5:04 A random combination of weights fine tuned for 3 months gave GPT4, which can talk just like a human. Just imagine what could happen in 50000 years of evolution.
@AnotherViewer
Ай бұрын
In the 18th Century, David Hume counter-argued against the Argument from Design by pointing out that, although we know that man-made structures were designed because we have seen them being built, the analogy does not necessarily hold for non-man-made structures. For the analogy to hold, the theist must be able to demonstrate that natural objects in the universe (such as trees, rocks and humans) were manufactured in some way. This in turn requires the demonstration of the existence of an intelligent designer, the very thing the argument purports to be trying to prove. In fact, our ability to recognize design depends on our ability to discern characteristics that are not found in nature, and designed objects such as watches and airplanes stand in stark contradistinction to the characteristics of natural objects such as rocks and trees. When we see a watch, we may look for a watchmaker, but when we see a dog, it does not follow that we would look for a dog-maker, because we know that dogs are produced through the well-understood natural processes of mammalian reproduction. Proof of design cannot therefore be produced within the context of nature itself. If a design has to have a purpose - and identifying a purpose seems to be essential to recognizing design - then we need to know the intentions of the designer. But, before we can know God's intentions, we must first prove that he exists, so it is necessary to begin by assuming as true the very thing in question, the existence of God (a fallacy known in logic as “begging the question”). The argument also begs the question of how, if orderliness in the universe requires the existence and intervention of God, God’s mind itself can be orderly. Was God’s mind created by an even greater God? Certainly, to say that God’s mind is in some way self-explanatory or necessarily existing begs the same questions already refuted in the Cosmological Argument. Insisting that it is just a brute or ultimate fact is unjustifiable, and the same claim could be equally made for material orderliness. Order appears to be an inherent characteristic of the universe itself, and the assumption that a god of some sort is needed to impose the order is unwarranted and indefensible. Additionally, order and complexity are very much dependent on subjective judgments: where one person may see order, another may see chaos; where one person may see indecipherable complexity, another may see elegant simplicity. The implicit assumption in the Argument from Design is that we humans are somehow the purpose of the universe, rather than ants or bacteria or star systems or black holes, and that we are not in fact just some irrelevant and rather unfortunate by-product. This in itself seems an unlikely scenario and certainly an unjustifiable conjecture. The theist argues that, when blind chance operates, there are billions of different possible combinations of atoms that could come into being and, if out of all those billions the one successful one that we see occurs, then it must have been the result of divine interference. However, we should be very wary of jumping to the conclusion that the existence of a galaxy or of an eye, for example, is a planned event just because it is statistically improbable. Winning the lottery is statistically improbable, but someone wins it almost every week. The spontaneous origin of life on Earth, for example, may have been improbable, but it only had to occur once. Indeed, in the billions of galaxies throughout the immense reaches of the known universe, over a period of billions of years, it would be extremely unlikely if such an unlikely event did not occur. Even if the odds against it were billions to one, that would still point to life arising in billions of planets throughout the universe. In fact, it is quite possible that it occurred several times independently on the very early Earth, when conditions finally became propitious. It seems strange to speak of present conditions as designed when these conditions differ, sometimes radically, from those of the distant past, and are in constant transition under the evolutionary forces of mutation and natural selection. The Argument from Design is forced to assume that all parts of a complex system must always have functioned expressly as they do today. Otherwise, it would imply a designer who is always at work adjusting or fine-tuning his creations, which were presumably faulty to begin with. The theory of evolution gives a much more convincing explanation of the constantly unfolding changes observed by science, and provides a workable and testable explanation of how complexity arose from simplicity. Although science would never claim to understand everything about how the universe was created and how it works, we certainly understand much more than we did five hundred years ago (or even a hundred), and phenomena which then seemed miraculous turn out to have rather mundane scientific and natural causes and mechanisms. While we may never completely understand the workings of the universe, it seems likely that we will continue to progress in explaining apparently unexplainable things.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
What is the point or the question here ??
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
You said that natural objects need to be shown that they are manufactured in the same way as artificial objects. This is a false premise. The premise is that if anything begins to exist, then it has a cause universe begins to exist therefore universe has a cause. This cause is what we called as God.
@thedude0000
Ай бұрын
That is a streamlined and easy to digest counter argument to design. 👏🧐 You sir have won the internet today!!🥇
@AnotherViewer
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 "You said that natural objects need to be shown that they are manufactured in the same way as artificial objects. This is a false premise." In order for your premise to be true, you would need to do just that. Thus showing that your premise is false. "The premise is that if anything begins to exist, then it has a cause universe begins to exist therefore universe has a cause. This cause is what we called as God." This is known as the Cosmological Argument, but it does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods). Neither does it explain why the something which is “outside the universe” should be “God” and not some other unknown phenomenon. There is no compelling reason to equate a First Cause with God, and certainly Aristotle did not conceive of his Prime Mover as something that should be worshiped, much less as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of later Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition. The whole concept of causality and time as we understand it is based entirely on the context of our universe, and so cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Causal explanations are functions of natural laws which are themselves products of the universe we exist in, and time itself is just an aspect of the universe. If there is no “time before” the universe, then the whole notion of “cause” ceases to apply and the universe cannot sensibly have a “cause” (as we use and understand the concept). Indeed, perhaps there IS no “cause” of the universe. When something within the universe begins to exist, like a star or an atom of carbon or a pizza, the process being described is change. There is no brand new stuff, all the stuff that exists in the universe (that is, all the matter and energy) has been here for the entire history of the universe. If I make a pizza, each atom in each molecule in each shred of cheese was forged from hydrogen in the heart of a star, and those hydrogen atoms were either created through proton decay or, more likely, formed when the universe was only a few thousand years old from a soup of sub-atomic particles that formed from the plasma that made up the early universe. The pizza "begins to exist", but it's just the latest configuration of stuff that has existed for billions of years. The universe is the sum total of all the stuff, including time. So if we claim the universe began to exist, do we mean that the universe, as we know it, is a change in the configuration of stuff that already existed? How should I be understanding the phrase begins to exist such that it applies to the universe and a carbon atom and a pizza?
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
@AnotherViewer The question is not whether something is outside the universe or inside the universe. I can make a car, and i can be inside the car as well. The question is whether the universe is the creator or created??
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
4:10 evolution has answered this beautifully. We didn't jump from non living to living in an instant. It was a very slow process. You should read some books or papers on the early stages of evolution.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
Whether fast or slow is not the question. The question is, how can life come from non life
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 you should read about Abiogenesis. I tells you how exactly life start from non living things.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
Are you result of abiogenesis??
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 everyone is results of evolution. we have proof, not verse from a religious book. we have done experiments to prove it.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
Experiment to that God does not exist??
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
0:38 god of the gaps argument. we don't know, but that doesn't mean the god created it.There is a possibility that univese created on its own. We have such hypothesis in science. You might not need a painter.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
Universe exist therefore creator of universe exist
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 no, universe can exist on its own. you can read some research paper on this.
@ls000skelton2
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008like this, I can also say rapes, murders, theft etc exist, so god exist right?
@VinodSingh-im4ls
Ай бұрын
Then who created the creator of the universe, huh??@@shabih2008
@sosnikit
Ай бұрын
who created the unicorn then ?
@amitadhikari1431
Ай бұрын
Bhagwan Brahma built the universe.
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
1:25 if you have so much evidence of god why don't you publish your work and get a research paper in top journals. You will also get a nobel prize.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
This is not a scientific video, and neither do we need validation from science to prove our religion. For us, science is our slave and for you science is your master
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 ok you have no proof of existence of god, without making logical fallacies?
@amitverma4203
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008you are using mobile phone to record it, Internet to upload it. Doesn’t seem like you are the master since you are dependent on it. Same thing is with your supposed God also. He is dependent on this human civilisation. If we are wiped out from tomorrow and no documents are preserved. Your religion won’t back at all and not the your version God also. But laws of science would still be discovered the same.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
@amitverma4203 I am the master of my mobile and internet connection since i have paid for it.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
@amitverma4203 how much have you paid for your life and the oxygen which you are breating??
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
8:15 Yes. I can use DNA test if I want to. My father is observable and has accompanied me through my entire life. I can show you photos, videos and what not to prove that my father exists. Same doesn't apply to the unscientific idea of religious gods.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
If you want to but have you?? So you believe in your father because you have seen him, first you need to prove your paternity because photos and documents are just claims not evidence also your great great grandfather exist needs to have evidence because you didn't have any document of his neither you have seen him
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 I can easily prove my father is indeed my father through DNA test. I still have my mother's sonograph report. photos and document are indeed evidence. claim is the sentence you say not photos and videos. My great grandfather exits because this is a scientific theory called reproduction. I don't need to see them. Scientific theories support the fact that my grand parents and ancestors exist.
@amitverma4203
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008photos and documents are ofc evidences. What are you talking about. The existence of great great grandfather is the concept because we have countless observations and corroboration that on a smaller time scale humans produce sexually. Hence biological ancestry is best possible explanation. If you have proof of human being reproductive non sexually then we will have revisit your what can be the best explanation, of great great grandfather exist. Now where is your observation, corroboration or proof God creating the universe.
@amitverma4203
Ай бұрын
@prakhar Wow man!! 🙌🙌 Read all of your comments, amazing comprehension skills and fantastic knowledge.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
If photos and documents are evidence then religious scriptures are also evidence??
@DeconvertedMan
Ай бұрын
Correct, there is no evidence of "god".
@ateriana5116
Ай бұрын
The question about the origin of the universe is not "who created it", but "how did it form". You are asserting that there is a person/god who created the universe. There are some things that science can't demonstrate, but all the claims that science makes are demonstrable. Something existing doesn't conclude that god did it. Just like your painting example does not conclude that god made it. Instead you attribute it to humans for which we have evidence of their existence and that they create paintings. Even with a god you still have life from non-life. God didn't use life to make life. Your "evidence" just boils down to something exists therefore god did it, because the Quran said so. You still need to show that god exists and that god did it. Let's use your example from before, is the painting evidence that god made the painting? If not, can god not create paintings?
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
You have strawmanning my whole video, i never said that the existence of painting means that God created painting. I said that the existence of painting proves that painter exists . Similarly, the existence of the universe proves that creators of the universe exist. We just call this creator as God. And who created it and how it formed and why it was formed all these questions are valid question and apply to all creations, laws or system.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
You said that God didn't use life to make life, neither did i claim this. What i said is that life can not happen from non-living. Something intelligent can not come from non intelligent . Since God is both living and intelligent therefore he i the source of all life and intelligence on the face of this earth.
@lhvinny
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 God is not made of cells. God does not reproduce. God has no genetic material. God is not a form of life.
@ateriana5116
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 "What i said is that life can not happen from non-living. Something intelligent can not come from non intelligent . Since God is both living and intelligent therefore he i the source of all life and intelligence on the face of this earth." -shabih Notice the contradiction here? You have an intelligent living being that did not come from an intelligent living being. So your claim that life can't come from non-life and that intelligence can't come from non intelligence is contradicted by your god. If your god exists and wasn't created, both intelligence and life can exist without being created. God nullifies your argument. "I said that the existence of painting proves that painter exists." -shabid The point is why do you not conclude that the painting was made by god? For everything else that wasn't made by humans you just conclude god did it. For paintings you can demonstrate that humans exist and that humans create paintings. You don't have that for anything that you claim god did. Humans making stuff doesn't conclude that a god exists and makes stuff. "Similarly, the existence of the universe proves that creators of the universe exist." -shabid You first need to show that the universe was created. Furthermore you also need to show that a god exists and that god created the universe. Using your painting example, even when you can demonstrate that it was created, it doesn't demonstrate it was made by god. In fact we can demonstrate that it wasn't made by god. For the universe you can't even show that it was created, you just assert it was.
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
@ateriana5116 God did not come from anywhere. God is always there, God is the ultimate intelligent being, that's my argument
@sickcaty
Ай бұрын
if something intelligent has to come from something intelligent then how did this so called all mighty, all powerful came into being? so you are saying god can come without any higher power, but this universe cant? isnt that dumb lol. And there is no need to claim that we know everything, just say you dont know if you dont, instead of relying on a 5000 year old marvel comic
@leo-theRevenant
Ай бұрын
no
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
6:51 do you understand that anything written in Quran is not evidence? evidence is something completely different. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
@shabih2008
Ай бұрын
Quran is not a book of science. the Quran is something far greater than science
@prakhars962
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008 Quran is just a 1400 old book and contains a lot of scientific error. It also plagiarised a lot of things from different religions. Even hijacked gods and prophets from other religions such as jesus, moses and adam.
@AdityaYadav-jg9xw
Ай бұрын
@@shabih2008bro your book says human's were made using soil. It's can't even get basic stuff right
Пікірлер: 79