Creator or the Multiverse

Series discussion with Professor John Lennox.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Science
• Religion
• Physics
• God
• belief
• faith
• spirituality

[Kalevala87]

@Johnf85 My pleasure.

[Johnf85]

@Kalevala87 Sir, you have given me some things to look into. Thank you.

[Kalevala87]

You guys still trying to sell the fine-tuning argument? Sorry, but it died long ago. Point one: it's an a posteriori judgement and as such pretty much a worthless tautology. Point two: Stenger, Adams and others have clearly shown that there's actually a range of possible physical constants that would have allowed for the development of complex biochemistry. Point three: Even conditions prohibitive for carbon-based life could allow for other forms of it to develop. This is carbon chauvinism.

[PrinceWalter]

Hawking Explains Multiverse

watch?v=oFUgMXVj0js

Denying the Consequent (valid)

If multiverse theory is false (P), then the Lord's Kingdom EXISTS FINITELY in THIS KOSMOS. (Q)

John 18:36. "My kingdom is NOT of THIS (Gr.) KOSMOS." (Not Q)

Therefore, multiverse theory is NOT FALSE. (Not P).

[TestAmenT12341]

This man is very intelligent. He definetely knows what he is talking about. You guys have some great videos!

[chebob2009]

@AegeanKing

And if you're not looking to debate, just dont respond.

[chebob2009]

@AegeanKing

Further to that, the process that created life on this earth, natural selection- does not create pointless things. Each adaptation, has to by definition, benefit the orgasnism in question. So your fallacy of division here, is not a fallacy. And you really are faced with the task of explaining how everything we see in the biosphere, fits into the human purpose (rather than just its own)

[chebob2009]

@AegeanKing

Ok well that's actually that fallacy of division, not composition. And it's a ridiculous fallacy to use without some reasoning to back it up- since reduction into smaller parts is almost always the first move to make in science. It's only a fallacy because the components of an object often have a DIFFERENT individual purpose which contribute to the whole. If used in your argument, it would imply that God is a wasteful or bad designer- which you're welcome to claim.

[AegeanKing]

@chebob2009 Therefore, you were saying that even evil things must have a purpose in order for life to be objectively purposeful which is FALLACIOUS. Just because something is true of the whole, does not mean the same thing is true of the individual parts. That is called the fallacy of composition and that is what you committed with your silly comment. Lastly, yes, I put my comments on comment threads. They are not called debate threads. I dont troll youtube like you looking for debates.

[AegeanKing]

@chebob2009 I failed to show how it was fallacious? Did you read my comments at all? Scroll down. I plainly said that your reasoning commits the fallacy of composition. You said that I was picking and chosing what had meaning and what did not have meaning and therefore I was wrong. But I said that everything I see around me has purpose and I think we are here for a purpose. You objected to that by saying that I was picking and choosing. (continued)