Added: 2 years ago
From: ZJemptv
Views: 19,107
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (1,200)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Comment removed

  • hey,are you amy? yeah,sheldons girlfriend?

  • the theist will say that God made the "law" that life requires a fine tuned universe(God may have reasons for that). And even if he didn't ( and so is himself restricted by this meta-law), fine -tuning (FT) does support a designer over a one time random cause of the constants "all things being equal" (Bayes theorem). The atheist must argue that the intrinsic prob of all natural causes (NC) is >>>prob of God, or the probability of FT/ NC is not much less than probability of FT/God.

  • you have a weird voice

  • Well spoken, you are gifted in intellect and speech.

  • @craigz06 he/she is reading

  • Anthropic principle FTW! It's so simple yet so elegant.

  • While on the topic of probability, what is the probability that the universe occurred by chance? Anyone?

  • after a speech like that all I can say is the word "peace!", sounding like will smith in Independence Day when firing the missile in the aliens faces.

  • I don't understand if you think your arguments are "true." I also don't understand if you think you are "intelligent." Because your words in your videos appear to be a lot of incoherent one sided ramblings which just happen to sound like English.

    To take a page from your book... Why don't we assume that Zach isn't intelligent? After all, if there is no higher order of intelligence (let alone an ultimate intelligence) Why must we assume that he is speaking intelligently at all?

  • transvestite...

  • You come up with such good arguments!

  • wow .... are you a robot or something. JESUS

  • Turn on the SENSE CANNON!

  • @kensaundm33

    Yes! This guy Zach here needs some sense!

  • OMG why are you not on TV already! You are a genius! You rock!

  • In addition to the probability issues you discuss, this argument is complete bull mess on its face. If i remember correctly scientists have demonstrated that a universe with no weak nuclear force would be virtually indistinguishable from our current one. Meaning that you could delete that entire force and not change the universe, so much for not being able to "adjust them even in the slightest"

  • ya gotta love the music in the background lol

  • The fuck does she know about the universe, Im pretty sure a dike is only fine tuned to give blowjobs, check themselves in the mirror, and ask their parents if its ok to use the internet and blog. Dumb bitch

  • @shadowfiend97 its a dude you fucking dummy.

  • @shadowfiend97 Hahaha you are such a fucking idiot. She knows, obviously, much more than you. As is pretty much everyone commenting on your videos, unlucky dumbshit.

  • @itchygonads you can talk me down if you like but it does not change the fact the shes a dumbass.

  • @shadowfiend97 Firstly that isn't a fact. Secondly you are a dumbass.

  • Saying that the universe is fine tuned to life is like saying that the water in a glass is finely tuned to fit inside the glass.

    It is not a question of the universe being fine tuned to life - it's a question of life being fine tuned to the universe.

  • @ZJemptv YOUR BRAIN ISNT FINE TUNED EITHER. I THINK ITS GOT A SHORT AND BURNED OUT A COUPLE TUBES> CUZ THE LIGHTS ARE BURNIN BRIGHT>>>BUT NOBODY HOME!!! LMFAO! +++

  • @hevy99 your really stupid, zj's making a very compelling argument, and when your too stupid to understand it, or talk with proper grammar and spelling do you expect anyone to care?

  • @Lzztopz compelling to who? opinions of a 20 yr old transexual evil genius. ooooooooooooooo, aaaaaaaaah! LMAO! :D

  • @hevy99 compelling to someone who cares about understanding the world we live in, i dunno whu yu thank i maaen durrr

  • @Lzztopz care to repeat that in English? hint: take less drugs before commenting! LMAO!

  • @hevy99 you're really one to talk, the fact that you cant understand that makes it blatant that your an idiot, and are at no point to judge people based on how you cant understand simple logic

  • @Lzztopz logic of what? an 23yr old idiot transvestite hell bent on changing the world? JAJAJAJAAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA GO FOR IT! Thats postmodernism at its best! LMFAO!+++

  • @hevy99 Regardless of how legitament her argument may be, Zinna could be jabba the hut in a tutu and her points would be no less relevant for it.

    If anything it puts you to shame for making such a vacuous assertion dispite insinuateing that you are superior to Zinna and transvestites.

    Understand that the content of an argument determines it's worth, not the person presenting it.

    But then conservative minds have always been, how can I put this politly...

    Intellectually conservative.

  • @Chayraz2 "how can I put this politly..."

    It's spelled "how can I put this politely..."

    Apparently your spelling ability is "conservative."

  • @Lzztopz yeah, if only it was zj's argument, it has nothing to do with understanding. shes trying to get you to think and doubt, the fact that you cant see thats proves your a fuckin retarded. And the fact that you use proper grammar to respond to hervy makes just look pathetic.

  • @shadowfiend97 lol, you're stupid. if i think and doubt i can excel, if i think and doubt the norm it can cause change. look at the world and you can easily see its apparent. also, on a side not i don't think my proper grammar "makes just look pathetic."

  • @Lzztopz since you're insisting on proper grammar and spelling i must point out that "your too stupid' should be "you're too stupid".

  • 1:19 Please include /watch?v=zYV-qYeWPkk this footage after that point.

  • @TryTheRedPill Planet Earth in the middle of a "shooting range"? Bigger asteroids MAY only impact the Earth's surface once every 100,000 years or so. This is why reports of asteroids colliding with Earth are so infrequent and that we will most likely never hear of one hitting the Earth in our, or any of our decedents', lifetimes...

  • @Yohko86 (con't.) In addition, Jupiter immense gravitational force helps keep most asteroids from flying into Earth. Plus, most, if not all, of the spacecrafts we've sent into space have encountered no problems with asteroids. Why? Well if we take into account the asteroids in the Asteroid Belt, they're hundreds of miles apart from each other, making it hard for a tiny spacecraft to be hit by one of them. So "shooting range"? Not in the least.

  • A very good explanation!

  • I`m sorry but I really can`t follow your voice as it just comes of as one long continuous unbroken noise. However i`m sure that you`re misrepresenting the premise of the argument and I would very much like to see you debate Dr. William Lane Craig. Please try to inject some character and emotion into your voice you sound like a recording

  • Beautifully said, Zjemp!

    You squashed William Lane Craig! Of course, if you were to present your argument to him he would condescendingly dismiss it with a straw man to boot. He's done it to a couple of Youtube atheists including "theoreticalbullshit." I would like to add that another reason that fine tuning and the supposed intelligence behind it is crap is the fact that our planet sits smack dab in the middle of a shooting gallery (asteroids). That was an intelligent choice? LOL

  • Not a bad little sermon there preacher, but it fell apart at around 4 mins., at the point where science went out the window and a cocky atheist agenda started showing itself. At that point, faith came into question (especially when you declared it a truth that there is no possibility at all for a creator, thus saying you know the "theory" of an unguided evolution to be a "fact".). That puts your words in the same category as anything from pat robertson. Treating assumptions as fact.

  • @frostynugs William Lane Craig(the most famous theist right now) accept that evolution of life happened and that's because you can't deny evolution when there is tons of evidence. A lot of theist deny evolution because they are ignorants.

    A theory in science is a hypothesis that has been proven by experimentation and observation but it's susceptible to change, it means that the scientist don't think that they have the absolute truth. Right now you are using the theory of electromagnetism.

  • If you are going to lump the weakest arguments againts the fine tuning in a video

    kindly do so with some pauses.

    This was a bit annoying to sit through - especially since you don't give anything substantial other than hpothetical rubbish.

    Or you should rename this - 50 ways to leave the question unanswered.

    At least you didn't mention the multiverse so I'll give you that.

  • You're very well spoken. I wish I could write down my thoughts as clearly as you.

  • It's odd how they say "This universe is fine-tuned for life" when the universe as we know it is almost completely DEVOID of life.

  • @Xanatos712 "It's odd how they say "This universe is fine-tuned for life" when the universe as we know it is almost completely DEVOID of life."

    Actually, when they say "fine tuned" I think they are arrogantly referring to our entire physical universe existing to serve us. And once that's established they then use this as a convenient justification for a fully defined, designated and characterized supernatural being.

    *SIGH* It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetically desperate.

  • it should be 'life AS WE KNOW IT"... a lot of carbon bias out there, unnecessary... 

  • 'optical illusion' effect. for some the anthropic principle is proof of no god, and for others it is proof. see how that works??. that works for almost whatever your proposed and projected agenda is...

  • Here is the two second summary. Either believe that the universe is finely tuned based on evidence, or believe the universe was a lucky accident based on FAITH. :3

  • @ubermechazillatron

    'Here is the two second summary. Either believe that the universe is finely tuned based on evidence, or believe the universe was a lucky accident based on FAITH.'

    Excellent - sums up my thoughts succinctly

  • @vicachcoup Do you believe this fine tuning was directed by "your god' or by a supernatural presence other than your or any other god?

  • The evidence for fine tuning extends well beyond the physical constants. pervasive and persistent patterns are observed in biology and chemistry which demand scientific (non-religious) interpretation. The fine tuning extends also to such elements as silicon, iron, copper. Uniquely enabling the evolution of technology which we see today. Please see further: "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)

  • Weak Anthropic Principle for the win!

  • For all practical purposes the conditions in the universe are adverse to life except for a few tiny exceptions. You won't be finding life on Mercury or Venus or the gas planets or the planetoid Pluto etc.

  • You bring up some interesting points but there's still the matter of how delicate strong force is. An example being that if you adjusted the quantity of strong force even 0.5% it would deplete plasma, which would make stars fizzle out too quickly, which would mean that we'd loose sources of stable, long-term energy which would then lead to life on Earth being unsupported...

  • @Yohko86 (con't.) ...And on top of that, most of the elements that are used to support life wouldn't exist, leading to a lack in chemical diversity, which is needed to create life in general (without carbon and oxygen, life can't exist). Also, the resonance of carbon is greatly affected by the exact precision of strong force. If strong force became out of whack even in the smallest degree, then you'd lose either the oxygen or carbon = life can't exist.

  • Hi, I respectfully disagree completely with your theory of a HAPPY ACCIDENT! First of all, as you know in car crashes, etc. accidents are rarely happy to begin with. Secondly, you are clearly reading off of a paper, did you write this yourself? I was just wondering. You have never ever given a decent explanation for why something occurs from nothing if not by MAGIC HENCE BY GOD! So, instead of spending all your energy expelling God perhaps do something more productive. Thank you.

  • @EqualAndFree

    I do believe all this and much more, I also don't believe the Bible and its myths, just to prove that to you, please watch my video: Evolution was an Islamic Theory Before Darwin was Even Born: /watch?v=Ugu3cZN-3jU

    God is very, very scientific, even Hell and Heaven will be build on scientific laws, the laws that He made to guide everything. Please watch the videos i told you about, it is very important.

  • @EqualAndFree

    Look around you with open eyes and you will know why. Just think of it, an expulsion we call the big bang produced all this. Please watch my video Dawkins and the fine tuning. Do you really prefer blind faith in infinite number of universes (multi-verse) over God and all His messengers? Even Dawkins accepted that the universe is fine tuned, watch his disappointment when he tried to get an answer from atheist physicist Steven Weinberg: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE

  • @EqualAndFree

    Look around you with open eyes and you will know why. Just think of it, an expulsion we call the big bang produced all this. Please watch my video Dawkins and the fine tuning. Do you really prefer blind faith in infinite number of universes (multi-verse) over God and all His messengers? Even Dawkins accepted that the universe is fine tuned, watch his disappointment when he tried to get an answer from atheist physicist Steven Weinberg: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE

  • @EqualAndFree

    T be a piece of incredible art. This is what this universe was designed for, but wait, this piece of art will end, a terrible ending and a new eternal one will replace it, where is the laws are different and our forms are different and it will be an amazing eternal perfect piece of art, you are invited to it, you can accept or you can stay behind in this one, it is your choice. Please watch my video: Quran Vs. Lawrence Krauss and "A Universe From Nothing": /watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ

  • Not exactly the way Carl Sagan would have said it, but I think he would totally agree! While science has brought me personally to an acceptance of a "created" universe, I can still find no flaw with your logic at all. Love your mind! Subscribed.

  • She lost me after 2 seconds...  xD

  • Im actually a theist but i enjoy listening to u because u have well thought out points and also present them exquisitely. However, in my opinion, this was not one of those times. Just being honest...

  • One of the most concise and well reasoned rebuttals to the fine tuning argument I've encountered. I don't know if you have any skills at live debate but I would be interested in a ZJ vs WLC debate.

  • The Universe is NOT fine tuned for us, we are nothing. Anyway, your hero Richard Dawkins accepted the word of many physicists that the universe is fine tuned, he took this to atheist physicist Steven Weinberg to discuss other possibilities and fails miserably, you too will fail miserably when you face your creator, the Tuner. However, the door of repentance is wide open if you have any logic. Please watch my video: Richard Dawkins and the fine tuning with Steven Weinberg: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE

  • @helasmoh I would love to know how you went from "the universe is fine-tuned" to "repentance" and "face your creator"

  • @helasmoh Hahahahahaaaaa !! That is fucking funny! "you too will fail miserably when you face your creator, the Tuner" LO fucking L Don't tell me... surely not Tony the Tuner? Or Tuner the Tuna? How bout Tuner the Tunisian Ton Ton? Step right up folks and marvel at the Tuner! Careful of his dials and knobs!  And in this corner, theeeeeeee Tuner! Back to Toontown, Tuner. I could just keep going on. Thanks. LOL, the "Tuner" Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­hahahahahahahaha

  • I hate how she tries to make it sound so smart so that someone who is arguing against it doesn't understand it making her win the argument. For fucks sake.

  • @divdawgd Which part of this video didn't you understand?

  • @Jezsar12 I understand the whole thing and I agree with her, but I just think her argument structures are awful.

  • @divdawgd

    She is not smart, even her hero Dawkins accepted the fine tuning argument but still refuse to attribute it to God. Please watch my video: Richard Dawkins and the fine tuning with Steven Weinberg: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE

  • She is talking like a machine @-@ 

  • @algadykhalifa - Yeah, isn't it cool? Accuracy from a human being. XD

  • Is this a he or a she? Well, at any case, it needs to try making a video it knows something about.

  • @Trucidofy That makes no sense. Maybe lay off the weed when on youtube, huh?

  • @Trucidofy Wow, you didn't evolve.

  • Sometimes I think that the only people that you communicate with are Christians. We really get it already, you are an atheist and religion sucks. Why make so many videos about it? Imo you should make interesting videos about other subjects more frequently.

  • @Trucidofy yuze uh thinker. Ok, eyen stine, What evidence do you have of the theory of evolution. In an attempt to be kind, I will answer that so you don't sound as dumb as your previous post: It's a theory, nothing more.

    Have a nice day devolutionist!

  • @jhawkdesign You misunderstand the use of the word 'theory' in a scientific context. You're thinking of a hypothesis, which is a conjecture or a proposed description that has not been sufficiently tested or proven, whereas a theory has been sufficiently demonstrated, tested and proven for it to be used as an explanation.

  • You are undoubtably a highly intelligent person.

    Still you make the least most probable conclusion - Chance made it.

    I would like to see a video on how you explain that. Why you disregard the most likely conclusion - Intelligence made it

  • The existence of humanity is a happy accident? Please elaborate...

  • The fine tuning argument is a stupid argument. Life as we know it adapted to survive in the universe, a flower can grow in a crack on the pavement but the pavement crack was not designed for a flower to grow.

  • @UnknownUserName4267 Im gonna be using that flower analogy :D

  • ZJ your objection is fallacious...

  • @AegeanKing

    Well that settles it, you've debunked it with that pointless comment.

    Congratulations.

  • you could say that matter is eternal, but that sounds a bit creationist wouldn't you say? time and space would have to have a beginning. and before the beginning, no possible physical action known of this world could have possibly taken place because nothing would exist yet. existace would be non existant, it wouldn't even be black because black wouldn't have even existed. It makes sense to me that a master creator who exceeds physical matter is in control. anything above matter would be supreme

  • @BobTheNecrophile We have plenty of evidence that the Big Bang happened. It's not a theory someone just pulled out of their hat, in fact scientists absolutely did not want to accept it at first, they had to be reluctantly dragged to it kicking and screaming--but they eventually arrived there because all the evidence from astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, quantum physics, relativity, Newtonian mechanics, the red shift of galaxies, the cosmic...

  • according to evolutionist logic, everything should be genetically perfect by now. Billions of years of natural SELECTION would have weeded out all bad genetics by now. show me a timeline of billions of years of history. I want to see a complete caveman skeleton and proof that it isn't a deformity or mutated animal. I could easily find someone with a deformed skull and claim it is another species.

  • @BobTheNecrophile " according to evolutionist logic, everything should be genetically perfect by now "

    - Whoa... in a collection of incorrect statements.. that is the worst.

    And as well as being wrong, it has nothing to do with fine tuning... so I don't understand why you would bother?

  • Also, you rely souly on carbon dating to try to prove the earth is billions of years old.

    Carbon dating is when they compare the amount of c14 in something and compare it with the carbon 14 in the universe which is a very low percentage below 1% . BUT the c14 is in constant decay and replenishment much like a barrel with holes being filled with water. and the animal is a cup of water. the c14 has not reached equilibrium so it cannot be compared to anything.

  • @BobTheNecrophile Your argument is completely invalid about carbon dating. We dont use carbon dating to date the Earth. Because carbon dating only works to about 60,000 years. Therefore, we have to use radio metric dating.

    See I could disprove every single one of your arguments. And the fact that you thought we use carbon dating to date the Earth decreases your credibility of ANY of your arguments.

  • I won't begin to try to prove creationism, but I can find many holes in evolutionist theories. such as evolution, which is based purely on natural selection being responsible for all of these different organisms. also impossible because that would mean everything is related to a single celled organism.

  • both sides have many holes. The big bang theory states that there was a black void of nothing and a black hole imploded, creating the big bang. what doesn't make sense is that in a state of nothingness, nothing exists to explode. secondly, it would only be able to create inanimant matter, so that would mean you claim life came from the inanimant materials forming together into an organism, but Consciousness is not generated by the brain, you inhabit your brain. Your spirit, or soul if you will.

  • Fine tuning + ZJ = FAIL

    Good job

    Yes I've often wondered why a God needed to fine tune anything. It's like heaven. If He really wants us in heaven, why not just skip all this bullshit and create us there in the first place?

    Also, anyone who says the universe is fine tuned for life, YOU leave earth and tell me just how friendly to life the universe is.

    Fine tuning is an argument born out of hindsight which you cleverly point out.

    If there was only 1 sun and 1 planet and IT had life, then MAYBE.

  • Zenna beautifully kills the fine-tuning argument, which even Dawkins has claimed is the strongest argument for god. It is refreshing to see the new generation of atheists emerging! Besides, even if this would be a good argument for god, there is nothing that says that it is the god of the particular religion of the person using the argument.

    "This fine-tuning argument assumes that we are special enough to make an entire universe for, even when we didn't exist yet." - that's brilliant!

  • First of all... I love your work... but... You confuse me, it's not what you say, I understand and appreciate what you say but... You confuse me...

  • If gay sex is normal, then so is sex between a man and a dog. And if you disagree, you're just a bestialphobe.

  • Comment removed

  • @kmsoileau Wrong, homosexual patterns can be observed in various species and at representative numbers, to state it is unnatural would be incorrect. I can't think up of any representative occurrences of bestiality.

  • @avdmeers "to state it is unnatural would be incorrect." Since I didn't say homosexuality was unnatural, rather that homosexuality and bestiality have equal claim to be considered normal, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here...

  • It puts the lotion on its skin.

  • the rest: not really. There are lots of combinations that don't have life, or aren't stable, making those elements not unlikely.

    I'm not even saying whether I think the fine-tuning argument holds water. Simply that this video seems to display a fundamental misunderstanding about how science and probability relate. Science is not about absolutes. It is about finding the most probable of explanations for gathered data.

  • until about 3.50: why is there any reason to suppose that a being that could be sure of the outcome should or would create a universe that could have supported life had the constants been different? It knows they would not be, and such a 'safety net' is totally unnecessary.

    until about 4.10: perhaps a somewhat decent point, maybe. But not about humanity, about either life itself, or a stable universe (the latter making the argument very weak). This is a strawman.

    cont.

  • until about 3.10: however, if almost all outcomes have a certain characteristic, than that means that characteristic is unlikely to have occured. A valid observation. That's like saying in the firing squad case that since there are many possible combinations of bullet trajectories that could have occured, even if most would have killed the victim, it is not special that he/she survived, since each outcome is equally unlikely (supposing they are)

    cont.

  • further, certain values, such as cosmological constant, I believe, have been shown to have a somewhat odd value

    until about 2.50: the claim that there is any kind of burden to show that something could not have happened rather than that it is extremely unlikely to have happened belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how science and philosophy work.

    continued....

  • being youtube, ill try keeping all parts of this reply soundbite size. Also apologize in advance as I probably won't bother checking responses, as I don't see much point arguing on youtube, fancy just took me this time.

    until about 1.10: terrible argument, for reason mentioned in video following

    until about 2.00: wrong. Just need reason to suppose that constants could have had other values, and no reason to suppose that values they had aren't exceptionallly likely.

    continued...

  • The universe isn't "finely tuned" to suit us. If anything, we are "finely tuned" to suit IT!!!! Get it right, deluded creationists.

  • Your claim that the Universe is a "happy accident" is completely unsupported by any evidence. Stop parading your wishful thinking as "settled science."

  • There are two cases: (1) The Universe we observe arose by chance, the physical constants are consistent with our existence, and we observe them and marvel, or (2) The Universe we observe was created by design, the physical constants are consistent with our existence, and we observe them and marvel. We cannot distinguish between these two cases with any scientific experiments, so scientific standards of skepticism aren't appropriate. It's just as plausible to believe (1) as it is to believe (2).

  • So, this person is asking for a different design? Really? Ha ha ha ha.

  • @oopscanada Great comment!

  • actually a probability of zero doesn't mean that it can't happen,

    because say, pick a random integer, if it is truly random, then the probability of picking any number is allways zero, because there are infinitely many other options, with all the same probability (or lim(1/n)=0) and yet, you still end up with a number, so this shows that events with a probability equal to zero aren't impossible to happen, (but I totally get the point, just beautifying the argument I guess...)

  • Funny she talks about the zero possibility,even though GOD has a probability of existing.The quarters reference also gives credence to GOD."No matter how unlikely".

  • You don't offer anything other than conjecture.

  • @iwanttocrashmybike yeah, jaf talking head, not of byrne-kind.

  • You didn't mention the multi-verse theory. It supposes, roughly, that many or even all of the possible 'tunings' of universe did come to exist. Of course, we only exist in the one we can exist in. But the others exist too. Outlandish as this sounds, it seems to be the dominant pardigm at present among theoretical physicists.

  • @brindlebriar That would make sense except that even a multi-verse requires that there be a first universe.

    Or more intelligently from a creator.

  • @iwanttocrashmybike No, it doens't requrie a firest universe or a creator. All universes by such a theory happen at the same time.

    No creator hypothesis ever answered any question. If a creator existed forever, then eternal existance is a realistic concept and the universe can have existed forever. If eternal existance is not a realistic concept by your standards, then, by your own standards, God can't have existed forever.

    If God is a special case, why not the universe a special case?

  • @brindlebriar The universe would be from GOD,so both would be special.

    Sooo,how did all the universe become universe and why?

    Also its not existence but your referring to time itself,which only exists in this universe.

  • This does nothing to refute the ID facts in that list. You have to fabricate the false assumption that ID advocates via these facts think it's all about humans. It's not. It's about matter. And you avoid that entirely zjemptv, because you can not argue against it with facts.

  • Any Fine-Tuning obviously means that God was wrong the first time !

    Which means he is be definition not OMNISCIENT !

  • @AsDeadAsDillinger No,it means that GOD created the universe to be in a constant state of flux.So that it would degenerate, or that the usable energy would become unusable.To live is to die,to die is to have lived.

  • I think fine tuning goes away with multiple, or infinite, universes.

  • I've tried watching its videos and I cant help feeling a sorry for the poor thing. It clearly lacks basic understanding of the arguments presented and prefers the "wiki approach"where It reads an essay complied of different atheist arguments. Whats the point of making a VIDEO when you could just put text on screen and let us read?

    I am dissapoint.

  • I feel,see, smell, taste, and hear things so unless I'm in the matrix, I'm pretty sure this world exists. Do something to improve the scientific community instead of critizising it on youtube.

  • You're incredibly ugly

  • Its unfortunate that you're gay, because I think that means that people will be less likely to tke your opinion seriously. Which sucks because you have a very logical and inteligent way of thinking. Please keep making videos, I enjoy them alot.

  • Of course life that arises in a particular system is adapted to that system, but that does not mean the system is adapted to it. We wouldn't say a shaped bowl is shaped because of the water in it, but that's what this argument states.

    This begs the question "what is life?", which has not been adequately answered anyway. Life happens in the most unlikeliest of places; Even though OUR version of "life" couldn't exist in a different universe, it does not follow that other "life" couldn't either.

  • you ain't good at talking and arguing. if you wan't people to listen show some personality. . . . the combinatons of the constants are finely tuned by the nature of the universe itself to work, they suggest some 'god' just put them all together why would a god not limit itself simple turning of dials if it works. either that or this universe is just one of an infinite number of universes with different constants.

  • @kenny8331 It doesn't matter really. They are brilliant.

  • @Roxas131413 do you mean strange? if you meant strange you are correct

  • @kenny8331 I am strange, I think strange is good, means you have a mind of your own and don't follow around like a sheep. And I didn't mean strange. I meant brilliant.

  • @Roxas131413 thats not what strange means queer.

  • @kenny8331 Is queer an insult? Strange and queer mean weird, different, or abnormal. I am all of the above! And I think it's perfectly NORMAL. HA, normal defining strange.

  • @Roxas131413 normal is something 99% of people dont do huh

  • @kenny8331 Well, it's technically 100%...but yeah, whatever.

  • @kenny8331 If you cant do the simple task of looking for his video answering that question, than why the fuck should we tell you. If you cant tell that hes got a dick than you should probably stay away from any bar with techno playing, lest you become the guy from the crying game.

  • @TheCaptainLulz some chicks seem like dudes too ok sally its not that crazy of a question im not lookn at any more of this freaks vids

  • @kenny8331 Why is he a freak? because hes not tied down by a bunch of nonsense that tells him what is good and what is not? Hes a human being, same as you. Besides, everyone got a gri-gri, whats your kink?

  • @TheCaptainLulz "tied down by a bunch of nonsense that tells him what is good and what is not?"

    Its not a bunch of nonsense thats tying him down shirley. its called a penis

  • @kenny8331 Its fascinating that you would care more about his dick than he does. You can hate gays all you like, it just reflects upon you that you care more about gay mens cocks than they do.

  • @TheCaptainLulz i dont hate all gays, faggot. it dresses like a girl then you weirdos are amazed that people think it is a girl

  • @kenny8331 I call bullshit. You do hate all gays, either that or youre projecting. If his goal is to change his sex, the technology exists to do it. What you may not know, is that pretty much all doctors that do the surgery require you to commit by doing psych assessments and hormones, this can take years and this is why he has been slowly transforming. You go on and think whatever you want, as long as youre not hurting anyone, but try and be civil about it, that macho shit is so cliche.

  • @TheCaptainLulz i dont know how any of them pass the psych eval cause wanting to chop your dick off is fucking crazy

  • @kenny8331 It's not "off," is it? It's more complicated than that - I think most of the tissue is preserved, just, well... "flattened." Although ZJ doesn't identify as transsexual, I don't think, does...?

  • @kenny8331 Dude

  • hey little internet person did you jump the fence? my friend/acountancy is gay and he dosnt like religion because religion dosnt like him, i like him. im ignorant provocative and crude but the one ppl i dont hate is gays. i was molested by a gay adult when i was a child so you would think i would be a gay hater but im not. im just wondering if you are gay ? i like how you use an attitude to protect your inner child and have an attitude. you like science and the internet so you ? gay atheist?

  • @starcraftisausome wrong about everything you even hate yourself just admit it

  • The fact this is the only Universe we know of also means, she can not know the Universe is *not* fined tuned. I just guess that it is, because the constants don't rely on anything else. The force of gravity appears to be just an arbitrary value. Except that if it was set just a little bit differently, the Universe would be a much less diverse gas cloud or giant black hole.

  • this bitch is retarded and possibly a transexual...

  • @AegeanKing This "bitch" is a guy, and is clearly not retarded. I hear he's a dropout but I don't know. Anyways, dropout or not, he takes all these christian arguments against non god believers & totally destroys them with clear facts in an intelligent manner. I don't see what you have against him. Oh wait, you're probably just another butthurt suckup to god hating on anyone who isn't like you because you can't accept the truth.

  • @MIDNAq1LINK Oh yea, Im sorry that the lipstick and earrings weren't clear signs that this person is a guy. What she is saying are not facts and she is not a physicist. hawings himself calls the universe fine-tuned for life. So please, save me your shit. Atheists have a curious obsession with religion and attacking those who believe in God. Its pathetic...

  • @AegeanKing How is it pathetic? Everyone wants to share their beliefs (which they deem as the truth) with one another. Christians preach in streets. Is that pathetic to you?

  • @AegeanKing You're values don't agree with mine. You lose.

  • @AegeanKing

    Do you actually know what "fine-tuned" means in physics? It doesn't mean "fine-tuned by a fine-tuner", I'll tell you that.

  • @Quintinohthree Sure, whatever you say...

  • I want to hear what you have to say about 2012! please make a video!!!

  • I never accepted "fine tuning" arguments. There is no evidence any physical constant can have a range of values - that's what AndromedasWake called a false lottery. Physicist Lee Smolin has pointed out, that if anything, the universe is "finely tuned" for the production of black holes! Life is just a minor by-product of that process. 

  • @LoopQuantumGravity1 It's him. The anomaly.

    Smith: Miiiister Anderson... we built this world in order to create more black holes. But we spaced them too far apart so they did not serve their... purpose. Is that what you seek Mr. Anderson?...purpose? It doesn't matter. The construct failed and out of it, something went awry. It was YOU Mr. Anderson. You appeared out of near impossibility... a bi-product of the event ... like the dinosaur ... and your landlady.