Get 25% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/rationalityrules
Ben has made a living out of being confidently wrong and shamelessly misrepresenting whatever he needs to prove whatever point he wants to make. Amazing.
@@kakao539 Apologists are looking for the finest dents, not gaps, at this point. And there is no reason to suppose that rationality will stop sealing them.
i;m beginning to like the fine tuning argument, it basically says "god picked the unlikeliest method to achieve his desired goal" if god were responsible for creation the chances would be 1:1 not 1:bzillions.
@@HarryNicNicholas not only the unlikeliest but also the most complicated and unstable method with the unwanted side effect of perfectly hiding his existence :D
and brilliantly doesnt understand that its capitalism which is finely tuned to serve the ruling class, not the universe, and we as humanity should have the option to change to a different system which doesnt result in the irl monolopy board game we currently have,, but "muh communism"
I explained to a creationist last week that I had witnessed a genuine miracle. Get this, I had a hole in my front yard, driveway, actually, and after a particularly heavy rain I had a puddle that was The. Exact. Shape. Of. The. Pothole. He called me names... (not a joke, btw. I told him that and it flew right over his head. Obviously the puddle belongs to Douglas Adams.)
@@redx11x Very effectively. Look how someone of your mindset looks around in amazement at how the hole was obviously designed for the puddle to fit perfectly by a cosmic hole designer rather that the puddle fit the hole.
@@BaronVonQuiply its not an effective at all. Look how easily you dismiss the most complex thing in the universe (the human brain), the sequencing of DNA in an intellagible format, and the best analaogy you can come up with is a puddle and hole. It's totally pathetic. I would not mind if you explained your detailed knowledge of abiogenesis but this is really poor.
It's insanely funny and I laughed so hard when I first heard it. Unfortunately it's also akin to the hyperspace ramming scene in one of the disney star wars movies. Gorgeous, but very, very stupid.
I once met a guy in a game who seemed cool. After a few days he linked a Ben shapiro video and told me it's his preferred "intellectual" to listen to and that I might like it. I quickly skedaddled away
I’m sorry, but I have to object on this comment. Have you seen a 2023 MAGA supporter talk lately?! The ones left behind now, that still haven’t figured trump and the malignant GOP out yet, are super goofy and they make the vast, vast majority of people cringe!
There is no scientific consensus that the Big Bang was the "beginning of the Universe." Whether or not there was a universe antecedent to the Big Bang is totally unknown. There are some hypotheses that there was an antecedent-- for instance mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose's Cyclic Conformal Cosmology model in which there may have been an unending series of big bangs and expansions. This theory defies description to anyone without a relatively sophisticated level of mathematical and physical understanding. There is also the Big Bounce idea, in which expansion is followed by contraction back into a singularity, which initiates a new Bang, once again as part of an unending series. There are other ideas, like "universes" endlessly spawning off baby "universes"-- for instance the idea that black holes are portals into another dimensional framework where energy spews forth into a new "universe." The black holes are the Big Bangs of those other universes on the other side of that dimensional gate. Even a universal expansion limited in past time as indicated by the Bord-Guth-Velinken theorem can probably not be understood as having a "beginning." The BGV Theorem describes the expansion as having a limit in the past, but does not require the energetic substance of the universe to "begin" there. A thought experiment employing General Relativity to "look at" the Universe going backward in time sees a "picture" of time dilating towards infinity as one proceeds toward the past singularity. No way is this your grandaddy's Genesis. It is not a picture that can be conceived under our conception of the word "beginning," or indeed any imagistic analogical way of thinking. In other words, if we could watch a magical movie of the universe running backwards, as we approached the Big Bang we would see events proceeding more and more slowly as time dilated exponentially, assuming we are observing from our frame of reference in the present. The movie would never end, but everything would just appear to proceed more and more slowly as we saw backward in time, ad infinitum. The "beginning" is a mathematical limit, not a position on a time line. This is analogous to the hypothetical picture of watching someone fall into a black hole. They appear to fall more and more slowly as they approach the event horizon, finally seeming to move so slowly as to appear to freeze there, and then slowly fade out of visibility as the light reflecting off of them red shifts due to time dilation. From their frame of reference in time, they fall through the event horizon. From the observer's frame of time reference, they never get there. They just fall more and more slowly into eternity and slowly fade out of observability. Ben Shapiro is not actually a well educated person. It's clear that he was a fairly clever little academic grind who learned what he needed to get some credentials and superficially pick up some intellectual buzzwords. But I've never heard him talk about any topic where he seems to have a deep, or even adequate, understanding. His mode of discourse is a hyper-speed gish-gallop designed to dazzle the listener with a firehose of words too rapid for critical analysis.
As someone who isn't an atheist, I could never take Ben Shapiro seriously. And as someone who believes in *actual* facts over feelings (unlike Ben Shapiro), I wind up agreeing with atheists a lot more than I do Christians.
Let's first establish that Right Wing Conservatives generally are not nor never have been interested in and deny any reality that they find inconvenient.
PragerU was interesting the first couple times I stumbled upon their videos. Then I saw Dennis Prager trying to make an argument for god and my jaw dropped through the floor. Like Russel says in this video, when someone you _thought_ was intelligent says something THAT stupid, you necessarily begin to question everything else the guy has said before. And SHapiro's arguments for Religion are every bit as stupid...
"I the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king." I work on the asumption Ben knows he is lieing and weaponising the ignorance of his audience. But that he either has not considered or does not care about the long term consequences to weaponised counter intellectualism.
I always hate the fine tuning argument because the sample size is literally 1. We could be at the very extreme end of what gravitational constant allows for life, and if it were tuned one way or another even a little bit more, the universe would be teeming with life. We cannot know anything about the conditions that permit for life when the sample size is literally just 1.
But if things were different, then things would be different, and since things aren't different, then obviously God! I can't even write that sarcastically without cringing at myself.
Except that we KNOW many of the constants in the laws of nature, and we know statistics and the odds that they would ALL fit to allow for a universe stable and old enough to allow for life. Using simple probability and statistical math, the odds CAN be mathematically determined. We KNOW that this is extremely unusual, regardless of the sample size of 1.
We KNOW it do we? Using the example given in this video, of tuning a nob and either having the gravitational effect being too strong and crushing us, or too weak and causing atoms to drift further apart into the (bigger problem with this argument) infinite void outside the observable universe. That may be true, and thus we make our calculations and determine a probability... but what if it's not just that nob thats tuned? Let's say we decreased gravity, we'd be pushed further and further away from the centre. Now let's imagine reducing the strength of the force of that centre, such that it balances with our new gravitational strength setting. Boom, another viable option for life such as we know it. Repeat as necessary, potentially infinitely.@@odonnelly46 This is not the full story, more an objection to the idea of fine tuning. It may be that we do not have enough of an understanding to test such a claim, or it may simply be false.
@paulcleary8088 Ben confidently knows all this to be true, because of his few decades of existence on one particular planet, which is one of the trillions and in a universe that's billions of years old. And of course, it must be his chosen God, whose knowledge didn't stretch beyond a small patch of land in the middle east.
I believe a lot of both the big bang and creationism. I just find it hard to believe that everything just happened randomly. The fact that the Earth just happens to be the perfect distance from the sun, and the perfect elements and minerals had to crash into earth for life to form, and Earth had to have a collision with another planet so the moon could have been created. A perfect sized meteor had to hit Earth to eradicate the then current apex predators, but not be too big or going too fast to eradicate all life. Hell, if you wanna go with the theory that an ice age or a drought is what caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, still, it had to be to such a degree that they died, but mammals lived. All that stuff had to happen for humans to even exist to the state that we currently exist at, not to mention out of 6 or 7 billion people in the world, mine and your parents had to just happen to be in the exact right place, in the exact right mind state. Not only them, but every single person that has ever existed in anyone's bloodline just kinda had to happen for you to get here? You also had to win 1st place against millions of other sperm just to be conceived. Every little thing from the big bang to your parents big bang basically just had to happen by chance? Even the super specific social events that had to happen for other events to happen? My great grandfather served in WWII, and if not for him serving, he would not have met my great grandmother. If not for WWI happening, WWII wouldn't have happened. Without WWII happening, my great grandparents marriage would've never happened, without that happening, my grandparents wouldn't have happened, without them happening- you see where I'm going with this? In order for anything to exist, there are trillions of coincidences, that needed to happen just for the coincidence of my parents meeting. From the dinosaurs to the Vietnam War. You ever hear the saying "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern"? Well a few trillion means somethings going on.
Why do creationists think that it’s our job to explain how or why the universe exists? We just simply reject your answer based on lack of credible evidence.
To be fair they dont. Its actually worse than that. Scientists are minding their own business, just trying to figure out how things work and the religious keep crying about how its effecting their beliefs.. its like, how is that their probelm? 😂 then they cry at us (atheists) because we wont join their book club. We dont "witness" to them but they cant help doing it to us. They're just a bunch of cry babies who know their ideology is slowly dying so they have to lash out.
Perhaps the universe was created by the massive instantaneous expansion of irony caused by Ben being the guy most known for saying "facts don't care about your feelings."
I was laughing so hard when Ben Shapiro, Mister smart guy conservative, didn'tt even understand basic things about Big bang theory. Then I was laughing even harder at Stephen Meyer being one of his citations🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Counterpoint questions; - If the universe is fine tuned for humanity, why can we not exist on any other planet or celestial body we know of as of yet, except for Earth without instantly dying? Why are we susceptible to gamma ray bursts? Or coronal mass emissions?
I was in foster care and was in alot of Christian foster families. I was that kid that was really into dinosaurs and fossils and I had a bunch of dinosaur books that I would read and learn about dinosaurs from. Well, in retrospect, I'm honestly surprised they never took them away from me. Because even as a kid I was trying to rationalize the reality I was observing and studying (science) with the religious beliefs they were trying to teach me. I definitely offended alot of people at church with the questions I asked.
As someone who also bounced around in foster care, and with a similar story of early reflection, I feel for you :) Hope you've found happiness and wisdom
@@rationalityrules I have. When I'm not working and keeping my bills paid and my water running and my lights on I'm studying and learning everything I can from history to biology to philosophy and science
@@SevenPr1me seven prime are your studies going into near death experiences . Don’t get me wrong , it’s inspiring to see someone make it through the odds like this but it seems like those Christian’s you asked these questions to were probably Christian’s because they were raised in their faith and never bothered to ask themselves whether there was or wasn’t evidence for their faith . I was raised Catholic , looked into Buddhism , spent time with the Hare Krishnas , became an atheist at 40 and left atheism at 44 and came back to Catholicism and been here ever since . I don’t understand why believing in dinosaurs meant you couldn’t believe in God ? I left atheism because of science , reason and logic . I simply couldn’t hold to it any longer as intellectually tenable . For instance if I were to bring the argument for near death experiences to rationality rules I wonder how he’d respond to it . This is a subject that most atheists steer away from because the science isn’t on their side . There are some atheists that admit to the evidence being good like john beloff and Stuart hameroff but most laugh when you bring the subject up to them . This is how I sniff out emotional bias . I’m betting rationality rules will totally ignore this subject as well ;)
@@angelbrother1238 NDE is akin to doing psychedelics. People who think they've seen god are just hallucinating due to stress and other chemicals being released. People way overthink them.
You're my favourite atheist channel, and I am comparing you to the best of the best of atheist RU-vid! Thank you for your nuanced and respectful communication.
Does it? I listen to Ben Shapiro daily and Im an atheist. I dont listen to him for his scientific views but his political views are for me, far more convincing than those on the left.
"Let's say that I'm a cosmologist, astrophysicist, and expert mathematician. Then let's say that I used all my hypothetical expertise to determine that it's statistically impossible for the universe to have come about finely tuned for life without an intelligent designer. Let's say literally everyone agrees with me but you. Why do you think you know better than me, an expert in every field, and literally everyone else in the world? Clearly facts and logic would dictate that you're the one being unreasonable."
It's a bit like the old joke about the mad guy sprinkling magic powder on the streets of Exeter to keep the lions away.....when told there were no lions on the streets of Exeter he replied : "Yeah, good stuff, eh?"
well saying "life is a bzillions to one chance" is saying "god picked the least likely way to achieve his goal" - it's just dumb. life under god ought to be 1:1 not 1:bzillions.
a creationist might argue that he didn't have to make the world that we know but he wanted to and the conditions that caused it had to be exactly right. they might claim that god loves you so much that he couldn't allow for any other possibility
@Harry "Nic" Nicholas nah but if God wanted to create a universe that works, it would be in a way that makes sense in this universe. If God created the universe with certain logic and physics purposefully, why would he choose to go back on it? For me to be typing this comment on this phone, trillions upon trillions of coincidences had to happen for trillions upon trillions of other coincidences to happen, that led to me being born, and for me to have seen this particular comment, because trillions upon trillions of coincidences had to happen for you to be here, typing that comment. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. I believe the point of that was to show that despite all of the coincidences that needed to happen for any one of us to be here, we are still here. By some miracle our parents, out of billions of people in the world somehow happened to be in the right place at the right time. Our grandparents had to do the same. Our great grandparents had to do the same. Our great² grandparents had to do the same. Not to mention for each generation, the correct sperm had to make it. So it's not 1 to a bazillion odds, because odds would mean chance is involved, and when a bazillion "coincidences" are involved, at some point chance just flies out the window. It would be "finely tuned" so that everything that has happened or existed would happen or exist.
The fine tuning argument for me is like "so what?". I mean, if I threw a die 50 times, and all came out 6, that would be very unlikely. But it still would not mean that an intelligent being guided the die to land on 6 every time. No, it would still be random chance.
@@ruaraidh74 what if you took the results of 10^120 random rolls and invented a language specifically designed to give that string of numbers meaning? And then said “see‽ these numbers having meaning!”
@@ruaraidh74 The result of throwing a die is a digit from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. Therefore, the result of throwing a die is a 10^120-tuple from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}^(10^120). A 10^120-tuple of digits is not an epistemically meaningful message, so what you describe is impossible. Also, what is this supposed to be analogous to? Although we tend to model dice throws with probability theory, the reality is, the physics of a die throw are deterministic. With sufficiently precise control of the initial conditions of the throw, one can control the outcome of the throw, and accurately predict it, with the accuracy improving as the amount of throws increases. As such, in principle, one could throw a die 10^(10^(100)) times, and have it always come out a 6. Dice throws are not random. The reason we often have to model them as if they are random is because, under most circumstances, it is not possible to determine the initial conditions with sufficient precision, and as dice are examples of chaotic systems, any predictions you end up making on the basis of the initial conditions is redundant. Instead, we assume a uniform distribution for the initial conditions, and provided that there are no irregular forces acting on the die during the throw, as is usually the case, the uniformity is preserved by the physics, so we can model the outcome of a die as a random variable distributed uniformly. Therefore, in practice, we have sufficient justification to state that the outcome of a die is approximately probabilistic, and that the outcome of each digit during a single throw is approximately 1/6. This is analogous to what can be said for all other physical interactions in the universe.
Great video. However, a nitpick: at 4:22 you state that matter did not exist until 370,000 years after the big bang. This is not true. It was at 370,000 after the big bang that recombination occurred, where matter cooled down enough that electrons could remain bound to nuclei. Prior to that, matter (fermions, i.e., half-integer spin particles) existed, but were in the plasma phase of matter (meaning that matter did, in fact, exist prior to recombination). edit: we could also probably say that dark matter existed prior to recombination.
☝️ This is correct. Basically, consider it this way: from a fraction of a second until 370kya, the entire universe was like the inside of a star, super hot, super high pressure, composed of nuclei and electrons that were FAR too hot to stick together, and photons EVERYWHERE, being emitted and absorbed by electrically charged matter. Then as expansion continued, it's like travelling outwards from the centre of the star: density, pressure and temperature fall until suddenly it's cool enough for electrons to be captured, creating neutral atoms, and finally releasing the photons to go on their way, just like the surface of a star (except, in this case it was everywhere in the entire universe, not just the surface is a star). *Cheers from a fan with a physics degree from the Antipodes!*
@@Thefamilychannel723 Depends on what you consider "matter". What we traditionnaly consider matter (leptons and quarks) didn't form until 10-35s after the big bang. Before the first picosecond and the first Higgs field interactions, particles were massless. In the end, spacetime was first.
Your nitpick is also not technically accurate. Prior to the grand unification epoch, there was likely no matter, but after it, the symmetry breaking would have made the formation of quarks and gluons possible, so matter would have existed as quark-gluon plasma - and no, this is _not_ equivalent to the plasma phase mentioned in your comment. At the 370 kiloyear mark is when the formation of *baryonic* matter became possible. This distinction is relevant, because mesons would have been able to form prior to this, though they would have been unstable. As for dark matter, it is impossible to say at all whether it existed prior to this 370 kiloyear mark or not. Saying that it did exist is completely speculative.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 *From a fraction of a second, until 370 kya, the entire universe was like the inside of a star: super hot, super high pressure, composed of nuclei and electrons that were FAR too hot to stick together, and photons EVERYWHERE, being emitted and absorbed and electrically charged matter.* The universe was very hot, dense, and pressurized, yes, but it was nothing like the inside of stars. Nuclei _did_ not exist: quarks were actually free, as the temperature of the universe was above the Hagedorn temperature, 10^12 K. Stars do not achieve these temperature in their interiors. *Then, as the expansion continued, it's like travelling outwards from the center of the star...* No, the cosmic expansion was nothing like this at all. The cosmic expansion is an expansion of spacetime itself: the actual matter embedded in the spacetime is not experiencing any motion.
20:44 - the thing is, they can't even prove that it could have varied that much in the first place. They treat hypothesis like fact when it suits them, but robust "theories" are "just theory" when they don't like what it says about their religion.
Never has a complex idea been discussed so confidently by a man who hasn't a clue about physics, astro physics, cosmology, chemistry, yet is an expert in all of these fields. What a man.
What you notice really quick: 1) His Bible knowledge is based on literal interpretation (of every single sentence) or on strawmen. Not even all the early church fathers had a literal interpretation of the Genesis. 2) Sometimes he just points to the limitation of existing theories without bringing fourth any better theory and then claims the theory being "debunked". Sceptic-tactic. 3) "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" -idea destroys many of his claims as well, but this phrase is obviously used selectively. 4) Making the person making the claim to look less credible instead of engaging the argument itself. 5) And what I see from other atheists: "Teleological Argument doesn't prove any specific God of certain religion! Debunked!" No. Theism comes in two stages: -Is there a Creator God? (1) -How do I get touch with this God (2). It is only the second question where the type of God becomes necessary. Teleological argument doesn't touch on that and therefore is not debunked in any way based on that. And the "If God is omnipotent, limiting the current structures of the universe being the only option for Him to create the Universe is an insult actually". An atheist would literally make this argument in any other scenario where a life would exist in any parallel universe. He even mentions the physical body of not being necessary, but the human body is the only way we can have sensory experiences, that is in the core of how we determine our existence.
@@grand5207 he is a professional arguer. His technique isn't to know his subject matter but to use technique to try to overcome the person he is ranting to. It falls painfully flat when he faces true professionals who won't be taken in by his speak fast, change points and bombard with lies technique.
It's been a good morning for me. First I get to watch Professor Dave rip James Tour in Part 4 of his most recent series about a willfully ignorant liar, and now I get to see another willfully ignorant liar get dismantled by Rationality Rules.
One sentence into the video and I already feel sorry for B. Shapiro... He sees scientific "problems" so absolutely negatively that he feels the need to deny all knowledge around them, while scientists see them as opportunities to learn.
When you said matter only appeared approximately 400000y after the BB, I think you meant recombination, which is when electrons got captured by their nuclei. Matter already existed before, if you're willing to a plasma of ions matter.
@@RaveyDavey You know, I've herd Shapiro push so many flawed ideas, that I've lost track. _Why don't you go find out, and get back to me ?_ (I'll just change it to "God bubble") lol
@@ponkoadamfo997 The Abrahamic ; _"Three Ring Circus"_ Judeo/Christian is more of a recent take/thing. As Jews completely deny Jesus, and Christians have a massive history of trying to destroy Jews. (+ Muslims, native culture, fellow Christians, ect,ect,ect) You could also say, Muslim/Christian, as Muslims at least accept Jesus's existence as a divine prophet. But, I think _"God bubble "_ covers all the nonsense very well. LOL, on the prick/foreskin, comment.
I disagree, debates like this are not productive and, nothing against RR, but Shapiro is much more well funded, well connected, and has probably a lot more experience interacting with people on the left than RR does those on the right. Such political 'debates' are never substantive, the 'winner' is typically the one who has the sharpest tongue, not the one who makes the most sense. Usually audiences will choose who they think won based on two things: preconceived bias, and who 'seemed the most confident' or 'answered the most quickly'. It's literally a performance. There's also an inequality of intentions in that RR will go into the debate with the objective to have a productive conversation, whereas Shapiro has an entire team behind him cooking up his talking points and being purposefully disingenuous and dog-whistling to bigots, solely to make RR look as bad as possible through every way except properly addressing his arguments. You have to get into the mud a little bit to really be effective in debating these people, and IMO you shouldn't show them an ounce of respect, which I can't see RR doing.
@Barbarian Jon Exactly. There’s a huge difference between having the facts, and being an “effective” debater. Aron’s a great example. Being right didn’t stop him getting pwned in his last live debate.
The cover of Mostly Harmless (Douglas Adams) says "The fourth in the inaccurately named trilogy of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" Incidentally, in one of his books Adams responds to the fine tuning argument with a story: There's a pothole in the road that fills with water when it rains. One day the puddle looks around and thinks, wow this hole is just the right size for me, it must have been made for me! I've always thought it was a perfect response, comedic and succinct Edit: Oh shit, you got the clip! He did put it in one of his books too though :D I think it was Salmon of Doubt, but I'm not sure
And, in humbling ourselves by thinking about the size of the universe, we have to understand that the universe is rapidly expanding as we sit on our rumps debating all this. 93 billion years at light speed? I imagine, due to the universe being predicted to double in size in the next 10 billion years, circumnavigating the universe would take far longer than anyone could reasonably comprehend. Our universe is a wild place.
The apologist arbitrarily stops when life emerges instead of seeing what else is entailed by the Fine Tuning. The death of the Sun, taking with it the inner planets including Earth, and eventually, the heat death of the universe. The universe seems fine tuned to murder any life that emerges, when you consider *everything* entailed by the constants and don't just decide to stop where you feel like it.
@@GameTimeWhy What specific instance of his podcast are you talking about? I will check it out if you link it or something. I don't disagree that Benjamin Shapeepee probably does buy into a lot of his conservative viewpoints, after all he has been a public conservative from a very young age. However, you have to realize that most conservative grifters are comprised of a duality: one part of them is motivated purely by greed and their disdain toward fellow man / their political rivals, while the other part is genuinely buying into their own bullshit so as to justify in their pathetic, empty mind the devastation they enact. I find it incredibly hard to believe someone as well educated and well funded as Ben Shapiro genuinely has no idea what the big bang is. He might actually believe that it's bullshit, but regardless he is representing it in an entirely disingenuous manner, purposefully obfuscating the discussion about the science behind the theory. This sort of thing is not done on accident.
I have a hypothesis on the reason why Little Ben thinks intelligent life requires an intelligent creator: It’s because he has little contact with intelligent life and it has affected him.
I'm surprised you didn't point out that something like 99.99999999% of the "finely-tuned universe" would immediately kill us. Even sticking with out world...hell, even sticking with land in temperate regions, it's pretty clear that it might have been finely tuned for ants, rather than us.
It seems quite evident that the community from which the creation narrative(s) in the book of Genesis emerged did not actually believe that Yahweh was omnipotent. The idea of God being omnipotent is an idea that was introduced to Judaism and Christianity many, many centuries later, not by the Bible, but by theologians.
Keep up the great work, I enjoy your videos because they make me question what I believe and how to come to a better understanding of what I see as being (REAL). I also have learned to be a lot more careful about what (REAL) is.
Once again, another amazing video. Thank you for this and showing us how dishonest BS is. Oh.. "BS"... I guess you can take that in any way you want...
When I was a kid, my next door neighbor told me he had a B.S. degree and asked me if I knew what that was. Naturally, my first guess turned out to be wrong.
The fine tuning argument is in itself absurd. Most of the universe is extremely hostile to life. I mean I can think of a dozens things that could be different and make the universe more hospitable for life.
Rationality Rules. Stephen, this was great. But your parts about the insults to God, were pure genius! Also, as to Ben acting as if we are the pinnacle of intelligence, even just here on earth, he shoul look up Nestor,(I think, I'll edit if wrong) the author of Deep. On the Long Now, he explained, how with 'brain mapping' we've found the Sperm Whale. 6 times larger brain. But the important parts. Cortexts and more, that govern future think, language, empathy,love, etc, all exceed ours, massively. They can communicate,globally! All sorts of superior to us, including evolved earlier, by a long shot. So, God would be a whale, not a barbaric little monkey, destroying the planet!👍💖💙🥰✌
The funniest thing to me about the finely tuned argument was always...how insanely inhospitable, dangerous, and savage most environments, predators, natural disasters, areas, times of day, and seasons are to human life. Yeah, sure, it's super dialed in.
The so called "fine tuning" is what allows for a universe with life, ANY life. So, yes, I can see why they would call it "hospitable to life", especially Earth. Millions of species on this tiny speck of a world. The conditions on earth are absolutely HOSPITABLE to life, though not necessarily to safety or happiness. Those are two different things.
I would love to see you go over Matt Walsh's what is a woman. Its an interesting discussion which clearly involves a lot of dogma and screaming from the 2 political sides, so it deserves a reasonable look over it
In a sane world, once Ben made his Aquaman gaffe, a gaffe so incredibly damning of his cognitive abilities, he would have never been heard from again in the public sphere.
The clip is funny, true, but it is not a gaffe. You wouldn't sell your house to aquaman, you would sell your house to the guy building a harbour. Then, as the centuries pass by and the water slowly, very slowly creeps inland, the harbour would expand upwards, abandoning the lower levels, buying up land with the profits accumulated over time, replacing houses that by now are so old they need tearing down anyway, while new houses are build further inland. In reality, no single person would ever find themselves in the position that they could not find a buyer, the process is simply too slow.
@@Alexander_Kale Many harbors and ports are sinking underwater due to rising sea levels. It would be extremely hard to just "build a harbor" when the water continues to rise instead of creeping inland. The fact that you didn't consider the possibility of such a thing happening is really strange and shows a lack of understanding of the issue. I'd suggest reading about what's happening to people living in Kiribati. They can't find anyone who wants their houses and are fleeing the island.
@@mehdihatami3391 "Many harbors and ports are sinking underwater due to rising sea levels" Name one. Just ONE. And if YOU had read up on Kiribati, you would be aware that Kiribati's landmass is INCREASING. The Island is not sinking, it is accumulating more sediment and getting BIGGER. Same for a lot of other small Islands all around the world.
@@Alexander_Kale "And if YOU had read up on Kiribati, you would be aware that Kiribati's landmass is INCREASING. The Island is not sinking, it is accumulating more sediment and getting BIGGER. Same for a lot of other small Islands all around the world". Give evidence to support your claim or it won't be believed. Sorry.
@@mehdihatami3391 In other words, YOUR claim that Kiribati is sinking needs no evidence, but anyone who disagrees with you better back up his words, eh? How about this, I show you mine, then I am expecting you to show me yours. "The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific", by Webb and Kench, published 2010. Not specifically about Kiribati, but mentions it. In general, the study comes to the conclusion that 83 percent of the observed pacific islands remained either stable or increased in size over the course of the study. The three major islands of kiribati have increased in landmass over the course of the study by over ten percent each. Betio has increased by 30 percent. Or, you know, you could just go to Wikipedia, which mentions the study as well, among three others...
Surprisingly, Cosmic Skeptic said the Fine Tuning argument was one of the best. I think it's the worst, for the reason of Stephen's third objection. I call it "Merely Ok tuning argument": For some reason the perfect God was unable to perfectly tune the Universe.
Thanks for another great video! As you said, Ben has a ton of followers. How can we get them to watch things like what you are doing here and hopefully make more skeptical thinkers of them? The world needs to see this!
23:34 I like to call this a "false limit fallacy". I describe it as placing on someone or something limits without justification when those limits are probably not there. And that is a perfect example of it.
Great writing! Hitchens also had a great response to the fine tuning argument that involved pointing out the Andromeda blueshift. What god would send our galaxy on a collision course with another monster galaxy?
@@lautah810 just checked that part out and cosmicskeptic is open to Hitchens being correct on the point, but he didn’t support it a meaningful way. It’s actually refreshing to see someone critique Hitchens for something other than the invasion of Iraq (he was wrong) or reparations for American slavery (he was correct)
About the same time as the collision in 5 billion years, the sun will be a red giant likely engulfing the earth. Lucky for us, however, the earth will become like Venus in about 1 billion years. I agree with Hitchens...some design!?!
Great series. I enjoy your approach to the theological discussion, you have an ability to speak to the lay person while hold academic integrity. You aggressively Steelman to point of improving the opposition argument, despite the lack of charity from the other side. I would like to see you comment on the "What is a woman" 'documentary'.
My friend that first got my interested in religion did it by telling me the bible talks about the big bang. I was excited to read the bible but right away it starts with "the big bang" so right away my skepticism went up. It just continued to drop as I kept reading.
The Bible is a great book if you take it and appreciate it for what it is: The origin myth and record of the cultural and historical heritage of the Jewish people. Nothing to do with science though.
@Panse Pot That reminds me of an old store at the mall that tried to market Jesus merch to the kids. They had a shirt that said, "The Bible is a cool story, bro." I thought that was so hilariousy ironic that they didn't get that meme expression was a term of derision, I wish I had bought it.
Another answer to fine-tuning being improbable: to make any statement about probabilities, one must have a pre-existing data set. If I say there is a 14% probability it will rain one a day 30 days hence, that is based on rain data collected over many prior years. But there is no data set of physical constants in universes because we only, and can only ever, observe one universe.
the paid video content of the daily wire really shows just how truly crazy and off the deep end ben et al truly are. not tht their free youtube stuff is any better.
I was having a beer while listening to the bit where you say “does not like your foreskin” and I experienced for the first time having beer going through my nose for the laughing. Well done my friend.
I would LOVE to see your take on Matt Walsh's "What is a Woman?". I loved the mockumentary as one, but I found it very lacking in moving us forward in the debate.
There is no "debate". Walsh is a disingenuous, dishonest bigot and what he wants to "debate" is the right of his fellow human beings to exist. This is no more the ethically correct stance than when we were arguing the same things about black people, or women, or gay people. Many of the supposed outrages he brings up do not exist. Most of the footage he uses is taken badly out of context and presented alongside lies to try and make trans people - a group who are still horrendously oppressed and victims of both institutional, systemic discrimination and stochastic violence - both of which are largely inspired by him and people like him.
One thing I've never actually heard any of these fine tuning arguments address is to show that these underlying constants can actually be other values. What if all of the values that we see for these constants are just inherent based on the way they arise in nature? Can you really call it fine Tuning if the values are as they are by the very rules of physics?
"Can you really call it fine Tuning if the values are as they are by the very rules of physics?" sadly, yes. you can say that g0d invented physics exactly that way. g0d made it SURE that the value we need is the only value possible. (it is bullsh!t, of course. But you can say it. And IF you assume the existence of a deity, the argument works)
@@istvansipos9940 That arguments fails to the objection provided by the Stephen in this video. If an omnipotent creator exists, then _all_ universes are capable of supporting all forms of life, because the creator can create a universe however they want to, and then place life in it however they want to, and then have that life be sustained solely by the sheer power of divine will.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 exaxctly. And if an omnipotent creator existed, the multiverse would be his will. Everything would be his will, and then the fans would call it the fine tuning of reality.
The point of fine-tuning is that you have some physical parameter with some value. Then you imagine what the universe would be like if that value changed by some very small amount. If that universe would be vastly different than ours, then you say the value is fine tuned. Now, this isn't to say the probability of that particular fine-tuned value was very small; this would be a very imprecise statement, as there is no statistical distribution to base that probability calculation on. And to get to what you said; yes, there is not really any reason to say the value of that parameter was chosen at random in the first place, as there may be some mechanism why that value could not be so different from what it is. But note that "mechanism" part. The point of talking about fine tuning in physics is that if such fine turning appears, then that may be a sign that our model is either wrong or incomplete, as it would be very unsatisfactory to just assert that the initial conditions really were so fine tuned for no reason. So some mechanism should exist for why the parameter has the particular value. Now, this is perhaps more of a pseudo-problem than an actual problem, as there is an argument to be made that speculating about the initial conditions is meaningless, but fine tuning may be a first sign that there is something suspicious going on with the model. With all that said, I'd say the main problem with asserting a "God" as that very mechanism for why the values are as they are is that it explains absolutely nothing, and there's no way to test it. We'd like a presise physical mechanism, instead of a hollow claim like "God did it". To see an example of such a mechanism, look up "inflation" in cosmology, an example of a mechanism that, among other things, was intended to resolve a particular fine tuning problem in cosmology (the flatness problem).
"Vsauce Michael here! We're going to talk about intelligent life. But WHAT IS intelligent life!?!?" Don't ask me. Never seen it anywhere on the planet.
I've never seen him do a single productive thing whether it be in discourse or movements since he burst on the scene. All he's done is complain, exhibit tons of hypocrisy, push moral panics & most importantly PROFIT. That's what he does this for, profit. If he wasn't in it for the money, he wouldn't be in it at all.
That was an awesome one, Stephen! You did a very good job explaining the three best objections against the argument at the very end; concise and witty, just as I like my debunking. One more thing that always comes to my mind is this: why make the universe so vast, filled with billions of celestial objects and just as many physical phenomena and chemical processes occuring for no apparent reason, for no one to see and no one to benefit? That, to me, seems exactly like something that would only come to be if the universe /wasn't/ created for us.
As always, Mr. B.S. fulfills his initials by making pronouncements on a subject without consulting any experts. If he had bothered to ask any cosmologist about the Big Bang he would get a rude awakening, but probably not enough to shake him out of his narcissistic trance.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 I assume you mean Jason Lisle, who calls himself a creationist astrophysicist, and not Doug Lisle, a psychologist who peddles dietary quackery. Present models break down when the universe was 10^(-43) light-seconds across, where quantum effects wreck the math: When 0 is within the range of intrinsic (quantum) uncertainty of some denominators.
@@danielgautreau161 Yes, Jason Lisle, who does´t need to think about how to quantisize ART, because he "knows" the universe started to expand just 6000 years ago. I always wonder how an astrophysicist can sink so deep.
