Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails 

Dear atheist brothers and sisters, I'm a Muslim and this video is NOT against you. I made it hoping to save some of you from a terrible fate. Our understanding for the arrow of time is wrong and you're here by choice NOT by force so God see who honors the contract of his/her creation as I explained in my other video. I hope you make the right choice: Why are we here? Our contract with God and the illusion of time. Allah Answers Atheists Q1: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CRGZ7sSlLZU.html

Romans 1:20-22 ~ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,..~

I find it amazing that people will believe in muti-universes without having seen them, but if you tell them there is another Universe outside of the one we know, that is beyond our comprehension and is the dwelling place of the Creator, they laugh at the idea.... They laugh at their own idea, without realizing it! We can have as many universes as we like, as long as the Creator is out of the picture, seems to be the thought. Talk about denial and self deception.... :(

I like how Dawkins disregards the fact that 1. He is a biologist, not a physicist. And 2. Many of these constants were discovered by atheist physicists.

This is such a great video. Thanks for taking the time to post this. I just hope one day Richard Dawkins will come to his senses and accept the fact that there is a fine tuner.

So he believes multiple universes are possible (which there is no evidence they exist) but god is not possible..... hilarious!!

I did see it, they think that we're living in a simulation, I totally agree with that, it's a very advanced simulation and you need to think who made it.

Guys, where ever our beliefs place us at present, let is be respectful of each other. "Agree to disagree" as ot were. Cretainly lobbing insults -which unfortunately happens too often in such shared ideas- does absolutely nothing to advance ideas and knowledge. It has an opposite effect. It reveals how desperate and threatened one is, when confronted with a counter viewpoint that "seems" to topple one's belief system. If what one believes is truth, then it simply cannot be overturned and its support should be able to stay calm and hope that with in time, the "opponent" will realise it eventually. Set aside pride and ego and enjoy the journey in discovery. (let's see how long it takes before I lget attacked for this statement) :)

You are looking at this from completely the wrong end. The universe isn't fine tuned to produce us, we are a product of the way this universe is. Completely different, if you don't understand that, you're not thinking logically.

Impressive video, thank you! I think Dawkins is the most 'caught out' atheist in existence. His desperation is fully vivid and exposed the most. I know some atheists personally, and hardly anyone is THIS level illogical.

At 9:50 Dawkins realizes Krauss has sold him the Brooklyn bridge about the multiverse.....whoops.

If I was a teacher, this video would be my best way to illustrate 'misrepresentation' and make it clear why background knowledge is important.

​Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: ​ A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)

The anthropic principle has not failed anybody. It's a simple matter of fact that a human being can ONLY find themselves in a universe capable of supporting human life. It's totally irrelevant how likely or unlikely it is that such a universe should exist. Of course, it's possible that such universe are inevitable because of the existence of a "near infinite" number of universes. But even if there is only one universe and the odds of that one universe existing are infinitesimal, that is still not proof of anything. As long as it is at all possible for life to exist, then the anthropic principle provides all one needs to know about why we find ourselves in a universe "fine tuned' for our form of life.

First of all Dawkins is not a particularly good scientist. “And maybe our universe is among these 10^120 universes by chance.” I think you might misunderstand the anthropic principle. We wouldn’t be in the one universe capable of supporting intelligent life by chance. We are in that one because it was the only possible one to be in. It’s like asking why we don’t live on any of the other thousands of bodies orbiting the sun. Is it just by chance that we are on the one body capable of supporting life? No. It’s the only place we could have possibly been in this solar system.

We can only conceptually delineate ourselves from the rest of the universe, not physically delineate ourselves. It is the universe which is conscious and intelligent and so the universe being fine tuned for life makes perfect sense.

The multiverse theory is bullshit. There can't be an infinite amount of universes. Also the chances of a stable universe coming into being is 10^(10^123), not 10^120. Very illogical to pick the "we just got super lucky" side as opposed to the "an unknown force created the universe" side.

Thank YOU for this upload. My philosophy is that we humans have been gifted with intelligence to follow the evidence where it leads - and if that is leading to GOD, so be it with wide assurance and contentment.

I find it amusing that Atheists use occam's razor and the infallibility of science to argue issues until the science points to accepting a creationist point of view.

Leonard Susskind is an amazing physicist who I listen to and read regularly. I have never heard him profess to support the theory of a creator. I have heard Leonard (Leonardo) many times elude to the structure and tuning of the universe as designed, but this is no more relevant than Einstein stating "God does not play dice..." Einstein (and many other physicists) used the term God as a cosmology, not a creator. I will admit, there are some physicists who do acquire a faith, but they are very few in number. I'm not so sure Susskind would approve of this interview footage being manipulated to support an Intelligent Design theory. You can ask him if you want. He usually responds to students who follow his online public open classes via Stanford uni, if you can source the blog. Although, I'm not so sure he will respond to such a question.

While commenting on this video, I had one more thought: why do narrators or writers of these documentaries always say/think that this universe is made for us to evolve? At least 99% of our solar system will kill us if we left Earth without protective gear. Vacuum, planets, solar radiation, radiation of any kind, you name it. Some design. Fine tuning my ass.

why are some people afraid of admitting that there is a god? and they should stop correcting people who are more educated than them just stop please

That was quite hard to grasp, I had to do my own little research on what was this cosmological constant, but I still fail to see how it is finely tuned. As I said in one of your video, tune can only be proved through prediction, not observation of what already happened. And even if, the universe is highly hostile to us, composed mostly of vacuum in which we can't survive, so much for a tune. Should had been design, it was apparently not for us.

To be honest you dont seem to understand the fine tuning argument very well. There are huge problems with it. Just to start you off, the fine tuning argument is a so called "heads i win, tails you lose argument" If we did indeed live in a universe that could not support life, that would of course point to an all powerful being. So the way the argument itself is set up is bad. Secondly, which god? Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Kali, Thor, Odin, Zeus, or is it a god we know nothing about at all. Third problem, you completly miss one point that we need to know before we can say anything about any sort of fine tuning, we need to know the ranges and integers of the forces of nature, and there are many many more things we dont know about how the forces are set up, are they linked. Maybe gravit is linked with the repelling force or rather oposites of eachother so no matter what strength one gets the other gets another strength that is linked to the first. All this needs to be known before we can conclude "fine tuning" Fourth problem, string theory and a few other things points towards there being a multiverse, the problem here is that if there is a multiverse it probably contains close to 10^500 universes. Another thing which you should just correct, the visible universe contains around 10^80 nr of protons (a few of which that are now neutrons) so that should just be a short correction, and you should stop cutting the videos to try to make your point. weinbergs answer (from dawkins standing at a podium speaking, cut to an interview between dawkins and weinberg) where weinberg seems to answer the question that dawkins said. But are in fact not really true. Have a good day pretty good video otherwise, just extremly biased.

I think what theists fail to understand is that even if everything in science was proven wrong that still wouldn't mean a god or gods exists. First you would have to prove that a god/gods exist to even posit anything to them. And if you somehow got pass that objective you would still have to prove that those gods were responsible for anything in the universe.

There is zero evidence of a creator/ intelligent designer / god. Zero. The complexity of nature does not prove a godly creator, it proves nature is complex.

Objection 1: The argument from fine-tuning is just another god-of-the-gaps argument. It amounts to saying, “We don’t know how the universe came to be fine-tuned to permit life, therefore God did it.” This is a common mischaracterization. The argument does not use God to fill a gap in our knowledge. Instead, it weighs the explanatory power of the available competing hypotheses (i.e., chance, necessity and design) and rules in favor of the one which is most plausibly affirmed. This is known as an inference to the best explanation, and it is formed on the basis of what we know, rather than what we do not know. Given what we know (i.e., our universe is life-permitting only because certain physical constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of possible values), the design hypothesis is a better explanation than either chance or necessity. Abductive arguments like this are a common form of everyday and scientific reasoning.

I love this video in particular. Watched it at least 200 times.

1:19 THATS MY QUANTUM MECHANICS TEACHER 1

If someone > doesnt want to < believe in god he may not believe in him/it . If someone > wants to < believe in him/it , its not so much hard for him/her to get belief . It all depends on YOU ! You , You & You !!

This was beautiful and thought provoking. Am starting to gain hope that there is a God thank you

This video is incorrect. The simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. So the probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^32 not 1 in 10^120.

Great video, thanks for sharing.

You know, as I watched the video I at first assumed it to be serious and then hoped it was, but I was to be disappointed. As a physicist, I fear that jumping to the creator idea for explanation is merely the "god of the gap" revisited. We are working on the math now. Eventually we will demonstrate, theoretically at least, that the multiverse, in its infinity, not only provides the opportunity for our little bubble of a universe but an infinity of other similar "Goldie-locks" universes. To understand you must do two things at a minimum: 1, get over the idea that it was al created for us. We are ultimately unimportant in the universal scope, merely barely interesting, bio masses with the complication of sentience, and 2, that we must get our limited minds around the concept of infinity. It goes on forever. For argument, let's say that the macro-universe is truly infinite. Then, by definition, the mathematics of 10^120 is unimportant. In fact, any math describing the limits of the size of the cosmos is futile, because it is infinite. If we make the leap and agree that the cosmos IS infinite, then, buckle up, there would be an infinite number of goldie-locks universes just like ours and therefore an infinite number of opportunities for a planet like ours where, just maybe, there might arise a family of proto-hominid apes capable of evolving into humans who will argue about how they got there. It seems like luck, an impossible roll of dice, until you apply infinity. Then, suddenly, all things are possible.

This edited upload mad me laugh so hard. ALL PRAISE ALA! I mean Jesus, I mean Shiva... so hard to keep track.

How to deal with people who sell religion as an integral part or even the pivotal part of the national and/or ethnic identity?

The multiverse? For those who are committed to philosophical materialism there is no other choice. For those who are committed to a divine Creator, all options are on the table. Now, who really is "open-minded" here?

If the big bang is true, then that would mean that a ball of energy once existed. If that's the case, then that ball of energy has to have a creation. If it has a creation, however, it would create a paradox. So therefore, some people would say this ball always existed, just like God existed. However, if that ball of energy truly existed for eternity, then how was it able to trigger? Thus, it is logical to say that a intelligent designer has always existed and has no beginning or end, because it is technically consistent and has no looping paradox, despite it being unrealistic to some ideas.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

Edit, edit, edit, edit, chop, cut, cobble together... God Did It.... what did he do? how did he do it? how do we know it's your personal favorite god? ... never mind the details... it's settled. GDI ... pass the plate!

Even if the multiverse theory held water, you're still stuck with the problem of how they came to be. Is it from nothing? They just spontaneously occurred? That's more of a stretch than a supreme being creating them.

So-called "atheists" are funny .....people are saying "the universe is not desgined" Yet dawkins says it is...this dude is an angry militant so-called "atheist" ..so why would he want to lie?

"Any thing but God, anything but God", and he calls himself a scientist? What a joke! Science may NEVER uncover the mystery of creation whereas Religions and myths have explored the possibilities for thousands of years. Most of the Eastern Religions have a perfect explanation, and one that can be verified by experience! In meditation, the theory that consciousness (called the over soul by Emerson) is the underlying creative intelligence of all of nature and is inherent in us as well and can be experienced.

If I am an intelligent designer, if there is a probability for my existence, how can I oust the same probability for another, perhaps a higher designer?

Martin Rees demonstrating very well that he is a physicist rather than a biologist. As learned as he is, he has allowed a bias towards his knowledge to shape his conclusions. A biologist might see things very differently, and draw very different conclusions. As indeed might a chemist, a poet, a philosopher, or any other person who is looking at a question with only the ammunition of his knowledge to guide him.

Take 4 decks of cards and mix them up. Flip over 10 of them. What is the chance that the order of those 10 cards in that order came about? That answer can actually be calculated unlike your claim in this video. Also the answer is more than yours and happened before your eyes. Statistics/probability as ridiculous as yours are no help.

If I might just ask two questions that I think are worth some thought in response to this video. 1) If we do indeed accept the proposition put forth from this video, where is the evidence that pushes the argument from "There is proof of a designer" to" There is proof of God". Those are mutually exclusive claims, and so I ask where the facts are to make that transition. I didn't see them in the video, that's for sure. 2) If indeed this one constant is so precise that a single change in it's value would create a lifeless universe, have we ran a simulation of a universe with every other possible value it could have and found that every single simulation ended up with a lifeless universe? Do we even have the technology to perform such an test when we do not even fully understand abiogenesis? Indeed, if we were to take the assertion that God created the universe and life through natural means, how can we conclude that this is the only universe capable of life when we do not even fully understand how life yet comes from non-life?

We don´t understand therefore there must be a god. There must be only one god and this god must be our version of god. When not creating universes he kills babies in Africa and "writes" books about not touching yourself. Please take me to the church/mosque immediately because I´m convinced.

so if a God designed the universe then who designed him? then people say well he always existed and didn't need to be designed. ya that makes a lot of sense. you are just coming up with an easy answer so you get to stop thinking. where is your scientific evidence to say that other than you want it to be true and you just know it? by the way its always whatever God their religion happens to be.

The problem with the multiverse is it just kicks the can down the road again. If the multiverse theory is true, where all things are possible because of the depth of time and space, then it has to accept there can be a universe where a universal intelligent nature can creatively shape a universe.

Interesting video. Dawkins is such a hack: not trying to be mean, but everytime he is confronted with actual data and facts, he turtles up and turns the denial switch to it's maximum setting. :P

Most physicists have said nothing about the discovery because no matter how small the chances are, we live in a universe where every possibility at every second occurs across multiple timelines. So even if it is an unimaginably small chance that the universe can exist it will happen an infinite amount of times. However, if there is a God the cosmological constant is still strong evidence to support such belief.

If the multiverse is ifinite , that means that there is still a mathematical chance. Even if it is a chance out of trillions of trillions of chances,it might be the one that we are living right now

A probability of the order of 10^120 cannot be dismissed as 'chance'. It's beyond any naturalistic explanation.At the cosmological level the universe is clearly 'intelligently designed' , the evidence is unequivocal.There is a single underlying intelligence at work, not random forces.

Usually when a religious person, spiritualist, conspiracy theorist etc. insist someone "open their heart" what they really mean is to stop thinking critically and just accept what you're being told to believe. I'm not going to do that. There's a difference between "possibility" and "actuality". Suggesting something might be possible does not mean its actually the case. Yes, there might be a creator of some sort. Its equally possible that the one you believe in is the wrong one.

Is that the same link as before? This video (surprise surprise) filters comments rejecting anything that does not reflect favorably on the content....just as we talked about before. This is what's commonly referred to as the religious bubble or "echo chamber" where any dissenting idea or criticism is not permitted to be heard so that problems in the ideology can be ignored and an unfettered favorable viewpoint can remain. Its a common theme found in deeply religious communities.

I don't think one should underestimate the fix we're in that in the END....

The cosmological constant is the amount of energy in a vacuum. if it was different, not much would change. This is stupid.

This is just one argument for the need of a transcendent intelligent cause. Human consciousness makes no sense on naturalism, why are we self aware? There's the Contingency Argument, Kalam, Applicability of Mathematics, Teleological (this), Intentional states of Consciousness, Moral Argument, Ontological Argument...

Consider the following argument Premise 1: Either there is evidence of God that I the atheist will accept or God does not exist Premise 2: There is no evidence of God that I the atheist will accept Premise 3: God does not exist The argument is logical, but it is circular argument with false alternatives. Despite the impossible odds atheists simply continue with this circular way of thinking in order to justify their atheist faith. The simplest way to illustrate the atheist faith: What caused the painting? Theist: the painter Atheist: the paint Why do you need to believe it was the paint? Only if you blindly believed that a painter could not possibly exist.

Sujad, whether the universe was fined tuned FOR US, you judge for yourself, the fact is the universe is "fine tuned". Physicists and cosmologists revela this to us. My commnets didn't include anything about "how we got here".

I'm a wishful thinker when it comes to this topic but I can't let that slide; however small the chance is, we only are around to marvel at it because it came to be. It was so unlikely to happen and we don't know for how long it didn't happen, but we are only around to talk about it for the fact that we beat the odds. E.g if we didn't beat the odds, no one would be around to say "well it was a 1 in trillions of trillions of chance we would have existed anyway, we'll try again next universe." Whatever we came to be or not be would have just accepted itself as normal.

What are the results of alternate finely tuned values? Life, or even existence "as we know it" might not exist, could there be another way of existence and life under different circumstances and different values? We only have this one universe to examine. We didn't know other colors or frequencies of sound were possible beyond our own natural comprehension, before we discovered a way to detect how little we can perceive.

also, I was lousy at math. It's the Physicists using mathematical equations who are saying that the universe could not have fine tuned itself, please take that argument up with them.

I've watched a few of your videos and I think your definition of "proof" is more like interpreting & editing different sources in order to support what you already believe. If the Quran has predicted so many scientific discoveries as you keep claiming, please provide as extensive a list as you can of future discoveries, and please be very specific.

Ok, so Dawkins misquoted him. So what? The hypothesis still stands, and in the absence of evidence, must be equally considered.

Hundreds of billions of years, my mistake. Just a small question, how much time does light take to travel from a galaxy 10 billion light years away from us from light's point of view NOT ours? Of course for us we measure it as 10 billion light years. And how much distance does it travel, again from light's point of view?

As the speaker says in the beginning (2:12-2:58) "Literary appreciation is a subjective thing....its in the eye of the Beholder. The core belief of Muslims is that the Quran is unequivocably [SIC] the most beautiful body of literature and the most eloquent form of literature in existence." This is not a "linguistic miracle"...its a opinion. I may as well insist that the works of Mark Twain must be a miracle because they're so scathingly witty and insightful.

Dawkins never got a hug as a child. I feel sorry for the fool.

by definition, a theory proper is able to be proven in a laboratory setting with predictable and reproducible results. all other suppositions are merely hypotheses. far too often we bestow undue credibility to hypothetical concepts by calling them theories.

Actually even the fine tuning of the cosmological constant is nothing compared to the probability that the CMBR (cosmic background radiation) being on the perfect Weyl Symmetry at the Big Bang as mapped by WMAP satellite was one in 10^10^120

Yeah I've always wondered this... Why is the postulation of multiverse necessarily Superior to a theistic God/creator? It seems like either hypothesis is fair game at it's junction

Using God as an explanation for nature is us just deciding that the truth is too difficult to discover so God did it... end of discovery

+Brandon- what is this "Step B" that C. Steptp is implying that you didn't mention in your previois comment?

Really science and religion try to answer two different questions. Science asks "what" while religion asks "why". "What" deals with the natural world while "why" deals with concepts beyond the natural world. Never shall the two meet.

Its not brushing aside anything. The way we ask questions is as important as the questions themselves. To presuppose any aspect of an answer even before beginning to investigate is to unfairly bias the investigation from the outset. The religious often BEGIN with the conclusion of god. According to what we've thus far learned from quantum mechanics, "nothing" (an absence of matter, charge and radiation) is energetically unstable and would inevitably result in "something". Even if only briefly.

Sujad, the whole point of this discussion boils down to if the universe fine tuned itself. And there is no definitive proof that on its own, it did. If there was, ALL physicist, ALL cosmologists and ALL mathematicians would agree. But these videos and interviews clearly show they do not. So I kindly ask again, if the professionals, whose life work, grants and research do not or cannot all agree that the universe did this-on its own- then why should I, a layman standing on the sidelines take stock in that hypothesis? (and please for the sake of reason dont reply "prove it to yourself"), refer me to reference material or some article as proof.

So? Does any of this justify any of the Gods that have been worshipped by humans? No. If there is a God, he definitely does not give a Fuck about us otherwise whats the point of such huge universe? Or why did he create us after billions of years?

God said there are many things He can't reveal because man is incapable of understanding. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HERE FOR AN ATHEIST? The problem with the atheist is HE BELIEVES HE IS EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN GOD. He won't accept that the universe and its laws all came from the Supreme Being! He can't understand that compared to God, man's intelligence is no better than that of a newborn! When he comes to the end of his limited wits after failing a scientific experiment, he just lifts up his arms in disgust, and says not, "I am so stupid I can't understand!" But "See, I told you there is no explanation. So there must be no god". And he is SO EGOTISTICAL to accept this.

i find it astounding that I exist in a universe in which I exist

A. The universe is fine tuned to life - Or - B. Life as we know, it exists because the properties of the universe allows it. You can only get to the first by a predisposition that life was meant to be, or that it was intentionally created. Argument from ignorance and circular logic.

Dawkins preferred explanation can be accurately described as 'cosmology of the gaps'.

A God would not need any high budget production documentaries to convince the public.

Even if it was designed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was designed by a "god". It also means that, creation of the universe aside, you can dismiss god's interference since the big bang, which is a heresy by itself. So basically, Christians, Muslims,Jews and all the others, still got it wrong, according to physics.

Just to make a few points here: 1. The fine tuning argument assumes that we know the possible values of the constants, which we really don't. 2. We're also assuming here that we know exactly what it takes to create life. I'll admit, you probably do need different atoms, but who knows. 3. Whether the quote was properly attributed to Weinberg or not, the point still stands. Perhaps the way the universe is is the only way it could have been. 4. If universes are essentially "free" to come about into existence, then what's stopping there from being 10^120 universes out there? I'd also like to point out that it's silly to say that our universe would be among them by "chance". That's like saying it's lucky that humans live on Earth and not Venus, or any other inhospitable planet. We only exist here because the place we live is hospitable to life. 5. From my (admittedly very limited) knowledge of m theory, that theory does necessitate multiple universes. 6. There are other hypotheses of multiverses that allow the universes to "evolve" in such a way that maximizes the number black holes, and thus maximizing stars and planets and such. This would require far fewer universes to get one like ours. 7. Even if the question turns out to be unanswerable by science, that does not necessarily mean that god did it. We don't have to be so uncomfortable in saying "I don't know".

I've always laughed at this "God of the Gaps" word play. Somehow once we can explain something at a basic level, according to atheists we no longer "need" god. Dawkins would say that god retreats to areas we can't explain. In fact if "god" exists he/it would be god of everything, what we can explain, and also what we can't. The idea that if we come up with an explanation of something it somehow invalidates the concept of god is an interesting exercise in logic that I've never quite understood. Maybe I'm just stupid, but it seems on a par with saying once I understand how a 737 works, I no longer need to believe in Boeing designers and builders. Just leave enough monkeys in the Boeing factory for long enough, and in a billion years they'll create a flying 737. Its possible, but I wouldn't be rushing out to buy a ticket on the first test flight. Atheists seem to think that if they can come up with an explanation no matter how implausible, that explanation automatically excludes "god". This is not logical thinking, its defending a pre-existing belief. Its operating with a strong emotional bias against one argument that is so strong that ANY alternative argument will be accepted in preference to it. The sooner they admit their beliefs are just that, and on a par with every other religious belief about the universe, the sooner they will be able to move on with a degree of intellectual integrity.

Which part? O_o I'm sorry but its unassailable fact that WE ALL judge people every day...whether you wish to believe you;re somehow above it or not. You COULD NOT interact with other humans if you didn't.

It is proved by Mr. Masaru Emoto, that emotions and thoughts change the molecules of water, the factor multi-verse has no explanation by human mind, if the universe is complex, imagine the 7 dimensions of the universe, we know only 3 dimensions.

Dawkins is not a physicist, he is an evolutionary biologist, and ethologist. At the end of the video he even says he doesn't know enough physic to know. Dawkins also doesn't speak for atheist everywhere. You didn't prove anything with this video other than Dawkins isn't a physicist.

I have a question. Is it possible that most, or many atheists, are influenced by the opinion that the Bible, if interpreted literally is right or wrong. Can a god be independent from sacred text, or is it possible that sacred texts such as the Bible were not meant to be taken literally? And, if sacred texts were not taken as literally as they are so popularly are, would the existence of a god be more reasonable to consider?

The video you linked is simply more empty (and dishonest) assertions like the one above demonstrating both a gross misunderstanding of the scientific subjects being discussed and a disturbing willingness to twist and distort what science actually tells us to push a religious message. How do we reliably test these "signs" to see if they actually indicate what the religious wish to claim they do?

A multiverse with 10*120 universes sounds ridiculous because it is by definition outside what we can currently observe. But there's another type of multiverse that may have physical evidence. Some scientists think not only is the universe bigger than what we can see, it might be infinite in size. If the universe is truly infinite then some "patches" of the cosmos will have different values for fundamental constants. Each patch is like another universe. Hence the multi-verse. The observable universe might be a tiny speck in the larger cosmos. Do we see any evidence of inconsistencies in space? The Bootes Void and its bigger cousin the Great Void. The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall. These might be regions of space with slightly different constants, suggesting more variation is outside our view. And there is evidence the fine-structure constant may vary. In fact if the universe is infinite then there are an infinite number of duplicates that are completely separated from one another. What else can you call that but a multi-verse? Also quantum mechanics may REQUIRE multiple universes. Is it hard to wrap your head around? Sure. But it makes a lot more sense to me than a magic-man waving his wand to create everything. It's a facile explanation that lets us stop thinking.

The odds of the universe arriving out chaos and nothing has worse odds than winning every lottery since the dawn of time. Meanwhile atheists will continue to try and move the goal post lol.

This is something all men struggle with internally until they give in or shut down. It’s difficult to face for many, but there is a science here so far greater than our own that we can just barely grasp the concepts. Living things are able to adapt to what they regularly encounter. This has been mistaken as a mechanic for evolution, but it has only ever been shown to form different species. The feature alone is evidence of a design that can recreate itself based on sensory input and analysis. The creator is not trapped in the fish tank with us. For this creation to exist there must be another dimension. That of the creator of time, space, and matter. The historical document we are given is an account of our existence from beginning to end. It was meant to dispel the struggle inside of us by giving us as full of an understanding of our reason for being, and origin as is possible. The desire to be correct should supersede any negative connotations derived of being corrected. The truth is knowable. They only need to look for answers where answers to questions that are beyond our intellect are found. Read the instruction manual. The first section is historic/origins second section is relative to the current status of the creation.

dear admin can you give me the links of full video of richard dawkins, and richard dawkins with steven weinberg??

And then tell me this: What if these 10 to the 120th universes all have the same universal constant? No one can say they don't. What then? "My fathers house has many rooms. I go to prepare a place for you."

in million years we will still be discussing this issue... Statistics will still be the same: 50% there may be a god and 50% there isn't. Thus, my philosophy of life, Live and let live, I don't give a damn about any religion. So far noone was able to change my mind yet.

Some theists say: If I cannot "explain" something, that's a proof for "god" which is a supernatural being which is human-like and capable of love, etc,etc. So they also cannot "explain" their god(s). But they don't see that this imaginary being is a pure human projection.

"God doesn't need to fine tune anything, we talk about the parameters of physics and cosmology, the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity and we say if they weren't the numbers that they were then life itself could not exist, that really underestimates god by a lot, which is surprising from theists I think."- Sean Carroll "The only framework in which you can honestly say that the physical parameters of the universe must take on certain values in order for life to exist, is naturalism." - Sean Carroll If a God existed there would be no need or reason for any fine tuning. God could make gravity at whatever parameter or value he wanted, and then just make it so life could live and exist just fine under those parameter and values. Why would gravity have to have the value it does now for life to exist, if a god created life? As an all powerful creator, and the designer of life he is the one that decides what parameters and values he want life to exist in. If he wanted life to live on the inside of stars he could do that, he would just design life so that it could live and thrive (and in fact required) those conditions to live and exist. There is no reason to fine tune anything a certain way, no matter how he tuned things, he could just make life able to live in (or with) that tuning. Are you saying God couldn't make life unless gravity is what it is? He couldn't make life exist in different gravity? If that's the case, then he isn't all powerful. By saying the values and parameters HAVE to be the way they are for life to exist, you're saying if they were different god couldn't make life. As the quote from Sean Carroll above says "that really underestimates god".

I never said "proof of god"....I said "miraculous occurrence demonstrating the Quran as the word of god". That is what "linguistic miracle" is supposed to refer to, right? Whether it came over 23 years or one weekend, how is the word "middle" in the middle of a chapter at all miraculous or even noteworthy??? What is it you think I should know about the Quran that will make that example at all wondrous?