Take 3 slices of bread. Put a few drops of water on each one. Put one piece in the freezer. Put 1 piece in the oven at 500 degrees. Put one on your counter. Leave them there for 3 days. The importance of the results is biased by our perception. We don't care about the frozen bread, or the pile of ashes. But we rush to the "goddidit" forums when we see the mold growing. Life happens when the conditions are right...and most often in the universe they are not. Simple as that.
@MajesticCyru I do stand corrected on the subject of William Lane Graige. Thank you for that.
The reason I say that you would have to be a "mad man" to design the universe in this way is due to the following:
The Milky Way is on a course of collision with the Andromeda galaxy. Every second another star explodes and another universe fails. I would say more but i am running out of characters.
I think by the way I am a rather cheerful person with a decent world view. AND NOT close minded.
It's wise 2 seek virtues like humility, to foster richer relationships with others.
"In reality there is perhaps not 1of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as 1 pleases, it is still alive, & will every now & then peep out & show itself. Even if i could conceive that i had completely overcome it, i should probably b proud of my humility." -Benjamin Franklin
@guyvermandarkhero atheist don't deny the evidnece the deny the existence of god. The anthropic principle is not that convincing. please explain your comment
The only argument we know is true in this particular debate is the weak anthropic principle, which states that we can't observe any other universe than one in which it is possible for us to exist. This is what we do, and it's not surprising at all, nor does the details of such observation say anything at all about how it came to be.
The only way one could think this argument presents a challenge for any atheist is if one is so ignorant of statistics that one doesn't realize that we have no basis for talking about probability of anything related to the laws of nature because we have no idea how they can vary, or if they can vary at all, nor do we know how many trials were involved.
At 9:54 Hitchen's disagrees as he confesses, "you have to spend time thinking about it, working on it ..It's not trivial, we all say that." Yet only after admitting, "they all pick ID's "fine tuning" primes, as the most "intriguing."
At 7:07 William Lang Graig who specializes in the field cosmology explains the need 2 appreciate the "fantastic odds" required 2 refute Fine Tuning of our Universe as the best explanation 4 earth's order.
@MajesticCyru I am sorry but I must call you out on William Lane Craig. He is not a cosmologist, he is a philosopher. Of course some argue that he is an evangelical even before that.
If there ever was any actual or testable evidence for ID I would believe it. I am not close minded. Another point I would like to make is that you would have to be a madman to design a universe in such a way And It is most definitely not fine tuned but sloppy.
@PhilosophicalGD Professor William Lane Graig is a Philosopher of Science where yes, he does specializes cosmology. He has published many scholarly articles on the subject. 4 links 2 his CV & published work c my other creative.. watch?v=4lIEhLwONgw&feature=channel_video_title
Your lack of optimism & poor world view shows how close mined u r when u wrote, "...u would have 2 b a "madman" 2 design a universe in such a way"
U would b wiser 2 look @ the world as a cup half full vs. half empty.
"Therefor it's completely impossible to have another planet with the right variables require for life ...when the earth, moon & sun have to b all the same size shape distance apart etc." This is also inaccurate and false. Have you seen every solar system in the universe? Did you know that the habitable zone we're in is 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units? That's 200 MILLION miles wide! This place is anything BUT fine tuned.
@MajesticCyru There is no evidence for multiverses. To that extent the theory has to be accepted on faith. But it is a rational explanation. The God explanation is not a rational explanation. It is a guess, and for the most part a wishful guess. Physicists agree (for the moment) that the universe was created. From what and by what means is unknown. There is no rationality that takes us beyond this point. If you want to say God, that is up to you. I say it is unknown until further notice.
@PaulP567 Well this is just my 1st primes that points to plausibility, which admittedly does not yet answer all the questions. I personally find it very interesting how Quantum Physics is pointing to a non-physical realm parallel to ours. Theists have always talked about a timeless, non-physical, and personal Creator who co-exists with us as Spirit in another realm. I think many r blind in their religious faith. From Jesus sacrifice we know religion is man's invention 2 control the sheeple!
@MajesticCyru The Anthropic Principle is not a fact, it is only a mere hypothesis. Prove the Anthropic Principle ! Go ahead, prove it. If you can't then you are no scientist, you are merely pushing a new religion.
The multiverse theory effectively negates this movie. The multiverse theory - that of an existential lottery - nicely accounts for this universe and its 'fine tuning' being the winning number. It is the simpler explanation, is mathematically plausible, and therefore is the preferred solution. The God solution is simply a product of human incredulity, i.e. no solution at all. Knowledge is not progressed by this hypothesis. We learn nothing from it.
@PaulP567 The multi-universe theory is a pointless solution as it does not describe anything observable. Where exactly are all of these other universes anyway ? I've never seen a picture of one or recieved any data from one and nobody else has either, therefore it is not science as it is both unobservable and unprovable and therefore a pseudo-religion requiring the 'faith' of those that believe in it and employ it as an explaination, it is simply the product of 'human incredulity'.
@zimtran007 There is room in Quantum Physics to show that this is plausible or telling of at least one if not many parallel realms (multi-universes). Suddenly a timeless, non-physical, immaterial mind or Spirit is plausible. Along with this His 1st creation or angelic order is also telling of history and this hypothesis for a parallel dimension. Things like anti-matter has sparking many healthy debates for all who want answers to life's most important questions.
@MajesticCyru "there is room in" ? Why don't you just fess up and admit that you don't have any evidence for your multi-universe ? Not one tiny microscopic shred of evidence, let alone proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Come on bring it out so we can see it ! What you have is spectulation and personal belief, the EXACT same thing that you label "human incredulity" when it comes to others. I'm sorry but you are engaging in the most rank hypocrisy.
@zimtran007 I never implied "prove" or that my defense for ID requires it. There r many unproven theories including atheism. Name an extraordinary claim i made without telling evidence? I implied that through Quantum Physics, there "is room" for another dimension or parallel realm, hence all the theories about it. It's mathematically possible with Physicist claiming a observable hypothesis. You must b confusing your posts as I did no such thing ...what can u say i claimed as conclusive?
@PaulP567 The fine-tuning observers for ID point 2 how both earth & our universe is astronomically unique, in order & complexity. This demands explanation, since all the constants & physical laws required 4 life have 2 b just right. Life can not otherwise exist without the many finely tuned factors in order. Therefore a plausible & adequate explanation 4 life on earth is that this universe was created & maintained by a intelligent designer from another non-physical realm parallel 2 ours.
What utter nonsense this video presumes that life is a requirement.. We are fortunate that this universe can support life, but undoubtedly there have been or are universes that do not.
@OWC2000 The big question has always been the "origin" of life. Are we here because of physical necessity, random chance (luck), or where we designed with a purpose?
The observations in Physics, which is "empirical evidence" shows the "odds" for life to exists here on earth, r in fact astronomical. There is more then a trillion times better chance to win a lottery. Then considering how remarkably intelligible the laws r the best explanation is ID compared to "chance" or "physical necessity."
@MajesticCyru Life is just random chemicals/atoms conforming to the laws of physics, The building blocks for life are prevalent throughout the universe.
'Odds' are not empirical evidence and your odds are meaningless. We only have knowledge of a few planets and we are not even sure that life does not exist on them. It is highly probable that there is other life in a solar system. So to use our limited planetary knowledge to project 'odds' is ridiculous.
@zimtran007 The empirical evidence is how the constants & physics r simple, but yet have 2 b in specific order & fine tuned 4 life to exist. The odds of this happening by chance r astronomically impossible, thus ID is plausible explanation for life, when the fine tuning & order has to be "just" right.
Therefor it's completely impossible to have another planet with the right variables require for life ...when the earth, moon & sun have to b all the same size shape distance apart etc.
@MajesticCyru If you want to call the anthropic multi-universe your 'religion', something that you yourself personallty believe in and have 'faith' in, then I have no objection to that at all. What I do object to is people calling it science. It's not and to call it that is to engage in rank dishonesty and deception and I'm calling you out on it, if that is what you are doing, which after watching the video above I think that it is.
@indignant99 Your simply wrong! I'm not in this video for you to criticize.
You should note that the Anthropic Principle began with Fred Hoyles observations concerning carbon and oxygen. We know he was an honest free thinker and a well respected Astrophysicist who subscribed to the Atheistic world view 3:09.
As this creative reveals he was humbled by his own evidence relating to carbon and oxygen and had to admit that his discovery did more to support Intelligent Design then to disprove it.
Take 3 slices of bread. Put a few drops of water on each one. Put one piece in the freezer. Put 1 piece in the oven at 500 degrees. Put one on your counter. Leave them there for 3 days. The importance of the results is biased by our perception. We don't care about the frozen bread, or the pile of ashes. But we rush to the "goddidit" forums when we see the mold growing. Life happens when the conditions are right...and most often in the universe they are not. Simple as that.
floydoid 7 months ago
Allow me to say this: LMFAO
DJPuZo 7 months ago
@MajesticCyru I do stand corrected on the subject of William Lane Graige. Thank you for that.
The reason I say that you would have to be a "mad man" to design the universe in this way is due to the following:
The Milky Way is on a course of collision with the Andromeda galaxy. Every second another star explodes and another universe fails. I would say more but i am running out of characters.
I think by the way I am a rather cheerful person with a decent world view. AND NOT close minded.
PhilosophicalGD 8 months ago
I always wonder why believers automaticaly think that atheists need to be humbled.
Flagdue 8 months ago
@Flagdue Believers think that they are humble, despite their rampant arrogance. So really, they want us to be arrogant and lie about it.
ZeDingoBlag 8 months ago
@ZeDingoBlag [ ..they want us to be arrogant.. ]
It's wise 2 seek virtues like humility, to foster richer relationships with others.
"In reality there is perhaps not 1of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as 1 pleases, it is still alive, & will every now & then peep out & show itself. Even if i could conceive that i had completely overcome it, i should probably b proud of my humility." -Benjamin Franklin
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
@Flagdue Because we have the audacity to suggest that well-worn, beloved falsehoods are false.
antonahill 7 months ago
Sad how atheists try to deny all the evidence yet still not believe. Not everyone gets a second chance like this guy /watch?v=8vj0qKthCgg
guyvermandarkhero 8 months ago
@guyvermandarkhero atheist don't deny the evidnece the deny the existence of god. The anthropic principle is not that convincing. please explain your comment
Flagdue 8 months ago
@guyvermandarkhero What evidence?
antonahill 7 months ago
this is awful
SuperD4ddy 8 months ago
The only argument we know is true in this particular debate is the weak anthropic principle, which states that we can't observe any other universe than one in which it is possible for us to exist. This is what we do, and it's not surprising at all, nor does the details of such observation say anything at all about how it came to be.
Gnomefro 8 months ago
The only way one could think this argument presents a challenge for any atheist is if one is so ignorant of statistics that one doesn't realize that we have no basis for talking about probability of anything related to the laws of nature because we have no idea how they can vary, or if they can vary at all, nor do we know how many trials were involved.
Gnomefro 8 months ago
@Gnomefro :)
At 9:54 Hitchen's disagrees as he confesses, "you have to spend time thinking about it, working on it ..It's not trivial, we all say that." Yet only after admitting, "they all pick ID's "fine tuning" primes, as the most "intriguing."
At 7:07 William Lang Graig who specializes in the field cosmology explains the need 2 appreciate the "fantastic odds" required 2 refute Fine Tuning of our Universe as the best explanation 4 earth's order.
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
@MajesticCyru I am sorry but I must call you out on William Lane Craig. He is not a cosmologist, he is a philosopher. Of course some argue that he is an evangelical even before that.
If there ever was any actual or testable evidence for ID I would believe it. I am not close minded. Another point I would like to make is that you would have to be a madman to design a universe in such a way And It is most definitely not fine tuned but sloppy.
PhilosophicalGD 8 months ago
@PhilosophicalGD Professor William Lane Graig is a Philosopher of Science where yes, he does specializes cosmology. He has published many scholarly articles on the subject. 4 links 2 his CV & published work c my other creative.. watch?v=4lIEhLwONgw&feature=channel_video_title
Your lack of optimism & poor world view shows how close mined u r when u wrote, "...u would have 2 b a "madman" 2 design a universe in such a way"
U would b wiser 2 look @ the world as a cup half full vs. half empty.
MajesticCyru 8 months ago 5
"Therefor it's completely impossible to have another planet with the right variables require for life ...when the earth, moon & sun have to b all the same size shape distance apart etc." This is also inaccurate and false. Have you seen every solar system in the universe? Did you know that the habitable zone we're in is 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units? That's 200 MILLION miles wide! This place is anything BUT fine tuned.
ZeDingoBlag 8 months ago 2
Intelligent Design: An old, beaten, defeated horse...beaten again and again and again and again and again.
Atheistjeremy 8 months ago
@MajesticCyru There is no evidence for multiverses. To that extent the theory has to be accepted on faith. But it is a rational explanation. The God explanation is not a rational explanation. It is a guess, and for the most part a wishful guess. Physicists agree (for the moment) that the universe was created. From what and by what means is unknown. There is no rationality that takes us beyond this point. If you want to say God, that is up to you. I say it is unknown until further notice.
PaulP567 8 months ago 3
@PaulP567 Well this is just my 1st primes that points to plausibility, which admittedly does not yet answer all the questions. I personally find it very interesting how Quantum Physics is pointing to a non-physical realm parallel to ours. Theists have always talked about a timeless, non-physical, and personal Creator who co-exists with us as Spirit in another realm. I think many r blind in their religious faith. From Jesus sacrifice we know religion is man's invention 2 control the sheeple!
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
@MajesticCyru The Anthropic Principle is not a fact, it is only a mere hypothesis. Prove the Anthropic Principle ! Go ahead, prove it. If you can't then you are no scientist, you are merely pushing a new religion.
zimtran007 8 months ago
The multiverse theory effectively negates this movie. The multiverse theory - that of an existential lottery - nicely accounts for this universe and its 'fine tuning' being the winning number. It is the simpler explanation, is mathematically plausible, and therefore is the preferred solution. The God solution is simply a product of human incredulity, i.e. no solution at all. Knowledge is not progressed by this hypothesis. We learn nothing from it.
PaulP567 8 months ago
@PaulP567 The multi-universe theory is a pointless solution as it does not describe anything observable. Where exactly are all of these other universes anyway ? I've never seen a picture of one or recieved any data from one and nobody else has either, therefore it is not science as it is both unobservable and unprovable and therefore a pseudo-religion requiring the 'faith' of those that believe in it and employ it as an explaination, it is simply the product of 'human incredulity'.
zimtran007 8 months ago
@zimtran007 There is room in Quantum Physics to show that this is plausible or telling of at least one if not many parallel realms (multi-universes). Suddenly a timeless, non-physical, immaterial mind or Spirit is plausible. Along with this His 1st creation or angelic order is also telling of history and this hypothesis for a parallel dimension. Things like anti-matter has sparking many healthy debates for all who want answers to life's most important questions.
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
@MajesticCyru "there is room in" ? Why don't you just fess up and admit that you don't have any evidence for your multi-universe ? Not one tiny microscopic shred of evidence, let alone proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Come on bring it out so we can see it ! What you have is spectulation and personal belief, the EXACT same thing that you label "human incredulity" when it comes to others. I'm sorry but you are engaging in the most rank hypocrisy.
zimtran007 8 months ago 3
@zimtran007 I never implied "prove" or that my defense for ID requires it. There r many unproven theories including atheism. Name an extraordinary claim i made without telling evidence? I implied that through Quantum Physics, there "is room" for another dimension or parallel realm, hence all the theories about it. It's mathematically possible with Physicist claiming a observable hypothesis. You must b confusing your posts as I did no such thing ...what can u say i claimed as conclusive?
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
@zimtran007 [...he EXACT same thing that you label "human incredulity"]
1) Now where did I say that..
2) You certainly go around trolling for a debate.. with nothing to show for it.
If u r a true atheist, what evidence can u show, that proves your world view is accurate & correct?
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
@PaulP567 The fine-tuning observers for ID point 2 how both earth & our universe is astronomically unique, in order & complexity. This demands explanation, since all the constants & physical laws required 4 life have 2 b just right. Life can not otherwise exist without the many finely tuned factors in order. Therefore a plausible & adequate explanation 4 life on earth is that this universe was created & maintained by a intelligent designer from another non-physical realm parallel 2 ours.
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
What utter nonsense this video presumes that life is a requirement.. We are fortunate that this universe can support life, but undoubtedly there have been or are universes that do not.
OWC2000 8 months ago
@OWC2000 The big question has always been the "origin" of life. Are we here because of physical necessity, random chance (luck), or where we designed with a purpose?
The observations in Physics, which is "empirical evidence" shows the "odds" for life to exists here on earth, r in fact astronomical. There is more then a trillion times better chance to win a lottery. Then considering how remarkably intelligible the laws r the best explanation is ID compared to "chance" or "physical necessity."
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
@MajesticCyru Life is just random chemicals/atoms conforming to the laws of physics, The building blocks for life are prevalent throughout the universe.
'Odds' are not empirical evidence and your odds are meaningless. We only have knowledge of a few planets and we are not even sure that life does not exist on them. It is highly probable that there is other life in a solar system. So to use our limited planetary knowledge to project 'odds' is ridiculous.
ID is just nonsense and is not science.
OWC2000 8 months ago
@OWC2000 We know of only ONE universe, this one. So the concept of 'being fortunate that this universe can support life' is illogical.
zimtran007 8 months ago
@zimtran007 The empirical evidence is how the constants & physics r simple, but yet have 2 b in specific order & fine tuned 4 life to exist. The odds of this happening by chance r astronomically impossible, thus ID is plausible explanation for life, when the fine tuning & order has to be "just" right.
Therefor it's completely impossible to have another planet with the right variables require for life ...when the earth, moon & sun have to b all the same size shape distance apart etc.
MajesticCyru 8 months ago
@MajesticCyru If you want to call the anthropic multi-universe your 'religion', something that you yourself personallty believe in and have 'faith' in, then I have no objection to that at all. What I do object to is people calling it science. It's not and to call it that is to engage in rank dishonesty and deception and I'm calling you out on it, if that is what you are doing, which after watching the video above I think that it is.
zimtran007 8 months ago
You are no physicist. They don't say stupid stuff like "nuke-you-lus." Get lost.
indignant99 8 months ago
@indignant99 Your simply wrong! I'm not in this video for you to criticize.
You should note that the Anthropic Principle began with Fred Hoyles observations concerning carbon and oxygen. We know he was an honest free thinker and a well respected Astrophysicist who subscribed to the Atheistic world view 3:09.
As this creative reveals he was humbled by his own evidence relating to carbon and oxygen and had to admit that his discovery did more to support Intelligent Design then to disprove it.
MajesticCyru 8 months ago