Yes fine-tuning knobs that make our FINITE universe rationally intelligible, law-abiding & life-permitting are fixed not by chance or necessity but by design. “Life is material & a mechanistic capacity is built-in to the Laws of matter. It is NOT a mistake but an inherent & predictable property of nature driven by the laws & physical constants of the universe. The living world is made possible if not inevitable, by the very fabric of nature itself" Ken Miller celibrated evolutionary biologist
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
i think that hitchens is in heaven with god and the two of them are just laughing their asses off at all the stupid theists that are burning in hell... wouldnt that be ironic
He thinks the Unfalsifiable multiverse is an elegant explanation revealing he believes the universe is incredibly fined tuned. Yet his state of mind will not allow him to see the logical inferences all around him.
We exist, therefore you can not reject other life from existing
We co-exist with a vast range of life forms with a vast range of attributes, Therefore a vast range of attributes can exist throughout the universe.
Critical thinking gives no reasons to prohibit a life forms attributes
@toobsucker The absurdity of the mutiverse theorIES is that there are 9 of them & they all contradict each other. They only work if one assumes that the laws of science & the physical constants like The rate of expansion evolve differently in different universes so that in one, they just ALL happen to fit into life-permitting ranges. But why what logical necessity to immaterial "LAWS" evolve or even exist in an all materialistic world?
Dawkins argument against a religion form of god is without a doubt very strong. However against the Strong Anthropic principle, its extremely weak. The cosmological constant 10^120 is ridiculously "fine tuned". And right now there is no evidence of multiverses, no evidence at all to support that hypothesis, so he should shut his mouth in regards to this. You can disprove religion all day but not whether an intelligent entity or a fine tuner exists. He is been ignorant if you ask me
@givemeblowjob69 an intelligent designer has as little evidence as a multiverse. The difference is Occam's razor favors a multiverse. It doesn't matter how fine tuned the cosmological constant is, if there are enough universes eventually you'll hit it.
@libalchris No way i can't agree. For example look at carbon. The universe is filled with it but the probability of a carbon atom forming in a star is virtually impossible. Read up on it, its very interesting. Thats just one example. Its not conjecture, this is scientific facts. Multiverse is just conjecture and doesn't follow the scientific method, until someone comes up with an observational/experiment to prove whether it is infact the case.
@givemeblowjob69 are you insane? It's pretty basic science. It simply takes very hot fusion in a large star followed by a supernova. It's been observed and tested. although it could be arguable I don't know enough to say whether or not there is evidence for a multiverse, so we can assume it's unproven. Despite this, it is as unproven as an intelligent designer, and multiverse wins in Occam's razor.
@givemeblowjob69 just look up the triple alpha process on wikipedia, it says right on it that they predicted a resonance between Be8 and He that would allow it to occur at a higher rate than initially thought. Besides when they say it's improbable you have to remember the kinds of numbers being dealt with in stellar nucleosynthesis. There are literally trillions upon trillions of trillions of atoms in a star, it isn't hard for three to get fuse here and there by chance alone.
@givemeblowjob69 "ultiverse is just conjecture and doesn't follow the scientific method, until someone comes up with .."
The multiverse theory is a totally unprovable fantasy contrived by atheists to refute the fine-tuning argument for God. In fact there are 9 such theories & they all contradict each other. Theists need but 1 universe to explain design, atheists fantasise with a zillion without a thread of evidence. Let's not talk about an infinite regression of past universes. Occums razor?
@libalchris Occums razor? u jest, right? Theists need but 1 universe to explain design, atheists fantasise with a zillion without a thread of evidence. Let's not even talk about an infinite regression of past universes. or an eternal past for mindless matter & energy (the only game in town for the materialistic reductionist). But then few atheists have ever thought through the logical absurdity of their materialism. Does Dawkins' "survival machine" ring a bell?
@JMUDoc No, Occam's Razor prefers b. God is infinitely simple: He is a mind with no parts - very simple. Now, His thoughts might be very complex, but He essence is very simple. There are only three optioins: 1) Universe came from nothing 2) Universe always existed 3) God created the universe. I assure you that options 1 and 2 are impossible.
@libalchris Logic tells me there is only one option. But for the sake of argument, I state three options. I've read many funny theories, but they are so silly. Scratch all those silly things anyway. The real issue is this: get something from no-thing. Logic is superior to science and assure you that I am right. Save the money and stop silliness.
Pig farmers should try to figure out how to get pig shit to speak with a British accent and somehow, at least, their atheist neighbors won't mind the stink...
There is no independent scientific evidence to support multi-verse theory. This is an ad hoc hypothesis, created to avoid the implications of obvious fine-tuning. As such, multiple universes should be taken on faith, something I doubt Richard would want to do.
@Roper122 "There is no independent scientific evidence to support the god theory" And this "argument" is supposed to scientifically validate the multiverse? Gosh! "Fine Tuning isn't obvious, it simply means that our theories are incomplete" Sounds like the ultimate cop-out! The truth is Multiverse is pure methaphysics, not science. Get real dude!!!
@MrPaulhowardanderson And this is coming for a scientist right? or are you just a guy that never studied physics. Please, if you don't know anything about a certian subject, then dont bother clicking post.
Why is there a struggle with this question? If the universe were not 'finely tuned', we wouldn't exist to question it! So far, only the Earth is known to be suitable for life, yet there are countless other star systems and galaxies. Why would there not be countless other 'universes' too? This would explain why our universe can be 'finely tuned' by chance, while countless others might not be. If there are infinite 'multiverses', there must be infinite universes with this 'fine balance' too.
@mouthyweasel either way...lol. we don't just fine tune ourselves. and not just to the universe but our closer surroundings. there's a reason why our noses point downwards and not up, there's a reason we have 2 eyes and not one, there's a reason WE HUMANS have complete dominance over the earth. and most of all there's a reason we have intelligence and logic that no other animal or species on the planet has. Cause God gave it to us and made us that way.
Steven Weinberg never said what Dawkins claimed he did about the fine tuning, please watch my video: Richard Dawkins and the fine tuning with Steven Weinberg: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE
When I go to bed on Saturday night, I have the Jazz channel on the radio,but when I wake up I hear church language, this is on PBS, they should be playing speeches such as this, they are there (they claim) to inform you, we need a lot more voices like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and a few others to INFORM us, we don't want fairy tales, we're grown-ups !
I think that the Anthropic Principle is the dumbest ass non-explaination that people toss around. If this is all Dawkins has to explain the laws of physics then as far as I'm concerned he has nothing.
@tracygonecrazy1 Maybe you should try watching the video at the top of this very page, in which Dawkins discusses no fewer than four explanations, none of which is the AP.
Dawkins is satisfied with a tautology. Who would have ever thought?
Penrose who is not a religious man as far as I know, and he has said the chances of these ratios and perimeters coming in to existence by chance is less than
1:10^10^123, and that there was much more order at the beginning than presently. A fact that Dawkins conveniently left out of discussion. He tries to incorporate Darwinism into cosmology. Lets ignore empirical data & imagine an infinite amount of universes. Yeah thats it.
Why doesn't Richard Dawkins do something more useful, like try to cure hunger, pollution and disease? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't waste my time like Dawkins writing books pretending God doesn't exist, unless of course, I wanted to make piles of money at the expense of our children, planet and every living thing on it. WWII alone conclusively proves science and education won't save us from our sins, so why not eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we blow ourselves to kingdom come?
There is one flaw in Dawkins' argument. It is not too unlikely that outside this universe, complexity just comes about suddenly, just like that. That way, God or the second life computer can just have appeared suddenly outside of this universe, and created this one, in which complexity can only appear by slow build up. Of course, this is far more of a stretch than the multiverse theory, especially given that the inflationary model supports it.
The fine tuning argument goes like this: I'm a popular rich guy in highschool and i'm throwing a party. My mom tells me i have to invite nonpopular people too. So I invite the girls from the Glee Club. If my mom had not made this demand I wouldnt have invited ANY of the Glee Club. But, since i allowed them all in my party, does it mean i like the fat chick??? it's absurd. Life is just one of the many things that would be impossible if the constants were altered.
The Expansion Rate of the Universe and The Entropy Level of the Universe are tuned for GALAXIES. The Gravitational Coupling Constant and The Mass of the Universe are tuned for STARS. The Ratio of Protons to Electrons is tuned for balance of Electromagnetism and Gravity. The Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces are tuned for ELEMENTS OTHER THAN H2. The Electromagnetic Coupling Constant and The Mass Ratio of Electron-to-Proton are tuned for CHEMISTRY. Where are the constants that target life???
@sirdelrio You dont seem to undertand the subject. All these constance and ratios are required for life. Without stars, gravity, electro magnetics etc. there would be no life.
@benthemiester I know the constants, how many they are, their names, their values, the extent of tuning, the particular effect of changing them. It is true that if you change the constants there would be no life. What i tried to show was that you cannot say they are tuned FOR LIFE because life is not the only thing that is affected by changing them, it's anthropocentric to think that way, in other words, if EVERYBODY OR NOBODY is invited to the party then the party is not FOR ONLY ONE guest.
@benthemiester For example, the constants that make CHEMISTRY possible: they make EVERY SINGLE CHEMICAL possible, even those that have nothing to do with life, then why do you say it is tuned FOR YOU, you're just another guest in the party. Why not say that the constants are tuned for Calcium Carbonate, the argument works the same way: no galaxies, no CaCO3; no stars, no CaCO3, no elements, no CaCO3; no chemistry, no CaCO3.
@sirdelrio cont..... then you don't understand the fine tuning argument. And yes, Calcium carbonate is another chemical used in living systems. Let me ask you a question would you sacrifice your life or the life of a loved one for the same weight in Calcium carbonate? If the answer is no, then you also believe that you are more important than this chemical compound. Yes brilliant comedy. If it wasn't for the rocks in head I might even get. A real knee slapper, ha ha he he.
@benthemiester i used CaCO3 as a random example, there are thousands of other molecules that have nothing to do with living systems. what's with the sacrifice, does it have to do with the fine tuning argument. Explain to me why the constants are tuned FOR LIFE, when life is just another process in nature that gets affected by changing the constants.
@sirdelrio cont. I would say that the fact that man can make chemicals that don't have anything to do with life but can benefit us, is a product of good design. We also have free will and can also do bad things with chemicals. This is a philosophical question which has nothing to do with subject. Most cosmologist and physicist now agree that the universe was fine tuned for life based on empirical observation. Chemicals do not have the ability to reason and observe. If you don't understand this,
"For example, the constants that make CHEMISTRY possible: they make EVERY SINGLE CHEMICAL possible, even those that have nothing to do with life, then why do you say it is tuned FOR YOU"
No need to cap, it makes you sound very emotional..............
@benthemiester Any argument you could use to say you're more special than CaCO3 (i hope you get the joke) has nothign to do with physics (that you have conscience, or that you feel, or whatever). at best you could say life is more complex than non-life, but for example, the climate is an extremely complex phenomenon, made of non-living materials. Do you understand my position?
@sirdelrio cont... Since inanimate matter doesn't feel or reason, then inanimate matter does not care about things like fine tuning, importance or effect. These are human thoughts and emotions, and by using them, in a sense, you have answered your own question.
@benthemiester the fine tuning argument, based on physics, has nothing to do with the possibility of intelligent life. the 'tuning' has to do with galaxies, stars, elements and chemistry. life is affected in a subsidiary manner, by corollary. that's what you dont get. like i said, there is no scenario of changing the constants in which you could have everything except life, this is demonstrable. and shows life is not the purpose, because other things are affected too.
"I know the constants, how many they are, their names, their values, the extent of tuning, the particular effect of changing them. It is true that if you change the constants there would be no life. What i tried to show was that you cannot say they are tuned FOR LIFE because life is not the only thing that is affected by changing them"
A universe can still exist if some but not all of these ratios are changed (of course a different kind of universe) but complex life cannot.
@sirdelrio Its like a carpenter building a comfortable livable house for a family to protect the people inside from the elements, and then someone comes by and says..... this house was really designed so to protect the plumbing, electrical, system, painting and the interior of the house, because after all, these inanimate items and compounds are just as important as the people inside. No offense my comedic friend, but this is a very ass backward way of thinking
@benthemiester If some particular constant affects many things (living and nonliving) then it's not intended for just one of them. Please tell me how this is not the case. The constants are also tuned for things that have nothing to do with life: you dont have FeO3 in your body, you dont have Francium, Vanadium, Titanium, etc. About 80% of the periodic table has nothing to do with life. There is no scenario in which you could have elements but not life. you're not special.
@benthemiester wouldnt it we actually mind blowing if there was some constant, say the 'Craig coupling constant' that if you changed it, then complex chemical networks, like those of biochemistry, wouldnt be possible? That if you changed another constant, the 'Strobel ratio' then vanderwaals interactions necessary to fold DNA wouldnt be possible? from a physics standpoint, none of the constants of nature are intended for life. they simply allow life, just as they allow other things.
@benthemiester i understand that the original argument (the teleological) has to do with humans asking questions about their own existence. but from a physics standpoint, the constants are fined tuned for several things, and life as a corollary. Regarding the carpenter analogy, the fine tuning argument is about phenomenological allowance, not environmental allowance. If you think the fine tuning is environmental, think again, 99.9% of the universe is hostile to life.
@benthemiester I need to be more clear. If the Strong Nuclear Force was stronger, then there'd be no element nucleosynthesis, not just carbon and nitrogen and the elements necessary for life, ALL THE ELEMENTS. wouldnt form. That'r the whole point. Apologists only tell you carbon woulnd be possible, and that life is made of carbon. Ooooh, look the Strong Nuclear Force is fine tuned for life. Sorry, not just for life.
@benthemiester I'll sumarize it for you: 1-circular reasoning: you're trying to prove the designer from its design by asuming the design was made by a designer, you cannot invoke supernatural cause from a natural explanation. 2-the constants are not 'degrees of freedom'. 3-Design is an argument from ignorance, cutting edge physical theories are making progress explaining that the constants are not independent from the laws as WLC says.
@benthemiester If the carpenter built the house for us, why the wasted space in a vast universe? what's the role of other planets and their chemistry-geology rich moons in the solar system? why billions of galaxies? why not just one sun, one planet, an obviously intended design? why arent we biologically different from other animals? why are we philogenetically linked to other primates? why do we have inheritable genes in common with them? common designer?
@benthemiester 'a carpenter building a comfortable livable house for a family': i cannot believe you still think you're at the center of the universe. And i cannot believe you actually think the universe is confortable and livable. Go out to space, with no protection, and comeback to tell me how comfortable and livable it is.
@sirdelrio If I were born in outer space then I would have to agree with you, but I am very comfortable here on my own home planet, but thanks for the offer.
@sirdelrio "99.9% of the universe is hostile to life"
I disagree. I think its more closer to 99.99999 percent of the universe being hostile to life. In spite of this observation, the fact that we live in very hospitable conditions on a planet where life thrives makes our special place in the universe an even more powerful & persuasive anthropic argument. If you could prove ET's were having a hard time, then you might have a case. Do you believe in ET's.
@sirdelrio Even the most hard headed cosmologist agree that if we were anywhere else in the galaxy much less the universe, we would not be able to observe the univers as it really is. Most people ignore the Godilocks or Rare Earth principle which is just as improbable and amazing as the fine tuned tuned universe that most in cosmology agree on, in spite of religious or non religious affiliation.
Sorry to bust your bubble but the recent kepler space observatory mission from NASA demonstrated that to find a planet of the same mass as earth in the godilock zone of their star is definitively not a rare event. From the planets found by the mission which looked at 1/400th of the sky at the stars in our closest neighborhoud we can extrapolate that there are more earths in the universe than there are grains of sand in all of earth's deserts.
@DSkaz89 Your not busting my bubble. I love science period. Sure Ill bite. Please name just five of these planets. Or how about just three. Please name their location, planetary mass & atmosphere. Then please tell me how you know life is there? Another words show me the evidence. I hope your not trying to recite the outdated Drake Equation. In fact, can you cite the article your speaking of? I would love to read it, but those numbers sound a little distorted.
@benthemiester Curious: how exactly is the Drake Equation "outdated"? Do you mean that some particular set of values you've seen somebody plug into the equation no longer make sense? Or do you mean that our knowledge has changed such that some factors need to be added to, removed from, or altered within the equation?
@DuhIdiot1 I think that for along time F. Drake and the likes just assumed that life was possible almost anywhere in the universe that a star was present. We then started realizing that not all stars were created equal even if the same type, & that not all were life permitting. We also now know thanks to people like G. Gonzalez that there is galactic habitable zone, and that life is not as simple as "just add water" I'm sure there are probably many more technical & mathematic factors involved.
@DSkaz89 Lets not forget the term Godilocks referes to much more than the size of a planet, but its life friendly dynamics, & this in itself is not enough to sustain life. It must also fall into a very unique habitable zone which is dependent on a whole different set of circumstances and cosmic coincidences. Again when you find these billion & billions of life bearing planets please let me know. I am more than willing to listen. We now know that life is much more complex than, "just add water"
@benthemiester If the house is such that on the basement there are beasts that would have you for lunch, the kitchen full of poisonous gases, the living room, has no oxigen, the atic is full of cosmic rays that will toast you in a second, and the only place you can be comfortable is your tiny little room? comedy? dont engage in ad hominems and argue with facts.
@sirdelrio Your trying to refute something that almost all cosmologist agree on based on observable evidence. The fact that the universe is fine tuned for life and especially for complex & conscious life (if you read the literature) is not even disputed, except by the hardest of heads. The question is, who or what did the fine tuning? To believe that these cosmic coincidences can occur in exponential magnitudes of order requires much more faith than I could ever muster in a million life times.
@benthemiester I've read the literature and also watched lectures. And my opinion is that some of them have fallen into the anthropocentric trap, thinking life is what they're tuned for. I know many scientists accept the tuning, others dont. In fact, today, there's a debate in science about whether the constants are really constant. Now, we dont need faith to accept why the constants have their values, we just need an explanation. If we can work out a scientific theory, god is out of a job.
@sirdelrio "i cannot believe you still think you're at the center of the universe"
Either can I. When exactly did I say I was?
Most people dont understand the center of the universe myth. It was thought at one time that the center of the universe was not as a place of privileged, but was a place where evil & heaviness existed closer to hell. Its completely oposite from what many non historians have perpetuated over the years. Unfortunately scientist can sometimes make lousy historians.
@benthemiester the tuning goes like this: some constants make galaxies to form, others make stars burn long enough, others make possible elements other than hydrogen and helium, and others make chemical bonds possible. those are the facts. Now, what aspect of intelligent life is 'exclusive' of those facts. none.
@sirdelrio "If the house is such that on the basement there are beasts that would have you for lunch, the kitchen full of poisonous gases, the living room, has no oxigen, the atic is full of cosmic rays that will toast you in a second, and the only place you can be comfortable is your tiny little room? comedy? dont engage in ad hominems and argue with facts."
"tiny little room" = the planet earth. Shit I would be happy with just the Hawaiian islands and still have everything I need.
@benthemiester I agree, there has to be an explanation. But i tend to search for a natural explanation, a scientific theory. And science is making progress in this with the attempts to unify relativity and quantum mechanics. I'm not against theism, or believing in god. I just want apologists not to tweak facts and confuse people.
@sirdelrio "But i tend to search for a natural explanation, a scientific theory. And science is making progress in this with the attempts to unify relativity and quantum mechanics"
A thousand years ago a space shuttle would have been considered supernatural but we now know it isn't.
A unifying theory will still not explain why these exponent ratios are this way, only the way it ties together with every thing else, and even Dawkins admits this on video. Methodology & causation are not the same.
"I'm not against theism, or believing in god. I just want apologists not to tweak facts and confuse people"
Why do you single out theist? when many if not most of these cosmologist & physicist who are in agreement concerning the anthropic nature of the universe are not even religious (although some have converted because of this) No offense, but I think this says a little more about the importance of your own personal world views than anything to do with cause and effect science.
@sirdelrio "the tuning goes like this: some constants make galaxies to form, others make stars burn long enough, others make possible elements other than hydrogen and helium, and others make chemical bonds possible. those are the facts. Now, what aspect of intelligent life is 'exclusive' of those facts. none"
Your statement above demonstrates you really dont understand the FT problem. All these question have been covered. I cant give you a crash course with 5 hundred words. Please research.
CONT.... If you know a better way of building an anthropic universe, then publish your work, as for biology, maybe you answered your own question.
We were once told that we were 99% genetically similar to chimps. Based on current data the number falls to 70% or less. We have 99% homologous genes with mice. Would anyone conclude we are closer related to mice than chimps?
If the carpenter built the house for us, why the wasted space in a vast universe? what's the role of other planets and their chemistry-geology rich moons in the solar system? why billions of galaxies? why not just one sun, one planet, an obviously intended design? why arent we biologically different from other animals? why are we philogenetically linked to other primates? why do we have inheritable genes in common with them? common designer?......
@sirdelrio If were were biologically different from other animals how could we eat? Even if we were vegetarians how could we eat vegetables that didn't contained the amino acids and nutrients that we could digest. We wouldn't even have an eco system because nothing would match with each other. Try the death of a thousand question strategy on the Darwinian synthesis which needs more critics than cheer leaders.
@sirdelrio There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences. All we have is evidence.
"3-Design is an argument from ignorance, cutting edge physical theories are making progress explaining that the constants are not independent from the laws as WLC says.
You can reply back by visiting the comments page" Even if the physical laws are not independent of fine tuning (as you say) fine tuning still remains. I dont know who WLC is, but please cite your theory. I'm willing to listen
@sirdelrio I need to be more clear. If the Strong Nuclear Force was stronger, then there'd be no element nucleosynthesis, not just carbon and nitrogen and the elements necessary for life, ALL THE ELEMENTS. wouldnt form. That'r the whole point.
Elements dont care about points & cant observe. Do you think all these cosmologist and physicist are conspiring to lie to the public? Your premise is based on some future hypothetical discovery that some how will erase observable data.
@sirdelrio "you dont have FeO3 in your body, you dont have Francium, Vanadium, Titanium, etc. About 80% of the periodic table has nothing to do with life. There is no scenario in which you could have elements but not life. you're not special"
Would you sacrifice your life or the life of a loved one, or even a stranger for ten times the same weight in titanium?
If the answer is no, then I'm pretty sure you know people are more important.
and I said ONLY LIFE, because the changes in the constants make ONLY certain phenomena impossible (and as corollary, phenomena that depend on it). for example: if the entropy level of the universe had been different galaxies would not form or would form with no stars. you'd still have a chemistry permiting universe, but with no galaxies or stars to make elements to make chemistry. I think the answer in the future would be a simple one: the universe is as it is from plain equilibrium.
the values of the constants are not tuned 'for life'. I dont understand why some scientists fall in this trap. The constants are tuned for: the formation of galaxies, the formation of stars, the formation of heavy elements, and the occurrence of chemistry. THAT'S IT. NONE of the constants targets specific atributes OF LIFE ALONE, like the formation of DNA or the possibility of HOMEOSTASIS. fine tuned for life would mean that changing them would make ONLY LIFE impossible.
Your definition of choice is really wierd... If I really believed that I had a "choice" between what you suggest and an eternity of torture in hell, a hell I really believed in, I would not be making a choice now would I? Can you really believe God would deny me free will? God establishes a system by which the people it governs can either love God or suffer eternally... go back and replace the word "God" by the word "The Party" in the last sentance and tell me what that sounds like?
After this conference Dawkins had a discussion with Steven Weinberg and found that he misquoted him. Weinberg affirmed the fine tuning for at least the dark energy constant and told Dawkins that we don't even have a theory of the multi-verse, just a speculation or an idea, even an atheist Nobel Prize winning physicist told Dawkins that he is delusional (politely). You can watch Dawkins discussion with Steven Weinberg on youtube.
Now why would a theory that insinuates multiple universes, without detail as to how we can account for this, be considered plausible whereas an ultimate Creator is remarked as out of the question? And why should the Universe be confined to a bubble and not collide with another Universe? Someone explain this theory.
I'm making a video response where in the end of it Steven Weinberg himself (A Nobel prize winner and an atheist) admits that this is a mystery and the only answer he can come up with is a spirit or a designer. I hope I can send it to you when it's finished.
Sounds cool. This is starting to feel like a double standard in the making, "You can't suggest a Creator for the universe without listing evidence! Now here's my Empyreal Genesis theory with nothing backing it up at all."
Third: Dawkins claims that intelligent design is not probable because he says it leads to infinite regress, but, if you have an explanation that is the best one, you do not need an explanation of the explanation. It is because he does not want to believe that explanation that he rebukes it by using infinite regress.
Fourth: the third pont could be have a more stable ground if you claimed that God is spaceless, timeless and infinite, then it is ok for Him to exist outside our universe.
First off: the multiverse theory cannot be proven. It can be theorized and simulated, but it cannot be proven. Since we are limited to this universe, there would be no way of actually traveling into another universe. If we were to, we would have to be "tuned" for that universe. Multiverse is not scientifically verifiable.
Second: What, a Matrix theory? C'mon, we already have a theory of intelligent design, we dont need a second one.
May I ask why you left Christianity? Do you really think that there is no evidence for God? Do you think that Dawkins "elegant" theory of the multiverse explain the fine tuning of our universe? Why Dawkins left God out of any possibility? I'm a Muslim and a follower of Jesus Christ and I can prove to you that God exist beyond any doubt if you only open your eyes to the truth even by a little. I hope I got an answer from you.
@helasmoh You are an infidel! Jesus PBUH was a great prophet, but prophecy was completed with Mohammad PBUH. You must suffer a terrible doom if you do not return to the bosom of Allah!
@helasmoh Perhaps I was too hasty. You certainly owned Richard Dawkins by locating the salt and freshwater seas that Allah created in that cave. But why do you say you are a follower of Jesus Christ PBUH instead of saying you are a follower of Allah? And why do you post videos that show young harlots with exposed faces?
I'm not sure what you mean by your reply, I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, Muhammad and Abraham and All Allah's messengers (peace be upon them all), if you don't know what that means then you seriously need to read the Quran with understanding. As for the rest of your comment then again you should read the Quran with understanding. My God is Allah alone and I follow His book not some Imam or mullah who makes fatwas from his head about what women should or shouldn't wear.
@helasmoh You are an infidel and an apostate! Do you think Mohammed's (PBUH) wives ran around with exposed faces? No, they were not harlots. Even the nine year old wife exposed herself only when she was engaged in marital relations in the privacy of the Prophet's (PBUH) tent!
I know what kind of hypocrites is you, the one who know from Islam only that it covers women from top to bottom while his favorite videos are small girls with bikinis or girls kissing each other. You insulted decent Muslim girls and blind of what you are. Allah's punishment is waiting for so called "Muslims" like you. As for apostatasy then you can watch my video: Richard Dawkins on Islam Debunked. This is true Islam which would be much better without you: /watch?v=1Jo_CS7mzRc
47 years old living in the USA and full of lies. This is what you are. The shoes of these decent Muslim girls that you insulted are cleaner than your brain. Go to the beach and pick a girl with a G-string bikini as a wife. This is what you deserve.
@helasmoh Great idea. That's definitely what I deserve. I'm gonna pick one who likes to kiss other girls, too. That's the big advantage of being an atheist--no guilt about sex at all. BTW, I'm not really 47 years old, either.
When I said that you were full of lies I know what I was talking about. However, there is still some light in your heart when you recognized the truth about the halocline, if that was not another lie. Are you an ex-Muslim?
@helasmoh I find it amusing that you think that the Quran, discussing the salt and freshwater seas, you point to a cave. There are haloclines all over the place. The light in my heart doesn't require debasing myself before a cruel psychopath of a god.
There is "probably" no God, stop worrying and enjoy life. This is why you left Islam, keep enjoying life as much as you can, at least there will be something to remember for eternity.
Any explanation is elegant for Dawkins as long as it does not involve God. I really can't wait to see Dawkins face when he will get his explanation why he and his followers will go to Hell. LOL
I apologize for laughing, I couldn't help myself about Dawkins and his foaming bubbling billions of universes. I shouldn't have done that. I started making a video about Dawkins lies including his discussion with Steven Weinberg. There is no theory at all for the multi-verse, just the idea but no theory at all.
@helasmoh To wish someone to hell has to be for someone like you (a person who believes in the reality of hell) the ultimate expression of hatred. What was it that Jesus said about hating your fellow man? Are you so certain that your God want's you to be so hateful? If not, aren't you risking damnation by being so hateful and saying such hateful things....? No, of corse not, because the whole idea of hell is absolutely rediculous.
Hell does exist, the fine tuning of this universe will end, there is no escape, your consciousness will not disappear when you die and it will be trapped in it. You can call whatever left of this universe any name you like but certainly it will NOT be "Heaven", I hope you can hear the voice that God sent to humanity to save them from such terrible ending including the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran, please watch my video about that: /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
Why do you even say that? I don't hate you, I'm trying to save you, I'm trying to win you as a friend for eternity. Watch my videos and judge for yourself, there is absolutely no hate, just the best wishes. However, when the end comes, there will nothing I can do for you, no one can. You are the only one who makes the choice. Again please watch my videos, for example the first one I told you about the end of the universe or this one about Dawkins deceiving you: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
Wow... amazing! Quickly dismissing a designer and fabricating this entire multiverse theory of bubbling universes to increase your odds of life. All you've done is push off the question... so where is "any" evidence of such a multiverse other than your own mind? The question of "what" outside of the universe caused the existence of matter, energy is not even addressed. Or in his case outside the "Multiverses" where this matter and energy came from is absurd. What lengths people will go!
@andytroyer The WMAP data alone is enough to allow for the probability of a multi-verse as seen by possible bubble collisions. However, ESA's Planck satellite will give us a much clearer picture of this data over the next few years. Arguments from ignorance will no longer serve.
Don't judge Dawkins so fast. multiverse is a fact and many "scientists" prove it without any doubt like Abraham, Mouse, Jesus Christ and Muhammad (peace be upon them all). They just called them: Heaven and Hell. Unfortunately, Dawkins will know this fact when its too late when he and his followers end up in the "bubbling multiverse" they are heading. Please watch my video: Atheists VS Intelligent Design-er.
Wow, is this philosophy fail, or what. Of course it has to have happened at least once because we're here thinking about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it was improbable! The probability of p is not the same as the probability of p | p (p given p), which will always be 1.
The fact that we can appreciate the world as it is, does not make it any less remarkable.
This has to be Dawkins most weakest display of logic and philosophy. Even Richard Krause who is no friend to ID or creationism doesn't even buy this BS even though he says it would be more convenient to do so. As for the question of infinite regression, Its like finding specified complexity in the form of a cave painting and having to write it off as being caused by natural processes because we can never know who drew it, or who his parents and there parents were.
Dawkins is a phenomenal biologist. That said, he should remain within the confounds of his education when lecturing or in this case; preaching. Theoretical physics at the sub atomic level shows complete uncertainity. Constants cannot be pre-programmed in an unstable, free energetic universe. This subject has been touched upon, and documented in well established journals. The only explantion for fine-tuned constants is a multiverse. A lack of evidence for such would be an understatement.
@cagefite007 Actually, no, that is not evidence for a multiverse.
Perhaps humanity only exists because of the values of the fundamental constants, but that does not imply that other life wouldn't be possible with other values and moreover, that does not imply that the constants themselves are adjustable.
The fine-tuning argument for a multiverse is no more tenable than the fine-tuning argument for god(s).
You should re-read my comment. "The only explantion for fine-tuned constants is a multiverse. A lack of evidence for such would be an understatement." I was speaking in the hypothetical, thus my comment about a lack of evidence, empirical or mathematical.
Dawkins is thinks about these "theories" the way he thinks about testable science. I have a problem with this. It's the same problem I have with the creationists that invoke science in their defense. The spirit of these two approaches should not be mixed! Dawkins cannot say with certainty that intelligence always arises from an evolutionary process. He's basing this on the physical laws of our universe alone...while applying the conclusion to a multiverse that transcends these laws!
I disagree with Dawkins here, and I normally agree with him so this is fairly noteworthy.
I don't see any reason to invalidate infinite regress. If every universe is a simulation in the universe before it, then there's no universe without another universe to simulate it, and no need for a first universe that isn't being simulated. It can go in circles for all I care.
I heard that galaxies can move beyond the speed of light, it's just there's no way to have any information on them anymore or something. Then i heard from someone else that it's impossible because as mass approaches the speed of light, it's mass approaches infinite or something making time different and nothing can move faster than the speed of light in contrast to anything. or something, i dont get it... anyone know?
@blazearmoru the space can go faster then light, the galaxies cant go through the space faster then light, its like if a carpet spread faster then light, you would be going faster then light but stand still relative to the carpet
@blazearmoru it expands, put some stickers on a balloon and then inflate it, the dots will not move relative to the expanding space but the galaxies move away (on average) because the space between them is expanding
Erm ok this comes down to a MASSIVLY COMPLICATED ARGUMENT That HAS NEVER BEEN answerd, Why? Should we be surprised by the fact its finetunned? Is this a case of the Mistaken observance? whats inbetween the verses? There would have to be so many universes that the number is infinite? INFINITE IS IMPOSIBLE, and what started The big bubble with all of the little ones in it?
REAL Free energy technology exists!But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get the blueprints for a real Magnet motor free enegy machine at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
HAHAH he believes in the multiverse, where in one universe he is sucking his own dick. And Im completely serious because that is the implication of the theory.
@u3190 If there really is an infinite multiverse, you would be doing the same thing somewhere. You would also have grown up in some universe somewhere.
Comment removed
estensma 2 days ago
Yes fine-tuning knobs that make our FINITE universe rationally intelligible, law-abiding & life-permitting are fixed not by chance or necessity but by design. “Life is material & a mechanistic capacity is built-in to the Laws of matter. It is NOT a mistake but an inherent & predictable property of nature driven by the laws & physical constants of the universe. The living world is made possible if not inevitable, by the very fabric of nature itself" Ken Miller celibrated evolutionary biologist
Prodigalfather1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
i think that hitchens is in heaven with god and the two of them are just laughing their asses off at all the stupid theists that are burning in hell... wouldnt that be ironic
LarrenceUmpersalt 2 months ago
@LarrenceUmpersalt No one's perfect are you?
Prodigalfather1 1 month ago
He thinks the Unfalsifiable multiverse is an elegant explanation revealing he believes the universe is incredibly fined tuned. Yet his state of mind will not allow him to see the logical inferences all around him.
We exist, therefore you can not reject other life from existing
We co-exist with a vast range of life forms with a vast range of attributes, Therefore a vast range of attributes can exist throughout the universe.
Critical thinking gives no reasons to prohibit a life forms attributes
toobsucker 3 months ago
Comment removed
Prodigalfather1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker The absurdity of the mutiverse theorIES is that there are 9 of them & they all contradict each other. They only work if one assumes that the laws of science & the physical constants like The rate of expansion evolve differently in different universes so that in one, they just ALL happen to fit into life-permitting ranges. But why what logical necessity to immaterial "LAWS" evolve or even exist in an all materialistic world?
Prodigalfather1 1 month ago
Dawkins argument against a religion form of god is without a doubt very strong. However against the Strong Anthropic principle, its extremely weak. The cosmological constant 10^120 is ridiculously "fine tuned". And right now there is no evidence of multiverses, no evidence at all to support that hypothesis, so he should shut his mouth in regards to this. You can disprove religion all day but not whether an intelligent entity or a fine tuner exists. He is been ignorant if you ask me
givemeblowjob69 3 months ago
@givemeblowjob69 an intelligent designer has as little evidence as a multiverse. The difference is Occam's razor favors a multiverse. It doesn't matter how fine tuned the cosmological constant is, if there are enough universes eventually you'll hit it.
libalchris 2 months ago
@libalchris No way i can't agree. For example look at carbon. The universe is filled with it but the probability of a carbon atom forming in a star is virtually impossible. Read up on it, its very interesting. Thats just one example. Its not conjecture, this is scientific facts. Multiverse is just conjecture and doesn't follow the scientific method, until someone comes up with an observational/experiment to prove whether it is infact the case.
givemeblowjob69 2 months ago
@givemeblowjob69 are you insane? It's pretty basic science. It simply takes very hot fusion in a large star followed by a supernova. It's been observed and tested. although it could be arguable I don't know enough to say whether or not there is evidence for a multiverse, so we can assume it's unproven. Despite this, it is as unproven as an intelligent designer, and multiverse wins in Occam's razor.
libalchris 2 months ago
@libalchris carbon is made in red giant stars. i am talking about the triple alpha process.
givemeblowjob69 2 months ago
@givemeblowjob69 just look up the triple alpha process on wikipedia, it says right on it that they predicted a resonance between Be8 and He that would allow it to occur at a higher rate than initially thought. Besides when they say it's improbable you have to remember the kinds of numbers being dealt with in stellar nucleosynthesis. There are literally trillions upon trillions of trillions of atoms in a star, it isn't hard for three to get fuse here and there by chance alone.
satanisthetruegod666 2 months ago
@givemeblowjob69 "ultiverse is just conjecture and doesn't follow the scientific method, until someone comes up with .."
The multiverse theory is a totally unprovable fantasy contrived by atheists to refute the fine-tuning argument for God. In fact there are 9 such theories & they all contradict each other. Theists need but 1 universe to explain design, atheists fantasise with a zillion without a thread of evidence. Let's not talk about an infinite regression of past universes. Occums razor?
Prodigalfather1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@libalchris Occums razor? u jest, right? Theists need but 1 universe to explain design, atheists fantasise with a zillion without a thread of evidence. Let's not even talk about an infinite regression of past universes. or an eternal past for mindless matter & energy (the only game in town for the materialistic reductionist). But then few atheists have ever thought through the logical absurdity of their materialism. Does Dawkins' "survival machine" ring a bell?
Prodigalfather1 1 month ago
Comment removed
givemeblowjob69 3 months ago
Dawkins is a nice man, but is not even a layman in philosophy. He doesn't know fine-tuning at all.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@JMUDoc No, Occam's Razor prefers b. God is infinitely simple: He is a mind with no parts - very simple. Now, His thoughts might be very complex, but He essence is very simple. There are only three optioins: 1) Universe came from nothing 2) Universe always existed 3) God created the universe. I assure you that options 1 and 2 are impossible.
6630mcdo 3 months ago
@6630mcdo who told you those are the only 3 options? read up on some modern cosmology.
libalchris 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@libalchris Logic tells me there is only one option. But for the sake of argument, I state three options. I've read many funny theories, but they are so silly. Scratch all those silly things anyway. The real issue is this: get something from no-thing. Logic is superior to science and assure you that I am right. Save the money and stop silliness.
6630mcdo 2 months ago
Pig farmers should try to figure out how to get pig shit to speak with a British accent and somehow, at least, their atheist neighbors won't mind the stink...
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
the universe appeared and magically organized itself out of thin air and my ass doesnt smell
lynnethc 5 months ago 5
There is no independent scientific evidence to support multi-verse theory. This is an ad hoc hypothesis, created to avoid the implications of obvious fine-tuning. As such, multiple universes should be taken on faith, something I doubt Richard would want to do.
MrPaulhowardanderson 5 months ago
@MrPaulhowardanderson " There is no independent scientific evidence to support multi-verse theory "
- There is no independent scientific evidence to support the god theory.
" This is an ad hoc hypothesis, created to avoid the implications of obvious fine-tuning "
- No... actually it arises from theories of inflation and quantum physics.
Fine Tuning isn't obvious, it simply means that our theories are incomplete.
And where there's a gap in knowledge.. there's a theist claiming god!
Roper122 5 months ago
@Roper122 "There is no independent scientific evidence to support the god theory" And this "argument" is supposed to scientifically validate the multiverse? Gosh! "Fine Tuning isn't obvious, it simply means that our theories are incomplete" Sounds like the ultimate cop-out! The truth is Multiverse is pure methaphysics, not science. Get real dude!!!
raponte1955 5 months ago
@raponte1955 " And this "argument" is supposed to scientifically validate the multiverse? Gosh! "
- Nope.. but it certainly puts it on a much more solid footing than the god theory.
You can't have it both ways. : )
" Sounds like the ultimate cop-out! The truth is Multiverse is pure methaphysics, not science. Get real dude!!! "
- Oh I am real... and no the multiverse isn't "pure metaphysics", and there is possible evidence for it, which makes it scientific.
Anything else?
Roper122 5 months ago
@MrPaulhowardanderson And this is coming for a scientist right? or are you just a guy that never studied physics. Please, if you don't know anything about a certian subject, then dont bother clicking post.
mrabdrum 5 months ago
Why is there a struggle with this question? If the universe were not 'finely tuned', we wouldn't exist to question it! So far, only the Earth is known to be suitable for life, yet there are countless other star systems and galaxies. Why would there not be countless other 'universes' too? This would explain why our universe can be 'finely tuned' by chance, while countless others might not be. If there are infinite 'multiverses', there must be infinite universes with this 'fine balance' too.
ToneSpectra 7 months ago
wwwdotExposingChristianitydotcom
GahdeMalprigi1488x 7 months ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
@mouthyweasel either way...lol. we don't just fine tune ourselves. and not just to the universe but our closer surroundings. there's a reason why our noses point downwards and not up, there's a reason we have 2 eyes and not one, there's a reason WE HUMANS have complete dominance over the earth. and most of all there's a reason we have intelligence and logic that no other animal or species on the planet has. Cause God gave it to us and made us that way.
k24boy123 7 months ago
Comment removed
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
Steven Weinberg never said what Dawkins claimed he did about the fine tuning, please watch my video: Richard Dawkins and the fine tuning with Steven Weinberg: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE
helasmoh 7 months ago
/watch?v=9bJ5JdBd4QU&feature=related
Cloyde100 7 months ago
When I go to bed on Saturday night, I have the Jazz channel on the radio,but when I wake up I hear church language, this is on PBS, they should be playing speeches such as this, they are there (they claim) to inform you, we need a lot more voices like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and a few others to INFORM us, we don't want fairy tales, we're grown-ups !
k9a2g6 8 months ago
I think that the Anthropic Principle is the dumbest ass non-explaination that people toss around. If this is all Dawkins has to explain the laws of physics then as far as I'm concerned he has nothing.
tracygonecrazy1 8 months ago
@tracygonecrazy1 WOW - now we know what idiotic creationists think. Thanks.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans Where are the idiotic creationists ? I really hate those guys too.
tracygonecrazy1 8 months ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Maybe you should try watching the video at the top of this very page, in which Dawkins discusses no fewer than four explanations, none of which is the AP.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@tracygonecrazy1
dude, he's discussing what he thinks of "fine-tuning", not using the AP to explain physics.
please watch the whole video before commenting -,-
StarSpawn06 6 months ago
Dawkins is satisfied with a tautology. Who would have ever thought?
Penrose who is not a religious man as far as I know, and he has said the chances of these ratios and perimeters coming in to existence by chance is less than
1:10^10^123, and that there was much more order at the beginning than presently. A fact that Dawkins conveniently left out of discussion. He tries to incorporate Darwinism into cosmology. Lets ignore empirical data & imagine an infinite amount of universes. Yeah thats it.
benthemiester 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why doesn't Richard Dawkins do something more useful, like try to cure hunger, pollution and disease? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't waste my time like Dawkins writing books pretending God doesn't exist, unless of course, I wanted to make piles of money at the expense of our children, planet and every living thing on it. WWII alone conclusively proves science and education won't save us from our sins, so why not eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we blow ourselves to kingdom come?
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
There is one flaw in Dawkins' argument. It is not too unlikely that outside this universe, complexity just comes about suddenly, just like that. That way, God or the second life computer can just have appeared suddenly outside of this universe, and created this one, in which complexity can only appear by slow build up. Of course, this is far more of a stretch than the multiverse theory, especially given that the inflationary model supports it.
7lllll 9 months ago
The fine tuning argument goes like this: I'm a popular rich guy in highschool and i'm throwing a party. My mom tells me i have to invite nonpopular people too. So I invite the girls from the Glee Club. If my mom had not made this demand I wouldnt have invited ANY of the Glee Club. But, since i allowed them all in my party, does it mean i like the fat chick??? it's absurd. Life is just one of the many things that would be impossible if the constants were altered.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
The Expansion Rate of the Universe and The Entropy Level of the Universe are tuned for GALAXIES. The Gravitational Coupling Constant and The Mass of the Universe are tuned for STARS. The Ratio of Protons to Electrons is tuned for balance of Electromagnetism and Gravity. The Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces are tuned for ELEMENTS OTHER THAN H2. The Electromagnetic Coupling Constant and The Mass Ratio of Electron-to-Proton are tuned for CHEMISTRY. Where are the constants that target life???
sirdelrio 9 months ago
@sirdelrio You dont seem to undertand the subject. All these constance and ratios are required for life. Without stars, gravity, electro magnetics etc. there would be no life.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester I know the constants, how many they are, their names, their values, the extent of tuning, the particular effect of changing them. It is true that if you change the constants there would be no life. What i tried to show was that you cannot say they are tuned FOR LIFE because life is not the only thing that is affected by changing them, it's anthropocentric to think that way, in other words, if EVERYBODY OR NOBODY is invited to the party then the party is not FOR ONLY ONE guest.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@benthemiester For example, the constants that make CHEMISTRY possible: they make EVERY SINGLE CHEMICAL possible, even those that have nothing to do with life, then why do you say it is tuned FOR YOU, you're just another guest in the party. Why not say that the constants are tuned for Calcium Carbonate, the argument works the same way: no galaxies, no CaCO3; no stars, no CaCO3, no elements, no CaCO3; no chemistry, no CaCO3.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio cont..... then you don't understand the fine tuning argument. And yes, Calcium carbonate is another chemical used in living systems. Let me ask you a question would you sacrifice your life or the life of a loved one for the same weight in Calcium carbonate? If the answer is no, then you also believe that you are more important than this chemical compound. Yes brilliant comedy. If it wasn't for the rocks in head I might even get. A real knee slapper, ha ha he he.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester i used CaCO3 as a random example, there are thousands of other molecules that have nothing to do with living systems. what's with the sacrifice, does it have to do with the fine tuning argument. Explain to me why the constants are tuned FOR LIFE, when life is just another process in nature that gets affected by changing the constants.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
Comment removed
sirdelrio 8 months ago
Comment removed
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio cont. I would say that the fact that man can make chemicals that don't have anything to do with life but can benefit us, is a product of good design. We also have free will and can also do bad things with chemicals. This is a philosophical question which has nothing to do with subject. Most cosmologist and physicist now agree that the universe was fine tuned for life based on empirical observation. Chemicals do not have the ability to reason and observe. If you don't understand this,
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio
"For example, the constants that make CHEMISTRY possible: they make EVERY SINGLE CHEMICAL possible, even those that have nothing to do with life, then why do you say it is tuned FOR YOU"
No need to cap, it makes you sound very emotional..............
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Any argument you could use to say you're more special than CaCO3 (i hope you get the joke) has nothign to do with physics (that you have conscience, or that you feel, or whatever). at best you could say life is more complex than non-life, but for example, the climate is an extremely complex phenomenon, made of non-living materials. Do you understand my position?
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio cont... Since inanimate matter doesn't feel or reason, then inanimate matter does not care about things like fine tuning, importance or effect. These are human thoughts and emotions, and by using them, in a sense, you have answered your own question.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester the fine tuning argument, based on physics, has nothing to do with the possibility of intelligent life. the 'tuning' has to do with galaxies, stars, elements and chemistry. life is affected in a subsidiary manner, by corollary. that's what you dont get. like i said, there is no scenario of changing the constants in which you could have everything except life, this is demonstrable. and shows life is not the purpose, because other things are affected too.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio
"I know the constants, how many they are, their names, their values, the extent of tuning, the particular effect of changing them. It is true that if you change the constants there would be no life. What i tried to show was that you cannot say they are tuned FOR LIFE because life is not the only thing that is affected by changing them"
A universe can still exist if some but not all of these ratios are changed (of course a different kind of universe) but complex life cannot.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio Its like a carpenter building a comfortable livable house for a family to protect the people inside from the elements, and then someone comes by and says..... this house was really designed so to protect the plumbing, electrical, system, painting and the interior of the house, because after all, these inanimate items and compounds are just as important as the people inside. No offense my comedic friend, but this is a very ass backward way of thinking
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester If some particular constant affects many things (living and nonliving) then it's not intended for just one of them. Please tell me how this is not the case. The constants are also tuned for things that have nothing to do with life: you dont have FeO3 in your body, you dont have Francium, Vanadium, Titanium, etc. About 80% of the periodic table has nothing to do with life. There is no scenario in which you could have elements but not life. you're not special.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@benthemiester wouldnt it we actually mind blowing if there was some constant, say the 'Craig coupling constant' that if you changed it, then complex chemical networks, like those of biochemistry, wouldnt be possible? That if you changed another constant, the 'Strobel ratio' then vanderwaals interactions necessary to fold DNA wouldnt be possible? from a physics standpoint, none of the constants of nature are intended for life. they simply allow life, just as they allow other things.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@benthemiester i understand that the original argument (the teleological) has to do with humans asking questions about their own existence. but from a physics standpoint, the constants are fined tuned for several things, and life as a corollary. Regarding the carpenter analogy, the fine tuning argument is about phenomenological allowance, not environmental allowance. If you think the fine tuning is environmental, think again, 99.9% of the universe is hostile to life.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@benthemiester I need to be more clear. If the Strong Nuclear Force was stronger, then there'd be no element nucleosynthesis, not just carbon and nitrogen and the elements necessary for life, ALL THE ELEMENTS. wouldnt form. That'r the whole point. Apologists only tell you carbon woulnd be possible, and that life is made of carbon. Ooooh, look the Strong Nuclear Force is fine tuned for life. Sorry, not just for life.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
Comment removed
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@benthemiester I'll sumarize it for you: 1-circular reasoning: you're trying to prove the designer from its design by asuming the design was made by a designer, you cannot invoke supernatural cause from a natural explanation. 2-the constants are not 'degrees of freedom'. 3-Design is an argument from ignorance, cutting edge physical theories are making progress explaining that the constants are not independent from the laws as WLC says.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@benthemiester If the carpenter built the house for us, why the wasted space in a vast universe? what's the role of other planets and their chemistry-geology rich moons in the solar system? why billions of galaxies? why not just one sun, one planet, an obviously intended design? why arent we biologically different from other animals? why are we philogenetically linked to other primates? why do we have inheritable genes in common with them? common designer?
sirdelrio 8 months ago
Comment removed
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@benthemiester 'a carpenter building a comfortable livable house for a family': i cannot believe you still think you're at the center of the universe. And i cannot believe you actually think the universe is confortable and livable. Go out to space, with no protection, and comeback to tell me how comfortable and livable it is.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio If I were born in outer space then I would have to agree with you, but I am very comfortable here on my own home planet, but thanks for the offer.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio "99.9% of the universe is hostile to life"
I disagree. I think its more closer to 99.99999 percent of the universe being hostile to life. In spite of this observation, the fact that we live in very hospitable conditions on a planet where life thrives makes our special place in the universe an even more powerful & persuasive anthropic argument. If you could prove ET's were having a hard time, then you might have a case. Do you believe in ET's.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio Even the most hard headed cosmologist agree that if we were anywhere else in the galaxy much less the universe, we would not be able to observe the univers as it really is. Most people ignore the Godilocks or Rare Earth principle which is just as improbable and amazing as the fine tuned tuned universe that most in cosmology agree on, in spite of religious or non religious affiliation.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester
"Godilocks or Rare Earth principle"
Sorry to bust your bubble but the recent kepler space observatory mission from NASA demonstrated that to find a planet of the same mass as earth in the godilock zone of their star is definitively not a rare event. From the planets found by the mission which looked at 1/400th of the sky at the stars in our closest neighborhoud we can extrapolate that there are more earths in the universe than there are grains of sand in all of earth's deserts.
DSkaz89 8 months ago
@DSkaz89 Your not busting my bubble. I love science period. Sure Ill bite. Please name just five of these planets. Or how about just three. Please name their location, planetary mass & atmosphere. Then please tell me how you know life is there? Another words show me the evidence. I hope your not trying to recite the outdated Drake Equation. In fact, can you cite the article your speaking of? I would love to read it, but those numbers sound a little distorted.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Curious: how exactly is the Drake Equation "outdated"? Do you mean that some particular set of values you've seen somebody plug into the equation no longer make sense? Or do you mean that our knowledge has changed such that some factors need to be added to, removed from, or altered within the equation?
DuhIdiot1 6 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 I think that for along time F. Drake and the likes just assumed that life was possible almost anywhere in the universe that a star was present. We then started realizing that not all stars were created equal even if the same type, & that not all were life permitting. We also now know thanks to people like G. Gonzalez that there is galactic habitable zone, and that life is not as simple as "just add water" I'm sure there are probably many more technical & mathematic factors involved.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 There is also an article in Wikipedia that speak of other criticisms or objections to this equation.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@DSkaz89 Lets not forget the term Godilocks referes to much more than the size of a planet, but its life friendly dynamics, & this in itself is not enough to sustain life. It must also fall into a very unique habitable zone which is dependent on a whole different set of circumstances and cosmic coincidences. Again when you find these billion & billions of life bearing planets please let me know. I am more than willing to listen. We now know that life is much more complex than, "just add water"
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester If the house is such that on the basement there are beasts that would have you for lunch, the kitchen full of poisonous gases, the living room, has no oxigen, the atic is full of cosmic rays that will toast you in a second, and the only place you can be comfortable is your tiny little room? comedy? dont engage in ad hominems and argue with facts.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio Your trying to refute something that almost all cosmologist agree on based on observable evidence. The fact that the universe is fine tuned for life and especially for complex & conscious life (if you read the literature) is not even disputed, except by the hardest of heads. The question is, who or what did the fine tuning? To believe that these cosmic coincidences can occur in exponential magnitudes of order requires much more faith than I could ever muster in a million life times.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester I've read the literature and also watched lectures. And my opinion is that some of them have fallen into the anthropocentric trap, thinking life is what they're tuned for. I know many scientists accept the tuning, others dont. In fact, today, there's a debate in science about whether the constants are really constant. Now, we dont need faith to accept why the constants have their values, we just need an explanation. If we can work out a scientific theory, god is out of a job.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio "i cannot believe you still think you're at the center of the universe"
Either can I. When exactly did I say I was?
Most people dont understand the center of the universe myth. It was thought at one time that the center of the universe was not as a place of privileged, but was a place where evil & heaviness existed closer to hell. Its completely oposite from what many non historians have perpetuated over the years. Unfortunately scientist can sometimes make lousy historians.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester the tuning goes like this: some constants make galaxies to form, others make stars burn long enough, others make possible elements other than hydrogen and helium, and others make chemical bonds possible. those are the facts. Now, what aspect of intelligent life is 'exclusive' of those facts. none.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sirdelrio "If the house is such that on the basement there are beasts that would have you for lunch, the kitchen full of poisonous gases, the living room, has no oxigen, the atic is full of cosmic rays that will toast you in a second, and the only place you can be comfortable is your tiny little room? comedy? dont engage in ad hominems and argue with facts."
"tiny little room" = the planet earth. Shit I would be happy with just the Hawaiian islands and still have everything I need.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio Lets just say you were right and the universe was designed more for bacteria or slime balls etc,
Then you still have to deal with who or what designed this fine tuned universe. This is called cause and effect reasoning.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester I agree, there has to be an explanation. But i tend to search for a natural explanation, a scientific theory. And science is making progress in this with the attempts to unify relativity and quantum mechanics. I'm not against theism, or believing in god. I just want apologists not to tweak facts and confuse people.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@sirdelrio "But i tend to search for a natural explanation, a scientific theory. And science is making progress in this with the attempts to unify relativity and quantum mechanics"
A thousand years ago a space shuttle would have been considered supernatural but we now know it isn't.
A unifying theory will still not explain why these exponent ratios are this way, only the way it ties together with every thing else, and even Dawkins admits this on video. Methodology & causation are not the same.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio
"I'm not against theism, or believing in god. I just want apologists not to tweak facts and confuse people"
Why do you single out theist? when many if not most of these cosmologist & physicist who are in agreement concerning the anthropic nature of the universe are not even religious (although some have converted because of this) No offense, but I think this says a little more about the importance of your own personal world views than anything to do with cause and effect science.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio "the tuning goes like this: some constants make galaxies to form, others make stars burn long enough, others make possible elements other than hydrogen and helium, and others make chemical bonds possible. those are the facts. Now, what aspect of intelligent life is 'exclusive' of those facts. none"
Your statement above demonstrates you really dont understand the FT problem. All these question have been covered. I cant give you a crash course with 5 hundred words. Please research.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio
CONT.... If you know a better way of building an anthropic universe, then publish your work, as for biology, maybe you answered your own question.
We were once told that we were 99% genetically similar to chimps. Based on current data the number falls to 70% or less. We have 99% homologous genes with mice. Would anyone conclude we are closer related to mice than chimps?
benthemiester 8 months ago
If the carpenter built the house for us, why the wasted space in a vast universe? what's the role of other planets and their chemistry-geology rich moons in the solar system? why billions of galaxies? why not just one sun, one planet, an obviously intended design? why arent we biologically different from other animals? why are we philogenetically linked to other primates? why do we have inheritable genes in common with them? common designer?......
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio If were were biologically different from other animals how could we eat? Even if we were vegetarians how could we eat vegetables that didn't contained the amino acids and nutrients that we could digest. We wouldn't even have an eco system because nothing would match with each other. Try the death of a thousand question strategy on the Darwinian synthesis which needs more critics than cheer leaders.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences. All we have is evidence.
"3-Design is an argument from ignorance, cutting edge physical theories are making progress explaining that the constants are not independent from the laws as WLC says.
You can reply back by visiting the comments page" Even if the physical laws are not independent of fine tuning (as you say) fine tuning still remains. I dont know who WLC is, but please cite your theory. I'm willing to listen
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio I need to be more clear. If the Strong Nuclear Force was stronger, then there'd be no element nucleosynthesis, not just carbon and nitrogen and the elements necessary for life, ALL THE ELEMENTS. wouldnt form. That'r the whole point.
Elements dont care about points & cant observe. Do you think all these cosmologist and physicist are conspiring to lie to the public? Your premise is based on some future hypothetical discovery that some how will erase observable data.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@sirdelrio "you dont have FeO3 in your body, you dont have Francium, Vanadium, Titanium, etc. About 80% of the periodic table has nothing to do with life. There is no scenario in which you could have elements but not life. you're not special"
Would you sacrifice your life or the life of a loved one, or even a stranger for ten times the same weight in titanium?
If the answer is no, then I'm pretty sure you know people are more important.
benthemiester 8 months ago
and I said ONLY LIFE, because the changes in the constants make ONLY certain phenomena impossible (and as corollary, phenomena that depend on it). for example: if the entropy level of the universe had been different galaxies would not form or would form with no stars. you'd still have a chemistry permiting universe, but with no galaxies or stars to make elements to make chemistry. I think the answer in the future would be a simple one: the universe is as it is from plain equilibrium.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
the values of the constants are not tuned 'for life'. I dont understand why some scientists fall in this trap. The constants are tuned for: the formation of galaxies, the formation of stars, the formation of heavy elements, and the occurrence of chemistry. THAT'S IT. NONE of the constants targets specific atributes OF LIFE ALONE, like the formation of DNA or the possibility of HOMEOSTASIS. fine tuned for life would mean that changing them would make ONLY LIFE impossible.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
Your definition of choice is really wierd... If I really believed that I had a "choice" between what you suggest and an eternity of torture in hell, a hell I really believed in, I would not be making a choice now would I? Can you really believe God would deny me free will? God establishes a system by which the people it governs can either love God or suffer eternally... go back and replace the word "God" by the word "The Party" in the last sentance and tell me what that sounds like?
mathkills 9 months ago
Love how he skipped over the multi-verse theory like;
"Yeah, I can't explain it, there's no way of proving it, but it's probably true."
Hypocritcal much?
StrachanVlogs 10 months ago
@StrachanVlogs
After this conference Dawkins had a discussion with Steven Weinberg and found that he misquoted him. Weinberg affirmed the fine tuning for at least the dark energy constant and told Dawkins that we don't even have a theory of the multi-verse, just a speculation or an idea, even an atheist Nobel Prize winning physicist told Dawkins that he is delusional (politely). You can watch Dawkins discussion with Steven Weinberg on youtube.
helasmoh 9 months ago
Now why would a theory that insinuates multiple universes, without detail as to how we can account for this, be considered plausible whereas an ultimate Creator is remarked as out of the question? And why should the Universe be confined to a bubble and not collide with another Universe? Someone explain this theory.
ZakMcDonald64 10 months ago
@ZakMcDonald64
There is no theory, just the idea of multi-verse. Steven Weinberg explained this very clearly to Dawkins but Dawkins lied about this point.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh Ah, understood. Thank you for the response.
ZakMcDonald64 10 months ago
@ZakMcDonald64
I'm making a video response where in the end of it Steven Weinberg himself (A Nobel prize winner and an atheist) admits that this is a mystery and the only answer he can come up with is a spirit or a designer. I hope I can send it to you when it's finished.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh
Sounds cool. This is starting to feel like a double standard in the making, "You can't suggest a Creator for the universe without listing evidence! Now here's my Empyreal Genesis theory with nothing backing it up at all."
ZakMcDonald64 10 months ago
i don't like this guy,he thinks he knows everything..
Sorrowmann 10 months ago
Third: Dawkins claims that intelligent design is not probable because he says it leads to infinite regress, but, if you have an explanation that is the best one, you do not need an explanation of the explanation. It is because he does not want to believe that explanation that he rebukes it by using infinite regress.
Fourth: the third pont could be have a more stable ground if you claimed that God is spaceless, timeless and infinite, then it is ok for Him to exist outside our universe.
PppPlyr1 10 months ago
First off: the multiverse theory cannot be proven. It can be theorized and simulated, but it cannot be proven. Since we are limited to this universe, there would be no way of actually traveling into another universe. If we were to, we would have to be "tuned" for that universe. Multiverse is not scientifically verifiable.
Second: What, a Matrix theory? C'mon, we already have a theory of intelligent design, we dont need a second one.
PppPlyr1 10 months ago
Looks just like a televangelist standing at the podium trying to convince the sheeple masses...
It's here
Kingdom Rising
watch?v=r66GHX3406A
InformedTexasVoter 11 months ago
@hempartist420
May I ask why you left Christianity? Do you really think that there is no evidence for God? Do you think that Dawkins "elegant" theory of the multiverse explain the fine tuning of our universe? Why Dawkins left God out of any possibility? I'm a Muslim and a follower of Jesus Christ and I can prove to you that God exist beyond any doubt if you only open your eyes to the truth even by a little. I hope I got an answer from you.
helasmoh 11 months ago
@helasmoh lol prove it then.. please
netforce0 11 months ago
@netforce0
From your attitude it is clear that you are blind and unable to see any proof. Sorry, I can't prove anything to you.
helasmoh 11 months ago
@helasmoh well good luck with that solid proof without any doubt idea you have in your head. You are a joke. thank you for showing everyone that
netforce0 11 months ago
@helasmoh You are an infidel! Jesus PBUH was a great prophet, but prophecy was completed with Mohammad PBUH. You must suffer a terrible doom if you do not return to the bosom of Allah!
acr08807 10 months ago
@acr08807
Are you sure that I'm an infidel? Please watch one of my videos: My God Delusion Part 3 - How Richard Dawkins Twisted the Truth. /watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh Perhaps I was too hasty. You certainly owned Richard Dawkins by locating the salt and freshwater seas that Allah created in that cave. But why do you say you are a follower of Jesus Christ PBUH instead of saying you are a follower of Allah? And why do you post videos that show young harlots with exposed faces?
acr08807 10 months ago
@acr08807
I'm not sure what you mean by your reply, I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, Muhammad and Abraham and All Allah's messengers (peace be upon them all), if you don't know what that means then you seriously need to read the Quran with understanding. As for the rest of your comment then again you should read the Quran with understanding. My God is Allah alone and I follow His book not some Imam or mullah who makes fatwas from his head about what women should or shouldn't wear.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh You are an infidel and an apostate! Do you think Mohammed's (PBUH) wives ran around with exposed faces? No, they were not harlots. Even the nine year old wife exposed herself only when she was engaged in marital relations in the privacy of the Prophet's (PBUH) tent!
acr08807 10 months ago
@acr08807
I know what kind of hypocrites is you, the one who know from Islam only that it covers women from top to bottom while his favorite videos are small girls with bikinis or girls kissing each other. You insulted decent Muslim girls and blind of what you are. Allah's punishment is waiting for so called "Muslims" like you. As for apostatasy then you can watch my video: Richard Dawkins on Islam Debunked. This is true Islam which would be much better without you: /watch?v=1Jo_CS7mzRc
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh What is wrong with looking at small girls in bikinis? I need to find a wife.
acr08807 10 months ago
@acr08807
47 years old living in the USA and full of lies. This is what you are. The shoes of these decent Muslim girls that you insulted are cleaner than your brain. Go to the beach and pick a girl with a G-string bikini as a wife. This is what you deserve.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh Great idea. That's definitely what I deserve. I'm gonna pick one who likes to kiss other girls, too. That's the big advantage of being an atheist--no guilt about sex at all. BTW, I'm not really 47 years old, either.
acr08807 10 months ago
@acr08807
When I said that you were full of lies I know what I was talking about. However, there is still some light in your heart when you recognized the truth about the halocline, if that was not another lie. Are you an ex-Muslim?
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh I find it amusing that you think that the Quran, discussing the salt and freshwater seas, you point to a cave. There are haloclines all over the place. The light in my heart doesn't require debasing myself before a cruel psychopath of a god.
acr08807 10 months ago
@hempartist420
There is "probably" no God, stop worrying and enjoy life. This is why you left Islam, keep enjoying life as much as you can, at least there will be something to remember for eternity.
helasmoh 11 months ago
Any explanation is elegant for Dawkins as long as it does not involve God. I really can't wait to see Dawkins face when he will get his explanation why he and his followers will go to Hell. LOL
helasmoh 11 months ago
@helasmoh Because god isnt an explanation of anything. There are none, never has been.
Hell - so, lets say there is a hell... why would it be funny if some go & some dont? Youve been brainwashed, I hope you grow out of it.
Snarkathon 11 months ago
@Snarkathon
I apologize for laughing, I couldn't help myself about Dawkins and his foaming bubbling billions of universes. I shouldn't have done that. I started making a video about Dawkins lies including his discussion with Steven Weinberg. There is no theory at all for the multi-verse, just the idea but no theory at all.
helasmoh 10 months ago
@helasmoh To wish someone to hell has to be for someone like you (a person who believes in the reality of hell) the ultimate expression of hatred. What was it that Jesus said about hating your fellow man? Are you so certain that your God want's you to be so hateful? If not, aren't you risking damnation by being so hateful and saying such hateful things....? No, of corse not, because the whole idea of hell is absolutely rediculous.
mathkills 9 months ago
@mathkills
Hell does exist, the fine tuning of this universe will end, there is no escape, your consciousness will not disappear when you die and it will be trapped in it. You can call whatever left of this universe any name you like but certainly it will NOT be "Heaven", I hope you can hear the voice that God sent to humanity to save them from such terrible ending including the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran, please watch my video about that: /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ
helasmoh 9 months ago
@helasmoh Does it feel good to hate people like me so much?
mathkills 9 months ago
@mathkills
Why do you even say that? I don't hate you, I'm trying to save you, I'm trying to win you as a friend for eternity. Watch my videos and judge for yourself, there is absolutely no hate, just the best wishes. However, when the end comes, there will nothing I can do for you, no one can. You are the only one who makes the choice. Again please watch my videos, for example the first one I told you about the end of the universe or this one about Dawkins deceiving you: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU
helasmoh 9 months ago
He's "discounting" the existence of God. >_>
argentino39 1 year ago
@andytroyer
"so where is "any" evidence of such a multiverse other than your own mind?"
h**p:// w w w.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html
next time google yourself and dont waste our time.
Kiesel 1 year ago
Wow... amazing! Quickly dismissing a designer and fabricating this entire multiverse theory of bubbling universes to increase your odds of life. All you've done is push off the question... so where is "any" evidence of such a multiverse other than your own mind? The question of "what" outside of the universe caused the existence of matter, energy is not even addressed. Or in his case outside the "Multiverses" where this matter and energy came from is absurd. What lengths people will go!
andytroyer 1 year ago
@andytroyer The WMAP data alone is enough to allow for the probability of a multi-verse as seen by possible bubble collisions. However, ESA's Planck satellite will give us a much clearer picture of this data over the next few years. Arguments from ignorance will no longer serve.
vryc 1 year ago
@andytroyer
Don't judge Dawkins so fast. multiverse is a fact and many "scientists" prove it without any doubt like Abraham, Mouse, Jesus Christ and Muhammad (peace be upon them all). They just called them: Heaven and Hell. Unfortunately, Dawkins will know this fact when its too late when he and his followers end up in the "bubbling multiverse" they are heading. Please watch my video: Atheists VS Intelligent Design-er.
/watch?v=4ZjfURnK-xc
helasmoh 11 months ago
As a matter of fact, angels and demons are fighting over us.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy Fact?
BaboonLoveMonkey 1 year ago
...and alternate universes is not pushing back the cause?
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
This is such a good speech by Dawkins.
TheDcac 1 year ago
@TheDcac yeap, the greatest part in this conference.
InnerFood 1 year ago
We have to do this for Homework, so, I find this is a good way to help me. :D Thank you, YouTube! :))
sawsy100 1 year ago
Wow, is this philosophy fail, or what. Of course it has to have happened at least once because we're here thinking about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it was improbable! The probability of p is not the same as the probability of p | p (p given p), which will always be 1.
The fact that we can appreciate the world as it is, does not make it any less remarkable.
KittenButter 1 year ago
This has to be Dawkins most weakest display of logic and philosophy. Even Richard Krause who is no friend to ID or creationism doesn't even buy this BS even though he says it would be more convenient to do so. As for the question of infinite regression, Its like finding specified complexity in the form of a cave painting and having to write it off as being caused by natural processes because we can never know who drew it, or who his parents and there parents were.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Dawkins is a phenomenal biologist. That said, he should remain within the confounds of his education when lecturing or in this case; preaching. Theoretical physics at the sub atomic level shows complete uncertainity. Constants cannot be pre-programmed in an unstable, free energetic universe. This subject has been touched upon, and documented in well established journals. The only explantion for fine-tuned constants is a multiverse. A lack of evidence for such would be an understatement.
cagefite007 1 year ago
@cagefite007 Actually, no, that is not evidence for a multiverse.
Perhaps humanity only exists because of the values of the fundamental constants, but that does not imply that other life wouldn't be possible with other values and moreover, that does not imply that the constants themselves are adjustable.
The fine-tuning argument for a multiverse is no more tenable than the fine-tuning argument for god(s).
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004
You should re-read my comment. "The only explantion for fine-tuned constants is a multiverse. A lack of evidence for such would be an understatement." I was speaking in the hypothetical, thus my comment about a lack of evidence, empirical or mathematical.
cagefite007 1 year ago
@cagefite007 I see. My bad.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
Dawkins is thinks about these "theories" the way he thinks about testable science. I have a problem with this. It's the same problem I have with the creationists that invoke science in their defense. The spirit of these two approaches should not be mixed! Dawkins cannot say with certainty that intelligence always arises from an evolutionary process. He's basing this on the physical laws of our universe alone...while applying the conclusion to a multiverse that transcends these laws!
shelbyvo 1 year ago
I disagree with Dawkins here, and I normally agree with him so this is fairly noteworthy.
I don't see any reason to invalidate infinite regress. If every universe is a simulation in the universe before it, then there's no universe without another universe to simulate it, and no need for a first universe that isn't being simulated. It can go in circles for all I care.
rkyeun 1 year ago
I heard that galaxies can move beyond the speed of light, it's just there's no way to have any information on them anymore or something. Then i heard from someone else that it's impossible because as mass approaches the speed of light, it's mass approaches infinite or something making time different and nothing can move faster than the speed of light in contrast to anything. or something, i dont get it... anyone know?
blazearmoru 1 year ago
@blazearmoru the space can go faster then light, the galaxies cant go through the space faster then light, its like if a carpet spread faster then light, you would be going faster then light but stand still relative to the carpet
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef space travels? O_O wait, what? D:
blazearmoru 1 year ago
@blazearmoru it expands, put some stickers on a balloon and then inflate it, the dots will not move relative to the expanding space but the galaxies move away (on average) because the space between them is expanding
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef Ok, i'm totally lost now, i goto research some of this up. Thanks for giving me the things i should be looking up though. ^-^
blazearmoru 1 year ago
Erm ok this comes down to a MASSIVLY COMPLICATED ARGUMENT That HAS NEVER BEEN answerd, Why? Should we be surprised by the fact its finetunned? Is this a case of the Mistaken observance? whats inbetween the verses? There would have to be so many universes that the number is infinite? INFINITE IS IMPOSIBLE, and what started The big bubble with all of the little ones in it?
Userunvalid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REAL Free energy technology exists!But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get the blueprints for a real Magnet motor free enegy machine at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
lavernedi 1 year ago
HAHAH he believes in the multiverse, where in one universe he is sucking his own dick. And Im completely serious because that is the implication of the theory.
u3190 1 year ago
@u3190 If there really is an infinite multiverse, you would be doing the same thing somewhere. You would also have grown up in some universe somewhere.
thisisnotanick 1 year ago
@u3190 the multiverse