Look at what we get by actually investigating things from a scientific stand point. Increase in knowledge with real world application. What do we get with the god proposal? Just a bunch of wars and excuses to hate. No contest really.
Theist: "If one constant was changed, life wouldn't be possible!"
Atheist: "If God exists, he could make life possible in any universe with any constants if he wanted to, therefore making life possible under those changed constants if you believe in God"
We dont claim any definitive detection and neither did the original paper, I thought we were quite clear that there is only a possibility of finding a signature fo the mutlvierse. But if we werent clear Ill just clarify our position. We do not claim the multiverse exists only that it more plausible and has a better chance of scientific valdation than god.
Signatures of other universes in wmap pictures are highly speculative... Including this perspective tears down a little of your seriousness. Other than that, its good reasoning.
@4JesusRace Out of nothing? How do you define 'nothing'? Since we have no data of what if anything was prior to the big bang assumptions of this sort fall into the realm of philosophy regardless of who states it. While particles pop in and out of existence this happens in the universe which is a 'something'. Empty space is not really a 'nothing'. Nothing implies the total absence of everything in all directions including time.
@lapmarty, the multiverse must be preset that way. Same way, she uses the deck of cards; a regular deck of cards does not contain 52 identical cards. She created a deck with 52 identical cards. Therefore the deck is preset. That is the argument theists make; even if we do not know the background information, we can be confident that life-permitting conditions had to be preset by SOMETHING. And we theists believe that the "something" is God.
@djones90678 " a regular deck of cards does not contain 52 identical cards "
- True.. but how many cards does a ' regular ' multiverse contain?
And what exactly is a ' regular ' multiverse?
" even if we do not know the background information, we can be confident that life-permitting conditions had to be preset "
- No.. you can't. The point of the deck of cards is not that it was preset, but that you have no way of knowing what is in the deck, or of assuming that it was ' set '
@lapmarty, yeah, I get what she and you are saying. But let me use your example. You said "if there is only one person in the multiverse, the chances of him or her winning the lottery is 100%". I understand that, but you also proved the theists' point. The multiverse you present is preset; that is, there is only one person in it so therefore he will win the lottery every time. Same way, if the universe came out of such a multiverse, where there is only one possibility for its formation,
@lapmarty, yeah, I get what she and you are saying. But let me use your example. You said "if there is only one person in the multiverse, the chances of him or her winning the lottery is 100%". I understand that, but you also proved the theists' point. The multiverse you present is preset; that is, there is only one person in it so therefore he will win the lottery every time. Same way, if the universe came out of such a multiverse, where there is only one possibility for its formation,
God is. He is in you. That's a completely different level of reasoning and arguing than what we do if talking about science and the material world. God is in you. Or maybe he isn't (anymore)...
@Torrriate i tell you the truth my faith is not in question ! this is not about faith it's about the truth it is in a way about faith in mere opinion that the the truth is ! we have to add 85% more matter to the Sims to get the universe to form and we don't have anything more than mere opinion as to what or why this is ! that on a sub atomic level
we don't know and if anybody says they do there a liar ! as far as we don't have faith in the any cult except the Benevolence of Nature ;O)
@sinachiniforoosh i will let you in on a little secret it might not exist and that glimpse was just dudes cell phone got to close to the equipment but will let you in a year
@4JesusRace your a bit late, matter and gravity have beeen explain, not completly, but pretty much,
but your right, beleiving that god send is son, to be part of a barbarian human sacrifice, to pay the debt of 2 jackass that ate a apple 2000 years ago,, in a resonating sin trought the ages is a good explanation
@lapmarty 6000 years for the apple eating fest, my bad,
he did wait 4000 years then, before he decided, this aint right we have to have the entire human population pay for this, and his solution was to torture is son, cause somehow in that world viw, sin, can be transferred, wich is a horrible idea, but hey he is a capricious god!! lol
@lapmarty all we got is hard cold data and the math doesn't work completely but pretty much, Right ?, all the little minutia except for one thing ! Right ? you with here
it's pretty much amazing that atoms have arranged in such away as to contemplate their own origins that we go from light photons to this Right ?
@4JesusRace first no, we got hard EVIDENCE for reativity, 71 experience with the jumbo jet and atomic clock, the eclipse in 1919, so it isnt math doesnt work, they do, gravity is the curve in space-time fabric, this is expained, the lack of a unified field theory doesnt have anythingto do with fine tuning and a creator,
Lets pretend evryone start to beleive a creator started all this with the big bang, and stop all research, where does it lead us?? let says they did that 200 years ago??
@lapmarty hello GR is beautiful you can write it out in one line why is QP so ugly " i think the name misled you to believe ? the lack of a unified field theory doesnt have anythingto do with fine tuning and a creator, I TOTALLY CONCUR
only follow the facts no matter where the brut facts take us right?
It is a brut fact that the CC is tuned to 10/120 power all that tells me is life is so precious and we are incredibly lucky
@lapmarty mature humans find common ground we all are wired the same #1 is to loved/accepted and #2 is to be right/righteous it's a little funny how we go down with ship of mere opinion how many
theories are there now it's fun to watch how the more we know the more fantastical it gets
@4JesusRace it is impressive that matter organize in a expotential order of organization, but we have a find a rational explaination to evrething we didnt have one to date, without any known supernatural cause i bet if we keep digging this way we will get more answer, saying that god must have done it, or magic, is really a mistake in the way of thinking, plus the fine tuning as i explained it in a multiverse, (evrething point out right now that there is a multiverse) is explained
@lapmarty I truly believe we will find a beautiful mathematical equation that will unify
the fields and at this stage in our evolution will be know as the golden age and the benevolence
of nature has it just so that we can have this conversation ! i believe that we are so fortunate that the atoms in our body " which will never stop existing unless yours are made into an atom bomb, " that were all related" and that science will declare the truth and mere opinion needs to be proven first right?
so....she is saying that the universe is not fine-tuned for life because there are no aliens? and the probability argument is wrong because we don't know "what's in the deck". When it comes to random mutations and specific environmental conditions, we do know "what's in the deck". And the result is that the chances of you winning the lottery 10 times is higher than those of the universe and life forming from purely naturalistic processes.
@djones90678 " When it comes to random mutations and specific environmental conditions, we do know "what's in the deck". "
- No.. we don't.. that's the point.
" And the result is that the chances of you winning the lottery 10 times is higher than those of the universe and life forming from purely naturalistic processes. "
- No, the result is that you've simply ignored everything she said and claimed the opposite
( BTW even if we knew the odds..the fine tuning argument still doesn't work )
@lapmarty first there was 1 sun, wrong, now there is many, one galaxy? wrong, there is billions, every single idea we had that we were special, we lost, earth not the center of universe, we now find that there is probably many universe!! seems logic no?
so the fiune tuning argument is really like all the other, it will lose it places, it already did,
People shouldn't overestimate the ability to know, there will always have to be a point in which people will just have to ask "why is it like that ?".
@babkrani You're right. There are few thing in life that we can "know" empirically. Some would argue that we can't know anything. It's not about what you can know or prove, it's about believing what's right.
@digifreak10101 Yea, and remember the very fact that the humain brain is the most complex structur ever seen so far in the universe can debunk the whole video...
@babkrani "...the very fact that the humain brain is the most complex structur ever seen so far in the universe can debunk the whole video..." Nonsense. A complex structure does nothing to prove the so-called "fine tuning" argument.
@babkrani "...there will always have to be a point in which people will just have to ask 'why is it like that ?' " There may be limits to knowledge, but if we reach a point where we cannot understand something, that does not justify positing a supernatural being as an "explanation". If we do not know something, then we do not know it.
She also incorrectly assumes that theists don't seek answers, but just say, "God did it." That's a straw-man. Some say that out of ignorance, but many scientists believe in God and that belief motivates them to discover his mind and his language rather then rely only on what we think we know.
There is a difference between being a creationist and having faith in a persnol god.
Creationism is anti scince
I.D.does not tell us who the designer is, how the designer did it,give us a working hypothesis tha can stand up to peer review(new pro macro evolution hypothesis get rejected all the time)showing the desighner did it this way, or let us study the designer.
@digifreak10101 "She also incorrectly assumes that theists don't seek answers, but just say, "God did it." That's a straw-man" When it comes to giving evidence for a creation, theists essentially use two logical fallacies in conjunction: the argument from ignorance and special pleading. Saying goddidit is a rather typical reply. Some scientists believe in God, but that has nothing to do with a belief in supernatural creation which, by definition, is outside the scope of science
@AlanCFA I know, but if God created everything, there there is no separation between natural and supernatural. Everything falls under the same jurisdiction. You can't say, "God did this here, but not this here."
@digifreak10101 "if God created everything, there there is no separation between natural and supernatural" Typically, the argument is that everything in the natural world needs a creator. When atheists ask who created God, theists reply with God did not need a creator because He is not part of the natural world, but is supernatural. That is what I meant by supernatural creation. If you believe God to be part of the natural world, then who created God?
@AlanCFA That would have to exclude God by definition. I still don't subscribe to the view of natural versus supernatural. I just believe everything is God's.
@digifreak10101 "That would have to exclude God by definition." What would have to exclude God? What definition? Why would God be excluded? I have no idea what point(s) you were addressing.
@digifreak10101 "The definition of God" Ok, now I am starting to suspect that you are a troll. You claimed "That would have to exclude God by definition" and when I asked "what would have to exclude God" and inquired "what definition", you reply with "the definition of God".
Do you understand that your reply says that you must exclude God from the definition of God???
@AlanCFA Umm... I think you're confused. I was referring to my earlier comment. You asked that if God is part of the natural world then who created God. I answered that based on the definition God he would have to be excluded from the natural world because God, by definition, cannot be created.
"I think you're confused" Yes, because your previous replies were not clear. You now have clarified with "he would have to be excluded from the natural world" which is the point that I made earlier - that typically, the argument is that everything in the natural world needs a creator, but that God does not because He is outside of nature. This contradicts your claim that "if God created everything, there there is no separation between natural and supernatural"
@AlanCFA I apologize.I thought I was clear. Again, God is totally set apart from the rest of creation because he created it. When I said, "there is no separation between natural and supernatural" I meant within creation. There is nothing that exists that was not originally created by him, except for himself.
This argument ignores a major part of creationism: the creationist argument is two-fold: 1. that the universe was created perfectly by God, 2. that it is corrupt and decaying due to sin and we are also living in the aftermath of the flood so things are really messed up.
@digifreak10101 "1. that the universe was created perfectly by God" She has dealt with one part of an argument commonly put forth to demonstrate that claim. That argument falls short as she clearly demonstrated.
"2. that it is corrupt and decaying due to sin and we are also living in the aftermath of the flood so things are really messed up." There is no evidence that the "universe is corrupt" (whatever that would mean) nor is there evidence for Noah's Flood.
Not sure what her argument is. The entire video seemed to be composed of "science is awesome, God isn't," archaic straw man analogies that have already been refuted, and "the universe might not be as fine-tuned as we currently think it is." Except that pretty much all scientists agree that the universe is fine-tuned, and try to explain why it is that way. Way to side-step the issue.
This video kind of reminds me of those "global warming is a hoax" videos.
@peacerenity I think its quite obvious. If you want to talk about God you're fine to do so but only in a metaphysical context. You cannot attribute an intelligent designer whos existence cannot be observed or tested in any way to the creation of the universe and claim what you're doing is science. God is not a scientific explanation for anything.
How did you miss it? The argument is that the assumption is being made that our existence is better than our non-existence. That the argument that a number of other outcomes could have been the case is irrelevant to the fact that our universe containing life as being something of significance is only an opinion. Arguing that our existence is unlikely shouldn't be convincing to anyone.
Sorry this is lame plain and simple. Arguments that Craig has refuted already in his many debates. See videos/podcasts of his latest London tour for examples.
You mean Craig has refuted the refutations? I'm sorry, but the universe is an extremely hostile place. And the earth is hardly nurturing either. 99% of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct.
The refutation of the finely tuned universe arguments still stands.
@NewWaysMusic "Lol. The funny thing is that the teleological argument doesn't say the world is made for human beings..."
The teleological argument is an argument for "design and purpose" and "final causes" ascribed to an intelligence. What else would be at the heart of this weak argument other than human beings.
Extremely funny video! Narrator choice becomes amazing at this part: "This is only true in classical cosmology" LOL! Of couse I would not hesitate to hit dislike since the author of this tale is a joke who does not understand Guth's explanation. Guth says it can take any value but this is different than saying life will be possible with any value. This video does not debunk anything at all. If you have studied physics you know what I mean very well.
@DuNyceBeats - I guess they are right: if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people. No god created me, I am not that arrogant to believe such a stupid idea. Me, the center of the whole universe, created in the image of God himself. I don't buy it, no evidence whatsoever, just retarded legends from primitive humans who did not have other way to explain the universe.
@DuNyceBeats - Man, you don't have to trust my word on this!! Can't you read properly???? I gave you a reference to a book with information on the topic!!!! I can give you further reference, but this one is written for all kinds of people (not experts in biology or psychology). You don't need to trust me!!! As to the old fables, the Bible is still a book of old fables written by men along hundreds of years and of which we have several different versions.
@DuNyceBeats Amen :)...Science can be explained very simply~ROMANS 1:20 "His Eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that men are without excuse.." ~)
The divinity in me,..recognizes the divinity in you ~)
Science is constantly evolving and correcting itself, while religion is a dogma that won't recognize any mistakes and cannot be questioned or contested. Science is the ONLY method we have to gain knowledge of the universe, measurable, empiric, demonstrable knowledge. When a scientist is biased by its own prejudices, other scientists will come and correct his observations, validating them for everyone.
You probably want to discuss about the Bible's reliability. Science is the BEST method we have to understand the universe. While you keep believeing in Bronze Age fables, you are ignoring the fact that you owe your food, clothing, shelter, means of transportation and communications, health and entertainment to science. It is funny how you are using a computer and the internet at this very moment trying to criticize science and make religion a more "reliable" method of knowing the "truth".
The problem with teists is that it is a lot easier to simply believe than KNOWING. KNOWING requires commitment and effort; believing only demands from you to QUIT reasoning and repeat soemthing a minister or a book says.
@DuNyceBeats - THAT is preciesely the beauty of science, that it constantly evolves and corrects itself, while religion is a dogma that won't recognize any mistakes and cannot be questioned or contested. Science is the ONLY method we have to gain knowledge of the universe, measurable, empiric, demonstrable knowledge. When a scientist is biased by its own prejudices, other scientists will come and correct his observations, validating them for everyone. Moral does not depend of "god".
@DuNyceBeats - Sorry but I don't see Christians doing always right. And you do understand that Christians are a minority in the world, so saying that you need to develop a relationship (?) with Christ to be good is esentially saying some 5 billion people have got it wrong.
@DuNyceBeats - Nope, I am not kidding you and nope, moral is not taught (at least not the esence of it), but only adjusted and modified during our lives . If you are interested in the matter, I recommend you read the book "Moral Minds" by Marc D. Hauser. Even before we had any kind of scientific knowledge about it, moral was already explained centuries ago without the need of god: You won't do to others what you do not want others do to you.
@DuNyceBeats - You are right in that there is nothing divine about us. You are wrong when you say there is no point in morality without god. If you act well only by fear of eternal punishment in hell, then you are not being honest, and dishonesty is an immorality. Actually, science has already explained that we human beings developed moral as a competitive advantage through the evolution of our species, and that we are born with a universal "moral grammar". Remember the "Golden Rule".
- It's not that. This whole " fine tuning " argument is an attempt to use really high powered science ( to appear smarter ) ... so unfortunately in order to show where it's wrong, you have to be equally as " sciency ".
As for you saying " nothing " could convince.. thats not true...
But so far. nothing has even come close.
If you think requiring proof is nothing but arrogance... then I've got some real estate I'd like to sell you.
Way to go, you must simplify the other's point of view, skewing it to advantage, towards your own belief and ultimately claiming victory amidst the cheers of your atheist believers. This is the only way your spin will ever gain any traction.
@Roper122 Thank you for making my point. You chose" Way to go, you must simplify the other's point of view " as a point of reference and focused your opinion upon that. How utterly simple and transparent the atheist has become.
fine tuning does not prove god, it argues for it, but there are other theories like the multiverse which are possible.
but this video still remains one of the most logically pathetic argumentation against fine tuning ( for the most part ), and what is more pathetic is that 27000 people liked it and only 52 disliked it.
videos like these are a monument to the stupidity and irrationality of man, whether you are a theist or atheist.
"was the wind designed for wind surfing, why should we treat life any differently"
so your saying that existence of life that has intelligence to question its existence and possible purpose is nothing more special then a rock?
its a lot freaking special and its much much more unprobable to happen, otherwise we would see it everywhere , and you said at the start of the video that its very unlikely for life to happen on any given planet.
"this is the opposite of science and it shows the danger of religion"
no its shows the danger of lack of critical thinking that people who comment on this video obviously also lack. The person most probable to be affected with uncritical thinking is the one who thinks it is immune from it because its not religious or for whatever reason..
As much as people use " god did it" so much the people use " science did it " without knowing what science is or what did it actually do...
"theist will have to show that the probability of god is vastly higher then the natural explanation for the constants of nature"
why?
if you find your home apparently robbed, do you have to show that existence of a robber is vastly more probable then the "natural explanation" of the "robbed" home, like the "wind did it",before you call the police?
its like saying "before you enter any evidence for god you have to prove he exists"
nobody said that life in the universe is a miracle, only that its highly unprobable, and if it happens ONCE most probably it was by by an intelligence with some purpose in mind
if it happens all the time like in the casino, then its a matter of statistic, and if you give it enough time it will inevitably happen.
we do not know if the multiverse theory is true. It does not dismantle fine tuning argument, but because fine tuning isnt the only explanation it can be used only as evidence not proof
the fine tuning argument just shows that people never got to know what science is. The constants are MAN made. Scientists just alter a model (which is always too simplistic to capture reality) to fit the experimental data. How ignorant can one be to say god fine-tuned the slope of a linear equation, when WE decide to fit the data with a line.
I didnt fit models to data i fit data to models. it was a few years ago, i dont remember everything, you load data to mathematica or matlab or whatever , and try to find graph of linear regression, so your deviation is the smallest. Basically computer does work for you, i think its "BestFit", or "LinearFit" functions in mathematica.
simplest model i measured was measuring constant of gravity, by measuring the period of swings of physical swing, T=square root( L/g)
@niinja2 ou always fit models to data. The question is how complex you want your model to be, so in many cases you may equally fit a line to data or a polynomial. We deliberately chose models with the lowest complexity so that they are computationally tractable. All models are crude approximations of reality with a lot of assumptions usually (no friction, gaussian noise on our measurements etc). We may increase the complexity if the model fails to provide answers to some questions.
we , as students did not chose which model we would fit to the measured data, we were offered a model and fited data to that model so that it would produce the least deviation
but what does this have to do with the logic of the video
it looks like your arguments imply that anyone who did not fit data at one point knows nothing about fine tuning?
@niinja2 well that's why the lady inserts the definition of fine tuning at 6:11. Because fine tuning is merely a process that has to do with fitting models to data. Creationists use it in an ad-hoc pseudo-scientific way. Like look at the precision of the constants of the model, wow God is wise :-) that's not fine tuning all about
@niinja2 the constants are MAN made. They are derived by human made observations. That's why I asked you if you have any idea about modeling and fitting models. People with no experience whatsoever about it fail to understand that the constants are man made and they actually depend on the nature of the spline we chose to fit to the data.
actually i lied, i analyzed the data and tried to fit the data to current model i was taught, and if i didn't succeed i made measurements up like every student of physics at my college that failed to measure what he should due to faulty equipment.
@niinja2 yeah I see, this practice though doesn't teach you what science is all about, because you fabricate data to fit a pre-existing (model) hypothesis. Although you may get away with it, you won't get far in the msc or phd level, where you analyse your data and create the hypothesis afterwards. Therefore I don't think you fully understand what modeling and fine-tuning is all about. It's like you decide to fit a line to your experimental data and you fine-tune the slope.
"Therefore I don't think you fully understand what modeling and fine-tuning is all about."
i understand that what we students did, was "bad" but we must do that to get a passing grade
i dont think that you understand how science work in reality because if you come out with data that do not fit the accepted model scientists will say you probably did not measure correctly. When i measured gravity i got something like 11 m/s^2, a colleague of mine got 14...
why wouldnt i get far as a Phd by repeating data somebody already measured, it only confirms the current model. I wont get far if i make my own theories that contradict current paradigm. Quantum physicists needed a few decades to push their theories, they were not accepted a while. New ideas in science come about not by rational debate, but when people who hold old ideas simply die out.
"because in order to have a phd you have to contribute to knowledge"
agreed, but there are things that are novel and there are things that are outside of the current paradigm,and people , scientists also, do not accept the latter just like that.
"Therefore I don't think you fully understand what modeling and fine-tuning is all about."
i cannot help to notice that this is ad homminem, even if i dont understand what modeling is, and i do, it has no influence on my arguments on fine tuning argument.
And if it does then argue, dont exclude me out of conversation.
besides i do not hold fine tuning argument to be "proof" of anything, i merely criticized the logic of this video
@niinja2 the lady here in my opinion just puts too many arguments in one video. But the two directions of the "fine-tuning argument" is a) the constants are so precisely tuned b) if they wouldn't be so precisely tuned we wouldn't be here. So b) we may or may not have been here, if we have been we would just have different form. For a) the answer is they are MAN made constants, so it doesn't even constitute an argument
@niinja2 life adopted to the environment and not the other way around. Life would be different if constants were different but it would be still life. For instance having less gravitational force would lead to taller stuff. The video also makes a good point that in fact this universe is also dead by 99.9%. We just look ourselves and we see life in it.
"For instance having less gravitational force would lead to taller stuff."
heaving more gravitational force for 1 part in 10 to the power of -60 would lead to no universe at all since it would collapse in itself. Some other constants that have to do with nuclear force, if they were changed for a tiny bit would cause that no atoms heavier then hydrogen could exist...
@niinja2 I talked about fine-tuning before. Fine tuning is fitting man made and often simplistic model to observable data. Having 3,4,5 significant digits doesn't imply any divine sophistication. This is like a reverse creationist stupidity. Look at all these digits wow. God is great
Look at what we get by actually investigating things from a scientific stand point. Increase in knowledge with real world application. What do we get with the god proposal? Just a bunch of wars and excuses to hate. No contest really.
ptango101 1 week ago 3
Debunking? This video is childish in it's simplicity and misunderstanding of science and philosophy..tut tut woman!
DawkinsDebunked 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@DawkinsDebunked
Theist: "If one constant was changed, life wouldn't be possible!"
Atheist: "If God exists, he could make life possible in any universe with any constants if he wanted to, therefore making life possible under those changed constants if you believe in God"
**Theist runs**
theBartone9119 19 hours ago
We dont claim any definitive detection and neither did the original paper, I thought we were quite clear that there is only a possibility of finding a signature fo the mutlvierse. But if we werent clear Ill just clarify our position. We do not claim the multiverse exists only that it more plausible and has a better chance of scientific valdation than god.
skydivephil 2 weeks ago
Signatures of other universes in wmap pictures are highly speculative... Including this perspective tears down a little of your seriousness. Other than that, its good reasoning.
ElSmusso 2 weeks ago
13:53 to 14:02 agree :)
reversao 2 weeks ago
What's the probability that this gorgeous girl will PM me an email address or phone number so I can ask her out?
dookdawg214 3 weeks ago
@dookdawg214 Almost infinitesimally small I'm sure.
really nice vid btw.
narco73 2 weeks ago
science is infinitely more beautiful and satisfying than any .. "God"
MrDevilstreaker 4 weeks ago
Thank you for this video. Great work!
soygoratsu 1 month ago
Thanks
skydivephil 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I know it sounds pretty fantastical, it's all just mere opinion but it's a very interesting subject
and when we figure it out, I believe that the things that will be possible will be incomprehensibly amazing
4JesusRace 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4JesusRace " when we figure it out, I believe that the things that will be possible will be incomprehensibly amazing "
- Agreed... far more amazing than an imaginary deity.
Roper122 1 month ago in playlist More videos from skydivephil
“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”
Albert Einstein
4JesusRace 1 month ago
correction 4 below text
read: there's another force pushing the
universe apart enter " Dark energy" should say we we think it it keeps galaxies from flying apart
4JesusRace 1 month ago
14 billion years ago there was nothing.
Out of nothing came everything suddenly and without warning and out of the blue , it inflated a quadrillion
quadrillion times.
It did this in a fraction of a second !
"Dark matter" that
we can't see and have no idea what it is, but we think we know it's
there because we believe it makes up
21% of the mass in the universe or at least we guess it does !
we need it to make the standard model work and for the universe
to form stars, planets and galaxies.
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@4JesusRace Out of nothing? How do you define 'nothing'? Since we have no data of what if anything was prior to the big bang assumptions of this sort fall into the realm of philosophy regardless of who states it. While particles pop in and out of existence this happens in the universe which is a 'something'. Empty space is not really a 'nothing'. Nothing implies the total absence of everything in all directions including time.
Deuterstomia 1 month ago
Now 14 billion years later we find there's another force pushing the
universe apart enter " Dark energy" were not sure even what to call it we can't see it don't know what it is, but we guess
it's there, we think it makes up 71% of the mass in the universe but we got to have it to make the standard model work
ain't it great! it even gets better now enter "Dark flow" ok we
didn't need this, well it's got go into the standard model somehow now
too !
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@lapmarty, the multiverse must be preset that way. Same way, she uses the deck of cards; a regular deck of cards does not contain 52 identical cards. She created a deck with 52 identical cards. Therefore the deck is preset. That is the argument theists make; even if we do not know the background information, we can be confident that life-permitting conditions had to be preset by SOMETHING. And we theists believe that the "something" is God.
djones90678 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djones90678 " a regular deck of cards does not contain 52 identical cards "
- True.. but how many cards does a ' regular ' multiverse contain?
And what exactly is a ' regular ' multiverse?
" even if we do not know the background information, we can be confident that life-permitting conditions had to be preset "
- No.. you can't. The point of the deck of cards is not that it was preset, but that you have no way of knowing what is in the deck, or of assuming that it was ' set '
Roper122 1 month ago in playlist More videos from skydivephil
@lapmarty, yeah, I get what she and you are saying. But let me use your example. You said "if there is only one person in the multiverse, the chances of him or her winning the lottery is 100%". I understand that, but you also proved the theists' point. The multiverse you present is preset; that is, there is only one person in it so therefore he will win the lottery every time. Same way, if the universe came out of such a multiverse, where there is only one possibility for its formation,
djones90678 1 month ago
@lapmarty, yeah, I get what she and you are saying. But let me use your example. You said "if there is only one person in the multiverse, the chances of him or her winning the lottery is 100%". I understand that, but you also proved the theists' point. The multiverse you present is preset; that is, there is only one person in it so therefore he will win the lottery every time. Same way, if the universe came out of such a multiverse, where there is only one possibility for its formation,
djones90678 1 month ago
God is. He is in you. That's a completely different level of reasoning and arguing than what we do if talking about science and the material world. God is in you. Or maybe he isn't (anymore)...
Than I'm sorry...
Torrriate 1 month ago
@Torrriate
"Then" of course..
Torrriate 1 month ago
@Torrriate i tell you the truth my faith is not in question ! this is not about faith it's about the truth it is in a way about faith in mere opinion that the the truth is ! we have to add 85% more matter to the Sims to get the universe to form and we don't have anything more than mere opinion as to what or why this is ! that on a sub atomic level
we don't know and if anybody says they do there a liar ! as far as we don't have faith in the any cult except the Benevolence of Nature ;O)
4JesusRace 1 month ago
Well scientists believe they may have found the god molecule also known as higgs bozon. I saw it on the news on the main page of internet explorer
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100 i think they said it might not exist is another word for oops
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100 it's just a name, the god particle, you know that right?
sinachiniforoosh 1 month ago
@sinachiniforoosh i will let you in on a little secret it might not exist and that glimpse was just dudes cell phone got to close to the equipment but will let you in a year
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@4JesusRace will let you know in a year
4JesusRace 1 month ago
Very good video.
Guth has been misrepresented so many times it boggles the mind.
Thank you for this.
auritone 1 month ago
aren't these the same people that believe in the chupacabra and the higgs bozon
4JesusRace 2 months ago
C'mon now the fact still remain that we don't know and that the producers are pushing totalitarianism
the truth is we don't even know what matter is let alone Gravity
4JesusRace 2 months ago
@4JesusRace your a bit late, matter and gravity have beeen explain, not completly, but pretty much,
but your right, beleiving that god send is son, to be part of a barbarian human sacrifice, to pay the debt of 2 jackass that ate a apple 2000 years ago,, in a resonating sin trought the ages is a good explanation
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty 6000 years for the apple eating fest, my bad,
he did wait 4000 years then, before he decided, this aint right we have to have the entire human population pay for this, and his solution was to torture is son, cause somehow in that world viw, sin, can be transferred, wich is a horrible idea, but hey he is a capricious god!! lol
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty i didn't know the standard model works without some hocus pocus math
"we pretty much don't have clue" i'm just stating a fact
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@4JesusRace the fine tuning argument is a tautology, its been discard long ago,
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty all we got is hard cold data and the math doesn't work completely but pretty much, Right ?, all the little minutia except for one thing ! Right ? you with here
it's pretty much amazing that atoms have arranged in such away as to contemplate their own origins that we go from light photons to this Right ?
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@4JesusRace first no, we got hard EVIDENCE for reativity, 71 experience with the jumbo jet and atomic clock, the eclipse in 1919, so it isnt math doesnt work, they do, gravity is the curve in space-time fabric, this is expained, the lack of a unified field theory doesnt have anythingto do with fine tuning and a creator,
Lets pretend evryone start to beleive a creator started all this with the big bang, and stop all research, where does it lead us?? let says they did that 200 years ago??
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty hello GR is beautiful you can write it out in one line why is QP so ugly " i think the name misled you to believe ? the lack of a unified field theory doesnt have anythingto do with fine tuning and a creator, I TOTALLY CONCUR
only follow the facts no matter where the brut facts take us right?
It is a brut fact that the CC is tuned to 10/120 power all that tells me is life is so precious and we are incredibly lucky
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@4JesusRace yeah sorry i was under the impression you were a literrate christian trolling, sorry but there is so many of them
lapmarty 1 month ago
Comment removed
4JesusRace 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lapmarty mature humans find common ground we all are wired the same #1 is to loved/accepted and #2 is to be right/righteous it's a little funny how we go down with ship of mere opinion how many
theories are there now it's fun to watch how the more we know the more fantastical it gets
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@4JesusRace it is impressive that matter organize in a expotential order of organization, but we have a find a rational explaination to evrething we didnt have one to date, without any known supernatural cause i bet if we keep digging this way we will get more answer, saying that god must have done it, or magic, is really a mistake in the way of thinking, plus the fine tuning as i explained it in a multiverse, (evrething point out right now that there is a multiverse) is explained
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@lapmarty it gets more fantastical the more we dig and we all believe in the magic that caused us E=mc2 Right ?
4JesusRace 1 month ago
@lapmarty I truly believe we will find a beautiful mathematical equation that will unify
the fields and at this stage in our evolution will be know as the golden age and the benevolence
of nature has it just so that we can have this conversation ! i believe that we are so fortunate that the atoms in our body " which will never stop existing unless yours are made into an atom bomb, " that were all related" and that science will declare the truth and mere opinion needs to be proven first right?
4JesusRace 1 month ago
is good
KoreaForeigner 2 months ago
so....she is saying that the universe is not fine-tuned for life because there are no aliens? and the probability argument is wrong because we don't know "what's in the deck". When it comes to random mutations and specific environmental conditions, we do know "what's in the deck". And the result is that the chances of you winning the lottery 10 times is higher than those of the universe and life forming from purely naturalistic processes.
djones90678 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djones90678
"When it comes to random mutations and specific environmental conditions, we do know what's in the deck"
incorrect:
- we have evidence that naturalistic processes are responsible and no evidence of supernatural processes
- however even if this were not the case the default explanation would be to maintain that is an unknown.
The big bang is the naturalistic explanation for the origin of universe.
Abiogenesis for life.
and evolution for the diversity of life.
types10000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djones90678 " When it comes to random mutations and specific environmental conditions, we do know "what's in the deck". "
- No.. we don't.. that's the point.
" And the result is that the chances of you winning the lottery 10 times is higher than those of the universe and life forming from purely naturalistic processes. "
- No, the result is that you've simply ignored everything she said and claimed the opposite
( BTW even if we knew the odds..the fine tuning argument still doesn't work )
Roper122 1 month ago in playlist More videos from skydivephil
@djones90678 wrong, in a multiverse , that question is non sence
do you understand why? what are the probability of winning the lottery if your population is 1 lottery winner, 100%, its the same, here
<
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty first there was 1 sun, wrong, now there is many, one galaxy? wrong, there is billions, every single idea we had that we were special, we lost, earth not the center of universe, we now find that there is probably many universe!! seems logic no?
so the fiune tuning argument is really like all the other, it will lose it places, it already did,
the big picture man,! look at it
lapmarty 1 month ago
Best Goddamn video I've seen in a long time, Well Done!
VeritasLuxMea100 2 months ago
i think the best argument for god is there surely cannot be a naturalistic explanation for bill o'reilly being paid millions of dollars a year.
i can explain why the fucking tides go in and out, let alone stephen hawking.
Forcefield23 2 months ago
People shouldn't overestimate the ability to know, there will always have to be a point in which people will just have to ask "why is it like that ?".
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani You're right. There are few thing in life that we can "know" empirically. Some would argue that we can't know anything. It's not about what you can know or prove, it's about believing what's right.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 Yea, and remember the very fact that the humain brain is the most complex structur ever seen so far in the universe can debunk the whole video...
babkrani 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babkrani "...the very fact that the humain brain is the most complex structur ever seen so far in the universe can debunk the whole video..." Nonsense. A complex structure does nothing to prove the so-called "fine tuning" argument.
AlanCFA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babkrani "...there will always have to be a point in which people will just have to ask 'why is it like that ?' " There may be limits to knowledge, but if we reach a point where we cannot understand something, that does not justify positing a supernatural being as an "explanation". If we do not know something, then we do not know it.
AlanCFA 2 months ago
She also incorrectly assumes that theists don't seek answers, but just say, "God did it." That's a straw-man. Some say that out of ignorance, but many scientists believe in God and that belief motivates them to discover his mind and his language rather then rely only on what we think we know.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@digifreak10101
There is a difference between being a creationist and having faith in a persnol god.
Creationism is anti scince
I.D.does not tell us who the designer is, how the designer did it,give us a working hypothesis tha can stand up to peer review(new pro macro evolution hypothesis get rejected all the time)showing the desighner did it this way, or let us study the designer.
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos 3
@digifreak10101 "She also incorrectly assumes that theists don't seek answers, but just say, "God did it." That's a straw-man" When it comes to giving evidence for a creation, theists essentially use two logical fallacies in conjunction: the argument from ignorance and special pleading. Saying goddidit is a rather typical reply. Some scientists believe in God, but that has nothing to do with a belief in supernatural creation which, by definition, is outside the scope of science
AlanCFA 2 months ago
@AlanCFA I know, but if God created everything, there there is no separation between natural and supernatural. Everything falls under the same jurisdiction. You can't say, "God did this here, but not this here."
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 "if God created everything, there there is no separation between natural and supernatural" Typically, the argument is that everything in the natural world needs a creator. When atheists ask who created God, theists reply with God did not need a creator because He is not part of the natural world, but is supernatural. That is what I meant by supernatural creation. If you believe God to be part of the natural world, then who created God?
AlanCFA 2 months ago
@AlanCFA That would have to exclude God by definition. I still don't subscribe to the view of natural versus supernatural. I just believe everything is God's.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 "That would have to exclude God by definition." What would have to exclude God? What definition? Why would God be excluded? I have no idea what point(s) you were addressing.
AlanCFA 2 months ago
@AlanCFA The definition of "God."
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 "The definition of God" Ok, now I am starting to suspect that you are a troll. You claimed "That would have to exclude God by definition" and when I asked "what would have to exclude God" and inquired "what definition", you reply with "the definition of God".
Do you understand that your reply says that you must exclude God from the definition of God???
AlanCFA 2 months ago
@AlanCFA Umm... I think you're confused. I was referring to my earlier comment. You asked that if God is part of the natural world then who created God. I answered that based on the definition God he would have to be excluded from the natural world because God, by definition, cannot be created.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 1/2
"I think you're confused" Yes, because your previous replies were not clear. You now have clarified with "he would have to be excluded from the natural world" which is the point that I made earlier - that typically, the argument is that everything in the natural world needs a creator, but that God does not because He is outside of nature. This contradicts your claim that "if God created everything, there there is no separation between natural and supernatural"
AlanCFA 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 2/2
Your original statement was "She also incorrectly assumes that theists don't seek answers, but just say 'God did it'
But when it comes to giving evidence for a creation, theists do say "God did it". They engage two logical fallacies together
1) the argument from ignorance (we do not know how we got here but everything has to be created so there must a god)
2) special pleading (god did not need to be created)
Some theists seek answers, but on creation it's goddidit
AlanCFA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlanCFA I apologize.I thought I was clear. Again, God is totally set apart from the rest of creation because he created it. When I said, "there is no separation between natural and supernatural" I meant within creation. There is nothing that exists that was not originally created by him, except for himself.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
This argument ignores a major part of creationism: the creationist argument is two-fold: 1. that the universe was created perfectly by God, 2. that it is corrupt and decaying due to sin and we are also living in the aftermath of the flood so things are really messed up.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 So most of her arguments are actually in support of creationism as well.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 "So most of her arguments are actually in support of creationism as well."
Not even close.
AlanCFA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@digifreak10101 "1. that the universe was created perfectly by God" She has dealt with one part of an argument commonly put forth to demonstrate that claim. That argument falls short as she clearly demonstrated.
"2. that it is corrupt and decaying due to sin and we are also living in the aftermath of the flood so things are really messed up." There is no evidence that the "universe is corrupt" (whatever that would mean) nor is there evidence for Noah's Flood.
AlanCFA 2 months ago
Your hotness and intelligence factors begs me to ask a question: Will you marry me?
thybigballs 2 months ago 2
The universe is not fine tuned for life! only this earth!
Raulmss 2 months ago
Not sure what her argument is. The entire video seemed to be composed of "science is awesome, God isn't," archaic straw man analogies that have already been refuted, and "the universe might not be as fine-tuned as we currently think it is." Except that pretty much all scientists agree that the universe is fine-tuned, and try to explain why it is that way. Way to side-step the issue.
This video kind of reminds me of those "global warming is a hoax" videos.
peacerenity 2 months ago
@peacerenity I think its quite obvious. If you want to talk about God you're fine to do so but only in a metaphysical context. You cannot attribute an intelligent designer whos existence cannot be observed or tested in any way to the creation of the universe and claim what you're doing is science. God is not a scientific explanation for anything.
thecatfish111 2 months ago
@peacerenity The point is that the universe (even parts of this planet) is actually hostile to life.
WinterXL 2 months ago
@peacerenity "Not sure what the argument is"
How did you miss it? The argument is that the assumption is being made that our existence is better than our non-existence. That the argument that a number of other outcomes could have been the case is irrelevant to the fact that our universe containing life as being something of significance is only an opinion. Arguing that our existence is unlikely shouldn't be convincing to anyone.
TatsujinSan 2 months ago
Sorry this is lame plain and simple. Arguments that Craig has refuted already in his many debates. See videos/podcasts of his latest London tour for examples.
schumacr1 3 months ago
Comment removed
steviej321 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@schumacr1
You mean Craig has refuted the refutations? I'm sorry, but the universe is an extremely hostile place. And the earth is hardly nurturing either. 99% of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct.
The refutation of the finely tuned universe arguments still stands.
steviej321 2 months ago
In this context its the relationship between the density of matter to the critical density. Read the book "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan Guth
skydivephil 3 months ago
Perhaps a decent refutation of popular level fine tuning arguments, but nothing on e.g. Robin Collins. Disappointment.
calciumkid4eva 3 months ago
Awesome!
Very incisive and hard hitting vid.
You just torpedoed the SS William Lane Craig. Rescue teams are now being deployed.
sammy2trees 3 months ago
Oh my FSM... is Bill Oh'Really still parading his ignorance with that "tides go in, tides go out" crap? Cue my Dave Silverman face...
Anyway, great video, thanks!
deathray32 3 months ago
Lol. The funny thing is that the teleological argument doesn't say the world is made for human beings.
NewWaysMusic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NewWaysMusic "Lol. The funny thing is that the teleological argument doesn't say the world is made for human beings..."
The teleological argument is an argument for "design and purpose" and "final causes" ascribed to an intelligence. What else would be at the heart of this weak argument other than human beings.
sammy2trees 3 months ago
Excellently presented refutation of Craig et al.
singring76 4 months ago
Extremely funny video! Narrator choice becomes amazing at this part: "This is only true in classical cosmology" LOL! Of couse I would not hesitate to hit dislike since the author of this tale is a joke who does not understand Guth's explanation. Guth says it can take any value but this is different than saying life will be possible with any value. This video does not debunk anything at all. If you have studied physics you know what I mean very well.
paralaks 4 months ago
@paralaks " Guth says it can take any value but this is different than saying life will be possible with any value."
- Aaahh if inflationary theory is correct, then omega can take any value and be driven towards 1 ....
what exactly was your point?
No one said that this automatically leads to life.
Feel free to show where it says that in the video.
" This video does not debunk anything at all "
- Seems to be doing a better job than you are.
But you do seem very impressed with yourself.
Roper122 4 months ago
@Roper122 #randomyoutubecommentersgeniousshinnedoverme!
paralaks 4 months ago
@paralaks .. Great... hash tags... go back to twitter.
But thanks for clearing up what your point was... none at all.
#YAWN
Roper122 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats " And you know this so dont lie to yourself... "
- actually, the question was " So the only reason you don't do that... is because of god? "... and you haven't answered.
So basically.. I'm saying that I don't kill people because I know right from wrong, based on a collective community, and I respect other people.
You don't kill people... because god said so.
And you know this so dont lie to yourself... : )
Roper122 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - I guess they are right: if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people. No god created me, I am not that arrogant to believe such a stupid idea. Me, the center of the whole universe, created in the image of God himself. I don't buy it, no evidence whatsoever, just retarded legends from primitive humans who did not have other way to explain the universe.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - Man, you don't have to trust my word on this!! Can't you read properly???? I gave you a reference to a book with information on the topic!!!! I can give you further reference, but this one is written for all kinds of people (not experts in biology or psychology). You don't need to trust me!!! As to the old fables, the Bible is still a book of old fables written by men along hundreds of years and of which we have several different versions.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DuNyceBeats Amen :)...Science can be explained very simply~ROMANS 1:20 "His Eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that men are without excuse.." ~)
The divinity in me,..recognizes the divinity in you ~)
mellymel51029 4 months ago
Science is constantly evolving and correcting itself, while religion is a dogma that won't recognize any mistakes and cannot be questioned or contested. Science is the ONLY method we have to gain knowledge of the universe, measurable, empiric, demonstrable knowledge. When a scientist is biased by its own prejudices, other scientists will come and correct his observations, validating them for everyone.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
You probably want to discuss about the Bible's reliability. Science is the BEST method we have to understand the universe. While you keep believeing in Bronze Age fables, you are ignoring the fact that you owe your food, clothing, shelter, means of transportation and communications, health and entertainment to science. It is funny how you are using a computer and the internet at this very moment trying to criticize science and make religion a more "reliable" method of knowing the "truth".
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
The problem with teists is that it is a lot easier to simply believe than KNOWING. KNOWING requires commitment and effort; believing only demands from you to QUIT reasoning and repeat soemthing a minister or a book says.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - LOL, forget it.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - THAT is preciesely the beauty of science, that it constantly evolves and corrects itself, while religion is a dogma that won't recognize any mistakes and cannot be questioned or contested. Science is the ONLY method we have to gain knowledge of the universe, measurable, empiric, demonstrable knowledge. When a scientist is biased by its own prejudices, other scientists will come and correct his observations, validating them for everyone. Moral does not depend of "god".
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - Sorry but I don't see Christians doing always right. And you do understand that Christians are a minority in the world, so saying that you need to develop a relationship (?) with Christ to be good is esentially saying some 5 billion people have got it wrong.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - Nope, I am not kidding you and nope, moral is not taught (at least not the esence of it), but only adjusted and modified during our lives . If you are interested in the matter, I recommend you read the book "Moral Minds" by Marc D. Hauser. Even before we had any kind of scientific knowledge about it, moral was already explained centuries ago without the need of god: You won't do to others what you do not want others do to you.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - You are right in that there is nothing divine about us. You are wrong when you say there is no point in morality without god. If you act well only by fear of eternal punishment in hell, then you are not being honest, and dishonesty is an immorality. Actually, science has already explained that we human beings developed moral as a competitive advantage through the evolution of our species, and that we are born with a universal "moral grammar". Remember the "Golden Rule".
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats P.S. " To me, without God, there is no point of morality "
- To me... whether you want there to be a point to morality or not... makes zero difference.
" I might as well go kill and steal for food "
- So the only reason you don't do that... is because of god? Interesting.
Roper122 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats " NOW I'm a believer... but not a "knower"
- Well I've got no wish to bash you around either. I have very little problem with " believers "...
I of course consider what you believe to be nonsense, and biblical prophecy terribly weak.
But that's why people want proof, you can belief whatever you like.. but if you want to affect the lives of others.. you'd better have proof..
Otherwise, you can wait in line with all the others beliefs.
I believe I'm a knower ; )
Roper122 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats - You need to be held responsible for your acts in this life, because there is no after-life.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
@DuNyceBeats " Im smarter than you shut up "
- It's not that. This whole " fine tuning " argument is an attempt to use really high powered science ( to appear smarter ) ... so unfortunately in order to show where it's wrong, you have to be equally as " sciency ".
As for you saying " nothing " could convince.. thats not true...
But so far. nothing has even come close.
If you think requiring proof is nothing but arrogance... then I've got some real estate I'd like to sell you.
Roper122 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this video is amateur hour.. you know what's more dangerous than religion? idiots with an internet connection.
MonitorStreet 4 months ago
She could teach Professor Emeritus Dr. Vera Kistiakowski, a thing or two. NOT
Complaintdesk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Complaintdesk " She could teach Professor Emeritus Dr. Vera Kistiakowski, a thing or two. NOT "
- You could teach Professor Emeritus Dr Victor Stenger a thing or two...NOT.
( Oh.. sorry, I thought we were playing
" I can't come up with a response so I'll just name people who agree with me, therefore I'm right "
Thoroughly pointless.. but if you think it helps )
Roper122 4 months ago in playlist More videos from skydivephil
"The impossibility of natural abiogenesis is in direct conflict with a fine-tuned universe".
Thanks for the insight. Very good!
lfzadra 4 months ago
Way to go, you must simplify the other's point of view, skewing it to advantage, towards your own belief and ultimately claiming victory amidst the cheers of your atheist believers. This is the only way your spin will ever gain any traction.
piusvapor 4 months ago
@piusvapor " Way to go, you must simplify the other's point of view "
- Way to go.. you must've simplified your own point of view... because that was a really simply post.
Ineffective and pointless... but simple.
Roper122 4 months ago
@Roper122 Thank you for making my point. You chose" Way to go, you must simplify the other's point of view " as a point of reference and focused your opinion upon that. How utterly simple and transparent the atheist has become.
piusvapor 4 months ago
@piusvapor " Thank you for making my point "
- I thought someone should make some kind of point.. since you seem incapable of doing it.
I was just pointing out a post that had no argument and instead desperately tried to pretend that the other side wasn't as smart as you...
and then of course you've cunningly responded with...
a post that has no argument and instead desperately tries to pretend that the other side isn't as smart as you...
I sense a pattern. : )
Roper122 4 months ago
to conclude
fine tuning does not prove god, it argues for it, but there are other theories like the multiverse which are possible.
but this video still remains one of the most logically pathetic argumentation against fine tuning ( for the most part ), and what is more pathetic is that 27000 people liked it and only 52 disliked it.
videos like these are a monument to the stupidity and irrationality of man, whether you are a theist or atheist.
niinja2 4 months ago
"maybe it wasnt quite fine tuned enough"
i loled, fine tuning is actually a good argument against creationism. why would god need to fine tune the universe if he popped life into existence.
niinja2 4 months ago
"was the wind designed for wind surfing, why should we treat life any differently"
so your saying that existence of life that has intelligence to question its existence and possible purpose is nothing more special then a rock?
its a lot freaking special and its much much more unprobable to happen, otherwise we would see it everywhere , and you said at the start of the video that its very unlikely for life to happen on any given planet.
niinja2 4 months ago
"this is the opposite of science and it shows the danger of religion"
no its shows the danger of lack of critical thinking that people who comment on this video obviously also lack. The person most probable to be affected with uncritical thinking is the one who thinks it is immune from it because its not religious or for whatever reason..
As much as people use " god did it" so much the people use " science did it " without knowing what science is or what did it actually do...
niinja2 4 months ago
Comment removed
niinja2 4 months ago
bill o'riley is an idiot
agree , signed, 5 star, no objection there
"why the sun goes up and down without interruption"
forward momentum and force of gravity.
niinja2 4 months ago
"theist will have to show that the probability of god is vastly higher then the natural explanation for the constants of nature"
why?
if you find your home apparently robbed, do you have to show that existence of a robber is vastly more probable then the "natural explanation" of the "robbed" home, like the "wind did it",before you call the police?
its like saying "before you enter any evidence for god you have to prove he exists"
i mean where do you get this stuff.
niinja2 4 months ago
nobody said that life in the universe is a miracle, only that its highly unprobable, and if it happens ONCE most probably it was by by an intelligence with some purpose in mind
if it happens all the time like in the casino, then its a matter of statistic, and if you give it enough time it will inevitably happen.
we do not know if the multiverse theory is true. It does not dismantle fine tuning argument, but because fine tuning isnt the only explanation it can be used only as evidence not proof
niinja2 4 months ago
so because this remarkable, unprobable thing ( life) appears for only a second its not so unprobable...??
it does not matter how much time passes without life in the universe, life appearing at all, even for a second is a huge thing.
niinja2 4 months ago
"so it is with the constants of nature, we dont know the avilable range..."
the available range is a group or real numbers from 0 to +infinity...
your deck of cards ( universe) can have all the right cards ( constants) , if its made that way by intelligence... but certainly not by random chance.
niinja2 4 months ago
the fine tuning argument just shows that people never got to know what science is. The constants are MAN made. Scientists just alter a model (which is always too simplistic to capture reality) to fit the experimental data. How ignorant can one be to say god fine-tuned the slope of a linear equation, when WE decide to fit the data with a line.
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
"the fine tuning argument just shows that people never got to know what science is. "
ok im listening
"The constants are MAN made"
/facepalm
no you dont know what science is
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 have you ever tried to analyse any experimental data and derive a model from them?
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
a few times , what about you?
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 can you name a few methods for fitting models to data? Can you name the simplest possible model and its parameter?
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
I didnt fit models to data i fit data to models. it was a few years ago, i dont remember everything, you load data to mathematica or matlab or whatever , and try to find graph of linear regression, so your deviation is the smallest. Basically computer does work for you, i think its "BestFit", or "LinearFit" functions in mathematica.
simplest model i measured was measuring constant of gravity, by measuring the period of swings of physical swing, T=square root( L/g)
niinja2 4 months ago
Comment removed
greekmanos 4 months ago
@niinja2 ou always fit models to data. The question is how complex you want your model to be, so in many cases you may equally fit a line to data or a polynomial. We deliberately chose models with the lowest complexity so that they are computationally tractable. All models are crude approximations of reality with a lot of assumptions usually (no friction, gaussian noise on our measurements etc). We may increase the complexity if the model fails to provide answers to some questions.
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
we , as students did not chose which model we would fit to the measured data, we were offered a model and fited data to that model so that it would produce the least deviation
but what does this have to do with the logic of the video
it looks like your arguments imply that anyone who did not fit data at one point knows nothing about fine tuning?
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 well that's why the lady inserts the definition of fine tuning at 6:11. Because fine tuning is merely a process that has to do with fitting models to data. Creationists use it in an ad-hoc pseudo-scientific way. Like look at the precision of the constants of the model, wow God is wise :-) that's not fine tuning all about
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
"Like look at the precision of the constants of the model"
well its possible that some conscousness did do it for a purpose
what is your explanation?
niinja2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 the constants are MAN made. They are derived by human made observations. That's why I asked you if you have any idea about modeling and fitting models. People with no experience whatsoever about it fail to understand that the constants are man made and they actually depend on the nature of the spline we chose to fit to the data.
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
actually i lied, i analyzed the data and tried to fit the data to current model i was taught, and if i didn't succeed i made measurements up like every student of physics at my college that failed to measure what he should due to faulty equipment.
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 yeah I see, this practice though doesn't teach you what science is all about, because you fabricate data to fit a pre-existing (model) hypothesis. Although you may get away with it, you won't get far in the msc or phd level, where you analyse your data and create the hypothesis afterwards. Therefore I don't think you fully understand what modeling and fine-tuning is all about. It's like you decide to fit a line to your experimental data and you fine-tune the slope.
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
"Therefore I don't think you fully understand what modeling and fine-tuning is all about."
i understand that what we students did, was "bad" but we must do that to get a passing grade
i dont think that you understand how science work in reality because if you come out with data that do not fit the accepted model scientists will say you probably did not measure correctly. When i measured gravity i got something like 11 m/s^2, a colleague of mine got 14...
niinja2 4 months ago
@greekmanos
"you won't get far in the msc or phd level"
why wouldnt i get far as a Phd by repeating data somebody already measured, it only confirms the current model. I wont get far if i make my own theories that contradict current paradigm. Quantum physicists needed a few decades to push their theories, they were not accepted a while. New ideas in science come about not by rational debate, but when people who hold old ideas simply die out.
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 because in order to have a phd you have to contribute to knowledge, in short to suggest something novel.
greekmanos 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greekmanos
"because in order to have a phd you have to contribute to knowledge"
agreed, but there are things that are novel and there are things that are outside of the current paradigm,and people , scientists also, do not accept the latter just like that.
niinja2 4 months ago
@greekmanos
"Therefore I don't think you fully understand what modeling and fine-tuning is all about."
i cannot help to notice that this is ad homminem, even if i dont understand what modeling is, and i do, it has no influence on my arguments on fine tuning argument.
And if it does then argue, dont exclude me out of conversation.
besides i do not hold fine tuning argument to be "proof" of anything, i merely criticized the logic of this video
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 the lady here in my opinion just puts too many arguments in one video. But the two directions of the "fine-tuning argument" is a) the constants are so precisely tuned b) if they wouldn't be so precisely tuned we wouldn't be here. So b) we may or may not have been here, if we have been we would just have different form. For a) the answer is they are MAN made constants, so it doesn't even constitute an argument
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
"the answer is they are MAN made constants"
erm what?
"if we have been we would just have different form"
erm , if we were here in any form the constants would still be finely tuned, if constants were not finely tuned we would not be here in any form
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 life adopted to the environment and not the other way around. Life would be different if constants were different but it would be still life. For instance having less gravitational force would lead to taller stuff. The video also makes a good point that in fact this universe is also dead by 99.9%. We just look ourselves and we see life in it.
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
"For instance having less gravitational force would lead to taller stuff."
heaving more gravitational force for 1 part in 10 to the power of -60 would lead to no universe at all since it would collapse in itself. Some other constants that have to do with nuclear force, if they were changed for a tiny bit would cause that no atoms heavier then hydrogen could exist...
niinja2 4 months ago
Comment removed
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
excuse me but what experience or ideas do you have in modeling?
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 i'm post-doc researcher
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
nice , what field of science?
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 discrete optimisation
greekmanos 4 months ago
@greekmanos
can you be more specific? discrete optimization of what?
and btw can you respond to my last comment about "man made" constants
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2 google discrete optimisation and read, not going to explain my research here.
greekmanos 4 months ago
@niinja2 I talked about fine-tuning before. Fine tuning is fitting man made and often simplistic model to observable data. Having 3,4,5 significant digits doesn't imply any divine sophistication. This is like a reverse creationist stupidity. Look at all these digits wow. God is great
greekmanos 4 months ago