The Problem i have with Atheist Anti-Fine Tune. It all comes down to "It should be perfect". Frankly Atheist are just as devoted to the religious idea of god as fundamentalist Christians are. Think of the whole thing as a Prime mover. Either way that dose not explain away why the constants are what they are. Most of this comes down to Anti Theist Hatred of Religion. Personally i think the multiverse is unlikely and impossible to prove. And dont bitch to me. Im Agnostic. Who can think for myself
About the sea of ice why would the oceans freeze from the bottom up? The bottom of the ocean may be absent of light and warmth, but still it is near heat vents that constantly warm it, why do we not see a shit ton of glaciers in the Pacific ocean? Because there isn't any ice down there to float up. I wonder how all those tube worms that live around the volcanic vents stay alive in such freezing water... I don't know maybe they're God. I'm gonna start practicing Tubeism now.
1. How do you know the probability of the physical constants being different by a certain amount? Can they even be different than the ones we observe?
2. How do you know that no other kind of life could possibly form in a universe with different constants? If that were possible, and if the universe would host those beings instead of us, could they also come to think that the universe was designed for *them*?
3. Couldn't an almighty god create life in a universe with different constants?
As a Agnostic.I would like a Atheist tell me.How will life come about in a universe with no star, no light, and no heat. Oh that right, it wont. There might be other combination that might give life. But those are far and few between. Just admit your reject of the fine tuning. Has more to do with your feeling about the concept of god then anything else. the difference between me and you guys. Im not stupid enough think i have all the answers. Im willing to continue asking questions. Your not.
I have pretty much the same arguements as mattdd05. The way I heard it first presented to me though was paired with the possibility of other universes, and infinite amount of universes. Given an infinity of chances, the universe we see around us HAD to exist eventually, precicely because of the mathimatics. 1/10^23 might seem low, but infinity/10^23 is a sure thing. We exist to question our existence not because we MUST, but because chance allowed it to happen.
@TheoryOfThought I just saw another of your vids stating that the 'multiple universe theory' has no evidence, requires faith, etc... But What i meant to say was seperate from that theory. A bunch of universes existing independantly from each-other. I watched a video called 'A Universe from nothing' that explains that our universe will exist forever, and that matter can 'come from nothing' or something of that sort. Good vid, you should watch.
It's absurd to me how you can state that these universal constants are specifically adjusted to support life and matter dismissing the idea that life and matter in the form as we know it has been produced from the interplay of these forces.
If a*b=c then naturally c has to be in perfect relasionship to both a and b.
If I asked you to guess the next 6 playing cards I was going to deal, the odds of those cards falling is extremely rare, but the 6 cards that ACTUALLY fall is just as rare as the 6 I asked you to guess, and yet they fall. Saying the odds of something happening are small doesn't explain anything away. Your odds of hitting the lottery are EXTREMELY rare, but someone always wins eventually.
I don't even need to watch this video to refute it. Fine tuned universe? 99.99% of the universe is total chaos and completely uninhabitable. Trying to throw out the "odds" of this universe happening is irrelevant. We are dealing with time on a massive scale, if there IS a possibility of it happening then it clearly CAN happen.
He was raptured? You mean he died i'm guessing. I guess he knows for sure know whether there is a god or not, he was a smart guy, i'm sure he's well missed.
As for the finely tuned universe, could be the universe, or a many universes have come into being and passed with nothing exciting like life going on in them, then ours comes along, one out of many, and we say "oooh how amazing! The balance is perfect!" You see my point?
Actually most of the univers is quite hostile to life (e.g. pulsars). You really think that someone who created the universe would care about us tiny and meaningless humans? :D
So basicly what u are saying is that our existence and the reason for things being as it is only can be explained by god ?. the universe is absolutly randomized, it could look any way, its just like this coz that is how it unfolded. Science is also based on the idea that nature(being the mechanics of everything in the universe) will go the easiet way and create balance, which how the universe looks is a result of. Life is lucky, nothing else, u cannot argue for anything else, logically.
Fine-tuning argument presupposes that when the universe is created, the values of fundamental physical constants are randomly chosen via some evenly distributed probability. There's simply no evidence that it works this way. What are the chances that universe would be created the way it is? They are UNKNOWN. Therefore, no need to invoke God. At least not yet.
those who believe in chance believe in an impossibility, technically...and impossible chance beyond all impossibilities...such a small chance. "it just is" they say...
So a puddle wakes up one day and looks around, and goes, "Wow, isn't this incredible? That the hole I'm sitting in is perfectly suited for me? Fits me perfectly? I mean imagine the chances of me landing in the exact hole out of all of the holes and pieces of land in the entire planet. It's clear some intelligent designer put me here."
It's insane how some people still cling to this fine-tuning illusion. The lengths reality-deniers will go to try and support their silly beliefs is truly astonishing.
I understand the bit that you said you didn't understand.... but I may understand, the random splat of element you said... it made no sense.... beryllium in DNA? You need to brush on your science if you are going to use it to prove gods existence. And is life possible in a multiverse? And E=MC2 is wrong... Ive always know the speed of light has not been constant, look up slowlight for example. Jibba Jabba, Peace.
@zelldot I dont remember him mentioning beryllium in DNA. I also dont remember him mentioning speed of light as a constant. He may have assumed it, but never mentioned it, and we cannot put imaginary arguments into his mouth, though it would certainly be useful in any debate
@steevorocker3:57 beryllium. The rest was just a personal comment just to say he need to brush up a little, after re-watching this video I can see a lot of holes in his augment, but I did not want to focus on the negative. There is a good video I have seen on you tube which would better be a simple starting point about the origin of life, and how even simple like is complicated on a smaller level.
we dont need to look the universe, just look the Earth!!
How we get WATER??? Most of the water are not made by humans. Desalination plants are very few. Without water we can not live, yet we have this miracle everyday. Only a genious could make the water cycle. Coincidence? That is absurd. the Earth itself is a desalination plant
@Kalevala87 Many scientists are not atheists. Because God and the origin of the universe are related. Is faith and reason. Atheists have strong theories too, but many of them dont understand that The debate is about God, not religion.
Um... What exactly is the universe supposed to be fine tuned for? Arguments like this are useless unless you specify the purpose for which things are allegedly fine tuned.
Until you do that, the argument is about as good as saying 'wow, the universe is how it is... how bout that?!'
100 billion times 1 trillion is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So the odds of that happening are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
And that's just the number of stars, with a conservative estimate of the number of possible shapes, and only those in this galaxy, of which there are hundreds of billions. Seems like it must be God that makes them all that shape.
Oh wait. The reason they're all the same shape is because of gravity. There is a REASON they're that way. They're not free to vary.
@DeeEmarr I know. I interpret those facts differently than you, that's for sure. The fact that they are NOT free to vary is a point that if untrue would not allow me to have the opinion I express in this video.
The shape of every star, planet, and other such body is a slightly flattened sphere. The odds of so many of them all having the same shape is astronomical (pun). Take just the stars, and only those in our galaxy: roughly 100 billion stars. Multiply that by the number of possible shapes they could be, which is probably nearly infinite, but let's say there are a trillion different shapes they could be. So the odds that all the stars in our galaxy are the same shape is 100 billion times 1 trillion.
The main objection that I have to this argument is that it is portrayed as if the atheist must prove that the universe couldn't have been otherwise, or risk losing ground. But in reality, this is a positive claim made by the theist. That claim is that the cosmological constants were free to vary. We don't know that they were. It could easily have NOT been a matter of chance that caused these constants to be the way they are. For example, take the shapes of all the heavenly bodies.
We have no idea how the laws of physics for a universe (our 4 dimensional bubble universe) come to be. Since we don't know the mechanics of how these things arise we can't make any assumptions. If you say a god did it, then who fine tuned god, why does god have the properties that it does. What ever produced our universe has intrinsic properties and it could be very well possible that there is no other possible way for a universe to exist. The laws of physics could simple be innate.
@ultradevon04 The argument is illogical. Logic must take definitions into account. God is defined as being outside time, time requires something to come before another. His name, given himself, is "I AM" this refers to absence of a before or after him. "who fine tuned God", that would make "him" a created thing, therefore not fitting the definition of "god". We argue for a definition, rather than a name a pencil "god" but it does not fit the definition of what we argue for
@steevorocker that's also to say that god would be effected by the same laws of physics that he himself would have created? if he is the one that made them your saying its too outlandish to believe that he could break them?
@shadybrain3424 also the reason he gave his name as yahweh was not to give his real name, yahweh isn't even it's real name it was the only word given to attribute him with. I think in hebrew it was something like 20some letters long and unpronounceable. I think it is funny that the word god is actually an old pagan deity of fortune and money so really when people use the name god that is talking about another deity in the first place.
Man, it's not that Christian shit is illogical, dogmatic, or any of that. It's that Christian style/attitude still looks square and dorky, which I guess is the point of conservatism in the first place. How can I describe it... it's as if white culture were allowed to continue on from the 50s without any influence from minority cultures.
@nipponese no shit. imagine a world with more fighting, drive by shootings, and AIDS. Who needs Love, hope and forgiveness. That other stuff is sooooo much better. merry christmas.
@steevorocker Whatever, racists-ass. I bet you had sushi last night after taking the kids karate. Contrary to white popular belief, the American Experience is influenced by minority cultures other than "black."
@5thWatcher 1/2 If you can't be bothered to look for the truth, then clearly you have no interest in it, but nonetheless here are some counter-arguments to fine-tuned universe. "If the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not."
"The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."
Think about this, what if the universe had been any different, life would have arose a different way....
@5thWatcher 2/2 But suppose the universe couldn't support life. There would be no one to express that because life doesn't exist.
So you see, the universe is not necessarily fine-tuned for life, because the universe came before life. Life is fine-tuned to the universe, it came after and therefore makes sense that it would have to adjust to the universe's laws, not the other way around.
7. I like the fact that I got a Mormon ad right before watching your video. I'd also like to point out that you're an intelligent guy. You present points much better than most religious people I've met, and I think that's a good thing. I believe that atheists, as a whole, would rather address arguments for god in their most complete state to avoid misunderstanding, and the possibility of particular points not being made. Never stop learning and thinking about this stuff. Have a nice day.
4. Scientists have created and tested solutions that sustain life much better than the Earth.
5. The odds that the god you believe in created the universe exactly how it is now is 1 in infinity. The odds that it was created by "chance", for lack of a better term, are much better.
6. You have a basic misunderstanding of probability. The universe could have been in a state even less suitable for life than it is. Or, it could have been more suitable. We just ended up with this.
1. You misrepresent how much many of these constants could change. The Earth, for example, could be 37% farther away from the sun than it is now and still sustain life.
2.The areas where life could exist in the universe are vastly less common than those where it could not. In fact, if anything, looking at the universe suggests that if it were designed, it's purpose would be to create and sustain black holes, not life.
I understand that it seems life is designed and in a sense it is. All creatures have evolved over generations and thousands of years to the point they are now. But their evolution will continue as our environment changes and their needs change accordingly. It is time and change that causes the design of all species to evolve in a continuous stream. Knowing this, why would you assume a creator must be responsible for life? The first idea does not prove the other. God is at best, a theory.
@5thWatcher But I still don't understand why you would then assume a creator. If no life could spring from nothing as you seem to lean toward, then how did God? The premise of God is, as we have all gone over numerous times, an improbable, unproven idea. Just like the magic dragon in the room, we need not prove he does not exist, since nothing proves that he does. The patterns in life do not prove him. They prove only the complexities of the universe and our very small role within it.
@bboots100 Also, I have repetitively found that using intuition (as in "what's the probability that" and the likes) as scientific evidence is not only incorrect reasoning. It has also shown to produce clear bunk numerous times in the past. The view of the constants having been decided on by a uniformly distributed experiment, is what evokes the notion of probability, and is in my view a rather simplistic setting. For one it presupposes too many things.
@bboots100 Also, I have repetitively found that using intuition (as in "what's the probability that" and the likes) as scientific evidence is not only incorrect reasoning. It has also shown to produce clear bunk numerous times in the past. The view of the constants having been decided on by a uniformly distributed experiment, is what evokes the notion of probability, and is in my view a rather simplistic setting. For one it presupposes too many things.
@bboots100 What would God need to do to prove Himself/Itself.... blow shit up? speak to people? answer prayers? do miracles? send himself in a human body to live with people? What exactly would constitute proof?
@steevorocker Many people would say just look around you and see God. The fact is, it is absolutely dependent upon your perspective. Atheists point to science and say God cannot be proven. I believe science will never prove him. But perhaps, science does not have the facility to prove a creator. Maybe that is too large a question of it's narrow focus; philosophy is the place where the answers to God may come. If they ever do.
@steevorocker hypothetically who's to say god doesn't do that already? remember the last time someone said they were jesus the second coming in waco texas? they said the person was crazy and a cult leader and then shot and killed him.
@5thWatcher You are so close to becoming an atheist it's almost laughable... have you used this same logic with rationalizing the evidence that "religion" provides? Why question scientific theories that we know to be true; (Earth orbiting the Sun, Earth being close to 3.5 billion years of age, etc.), do you understand the Bible both objectively and subjectively? If so, you may already have answered your questions 'indirectly' and be headed toward freedom from all the religious lies.
@5thwatcher Show me the attributes of all the universes created then I will give you the odds of our universe. Whats that? Only one universe? Let me think 1 is well 100% CHANCE! You can't determine the chances of something that only happened once unless you know all the factors that go into creating universes.
So we have no explanation for the well-tuned universe therfore god explanation must be accurate? Argument from ignorance, go search the god of the gaps?
But beyond that, I have another explanation that might be more likely to be true. There might be an infinit number of universes with an infinite number of diferent physics constants and such. So this universe with this constants would not just be probable, but necesarily. You have your un-evidence theories, I have my weakly evidenced theories.
If God were to be omnipotent and he doesn't allow homosexuality, he can easily remove them, but they still exist. If he were to be omniscient, then he would know the fate of each person, without a test and send them straight to their destination. In "human" terms, we call that a "person".. *GASP*
Why is this an argument? "The world is able to sustain life and it does it so perfectly. Therefore God made it." So if a movie has a lot of explosions in it, Michael Bay must have made it? Really? Somebody please shoot me in the head. Several times. Thanks in advance.
@FallofDarkness55 You are really very lucky I'm responding to you and your disparaging remarks. Religion doesn't cause me any distress. The darkest time I've ever gone though in my entire life is actually happening to me right now, and the fact that I know God is looking out for me is a motivating factor in my continued existence. And things have gone way less bad then they could have, and this bad time is shaping up to lead out to a much improved future.
@FallofDarkness55 I don't feel like I have to keep my "sky daddy" happy. I actually think with all the wrong I've done, and for how flawed I am and how much I continually do things he'd probably not like, it's really amazing that he still looks out for me. I am very grateful for any good fortune he passes down, because I certainly don't deserve any. So this isn't a domineering God I believe in, but a very loving and merciful one.
@FallofDarkness55 God doen't torture people in hell, Satan does. God has specifically gone out of his way to offer an easy out so people can avoid hell. All you have to do is believe in his son. It's a very small thing to ask, so I think it's extremely generous.
@FallofDarkness55 The answer is yes to all. Now that might surprise you on that last one. But God gave us free will, and with free will we can choose to sin, and sin is not his will, so therefore God has given us the ability to act outside his will.
@5thWatcher I just realized something. Life is a journey so life would be rather pointless if everything was so easy. So I'd have to agree with you that in a perfect universe, we'd all be spoiled. In fact I wouldn't even call myself an atheist anymore. I'm going back to my catholic roots. Here's another good argument...evolution is a natural algorithm of life. So who's the natural programmer? maybe god.
@FallofDarkness55 Wow dude. I am impressed at your open-mindedness if you are being genuine.
And that is perhaps similar to the way I view evolution. Besides, whats a more perfect creation? something that can never change or something that can adapt to it environment to meet changing demands for survival?
@5thWatcher yes i am being genuine. The thing is all of my computer classes this semester are reinforcing my belief in a higher power now. Evolution can create species on its own after the process of evolution was created by god. It's similar to a computer algorithm. Post this everywhere. This comment pwns atheism.
@alphaenemy By Occam's razor I propose that the creation of the universe by a God is a simpler explanation than a method that offers no explanation for how we came from nothing.
(also, see MCfaC#1 to hear me talk about why god need not be created.)
@5thWatcher Also, Occam's Razor is not a simpler method, because then, after explaining the rest of the laws of the natural universe and how THAT works, THEN we would have to explain God and his existence. That's two explanations, and it would have to fly in the face of our known science which already works, so chop chop chop goes the Razor.
I love how you argue that the cosmological argument isn't contingent upon a godofthegaps argument by making a godofthegaps argument to defend it.
Next time actually provide the legitimate objection to the cosmological argument which is that it's nothing more than confirmation and selection bias at work.
Oh, and the argument isn't falsifiable in any way.
Oh, and that Victor Stenger disagrees with you about the multiverse.
Oh, and Hawking disagrees with you on the theory of everything and god.
Clarification and correction: Knowledge I would argue is largely a qualitative notion and it's content we formalize into propositions, but they are all subject to the same principles of inference and necessary universals. Hope that helps. My proofreading sucks! XD
@5thWatcher i just have one question for you although u debated the existence of a god perfectly u seem to be more for a deistic god u really could say it was the christian god, any particular one, or just one god for that matter. so did u leave that out cause you personally don't believe in any particular one. this is just a question on what you do believe.
@TheWrestlingKidY2X The fact that he can't think outside the concept of time seems a little short sighted. Also, the singularity creating itself is no less a beginning paradox than if God is in the equation.
Look for the deep field pictures of hubble. Take a good look at it. Is that organized? Why throw away all that useful matter?
But that's a shitty argument. Let's say you are right. Laws of physics are pretty perfect, therefore there is an invisible supranatural being. Wich one? Zeus? Osiris? The psycho murder of the bible? The psycho rapist of the Quoran?
@5thWatcher Yeah, but thats precisely why I am an agnostic. With our current resources, how on earth would any human know a thing about a supranatural being who generated the laws of physics? What actually worries me the most is the political decisions ppl make based on things they "believe" they know, where, in fact, is far too complex to be 100% understood in our time.
The info you present is awesome, btw, congratulations!
The universe in which live arose is a universe in which live can arise.
That's basically your argument.
And why would a god create a universe exactly like this? The chance that a god intended to create a universe exactly like ours is just as small as the the chance a universe like ours actually exists.
If god knows everything in existence, he must know himself, as he is a part of reality; but how can he know himself if the moment of time that it takes to analyze himself, even with infinite intelligence, the process of analyzing changes him, which obsoletes the data... and therefore omniscience is impossible. Wait, so god doesn't know everything? Then how can he control the universe completely?
@PoliticalHell I never stated anything like this, you're just assuming I'd take that position. Through all your supposing you could just as easily suppose God already knows or that the process changes nothing or is generally irrelevant.
@PoliticalHell Sort of off there on defining the theists position.On a classical theist's view God is the very ground of reality itself. It's not that the theists hold God as a being among many but as being itself. Knowledge I would argue is a qualitative notion that we break up into individuated propositions, but they are all subject to the same principles of inference and necessary universals. If God is omniscient, then God does not need to analyze anything.He would already know the answer.
@hippo11222 If there was a god and he transcends the laws of our reality, then why bother trying to understand his intentions? It's like asking a cockroach to understand Einstein logic correctly. On the other hand, if it is something understandable by human minds, then it automatically becomes pointless since it becomes literally impossible. If omniscience is possible, then the universe is too far out of our understanding to try and arrogantly make sense of it right now.
That's a strawman. Theists don't propose God to transcend reality, but is the very foundation of reality itself.Arrogance has nothing to do with understanding a concept or proposition. That's just a non-sequitur.Even if I were to give you that that what I was proposing was arrogant that does not mean you can't understand it. Omniscience is a pretty straight forward concept. Knowing the truth value of all propositions concerning all that is actual and by extension all that is possible.
@hippo11222 If he is the foundation of reality, then wouldn't he just be another name for - well, reality? The reason I said it's arrogant is because nobody knows the truth - yet most people act like they themselves are omniscient, and they're so convinced they're often willing to stake their lives for it.
Omniscience is one of those things - simple: it's just knowing everything - but it denies so many things: time, physics, free will, and human intelligence.
@PoliticalHell "The reason I said it's arrogant is because nobody knows the truth - yet most people act like they themselves are omniscient, and they're so convinced they're often willing to stake their lives for it."
That's irrelevant to the item of contention, which was the coherency of the concept of omniscience.
"but it denies so many things: time, physics, free will, and human intelligence."
That's just committing another bare assertion fallacy. Time? Physics?
@hippo11222 I'm not sure what that first part means.
The other half: As in, how can something that knows everything make a decision when it knows what it will decide before even making it: thus, it has no free will. So what is it? An all-mighty but not all-knowing god, or an ethereal system that has no free will? And, to have omniscience, it must be unbound from time and the laws of physics, and consequently beyond the ability of human understanding.
Analysis is only needed if your trying to infer something that is not initially apparent to you. That's the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it. If you know the answer already then that's really not necessary so I would not consider that to be an issue. Interesting thought experiment though. :)
there is one big rebuddle to everything you're saying. how do you know life needs those exact forces to exist? maybe life adapted to the forces to use it to its advantages? just because life as weknow it is the only way there can be life. there could be life out there that breathes iron and has blood of mercury. no one knows how life works. and the universe is far from fine-tuned. youre saying there is a reason for all those vacant rocks and gases just floating in space.....ran out of characters
@bakerpd4 You are absolutely right. In fact, when life started on Earth billions of years ago, there was almost no oxygen in the atmosphere, and those conditions would be toxic to life as it is today. Great Oxygenation Event on Wikipedia sums it up. Our own DNA, I believe, is damaged when it comes in contact with oxygen.
My favorite part is when you dismiss "the multiverse theory" because "the proof for it is almost nonexistent". While this is true, it is also true of the "God theory" but that is conveniently ignored.
@Pylo01 This IS evidence for the god theory. And more is on the way. I am sure you may exercise your right to disagree with some of my proposed evidence, but don't act like theres no way to support it; that's what this and other videos are going to be about. Some theists may not propose any arguments or evidence concerning God, but I hope to get some ideas out on the matter for sure.
@5thWatcher "This IS evidence for the god theory."
It's no more evidence for god than it is for multiverse. I'm not saying that god (whatever that may be) isn't a possibility here, I'm just saying it's one of many (equally unsubstantiated) answers to the problem, only you happen to be biased towards that one.
even if your granted this, it only says that a god is possible without evidence. also what is the evidence that is connected to your god... after you do that i will point out some contradictions.
@Desert713 You are going to have to wait for the videos on that one. There's one other video in the series. search my videos for "[MCFaC#1]" Check it out. Also a #3 will come along sometime soon as well.
Trying to explain why this argument is invalid is a mind-fuck!!! Basically, its something you'll be able to use whether we have a creator or not. As long as the universe exists, it exists, so you'll be able to say this about it. But if the universe didn't exist as it is, would it be proof there is no creator? UGGGHHH. Hope you found it out yourself cause that was horrible explaining.
@5thWatcher Oh okay I see. But in evolutionary theory, the universe is directly related to everything, as everything must have first existed in order for humanity to then exist. So in evolutionary terms, humans are a part of reality and the universe, just in a form taken through natural processes of this universe. Hope this makes sense.
In the past, there was not enough science to enable the awareness of the fine-tuning argument. If people from the past rationally believed God exists, there should have been other convincing reasons for God's existence. Would God allow the creation of a universe whereas we have (supposedly) great evidence to believe God exists, but people of other places or times do not have great evidence?
To put it simply, if asked to pick a random planet in the universe and provide a probability that life would erupt on it, yes, it would be extremely low. However, if you add up all the planets that can support life in the universe, and there are likely very many, the probability that life will arise on one of them is actually closer to 1. Creationists fail to set up the probability problem correctly in the first place.
Hmm, maybe I wouldn't enjoy debating with you. You've already resorted to one of the oldest and most ignorant of creationist straw-men. The only option other than a "creator" is NOT chance. Suggesting such demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what abiogenesis, big bang theory, and evolution all teach.
The Fine Tuning argument is absolutely silly, "It's unlikely things would come about this way, so it was designed this way."
Probably the funniest debunking of Fine tuning is, "If I delt you a hand of cards, the chances of getting that hand...is...astronomically low, the same as all the other possibilities."
The chances that the universe would develop as it did is actually 1, cause...guess what? It happened.
If God made everything, the universe, would be perfect, not imperfect, as it is today. Perfect beings, do not make imperfect creations, as a god would. Every possibility of conceptual space, would be as a heaven, and there would be no need to change anything, because a god makes only perfect creations.
@KevZen2000 That depends on your definition of what a "god" is. Most gods described in the world's religions are far from perfect. Anyway, "if" a creator exists, it would technically be all powerful so it could do whatever it wants, however it wants. Something always had to exist wether a creator or the universe. Sadly, at this time there are more questions than answers. It is anyone's guess.
The universe is not fined tuned, you are looking at from a human perspective. Evolution shows that we evolved to fit the environment, and that there is no design, or any means of fined tuned manipulation of an transcend source. The universe is based on evolutionary processes, which create the complexity, false mistaken to be given by a god(s).The first cause, is the universe, not god, as the universe is everything that exist, and nothing exist outside it.
@avaiae Hey now, that actually happens a lot recently. I guess it's reflection gaining "true" followers after otherwise just gaining steam for being "controversial". (I don't think I'm controversial but it's clear there are many who disagree with my positions. The internet has no shortage of atheists.)
The notion of fine tuned is a-kin to the flat earth or the earth being the center of the universe.
One can "if" this and that.......but that is not what IS.
All things interact and are in the process of becoming. The notion of a constant is only that........ a notion.......nothing is constant. The universe and all things in it are constantly changing. Some things simply take longer than others.
you're looking at the wrong probability. instead of looking at the probability of the universal constants being the way they are, you SHOULD be looking at the probability of the universal constants being the way they are GIVEN THAT we exist. two VERY different probabilities.
@erdosismyhomeboy I dealt with this in the video. the probability of anything happening that has already happened is a wrapped and dishonest way to look at things. the fact is we know that with the chaos of the singularity any number of constants could have emerged.
@5thWatcher, when most people (like you) who are truly not qualified nor educated to talk about the "fine tuning" of the universe-which we do NOT have even remotely close to that kind of evidence, nor are there any majority of physicists or astrophysicists anywhere that would peer-review and back that-I end up seeing by the end that you don't even know what the "we came here by chance" argument means. See, life came from the Universe, we, without the utterly briliant tools that great scientists-
-use can only see time and measure it with our senses in a linear fashion. Our well developed and evolutionary-proven minds (and evolution does not equate to advancement, not always, another vast misconception), is still coupled with a very primitive sense of things. We have a damn good idea through using science that was never muddled-up with a "god equation" (As Hawking and Einstein both said, there was never a need to put an unproven, unfounded, thing into a working equation)
@5thWatcher, so, to sit here, and say that "proof is here because here is here, and here is so cool" is just , well, vapid, and lacking. It lacks substance and study, it lacks true critical analysis, it lacks everything that makes science, science. It just lacks. And what you need -and good luck, because so far no one, and a lot more brilliant men than you, have tried-is an argument for a deistic or theistic deity that is within the confines of the scientific method. Good luck!
-hell, I'll give you theoretical, AND hypothetical, and hypothosies (do you know the difference between true scientific theory?) quantum physics as well, we can, for arguments sake, throw in our own hypotheticals for the sake of it. But, as we all know, you can't and it won't work. Because no one can prove god, or a deistic god, or a creator. So there is no reason to put it into the equation. We have developed our sciences wonderfully without it so far.
And, of course, so far it has time and again made religion look ridiculous. Vaccines wouldn't exist without Charles Darwin, we wouldn't have made it to the moon without the same method that we used to make vaccines, which is science. Thank you, good night, and good luck.
I'm not sure I would say the "universe" was designed for life, but rather it was designed and fine-tuned so that existence and reality are possible. The constants 5thWatcher points out indicate that reality is possible only by mere fractions, which is incredible! I would say that "Earth" was designed for life, as Genesis points out. It was made for us and we were given dominion over it. The rest of the universe is a testament to God's power and glory.
The Problem i have with Atheist Anti-Fine Tune. It all comes down to "It should be perfect". Frankly Atheist are just as devoted to the religious idea of god as fundamentalist Christians are. Think of the whole thing as a Prime mover. Either way that dose not explain away why the constants are what they are. Most of this comes down to Anti Theist Hatred of Religion. Personally i think the multiverse is unlikely and impossible to prove. And dont bitch to me. Im Agnostic. Who can think for myself
Tuber77 23 hours ago
About the sea of ice why would the oceans freeze from the bottom up? The bottom of the ocean may be absent of light and warmth, but still it is near heat vents that constantly warm it, why do we not see a shit ton of glaciers in the Pacific ocean? Because there isn't any ice down there to float up. I wonder how all those tube worms that live around the volcanic vents stay alive in such freezing water... I don't know maybe they're God. I'm gonna start practicing Tubeism now.
IchiShii 3 days ago
1. How do you know the probability of the physical constants being different by a certain amount? Can they even be different than the ones we observe?
2. How do you know that no other kind of life could possibly form in a universe with different constants? If that were possible, and if the universe would host those beings instead of us, could they also come to think that the universe was designed for *them*?
3. Couldn't an almighty god create life in a universe with different constants?
MadocDoyu 1 week ago
If there were a god, a loving god, the odds of me seeing this video would have to be exactly zero (0). But here I am.
vkiperman 1 week ago
As a Agnostic.I would like a Atheist tell me.How will life come about in a universe with no star, no light, and no heat. Oh that right, it wont. There might be other combination that might give life. But those are far and few between. Just admit your reject of the fine tuning. Has more to do with your feeling about the concept of god then anything else. the difference between me and you guys. Im not stupid enough think i have all the answers. Im willing to continue asking questions. Your not.
Lone432345 2 weeks ago
I have pretty much the same arguements as mattdd05. The way I heard it first presented to me though was paired with the possibility of other universes, and infinite amount of universes. Given an infinity of chances, the universe we see around us HAD to exist eventually, precicely because of the mathimatics. 1/10^23 might seem low, but infinity/10^23 is a sure thing. We exist to question our existence not because we MUST, but because chance allowed it to happen.
TheoryOfThought 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
@TheoryOfThought I just saw another of your vids stating that the 'multiple universe theory' has no evidence, requires faith, etc... But What i meant to say was seperate from that theory. A bunch of universes existing independantly from each-other. I watched a video called 'A Universe from nothing' that explains that our universe will exist forever, and that matter can 'come from nothing' or something of that sort. Good vid, you should watch.
TheoryOfThought 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
Can someone give me more channels like this guy's? I like his stuff
voxextremos22 2 weeks ago
"If" this? "If" that? "If" you were 100% smarter you could rise above the need for such a pointless video where you read constants from wikipedia.
InsanoGerbil 3 weeks ago
It's absurd to me how you can state that these universal constants are specifically adjusted to support life and matter dismissing the idea that life and matter in the form as we know it has been produced from the interplay of these forces.
If a*b=c then naturally c has to be in perfect relasionship to both a and b.
Mozquite 3 weeks ago 2
If I asked you to guess the next 6 playing cards I was going to deal, the odds of those cards falling is extremely rare, but the 6 cards that ACTUALLY fall is just as rare as the 6 I asked you to guess, and yet they fall. Saying the odds of something happening are small doesn't explain anything away. Your odds of hitting the lottery are EXTREMELY rare, but someone always wins eventually.
kronosx7 3 weeks ago
I don't even need to watch this video to refute it. Fine tuned universe? 99.99% of the universe is total chaos and completely uninhabitable. Trying to throw out the "odds" of this universe happening is irrelevant. We are dealing with time on a massive scale, if there IS a possibility of it happening then it clearly CAN happen.
kronosx7 3 weeks ago
He was raptured? You mean he died i'm guessing. I guess he knows for sure know whether there is a god or not, he was a smart guy, i'm sure he's well missed.
As for the finely tuned universe, could be the universe, or a many universes have come into being and passed with nothing exciting like life going on in them, then ours comes along, one out of many, and we say "oooh how amazing! The balance is perfect!" You see my point?
Indie9999 1 month ago
Actually most of the univers is quite hostile to life (e.g. pulsars). You really think that someone who created the universe would care about us tiny and meaningless humans? :D
SamTheCow 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
So basicly what u are saying is that our existence and the reason for things being as it is only can be explained by god ?. the universe is absolutly randomized, it could look any way, its just like this coz that is how it unfolded. Science is also based on the idea that nature(being the mechanics of everything in the universe) will go the easiet way and create balance, which how the universe looks is a result of. Life is lucky, nothing else, u cannot argue for anything else, logically.
iGnoTusGFX 1 month ago
Also, you have the theory of multiverse confused with the theory of oscillating universe.
roxef 1 month ago
Fine-tuning argument presupposes that when the universe is created, the values of fundamental physical constants are randomly chosen via some evenly distributed probability. There's simply no evidence that it works this way. What are the chances that universe would be created the way it is? They are UNKNOWN. Therefore, no need to invoke God. At least not yet.
roxef 1 month ago
those who believe in chance believe in an impossibility, technically...and impossible chance beyond all impossibilities...such a small chance. "it just is" they say...
steevorocker 2 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
Actually the laws of physics are not constants and change throughout the universe.
seshoki 2 months ago
So a puddle wakes up one day and looks around, and goes, "Wow, isn't this incredible? That the hole I'm sitting in is perfectly suited for me? Fits me perfectly? I mean imagine the chances of me landing in the exact hole out of all of the holes and pieces of land in the entire planet. It's clear some intelligent designer put me here."
...Do you see why fine tuning is just silly?
BigLundi 2 months ago
It's insane how some people still cling to this fine-tuning illusion. The lengths reality-deniers will go to try and support their silly beliefs is truly astonishing.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
You present a unjustified dichotomy, and and argument seemingly wrought with unstated assumptions. Color me unconvinced.
qonf 2 months ago
I understand the bit that you said you didn't understand.... but I may understand, the random splat of element you said... it made no sense.... beryllium in DNA? You need to brush on your science if you are going to use it to prove gods existence. And is life possible in a multiverse? And E=MC2 is wrong... Ive always know the speed of light has not been constant, look up slowlight for example. Jibba Jabba, Peace.
zelldot 2 months ago
@zelldot I dont remember him mentioning beryllium in DNA. I also dont remember him mentioning speed of light as a constant. He may have assumed it, but never mentioned it, and we cannot put imaginary arguments into his mouth, though it would certainly be useful in any debate
steevorocker 2 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
@steevorocker 3:57 beryllium. The rest was just a personal comment just to say he need to brush up a little, after re-watching this video I can see a lot of holes in his augment, but I did not want to focus on the negative. There is a good video I have seen on you tube which would better be a simple starting point about the origin of life, and how even simple like is complicated on a smaller level.
zelldot 2 months ago
we dont need to look the universe, just look the Earth!!
How we get WATER??? Most of the water are not made by humans. Desalination plants are very few. Without water we can not live, yet we have this miracle everyday. Only a genious could make the water cycle. Coincidence? That is absurd. the Earth itself is a desalination plant
fundie2008 2 months ago
@fundie2008 You're a troll, right? No one could be that dumb. You have to be a troll.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Many scientists are not atheists. Because God and the origin of the universe are related. Is faith and reason. Atheists have strong theories too, but many of them dont understand that The debate is about God, not religion.
fundie2008 2 months ago
@fundie2008 "Because God and the origin of the universe are related." <- No evidence for that, actually.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
Um... What exactly is the universe supposed to be fine tuned for? Arguments like this are useless unless you specify the purpose for which things are allegedly fine tuned.
Until you do that, the argument is about as good as saying 'wow, the universe is how it is... how bout that?!'
rhettboy 2 months ago
100 billion times 1 trillion is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So the odds of that happening are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
And that's just the number of stars, with a conservative estimate of the number of possible shapes, and only those in this galaxy, of which there are hundreds of billions. Seems like it must be God that makes them all that shape.
Oh wait. The reason they're all the same shape is because of gravity. There is a REASON they're that way. They're not free to vary.
DeeEmarr 2 months ago
@DeeEmarr Exactly.
5thWatcher 2 months ago
@5thWatcher
Um... I was disagreeing with you.
DeeEmarr 1 week ago
@DeeEmarr I know. I interpret those facts differently than you, that's for sure. The fact that they are NOT free to vary is a point that if untrue would not allow me to have the opinion I express in this video.
5thWatcher 1 week ago
The shape of every star, planet, and other such body is a slightly flattened sphere. The odds of so many of them all having the same shape is astronomical (pun). Take just the stars, and only those in our galaxy: roughly 100 billion stars. Multiply that by the number of possible shapes they could be, which is probably nearly infinite, but let's say there are a trillion different shapes they could be. So the odds that all the stars in our galaxy are the same shape is 100 billion times 1 trillion.
DeeEmarr 2 months ago
The main objection that I have to this argument is that it is portrayed as if the atheist must prove that the universe couldn't have been otherwise, or risk losing ground. But in reality, this is a positive claim made by the theist. That claim is that the cosmological constants were free to vary. We don't know that they were. It could easily have NOT been a matter of chance that caused these constants to be the way they are. For example, take the shapes of all the heavenly bodies.
DeeEmarr 2 months ago
Some possibilities to consider,
1. The totality of existence has intrinsic properties that can't change
2. There could be an infinite number of other bubble universes that have completely random properties
2. A finely tuned Thing(god), fine tuned the universe
3. A god is just complex by nature
4. Reality is just complex by nature
5. Where or how did a god attain knowledge if it was the only thing that existed.
6. We dont know where everything from, with hold belief in god until proven
ultradevon04 2 months ago
We have no idea how the laws of physics for a universe (our 4 dimensional bubble universe) come to be. Since we don't know the mechanics of how these things arise we can't make any assumptions. If you say a god did it, then who fine tuned god, why does god have the properties that it does. What ever produced our universe has intrinsic properties and it could be very well possible that there is no other possible way for a universe to exist. The laws of physics could simple be innate.
ultradevon04 2 months ago
@ultradevon04 The argument is illogical. Logic must take definitions into account. God is defined as being outside time, time requires something to come before another. His name, given himself, is "I AM" this refers to absence of a before or after him. "who fine tuned God", that would make "him" a created thing, therefore not fitting the definition of "god". We argue for a definition, rather than a name a pencil "god" but it does not fit the definition of what we argue for
steevorocker 2 months ago
@steevorocker that's also to say that god would be effected by the same laws of physics that he himself would have created? if he is the one that made them your saying its too outlandish to believe that he could break them?
shadybrain3424 1 month ago
@shadybrain3424 also the reason he gave his name as yahweh was not to give his real name, yahweh isn't even it's real name it was the only word given to attribute him with. I think in hebrew it was something like 20some letters long and unpronounceable. I think it is funny that the word god is actually an old pagan deity of fortune and money so really when people use the name god that is talking about another deity in the first place.
shadybrain3424 1 month ago
i hope you realize, that before i watched this video...there was a morman ad.. just saying..
zoidsvstherichies 2 months ago
Do you even know wtf ur talking about............
SoLegends 3 months ago
Man, it's not that Christian shit is illogical, dogmatic, or any of that. It's that Christian style/attitude still looks square and dorky, which I guess is the point of conservatism in the first place. How can I describe it... it's as if white culture were allowed to continue on from the 50s without any influence from minority cultures.
nipponese 3 months ago
@nipponese no shit. imagine a world with more fighting, drive by shootings, and AIDS. Who needs Love, hope and forgiveness. That other stuff is sooooo much better. merry christmas.
steevorocker 2 months ago
@steevorocker Whatever, racists-ass. I bet you had sushi last night after taking the kids karate. Contrary to white popular belief, the American Experience is influenced by minority cultures other than "black."
nipponese 2 months ago
DeGrasse Tyson pretty much refutes this.
retrogamerist 3 months ago
@retrogamerist link?
5thWatcher 2 months ago
@5thWatcher
neil dde grasse tyson fine tuned universe:
youtube,com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8
Victor Stenger: God the Failed Hypothesis
Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing
youtube,com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
mathforphysics 2 months ago
@5thWatcher 1/2 If you can't be bothered to look for the truth, then clearly you have no interest in it, but nonetheless here are some counter-arguments to fine-tuned universe. "If the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not."
"The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."
Think about this, what if the universe had been any different, life would have arose a different way....
mattdd05 2 weeks ago
@5thWatcher 2/2 But suppose the universe couldn't support life. There would be no one to express that because life doesn't exist.
So you see, the universe is not necessarily fine-tuned for life, because the universe came before life. Life is fine-tuned to the universe, it came after and therefore makes sense that it would have to adjust to the universe's laws, not the other way around.
mattdd05 2 weeks ago
everyone's wrong god is laughing at us!
esara6 4 months ago
7. I like the fact that I got a Mormon ad right before watching your video. I'd also like to point out that you're an intelligent guy. You present points much better than most religious people I've met, and I think that's a good thing. I believe that atheists, as a whole, would rather address arguments for god in their most complete state to avoid misunderstanding, and the possibility of particular points not being made. Never stop learning and thinking about this stuff. Have a nice day.
123454321qcat 4 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
4. Scientists have created and tested solutions that sustain life much better than the Earth.
5. The odds that the god you believe in created the universe exactly how it is now is 1 in infinity. The odds that it was created by "chance", for lack of a better term, are much better.
6. You have a basic misunderstanding of probability. The universe could have been in a state even less suitable for life than it is. Or, it could have been more suitable. We just ended up with this.
(one more point)
123454321qcat 4 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
1. You misrepresent how much many of these constants could change. The Earth, for example, could be 37% farther away from the sun than it is now and still sustain life.
2.The areas where life could exist in the universe are vastly less common than those where it could not. In fact, if anything, looking at the universe suggests that if it were designed, it's purpose would be to create and sustain black holes, not life.
3. Who fine-tuned things so that god could exist?
(continued)
123454321qcat 4 months ago
I understand that it seems life is designed and in a sense it is. All creatures have evolved over generations and thousands of years to the point they are now. But their evolution will continue as our environment changes and their needs change accordingly. It is time and change that causes the design of all species to evolve in a continuous stream. Knowing this, why would you assume a creator must be responsible for life? The first idea does not prove the other. God is at best, a theory.
bboots100 5 months ago
@bboots100 What you described is the best possible model for life, and I would expect no less from God.
5thWatcher 5 months ago
@5thWatcher But I still don't understand why you would then assume a creator. If no life could spring from nothing as you seem to lean toward, then how did God? The premise of God is, as we have all gone over numerous times, an improbable, unproven idea. Just like the magic dragon in the room, we need not prove he does not exist, since nothing proves that he does. The patterns in life do not prove him. They prove only the complexities of the universe and our very small role within it.
bboots100 5 months ago
@bboots100 Also, I have repetitively found that using intuition (as in "what's the probability that" and the likes) as scientific evidence is not only incorrect reasoning. It has also shown to produce clear bunk numerous times in the past. The view of the constants having been decided on by a uniformly distributed experiment, is what evokes the notion of probability, and is in my view a rather simplistic setting. For one it presupposes too many things.
WilfriedAnonymo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bboots100 Also, I have repetitively found that using intuition (as in "what's the probability that" and the likes) as scientific evidence is not only incorrect reasoning. It has also shown to produce clear bunk numerous times in the past. The view of the constants having been decided on by a uniformly distributed experiment, is what evokes the notion of probability, and is in my view a rather simplistic setting. For one it presupposes too many things.
WilfriedAnonymo 4 months ago
@bboots100 What would God need to do to prove Himself/Itself.... blow shit up? speak to people? answer prayers? do miracles? send himself in a human body to live with people? What exactly would constitute proof?
steevorocker 2 months ago
@steevorocker Many people would say just look around you and see God. The fact is, it is absolutely dependent upon your perspective. Atheists point to science and say God cannot be proven. I believe science will never prove him. But perhaps, science does not have the facility to prove a creator. Maybe that is too large a question of it's narrow focus; philosophy is the place where the answers to God may come. If they ever do.
bboots100 2 months ago
@steevorocker hypothetically who's to say god doesn't do that already? remember the last time someone said they were jesus the second coming in waco texas? they said the person was crazy and a cult leader and then shot and killed him.
shadybrain3424 1 month ago
@5thWatcher I don't expect anything from a theory, just like I don't expect Santa to slide down my chimney and leave me gifts.
hydroponikroniksmoke 4 months ago
@5thWatcher the best possible? how do you know it is the best possible?
PhilosophicalGaming 2 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
@PhilosophicalGaming DEscribe something better that would still be feasible.
5thWatcher 2 months ago
Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.
/watch?v=dOSN5NUS9rA
That's the address of this video, the odds of it being that particular address are very unlikely, so God must had made it that way.
infomaster4 5 months ago
@infomaster4 I swear I adressed this in the video.
5thWatcher 5 months ago
@5thWatcher You are so close to becoming an atheist it's almost laughable... have you used this same logic with rationalizing the evidence that "religion" provides? Why question scientific theories that we know to be true; (Earth orbiting the Sun, Earth being close to 3.5 billion years of age, etc.), do you understand the Bible both objectively and subjectively? If so, you may already have answered your questions 'indirectly' and be headed toward freedom from all the religious lies.
Cheers ;)
killtherude 3 months ago
@5thWatcher LOL! You need to put up more videos.
argylegoatshit 3 months ago
@5thwatcher Show a way that any universal constants could be any different and you would almost have a start at calculating the chances.
Overdosed49 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
@5thwatcher Show me the attributes of all the universes created then I will give you the odds of our universe. Whats that? Only one universe? Let me think 1 is well 100% CHANCE! You can't determine the chances of something that only happened once unless you know all the factors that go into creating universes.
Overdosed49 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
So we have no explanation for the well-tuned universe therfore god explanation must be accurate? Argument from ignorance, go search the god of the gaps?
But beyond that, I have another explanation that might be more likely to be true. There might be an infinit number of universes with an infinite number of diferent physics constants and such. So this universe with this constants would not just be probable, but necesarily. You have your un-evidence theories, I have my weakly evidenced theories.
lautaa33 5 months ago
If God were to be omnipotent and he doesn't allow homosexuality, he can easily remove them, but they still exist. If he were to be omniscient, then he would know the fate of each person, without a test and send them straight to their destination. In "human" terms, we call that a "person".. *GASP*
Rickx777 5 months ago
Why is this an argument? "The world is able to sustain life and it does it so perfectly. Therefore God made it." So if a movie has a lot of explosions in it, Michael Bay must have made it? Really? Somebody please shoot me in the head. Several times. Thanks in advance.
TheDestinyDragoon 6 months ago
@TheDestinyDragoon That's a strawman if I ever heard one.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
@5thWatcher Fair enough, fair enough.
TheDestinyDragoon 6 months ago
@5thWatcher ...more popularly known as a scarecrow; sort of like Brit looking speech; it's not from arounud here.
meteosurreal 5 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 The next one in this series will actually cover that.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 You are really very lucky I'm responding to you and your disparaging remarks. Religion doesn't cause me any distress. The darkest time I've ever gone though in my entire life is actually happening to me right now, and the fact that I know God is looking out for me is a motivating factor in my continued existence. And things have gone way less bad then they could have, and this bad time is shaping up to lead out to a much improved future.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 I don't feel like I have to keep my "sky daddy" happy. I actually think with all the wrong I've done, and for how flawed I am and how much I continually do things he'd probably not like, it's really amazing that he still looks out for me. I am very grateful for any good fortune he passes down, because I certainly don't deserve any. So this isn't a domineering God I believe in, but a very loving and merciful one.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 God doen't torture people in hell, Satan does. God has specifically gone out of his way to offer an easy out so people can avoid hell. All you have to do is believe in his son. It's a very small thing to ask, so I think it's extremely generous.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 You would do that to avoid hell. The answer seems obvious.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 The answer is yes to all. Now that might surprise you on that last one. But God gave us free will, and with free will we can choose to sin, and sin is not his will, so therefore God has given us the ability to act outside his will.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 False dichotomy. Without the "sin" as contrast, "good" is meaningless. In a "perfect" universe, we'd all be spoiled.
5thWatcher 5 months ago
@5thWatcher I just realized something. Life is a journey so life would be rather pointless if everything was so easy. So I'd have to agree with you that in a perfect universe, we'd all be spoiled. In fact I wouldn't even call myself an atheist anymore. I'm going back to my catholic roots. Here's another good argument...evolution is a natural algorithm of life. So who's the natural programmer? maybe god.
FallofDarkness55 5 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Wow dude. I am impressed at your open-mindedness if you are being genuine.
And that is perhaps similar to the way I view evolution. Besides, whats a more perfect creation? something that can never change or something that can adapt to it environment to meet changing demands for survival?
5thWatcher 5 months ago
@5thWatcher yes i am being genuine. The thing is all of my computer classes this semester are reinforcing my belief in a higher power now. Evolution can create species on its own after the process of evolution was created by god. It's similar to a computer algorithm. Post this everywhere. This comment pwns atheism.
FallofDarkness55 5 months ago
@5thWatcher No need to imply creation in either event. Occam's Razor is a hot fucking blade.
alphaenemy 5 months ago
@alphaenemy By Occam's razor I propose that the creation of the universe by a God is a simpler explanation than a method that offers no explanation for how we came from nothing.
(also, see MCfaC#1 to hear me talk about why god need not be created.)
5thWatcher 5 months ago
@5thWatcher Oh hell, I GOTTA hear this.
alphaenemy 5 months ago
@5thWatcher Also, Occam's Razor is not a simpler method, because then, after explaining the rest of the laws of the natural universe and how THAT works, THEN we would have to explain God and his existence. That's two explanations, and it would have to fly in the face of our known science which already works, so chop chop chop goes the Razor.
alphaenemy 5 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 ...All the "yes or nos" are rather pointless...
meteosurreal 5 months ago
I love how you argue that the cosmological argument isn't contingent upon a godofthegaps argument by making a godofthegaps argument to defend it.
Next time actually provide the legitimate objection to the cosmological argument which is that it's nothing more than confirmation and selection bias at work.
Oh, and the argument isn't falsifiable in any way.
Oh, and that Victor Stenger disagrees with you about the multiverse.
Oh, and Hawking disagrees with you on the theory of everything and god.
xxFortunadoxx 6 months ago
Clarification and correction: Knowledge I would argue is largely a qualitative notion and it's content we formalize into propositions, but they are all subject to the same principles of inference and necessary universals. Hope that helps. My proofreading sucks! XD
hippo11222 6 months ago
Nice vid. Are you in a band? Your vocals were pretty good. :D
hippo11222 6 months ago
@hippo11222 I thought they were intensely horrid, but thank you.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
@5thWatcher i just have one question for you although u debated the existence of a god perfectly u seem to be more for a deistic god u really could say it was the christian god, any particular one, or just one god for that matter. so did u leave that out cause you personally don't believe in any particular one. this is just a question on what you do believe.
Shane6 6 months ago
@TheWrestlingKidY2X The fact that he can't think outside the concept of time seems a little short sighted. Also, the singularity creating itself is no less a beginning paradox than if God is in the equation.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Look for the deep field pictures of hubble. Take a good look at it. Is that organized? Why throw away all that useful matter?
But that's a shitty argument. Let's say you are right. Laws of physics are pretty perfect, therefore there is an invisible supranatural being. Wich one? Zeus? Osiris? The psycho murder of the bible? The psycho rapist of the Quoran?
URTemplar 6 months ago
@URTemplar It's a deist style argument, I'm not trying to credit any one version of God. This simply opens the door for those.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
@5thWatcher Yeah, but thats precisely why I am an agnostic. With our current resources, how on earth would any human know a thing about a supranatural being who generated the laws of physics? What actually worries me the most is the political decisions ppl make based on things they "believe" they know, where, in fact, is far too complex to be 100% understood in our time.
The info you present is awesome, btw, congratulations!
URTemplar 6 months ago
I really hate when you disappear. Please come back.
TeaMaster1978 6 months ago
The universe in which live arose is a universe in which live can arise.
That's basically your argument.
And why would a god create a universe exactly like this? The chance that a god intended to create a universe exactly like ours is just as small as the the chance a universe like ours actually exists.
elevadon 6 months ago
fine tuned universe? the sunlight gives us cancer.
CHAOSin8bits 6 months ago
@CHAOSin8bits Yeah also fire keeps us warm but if you get too close it burns you. what's up with that? Why can;t everything be easy?
BTW Sun also gives you loads and loads of Vitamin D which is extremely healthy for you.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
@5thWatcher explain people born with horrible disabilities (i.e. the elephant man)
CHAOSin8bits 6 months ago
@CHAOSin8bits It's like you've responded to a totally different argument.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
@5thWatcher WHAT SANE GOD WOULD BE SUCH AN ASSHOLE AS TO CREATE ELEPHANT DISEASE?
CHAOSin8bits 6 months ago
If god knows everything in existence, he must know himself, as he is a part of reality; but how can he know himself if the moment of time that it takes to analyze himself, even with infinite intelligence, the process of analyzing changes him, which obsoletes the data... and therefore omniscience is impossible. Wait, so god doesn't know everything? Then how can he control the universe completely?
I love contradictions.
PoliticalHell 6 months ago
@PoliticalHell I never stated anything like this, you're just assuming I'd take that position. Through all your supposing you could just as easily suppose God already knows or that the process changes nothing or is generally irrelevant.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
@5thWatcher Not in reality bound by the laws of nature we observe, but you can always argue that god doesn't exist in this reality I suppose.
PoliticalHell 6 months ago
@5thWatcher ...right, Matey. (my opinion unintentionalyl supports you ONCE again...)
meteosurreal 5 months ago
@PoliticalHell Sort of off there on defining the theists position.On a classical theist's view God is the very ground of reality itself. It's not that the theists hold God as a being among many but as being itself. Knowledge I would argue is a qualitative notion that we break up into individuated propositions, but they are all subject to the same principles of inference and necessary universals. If God is omniscient, then God does not need to analyze anything.He would already know the answer.
hippo11222 6 months ago
@hippo11222 If there was a god and he transcends the laws of our reality, then why bother trying to understand his intentions? It's like asking a cockroach to understand Einstein logic correctly. On the other hand, if it is something understandable by human minds, then it automatically becomes pointless since it becomes literally impossible. If omniscience is possible, then the universe is too far out of our understanding to try and arrogantly make sense of it right now.
PoliticalHell 6 months ago
That's a strawman. Theists don't propose God to transcend reality, but is the very foundation of reality itself.Arrogance has nothing to do with understanding a concept or proposition. That's just a non-sequitur.Even if I were to give you that that what I was proposing was arrogant that does not mean you can't understand it. Omniscience is a pretty straight forward concept. Knowing the truth value of all propositions concerning all that is actual and by extension all that is possible.
hippo11222 6 months ago
@hippo11222 If he is the foundation of reality, then wouldn't he just be another name for - well, reality? The reason I said it's arrogant is because nobody knows the truth - yet most people act like they themselves are omniscient, and they're so convinced they're often willing to stake their lives for it.
Omniscience is one of those things - simple: it's just knowing everything - but it denies so many things: time, physics, free will, and human intelligence.
PoliticalHell 6 months ago
@PoliticalHell "The reason I said it's arrogant is because nobody knows the truth - yet most people act like they themselves are omniscient, and they're so convinced they're often willing to stake their lives for it."
That's irrelevant to the item of contention, which was the coherency of the concept of omniscience.
"but it denies so many things: time, physics, free will, and human intelligence."
That's just committing another bare assertion fallacy. Time? Physics?
Free will???? How?
hippo11222 6 months ago
@hippo11222 I'm not sure what that first part means.
The other half: As in, how can something that knows everything make a decision when it knows what it will decide before even making it: thus, it has no free will. So what is it? An all-mighty but not all-knowing god, or an ethereal system that has no free will? And, to have omniscience, it must be unbound from time and the laws of physics, and consequently beyond the ability of human understanding.
PoliticalHell 6 months ago
Analysis is only needed if your trying to infer something that is not initially apparent to you. That's the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it. If you know the answer already then that's really not necessary so I would not consider that to be an issue. Interesting thought experiment though. :)
hippo11222 6 months ago
@PoliticalHell ...I love contradictions too.
...Esp,., ESPECIALLY when they have NOTHING to do with the conversation at hand...
meteosurreal 5 months ago
@meteosurreal Well, nothing to do with the conversation... except for the little detail that it is related to the whole point of the video.
PoliticalHell 5 months ago
@PoliticalHell Okay, closer (...to making you relevent...)
...Hey, it's at least a lot more hopeful than a lotta other bullshit that I've seen;
-(Uncle) Meteo
meteosurreal 5 months ago
Comment removed
PoliticalHell 6 months ago
there is one big rebuddle to everything you're saying. how do you know life needs those exact forces to exist? maybe life adapted to the forces to use it to its advantages? just because life as weknow it is the only way there can be life. there could be life out there that breathes iron and has blood of mercury. no one knows how life works. and the universe is far from fine-tuned. youre saying there is a reason for all those vacant rocks and gases just floating in space.....ran out of characters
bakerpd4 6 months ago
@bakerpd4 You are absolutely right. In fact, when life started on Earth billions of years ago, there was almost no oxygen in the atmosphere, and those conditions would be toxic to life as it is today. Great Oxygenation Event on Wikipedia sums it up. Our own DNA, I believe, is damaged when it comes in contact with oxygen.
PoliticalHell 6 months ago
My favorite part is when you dismiss "the multiverse theory" because "the proof for it is almost nonexistent". While this is true, it is also true of the "God theory" but that is conveniently ignored.
Pylo01 6 months ago
@Pylo01 This IS evidence for the god theory. And more is on the way. I am sure you may exercise your right to disagree with some of my proposed evidence, but don't act like theres no way to support it; that's what this and other videos are going to be about. Some theists may not propose any arguments or evidence concerning God, but I hope to get some ideas out on the matter for sure.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
@5thWatcher "This IS evidence for the god theory."
It's no more evidence for god than it is for multiverse. I'm not saying that god (whatever that may be) isn't a possibility here, I'm just saying it's one of many (equally unsubstantiated) answers to the problem, only you happen to be biased towards that one.
Pylo01 6 months ago
@Pylo01 Wow, that's a hell of a lot more than most atheists would admit. Or maybe you identify more as an agnostic. that would make sense.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
even if your granted this, it only says that a god is possible without evidence. also what is the evidence that is connected to your god... after you do that i will point out some contradictions.
Desert713 6 months ago
@Desert713 You are going to have to wait for the videos on that one. There's one other video in the series. search my videos for "[MCFaC#1]" Check it out. Also a #3 will come along sometime soon as well.
5thWatcher 6 months ago
Trying to explain why this argument is invalid is a mind-fuck!!! Basically, its something you'll be able to use whether we have a creator or not. As long as the universe exists, it exists, so you'll be able to say this about it. But if the universe didn't exist as it is, would it be proof there is no creator? UGGGHHH. Hope you found it out yourself cause that was horrible explaining.
marekiller8 7 months ago
@marekiller8 Reality is aways reality, and all arguments with any scientific aspect to them at all will be subject to your line of reasoning.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher Exactly. :D
marekiller8 7 months ago
@marekiller8 Exactly exactly. Your argument is meaningless because it applies to everything.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher Oh okay I see. But in evolutionary theory, the universe is directly related to everything, as everything must have first existed in order for humanity to then exist. So in evolutionary terms, humans are a part of reality and the universe, just in a form taken through natural processes of this universe. Hope this makes sense.
marekiller8 7 months ago
In the past, there was not enough science to enable the awareness of the fine-tuning argument. If people from the past rationally believed God exists, there should have been other convincing reasons for God's existence. Would God allow the creation of a universe whereas we have (supposedly) great evidence to believe God exists, but people of other places or times do not have great evidence?
floydnelson92 7 months ago
To put it simply, if asked to pick a random planet in the universe and provide a probability that life would erupt on it, yes, it would be extremely low. However, if you add up all the planets that can support life in the universe, and there are likely very many, the probability that life will arise on one of them is actually closer to 1. Creationists fail to set up the probability problem correctly in the first place.
Nucl3arTeacup 7 months ago
Hmm, maybe I wouldn't enjoy debating with you. You've already resorted to one of the oldest and most ignorant of creationist straw-men. The only option other than a "creator" is NOT chance. Suggesting such demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what abiogenesis, big bang theory, and evolution all teach.
Pandonodrim 7 months ago
Ahhhh Fine Tuning.
The Fine Tuning argument is absolutely silly, "It's unlikely things would come about this way, so it was designed this way."
Probably the funniest debunking of Fine tuning is, "If I delt you a hand of cards, the chances of getting that hand...is...astronomically low, the same as all the other possibilities."
The chances that the universe would develop as it did is actually 1, cause...guess what? It happened.
BigLundi 7 months ago
If God made everything, the universe, would be perfect, not imperfect, as it is today. Perfect beings, do not make imperfect creations, as a god would. Every possibility of conceptual space, would be as a heaven, and there would be no need to change anything, because a god makes only perfect creations.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
@KevZen2000 That depends on your definition of what a "god" is. Most gods described in the world's religions are far from perfect. Anyway, "if" a creator exists, it would technically be all powerful so it could do whatever it wants, however it wants. Something always had to exist wether a creator or the universe. Sadly, at this time there are more questions than answers. It is anyone's guess.
TheWigglyLobster 7 months ago
The universe is not fined tuned, you are looking at from a human perspective. Evolution shows that we evolved to fit the environment, and that there is no design, or any means of fined tuned manipulation of an transcend source. The universe is based on evolutionary processes, which create the complexity, false mistaken to be given by a god(s).The first cause, is the universe, not god, as the universe is everything that exist, and nothing exist outside it.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
HOLY FUCK, a video from 5th watcher with more likes than dislikes! :D
avaiae 7 months ago
@avaiae Hey now, that actually happens a lot recently. I guess it's reflection gaining "true" followers after otherwise just gaining steam for being "controversial". (I don't think I'm controversial but it's clear there are many who disagree with my positions. The internet has no shortage of atheists.)
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher Very very true.
avaiae 7 months ago
The notion of God, seeing God, Allah, Tao ect. in things is a chosen mindset.
The best evidence for which I can imagine is meaning. Without meaning we are nothing. It brings purpose. Also which without we are nothing.
Twicebakedtaters 7 months ago
The notion of fine tuned is a-kin to the flat earth or the earth being the center of the universe.
One can "if" this and that.......but that is not what IS.
All things interact and are in the process of becoming. The notion of a constant is only that........ a notion.......nothing is constant. The universe and all things in it are constantly changing. Some things simply take longer than others.
Twicebakedtaters 7 months ago
you're looking at the wrong probability. instead of looking at the probability of the universal constants being the way they are, you SHOULD be looking at the probability of the universal constants being the way they are GIVEN THAT we exist. two VERY different probabilities.
erdosismyhomeboy 7 months ago
@erdosismyhomeboy I dealt with this in the video. the probability of anything happening that has already happened is a wrapped and dishonest way to look at things. the fact is we know that with the chaos of the singularity any number of constants could have emerged.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher, when most people (like you) who are truly not qualified nor educated to talk about the "fine tuning" of the universe-which we do NOT have even remotely close to that kind of evidence, nor are there any majority of physicists or astrophysicists anywhere that would peer-review and back that-I end up seeing by the end that you don't even know what the "we came here by chance" argument means. See, life came from the Universe, we, without the utterly briliant tools that great scientists-
hoboboxerjoe 7 months ago
-use can only see time and measure it with our senses in a linear fashion. Our well developed and evolutionary-proven minds (and evolution does not equate to advancement, not always, another vast misconception), is still coupled with a very primitive sense of things. We have a damn good idea through using science that was never muddled-up with a "god equation" (As Hawking and Einstein both said, there was never a need to put an unproven, unfounded, thing into a working equation)
hoboboxerjoe 7 months ago
@5thWatcher, so, to sit here, and say that "proof is here because here is here, and here is so cool" is just , well, vapid, and lacking. It lacks substance and study, it lacks true critical analysis, it lacks everything that makes science, science. It just lacks. And what you need -and good luck, because so far no one, and a lot more brilliant men than you, have tried-is an argument for a deistic or theistic deity that is within the confines of the scientific method. Good luck!
hoboboxerjoe 7 months ago
-hell, I'll give you theoretical, AND hypothetical, and hypothosies (do you know the difference between true scientific theory?) quantum physics as well, we can, for arguments sake, throw in our own hypotheticals for the sake of it. But, as we all know, you can't and it won't work. Because no one can prove god, or a deistic god, or a creator. So there is no reason to put it into the equation. We have developed our sciences wonderfully without it so far.
hoboboxerjoe 7 months ago
And, of course, so far it has time and again made religion look ridiculous. Vaccines wouldn't exist without Charles Darwin, we wouldn't have made it to the moon without the same method that we used to make vaccines, which is science. Thank you, good night, and good luck.
hoboboxerjoe 7 months ago
I'm not sure I would say the "universe" was designed for life, but rather it was designed and fine-tuned so that existence and reality are possible. The constants 5thWatcher points out indicate that reality is possible only by mere fractions, which is incredible! I would say that "Earth" was designed for life, as Genesis points out. It was made for us and we were given dominion over it. The rest of the universe is a testament to God's power and glory.
ShiningFist03 7 months ago