there is no need to prove that life came from anything because obviously it is here and no "being", "created" it. As an atheist I do not need to prop up my existence with a "creator" I am life so therefore I am as good as I need to be to exist
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Actuall human history accounts for at least 6,000 years of the technology that has not become obsolete to this day and we have only learned of it very recently.
That requires exceedingly more wisdom and understanding than what we have ourselves.
...and to think that it all came about from a gas that consists of one electron and one proton. Who would have known any of what we see would be possible?
There is far too much practical function in the design of each of the most common elements that are utilized in life forms and there is still the problem of the need for preexisting information and also the function of the elements to store and literally obey the stored directives.
Even one practical intended function is not possible without a Maker and we have so many functions by so many common elements even sub atomic function.
well, technically an entity could theoretically avoid being subjected to it's own laws if such laws were engineered and designed to be applied to other inferior entities. But still that does not prove any religious crap is true! It's a mere hypothesis that in no way justifies this delusion...
I don't buy the multiverse idea at all. Why postulate this? There is no evidence for it at all so why even bring it up? Isn't it just a way to get around the argument that the constants are just right for life?
LOL nobody argues the junk in the Bible or Quran anymore. Nobody argues the validity of Adam and Eve lol, bcoz they know their stone age scriptures are all junk and piece of crap. Now, the creationists have 'evolved' with slightly better brains, they try to sneak their God into wherever Science doesn't have proper answers yet, like origin of first life forms, universe before the big bang. Science has been winning all these years
@srikargottipati Well said, absolutely true, theists claim their holy scriptures are the word of God, yet seem to ignore a lot of it when trying to argue origins of live, they know if they brought Adam and Eve and Noah's ark into the equation they be ridiculed
After hearing Dawkins explain in the video about the the "stupefyingly improbable" events that must take place in order for life to exist, I can surprisingly say that creation(intelligent design) is the only answer to this outlandish mystery.
Imagine if you are a farmer living in 500AD. And someone suggested to you that we could genetically engineer his crop to yield 5x more and a machine will do most of the manual labor of farming. He would say 'just plain weird'. They killed Galileo because he was doing 'just plain weird' things.
Yes, science and reality is just plain weird. That is why god was invented, to make sense out of the senseless weirdness of reality. The more we know, the less we need god.
I think the idea that those constants in other universes are not suitable for life might be flawed as we don't have technology to get insights about distant parts of our universe,let alone other universes.And their might be many life form in our universe as well as in other universes.If God created human,he wouldn't be waiting 13.7 billions of years after big bang to land Adam and eve on the earth.
Haha, which is why he probably didn't create humans. Well he definitely didn't create humans. I should say "which is why he probably didn't create life".
@GodTheHypothesis No, it's not just you. I think so too. I think the reason is that the consequences, or maybe rather the implications, of the anthropic principle requires logic, and a "suspension of belief [in indoctrinated nonsense]".
Not necessarily just religious people though, non-scientific people in general seem to go blank when you invoke the anthropic principle. It doesn't even have to be the multi-verse, you can even just answer the question of why we're on a planet that's suitable for life. The power of the anthropic principle is that it tells you when you're asking a stupid question. So yes, religious people should take heed.
One thing that is kind of annoying is the definition of Universe - which is all that is, was and ever will be; all space and energy. By that definition, all the other "bubbles" are part of THE universe and the limits of the bubble are subsectors in it.
That gets semantically annoying when talking about the "multiverse"
@mikeyman211 That just sounds like the weakness of human language. We have words that can be used in different ways, it can be difficult to speak in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. Also it is important to remember that scientists are finding evidence for things that seem so outlandish that they sound like science fiction. We must change the way we think about things that we used to believe as we discover there is a much bigger thing than our "universe" as we know it.
It's kind of fanciful to think about how ordinary the origins of this solar system is - and therefore how many other's there must be similar and exactly the same that one must conclude that the prerequisite conditions for life exist elsewhere - the imagination igniting question is how likely is it given the prerequisites that life occurs. Is it rare? Is it so easy that life bursts with vigour onto a planet? It's somewhere in between those two so we can say that it must exist elsewhere!
@Drunkenprophet23 It's a theory... there doesnt have to be evidence for it. For a theory to be in debate, there must be a way to falsify it, and that theory must not be already falsified all ready.
If one day an object that is dropped suddenly goes up, with no other forces acting on it then Newtons theory of gravity will have to be revised. Until that day, it stands
@Drunkenprophet23 Now that I think about it, there is one more necessary element that I know of: if there are 2 explanations that perfectly fit the observed phenomena, the simpler one wins out.
Since we cannot yet explain all the phenomena with respect to our and possible other universes, this principle cannot be used right now for this theory, hope that makes sense
I disagree with Richard, the reason we havent been visited is that the distances in space make it almost impossible to travel to us and also to even locate us, that doesnt mean there are not millions of advanced technological civilizations in the universe though.
@TormentedLucrious What do you mean I'm not replying to anyone? You're the only person to reply to my comment.
Anyway. What would cause intelligent life to destroy itself? Hmm... let me think, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, destroying the environment etc.
The doctrine, that God was under no necessity to create, is not some useless or abstract scholasticism. It is essential. For it reveals the nature of agape (Gods' kind of love). That which in itself is eternally blessed, needing of nothing. But being love, it desires to give. And gives, seeing, in the very moment of creation, the necessity for the Crucifiction.
If a theologian opened his ideas and was willing to listen to Richard Dawkins, it would only take a couple of YouTube videos and documentaries. Richard Dawkins is indeed a God.
Key word: SPECULATION = The foundation on which evolution is constructed.
Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The multiverse "theory" and its "foam" are just as ridiculous as a gigantic bearded guy creating heaven and earth. It's completely unfalsifiable, and quite frankly totally arbitrary. I always have to smile a bit when Richard is trying to justify it - it's awfully like a religious apologist defending his or her particular scripture.
I personally tend to agree with Carl Sagan, who thought that life is simply an emergent property of our universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
the multiverse theory isnt ridiculous why would there only be one universe . Hopefully m theory/string theory once its confirmed(hopefully) can shed light on other universes
M/string is not the only proposed theory for unifying gravity and quantum mechanics. I'm always intrigued by people who propose the existence of other universes as a scientific claim. How does one verify their existence? It appears to be impossible by definition. If they are outside our universe, there exists no means by which to observe them. If they are observable, then they cannot be considered a separate universe.
@caius112 Do you know much about quantum mechanics? Or about sub-atomic particles appearing out of nothing and vanishing back into nothing. The questions about where these particles come from have led many quantom physicists to theorize that there might be alternate dimensions that these particles bounce back and forth from.
I challenge all of you to pick up the book Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis) and read it for YOURSELF. He answers all your questions. I bought it thinking it was a defense against Christianity (I was an atheist too) and it changed my life.
The main problem with humans seeking other forms of life is bias. We are looking for radio waves. Something akin to 1950's technology. With this in mind an alien civilization that was water based wouldnt be using these methods. We cannot assume or presume to know what methods they use for communication.
Even if they did use radio at one point in their history it would be for a short time, relatively speaking
@Dreamerx47 on terrestrial scales then yes light is one of the best means of communication, this is what fiber optics is based on, however over astronomical distances visible light is not a great way of communicating as interstellar dust creates a haze meaning our optical telescopes are limited to a couple hundred light years however infra-red to radio telescopes can pick up galaxies billions of light years out, so radio waves would be one of the better methods for interstellar communication
They found a planet called gliese 581 c, look it up. Looks alot like earth, they estimate the temperature would be between 34 and124 degrees farenheit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Most of Dawkins theories are centered on time. Einstein proved that time was just like gravity, a LAW. If for a moment he took his head out of his ass he would see that a God would be no more subject to time than to gravity or any other law. He is the author of the book. The author is not subject to the time his characters are living in. Dawkins see's the possibility of alternate universes, alternate realities etc. Why not a being that lives in a state that is beyond or outside of time?
How could he be God if he were subject to his own laws? Man needed the laws in place for him to exist. God has no needs. Im sorry if you feel it unfalsifiable but you cannot put God in some water tight compartment. If we are to talk about truth and the reality of Gods laws I cannot intelligently discuss those laws without allowing God to be God. Sorry but your answer is sidestepping the very nature of what God is and assuming him to be something less. Im working with truth here not fairy tales.
Not being subject to own laws is still a characteristic of God(s). If God(s) is/are to be discussed in science it must be falsifiable. to posit a claim that a god is responsible for physical laws is absurd because there is no way to see if it really is true or if it is not true. it can only be believed on faith. Because you can't disprove the truth of the flying spaghetti monster i am right. you are not working with truth
You're point is interesting and I say it as an outspoken atheist. It's much more interesting than what people have to offer.
This kind of "Creator God" could be possible in some sense but is still not very plausible. Still, he/she/it wouldn't be the one in the holy books. And still Dawkins discussed it in The God Delusion, probably in Chapter 4. Check it out, I believe you do try to work out the truth.
You still make the case for a Deist god, something which Dawkins admits to doubt, but cannot disapprove.
The problem is coming up with proof for a god who gives a shit about what would be his creation.
You could possibly infer a god who cares about his self image over anything else beyond the universe (Ephesians 3:10-11); but have fun preaching that and gaining a following big enough to support your cathedrals and your tourist-like youth mission trips.
I'd rather not have life existing on any other planet in the universe even though they might be too far away. I think life does and have happened other places but really dont want it.
fundamentally life really is about surviving. I'd rather be alone than having a possible rival. We have enough rivally amongst ourselves, no need to throw a whole another planet in.
Life on other planets I would think would be the best possible thing for us. It would cause such a realization of how much the same we all are and stop so much fighting in our world. Most pointless fighting would come to and end I would think. It might be hard to imagine but that's just because we have never known it. Actually, we have. In the US we came together after 911 and stopped, even if it was very temporary, many pointless arguments differences.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So scientists can postulate all kinds of whacky theories, which can never be measured or proven, and this is accepted as science with all the praise and grants and scholarships that follow, while the postulate of an intelligent designer is heresy. Yup, I get it now.
in science, it's allowed to postulate hypothesis of all kind of sorts, there is no tabu on that really. but in order of a thesis to become an accepted scientific theory, it needs evidence.. scientists are not mythologists..
No. The hypothetical ideas he's referring to are just that :hypothetical. ID has been proposed as a theory repeatedly by it's advocates for over a century now and it neither has evidence to support it nor does it explain the existing evidence. In fact, it contradicts everything in biology (and over a dozen other branches of science) . If religion weren't wrapped up with ID, nobody (including ID advocates) would ever have thought of suggesting it as a theory to explain life. cont..
It seems that we are drawn by some invisible force to replicate life. My only conclusion is that our purpose here is to become Gods in the sense that we want to create something in our plane of existance that will become sentient.
Whether it is Robots or Computer based AI, our ultimate goal is to become GOD to a being.
If you're a programmer YOU must know there is a GOD, if you ever used some 3d software and changed materials YOU know there is a GOD
I think what causes problems is the definition of what a GOD is and our general inability to fathom that things don't need a creator.
My dream in life is to make an immersive online world. I have been gathering resources for about a decade. The parallels between online virtual worlds and our own Holofractal universe are uncanny.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
What disturbs me is that the world is governed by people like Islamo-fascists in the Mid East and central asia,
The USA is run by Christan end timers Zionist and Satanist and both these groups have access to nuclear weapons.
I don't like the idea that people wish to kill for what essentially is their imaginary friend.
Bring on an age of rationalism, atheism and scientific reason. This is why I like Germany and the E.U. which is run by moderate Christan and Atheist rationalists.
As Richard Dawkins, i think correctly, pointed out is that there're a lot more atheists then you might think. But its partially still a *come-out -of-the-closet* thing. In order to get in the white house, you have to openly believe in god, or you wont get the majority of voters.
michio kaku talks about this stuff, look him up if you want more theory oriented science. He talks about IF there was life out there what they would be like and stuff
Ah diddums...doesn't like it when somebody questions his irrational faith in the invisible man in the sky.
Never mind, goddy-woddy will still be there in the morning, and the morning after that, but that horrid Mr Dawkins has only another 25 years left, then he'll be ALL GONE and you won't have to worry anymore.
AND Santa is coming tomorrow too! Make sure you leave him some mince pies...
Nothing wrong with believing in God if you stick to the rules of deism, meaning God does not interfere in his Universe, therefore all religions are false (which they must be cause there's so many of em which disagree with eachother)
Jesus Christ, this isn't the goddamn middle ages. wake up and smell the logic. If god does exist, why in the fucking hell would he make a race so incredibly flawed that we murder each other, rape each other, commit incest etc? If he was super powerful and all knowing, he would know better than to make such a violent and self centered race.
It is human arrogance and human arrogance alone to believe that we are somehow special or created by a supreme being.
but what I dont understand is how come they're still buying all these Creationist crap that a supreme being magically creating the universe with the Earth as its main theme
The vertebrate eye is a terrible design. Awful. Why the need for spectacles, why is the neural path so indirect, why the blind spot on the retina, why such a tiny fovea? If the eye was designed then the designer is crap. Any engineer that designed that would be sacked.
And why design around 40 different models? Why not just design one good one and stick with it?
Fuck your tiny crap god. I just told you the eye is a crap design and all you can say is the `eyes in a perfect world work fine`. How small-minded can you get...
Since I'm aware of the process of natrual selection which can build up complexity without intelligence, theres no need for an organ subject to this process to "appear" to have a designer. Do you know about natural selection? If so, maybe you are the one in denial.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
natural selection is part of creation. It does not build anything it merely keeps the characteristics that work, it introduces nothing new. Evolutionism demands new information and that is impossible. Creation is the only theory supported scientifically.
Everything that appears to be NOT designed was NOT designed, that final.
Nature is definitely not designed. I was just thinking about "rotating" limbs, it is something that human's are able to create in machines and robots, but it was too complicated for god right? Find a limb that can rotate an infinite times in nature. Good luck finding it.
What a ridiculous argument. A single cell is literally a factory of interwoven and moving parts, and you -- let's see you weave 50,000 volumes of genetic material into something 10 times smaller than the head of a needle.... with God all things are possible.
It all starts simple and given the stupendous amount of time it all had to evolve it's far from ridiculous, it's the way it is.
'with God all things are possible' and yet there's not a SHRED of evidence, your god is imaginary and you express him with nothing but font and verbal communication, mere words don't put men on the moon my friend. Science does, science that gave you the computer you are using right now and the medicine that is keeping you alive.
The biggest evidence for the creator is the creation. The simplest form of life we know is immensely complicated. An ameba has so much genetic material in a single cell that it could fill a library of 50,000 volumes. Life had to come from an intelligence of infinite knowledge and power. Life did come from life - God. Slime plus time doesn't even equal an ameba.
Again, that is not evidence, If there was a creator, who created the creator? There is an infinite regress with that point.
Given incredibly long periods of time, physics and chemistry do everything you see today.
For 95% of the time there was nothing but a 'soup' of interactive chemistry, if you break down span of life into one year it wasn't until END of December when single cell organisms started to appear, which is already a very complicated lifeform. Nothing just poofs into existence.
And the -individual- bits of it is just a couple megabytes; that is, since we have the genomic code, we only need to know the differences to the baseline to have an individual's code, and then we're down to just a couple megabytes.
As for the thought of the immense space it would take in a library - well yeah. If I print something in big letters I can fill continents with just one of Shakespeare's plays if I want to. Doesn't prove that God wrote it, just that I cut down lots of trees.
In the past, it is possible that if life only existed on earth then with ancient technology it is probable in our nature that we have colonized on these other planets that are life friendly. And when these travelers returned the ancient earth people thought of them as gods. They may have taken credit for things they never really did (possibly it was easier to explain to primitives) and used their advanced technology of weather manipulation and genetic manipulation to express their power..hmmmmmm
I like to point out that if God were omni present that would make him a singularity. He would be timeless but also infinitely ignorant. It takes plurality for action, movement, time and thought to occur. If there is a God there had to have been a pre-existence in order for him to have a thought. In other words he evolved.
The improbability of the cosmological constants coupled with the lack of evidence for his multi-verse theory doesnt give this particular argument any gravitas.
Atheists would do themselves better by not arguing from the anthropic principle as it seems to naturally lean to a theistic interpretation. The nature of the improbability screams for a designer despite his evolution to complexity stance.
Surely you are misinterpreting anthropic principle.Inprobability is shrunk by the multitude of numbers involved.One in a billion chance is the same as saying'try it a billion times and it WILL HAPPEN ONCE'.This leaves no room for any other explanation and leans in no way towards an alternative creator.If so we would then have to ask for evidence of the creator other than the creation,which would seem to have been aided into creation by a self sufficient process. One might ask WHY DOES GOD HIDE?
Here is the point: if any of the fundamental parameters of the universe were slightly different then the universe wouldnt be able to sustain life or even exist
The atheist sees that and says two things: 1)Lucky us 2)There must be an infinite number of universes to solve such an incalculable problem of this principle
Astronomer Lee Smolin said that the chance of the parameters that govern our universe could have been what they are is one chance in 10 to the power of 229. How lucky indeed!
The point is not that the parameters are unique to life.All in the debate agree on that.The point is that some argue this is evidence for a creator.Despite the fact that this in itself opens up a whole world of questions about the origin of this CREATOR,the anthropic principle completely explains the fact that life exists in a perfect environment:because it HAS to. Otherwise we would not be here to admire this so called fluke.There is no LUCK involved simply winning factors along the way.
The idea of winning factors is silly when you see how fantastically impossible it was to have the exact universe necessary to allow life to begin.
Its more important to ponder if it's possible the universe was born ex nihilo. Then contemplate how tremendously improbable the parameters of the universe must be for
life to form. Then you have to wonder about a natural explanation of the first replicating cell that appeared on the planet.
If something has probability of 1 in a million it is the same as saying if you try it a million times it will happen once.The anthropic principle perfectly explains this.When you add on the factor that religions are completely without any observable and testable evidence and that quantum uncertainty principles suggest probability is key to our being,(and has indeed given us the most exact science)one should begin to see the Gods as man made explanations for what is now understood as inevitable.
Your first point is a non-sequitor and you're ignoring my argument by trying to conflate every religion into one another.
You have faith the universe was borne from nothing. There is no hard evidence for either of our beliefs but, its hard for me to rationalize the origin of life/the universe/morality without seeing an external force outside space and time. This idea coupled with the astronomical improbability that our universe happens to be fined tuned for life is how I reach my conclusion.
If you are speaking of the BigBang theory, there IS eividence. I advise you to go learn something. I'll give you some hints; Steven Hawking, and radiation.
You seem confused. No one is arguing that no force outside space and time created the universe. If you go back in time far enough, what existed? Nothingness with infinite potential. But it is a far cry to then say that there must be a reason for creation outside of chance, that some divine being set things into motion who keeps an eye on us and counts our sins before we go to bed. As for your second argument, look up the anthropic principle. Our universe isn't fine tuned for life in any way.
My cock is hard.
martyaus2905 2 weeks ago
The interviewer would blow Dawkins in a second.
mzyzer19 3 months ago
there is no need to prove that life came from anything because obviously it is here and no "being", "created" it. As an atheist I do not need to prop up my existence with a "creator" I am life so therefore I am as good as I need to be to exist
itsandbits1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible. Papacy cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
I wish people would realize that the very scientific laws that govern the universe could BE the God that they claim is necessary.
TheMasterfulcreator 4 months ago
scientist have never provide any evidence that life came form chemicals
useramiterifet 5 months ago
@useramiterifet search up abiogenesis by youtube user DonExodus2
nobody have provided any evidence for creation as well
72dew 4 months ago
Anyone with six knobs to twiddle is a god in my book.
HitfulVids 5 months ago
"God has six knobs to play with..."!! I knew it!!
bersa888 7 months ago
that interviewer wants to bang
Mystro1989 8 months ago 5
We were tectnological before we learned of it.
Actuall human history accounts for at least 6,000 years of the technology that has not become obsolete to this day and we have only learned of it very recently.
That requires exceedingly more wisdom and understanding than what we have ourselves.
...and to think that it all came about from a gas that consists of one electron and one proton. Who would have known any of what we see would be possible?
Seekmosttoprophesy 9 months ago
There is far too much practical function in the design of each of the most common elements that are utilized in life forms and there is still the problem of the need for preexisting information and also the function of the elements to store and literally obey the stored directives.
Even one practical intended function is not possible without a Maker and we have so many functions by so many common elements even sub atomic function.
Seekmosttoprophesy 9 months ago
well, technically an entity could theoretically avoid being subjected to it's own laws if such laws were engineered and designed to be applied to other inferior entities. But still that does not prove any religious crap is true! It's a mere hypothesis that in no way justifies this delusion...
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
I don't buy the multiverse idea at all. Why postulate this? There is no evidence for it at all so why even bring it up? Isn't it just a way to get around the argument that the constants are just right for life?
Drunkenprophet23 10 months ago
@Drunkenprophet23 here here. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. " - Hitchens
killer3596 7 months ago
That girl looks like she's in love
Drunkenprophet23 10 months ago
what r we talking about here? life or the ability to experience?
seigneurvoland666 10 months ago
:33 looks like shes having an orgasm
crusher1427 10 months ago
@crusher1427
Don't know who you've been fuckin but in my experience that's not what women look like when they're having an orgasm!
wilox1 10 months ago
LOL nobody argues the junk in the Bible or Quran anymore. Nobody argues the validity of Adam and Eve lol, bcoz they know their stone age scriptures are all junk and piece of crap. Now, the creationists have 'evolved' with slightly better brains, they try to sneak their God into wherever Science doesn't have proper answers yet, like origin of first life forms, universe before the big bang. Science has been winning all these years
srikargottipati 11 months ago
@srikargottipati Well said, absolutely true, theists claim their holy scriptures are the word of God, yet seem to ignore a lot of it when trying to argue origins of live, they know if they brought Adam and Eve and Noah's ark into the equation they be ridiculed
helenaroxify 11 months ago
After hearing Dawkins explain in the video about the the "stupefyingly improbable" events that must take place in order for life to exist, I can surprisingly say that creation(intelligent design) is the only answer to this outlandish mystery.
MrSputnik11 11 months ago
@MrSputnik11 Is that so? OK, where did the designer come from?
Tapiola2007 11 months ago
@MrSputnik11
Then you didn't listen to him properly.
wilox1 10 months ago
@MrSputnik11 You only need a little proof and POOF! You're the profit!!
wondergundy 3 months ago
@wondergundy Prophet*
Gazjohnful 2 weeks ago
'science is just plain weird'.
Imagine if you are a farmer living in 500AD. And someone suggested to you that we could genetically engineer his crop to yield 5x more and a machine will do most of the manual labor of farming. He would say 'just plain weird'. They killed Galileo because he was doing 'just plain weird' things.
Yes, science and reality is just plain weird. That is why god was invented, to make sense out of the senseless weirdness of reality. The more we know, the less we need god.
bdhcarbon 1 year ago 14
@bdhcarbon Galileo died of heart failure, aged 77, but I know what you mean
DaMuttzNutz 1 year ago
@bdhcarbon Nicely said.
RockAustinDXtakerRk0 1 month ago
@bdhcarbon Galileo died of natural causes..... so how do you work that one out?
Gazjohnful 2 weeks ago
I think the idea that those constants in other universes are not suitable for life might be flawed as we don't have technology to get insights about distant parts of our universe,let alone other universes.And their might be many life form in our universe as well as in other universes.If God created human,he wouldn't be waiting 13.7 billions of years after big bang to land Adam and eve on the earth.
kamsutro 1 year ago
@kamsutro
Haha, which is why he probably didn't create humans. Well he definitely didn't create humans. I should say "which is why he probably didn't create life".
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
this is a good interview.
Paalfaal 1 year ago
Is it me or do non-scientific people seem to struggle with the anthropic principle?
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodTheHypothesis
"Is it me or do non-scientific people seem to struggle with the anthropic principle?"
They seem to struggle with a great many things: logic, critical thinking, imagination, learning.
imnotbncre8ive 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis No, it's not just you. I think so too. I think the reason is that the consequences, or maybe rather the implications, of the anthropic principle requires logic, and a "suspension of belief [in indoctrinated nonsense]".
happystatemachine 1 year ago
@happystatemachine
Not necessarily just religious people though, non-scientific people in general seem to go blank when you invoke the anthropic principle. It doesn't even have to be the multi-verse, you can even just answer the question of why we're on a planet that's suitable for life. The power of the anthropic principle is that it tells you when you're asking a stupid question. So yes, religious people should take heed.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
One thing that is kind of annoying is the definition of Universe - which is all that is, was and ever will be; all space and energy. By that definition, all the other "bubbles" are part of THE universe and the limits of the bubble are subsectors in it.
That gets semantically annoying when talking about the "multiverse"
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 That just sounds like the weakness of human language. We have words that can be used in different ways, it can be difficult to speak in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. Also it is important to remember that scientists are finding evidence for things that seem so outlandish that they sound like science fiction. We must change the way we think about things that we used to believe as we discover there is a much bigger thing than our "universe" as we know it.
Rael0505 1 year ago
It's kind of fanciful to think about how ordinary the origins of this solar system is - and therefore how many other's there must be similar and exactly the same that one must conclude that the prerequisite conditions for life exist elsewhere - the imagination igniting question is how likely is it given the prerequisites that life occurs. Is it rare? Is it so easy that life bursts with vigour onto a planet? It's somewhere in between those two so we can say that it must exist elsewhere!
mikeyman211 1 year ago
So where is the evidence for a "multiverse"
Drunkenprophet23 1 year ago
@Drunkenprophet23 It's a theory... there doesnt have to be evidence for it. For a theory to be in debate, there must be a way to falsify it, and that theory must not be already falsified all ready.
If one day an object that is dropped suddenly goes up, with no other forces acting on it then Newtons theory of gravity will have to be revised. Until that day, it stands
chessfan6 1 year ago
@Drunkenprophet23 Now that I think about it, there is one more necessary element that I know of: if there are 2 explanations that perfectly fit the observed phenomena, the simpler one wins out.
Since we cannot yet explain all the phenomena with respect to our and possible other universes, this principle cannot be used right now for this theory, hope that makes sense
chessfan6 1 year ago
I disagree with Richard, the reason we havent been visited is that the distances in space make it almost impossible to travel to us and also to even locate us, that doesnt mean there are not millions of advanced technological civilizations in the universe though.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
@TormentedLucrious What do you mean I'm not replying to anyone? You're the only person to reply to my comment.
Anyway. What would cause intelligent life to destroy itself? Hmm... let me think, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, destroying the environment etc.
Experiment47 1 year ago
The doctrine, that God was under no necessity to create, is not some useless or abstract scholasticism. It is essential. For it reveals the nature of agape (Gods' kind of love). That which in itself is eternally blessed, needing of nothing. But being love, it desires to give. And gives, seeing, in the very moment of creation, the necessity for the Crucifiction.
TheSouthernorycle 1 year ago
@TheSouthernorycle
You are mistaken. The Buddha rewards all believers and punishes all who preach the false doctrine of judeo-christian gods.
imnotbncre8ive 1 year ago
If a theologian opened his ideas and was willing to listen to Richard Dawkins, it would only take a couple of YouTube videos and documentaries. Richard Dawkins is indeed a God.
3xxiled 1 year ago 2
@3xxiled He would be horrified to hear you say that!
markp10311969 1 year ago
One idea is that intelligent life always destroy itself before advancing to the point where it can visit other words.
Experiment47 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sagan said, "We are star stuff" and "a way for the cosmos to know itself."
All the atoms on earth and in our bodies came from supernova that blew up over 5 billion years ago.
Aren't we all just walking, talking stardust -- this cosmos become AWAKE and looking back at itself? -- and aren't we intimately connected to it all?
We are this wonder called life become AWAKE
Please enjoy the dance.
And ultimately there's nothing that separates us from others in this grand mystery. Please be kind.
goog2k 1 year ago
great, as always
MotaroMKD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Key word: SPECULATION = The foundation on which evolution is constructed.
Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
sphereofinfluence247 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
07:58
Listen to the interviewer say something, then stunning of... passion........
petkol 2 years ago
The multiverse "theory" and its "foam" are just as ridiculous as a gigantic bearded guy creating heaven and earth. It's completely unfalsifiable, and quite frankly totally arbitrary. I always have to smile a bit when Richard is trying to justify it - it's awfully like a religious apologist defending his or her particular scripture.
I personally tend to agree with Carl Sagan, who thought that life is simply an emergent property of our universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
caius112 2 years ago
the multiverse theory isnt ridiculous why would there only be one universe . Hopefully m theory/string theory once its confirmed(hopefully) can shed light on other universes
jileel 2 years ago
@jileel
M/string is not the only proposed theory for unifying gravity and quantum mechanics. I'm always intrigued by people who propose the existence of other universes as a scientific claim. How does one verify their existence? It appears to be impossible by definition. If they are outside our universe, there exists no means by which to observe them. If they are observable, then they cannot be considered a separate universe.
imnotbncre8ive 1 year ago
@caius112 Do you know much about quantum mechanics? Or about sub-atomic particles appearing out of nothing and vanishing back into nothing. The questions about where these particles come from have led many quantom physicists to theorize that there might be alternate dimensions that these particles bounce back and forth from.
ohgrx 2 years ago
@caius112 Except that Richard doesn't state it as fact, it's hypothetical. Unlike bible beaters who do state god as fact.
Experiment47 1 year ago
I challenge all of you to pick up the book Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis) and read it for YOURSELF. He answers all your questions. I bought it thinking it was a defense against Christianity (I was an atheist too) and it changed my life.
TheSouthernorycle 2 years ago
Comment removed
muzikman182 1 year ago
@TheSouthernorycle you're a retard
muzikman182 1 year ago
the host is so annoying.........
eTernaLBOWLING 2 years ago
The main problem with humans seeking other forms of life is bias. We are looking for radio waves. Something akin to 1950's technology. With this in mind an alien civilization that was water based wouldnt be using these methods. We cannot assume or presume to know what methods they use for communication.
Even if they did use radio at one point in their history it would be for a short time, relatively speaking
ORACLE063 2 years ago
I think they would at least use electromagnetic waves as a tool for communicating. There are no other ways that works as fast. ;)
Thymonico 2 years ago
wouldnt light be the best means of communication?
Dreamerx47 2 years ago
light is in that group and out of that group light is the best to cary info.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47 on terrestrial scales then yes light is one of the best means of communication, this is what fiber optics is based on, however over astronomical distances visible light is not a great way of communicating as interstellar dust creates a haze meaning our optical telescopes are limited to a couple hundred light years however infra-red to radio telescopes can pick up galaxies billions of light years out, so radio waves would be one of the better methods for interstellar communication
rhybro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They found a planet called gliese 581 c, look it up. Looks alot like earth, they estimate the temperature would be between 34 and124 degrees farenheit.
AsG1989 2 years ago
Comment removed
AsG1989 2 years ago
Comment removed
AsG1989 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Most of Dawkins theories are centered on time. Einstein proved that time was just like gravity, a LAW. If for a moment he took his head out of his ass he would see that a God would be no more subject to time than to gravity or any other law. He is the author of the book. The author is not subject to the time his characters are living in. Dawkins see's the possibility of alternate universes, alternate realities etc. Why not a being that lives in a state that is beyond or outside of time?
TheSouthernorycle 2 years ago
you can't just posit an unfalsifiable claim like god is not subject to his own laws
Altoids23 2 years ago 16
This has been flagged as spam show
How could he be God if he were subject to his own laws? Man needed the laws in place for him to exist. God has no needs. Im sorry if you feel it unfalsifiable but you cannot put God in some water tight compartment. If we are to talk about truth and the reality of Gods laws I cannot intelligently discuss those laws without allowing God to be God. Sorry but your answer is sidestepping the very nature of what God is and assuming him to be something less. Im working with truth here not fairy tales.
TheSouthernorycle 2 years ago
Not being subject to own laws is still a characteristic of God(s). If God(s) is/are to be discussed in science it must be falsifiable. to posit a claim that a god is responsible for physical laws is absurd because there is no way to see if it really is true or if it is not true. it can only be believed on faith. Because you can't disprove the truth of the flying spaghetti monster i am right. you are not working with truth
Altoids23 2 years ago 40
I think he should stop talking about bubble universes.
glennjridge 8 months ago
please just give up at life.
eTernaLBOWLING 2 years ago
You're point is interesting and I say it as an outspoken atheist. It's much more interesting than what people have to offer.
This kind of "Creator God" could be possible in some sense but is still not very plausible. Still, he/she/it wouldn't be the one in the holy books. And still Dawkins discussed it in The God Delusion, probably in Chapter 4. Check it out, I believe you do try to work out the truth.
Drakon222 2 years ago
You still make the case for a Deist god, something which Dawkins admits to doubt, but cannot disapprove.
The problem is coming up with proof for a god who gives a shit about what would be his creation.
You could possibly infer a god who cares about his self image over anything else beyond the universe (Ephesians 3:10-11); but have fun preaching that and gaining a following big enough to support your cathedrals and your tourist-like youth mission trips.
ajboyer 2 years ago
"Why not a being that lives in a state that is beyond or outside of time?"
my guess is that it's existence can't be mathematically proven or even considered possible
danblocker 2 years ago
lol thumbs down to your willfull ignorange. fail.
eTernaLBOWLING 2 years ago
I'd rather not have life existing on any other planet in the universe even though they might be too far away. I think life does and have happened other places but really dont want it.
fundamentally life really is about surviving. I'd rather be alone than having a possible rival. We have enough rivally amongst ourselves, no need to throw a whole another planet in.
Devilsnightforlife 2 years ago
Really? I am hoping for a "planet of the nymphomaniacs"
Didn't you ever watch kirk, teaching hot alien babes how to lurve. lol
Xorinite 2 years ago 4
I never saw Star trek ;)
Devilsnightforlife 2 years ago
Life on other planets I would think would be the best possible thing for us. It would cause such a realization of how much the same we all are and stop so much fighting in our world. Most pointless fighting would come to and end I would think. It might be hard to imagine but that's just because we have never known it. Actually, we have. In the US we came together after 911 and stopped, even if it was very temporary, many pointless arguments differences.
cr4zypyr0 2 years ago
Sure thing, they can find life. Just as long as it is not as intelligent nor more.
Devilsnightforlife 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So scientists can postulate all kinds of whacky theories, which can never be measured or proven, and this is accepted as science with all the praise and grants and scholarships that follow, while the postulate of an intelligent designer is heresy. Yup, I get it now.
Cifrocco 2 years ago
Sure cuz science gets results in the long run and seeks evidence.
crawnwax 2 years ago 2
in science, it's allowed to postulate hypothesis of all kind of sorts, there is no tabu on that really. but in order of a thesis to become an accepted scientific theory, it needs evidence.. scientists are not mythologists..
carryall69 2 years ago 3
No. The hypothetical ideas he's referring to are just that :hypothetical. ID has been proposed as a theory repeatedly by it's advocates for over a century now and it neither has evidence to support it nor does it explain the existing evidence. In fact, it contradicts everything in biology (and over a dozen other branches of science) . If religion weren't wrapped up with ID, nobody (including ID advocates) would ever have thought of suggesting it as a theory to explain life. cont..
ritter89 2 years ago
We are the dream of an alien being. Soon it will wake up and we are no more.
byteresistor 2 years ago
boo!
Purrebark 2 years ago
It seems that we are drawn by some invisible force to replicate life. My only conclusion is that our purpose here is to become Gods in the sense that we want to create something in our plane of existance that will become sentient.
Whether it is Robots or Computer based AI, our ultimate goal is to become GOD to a being.
part2themovie 2 years ago
If you're a programmer YOU must know there is a GOD, if you ever used some 3d software and changed materials YOU know there is a GOD
I think what causes problems is the definition of what a GOD is and our general inability to fathom that things don't need a creator.
My dream in life is to make an immersive online world. I have been gathering resources for about a decade. The parallels between online virtual worlds and our own Holofractal universe are uncanny.
part2themovie 2 years ago
i didnt realise "we've never been visited" was fact..
*cough*
paralelSun 2 years ago
Hehe, I noticed that too. He seems focused more on the physical universe, Although it seems its only for the benefit of the audience.
part2themovie 2 years ago
haha michio kaku explains this stuff the best
crzer07 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Its a non falsifiable statement. It really means nothing, and could be 'truthfully' said by any being claiming to be god.
robertunix 2 years ago 2
not to mention lacking any logical & realistic authenticity
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
amen info :)
honestkaos 2 years ago
man i wish i can talk like him, he sounds so intelligent (which he is)
lailum 2 years ago
What disturbs me is that the world is governed by people like Islamo-fascists in the Mid East and central asia,
The USA is run by Christan end timers Zionist and Satanist and both these groups have access to nuclear weapons.
I don't like the idea that people wish to kill for what essentially is their imaginary friend.
Bring on an age of rationalism, atheism and scientific reason. This is why I like Germany and the E.U. which is run by moderate Christan and Atheist rationalists.
Long live EU.
infokemp 2 years ago 6
I couldn't agree more. As a US citizen, its really scary that my leaders all believe in fairy tales...
Zervaman 2 years ago 63
As Richard Dawkins, i think correctly, pointed out is that there're a lot more atheists then you might think. But its partially still a *come-out -of-the-closet* thing. In order to get in the white house, you have to openly believe in god, or you wont get the majority of voters.
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
There's only two types of people Atheists and Atheists who are afraid of burning in hell.
part2themovie 2 years ago
hehe, I totally agree with you. (Although the mentally ill should not be included ;-))
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
@part2themovie i don't get it
muzikman182 1 year ago
@Zervaman Not sure they actually believe. The electorate essentially
demands that politicians, at least, pretend to be persons of faith. Which means
that all politicians are necessarily either ignorant or dishonest... (to paraphrase
Richard Dawkins)
shaun2135 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zervaman Not sure they actually believe. The electorate essentially
demands that politicians, at least, pretend to be persons of faith. Which means
that all politicians in the US are necessarily either ignorant or dishonest... (to paraphrase Richard Dawkins)
shaun2135 1 year ago
Haha, the interviewer is totally into him, she gawps him up ;-)
MartaSorensen 3 years ago 9
michio kaku talks about this stuff, look him up if you want more theory oriented science. He talks about IF there was life out there what they would be like and stuff
AsG1989 3 years ago
Just... plain... weeeeerd.
RedDaVincy 3 years ago
holy shit that guy is INTELLIGENT
JaniLPU 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this sinful creature needs to repent of should be put to death for lies against God
Psalm23YHVH 3 years ago
fuck you.
arielwollinger 3 years ago
seriously, you better be sarcastic about your statement???
if not you are a barbaric, dinosaur, oaf that needs to be put to death for being so oafish.
quietAtheist20 3 years ago
You are an insult to human intelligence.
jeniber 3 years ago
Ah diddums...doesn't like it when somebody questions his irrational faith in the invisible man in the sky.
Never mind, goddy-woddy will still be there in the morning, and the morning after that, but that horrid Mr Dawkins has only another 25 years left, then he'll be ALL GONE and you won't have to worry anymore.
AND Santa is coming tomorrow too! Make sure you leave him some mince pies...
RationalThinker1859 3 years ago
pretty smart guy
i think the accent helps
foodeater398 3 years ago 3
What accent?
ReeT0ric 3 years ago
lol the British accent
foodeater398 3 years ago
Nothing wrong with believing in God if you stick to the rules of deism, meaning God does not interfere in his Universe, therefore all religions are false (which they must be cause there's so many of em which disagree with eachother)
andyx1205 3 years ago
then you studied it and did not understand it.
Charango123quena 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you know! i study evolution and it makes me believe in God more strongly.
fredfelosofar 3 years ago
How so? Where is there evidence of an interference in the process of evolution?
baudiirocz 3 years ago 2
God is not something that can be tested. You are free to believe anything you want.
NwZ2 3 years ago 2
why not ?!
badmashabhi 3 years ago
because you are dumb
arielwollinger 3 years ago
Nothing wrong with believing in God, I certainly can't prove you wrong, as long as you don't deny that evolution is a reality.
megamarsvin 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my pussy is soRE! !! msg me on MSN. my id is n my profile!! E
blobking123 3 years ago
Jesus Christ, this isn't the goddamn middle ages. wake up and smell the logic. If god does exist, why in the fucking hell would he make a race so incredibly flawed that we murder each other, rape each other, commit incest etc? If he was super powerful and all knowing, he would know better than to make such a violent and self centered race.
It is human arrogance and human arrogance alone to believe that we are somehow special or created by a supreme being.
Icix1 3 years ago
I understand people believing in God..
but what I dont understand is how come they're still buying all these Creationist crap that a supreme being magically creating the universe with the Earth as its main theme
Aersis32 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Everything that appears designed was designed, thats final.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
Including god then. Fine by me, but a little blasphemous. Still, your words, not mine, so to hell for you.
RationalThinker1859 3 years ago
no it isnt, but you can believe what you want, no one's stopping you..
i understand that alot of people need comfort and assurance which leads to the belief of magic and a sky daddy
Aersis32 3 years ago
define "appears". What appears designed to you doesn't appear designed to me.
AsmoAD 3 years ago
The eye appears designed to me and to you also. You just are in denial.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
The eye does not appear designed to me or to you. You are just in denial.
AsmoAD 3 years ago
The eye was indeed designed. Your are a denialist I am afraid.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
The vertebrate eye is a terrible design. Awful. Why the need for spectacles, why is the neural path so indirect, why the blind spot on the retina, why such a tiny fovea? If the eye was designed then the designer is crap. Any engineer that designed that would be sacked.
And why design around 40 different models? Why not just design one good one and stick with it?
Am I being too rational for you?
RationalThinker1859 3 years ago 2
The eyes in a perfect world worked fine. They work fine for most people today. Quit being ungracious to God. Be thankful he gave us life.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
Fuck your tiny crap god. I just told you the eye is a crap design and all you can say is the `eyes in a perfect world work fine`. How small-minded can you get...
RationalThinker1859 3 years ago
Since I'm aware of the process of natrual selection which can build up complexity without intelligence, theres no need for an organ subject to this process to "appear" to have a designer. Do you know about natural selection? If so, maybe you are the one in denial.
AsmoAD 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
natural selection is part of creation. It does not build anything it merely keeps the characteristics that work, it introduces nothing new. Evolutionism demands new information and that is impossible. Creation is the only theory supported scientifically.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
I guess you aren't in denial then. You obviously don't know what natural selection is.
AsmoAD 3 years ago 2
You clearly deny natural selection because it is part of creation.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
What does that mean? How can one `deny natural selection because it is part of creation`? What a meaningless, empty statement.
RationalThinker1859 3 years ago 2
Yeeeeesssssss, that`s right, and you know that because you have read lots of books about it, haven`t you.
And please don`t use the words creation and science in the same sentence - it`s an insult to one`s intelligence.
RationalThinker1859 3 years ago 6
To use your WORTHLESS rhetoric:
Everything that appears to be NOT designed was NOT designed, that final.
Nature is definitely not designed. I was just thinking about "rotating" limbs, it is something that human's are able to create in machines and robots, but it was too complicated for god right? Find a limb that can rotate an infinite times in nature. Good luck finding it.
taz0k2 3 years ago
What a ridiculous argument. A single cell is literally a factory of interwoven and moving parts, and you -- let's see you weave 50,000 volumes of genetic material into something 10 times smaller than the head of a needle.... with God all things are possible.
markpianoman 2 years ago
A non-fallicable argument. The sure sign of an argument which has had the bottom dropped out of it.
noodles321321 2 years ago 2
It all starts simple and given the stupendous amount of time it all had to evolve it's far from ridiculous, it's the way it is.
'with God all things are possible' and yet there's not a SHRED of evidence, your god is imaginary and you express him with nothing but font and verbal communication, mere words don't put men on the moon my friend. Science does, science that gave you the computer you are using right now and the medicine that is keeping you alive.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago 2
The biggest evidence for the creator is the creation. The simplest form of life we know is immensely complicated. An ameba has so much genetic material in a single cell that it could fill a library of 50,000 volumes. Life had to come from an intelligence of infinite knowledge and power. Life did come from life - God. Slime plus time doesn't even equal an ameba.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Again, that is not evidence, If there was a creator, who created the creator? There is an infinite regress with that point.
Given incredibly long periods of time, physics and chemistry do everything you see today.
For 95% of the time there was nothing but a 'soup' of interactive chemistry, if you break down span of life into one year it wasn't until END of December when single cell organisms started to appear, which is already a very complicated lifeform. Nothing just poofs into existence.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago 4
actually the entire human genome is less than 1 gigabyte
Mike12784 2 years ago
And the -individual- bits of it is just a couple megabytes; that is, since we have the genomic code, we only need to know the differences to the baseline to have an individual's code, and then we're down to just a couple megabytes.
As for the thought of the immense space it would take in a library - well yeah. If I print something in big letters I can fill continents with just one of Shakespeare's plays if I want to. Doesn't prove that God wrote it, just that I cut down lots of trees.
EtherealN 2 years ago
In the past, it is possible that if life only existed on earth then with ancient technology it is probable in our nature that we have colonized on these other planets that are life friendly. And when these travelers returned the ancient earth people thought of them as gods. They may have taken credit for things they never really did (possibly it was easier to explain to primitives) and used their advanced technology of weather manipulation and genetic manipulation to express their power..hmmmmmm
highintel 3 years ago
PiroNiro, Your video responses are going backwards.
highintel 3 years ago
I like to point out that if God were omni present that would make him a singularity. He would be timeless but also infinitely ignorant. It takes plurality for action, movement, time and thought to occur. If there is a God there had to have been a pre-existence in order for him to have a thought. In other words he evolved.
DrawingYou 3 years ago
A multiverse! I feel so fucking tiny. XD
Axirru 3 years ago
the idea of a being "adjusting the knobs on a machine" is absolutely laughable
MobilRay89 3 years ago
The improbability of the cosmological constants coupled with the lack of evidence for his multi-verse theory doesnt give this particular argument any gravitas.
Atheists would do themselves better by not arguing from the anthropic principle as it seems to naturally lean to a theistic interpretation. The nature of the improbability screams for a designer despite his evolution to complexity stance.
Rsambo00 3 years ago
Surely you are misinterpreting anthropic principle.Inprobability is shrunk by the multitude of numbers involved.One in a billion chance is the same as saying'try it a billion times and it WILL HAPPEN ONCE'.This leaves no room for any other explanation and leans in no way towards an alternative creator.If so we would then have to ask for evidence of the creator other than the creation,which would seem to have been aided into creation by a self sufficient process. One might ask WHY DOES GOD HIDE?
thomasbryn1 3 years ago
Here is the point: if any of the fundamental parameters of the universe were slightly different then the universe wouldnt be able to sustain life or even exist
The atheist sees that and says two things: 1)Lucky us 2)There must be an infinite number of universes to solve such an incalculable problem of this principle
Astronomer Lee Smolin said that the chance of the parameters that govern our universe could have been what they are is one chance in 10 to the power of 229. How lucky indeed!
Rsambo00 3 years ago
The point is not that the parameters are unique to life.All in the debate agree on that.The point is that some argue this is evidence for a creator.Despite the fact that this in itself opens up a whole world of questions about the origin of this CREATOR,the anthropic principle completely explains the fact that life exists in a perfect environment:because it HAS to. Otherwise we would not be here to admire this so called fluke.There is no LUCK involved simply winning factors along the way.
thomasbryn1 3 years ago
The idea of winning factors is silly when you see how fantastically impossible it was to have the exact universe necessary to allow life to begin.
Its more important to ponder if it's possible the universe was born ex nihilo. Then contemplate how tremendously improbable the parameters of the universe must be for
life to form. Then you have to wonder about a natural explanation of the first replicating cell that appeared on the planet.
"Winning factors" sounds like luck in disguise.
Rsambo00 3 years ago
If something has probability of 1 in a million it is the same as saying if you try it a million times it will happen once.The anthropic principle perfectly explains this.When you add on the factor that religions are completely without any observable and testable evidence and that quantum uncertainty principles suggest probability is key to our being,(and has indeed given us the most exact science)one should begin to see the Gods as man made explanations for what is now understood as inevitable.
thomasbryn1 3 years ago 3
Your first point is a non-sequitor and you're ignoring my argument by trying to conflate every religion into one another.
You have faith the universe was borne from nothing. There is no hard evidence for either of our beliefs but, its hard for me to rationalize the origin of life/the universe/morality without seeing an external force outside space and time. This idea coupled with the astronomical improbability that our universe happens to be fined tuned for life is how I reach my conclusion.
Rsambo00 3 years ago
If you are speaking of the BigBang theory, there IS eividence. I advise you to go learn something. I'll give you some hints; Steven Hawking, and radiation.
TheFemaleDurden 3 years ago 6
well then consider the astronomical NUMBER of planets which increases the probability that at least one has these particular properties.
presswt 3 years ago
You seem confused. No one is arguing that no force outside space and time created the universe. If you go back in time far enough, what existed? Nothingness with infinite potential. But it is a far cry to then say that there must be a reason for creation outside of chance, that some divine being set things into motion who keeps an eye on us and counts our sins before we go to bed. As for your second argument, look up the anthropic principle. Our universe isn't fine tuned for life in any way.
chikmagnet7 3 years ago