants are unknown since you don’t seem to know? In logic reasoning, no one is permitted to be arbitrary by asserting a claim that has no reason behind it and expect others to accept that claim (i.e., your video).
Creationists have repeatedly claim that, if the constants were random, then the chance of a stable life sustaining universe coming to be would be tiny.
I'm responding to that claim by pointing out that, we have no reason to assume that either the constants could change, or that the limit of the varieties of universes is that of the constants, and not of some other value.
@AA32m7io1 you are really confused on what logic is, or even rational thought. the point he's making that the constants that creationists refer to could have been anything, and any given value would have resulted ina different universe. who is to say that a different universe could not be better. to assert that is ignorance. it's like getting a royal flush in poker. the chances are small. in fact the chances are exactly the same for every hand. or any hand. you get one of the many.
You are the one making an arbitrary claim without any evidence... "any given value would have resulted in a different universe. who is to say that a different universe could not be better."
.
If that is the standard, then who is to say God didn't create it?
.
The simple (observable and testable) fact is that we know exactly what we have - and it's extremely precise! So to assume many other alternate possibilities is futile and irrational.
@AA32m7io1 it is precise because that's what we have. we don't know that that is the only possible outcome. your position is that once you end up with one of the many possibilities, you claim it is divine? because that is the reality that happened?
What if you were born to different parents in a different country at a different time in history? How exactly does that line of thinking help you assess your current situation in life? It doesn't. So to needlessly speculate about other possible outcomes of the universe is completely pointless and contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion of origins.
"it is precise because that's what we have. we don't know that that is the only possible outcome."
.
One rule of logic is that you are not permitted to be arbitrary. So to say "we don't know" that there could have been other possible outcomes is clearly not supported by the reality of what we do know.
@AA32m7io1 thank you for making my point. it's like lotto. whatever numbers come out, those are the numbers. no reason to worry about different outcomes. but to say look at what exact things had to happen to get those exact numbers? that is after the fact. could have bee any. to say that there coiuldn't have possibly been any other outcome is foolish. not saying there could have. i am just saying that infering design from the outcome assuming no other outcome could have been possible is illogica
"assuming no other outcome could have been possible is illogica"
.
Is that why we find billions of other life forms all throughout the universe?
.
Do you believe "chance" is a determinative force?
.
Also, what are your thoughts about Paul Davies' article, "Taking Science on Faith" (New York Times, Nov 2007) in which he concludes, "But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
@AA32m7io1 there could very well be billions of lifeforms in the universe. it is much more probable that there are many lifeforms out there, our ability to detect them is limited to very short distances. for example in a far away galaxie, another life form would not detect life from this planet for billions of years. science does have a testable theory about the laws, the laws are themselves testable. so he is wrong.
(cont) Quantum physics DEMANDS that this initial temperature difference should have actually existed at the Big Bang due to the uncertainty principle, such that there is NO WAY that the universe could have formed with precisely the same properties everywhere. The magnitude of this problem is quite large... The horizon problem is recognized as a SERIOUS DIFFICULTY by all cosmologists."
"in a far away galaxie, another life form would not detect life from this planet for billions of years."
.
Your posting begs the question about the "Horizon Problem" and why CMB is homogenous throughout the entire universe. Wiki says, "This presents a SERIOUS PROBLEM; if the universe had started with even slightly different temperatures in different areas, then there would simply be NO WAY it could have evened itself out to a common temperature by this point in time...
It's statistically impossible there are not intelligent ET's.
In our Milky Way galaxy there are 200-400 billion stars. If only 1per million stars had a planet with life, and only 1 per 1000 of those had intelligent life, there would be 200-400 planets just in the Milky Way with "intelligent life".
If half of those planets had life more intelligent than humans, then 100-200 planets in the Milky Way have (or had) life more intelligent than humans.
WTF? You're up to 15K views on this! That's a huge pct of my TOTAL views! And the fact that you only have 6 videos and as many subs as you do is extremely impressive. Hell, you should be on top of the world. Seriously, man.....
Great point that saying God must have made this fine tuning possible - is just another way of saying "if there is life, there must be a god" - no matter what!
@AncientAtheist yep, except that, they ignore the idea that, their probability bs, is based on their assumption, that the universe couldn't have been much better for life... :)
@TheReasonWhyGuy I've been really bad at commenting at videos lately (or even watching many). But, you have done as I asked people to do - if you want me to see something, please send it to me and I will watch it. You did. I did. Took me a while, but I saved the message until I got to it! :D
@AncientAtheist I appreciate it, and you're one of the few people I share videos with since, I removed the hundreds of friends I used to have, and now only keep people on that list, who I at least "know" in some way :)
It does seem stunningly arrogant to think that God would make such an unfathomably vast universe just for humans when humans only take up a minority of space on merely this planet, and every other place in the universe is instantly deadly to them.
One wonders how they can justify such arrogance standing under the sky at night. Remarkably some of these people have even been to observatories and astronomy classes.
@CorndogMaker MAy be (or she) made more stuff, and just tol the guy that told the guy that, etc, etc, the guy that wrote the bible all that bs in the book just for fun.
I bet he (or she [or it]) is laughing his/hers/its socks off in his/her/its giant invisible magic sofa.
Sorry man, but the argument that there could have been 'better universes' possible doesn't do it for me. The qualification 'better' is too easy because you don't know what a God woult consider better.
By the way, please no lolcatz-spelling in the next video :P
The reason I used the term "better" is because the opposite is used while talking about how the universe is supposedly fine tuned... how much worse it could have been, thus somehow negating the idea of natural formation.
As for God's view of better, that's irrelevant, since the argument isn't about God's view, but rather the "chances" of the universe supporting life on it's own.
Are you saying "universes" (plural) in a hypothetical way, or are you suggesting that there are literally more than one universe? Because if it's the latter, then you wouldn't even call it a universe, because that term implies that there is only one.
Also, pretty much every creationist I've run into believes that only Earth hosts any life in the entire universe, and that it's just the way God made it.
Kinda silly worrying about how you believe Christians will theoretically respond to a theoretical future situation and then explaining why it will be "a bullshit claim".
Sort of like them claiming that everything that has complexity needs a designer.
I say no. They ask for an example. I tell them a snowflake. They say "But that's designed too!"
-_-
If they're going to claim that everything was designed, then there is nothing that is 'not designed' that we can compare the 'designed' stuff to, therefore their position is once again untestable speculation.
I prefer using caves... And flagella... And viruses... And amino acids... And strong acids... And diamonds... And graphite... And 99% of the Periodic table... And 99% of the ions that are possible from the elements on the periodic table... And 99% of the chemical compunds that form through interactions of said elements and ions that cover 99% of the periodic table... And obviously echos...because Echo was cute. XD
Made the same argument against a patrolling preacher near my school...he just stood there lol! like, they really didn't expect that to come up? Not once? lol
@Raptor302 here is another problem. all the examples of things designed that theists use, are examples of rearranging matter. the watch, the building, so on. not a single example of anything "created". built? yes. designed? yes made? yes. created? no. so the design as they use it denotes source material. so that doesn't solve anything.
But, I don't think we even need to consider multiverses. The main problem is that creationists think humans are so important because we "rule" Earth at the moment.
Claiming we're the "chosen ones" because we're the most intelligent lifeforms we've discovered within the infinitesimal fraction of the universe we've been able to observe is just ego-centric and near-sighted.
Creationists probably can't put the hugeness of the universe into perspective with their tightly closed minds.
That's the thing with creationists, though - they'll do anything they can to take reality and apply the necessary mental and verbal gymnastics in order to bend it into something that "supports" their claim, in some bizarre, twisted way. Of course, anyone with a firm grasp of logic can see right through it, but many people can't, and those are the people they're trying to reach with their "arguments."
Christian as I do not believe in hell and I think most or all the bible stories are indeed just stories. That being said, I have thought the same about people being arrogant for thinking that Earth is the only planet that could possibly support life.
Lol, I've been saying this for years lol. "The chances of this universe existing are 1 in 1245235 25245345345"....They fail at probability lol, that is to say that they have observed and have access to THAT MANY universe and ours is just one of them lol!
The REAL chance of a universe supporting life is pie.
I know this because the Invisible Pink Unicorn revealed it to me...in a drea...I mean PROPHETIC VISION where I was a complete dictatorial tyrant hellbent on making people love each other and animals.
I find it hilarious that the same nutjobs who say "the odds are too great for life to have occurred by random chance", are the same nutjobs that buy lottery tickets by the fistful because "there's always a chance".
My born-again christian pastor uncle told me he won't accept evolution because the probability of it happening is so small. I asked him what the probability of a snake talking is. He didn't respond.
Also, claiming that our universe/world is perfect for life misses one crucial detail: it is a universe/world perfect for *our* variety of life. Which would make sense too, because it is the one we evolved in. But that's making the admission that they cannot. However we don't know that our variety of life is the only one possible. There can be non-carbon-based life and there can be life that subsists on a solvent other than water (liquid C02 maybe?)
What they are saying "It's impossible to have this universe/life because chances are so small", but if there is chance then it even shouldn't be impossible. It's like lottery with many possible winning tickets and every single moment they are checking which ticket wins. So it's prety much "impossible" to not have any winning ticket during great amount of time.
Speaking as statistician I think I can say one thing about probability with some authority. When measuring the probability with imperfect information the only kind of accuracy you're going to get is with conditional probability. ie What are the odds of life given such and such a state of things. Otherwise they're just making up numbers out of nothing. Which is, of course, what they always do.
I agree, there is no way we can (well at least with modern knowledge) to know every possible scenario. We don't even know ours perfectly, but at least we can be sure about that this ticket at least works :).
It's like telling a mathematician that you have such a special "thingy" which is always the correct result of EVERY mathematical operation, regardless if it's made with numbers, symbols, vectors, sets etc. Yeah, good luck with that... :)
I think Intelligence desing would be more likely true if life forms and universe would be much more simpler. Seriously why allmighty being should create so complex shit when he could do all this more simple. Unless he isn't allmighty ;)
They are doing it wrong. The universe is not tailored for us, we evolved and adapted to live in the universe as it is. Evolution tailored life to exist in this universe.
To me they failed the moment I learned that they stated things like god made the world flat and made the sun revolve around the earth, and that we're the center. As far as I'm concerned their explanation of god on these matters makes everything about their religion fail.
They're false and will never be able to move the goal post that resides in my mind about them.
See what I mean? To the extent that some creationists try and have it both ways, it is also possible for some evolutionists (or really - naturalists) to also want to have it both ways.
I think it's inevitable that people who feel passionately about a topic, will sometimes try to have their arguments both ways.
I would think the best course in such cases is not to get too upset, but to just point out why it isn't smart to try and have things both ways. It has a bad effect on reasoning.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 "I think it's inevitable that people who feel passionately about a topic, will sometimes try to have their arguments both ways. "
Correction
I think it's inevitable that people who feel passionately about a topic, will sometimes try to defend their belief with irrational arguments :)
Yes, this includes EVERYBODY
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy
Yes! That includes myself sometimes. I think it's OK to use arguments by axiomatic pronouncement - PROVIDED that one admits to doing that. For instance, on that other video, if a certain interpretation of a property of God (or a property of something else, like mathematics) seems to be logically inconsistent, then I think it's OK to define it to be logically consistent. But to do that may require axiomatic pronouncements that cannot be independantly verified...
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy
I don't see the problem with setting up some system of thought about a particular topic so that it becomes logically consistent with itself. But as that may sometimes require axioms to be setup as well, then unless it is blatantly obvious, one should come clean about the fact that axioms are being utilized. And as long as they cannot be independantly verified then the system of thought built on them becomes a belief system. (That's OK, unless people try to cover that up!)
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 This seems a little distant from the original topic, but I'll bite. :)
Everyone has a belief system, in the sense that everyone believes in certain things, and that those things are often interrelated in complex and sometimes flawed ways.
The question always comes down to, how logically sound is your belief system, and the degree of verifiability your belief system has. Also whether it could be dis-proven by new information.
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
The other reason I can think of why it might be that this argument isn't a fruitful lijne of reasoning, is because, similar to that other idea about God (that you'd have to first know everything, before you could then decide that God doesn't exist), this idea about the multiverse, kind of requires knowledge we cannot have (or would take too long for us to get) in order to make any deductiuons based on what we do now now. It's scrubbing existing reasoning based on unknowables). That's not good.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
In a similar vein, this argument is more or less saying that one cannot claim God (or a designer) has had an influence on the universe, since before we could do that, we'd have to first go out and prove that there are not in fact an infinite (or very very large) number of other universes that each have random assortments of physical constants and conditions, such that our universe which seems special (because we're here observing it) really isn't all that special after all.
It's not helpful.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
The problem with this kind of approach, is because though it is a conceivable possibility, it is similar to the kind of approach that claims that God likely exists because even though we haven't observed God (ignoring those people who claimed they have had direct dealings with God) we can't actually claim God doesn't exist because in order to do so, we would have to know the sum total of all of the facts in the universe, in order to claim God doesn't exist. It's true, but it's not too helpful.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
Holy shit, a "The cake is a lie" joke I can follow.
HimesInu 7 months ago
I believe in many scientific principles. I believe that animals will adapt to their surroundings. I don't claim to know how life began but I do know for a fact that life doesn't originate from something that isn't/wasn't once living. There is no explanation for how that may have happened. I don't believe in aliens but the bible doesn't disprove them. One more "logical" point for you: Christians can afford to be wrong in their beliefs. Athiests can't.
ocarinadude12 8 months ago
@ocarinadude12 "Christians can afford to be wrong in their beliefs"
Really, so if any other religion was right, you would still be saved?
This is just another way of expressing the oversimplification of reality your perspective relies on.
"Athiests can't."
If all the finite human religions are wrong, and another one of the infinite possible religions is right, you are in the same boat then.
To understand, try watching this learning aid.
watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
TheReasonWhyGuy 8 months ago
@ocarinadude12 "One more "logical" point for you: Christians can afford to be wrong in their beliefs. Athiests can't."
Pascal's Wager. That "logical" point would get you tarred and feathered at any middle school debate club.
For the win:
IF I must believe to be saved then, which of all the gods with exclusive paths to salvation do I pick. For that matter how do you know you picked correctly?
IF it is your god, then which version? Christianity has 38,000+ sects, claiming to be the only true one
moopism 7 months ago
@moopism I don't have to believe that IF I must be saved, I just use that as a logical appeal to try to help someone find God. I know about the souls at stake and I'd do anything to help someone find God. I believe in faith but explaining faith to the faithless is like explaining sight to the blind.
In Christianity, all you need to do to be saved is believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins. Any Christian church agrees with that single method of salvation.
ocarinadude12 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ocarinadude12 "I don't have to believe that IF I must be saved, I just use that as a logical appeal to try to help someone find God"
And I just explained to you why that argument is bogus. Surely if you're all fired up to save the lost you can do better than Pascal's wager?
That's not an appeal to logic, but an insult to reason. You're not helping yourself by appealing to that crap.
moopism 7 months ago
Just to put it bluntly, Darwin himself believed in a creator. A Grand Architect. Progressive education won't mention that to you though, because that detail is not helpful to the progressive agenda
albinomoose92 11 months ago
@albinomoose92 "Darwin himself believed in a creator"
Yes he did :)
However, saying that, is a vast oversimplification.
People don't always hold the same beliefs their entire life.
It's said that late in life, he started to doubt, and that created tension between him and his wife.
Anyway, :)
Have a good day...
TheReasonWhyGuy 11 months ago
@albinomoose92
You are an idiot. Everyone knows Darwin beleived in god. But he became an athiest when his daughter died since she was a product of incest. If god was so kind and loving, why ake it so a child born of siblings/cousins will suffer from a poor immune system? Seems like real crappy design on his part. Genetics solved that riddle proving natural processes make it that by inbreeding you weaken the gene pool. The bible doesn't tell you that. In fact it says incest is fine.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most excellent benaughty lady "benaughtyman.info"
themaliovindya 1 year ago
The fine tuning argument is silly. God is all power so he can make the universe any way he wants and it will work. God is not constrained by some set of laws that govern how universes work. If he wants it to work it will work regardless of the strong force or speed of light or what ever.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 "The fine tuning argument is silly"
I agree, however it's still used, less as a "aha god is real" and more as a "how could chance alone produce this" kind of argument. However I find both angles to be silly, since it assume we know what universes COULD exist.
Who knows, compared to other universes, ours could be practically barren.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Trusted name on Asian women marriage "benaughtyman.info"
neharahansamali 1 year ago
Either way, if the chances of life existing were high or low, so what. Why does life imply a supernatural creator. Life is basically just a chemical reaction that occurs when the conditions are right. Why is it considered special? For example, the element platinum is very rare, and a unique set of astronomical and geological processes gave rise to its existence. Does this mean that the existence of Pt proves a Pt god? No, the existence of a rare substance proves nothing except that it exists.
georgetcr 1 year ago
@georgetcr I know, however this is another way to answer their "arguments".
TBH, to claim you know all possible universes, is a great leap of arrogance, which revealing this does allot to illustrate the mind of a creationist. Beyond that, the simple logical flaws, I think have been pointed out WAY too many times, and are often ignored now :|
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
Simply put.... just as there are countless stars and galaxies, so there are likely to be countless multiverses. The question is, do they all have the same laws as our own? If not, perhaps our universe is only one of small number who's laws have enabled intelligent life to exist, and therefore to question its own origins. Those universes that have different laws maybe could not develop intelligent life to ask these question. This is also true of planets, only one is known to support life.
ToneSpectra 1 year ago
@ToneSpectra Yes... and on top of that, only life which is able to think in ways that allow it to question these things would be able to ask that, since intelligence can take many paths, and we don't know that these questions would be asked by all intelligent life... but yeah, I totally agree, it's a confirmation bias.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
No one can make the claim that the universe is highly improbable to have occurred AFTER it's already materialized. That's as ridiculous as driving down the road and selecting another car at random, noticing its license plate and then claiming how unlikely it is to have come across that very plate from all the plates possible. The only way to make a legitimate claim would be to write the number down first, and then see that car's plate. Anything else is misusing the concept of probability.
palui 1 year ago
There are infinite alternate universes, a centimeter of each dimension of 5-10 can be split infinite times, each being an alternate reality. That means that infinite of these have to have super-mega intelligent life in them.
If the universe works like this theory says.
MagnusRulerHardt 1 year ago
See: "Roger Penrose Fine Tuning" (4:07) watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo
He says, "How special was it? You can actually work this out. It's so special that the odds against this special initial state coming about by chance are less that 1/10^10^123... I just wanted to give you some feeling for how special the initial stage of the universe was... But there's got to be fine tuning. This is fine tuning. This is incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 Wow, nice thoughtless response to my video.
You might want to actually try to comprehend the message, before responding.
What you basically did was, say that "hey someone said that the chances of being at one point on a race track are so low, that it must be intelligence", when my argument was that "the universe of possibilities extend far beyond that narrow track, and that we don't know what are it's true starting limits"
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy
"the universe of possibilities extend far beyond that narrow track, and that we don't know what are it's true starting limits."
.
This is an arbitrary statement. What is your empirical evidence to support such a claim?
.
Paul Davies says in "Taking Science on Faith" (NYT, Nov 2007), "Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on FAITH...until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 "This is an arbitrary statement. What is your empirical evidence to support such a claim?"
The same question could be asked for how some claim that the fundamental constants could have been different values.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy
"The same question could be asked for how some claim that the fundamental constants could have been different values."
.
Straw man - creationists do not deny fundamental constants. The laws of nature are perfectly consistent with the Bible. I expect the universe to be organized in a logical, orderly fashion and to obey uniform laws because the universe was created by the power of God.
.
How did the laws of nature become so precise out of the chaos of the Big Bang?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1"creationists do not deny fundamental constants"
No, creationists say that, since the constants are "so perfect", therefore they couldn't have come about naturally. That's the subject, and that's what I'm arguing about.
You also didn't seem to understand what I was saying, since I wasn't strawmaning creationism at all. Creationists say that the constants are too exact to come about without a creator, and I say that creationists are assuming that the constants could have been different
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy
"creationist say the constants are 'so perfect', therefore they couldn't have come about naturally. That's the subject, and that's what I'm arguing about."
.
Okay, so where did they come from? Borrowing a bit from Paul Davies, what is a testable theory of the laws of the universe?
.
BTW, Roger Penrose is not a Christian or a creationist.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 "Okay, so where did they come from?"
To assert that I know, would be about as arrogant as the creationist asserting that they know.
I simply argue that creationists claiming that a universe with complex form is unlikely, is a baseless one, since just as we don't know whether the constants could have been different, we also don't know how much more different the universe could have been. For instance, what I said during this video.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy
"To assert that I know, would be about as arrogant as the creationist asserting that they know."
.
So then why should I accept your claim that the origin of constants are unknown since you don’t seem to know? In logic reasoning, no one is permitted to be arbitrary by asserting a claim that has no reason behind it and expect others to accept that claim (i.e., your video).
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 "a claim that has no reason"
That's the flaw in your understanding.
I'm not making a claim, I'm responding to one.
Creationists have repeatedly claim that, if the constants were random, then the chance of a stable life sustaining universe coming to be would be tiny.
I'm responding to that claim by pointing out that, we have no reason to assume that either the constants could change, or that the limit of the varieties of universes is that of the constants, and not of some other value.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 you are really confused on what logic is, or even rational thought. the point he's making that the constants that creationists refer to could have been anything, and any given value would have resulted ina different universe. who is to say that a different universe could not be better. to assert that is ignorance. it's like getting a royal flush in poker. the chances are small. in fact the chances are exactly the same for every hand. or any hand. you get one of the many.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb
I am confused on logic?
.
You are the one making an arbitrary claim without any evidence... "any given value would have resulted in a different universe. who is to say that a different universe could not be better."
.
If that is the standard, then who is to say God didn't create it?
.
The simple (observable and testable) fact is that we know exactly what we have - and it's extremely precise! So to assume many other alternate possibilities is futile and irrational.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 it is precise because that's what we have. we don't know that that is the only possible outcome. your position is that once you end up with one of the many possibilities, you claim it is divine? because that is the reality that happened?
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb 2 of 2
What if you were born to different parents in a different country at a different time in history? How exactly does that line of thinking help you assess your current situation in life? It doesn't. So to needlessly speculate about other possible outcomes of the universe is completely pointless and contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion of origins.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@brownbigb 1 of 2
"it is precise because that's what we have. we don't know that that is the only possible outcome."
.
One rule of logic is that you are not permitted to be arbitrary. So to say "we don't know" that there could have been other possible outcomes is clearly not supported by the reality of what we do know.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 thank you for making my point. it's like lotto. whatever numbers come out, those are the numbers. no reason to worry about different outcomes. but to say look at what exact things had to happen to get those exact numbers? that is after the fact. could have bee any. to say that there coiuldn't have possibly been any other outcome is foolish. not saying there could have. i am just saying that infering design from the outcome assuming no other outcome could have been possible is illogica
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb
"assuming no other outcome could have been possible is illogica"
.
Is that why we find billions of other life forms all throughout the universe?
.
Do you believe "chance" is a determinative force?
.
Also, what are your thoughts about Paul Davies' article, "Taking Science on Faith" (New York Times, Nov 2007) in which he concludes, "But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 there could very well be billions of lifeforms in the universe. it is much more probable that there are many lifeforms out there, our ability to detect them is limited to very short distances. for example in a far away galaxie, another life form would not detect life from this planet for billions of years. science does have a testable theory about the laws, the laws are themselves testable. so he is wrong.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb 2 of 2
(cont) Quantum physics DEMANDS that this initial temperature difference should have actually existed at the Big Bang due to the uncertainty principle, such that there is NO WAY that the universe could have formed with precisely the same properties everywhere. The magnitude of this problem is quite large... The horizon problem is recognized as a SERIOUS DIFFICULTY by all cosmologists."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@brownbigb 1 of 2
"in a far away galaxie, another life form would not detect life from this planet for billions of years."
.
Your posting begs the question about the "Horizon Problem" and why CMB is homogenous throughout the entire universe. Wiki says, "This presents a SERIOUS PROBLEM; if the universe had started with even slightly different temperatures in different areas, then there would simply be NO WAY it could have evened itself out to a common temperature by this point in time...
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
It's statistically impossible there are not intelligent ET's.
In our Milky Way galaxy there are 200-400 billion stars. If only 1per million stars had a planet with life, and only 1 per 1000 of those had intelligent life, there would be 200-400 planets just in the Milky Way with "intelligent life".
If half of those planets had life more intelligent than humans, then 100-200 planets in the Milky Way have (or had) life more intelligent than humans.
And there are 100+ billion other galaxies.
LOL!
goog2k 1 year ago
subliminal messeges win
TheSilentVictim 1 year ago
@TheSilentVictim :)
First person to notice it, win.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
WTF? You're up to 15K views on this! That's a huge pct of my TOTAL views! And the fact that you only have 6 videos and as many subs as you do is extremely impressive. Hell, you should be on top of the world. Seriously, man.....
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
Great point that saying God must have made this fine tuning possible - is just another way of saying "if there is life, there must be a god" - no matter what!
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
@AncientAtheist yep, except that, they ignore the idea that, their probability bs, is based on their assumption, that the universe couldn't have been much better for life... :)
Thanks for commenting :D
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy I've been really bad at commenting at videos lately (or even watching many). But, you have done as I asked people to do - if you want me to see something, please send it to me and I will watch it. You did. I did. Took me a while, but I saved the message until I got to it! :D
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
@AncientAtheist I appreciate it, and you're one of the few people I share videos with since, I removed the hundreds of friends I used to have, and now only keep people on that list, who I at least "know" in some way :)
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@AncientAtheist OH!!! My bad. I was looking at your TOTAL views. Still.... :D
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
It does seem stunningly arrogant to think that God would make such an unfathomably vast universe just for humans when humans only take up a minority of space on merely this planet, and every other place in the universe is instantly deadly to them.
One wonders how they can justify such arrogance standing under the sky at night. Remarkably some of these people have even been to observatories and astronomy classes.
CorndogMaker 1 year ago
@CorndogMaker Yep, and that's just the tip of their ego-centrism
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@CorndogMaker MAy be (or she) made more stuff, and just tol the guy that told the guy that, etc, etc, the guy that wrote the bible all that bs in the book just for fun.
I bet he (or she [or it]) is laughing his/hers/its socks off in his/her/its giant invisible magic sofa.
MithranArkanere 1 year ago
Sorry man, but the argument that there could have been 'better universes' possible doesn't do it for me. The qualification 'better' is too easy because you don't know what a God woult consider better.
By the way, please no lolcatz-spelling in the next video :P
Rvdl89 1 year ago
@Rvdl89
The reason I used the term "better" is because the opposite is used while talking about how the universe is supposedly fine tuned... how much worse it could have been, thus somehow negating the idea of natural formation.
As for God's view of better, that's irrelevant, since the argument isn't about God's view, but rather the "chances" of the universe supporting life on it's own.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
@Rvdl89 Also to make it abundantly clear, by "better" I mean for life...
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
Sneaking in those subliminal messages EH?
It was a funny video.
metalorg 1 year ago
@metalorg LOL
Just a reminder XD
And thanks :D
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
Are you saying "universes" (plural) in a hypothetical way, or are you suggesting that there are literally more than one universe? Because if it's the latter, then you wouldn't even call it a universe, because that term implies that there is only one.
Also, pretty much every creationist I've run into believes that only Earth hosts any life in the entire universe, and that it's just the way God made it.
Relyt22 1 year ago
@Relyt22 "or are you suggesting that there are literally more than one universe?"
In the potential universe sort of way, no multiverse needed
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
Kinda silly worrying about how you believe Christians will theoretically respond to a theoretical future situation and then explaining why it will be "a bullshit claim".
john731863 1 year ago
@john731863
Creationists aren't only Christian, and this isn't about a future argument, but about one they already make.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
Sort of like them claiming that everything that has complexity needs a designer.
I say no. They ask for an example. I tell them a snowflake. They say "But that's designed too!"
-_-
If they're going to claim that everything was designed, then there is nothing that is 'not designed' that we can compare the 'designed' stuff to, therefore their position is once again untestable speculation.
Raptor302 1 year ago 9
onijester56 1 year ago
Made the same argument against a patrolling preacher near my school...he just stood there lol! like, they really didn't expect that to come up? Not once? lol
MrOmniblast 1 year ago
@Raptor302 here is another problem. all the examples of things designed that theists use, are examples of rearranging matter. the watch, the building, so on. not a single example of anything "created". built? yes. designed? yes made? yes. created? no. so the design as they use it denotes source material. so that doesn't solve anything.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb good point
Raptor302 1 year ago
nice vid :)
But, I don't think we even need to consider multiverses. The main problem is that creationists think humans are so important because we "rule" Earth at the moment.
Claiming we're the "chosen ones" because we're the most intelligent lifeforms we've discovered within the infinitesimal fraction of the universe we've been able to observe is just ego-centric and near-sighted.
Creationists probably can't put the hugeness of the universe into perspective with their tightly closed minds.
taeyeonlover 1 year ago
That's the thing with creationists, though - they'll do anything they can to take reality and apply the necessary mental and verbal gymnastics in order to bend it into something that "supports" their claim, in some bizarre, twisted way. Of course, anyone with a firm grasp of logic can see right through it, but many people can't, and those are the people they're trying to reach with their "arguments."
AislinCade 1 year ago
lol. I forgot about creationists for a second.
5amGordon 1 year ago
To qoute a more inteeligent conciousness
"The Cake Is A Lie"
jmm1233 1 year ago
Although I believe in a god, I am far from
Christian as I do not believe in hell and I think most or all the bible stories are indeed just stories. That being said, I have thought the same about people being arrogant for thinking that Earth is the only planet that could possibly support life.
bloodelfpallie 1 year ago
Lol, I've been saying this for years lol. "The chances of this universe existing are 1 in 1245235 25245345345"....They fail at probability lol, that is to say that they have observed and have access to THAT MANY universe and ours is just one of them lol!
MrOmniblast 1 year ago
@MrOmniblast
The REAL chance of a universe supporting life is pie.
I know this because the Invisible Pink Unicorn revealed it to me...in a drea...I mean PROPHETIC VISION where I was a complete dictatorial tyrant hellbent on making people love each other and animals.
XD
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 lol
LIES!!!
My lords noodley appendage told me XD
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago
I find it hilarious that the same nutjobs who say "the odds are too great for life to have occurred by random chance", are the same nutjobs that buy lottery tickets by the fistful because "there's always a chance".
Religion is such a cult of mental terrorism.
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago
Good stuff!!!
MoreSciFiThanScience 1 year ago
Great video! I don't recall ever hearing your voice in a video before...
snoman99991 1 year ago
My born-again christian pastor uncle told me he won't accept evolution because the probability of it happening is so small. I asked him what the probability of a snake talking is. He didn't respond.
ngarbo00 1 year ago
truly so, creationist use any and everything bothways.. all it needs is creationist logic.
Paxmax 1 year ago
Great video!
kelliko70 1 year ago
Also, claiming that our universe/world is perfect for life misses one crucial detail: it is a universe/world perfect for *our* variety of life. Which would make sense too, because it is the one we evolved in. But that's making the admission that they cannot. However we don't know that our variety of life is the only one possible. There can be non-carbon-based life and there can be life that subsists on a solvent other than water (liquid C02 maybe?)
jessemaurais 1 year ago
i am struggling to find a claim of theirs that isnt bullshit. Laughable bullshit.
fantasy0coach 1 year ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy
No problem...
There is one thing that creationist fail to see.
What they are saying "It's impossible to have this universe/life because chances are so small", but if there is chance then it even shouldn't be impossible. It's like lottery with many possible winning tickets and every single moment they are checking which ticket wins. So it's prety much "impossible" to not have any winning ticket during great amount of time.
Anyway good night.
Tespri 1 year ago
@Tespri
Speaking as statistician I think I can say one thing about probability with some authority. When measuring the probability with imperfect information the only kind of accuracy you're going to get is with conditional probability. ie What are the odds of life given such and such a state of things. Otherwise they're just making up numbers out of nothing. Which is, of course, what they always do.
jessemaurais 1 year ago
@jessemaurais
I agree, there is no way we can (well at least with modern knowledge) to know every possible scenario. We don't even know ours perfectly, but at least we can be sure about that this ticket at least works :).
Tespri 1 year ago
It's like telling a mathematician that you have such a special "thingy" which is always the correct result of EVERY mathematical operation, regardless if it's made with numbers, symbols, vectors, sets etc. Yeah, good luck with that... :)
KristoffDoe 1 year ago
I think Intelligence desing would be more likely true if life forms and universe would be much more simpler. Seriously why allmighty being should create so complex shit when he could do all this more simple. Unless he isn't allmighty ;)
Tespri 1 year ago
Short and to the point. I like it.
Bear5177 1 year ago
They are doing it wrong. The universe is not tailored for us, we evolved and adapted to live in the universe as it is. Evolution tailored life to exist in this universe.
AGrandt 1 year ago 7
To me they failed the moment I learned that they stated things like god made the world flat and made the sun revolve around the earth, and that we're the center. As far as I'm concerned their explanation of god on these matters makes everything about their religion fail.
They're false and will never be able to move the goal post that resides in my mind about them.
mrx0066600 1 year ago 2
exactly :-)
okmasko 1 year ago