was in a tf2 lobby where some guy playing demo was playing this video over voice chat absolute chad (had a sign that said God is good)
@jaihummel5057
11 ай бұрын
That's so awesome haha
@IamEscBoy
10 ай бұрын
he sent me a link. studied this in philosophy.
@IamEscBoy
10 ай бұрын
this is basically a fancy version of the watchmaker analogy
@JandroD
10 ай бұрын
No way. That's awesome, and makes me now want to play more TF2 .
@kyriacostheofanous1445
9 ай бұрын
awesome
@eucharistenjoyer
Жыл бұрын
Man, how stupid I was back when I mocked proponents of the Fine-Tuning argument. Praise be to God He took me back from atheism, even after all my mockery and disrespect. Life is Good and has a meaning, even in difficult times.
@zoe5418
Жыл бұрын
same for me!
@airplayrule
Жыл бұрын
i thought people rarely change their mind on politics n religion. please give details. how old were u as an atheist, how confident u were, why u were, n same questions for when u were changing your mind n when u became theist. r u still open minded to studying various spiritual teachings n their evidence besides the Abrahamic faiths?
@tobyonatabe2601
Жыл бұрын
Have you found him yet, or is he still giving you infinite trials and infinitely ignoring you?
@angelsordemons
Жыл бұрын
@@tobyonatabe2601 And how would you account for the fact that everything now is aligned toward Rev 13:17?
@wormwood822
Жыл бұрын
@@angelsordemons it literally isn't, though. Corporations have no interest in restricting who can buy and sell things, and are entirely concerned with selling as much crap as they can. Corporate power also presides over government quite a bit, especially in the USA. Lastly, Revelation is actually describing things that were, by now, supposed to have already happened. A very long time ago. A lot of it had to do with Nero and the Roman Empire from what I've heard.
@lemzywonder
2 жыл бұрын
Isaiah 45:18 NIV:- “For this is what the Lord says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited- he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other.”
@muzzammilhussain7
2 жыл бұрын
So basically one creator right? Not 3.
@joshua2400
2 жыл бұрын
@@muzzammilhussain7 hello my friend, are you Christian? if so :" ) The old testament prophet Isaiah calls Jesus God in a prophecy Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
@joshua2400
2 жыл бұрын
@@muzzammilhussain7 if youre interested my friend 😊 in the new testament, Jesus calls himself God many times, one such is when He calls himself I AM, which is the name of the jewish God we worship we also have The trinity together at Jesus' baptism in matthew 3:16-17 16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
@jriverariddering
2 жыл бұрын
@@muzzammilhussain7 the trinity is also something we can't understand; God is simply 3 in one
@muzzammilhussain7
2 жыл бұрын
@@jriverariddering No one understands it because it is not real. If you dig deep in a topic which is real, the aspects of its reality starts to appear and if something is fake the lies become clearer. Even you know yourself the book/s based on which your whole ideology is formed, it is not in its original form. The whole text has been corrupted and changed many times. Try searching and bringing out if there is something uncorrupted beyond doubt, if you can get to that, well... then perhaps you have found something real.
@adairmusic4414
Жыл бұрын
Please pray for my atheist friend. He is very closed off to having any conversation remotely related to the creation of the universe or Christianity. Can’t imagine heaven w out him:(
@kenkaplan3654
8 ай бұрын
Let him be. He has his own curriculum. Respect it. And everyone goes to heaven. There are no conditions. It was set up that way. ALL are children of and expressions of God a prori. One cannot not be what one already is. Nothing has to be earned in any way. And if God is truly great, it was all set up by infinite love so no one was ever going to be left behind. Those are human concepts.
@kenkaplan3654
7 ай бұрын
@JesusSecondComing1 I'm sorry. I know you are sincere but I could give two cents what the "Church" believes. Which church? The Catholic Church which has run the greatest pedophile ring in human history? That church? And its *heresies*. Really. Puleeeze.
@amandadewet4022
3 ай бұрын
Don't reason with him. Prayer is the way. Watch ps Chris Oyakhilome regarding effective prayer🎉❤
@Kookie437e
2 ай бұрын
Well, the above comment is wrong Reason is the way Show him these arguments and talk and walk with him If he's your good friend he might listen If he doesn't accept : it's ok your job is to just let him know
@MrArdytube
Жыл бұрын
By the way… an interesting part of fine tuning is the existence of oxygen in our atmosphere. Without oxygen, we could not live. But without other life forms, there would be no free oxygen… as is the case on all the other planets
@akumpawatjr
6 ай бұрын
This comment is wildly inaccurate brother. Throughout the universe, oxygen is made in cosmic processes itself. You don't always need life forms to produce oxygen
@MrArdytube
6 ай бұрын
@@akumpawatjr i think that you must misunderstand. No biological process ever ever somehow creates a new element. That process to create elements happens during fusion in stars. However, it can be the case that substantially all the very reactive element oxygen haS REACTED with other elements … like with carbon to form carbon dioxide or H2o. And in those reactions, you do not destroy the oxygen… but transform it into compounds that are not free oxygen…. And without free oxygen in the atmosphere, many life cannot live. The process of turning some reacted oxygen into free oxygen on earth is called the Great Oxygenation Event. … which you can study
@peterdenner3447
4 ай бұрын
So without other lifeforms, we couldn't live. This is already pretty obvious since our food is made from other lifeforms. The explanation is simple: obligate aerobes arose only once there was already oxygen in the atmosphere, and among those obligate aerobes, animals arose only once there were other lifeforms suitable for animals to eat. At some point, some animals started eating other animals too. I'm not arguing against the fine-tuning argument, but the fact that we couldn't live without other lifeforms is not an example of the universe being fine-tuned for the emergence and continued existence of life.
@MrArdytube
4 ай бұрын
@@peterdenner3447 interesting and true… although i misses my point. The earth as it was originally “created” was a hostile world for most life… so in that sense the original creation was not fine tuned … the earth as “created” was no garden of eden as intelligent design advocates imagine it to have been.
@peterdenner3447
4 ай бұрын
OK, if that was your point, then yes, I missed it. While true, it seems a bit of a straw man argument as I don't think the video is advocating a literal interpretation of Genesis with the Garden of Eden and everything, but rather claiming that the universe was fine-tuned such that life would eventually arise in some part of it. In any case, if you want to show that the Genesis creation narrative isn't literal truth, you need look no further than the Bible itself. The Genesis creation narrative is a fusion of two different stories written centuries apart from each other that contradict each other and are also contradicted by a different Old Testament creation narrative where God battles sea monsters. This third Biblical creation narrative was at some point expunged from the Hebrew Bible and has unfortunately been lost, but we know it existed because it's referred to several times elsewhere in the Old Testament.
@ballergamerdestroyer4455
5 ай бұрын
The fact people think that the fine tuning argument is debunked lmao💀 it 's literally proven in every aspect of science that these #'s are the base of input by an intelligent mind/creator. THUS GOD.
@Kookie437e
2 ай бұрын
They think of the chance option They think that probability is infinitely small but they think that somehow the universe started and then a chain reaction follows Iv had quite mant friends who believed this approach and this method requires more faith than believing in a necessary being 💀
@DannyJovica
Жыл бұрын
A summary of the Video. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Examining the Evidence for Design The universe, composed of galaxies, stars, and atoms, operates under a set of fundamental constants and quantities. These values have been precisely calibrated to allow for the existence of life, as we understand it. Any minor alteration in these values could result in a life-prohibiting universe. This fine-tuning has prompted the question: What is the most compelling explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon? Three potential explanations have been proposed: physical necessity, chance, or design. The physical necessity argument suggests that these constants and quantities could not be otherwise. However, there is no definitive evidence to support this claim. Chance, on the other hand, is highly unlikely due to the astronomical odds against a life-permitting universe. The multiverse theory has been suggested as a means to explain the fine-tuning through chance. Nevertheless, there is no concrete scientific evidence for the existence of a multiverse. Furthermore, the universe generator itself would necessitate fine-tuning, and the most probable observable universe would be minimal and simplistic, which contradicts our observations. Analysis Given the implausibility of both physical necessity and chance, the most plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe seems to be design. This conclusion is supported by the overwhelming appearance of design in nature and the acknowledgment of notable scientists who recognize the strong evidence for a purposeful force behind the universe. For instance, the late British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle stated, "A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." The improbabilities in a finely tuned universe are vast and numerous. For example, the strength of gravity must be precisely balanced with the strength of the other forces of nature, like the electromagnetic force, or the universe would be devoid of stars or planets. The ratio between the mass of an electron and the mass of a proton must be incredibly precise, or else atoms would not be stable and life would not exist. The amount of dark energy in the universe must also be carefully balanced or else the universe would rapidly collapse or expand. And the list goes on. All of these factors must be precisely balanced for the universe to be hospitable to life. It is highly improbable that all of these factors could have come together by chance, leading many to conclude that the universe must have been designed for life. Conclusion Upon examining the evidence, the fine-tuning of the universe appears to point towards a grand design, indicating the existence of a super intellect responsible for setting the precise values of these constants and quantities. While interpretations may vary, the intricacies of the universe serve as a testament to the possibility of a purposeful force behind its creation. imreal.life/page.php?i=item&id=1232
@presidentgamingz
Жыл бұрын
sure, but does that still mean the universe was made in 7 days?
@presidentgamingz
9 ай бұрын
@@DudeNamedDuncan Really? I thought it was supposed to be taken literally.
@vikingpaladin
6 ай бұрын
@@presidentgamingz No, it was made in 6 days, and God rested on the 7th day.
@peterdenner3447
4 ай бұрын
"Furthermore, the universe generator itself would necessitate fine-tuning, ..." No, it wouldn't. Almost all of the generated universes would be barren, but if a mind-bogglingly large number of them are generated, then a tiny fraction of them will just happen to be hospitable to life without the generator being fine-tuned at all. "... and the most probable observable universe would be minimal and simplistic" It may be true that the most probable universes are minimal and simplistic. You could also argue that the most probable universes are chaotic and disordered. However, any universe that is not sufficiently complex or not sufficiently ordered for life to emerge is by definition not observable. Therefore, the only possible observable universes are sufficiently complex and ordered for life to emerge. In any case, the fact that physical phenomena follow mathematical laws that are simple enough for us to deduce many of them suggests that our universe is actually quite simplistic. I'm not saying that I favour the multiverse over fine-tuning, just that your arguments against the multiverse don't stand up. The only real argument against the multiverse is Occam's razor, but that could be used against fine-tuning too.
@ku.S
3 ай бұрын
@@presidentgamingzvalue of those days is different from our days
@samuelrivera4362
Жыл бұрын
On the subject of Fine Tuning of The Universe, this is a TRUE REPRESENTATION of Pure Science, NOT "irresponsible gibberish from so-called experts"
@ceciloduro-nyarko7515
8 ай бұрын
One of the best made animated videos on KZitem
@Nwunchuck27
2 ай бұрын
200% agreed
@Nwunchuck27
2 ай бұрын
One of the most fundamental thought every human must come accross
@Drakemiser
Жыл бұрын
I’m no mathematician but wouldn’t a “universe generator” have to keep track of its non functioning universes? Cards can randomly give you a royal flush because the universe allows for cards. But if a “universe generator” were to spit out a bunch of universes, the same astronomical probabilities would be super-remote each time. It isn’t as though the generator says, “that last universe can not allow for playing cards, so I(the generator) will move universes closer and closer to a universe that allows for playing cards. Another way of saying this is each time the generator spits out a universe, it keeps the same astronomically remote chance that that universe will not function, same as the last. It’s not building on previous information, but rather starting over each time it produces a universe thus making it so improbable that one will function that it might as well be viewed as impossible.
@bradykenny5485
Жыл бұрын
Yeah I would say you're right.
@masonnash9396
Жыл бұрын
Your last sentence represents the position accurately. It's the same idea as having an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters. one will eventually write Shakespeare. Sure it is unlikely, and it will take trillions of universes before a life-supporting one is made, but with infinite tries, yeah, eventually one will work.
@Drakemiser
Жыл бұрын
@@masonnash9396 I disagree. I don't think it will ever work. Once more, you have to have a universe that allows for monkeys in the first place. Do you see how a universe without a creator is so unlikely? You would have to have the monkeys in the first place to type Shakespeare and those numbers by themselves are astronomical, let alone the monkeys existibting in the first place. Creation is the only answer.
@josiahserrano6651
Жыл бұрын
@@masonnash9396but at that point would still give it up to chance?
@hananwashere
Жыл бұрын
@@josiahserrano6651no because the premise of an infinite number of monkeys typing shakespeare implies unbounded time and space. time and space are measurable, and they are infinite in division but not in boundaries. at some point, the monkeys needs to “start” typing (or even before that, they need to start existing) because they are contingent. similarly, the machine that is making the universes needs to turn on, thus making it contingent as well. if you want to argue that the machine is necessary, then you need to accept that it is beyond time and space (since dependent things cannot depend on dependent things ad-infinitum). and it is capable of changing its own settings re: the finetuning (if we accept that chance/accidents do not exist for necessary beings, because that implies dependence). and then we must accept that it chose its current settings, so it has a will ie consciousness/intelligence. therefore it designed the universe, because it CHOSE the “settings” needed for life to be possible. thus we have now shown that the machine is actually the Creator ie God! Who is all powerful, necessary, intelligent, and designs according to His will. q.e.d. 😅 (next step to explore would be religions, if you are convinced of Gods existence, because they all claim different things on the form of God and His attributes. )
@champthebodyman
Жыл бұрын
God said that everything was made by scales and balance. It’s in the Bible.
@Terrylb285
Күн бұрын
What bible verse says that?
@danmonaco7607
Жыл бұрын
And with this fine tuning the narrator is referring to physics. The biological factor requires Just as much fine tuning if not more.
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
God doesn't require any fine tuning, it's an illogical attitude from the start.
@drewdavidclifton
10 ай бұрын
First the conditions for life-also amazing that we are positioned perfectly for it in the universe! But yes the design behind life/biology is staggering agreed! 👍
@drewdavidclifton
10 ай бұрын
@@kenandzafic3948 the idea is that he "tuned" (designed purposefully) his creation; not that he needs fine tuning himself brother. 🤗
@Nwunchuck27
2 ай бұрын
Exactly 💯 look at DNA
@tacsmith
8 ай бұрын
We recently lost our 9 year old son. Afterwards I had to know if God was real and so I'd been on a search and found videos like this one. Before he passed. He had a favorite verse in the Bible. I asked him why all the time and he could never give me a good answer. Just that he did. That verse was Psalm 19:1. The one at the end of this video. It's not the first time it's popped up in my search, but it hit me hard this time. So thank you. Believe what you want. But I like to think my boy was telling me I would be on this search, and that God is real. Amen.
@kenkaplan3654
8 ай бұрын
This is known as a synchronicity and they seem built into life and reflect one really miraculous way, among many others, the Divine communicates to us. How are these "meaningful coincidences" (a song on the radio at the right time, a call, from a friend as we are thinking of them, certain animals or flowers appearing at certain key moments) arranged except by an intelligence far beyond the human intellect. I have dealt with afterlife issues quite a bit and this type of communication seems to be quite common from those that have died. This is not your imagination and God is more real than anyone here knows. I am sorry for your loss. Your son is OK .Everyone who crosses over (and no one is barred) is more than OK. But we must bear our grief.
@ku.S
3 ай бұрын
@@kenkaplan3654nice
@nobody-tw3zs
2 жыл бұрын
This is for those confused about how the constants can be "tuned." Constants describe the interactions of matter with one another. Now before the big bang, there was no space, time, or matter. It's not that there was space without any energy, and there were still those fundamental constants; there was absolutely nothing at all. We know this because space, energy, and time are all connected, and they can't exist if one is missing. No time, space, or matter means the interactions didn't exist either. When the big bang exploded, energy happened to interact in an extraordinarily precise way to develop stars, planets, and life. Constants describe those interactions through numbers and equations. This is why scientists came up with the multiverse theory. If there were tons of universes, then a life-giving universe would be easy to get! But as we see in this video, the multiverse theory doesn't make sense.
@canwelook
Жыл бұрын
Your belief that before the big bang there was nothing at all is unsupported speculation. That is a common misunderstanding of what scientists say about the big bang.
@nobody-tw3zs
Жыл бұрын
@@canwelook No, it's just reasoning. Since the universe itself is expanding (proven by Edwin Hubble), we know that at a certain point in the past, there was no space. If there was no space, there can be no energy or time, because they're interconnected. This is proved in the theory of relativity by Einstein.
@canwelook
Жыл бұрын
@@nobody-tw3zs No. Scientists project back to a specific time after the big bang. The big bang theory does not make any claims about what happened, or what existed, prior. There are a range of potential hypotheses proposed (e.g. the big bounce), none of which come close to matching your description, and none of which conclude there was no space, or no time.
@zachhecita
Жыл бұрын
@@canwelook Doesn't the Big Bang postulate a singularity existing prior to the universe?
@hjs6102
Жыл бұрын
@@zachhecita No, singularities are mathematical objects, they most probably do not exist in the real world. The theory of relativity is incomplete because it does not take quantum mechanics into account. If we combine both, we will know better what happened in the time of the so-called big bang (which was neither big nor bang).
@teapot505
2 жыл бұрын
I forwarded the clip to a few people, because I could not explain it myself but I can certainly understand it
@openmindedskeptic9014
2 жыл бұрын
@James Henry Smith Christianity's fundamental belief is at odds with Islam So who in their right mind can say they are BOTH true?
@openmindedskeptic9014
2 жыл бұрын
@James Henry Smith well Christianity is dependent on Christ's resurrection (1 corinthians 15:17) whereas the Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified and did not die (surah 4:157-58) How would you reconcile this?
@openmindedskeptic9014
2 жыл бұрын
@James Henry Smith that doesn't answer my question, Christianity falls on its face without the resurrection whereas the Quran denies he died in the first place, it can't be reconciled
@openmindedskeptic9014
2 жыл бұрын
@James Henry Smith did you even read 1 corinthians 15:17? It literally states that if Christ is not risen then your still in your sins. Also in mark 10:45 Jesus himself states that he gives his life as a ransom for many proving that his death and resurrection is the foundation of Christian faith
@Iliadic
Жыл бұрын
@@openmindedskeptic9014 They aren't both true. Islam worships a false god. A demon, actually, if I may be so bold.
@M.R.A.11811
Жыл бұрын
The best explanation is the best we can understand and God is “almost obvious”.
@mysticone1798
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video. How about following up with a more detailed examination of the fine-tuned universe? Get specific with more of the constants, show why stars are necessary for life, and examine the function of complexity in this Creation. There's sooo much more to unveil here. Can't you revisit this fascinating question??? It's surely the most compelling modern argument in favor of the existence of God.
@kenkaplan3654
8 ай бұрын
A lot of that has been done already Physics is excellent a describing "how'. It just stumbles on "why" or "who or what brought it into existence?"
@pokemonmaster8522
Жыл бұрын
Loved the video. Just a thought, whenever you quote someone I think it is good to give the citation somewhere.
@NejiBHTahar
Жыл бұрын
Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure. ( Quran: chapter 54, verse: 49)
@TruthWizardTemplar7
Жыл бұрын
watch "reasoned answers"
@jamesruscheinski8602
2 жыл бұрын
If physical constants and laws of nature come from some living subjective observer, then would expect them to be fine tuned for life?
@AbsentMinded619
2 жыл бұрын
The laws and the values of the constants don’t come from us. We simply observe them. They would exist even if we didn’t.
@jfj876
2 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/kaWDrGyPnKRqhKw
@ciresfrancisco7644
2 жыл бұрын
dude is taliking like we existed before the universe and created those constant or you just can't understand what constant is?
@larryjake7783
2 жыл бұрын
This also means logic exists before us, and truth and love... Unless someone will argue that these things are subjective
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
Yes.
@aolish
2 жыл бұрын
Hello there, is it okay if I can get permission to use this for a sermon at a church that I go to? Thank you!
@drcraigvideos
Жыл бұрын
Yes, feel free to use it! - RF Admin
@aolish
Жыл бұрын
@@drcraigvideos Thank you! Praise Jesus! :)
@marjulieannligas1222
5 ай бұрын
Hi @drcraigvideos RF Admin, I would like also to ask permission to use your presentation for my Creationism subject Report
@wormwood822
Жыл бұрын
4:24 The Multiverse is entirely hypothetical and cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved... Yet you assert that it would necessarily have to be extremely fine-tuned itself? Based on what?? How can YOU all of sudden make that claim about something that you cannot detect, cannot observe, measure, quantify or prove in any way and that is completely hypothetical??? I'm not necessarily a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis at all, but it's not ruled out by anything you have said in the video so far, and this is just one of a number of flaws in your reasoning that I've encountered so far. Another example is something you said about the rate of the cosmic expansion. You said if it was too fast, no stars or galaxies would ever have formed. Then you said that if it was too slow, it would just collapse back into a singularity. BUT if it collapsed back into a singularity wouldn't all the instability from all that heat and density simply cause it to expand outward again, anyway? Perhaps it did that several million times before finally gaining enough "momentum" or whatever to enable the existence of stars, galaxies, planets and life. I don't know. I don't think you do either, and I don't think anybody else does. The people who CLAIM that they know how existence started are almost always people who are indoctrinated into a religion.
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
Both of your points are wrong. 1. The reason the multiverse requires tuning is because there are many more multiverses that will not allow life than those that will and simply that again requires tuning. 2. The Big Bang Again story is some form of cyclical universe, but the problem with that is that it faces the same objections as the multiverse.
@wormwood822
Жыл бұрын
@@kenandzafic3948 1. HOW do you know that about multiverses, though? They're a COMPLETE hypothetical. Seems to me like you are just taking assumptions you are making about the universe and applying them to a multiverse as well. 2. How so? If the big bang happens over and over again ad infinitum via the universe repeatedly expanding and contracting, then eventually one with the potential for life existing in it will emerge. Let's say with each expansion the universe has a 1 in 7 trillion chance of having life. That means that roughly every 7 trillion expansions there will be a chance for life. Which means, if the process is left uninterrupted, that eventually life WILL exist in the universe. But we aren't even at these hypotheticals yet. We don't know. And neither do you. When people ask questions like "what exists beyond the physical universe?" or "what caused the big bang or the singularity [EDIT: Correction. Just "what caused the singularity?" not the big bang, because the big bang was caused by the singularity!]?" they are fooling themselves. These are misconceptions that we come up with because of the way human beings think. Cosmologists aren't really asking those questions in my understanding, because they aren't even the right questions to ask.
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
@@wormwood822 1. I know because it is a logical fact, a universe generator can create a multiverse where all universes are similar to each other and such a multiverse will not be set up for life, only a diverse multiverse allows life and since there are much less of such than non-diverse multiverses, this is a fact which requires adjustment. 2. Wrong again, the expansion and contraction of the universe is an absurd idea. 1) It requires that the universe not fall apart 2) The question is whether it is physically possible to get a big bang during any collapse; that requires new physics. 3) It requires a huge amount of fine-tuning because the laws of physics have to be fine-tuned so that every collapse ends with a big bang and the collapse of the universe doesn't happen. 4) Many constants, if changed, the universe would be left without any atom except hydrogen, in some cases even without atoms, this explanation requires that this should not happen, which is extremely improbable. 3. The latter is the most common lie, of course cosmologists ask what is the cause of the big bang, why do you think there are a number of models that try to answer it or why the theory of quantum gravity is being developed. 4. In the end the fine-tuning argument remains valid because both chance and physical necessity are extremely implausible explanations and that leaves us with an intelligent designer.
@wormwood822
Жыл бұрын
@@kenandzafic3948 1. What is a "universe generator" and how the hell do you know ANYTHING about it? How do you know that a "universe generator" "creates" multiverses. We don't even know how THIS universe was "created", or IF it was... and you want to make all kinds of assumptions about things that we don't even have evidence for the existence of?? You're also using terms like "similar universes" and "diverse multiverse" without defining them or what they even WOULD be. What are "similar universes"? How different would they have to be from each other to qualify as "non-similar"? You're talking about this as if it's something that is well-established in science. It's NOT. It's a HYPOTHESIS with absolutely no basis in fact. We don't even know enough about our OWN universe yet. "...this is a fact which requires adjustment." No it isn't. Everything you said in paragraph 1 is literally not factual. 2. Why? HOW do you know that? 1) What does the universe "falling apart" mean? Define. 2) Why wouldn't it be? If the universe collapses back into a singularity, then it will AGAIN be extremely hot and unstable, correct? Wouldn't that cause another expansion? It's the collapsing/contracting part that I am unsure of, myself. Most scientists believe the universe will eventually just expand until it reaches heat death. What are "new physics"? Are the physics of the universe even able to be different at all? 3) This sounds a lot like circular reasoning to me. Fine tuning is necessary because fine tuning is necessary? By the way, the way I think about expansion/contraction is that perhaps the singularity was infinitesimally small, and, after heat death happens, the universe may eventually become infinitely large... which since we would be talking about infinite "largeness" and infinite "smallness" is perhaps, in some sense, the same thing. Nobody knows what number infinity is, right? It's impossible to contextualize infinity as a value or anything else, really. This is all HYPOTHETICAL though, so I'm not claiming that I know the answers, unlike theists typically do. 4) But you're assuming the constants even COULD be changed. And even if they could to some degree, who is to say that things wouldn't have just gone differently and life, or something vaguely like life, would have emerged? If atoms didn't form, maybe some other microscopic or other structures would have. Some structures or things that, in our own universe, we couldn't even begin to understand or contextualize. Further, we're here aren't we? The only thing that we can say about that, for a FACT, is that we are here. I was born in America, and I am damn lucky that I was. I could have been a tapeworm, livestock, or a single-celled life form. Or someone who was born and lived a short and painful life in a war zone in a third world country. I could have been billions - BILLIONS - of other things than the person I am. I don't take all that and conclude "therefore God". All I know from that is that I am here, and that is the limit of my knowledge and understanding in the matter. 3. That's not what I said, though. I said they don't really ask what "caused" the SINGULARITY, not the big bang. The singularity was the state the universe was in before the big bang, right? Because a cause existing "before" time itself in order to cause something doesn't make sense at all. A cause must necessarily precede whatever it causes, right? What does it MEAN for that cause to exist "before" the singularity? What I'm saying is kind of counter to how beings IN the universe think of the universe, but it's exactly why these aren't scientifically useful considerations. Not in my understanding. 4. I'm not convinced that what happened at the start of the universe could necessarily have happened any other way. Change my mind. I think Bart Ehrmen [EDIT: Might have actually been Lawrence Krauss.] said that the universe isn't fine tuned for life, but that life is fine tuned TO the universe. This makes sense when you take into account a lot of what I said previously in this post.
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
@@wormwood822 1. Anything produced the multiverse, and if you're going to say it doesn't exist, then every additional university would be an additional assumption, which would be the biggest violation of Occam's Razor. 2. How do I know anything about it, I don't know, because physically we don't even know if such a thing is even possible, which is a problem with the multiverse, but I was talking more about metaphysicians. 3. It is very clear what similar universities are, universities that have very similar constants, define it however you want, it doesn't even matter; what is important is that such multiverses are possible with regard to current physics and even if they are not they are still metaphysically possible and the problem of fine tuning would then go to legal physics. 3.Also the origin of the universe is just a red herring as it has nothing to do with my points. 4. All my criticisms of the multiverse are justified. 1) Speculative is unverifiable. 2) It predicts things that are wrong like Boltzmann's brain and it is a scientific fact. 3) It does not solve the problem because the multiverse itself has to be adjusted and it is a metaphysical fact that again has nothing to do with science, science cannot talk about metaphysics because of its many limitations. 5.Yes it is unless you want to say that other multiverses are metaphysically impossible which is a strong claim and you will have to provide good evidence to back it up. 6. It means that the atoms are disintegrating and in the end only hydrogen will remain or even it will disintegrate. 7. These are assumptions that you have not substantiated if the universe collapses again, what will happen, ask God, because there are different constants of physics, which means that the laws of physics must be so adjusted to ensure, first, that the universe does not begin to expand rapidly in any cycle, and second, that at exactly every collapse is followed by a new big bang that is so ad hoc that I am speechless. 8. No, that's not circular reasoning, where did you get such nonsense from? I have explained in detail why the cyclical model has no potential to respond to fine-tuning. 9. Theists don't claim to know the answers to everything, that's a simple lie, and cosmologists generally don't take this Penrose model seriously because it requires new physics, not to mention that it doesn't solve the fine-tuning problem again. 10. Error after error, I gave several arguments why physical necessity is absurd since you didn't disprove them you were free to ignore the story of necessity. Also a universe that is not tuned will not have any chemical reactions because we will only have hydrogen and this universe has about 60 chemical reactions so the emergence of some super life is literally magic, also life requires enormous complexity the universe without chemical reactions will be extremely simple so you have a huge proof to justify that such a magical physical possibility. 11. Neto is a bad definition of the cause, the cause must causally precede the effect and not necessarily temporally. No one claims that the cause exists before time, as those who clearly do not understand the Kalam cosmological argument claim. 12. I don't know who said it but whoever said it is stupid because the universe is obviously fine-tuned for life considering the fact that there are far more universities that will not allow life than those that will.
@ferencbognar6188
2 жыл бұрын
What is this beautiful ambient music in the background?
@horseman4242
Ай бұрын
How can we actually know any of these constants could have been any different?
@7stiano123
5 ай бұрын
For what purpose do we live and die
@lockleaze
2 жыл бұрын
This video is just making the pieces fit so that believers can justify that there is this marvellous “god”. But if everything has a maker then who made this “god” and fine tuned him? Who knows if out in far off space there is a planet system with different mathematics. There are over 3000 gods that are worshiped in the world but Christians are so arrogant that they are convinced that theirs is the right one. And probably the other worshippers of gods also think theirs is the true one too. Nature is not perfect, there are many physical flaws in the human body, e.g. Down’s Syndrome, which gives the person an extra chromosome, and cancer which can destroy the body before old age. So the universe and all that’s in it is not perfect. If there was a god of love can you really believe they would put their son through torture? NO. Ask any parent. Religion is just there to keep the masses in order, especially women, but the masses are getting wise to it and realising what brainwashing crap it all is. I don’t know how life and the universe began and I guess we will never know, but to twist things so that they fit your particular religion is laughable. Religion is just lawful madness. You don’t need to make fun of it, it does it all by itself. If there is a “true” god then what a c*** he must be.
@AbsentMinded619
2 жыл бұрын
Pacemakers fail to work properly sometimes, and that’s how I know that they are not manufactured by anyone. It’s also how I know that people who invented them are not as moral as I am . I’m smart.
@AbsentMinded619
2 жыл бұрын
If Mom “allegedly” cooked this chicken, then who cooked Mom? Ha! Moms do not exist! Checkmate, theists.
@silentghost751
2 жыл бұрын
Come back when you understand Christ
@jfj876
2 жыл бұрын
Umm Islam??? The answer is right infront of you hiding in plain sight.kzitem.info/news/bejne/kaWDrGyPnKRqhKw
@crisismanagement
11 ай бұрын
Great video. The spin around fine-tuning is the multiverse
@agentjs09
10 ай бұрын
From what I understand, the multiverse theory is falling out of favor with physicists.
@TheRareOcelot
8 ай бұрын
Also it was literally refuted in the video
@TrueMa-k3c
Жыл бұрын
Coming up with a multiverse theory seems sus to me. Likely some people reeeaaallly don't believe this is all engineered.
@mc-x4l
10 ай бұрын
It is almost the same like if you told to a person from the Middle Ages that there are billions of earths (planets) out there. Most of them are lifeless and we are living on the rare type that has conditions for life. Considering that everything that we can see on the sky is just the Sun, the Moon and stars, he is wondering how did you even come up with this idea
@peterdenner3447
4 ай бұрын
Coming up with a creator theory seems sus to me. Likely some people reeeaaallly don't believe in the multiverse.
@TrueMa-k3c
4 ай бұрын
@peterdenner3447 Yeah I don't since it was invented just to explain how its all working without an intelligent designer.
@peterdenner3447
4 ай бұрын
@@TrueMa-k3c Like how an intelligent designer was invented just to explain how it's all working in the absence of a better explanation.
@TrueMa-k3c
4 ай бұрын
@peterdenner3447 Multiverse explanation is desperately reaching. Its last gasp of hope because without it, you almost certainly have a designer.
@tomblackburnmusic
Жыл бұрын
A fantastic video for explaining the basic argument, but some concerns/inaccuracies to be aware of: 1. Emotive quotes from carefully selected scientists, some rogue ones (e.g. Fred Hoyle) don't by themselves demonstrate anything. WLC often uses this approach, but it's no substitute for reasons and argument 2. Emotive music and cool images of space don't prove the argument, or contribute to this, they just might make you think it's true (misleadingly) 3. Scientists don't believe anything like the 'universe generator' exists as the video states; this is a gross misrepresentation of the multiverse hypothesis. And there are many multiverse hypotheses, not just one, that scientists find useful and plausible 4. The claim that the most simple universe contains an observer is unjustified and plainly implausible; at least, it needs support, and can't be used to dismiss the multiverse hypothesis 5. The multiverse hypothesis doesn't enjoy any empirical support, but neither does the God hypothesis (at least, some needs to be provided for the argument to work) 6. King David was not a physicist and his psalms (if they are his) have no bearing on this argument 7. Scientists in general think, like Paul Davies, that fine-tuning makes the universe 'seem' designed, but this is very different from saying that it 'was' designed, and most scientists are perfectly happy with the multiverse, or just witholding judgment until more evidence is in. Most do not draw the God conclusion. In summary: an interesting argument and a great, well-animated portrayal of it; but presenting a weak and sometimes misleading case for God
@Slycoop
Жыл бұрын
Good critiques! I don't think this video is meant to be a "sound" argument. To me It's more about statistical implications. It's true that the multiverse theory was a bit misrepresented. I think in this context, the multiverse theory is an attempt to show that probability increases over time and number of attempts. And of course we would only be able to observe a successful attempt at rolling the "life dice", but given infinite time and iterations it COULD be more likely than we think. The problem is that Infinity is a purely mathematical concept. "Actual Infinity" has never been observed, but intelligent design HAS been observed (within us who are "created in God's image"🤔). IMO This is mostly just to beg the question of "who's the real crazy person?" Is it someone claiming intelligent design or someone claiming infinite universes? I particularly like this argument (although it's not sound) because from my experience, atheists kind of walk around on this high horse like everyone else just believes in Santa Claus and needs to grow up 😅
@tomblackburnmusic
Жыл бұрын
@@Slycoop Nice - agreed. The real question might be 'who's the real crazy person?' or alternatively, 'which is the most sensible, simple hypothesis?'. The video doesn't address this but I think its the heart of the argument. Both God and Multiverse have a claim on simplicity depending on how it is defined - simplicity of kind (multiverse) or simplicity of number (God). Because we are happy postulating billions of entities of the same kind already (e.g fundamental particles) I would err towards multiverse winning this one. But there are interesting arguments on both sides.
@bradykenny5485
Жыл бұрын
One of your crtiques being the production of the video, is really a reach. Along with many of these "critiques". Believe in your nothingness ig, but don't feel an obligation to make a comment on every God supporting youtube video you come across.
@tomblackburnmusic
Жыл бұрын
@@bradykenny5485 Did I state my beliefs anywhere in my post?
@bradykenny5485
Жыл бұрын
@@tomblackburnmusic Your words say enough
@SeaScienceFilmLabs
2 жыл бұрын
Great Video!!! 👍 👍 👍 Thanks for this Upload! Hope to see More like it..: :) Hope you don’t Mind if I throw it in My “Creation Science” Playlist.
@christian78478
2 жыл бұрын
@James Henry Smith Have you read Quran?
@riz8437
11 ай бұрын
So life has adapted to the conditions which prevail and prevailed in the past. Rejoice in the beauty of the ability of life. The adaptability of life needs no god and the fact that life exists does not prove a god or gods. You need to try harder. Dunning Kruger at its best.
@killerbee6484
Күн бұрын
Life couldn't have exist if a dot has changed
@rubiks6
2 жыл бұрын
What Bible are you reading, Dr. Craig? Mine says God created the universe of stars on the fourth day of His six days of creation. What is this "early universe" you speak of? I can't find it in my Bible.
@hoakinn
2 жыл бұрын
Here's a very detailed video that explains how evolution can be reconciled with the bible kzitem.info/news/bejne/0GOPqHiKqoqQjYo
@rubiks6
2 жыл бұрын
@@griffinguy6905 - Says who? It's God's Word. Do you think He was joking? When you are brought before God, will you tell Him you thought He was just kidding?
@jonathanbaca1500
3 ай бұрын
GOD is AMAZING.
@jamesruscheinski8602
Жыл бұрын
how can the physical constants of nature be dialed to specific values for fine tuning?
@crusaderACR
Жыл бұрын
they seem to not have been static in the first nanoseconds of the universe they _had_ to be non static for the big bang not to just end up being a big _black hole_ then they settled on life-permitting numbers the "how" is anyone's guess. god may know something about it tho
@taylornovia8911
9 ай бұрын
One is compelled to infer an intelligence greater than one's own
@kenkaplan3654
8 ай бұрын
Or within oneself, greater than the intellect.
@itzyourmom2646
2 жыл бұрын
This doesn't seem sound to me. If someone told me "I'm very improbable, the exact atoms that make me just happen to make me, since I'm improbable I should believe this was intentional" I would disagree. The improbable occurring doesn't mean there's a spooky underpinning, but ok maybe I will entertain this. The video doesn't even actually show the improbability and is using science to conclude that which science isn't capable of concluding. Unless you're going to undermine logic in your science and in turn your own claims, you'll have to acknowledge things like uncaused causes or infinity aren't fully comprehensible, yet you're dealing with these when you use cosmology to 'prove god'.Imagine the universe were infinite for example. How could you solidify the physical constants as absolute metaphysical truth? You couldn't, and so even the concept of infinity seems to reinforce the significant part of what you tried to refute with your argument against the multiverse machine. And you didn't even actually refute necessity because your reasoning is a tautology. Making the statement effectively "The laws of nature aren't determined by the laws of nature" Lol. Seems like the writer made a quick but significant error here. Either way, you gave me a great idea! I won't accept something that can not be detected, observed, measured, or proved. Also just to finish, this comment isn't me being dishonest, and I don't mean to come off as rude or sarcastic.
@itzyourmom2646
2 жыл бұрын
Not to be pendantic, but just a heads up. I'm pretty sure my claim about logic wasn't totally accurate but it's 3am
@Schmoobs
2 жыл бұрын
No clue what u said but God exists 🥱
@itzyourmom2646
2 жыл бұрын
@@Schmoobs Great give me your argument
@123duelist
2 жыл бұрын
@@itzyourmom2646 You said you will not accept something that cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved." This means you don't accept dark energy/matter, I suppose?
@itzyourmom2646
2 жыл бұрын
@@123duelist Unless I'm mistaken, dark energy and matter are a strong hypothesis that explain measured phenomena based on the way energy behaves, so it should be the consensus that what dark matter is explaining is legitimate, but they aren't sure there's a type of energy called dark matter/energy. In any case if you just look at what the scientific method is, you make falsifiable hypotheses and try to disprove them. So your answer is if you take dark matter to be a blanket term for the unknown I hold it to be legitimate, if you make any specific claims about the properties of dark matter or energy then I'm not sure. Trying to equate god with something like dark matter wouldn't seem very epistemically humble, since there's a difference between knowing that the current consensus doesn't explain everything and proposing that there might be an energy/matter based presumably on observations about how energy/matter work and making a deep and strong metaphysical claim about reality because you don't know how truths came to be. I'll grant you something like "if we 'have knowledge' that this universe is the only chance of sentience and we 'have knowledge' that consciousness/sentience is extraordinarily unlikely to occur, then that's something to take in to account when considering creationism"
@shlokhoms8081
9 ай бұрын
the fine tuning argument is pretty silly to me, the theist assume that god (a eternal perfect creature) just exists for no reason and without a creator but the universe (a complete cheos with some order on 0.000000001 or even less of it's surface) is something that can't be exists without a creator?
@earthwarden8548
Ай бұрын
أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُون ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? - and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe 21:30
@user-cz8gi2om3n
7 ай бұрын
I would be hesitant to hedge my arguments on current scientific models. Every scientific theory has a half-life at which place it is replaced with something else, so it could simply be that there is information we don't know yet that could show necessity or the multiverse hypothesis as plausible explanations, making design no more or less likely than the other explanations.
@outofthebox7
Жыл бұрын
Necessity sounds foolish, if there is no Mind behind it. It directly points to a mind seeing laws as being necessary. The fact that everything is fine tuned speaks of purpose. Get over it, get saved in time.
@hjs6102
Жыл бұрын
Finetuning is not a fact. Believers say this and misquote scientists for it. For example, Hawkins was quoted in the video, but he has very clearly said, that there is no hint for a designer in the physics and mathematics. There are many counterarguments. Only a short summary: 1. We don't know if the constants can be different. So it is pure speculation. 2. If they can be variable, we don't know in which way, continously or discret. So there is no way of calculting a possibility. 3. If you change more then one constant you may get another stable universe which is able to upbring a form of life. 4. All depends how you define possibility. MAthematically it is very important, what the question ist. If you wan't to win the next lottery, it is not likely, that you will. But it is very likely, that someone will win. But the chances of the winenr were the same as yours. So the question is, is the outcome someting you define as special or not. You dont't care who won, if it is not you. So we are the lucky winnrs, but all other possibilities are the unlucky loosers. The winner of the lottery can not claim a miracle, because all other personens would not buy it. 5. That leads to the question, why do we focus on life in teh universe? Because we define us as alife, only taht makes it special, but only for us. The stars do not care about, if there is life in their system sor not. So it is a subjekctiv argument, chauvinitic. 6. There could be other universes, without life or with other forms of life (Multiversum). 7. The universe itself is timeless, it has no beginning, so there is no creation. The "Big Bang" is only a special ära within the universe, but not the beginning. Time exists not outside the universe.
@outofthebox7
Жыл бұрын
@@hjs6102 Fine tuning is evident to all scientists, so it is a fact like any other fact. What caused the fact is supposedly the question...
@hjs6102
Жыл бұрын
@@outofthebox7 No, it just appears to be fine-tuned. Whether it is tuned, we do not know. The question is, what is the cause and what is the effect. Of course, the conditions have to fit for us, otherwise we wouldn't be there. This is true for everything. Mold can also only exist if the conditions are right. But that doesn't mean that if your food starts to mold because you have intentionally created the conditions, it can also have been negligence or coincidence.
@outofthebox7
Жыл бұрын
@@hjs6102 No. You say it yourself "because you have intentionally created the conditions.." Mold growing is something due to it rotting so something else take its place. e.g. another fruit growing; fruits are not eternal.... It's also a warning not to eat it. This is fine tuning programming serving purposes for our life. You say "Of course, the conditions have to fit for us, otherwise we wouldn't be there." Do you know what the numbers of those conditions are for so many factors all serving our ability to think, communicate, survive, live, procreate, love, create, etc.??? -Last word. you are lying to yourself or demons are lying to you. Take it or leave it. kzitem.info/news/bejne/0KOPm5uVopOmh2U If you don't want to believe your eyes or your conscience, how are you going to believe me or any scientists? No point in discussing.
@marveloussoftware1417
10 ай бұрын
This video has it backwards. Life evolved based on the existing parameters of the universe. Whenever a mutation occurred where the life wasn't fine tuned to the universe is simply died and didn't reproduce. This can be observed on the earth. The values are not consistent accross the planet. We have oceans, deserts, ect. Fish can't live in the sand. Trees don't live in the bottom of the ocean. Life is fine tuned to its habitat.
@RobertParedes-kl2el
7 ай бұрын
Why don't I ever win in Vegas with simple odds but yet the universe is here god rolled the dice
@svetislavvidenovic7573
Жыл бұрын
What is the point of discussing something that doesn't exist? A vast number of ways the Universe cannot be?
@ioanbota9397
4 ай бұрын
Realy I like this video so so much its so interestyng
@georgelux126
Жыл бұрын
If the Universe is "fine tuned" for life why is it that if you were to be randomly placed in it there is a 99.9999% chance you would be dead in seconds?
@jessebrady2614
Жыл бұрын
You're misunderstanding the issue. The constants, at the values we observe them, are the only reason why matter can even hold itself together... It's millions of variables aligned in just the right way so as to make an observable universe even possible. That the haven for organic life in this universe is comparatively tiny is irrelevant. The fact that it's possible at all is the insane part
@melvincarter9640
Жыл бұрын
That's the point George everything else is hostile to life but on this one planet life exist.
@richardjames6613
Жыл бұрын
Bc this universe is cursed by sin. Sin's wages is death. Why would we assume we are worthy of life? When we abuse it so much by sin? All who sins deserves death. We are not even worthy of this planet. But God has given us .00001 chance to live here, even while sinning everyday. Yet God is patiently gracious to let us live every second, minute, hour, days of our lives.
@hjs6102
Жыл бұрын
@@melvincarter9640 The point is, if there is a god, why he build the universe, he could build a disc with water, plants, animals, humans and that's it. Why 99,9999999% was build too? The fact, that we live in that small area indicats, that we evolved here, because we fitted in here and not the other way round.
@melvincarter9640
Жыл бұрын
@@hjs6102 that sounds so stupid, ain't nothing you said prove that God didn't create the universe. The fact that we live in that small area indicates that we evolved here because we fit does not tell us nothing. Evolution can't tell us how life even started in the first place.
@RickBung
Жыл бұрын
Đó là năng lượng tự thích nghi với các mệnh đề do Vũ Trụ quy ước từ khi Vũ Trụ sinh ra
@emrullaherdogdu8716
Жыл бұрын
Hello, can we use this video of yours on our youtube channel? We want to show it in a small way in a certain place. Our channel has 3 million subscribers.
@angelmendez-rivera351
2 жыл бұрын
There is so much wrong with this video.
@kikalove6654
2 жыл бұрын
You must explain why and what.
@Jf-mi2lj
2 жыл бұрын
But you can't name one
@sigmachadtrillioniare6372
2 жыл бұрын
@@kikalove6654 let me stand for him/her. The argument is : “oh, I doesn't fit my Worldview”
@villehankipohja7293
2 жыл бұрын
@@sigmachadtrillioniare6372 If I can interject here: “It looks like it was designed” does not mean “it definitely was designed”.
@sigmachadtrillioniare6372
2 жыл бұрын
@@villehankipohja7293 but it is designed in the end
@deepaktripathi4417
Жыл бұрын
Does God care about the mass of an electron? I don't understand why God would make a universe like this one? I mean , is this the best God can do? I'd say I'm not impressed with his work.
@blusheep2
Жыл бұрын
Are you saying you don't look at the stars in awe? Are you saying that when you are on a mountain top and behold the beauty laid out in front of you, you are unimpressed? Are you saying that when you look at the finely tuned cellular machine and all its incredible parts that we are only beginning to understand, your mind isn't blown?
@oilfieldtrash6708
6 ай бұрын
The willingness of Christians to lie and mislead in order to promote their god just blows me away. I guess lying is not a sin if it promotes the Christian agenda. For instance, the video says that without certain precise situations life would not exist. You don’t know that. Maybe life as we know it wouldn’t exist but a different kind of life would. In some instances the video gives us two or three options but that is false. The options are limitless. Your argument is best suited for preaching to the choir.
@lawji
Жыл бұрын
God is far more complex & finely turned than our universe, so how come god exists? By chance, necessity or design?
@drcraigvideos
Жыл бұрын
That would be to confuse the ontology of God with the thoughts of God. As an unembodied mind, God's ontology is quite simple. But, of course, being omniscient, God's thoughts can be quite complex. Why is God the way that he is? It is because he is a necessarily existing maximally great being. You might then ask, "Well, why can't the universe be like that?" The simple answer is that a universe is not the kind of thing that can exist necessarily, nor can it be a maximally great being. Something which exists necessarily cannot have a beginning. The universe had a beginning. It follows that the universe does not exist necessarily. If it does not exist necessarily, then it was possible for it to not have existed. A maximally great being cannot possibly not exist. So, the universe is also not a maximally great being. - RF Admin
@tatonemio6388
Жыл бұрын
@@drcraigvideos you: "The universe had a beginning" Can you prove this claim empirically? I don't think so. Your whole argument is based on an unscientific claim. you: "he is a necessarily existing maximally great being. " The fact you imagine a God define as such doesn't make it real, doesn't? It would be more honest to say: "If God exists he is a necessarily existing maximally great being" still you have to bring some sound argument to support the claim "God exist".
@tatonemio6388
11 ай бұрын
@@emyljenish3540 From a scientific point of view having an "explanation" not rooted in empirical evidence is useless and irrelevant. And the current Cosmology doesn't claim the "universe just happened to come out of nowhere 14 billion years ago". Try harder. you: "all the constants precise enough for life to eventually form." This is fallacious reasoning: you assumed the constant can have different values, just present evidence this is the case. If you can't prove the constants can have different values, your whole reasoning is flawed. This universe "as is" allows life to exist but life is not the reason the value of constants is what it is. It's like you need an explanation why a specific person won the lottery and/or claiming the winning numbers are precise enough to make a specific person to win which are both absurd.
@theorenmaybee7927
Жыл бұрын
Buddhism is the best religion as it does not require a god to feel your place in nature and the universe
@jenschristiantvilum
Жыл бұрын
I'm not sure if this is a parody. The argument against chance is a straw man if I ever saw one. And personal incredulity is not an argument. No one is saying that something is creating universes. That's the whole point. Anyway the fact is that we can only consider these things and ask these questions because we are here. The fact that life exists is not an argument for the existence of a god.
@drewdavidclifton
10 ай бұрын
Hi! Your comment lacks cogency. Perhaps you could expand on your points?
@stevegovea1
Жыл бұрын
It's amazing how religious people try to use science to justify that there is a god. Even more amazing how they take statements or hypothesis from scientists to fit their narrative. I would suggest having a conversation with Sean Carroll or Leonard Susskind about these topics.
@moontemple3027
9 ай бұрын
"Indeed we have created everything in exact calculated design" (Quran; 54:49)
@Catg999
9 ай бұрын
Who is we
@justinpfrunder5951
Жыл бұрын
Hi Mike. The strongest argument for God is that if anything exists something must have existed eternally because if ever there was nothing, then nothing would be. Any eternal thing has power of life within itself. Case closed.
@hjs6102
Жыл бұрын
No, the misunderstanding comes from a misunderstanding about the nature of time. Space and time cannot be separated from each other, they are the same, only shifted by a special metric, they are space-time. So without space there is no time. The universe itself is spaceless and timeless. Space and time are components of the universe and not independent of it. So the universe has no beginning, it is eternal, no need for a god. The big bang is only a period of time or more precisely a region in the space-time of the universe. Scientists call the Big Bang a beginning only for populist reasons, the real explanation is much more complicated and nobody would buy popular books if they tried to explain it correctly in them, because you need very deep knowledge in mathematics and physics to understand it. What scientists express publicly is like a black and white picture of the colored reality. There is no change from nothing to something, because time is not fundamental.
@MG-rk3uh
2 жыл бұрын
Case closed!
@jasonsimms8251
2 жыл бұрын
Shut&shut
@beetisdaman3672
2 жыл бұрын
Oh ya, now wait till these religious superstitious people hear about evolution
@nobody-tw3zs
2 жыл бұрын
nice
@wadi3pro877
2 жыл бұрын
@James Henry Smith bro me two I've the same view can we talk??
@LindeeLove
6 ай бұрын
Why the need for fine tuning. If Yahweh is all powerful, then we could exist regardless of tuning. And doesn't fine tuning imply that we are the product of evolution? All of these parameters had to exist so that we could evolve over time right? Could Yahweh have created a fine tuned universe such that only the planet earth exists and those who live on it would exist. It appears that Yahweh was bound by some preexisting parameters that made it difficult for him to create life, so he had to go with a monstrously large universe where stars through fusion produce heavier and heavier elements, then the star dies, supernovas, scattering heavy elements into the universe, they collect on planets, evolution occurs, and then you have humans. Why such WEIRD fine tuning. He could have fine tuned a straight forward universe which resulted in only us.
@Seekthetruth3000
5 ай бұрын
It all depends on your definition of God.
@drcraigvideos
5 ай бұрын
The definition used by philosophers and theologians (and the one used by Dr. Craig) is "a maximally great being." - RF Admin
@ThirzaTumTum
2 жыл бұрын
And the Christians believed Jesus when He said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said that He does not want any sinner to die. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said "Woe unto you who desires The Day of The LORD; for The Day of The LORD is darkness and not light." And the Christians believed Jesus when He said that they were evil and God alone is good. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said "Go into the highways and the hedges and invite to my wedding all kinds of people, both good and bad, and my wedding will be furnished." And the Christians considered everyone as better than themselves. And the Christians didn't consider anything that they owned as their own. And the Christians didn't sue anyone in court and the Christians who were sued in court gave more than asked for by the people who sued them. And the Christians took the wrong. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said "Woe unto you which have small children and infants in those days." And the Christians turned the other cheek then leapt for joy and rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name of Christ Jesus their God and King. And the Christians prayed "Forgive them Father, they don't know what they are doing." And the Christians believed Jesus when He said the evil in the world was going to wax worse and worse; they knew that Donald Trump and their vote would not change what God promises was going to happen. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said the people who return evil (a bullet to the face is evil) for evil, are not His disciples and have built their house on the sand and God promises that their house will greatly fall. And the Christians didn't idolize their children, parents, families, friends and neighbors because they feared God more than they feared men and death. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said the new heaven was better than this life. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said that life begins when our fleshly bodies die. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said "Go into the highways and the hedges and invite to my wedding all kinds of people, both good and bad, so my wedding will be furnished!" And the Christians believed Jesus and John and revelation, that only Jesus holds a sword to destroy evil. And the Christians believed Jesus when He said that if He wanted to kill someone, He would have His angels from heaven do the killing, not His humans from earth. The sermon on the mount (Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7) takes 15 minutes to listen to, acts takes 2 hours 19 minutes, romans takes 1 hour 1 minute, Corinthians takes 1 hour 40 minutes, galatians takes 19 and a half minutes, ephesians takes 19 minutes, philippians takes 14 and a half minutes, colossians takes 12 minutes 40 seconds, Thessalonians takes 17 minutes 47 seconds, Timothy takes 26 minutes 47 seconds, Titus takes 6 minutes 20 seconds, philemon takes 3 minutes, Hebrews takes 41 minutes 21 seconds, James takes 14 minutes 55 seconds, Peter takes 27 minutes, John takes 20 and a half minutes, revelation takes 1 hour 10 minutes and 28 seconds AND THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING. To owe no one any thing but to love one another.
@jriverariddering
2 жыл бұрын
are you a christian?
@ThirzaTumTum
2 жыл бұрын
@@jriverariddering Jesus is God. The beast will stand in their fleshly temple and declare that they are God, sinless, Holy, perfect; worthy to throw the first stone (execute enemies and sinners). Who do you say Jesus is?
@ThirzaTumTum
2 жыл бұрын
@@jriverariddering and the Christians believed Jesus when He said not to call any man common or unclean.
@bibleburner8426
7 ай бұрын
You have to know very little about the universe to believe that it is fine tuned for anything.
@paultrosclair1775
5 ай бұрын
Now look at the probability math involved in Jesus fufilling just 8 prophecies (he fulfilled way more). Just 8 prophecies fulfilled is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. That's a huge number and again He fulfilled way more than 8.
@hjs6102
Жыл бұрын
There are many counter-arguments. Here only a short summary: 1. we do not know whether the constants can be different. So it is pure speculation. 2. if they can be variable, we do not know in which way, continuous or discrete. So there is no way to calculate a probability. 3. if you change more than one constant, you can get another stable universe capable of producing another form of life. 4. everything depends on how one defines probability. What matters is what the question is. If you want to win the next lottery, it is not likely that you will. But it is very likely that someone will win. But the odds of the winner are the same as yours. So the question is whether or not the outcome is something you consider special. You don't care who won if it's not you. So we are the lucky winners, but all the other possibilities are the unlucky losers. The winner of the lottery can't claim a miracle because all the other people wouldn't buy it. 5 This leads to the question, why do we focus on life in the universe? Because we define ourselves as life, only that makes it special, but only to us. Stars don't care if there is life in their system or not. So it is a subjective argument, chauvinistic. 6. there could be other universes beside ours, without life or with other forms of life (multiverse). 7. the universe itself is timeless, it has no beginning, so there is no creation. The "big bang" is only a special era within the universe, but not the beginning. Time does not exist outside the universe. The universe has virtually the timeless, infinite quality that believers attribute to their God. 8. the answer "God" does not solve the question who has created God. If God does not need a creator, why does the universe need one?
@marymaurice3673
Жыл бұрын
This answers the question in point 8: kzitem.info/news/bejne/pp14wKCeqWSJpIo
@hjs6102
Жыл бұрын
@@marymaurice3673 No, it is just a claim, but not a proof. WLC claims that the universe has a cause (without any evidence) and then claims that god has no cause (without any evidence).
@_whatistruth
7 ай бұрын
@@hjs6102 the scientific method is through observation. everything in the universe is dependent on something else for its existence. if everything were merely contingent and dependent, there must be a necessary and independent being- Creator (God) -upon which everything else depends for its existence. and that Creator (God) an independent being cannot be within this limited dependent natural world, thus scientific method cannot prove that. and without the necessary being all we get is infinite regress, absurdity. so we have to agree a Creator does exists. If the Creator by the definition of the word "Creator" Who Created everything, and because Creator created all of us and because we humans can consider that there must a be some form of communication between us and the Creator, and there are claims, we must not exclude any potential claim from assessing to come to the truth.
@hjs6102
7 ай бұрын
@@_whatistruth " if everything were merely contingent and dependent, there must be a necessary and independent being- Creator (God) -upon which everything else depends for its existence." Why?
@_whatistruth
7 ай бұрын
@@hjs6102 because if there is not a independent being, the universe wouldn't exist in a infinite regress. and because we exist, moral and values exist, and things in this natural world are dependent, there must be something that started it which is independent. uncaused cause
@tedgrant2
Жыл бұрын
My digital piano is good enough for Jehovah
@dragonzragnorack824
Жыл бұрын
A hairs thin? That is unbelievably untrue 😂 the gravitational one is also untrue to an extent, but that tiny movement is untrue it being stronger by that much wouldn't affect much of anything except stars forming more and larger and the reverse for the opposite
@dragonzragnorack824
Жыл бұрын
And for the mass and energy that is 100% untrue, for any of those things to be changed at the beginning of the universe would only cause the universe to evolve into something different, and a chance universe is way more plausible than a all powerful and all knowing god😂, practically everything you said was wrong😂😂😂😂😂😂
@drewdavidclifton
10 ай бұрын
@@dragonzragnorack824 Do you have any facts or math to back up this claim? I would take the video at face value until I hear something real that indicates otherwise. I think you're discounting the truth of the video for some unknown reason. You're betting on 10^+++++++++++++++++++++ odds? Doesn't make any sense matey! Peace. 🤗
@dragonzragnorack824
10 ай бұрын
@@drewdavidclifton and you're betting on fucking magic, the video isn't even correct
@kinotikimathi9106
2 жыл бұрын
Great video....but try and eliminate bias😂
@jriverariddering
2 жыл бұрын
there is no bias, only truth
@tomblackburnmusic
Жыл бұрын
@@jriverariddering Unfortuately, the video is full of skewed information and misleading claims (i.e. bias) which is a shame, because the argument it is describing is a good one!
@CalebHembree
Ай бұрын
This isnt William Lane Craig
@drcraigvideos
Ай бұрын
Dr. Craig worked with the video's producer to write this script. Each of the animated videos has a different voice actor for narration. - RF Admin
@CalebHembree
Ай бұрын
@@drcraigvideos OK!! Thanks for explaining! I was meaning to pose it as a question sorry for sounding rude, we are using this for an essay defending the idea of a creator and I didnt want to use a video that wasn't William Lane Craig Thank You!
@garethwest9069
Жыл бұрын
Uniformity DEMOLISHES the secular humanist religion of Darwinism: Wisdom and knowledge will be the STABILITY of your times, And the strength of salvation; The fear of the Lord is His treasure. - Isaiah 33:6 You alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, The heaven of heavens, with all their host, The earth and everything on it, The seas and all that is in them, And You PRESERVE them all. The host of heaven worships You. - Nehemiah 9:6 He is before all things, and in Him ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. - Colossians 1:17
@RalphCloud
Жыл бұрын
Who is man, to call out God Almighty (YHWH) works ? Who is the mortal, but a whisper in the wind, what makes him ponder on the superlativeness, of such Divine and have the illusion, that access granted? The universe and its fine tuning, the alignment of the planets, the never ending renewal of energies, the components that sustains life, his ever embracing finest of qualities. A prime piece of real-estate call earth, found nowhere in the cosmos, in turn a paradise of delight. Yes, there is great envy and twisted views, arrogance, haughtiness in search for such elated access. Man of much void, will omit and discredit their own findings, in time and space, mere mortals are just a whisper in the wind. Rafael G Nov 4 2022 When put into doubt the finest gift of God Almighty, we in turn subject him to limitations, and I will say this, what makes us think we are granted access to his superlative infinite power ? attributes and fruits of his benevolent spirit ? If anyone doubts, how can one have the slightest access to what is Divine ? Better yet if one desires access, cause Him...to actuate, energize and seek out those prefer choicest fine tuned gifts found in you. In the sacred chamber (work-shop) through implants....awaken...awaken desirable host ! Feb.25 2023 Rafael G
@joedavidson7114
10 ай бұрын
Wow
@byteme9718
6 ай бұрын
Like all theists who falsely claim "fine tuning", you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
@hoenaamcouple3635
5 ай бұрын
Lol, "life is not unique" is what you're saying???
@byteme9718
5 ай бұрын
@@hoenaamcouple3635 Why would life elsewhere in the universe not be inevitable?
@thewestisthebest6608
9 ай бұрын
“If God wrote me a message in the stars I still wouldn’t believe it. It could be a hallucination or an alien playing a trick!” -Richard Dawkins Yes he actually said that. Not very scientific
@umargandhi5796
Жыл бұрын
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man” Did Jesus ever say (I am god worship me)? No Jesus is not God. He was a prophet PBUH. Carrying the same message of all the prophets. PBU all of them. That message is to worship one God and him alone. Allah. The language Jesus spoke was Aramaic. Google what God is in Aramaic. ALLAH. Alhumdulliah. Jesus PBUH in the Bible also prayed with his face on the ground. Matthew 26:39 (And He went a little farther, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”) Is this not how Muslims pray. Will you deny these signs? And how can god have a son? Giving birth, having children is a human attribute. When you say god has children, that is a human attribute. Giving a human attribute would defying God and his power. That would limit God. There are also numerous contradictions in the Bible. Also many unfair things like the treatment of slaves. Exodus 21:20-21 “When a man hits his male or female servant with a stick so that he or she dies, he will be punished. 21 But if he or she lives a day or two, he will not be punished, for his servant belongs to him.” You agree with a innocent woman and child being beaten half to death. And they don’t get punished. This is wrong.
@orver1
4 ай бұрын
Calling it fine tuned assumes a tuner. It’s a circular argument. There is no evidence of gods and goddesses.
@1AndreyBender1
4 ай бұрын
If we accept materialism, nothing can prove the existence of God, not even His own testimony about Himself. Simply because all this can be explained by individual or mass hallucination, and maybe even by alien pranksters. *_But if we believe in the existence of God in advance, then the fine-tuning of the Universe is exactly what we will be sure of in advance._* Your atheism can only be saved by the multiverse hypothesis, which is as likely as the existence of God
@Nrv-q8y
Жыл бұрын
There is Creator for sure, higher power, but it's not paganic biblical god
@damianhowland9759
Жыл бұрын
Plain and simple Genesis
@frankfowlkes7872
7 күн бұрын
The odds of a fine tuned universe are truly overwhelming beyond belief. Most physicists are aware of this but few are willing to admit it like Paul Davies. What we as believers have to be careful of in scientific circles is blindly attributing this to our" Christian God". This weakens the obvious conclusion of a designed universe into a matter of faith instead of science. At our current level of understanding we cannot explain why the Universe is designed only that it is. This, in itself, causes the curious to consider the options.
@2l84me8
Күн бұрын
The universe wasn’t designed at all. Life barely managed to survive and adapt to a temporary planet. Thats all. Anywhere else would immediately put an end to life. Is this what you call good design?
@stirpiano
Жыл бұрын
An intelligent, transcendent creator would also require fine-tuning by this same reasoning, and it would regress infinitely. Applying any exceptions would be a special pleading fallacy, and if an intelligent, complex designer doesn't need fine-tuning then it should be fair to say the the universe doesn't either.
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
1. This objection is really bad, on the basis of which an intelligent designer needs fine-tuning, this is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of proof by assertion. 2. There are only two ways to explain fine tuning on atheism, coincidence and physical necessity and both fail, only if you can find similar objections to intelligent design the argument would not be valid, but it is obvious that you cannot.
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
@@mc-x4l 1. This is again a logical fallacy of proof by assertion, you have no argument why God must be fine tuned. 2. You are also confusing capabilities with complexity, say a knife is far simpler than an electric razor but still has many more functions. 3. So I want atheists to show me why God must be fine-tuned, empty claims are just that, claims, I will easily show why the multiverse generator must be fine-tuned.
@mc-x4l
Жыл бұрын
@@kenandzafic3948 Why multiverse generator, if there is such thing, must be fine-tuned?
@kenandzafic3948
Жыл бұрын
@@mc-x4l 1. The multiverse generator is just a name for the physical processes that produced the multiverse so it must exist if the multiverse exists. 2. There are 3 independent reasons why a generator must be fine-tuned. 1) The multiverse doesn't even try to explain the fine-tuning of the laws of physics (Robin Collins gives many examples where only the laws of physics have to be fine-tuned for life). 2) The multiverse pushes the problem of fine-tuning one step back, in order for the multiverse to lead to a universe that is fine-tuned for life it must be extremely diverse so that there are many more multiverses that will not produce life than those that will and thus the question arises as to why the generator chose the very multiverse that allows life. 3) The state of low entropy, which is the best example of fine-tuning, is not explained by the multiverse, but the multiverse requires a state of low entropy.
@mc-x4l
Жыл бұрын
@@kenandzafic3948 1. It does 2. If "choosing a universe/multiverse that allows life" is the definition of fine-tuning, then God is fine-tuned because he chose the universe that allows life. And the question sounds strange to me because the multiverse is almost lifeless. Life is actually a very insignificant thing in it 3. Before saying that the multiverse doesn't explain something, you should know well how does it work. Give your observation and research on which you made this statement
@SystemsMedicine
10 ай бұрын
As presented here, the fine tuning ‘argument’ is practically incoherent. Currently, no calculation about the actual physical universe can be measured or known to 1 part in 10^60, much less 10^120. The most accurate current theory in science, QED, is currently known to about 15 digits of accuracy. Additionally, biologists simply do not have a theory of life involving such physics calculations. Phooey.
@tatonemio6388
Жыл бұрын
I knew already Craig was dishonest and not very smart. Thank you for confirming that. This Universe allows life. There is no fine-tuning, the constants are constants.
@soylatte1288
11 ай бұрын
"not very smart" soooo what are your qualifications?
@tatonemio6388
11 ай бұрын
@@soylatte1288 My qualifications? Enough to understand Craig's arguments are garbage for gullible people
@raducoman6423
Жыл бұрын
This video exhibits a highly dishonest and hypocritical element. While I do believe that fine-tuning is the strongest argument in favor of a Creator, this video heavily undermines its own argument by using the inability to ‘detect, observe, measure, or prove’ the Multiverse as a basis to disprove it. By employing this same logic, one could argue that a Creator also cannot be detected, observed, measured, or proved. Similarly, the video cites numerous acclaimed scientists who advocate for a Designer but fails to include quotes from equally renowned scientists who support the Multiverse hypothesis.
@tatonemio6388
Жыл бұрын
you: "This video exhibits a highly dishonest and hypocritical element. " Yeah, Craig arguments are mostly dishonest you: "fine-tuning is the strongest argument in favor of a Creator," 1) there is no evidence the universal constants can have different values: no tunable , fine or not 2) how do you know the Universe need to be created to exist? you: "inability to ‘detect, observe, measure, or prove’ the Multiverse" The Multiverse *hypothesis* is not science until there is a way to test it. you: "a Creator also cannot be detected, observed, measured, or proved." Exactly a supernatural Creator cannot be detected, observed, measured, or proved *scientifically* by definition. you: "scientists who advocate for a Designer " Scientists have religious and political opinions, this has nothing to do with science. The Designer/Creator is a religious concept not scientific.
@raducoman6423
Жыл бұрын
@@tatonemio6388 1. I never stated that the constants are tuned necessarily, nor that the universe needs to be created to exist. I have no idea how my statement implied that. All I said is that, out of all the arguments in favor of a Creator, I find the fine-tuning argument to be the most competent one, something both Dawkins and Hitchens also agreed upon. This does not imply that I consider this argument to be irrefutable, it’s simply more compelling than other arguments. 2. I agree with all your points. I merely pointed out the fact that both the creator and multiverse hypotheses are equally faith based, so using the argument that there is no way to detect, observe, measure or prove the multiverse as a way to dismiss the multiverse hypothesis while not using the same reasoning when discussing a potential creator hypothesis is a massive double standard.
@tatonemio6388
Жыл бұрын
@@raducoman6423 you: " I never stated that the constants are tuned necessarily" I never said you said that but you said "I do believe that fine-tuning is the strongest argument in favor of a Creator". The fine-tuning argument assume the universal constants can be tuned, which is scientifically incorrect. The argument is scientifically baseless. you: "nor that the universe needs to be created to exist" I asked a question based on your previous statement. If one says "Creator" it implies a Creation. Creation have to be demonstrated or there is no need of a Creator. The hypothetical existence of an agent tuning the universe for life doesn't imply the same agent is the Creator of the Universe as described by the Bible. 2) I would say "the fact that both the creator and multiverse hypotheses are equally unscientific". The multiverse hypotheses is definitely not based on faith but on a logical but non-empirical assumption. Yes, the Creator hypothesis is mostly religious in nature. Here an example of distortion religious apologists do : "Christopher Hitchens said that the fine tuning argument was the most persuasive argument for the existence of God that he had heard. " Be aware that when you say : ""I do believe that fine-tuning is the strongest argument in favor of a Creator"... this will sound to the average religious person like "there are strong scientific arguments for a Creator"...
@jackplumbridge2704
11 ай бұрын
"this video heavily undermines its own argument by using the inability to ‘detect, observe, measure, or prove’ the Multiverse as a basis to disprove it. " - At no point in this video was that ever argued. At no point did they say "other universes cannot be observed, therefore, they do not exist". How about this: instead of strawmanning the argument being made, and instead of falsely accusing people of dishonesty and hypocrisy, you actually pay attention to the video you are watching? "Similarly, the video cites numerous acclaimed scientists who advocate for a Designer but fails to include quotes from equally renowned scientists who support the Multiverse hypothesis." - There is nothing dishonest or hypocritical about this at all. If you are advocating for a position then of course you are going to quote experts who agree with you lol.
@t5698
7 ай бұрын
Allah is the only explanation behind all the physical phenomena of this universe. He is the sole creator and sustainer.
Check the youtube channel of Christian Prince. He is arabic scholar and know islam very well.
@RealVerses
8 ай бұрын
@@greenbird679 He is not a scholar and his arabic is terrible.
@alger-y3q
2 жыл бұрын
God is the greatness
@Fundamental_Islam.
2 жыл бұрын
He is infinity
@msmd3295
7 ай бұрын
It is a false premise to take a random act and turn it into something it is not… a design. Such a conclusion is either the result of emotional insecurity or just plain ignorance. If one were to visit a casino and play blackjack, and one participant gets a winning hand… is that by design? Unless the casino is running an illegal business, that winning hand was pure coincidence out of ALL the permutations possible. Why people, supposedly “intelligent” beings would draw conclusions strictly based upon what they WANT to believe is baffling. If I’m barreling down some freeway @ 80 mph snd I get the notion in my head that maneuvering my vehicle into a concrete abutment that my injuries or death is just an illusion, then you might want to test that hypothesis and see what happens. There are “real” consequences that are part and parcel with the real world. Given the fact there is NO empirical evidence and just “pseudo-logical” arguments that are themselves dubious propositions a person can argue in favor of a “fine-tuning” creator, there STILL is No evidence that such a being exists. So any proposal based upon that being is nothing more than pure conjecture. One may as well also believe in green unicorns. Problem with that though, is most theists rely upon the empty promises that theism makes, especially Christianity. Because it promises “life after death”, reunifications, paradise, etc. None of which can be proven empirically. It’s nothing but a trap instituted by people seeking power and wealth, influence over others and has been going on for thousands of years of human history. The question is… do you have the courage to accept the real world, nature, “as-is”?
@awaiskhan5895
Жыл бұрын
Is this all coincidence or is just come from nothing? Wake up! God is even more complex than this
@daxleone
Жыл бұрын
What a crock 😂
@lauramann8275
11 ай бұрын
What's a crock? Math, chemistry and physics and science in general are possible because of the fine tuning. If the universal forces weren't constant, nothing would be here.
@lauramann8275
11 ай бұрын
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Who built the computer that generated the numbers?
@terryswails1191
Жыл бұрын
We know so little about God because we don't study His Word and commune with Him, plus our minds are finite and He is Infinite, if we lived 10 lifetimes we would never exhaust the depths of God's Word. If we would dig deep into His Word.and meditate in His Word, we would be astonished at what He will reveal to us. Don't just read over the scriptures, but search them
@johnbrown6189
7 ай бұрын
There's no one tuning anything.
@canwelook
Жыл бұрын
Yet another god of the gaps. 1. Don't understand thunder, therefore Thor, Zeus, etc 2. Don't understand Cosmological constants, therefore Allah, Vishnu, Jesus, etc There will always be things we don't understand. Religions will always claim these things are proof of their particular god of choice. And science will progressively knock down these speculations, over time.
@canwelook
Жыл бұрын
@🇵🇸 Mᴜsᴛᴀꜰᴀ Sʜᴀʀɪꜰꜰ Aᴅᴇ[O⃠LGBTCIA] I appreciate you have been indoctrinated to believe these are significant predictions. But to anyone outside your religion, your interpretations just make you look gullible.
@canwelook
Жыл бұрын
@🇵🇸 Mᴜsᴛᴀꜰᴀ Sʜᴀʀɪꜰꜰ Aᴅᴇ[O⃠LGBTCIA] You have a very shallow and deeply misinformed understanding of science. Science looks to find the best current explanations of what we observe. Models are judged on their verifiable ability to predict what has not yet been obseved, plus on their pragmatic usefulness. Scientists, unlike the religious, celebrate when they are shown to be wrong, and actively seek to prove their own models wrong... because being wrong opens the doors to more discoveries. And science is not a belief system, it is a method. It is ironic, and humorous, that you dismiss the value of science whilst simultaneously using the computer and internet only available to you because of science.
@canwelook
Жыл бұрын
@🇵🇸 Mᴜsᴛᴀꜰᴀ Sʜᴀʀɪꜰꜰ Aᴅᴇ[O⃠LGBTCIA] Yes people funded by religions were involved in early science. Why? Obviously - because religions were the only places with money. Governments were controlled by religions. Governments funded religions. No-one could fund any research except with church money, anyone not professing the state religion was banished and made unemployable. Then, in the West, the reformation and enlightenment happened, the power of the church was diminished, and science flourished. Muslim countries were left behind because Islam maintained control. Which is why, despite being flush with oil money, Muslim countries are economic inferiors. No surprise you are a science denier. Backward thinkers gravitate to religion. The time is well overdue to stop the subsidisation of religions, make them pay their way, and tax all churches and mosques as businesses.
@zachhecita
Жыл бұрын
Rather it's the God of the Gap. There is only one gap, the convergence point for every question, every problem. Simply put, God is the only complete explanation to this gap, a unifying theory for everything if you will. The problem with a purely scientific approach that you propose is that there is a metaphysical reality that science cannot explain but correlates with. For instance, science is rooted in the necessity for observable order in the universe. However, only rational minds can detect structure. From whence comes this rationality? It is the animus for science but is not a natural force. It is purely metaphysical. It's the idea that reality can be interpreted. I think that any theory for the universe must not only explain the physical but the metaphysical as well. There are facts, then there is truth. The idea that facts matter is based on the moral imperative that truth matters. However, what is true if God doesn't exist? Nothing is true. Nothing can be true; because nothing matters. The opposite of theism is not atheism, it is nihilism. You stare into the abyss, and it stares back. The abyss asks a question, "since nothing matters, is there such a thing as logic?"
@canwelook
Жыл бұрын
@@zachhecitaYou figure if you wildly shoot enough arrows (weak apologist arguments), eventually one has to hit a target somewhere? 1. Don't understand thunder, therefore Thor, Zeus, etc 2. Don't understand order in the universe therefore Allah, Vishnu, Isis, Yahweh, Innana, Jesus, etc YOU believe humans invent gods (aka magic) to 'explain' everything they don't understand. YOU believe all gods are fictions... except your particular one. Correct? So try arguing for your very particular god. Where is your evidence?
@RoscoeKane
2 жыл бұрын
3:40 "The constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature." This is not at all known, this claim is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. The truth is, we don't know why the constants and quantities are what they are. This argument appears to amount to "I don't know what X is true, therefore, God did it."
@Aurora666_yt
Жыл бұрын
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!
@alinzzzzz
Жыл бұрын
God's work is incomprehensible and understandable at the same time. It's an odd feeling.
@zxx5
10 ай бұрын
God is AWESOME!
@kenkaplan3654
8 ай бұрын
Genuine illumination is quite accessible through practice. What you say is true. One gets to see behind the veil but the whole is beyond impossible to grasp, at least in human form.
@mc-x4l
7 ай бұрын
"Mulitiverse can't be observed, detected, measured", but god can't be too If fine-tuning of the Earth for existence of life (right distance to the Sun, right mass of the Earth, magnetic field etc) is explaned by the existence of countless number of different planets in the universe, most of which happened to be lifeless and a small portion of them happened to have conditions for life, then we should prefer a similar explanation for fine-tuning of the universe: a countless number of different universes, most of which are lifeless and a small portion of them have properties for existence of life. Because we should prefer the explanation that we already saw before. For example, if you find animal footprints on the ground, you would explain it with type of animal you know to exist, like a horse, donkey, etc, not with a mythological animal, that no one saw, like a unicorn
@kenkaplan3654
7 ай бұрын
@@mc-x4l There is abundant evidence through Astronomy for billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets, There is no observable evidence, none for a spewer of random universes. Further, fine tuning is an observable characteristic of this universe. The issue is not that it exists, but why? The flight from and fight against design is near hysteria from my perspective.
@mc-x4l
7 ай бұрын
@kenkaplan3654 I already responded to that at the beginning of my comment. If we reject the possibility of existence of multiverse because there is no observable evidence for it, for the same reason, we should also reject the possibility of the existence of god. So, from your perspective, we shouldn't try to answer the question about fine-tuning at all because any answer involves something outside of our observation
@Nwunchuck27
2 ай бұрын
One the best dopamine releasing video in existence of KZitem
@paultrueman2
9 ай бұрын
Just think of the power and knowledge and glory of this creator. Truly mind blowing!
@Nwunchuck27
2 ай бұрын
Obviously he is all knowing in theory so he is knowledge himself He is himself the universal set of all values
@2l84me8
Күн бұрын
What creator? And how did you determine anything was created to begin with?
@knight7794
Жыл бұрын
this is the best argument I have heard so far.
@Terrylb285
Жыл бұрын
You would like the other video titled the Kalam cosmological argument.Done by the same reasonable faith short videos
@johnsagsveen8238
5 ай бұрын
When I was strongly in my agnostic phase and looking into different cosmological stuff this used to just bother the heck out of me.
@Nwunchuck27
2 ай бұрын
Real I like the Leibniz contingency argument equally.its more about which one resonates in your the most ❤️
@Kookie437e
2 ай бұрын
Hands down
@zmemes69
4 ай бұрын
i realized that when i got into software development for 4 years its crazy to assume a complex program with many features was built with chance only that's just a program but here its the universe man our eye only has enough complexity makes it hard to replicate it
Пікірлер: 973