Lloyd rants about the 'Just Right Universe' rubbish

[Gulronike]

Your argument is correct. And yes I still believe in a God. 

[saldownik]

I don't fully understand your point in this video. Do you suggest that life would exist in pure hydrogen world, it would just be something else? I think it is unlikely in that instance or in a world in which stable matter wouldn't form at all, or in an inflating world in which energy would be too spread out in the beginning. Yep, i think our world is at least somewhat special in the space of possible worlds with similar physics.

Uniqueness of our world doesn't immediately prove god of course.

[TheSmacktasticSMACKO]

people keep saying that Gods creation is perfect. it WAS perfect and according to the bible after the fall of man and their banishment from the garden that all creation fell into a state of imperfection so STOP saying that you just sound stupid!and it dosnt matter how far to the right or left you are on the subject of the creation of the universe NO ONE CAN EVER REALLY KNOW all we can do is speculate! niether side can justify how the universe was really made thus making the argument redundant

[Predak4082]

I really wish these theists would stop trying to make these "arguments" in favor of God. If you COULD make a definitive, fact-driven argument for God, then there wouldn't be any need for faith, because it would just be accepted as being a fact. There's no trial in believing a fact with well-documented evidence, now is there? I wish that people would stop making these arguments, they're just making damned fools of themselves.

[CenaxKikia]

I always take one of these folks to a puddle on the ground and say.. You see that curvature of the ground? It's perfect for that puddle's existence. If that curve was not there like that, the puddle wouldn't exist.. but perhaps that puddle might be elsewhere... perhaps the universe might be a completely different looking animal with different forces.. how will we know? We won't, because we got the dice roll to look like this.. So lets enjoy the puddle just because.

[yatzy75]

Is it not obvious that religion in general is the tool the few need to have control over the many, and was outdated sometime after "the dark ages"?

Still nice of you to point out such facts to those who still like to be fooled:)

[jdf1023]

I like your vids. After watching a dozen or so, I think I agree with myself on this point. Please continue.

[52ndGrenadierOL]

my only comment is - for the fact that the universe is too perfect for it to be random - is that if it wasn't perfect we wouldn't be here to question that

[lindybeige]

@52ndGrenadierOL What evidence do you have that the universe is perfect? How much of it have you seen? Are you sure that all the mountain ranges on Earth are exactly the right shape?

[52ndGrenadierOL]

@lindybeige i meant in terms of the point of perfection to allow sustainable life mate

[vanRijn64]

@lindybeige I am sure that the mountain ranges on earth are exactly the right shape. I decided this last night.

[Lathox]

@52ndGrenadierOL

The universe is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

You can see collapsed nebulae, failed galaxies, planets annihilated by supernovae, and here we have a world that can support life on some of it's surface, some of the time, 90% of it's species are now extinct.

Sorry not impressed.

[DiabolusIgnis]

My father tried to explain quantum physics to me. It all seemed so illogical. If I observe a particle as spinning positively in a x-axis, and then observe it's spin in a y-axis, it has a 50/50 chance of either spinning in the positive or negative direction. But as long as I don't observe it in another angle, it will have the same spin. That's how I understood it... He also told me about particles not having a angle of waving (IDK how to explain) before observing, but always after. WTF.

[amorphusensanity]

@DiabolusIgnis Much of your confusion comes from the fact that you are used to observing things with such a small amount of energy (light) compared to the object you observe that an observation affecting the thing observed is strange. Think of it more like this. You are trying to figure out where a billiard ball is on the table, but there's a catch. You can only "see" it by shooting Que balls at it. Oh, and it's moving, so finding it means it is no longer moving the same speed nor direction.

[SadamSkywalker]

I always find it ANNOYING if religious people try to PROVE that there is a god/ santa claus/ the easter bunny or some kind of pink fluffy unicorn that rules the world.

Just stay with it: either you believe or you don't. That's it. Who believes doesn't need a prove and won't budge if presentet with a disprove (<-is that a word in your language?).

I myselve do not belive in any kind of supernatural power.

But I can't proove that there isn't. I JUST don't BELIEVE.

[umadumirin]

If the BAR-TAILED GODWIT crashed into the water it would DIE. I cannot help but laugh like an idiot over this. Anyway, more on-topic, I always find it annoying when people say "Everything is just right so we can exist, it seems like a bit of a coincidense!", disregarding the very strong possibility that our universe is not the only universe, and that ours seems so "perfect" because it's one of the very, very few universes with the conditions that allow us to exist!

[666satanification666]

Ah, I knew you were "one of us" and I had hoped that you would have some videos about this on here somewhere.

[migkillerphantom]

@lindybeige Dude, you're the awesomest guy on Youtube, and your British!

[TheoMauler]

I don't understand how strong/weak atomic forces "found harmony". Aren't they constant? Like, the neutron didn't "find" its mass that helped bind it to the proton like the solar system;galaxy found its balance, did it? It always was that mass and so was the proton. Or am I confused? Or are the questions I'm asking lost in the mysteries of the Big Bang?

[madasnave]

there is also the theory that We as humans are god, and that the world we live in is just a virtural reallity that we created in the future and that we are liveing out simulations of the past to get to the point of understanding that we are ready to enter the real world, or get to a point where we start over... kinda sounds like an eastern religion with pc's.

[wesmatron]

Hi Lloyd. You should have used the Bar-Necked Godtwit, or as I call them 'priests'

;)

[TheRedWolf080]

Simpily life should not exist. There were so many things for it to go wrong. If one factor messed up it would be game over, no life. There has to be some form of God or some force that allowed life to happen. Or we just got damn lucky. Both are possible.

[NoisemakerArrow]

Hugh Ross looks like John Malkovich.

[InerSpce]

Life Exists, where It Can.

[renybot]

When I was a kid there was a pile of tomato cans in a supermarket, shaped like a pyramid. Everyone was amazed by the ability who was able to make it. Obviously I made everything fall down. The new shape of the pile was way more complicate but none was amazed by the incredible amount of interactions between the various cans to get to that final shape. Universe is like the second pile: it's the final shape of a fallen pile of staff.

[TuahShinguru]

Those arguments essentially come down to, "If things were different, things would be different."

[Polymarkos]

I live in Alaska. I will look for these birds this spring!

[WaterAtire]

All you're facts are logical and conclusive and I can only assume you came to the same conclusion that I did watching this that, for example, if a neutron wasn't the weight it was then it would decay into a proton, well logically that is the reason it is its weight because any that are not, stop existing. You're one other video about plants where you made a point about evolution it helps to explain this. I know absolutely nothing of god nor physics but common seance should show your right.

[sxetitan]

You created an interesting point, that if the bird had more efficient muscles then it would not have to work as hard to stay in the same spot.

The difference in the arguments is that if one force is off another force is capable of making it work anyway. Which by your statement in the comments, "If a scientist could construct a model of a working universe, with different constants (etc etc)." There isn't an opposite force capable of making it work.

Therefore we do have the right universe.

[ViraIVideos]

Also the Belief that any other world could have come out, without the specific constants we have today is a religion based on no sound scientific fact.

Laws such as the Electromagnetic Forces interacting with gravity, defined as they are, and the laws of thermodynamics, cannot be changed as the balance is too delicate for other forces to compensate.

Again if you don't believe me, design a model of your own universe.

It's constants would totally fail, unless exactly like ours.

[fakejohnwilkesbooth]

@ViraIVideos But that seems like an argument that the universe is necessary. If the universe the way that it is, with all its harmonies, is necessary, well, then, it's not a contingency in need of causal explanation. Right? It's not strange that the universe should be the way it is, if no other universe is possible.

[ViraIVideos]

You can argue there are other ways to make the universe (again as speculation and with no proof), you can't explain how this world and constants were created in such harmony; only that it is harmonious.

Your examples don't explain the interactions of each of your bird constants to one another, where as the interaction between gravity and the size of the earth / the formation of our universe is very well understood.

Models show Gravity and Electromagnetic forces are in harmony. Why though?

[lindybeige]

@ViraIVideos If the air is denser, it doesn't need to flap as hard; if gravity is greater, it needs to flap harder. The factors all interact.

[ViraIVideos]

@lindybeige If gravity was greater, the universe would cease to exist.

The interactions are much more sensitive than you make them out to be.

Again, if you believe any other universe is possible, please create one. The fact remains, our universe is the only one that can sustain life.

[lindybeige]

@ViraIVideos "The fact remains, our universe is the only one that can sustain life." This is a fabulously bold statement.

[ViraIVideos]

@lindybeige There isn't a shred of evidence to the contrary. Only our universe can sustain life.

As a scientist, you base your world view on data, not on notions and beliefs.

If a scientist could construct a model of a working universe, with different constants, he would have. They can't, they've tried, and it hasn't worked.

We find the opposite, tweaking one constant slightly throws everything off chaotically.

If gravity were different, we wouldn't be here, that's scientifically proven.

[lindybeige]

@ViraIVideos It seems that you have become convinced and entrenched.

[IcEye89]

@ViraIVideos Actually, that's only proves that a universe - or rather a solar system and a planet like earth - that can sustain human life is really, really unlikely. It all comes down to chance.

The universe isn't this way because we are here, we are here because the universe is this way, please just stop making yourself - or mankind - the center of the universe. Causality works only in one way.

[dereinzigwahreRahl]

@ViraIVideos

Just because we are (atm) unable to construct a model for different but working universe it doesn't mean that it is impossible. Human mind has it's limitations.

[KevinLounsberry]

@ViraIVideos If gravity were more powerful, big things in space would just be farther apart before their masses don't effect eachother. That wouldn't end the universe.

[ShermanHawk]

As I watched this, it struck me that the idea of planets flying apart or crashing together if gravity were different was clearly false, because planets would have formed in different locations and at different sizes with a different gravitational constant. Sadly, the gravitational argument is the only one Mr. Lloyd knocks over. I wish him luck explaining how any universe giving rise to intelligent life could have a strong force even an order of magnitude greater or less than now.

[531rgb]

I like how it flies into space or crashes into the sea invariably. Several years of Catholic schooling involuntarily came to mind.

Thanks for that one :D

[nazariomega]

Thanks to you I learned a new word: "rants"... good example. Anyway, I hope there is this secret geometry in the universe that permits me to win the lottery one day

[stupidnamenoonecares]

why would a bar tailed godwit lark about?

are they good mimes?

[lindybeige]

Yup. Known for it. Especially fond of the invisible egg rolling out of the nest gag.

[oOoxelAoOo]

Douglas Adams' sentient puddle is a good one. A sentient puddle would think there must be a God or else it wouldn't fit so nicely in its little hole in the ground.

[lindybeige]

Well said, Doug!

[UrbanBongo]

We look to empirical data to make judgements but in your rant you conclude the planets have "just found their balance". Erm..that's not really good enough is it? What you said is they could very easily shoot away from each other (which they do, albeit very slowly as the Universe expands) or collide (which they may do once the Universe has expanded and begins to contract). This balance IS amazing. I do think there is order to the Universe (cf. the prevalence of the Golden Section in nature).

[Gilmaris]

"This balance IS amazing."

"Amazing" is purely subjective. Constructing microchips is amazing to me because I don't know how to do it. For those who DO do it, however, there's no hokus pokus.

[Gilmaris]

And why wouldn't there be something we would perceive as orderly? We instinctively look for patterns everywhere, which is why we see Virgin Marys in bits of toast and such.

Many are awed by all the things that have to be "just right" for us to be here. But they are not awed by the vastly more places in space where we aren't. People are awed that they beat the odds if they win the lottery, but not awed when someone else does.

[rmckim]

faith and science do not have the same goals. do not try and compare.

[lindybeige]

So science has the goal of truth and religion has the goal of... recruiting more members? Something other than truth, anyway.

[O0rosco]

I don't see why people feel the need to present arguments for their side. We are humans fully capable of making our OWN decisions and not following other people's. I choose to believe... but that doesn't mean that i choose to be ignorant to developments made by science.... I really don't understand the purpose of all this, aetheists shouldn't have advertisements on busses and believers of whichever fates shouldn't attempt to influence politics... simple as that.

[rattinox]

I kinda like Bill Hicks' one-word rebuttal to Creationists..........

DINOSAUR

[rattinox]

I think Akademos himself would pump your hand and thank you. Having spent many years in astophysics, specifically nucleosynthesis, I've been astounded that the Christians have siezed upon it as PROOF. Guess they haven't read Oolon Colluphid's "Who is this God person, anyway?"

They're NOT going to swallow that spoonful of Reality, nope.

Great stuff, Lloyd!!

[lindybeige]

I stopped reading after "Some more of God's greatest mistakes", because he seemed to be preaching to the choir, but it was good stuff.

[tehsma]

So can you give me an example of a fundamental constant of nature changing? I don't think we would call them fundamental constants if they did.

Examples being: the speed of light in the vacuum, planck's constant, or the gravitational constant.

I'm simply saying that by speculating that the fundamental constants could be different elsewhere, is to invoke an unobserved condition. It is a valid hypothesis for which we have no evidence.

[lindybeige]

If these things are not variables, then there is no need for a god to set them at their values. If they are variables, then they might vary. The way the universe is causes them to set each other, perhaps. Apparently E=MCsquared.

[bluesharkoo7]

Second Law of thermodynamics says that everything in a systems goes from order to disorder - unless something external from that system interferes with, or is put into that system. So things remaining constant in the Universe would actually indicate an external influence maintaining them.

[tehsma]

As far as I can tell, your arguments are based on the supposition that there are multiple universes- since you are pondering alternate fundamental constants of nature (which have obviously never been observed in this universe). I personally don't think there is any evidence for alternate physical constants existing anywhere.

[lindybeige]

No, there is no need in my argument for parallel universes. All that is required is for things in this universe to affect other things in this universe, which I'm confident they do. Had one force in an atom been stronger or weaker than it is, I'm certain that this would have had some knock on consequence that would have affected some other value. The notion that these forces in nature are all independent is silly.

[bluesharkoo7]

As far as I know the original argument that the video was questioning wasn't saying that they all worked independent of one another - quite the opposite. No matter if the gravitational pull had knock on consequences,if was changed slightly, I fail to see how that could change the heat coming from the sun and the earth would still be too cold or too hot to support life. Your video didn't actually say anything but say "so what - that's stupid," and then never really explaining why.

[lindybeige]

Either they are independent of each other, in which case yes, it is amazing, or they are not, in which case it isn't amazing at all.

My video did go some way towards explaining why. To be more explicit would have taken longer and been duller. It points out that the argument is silly because the various figures are NOT independent of one another.

[bluesharkoo7]

True if gravity were weaker we would freeze if it were stronger we would burn. The whole argument RELIES on the various factors being INTERDEPENDENT and AFFECTING one another.

[bluesharkoo7]

My point is that you can't prove that there are alternative universes, the supernatural, God or that there aren't. Just because you have no evidence for me owning a Aston Martin doesn't mean that I'm necessarily lying if I say that I do. Again, if I said that I did not I may once again be lying - in either scenario you have the choice to belief or not - but you can't prove it either way. An opinion - negative or positive - about the existence of God is a belief.

[lindybeige]

Er... no, you are wrong here. The massive flaw in your argument is that it is possible to prove that you own a car. You show me the papers. You run a police vehicle check.

[bluesharkoo7]

No, I might have a car of a certain type even if I didn't have the papers. My point is that because you can't physically see the car - or papers to do with it - it doesn't mean that is doesn't exist.

[lindybeige]

And my point is if you can see the car and the papers, then that is evidence that is does.

[bluesharkoo7]

And MY point is that just because you don't have that evidence doesn't mean that the car or deity doesn't exist.

[Jebbis]

Ugh stop with the Pascals wager.

[bluesharkoo7]

Just because I don't have the papers or it doesn't appear on a police check does not mean I don't own that particular car - that assumes that I'm following a predetermined set of rules - similar to you assuming that a deity would have to follow a set of physical laws.

[lindybeige]

I have a feeling that this non-argument could go on forever. If faith is believing in stupendously improbable things against which there is a vast amount of good evidence, and for which there is none, then you seem to have faith. I'm not jealous, though. Science alters its opinions when it comes across new evidence. Faith does not. I prefer science.

[bluesharkoo7]

No, true science deals with facts. You just choose to agree with a particular set of interpretations about those facts. Interpretations that are based on your preconceived idea that there is nothing external the the physical world in which you live. Other people will start with another set of preconceived ideas. Neither set can be proven.

[bluesharkoo7]

Both something coming from nothing and an eternal deity making everything are both improbable ideas. But it has to be one or the other. I choose the latter because to me the world in which I live (including science) makes more sense that way.

[bluesharkoo7]

On another note, any idea - both positive and negative - about God isn't science, it's a belief. You can't prove that God exists, and you therefore can't prove that he doesn't.

[lindybeige]

You very definitely could prove that god existed. All you'd have to do was find him. Yes, you cannot use science to prove the non-existence of something not found, but you can use it to prove the existence of something found. If god existed, he'd be very easy indeed to prove.

[bluesharkoo7]

You're assuming there that he'd be a natural entity - however most of the religions out there would describe their various gods as "supernatural." Science deals with facts, that is proven theories about the natural world. So therefore it can't deal with supernatural - on such matters it's neutral. Because of this, the existence, or non-existence of the supernatural, or a god are down to belief - that's why the existence of God can't be proven either way through just science alone.

[lindybeige]

Science is not neutral. It looks at the real world. If the "supernatural" is part of the real world then it looks at it, and so far, every single discovery about the world about us has turned out to be... NOT magic.

[bluesharkoo7]

How can you define what is part of the real world - and what isn't? As far as I can see the real world is the actual physical facts about us - the laws of physics, birds migration, planets, etc. Philosophic ideas, such as there being a supernatural world, the identity and existence (or non-existence) of a god are not factual science because they don't have any physical form - so therefore, whatever opinion we have on them is a belief and is not part of science.

[lindybeige]

That which is in the world is real, that which isn't isn't. Simple.

[bluesharkoo7]

That is a belief. It can't be proven.

[lindybeige]

What? You believe that there might be things that don't exist? That makes no sense to me.

[bluesharkoo7]

It makes no sense to you because you start with the unprovable assumption that nothing exists apart from the natural, physical world in which you exist.

[bluesharkoo7]

The point of the so-called "just right-universe" is that the chances of all these variables happening by chance are so slim as to be highly ridiculous - and virtually impossible. To prove the argument false, you would have to show mathematically that they could easily happen by chance within the so many billions of years that the universe is said to have existed. I didn't quite get that from your video - maybe you need to try again?

[lindybeige]

No, you don't seem to have understood me, but that will be my fault. The many variables I described for migration are not bizarrely coincidental and precise, but quite explicably coincidental and precise. The same would be true of the physics values.

[bluesharkoo7]

Then the weakness in your argument would be that birds have a brain to figure those variables out - you're not saying that there's intelligence behind physical values in the solar system, are you?

[lindybeige]

No, birds do not "figure out" anything. They are not that bright. They don't calculate the curvature of the Earth, they just keep flapping. See my description in which I give another example: isn't is AMAZING how water flows EXACTLY along the course of rivers. Are you going to argue that the water "figures out" the optimal route?

[bluesharkoo7]

I can't see how that last bit holds - rivers are a non-living entity. If a migrating bird were to get it wrong just once it would die. To me, the "just keeps flapping randomly, hoping for the best and if it works it works" approach would mean that these migrating birds would have died out long before now. So there has to be intelligence in the whole migration thing somewhere - either it's the birds or an external source.

[lindybeige]

If you recall, the fact that birds are alive is irrelevant to the argument, so ruling out rivers as an example on the grounds that they are not living does not work. I didn't say that they flapped "randomly". I'm very confident that they do not. Their flapping is related to many things, one being their weight, and another being the force of gravity. The point is that all these things are inter-related. If you don't see that, then you haven't understood the video.

[NathanielOfLight]

Being the devil's advocate here, that is actually a pretty poor argument. Birds are intelligent and can ajust, but I honestly don't think planets and electrons and such are. But this is only the way you put it, what you said I think is still correct. If gravity were weaker, the planets would just have to be closer together, if stronger they would have to be further apart. That much is true. I don't think chemistry would work very well if neutrons and such were different, though. G'day!

[lindybeige]

Actually, I doubt that the birds adjust because they are intelligent. I doubt that they calculate the amount of flapping they need to do, they just flap and if it works it works. Bird migration is a natural phenomenon that no one organised.

[NathanielOfLight]

Perhaps that is true. However, they do at LEAST have instinct.

I don't know... Swords and armour is a topic of more amusement to me.

[bluesharkoo7]

If they were closer together then the sun would have fried us all up long ago!

[AndrewGirle]

As shambolic as it became at the end, it still worked!

[moscowmoondog]

also it the air density was different, surely itwould have... EVOLVED thus creating yet another set of arguments against...

[Supermikhail]

This has reminded me of the multiverse theory... which, while it is, I believe, in nature as speculative, as religion, at least stays a theory, and doesn't try to put every single fact and coincidence under its control. Like it applies to everything.

[dragonslayer1003]

i like the pictures in the back ground and i totaly agree with your argument......

p.s. wooohooo first coment!

[coledash]

It was about time that someone explains to us "normal people" why this "Just Right Universe" just isnt so great idea after all.

Thanks for the laughs aswell, hehe

[duran3d]

I agree with the 'Just Rigth Universe' point being stupid.

But at 0:10 you say "you may say that there are many arguments for the existence of God, and they are all pretty stupid". Are you just talking about the 'Just Right Universe' kind of arguments there? Or do you also consider all and every other argument for God stupid too?

[Taznak]

Every argument for god is pretty stupid. That's why religion is about faith, not about reason- you can't prove the existence of these supernatural entities with reason or science. And if you could, faith would be pretty meaningless; I don't think many would consider you a faithful person for believing in the existence of cats or dogs.

[wvb93]

he probably means all and he is right: they all are stupid

[adiousir]

absolutely agree. 'existence is miraculous' does not prove the existence of a miracle-maker. complex systems can and do arise spontaneously. thank God for the bar-tailed Godwit!