@@MoNtYbOy101 A handful of bad options? So you consider the evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection, the Ontological argument, the argument from Morality, The Kalam Cosmological argument and the argument from Contingency to be bad options as evidence for God’s existence?
@@easybeliever7 the argument from morality is probably the worst tbh, just because it literally is not an argument or logical proof for the existence of God. It essentially just argues that without the existence of God, objective morality would have no grounding, ergo there must be a God. In no way does that demonstrate that either objective morality or God exists. It’s basically just an argument that appeals to our intuitions and emotions (i.e., it’d be really uncomfortable and bad if we had no ontological foundation for moral values and duties). It’s essentially like the problem of evil on the side of atheism, which in no way disproves the possibility for the existence of God, it just appeals to our emotions (i.e., look at how much suffering there is in the world, there can’t possibly be a God). If the argument from suffering and evil is invalid for an atheist to raise as an objection to the existence of God, the argument from morality is likewise not a great argument for the theist either.
All he said was that among all the bad arguments for god, he thinks fine tuning is one of the better ones. Of course, it still fails, and he knows that. He's being polite in a discussion with a respected scientist who has a weak spot, nothing more.
@@chikkipop I know that , I don't expect him to convert if he does that's his own business. I have seen John Lennox being gracious to RD . Most of the atheists I have listened to say the same. The moral arguments do not cut it. I am RC so trying to convert or evangelise is not my thing.
@@adastra123 *"I am RC so trying to convert or evangelise is not my thing."* I don't mind when someone attempts to explain why they believe something, because if it's true I want to know about it. Unfortunately for all religions, there are no sound reasons to believe. The conclusion we're left with is that people have either been indoctrinated from an early age, are deceiving themselves due to emotional needs, or both.
Richard is correct. The fine tune argument does not get you to Jesus. It seems he does not understand the design argument's goal is only to show there is a creator. Once that is established then you can look at other evidence for who that may be.
It does. According to the Bible, the Christian God is a God of divine order. He is the author of Order and Jesus Christ is part of the Triune God. Jesus’s ministry does not focus on scientific experiments, physics etc. His minstry is more focused on morality and preaching of the gospel to help the life of people and not about thr forces of nature. Thanks
@@christophercowan1645 Right. I think Jonathan McLatchie (serious scientist and Christian) tries to cram too many steps in his presentations going from a standing start all the way to the resurrection, and I've told him so.
This is why I always say the debate about whether there is a god or first cause is completely separate from religion. (And why prefer to label myself Agnostic rather than Atheist.)
Well, in materialistic point of view then you are probably correct. But the reality is, there are immaterial aspects in this life that science cannot explain. Therefore, the debate about God’s existence is a discussion that require both scientific and spiritual approach. Stay safe
@@onedirection2301 You are an answer to prayer and restored my faith in miracles. To think I could have remained uninformed without your comprehensive and well-considered feedback. Thank you.
My respect for Richard Dawkins went way, way, way up. I've never met an atheist who will even admit that this is a strong argument, and who came up with a legitimate response other than to just wave away this argument.
Am glad Dawkins clarified his position on the fine running arguments. It was Professor Lennox who took that argument and went and told some gathering up in Scotland that Dawkins is converted which was quiet dishonest of Lennox.
Lennox was presumably saying that Dawkin's acknowledgement of fine tuning amounted to acknowledgement of theism -- I doubt he claimed Dawkins "converted."
@Jaden Almeida Ah..now we know 😣 Thank you so much for your erudite and defining insight as to what does, and does not constitute 'nonsense' in the affairs of mankind.. What on earth would we do without you and your obviously revered high priest, Mr Dawkins!? 🙄
or nature did it because that's the only way it could be. all this talk of probabilities falls flat cos A) we only have ONE universe, we have no idea how likely that is and B) you're saying your amazing god chose the LEAST LIKELY values for life? seems a bit silly to me. besides god only really needs souls, why not fine tune purely for souls? he needs all whole universe that looks random, dangerous and natural for his purpose? religists really have trouble thinking i think. those are the questions you ought to be asking, why is your god so stupid?
I think Mr Dawkins is seeing a faint light, I hope God is working within him. Pondering on Richard's comment about Jesus: Getting to know God through Jesus Christ is our Creator's intention for mankind. He made this happen so we could get to know Him through our Saviour. This all fits together like one glorious jigsaw puzzle, and makes total sense to me, unlike other religions who seek God in other ways. Christianity is truly God making Himself known to man in the most wonderful way through His Son, through the Holy Trinity. Our Creator wants us to know Him, and here He is in person as Jesus Christ, for those who take this wonderful gift from our amazing God. This to me is everything, and nothing else makes sense of our existence. I wish Mr Dawkins well, and pray that he will begin the most wonderful journey to God, the journey that doesn't end in death and is wonderful beyond measure. 🙏
You are delusional about Dawkins, in addition to your delusion about a magical invisible father figure. How old are you? I ask because it continues to astonish me that people can grow to adulthood, yet still be prone to childlike emotional needs resulting in self-deception. Time to grow up?
Read Jonah, The Prodigal Son, The Sermon on the Mount. And then look at the Apostate Paul, a man who formally persecuted the Church and then repented and had faith and was saved! And then did tremendous work for the kingdom. Remember that all fall short of God’s glory. We want people to repent and believe rather then perish in their folly and wickedness. At the same time if he doesn’t repent and believe justice will be served. And hell will be his punishment.
As former Christian, I find that fine tuning is the only the that comes close to a good argument for a creator. But could it be that intricate constants of the universe, in ways that no-one yet understands, can only exist at their particular values? If there is no way for the constants to possible exist at a different value, then the existence of the universe has to exist in this state only. On or off - existence or no existence.
No, some scientists argue that this finetuning may simply be because our universe is just one of very many, each with its own finetuning, or that universes appear cyclically and each cycle has a new combination of finetuning.
@XEinstein but you can't have an infinite regress of universe formation. You still end up needing a non material cause for the material, and a timeless cause for time.
@@mahones981How do you know that? How are you having access to that information? That's a compositional fallacy, just because things in the universe don't have an infinite regress of causes doesn't follow that implies to the formation of universes, perhaps there's a yet to be discovered law of physics that allows for infinite regresses, until we have that knowledge, we can't say infinite regresses are impossible. Furthermore, since the epistemic bar for metaphysical possibilities is so low because of the unfalsiable nature of such ideas, what reason do you have to reject an infinite regress? From your comment, I assume you are a theist(correct if I'm wrong), you believe in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc being, what reason do you have to reject an infinite regress and not god as defined above yet both of are metaphysical possibilities?
@kimutaironoh243 As Alexander Vilenkin ( behind The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem )states, 'It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.' This theorem shows that no matter what scientific model you propose (like a multiverse, cyclic ekpyrotic model, quantum vacuum fluctuation models etc), there was a cosmic beginning. Time itself had a beginning as Stephen Hawking stated. Philosophically and logically, to get to any point in time, you need a beginning to time. If time is eternal, then it would take an infinite number of moments to reach this moment, or what we call 'today.' If we had to wait for an infinite number of steps to get to the step that caused our universe to come into existence, then we would still be waiting for that step to happen, indeed that moment would never arrive. I think we can't appeal to or speculate any possible laws of physics that might 'allow' for infinite regress, when laws of logic rule it out. Perhaps a compositional fallacy we are both making is to infer that everything, including the universe, has to have a cause. Perhaps our universe came into existence without a cause? Maybe it just popped into existence out of nothing? But that sounds like a magic trick, only without a magician! So yes, I am seriously open to the possibility of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful and intentional cause, an unmoved mover, an uncaused first cause that is outside of time. Apart from the issue of a cosmic beginning, the fact that there is something rather than nothing, the fine tuning of the universe for complex life, life arising from non-life, the remarkable sophistication of even the 'simplest' forms of life, the problem of mind and consciousness arising from nothing but matter, and the implications of purely naturalistic explanations of the universe on meaning, purpose, morality and human rights, I find a theistic explanation very compelling.
Earth narrowing "Do they not see that I am gradually narrowing the circumference of the earth's surface, yet they are the winners!" (Surah: Ambiya, verse: 44) *Big bang theory quran (simple editions+ evulation from water Concept ) ask me if you have issues Quran (21:30) Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water? *Relativistic Time Dilation Al-Ma'aarij (70:4) The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years. *Quran On Expanding Universe Surah Dhariyat (51: 47) And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander *Theory of relativity (Simple motion) Quran (27:88) Now you see the mountains, thinking they are firmly fixed, but they are travelling ˹just˺ like clouds. ˹That is˺ the design of Allah, Who has perfected everything. Surely He is All-Aware of what you do *Surrogate Mother (Ask me if you want beascue long to elaborate ) *Identity In Finger Tips (unique fingerprints ) (Qiyamah 75:3-4) Does man think that We will not assemble his bones? Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips. *A fire From tree (oxygen) (36:80) He is the one who placed fire in the green tree, from which you kindle it. *Iron is not the earth's material (Quran 57:25)
@@rehmanosru1737 * I request everyone to read the whole thing first. And then share your comments. I think 90% of your complaints will go away after reading it. You must have scientific knowledge to understand them now read Below Earth narrowing "Do they not see that I am gradually narrowing the circumference of the earth's surface, yet they are the winners!" (Surah: Ambiya, verse: 44) *Big bang theory quran (simple editions+ evulation from water Concept ) ask me if you have issues Quran (21:30) Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water? *Relativistic Time Dilation Al-Ma'aarij (70:4) The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years. *Quran On Expanding Universe Surah Dhariyat (51: 47) And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander *Theory of relativity (Simple motion) Quran (27:88) Now you see the mountains, thinking they are firmly fixed, but they are travelling ˹just˺ like clouds. ˹That is˺ the design of Allah, Who has perfected everything. Surely He is All-Aware of what you do *Surrogate Mother (Ask me if you want beascue long to elaborate ) *Identity In Finger Tips (unique fingerprints ) (Qiyamah 75:3-4) Does man think that We will not assemble his bones? Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips. *A fire From tree (oxygen) (36:80) He is the one who placed fire in the green tree, from which you kindle it. *Iron is not the earth's material (Quran 57:25) We have already sent Our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them the Scripture and the balance that the people may maintain [their affairs] in justice. And We sent down iron, wherein is great military might and benefits for the people,
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
The leap from atheism to a Creator was very easy for me. It's just more plausible that there's a creator, than the almost impossible odds of a random explosion creating such complexity and order. The leap from a creator to Christianity is definitely one that took me the better part of 2 decades before I finally believe is to be true. So Hawkins makes a lot of sense there, but I hope he spends some time studying scripture very hard, and he discovers the truth in it.
@@philipcoriolis6614 whew there is sooo many things that aided me, that I can't even come close to fitting it in a comment. A few things tho are all of the prophecies that were fulfilled. From how Jesus would be killed, which was prophecied before crucifixion even existed. This was also further backed by the shroud of Turin, and finding a Pontius Pilate stone. Another is from ancient historians like Josephus who wasn't even a Christian, described Christ and of how some of his disciples were also persecuted. It was a step by step realization. From first no doubt there is a God / supreme intelligence. Then looking at other religions, but finding the bible to have so much fulfilled prophecy. Then it came down to was Christ truly the son of God. God in flesh. To this day, no body was ever found, but it's pretty likely they did find his burial shrouds. Also, his followers who fled right after the crucifixion were so emboldened to preach and spread the news after they saw him resurrected that they were willing to die for it. This just barely scratches the surface, seek and you will find Him.
Most Christians make the mistake of studying the scripture and not understanding the history of religion. If you do you will find Christianity is simply a composition of other religions. Bible is not the word of god but word of other “gods” and man. Seek knowledge not myths
Kalam cosmological argument... I'm surprised that they didn't discuss the practical importance of god in a system of existenial anguish, because I am a pragmatism and believe in it's theory of truth I'm also a christian.
*"the practical importance of god in a system of existenial anguish"* Existential anguish is a system? The "practical importance" of a god matters only to believers; to doubters, gods are neither necessary nor likely.
@@chikkipop What I meant by system is the structure behind existential angst. To me it seems to be fundamental for all people in the world, if it was intentional or not I don't know. You need something else other than god to center your life upon to fill that void and it's only now that we have it so easy we can turn to hedonism to fill that void. It doesn't work in the long run tho, just look at the psychosociological state of America. Todays society is feeding of the christian past & the past is disappearing fast.
He literally said it’s a good argument (towards the end), but that virgin births and resurrections are ridiculous... So if God could exist, that is , someone or something powerful enough to create the entire universe from nothing, why WOULDN’T He also be able to raise someone from the dead?
Why concern ourselves with what *might* be the case, when it is the more *unlikely* of the options? There is no evidence for a "creator" other than nature itself, and nature has clearly shown its power to design, unguided by intelligence. As someone long ago said in regards to gods, "I have no need for that hypothesis."
He may have meant it's a good argument but not good enough to be convincing. And we need some access to the motives of this creator, other than the "just so" stories from some ancient book. If this creator's not a Jew or a Christian, you're out of gas.
My car's license plate reads 187KNV: the odds of that happening by chance is astronomically unlikely, as there are ten Arabic numerals (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and 26 Greek/Roman letters. My license plate therefore shows that the Motor Vehicle Department is God.
I see, so you actually don't understand what you just said. The first thing to note is that your licence plate is intelligently designed, purposed and manufactured. So just consider how much your statement demonstrates that intelligent design is necessary for such high odds. Primary school for you I think. @@Desertphile
JbP's streams of consciousness are unsuitable if we want to hear the other person speak. It would be interesting if the moderator had an audio switch to cut off word salads. It reminds me of someone who said too much in a letter because they did not have enough time to keep it short. And I like his stuff in its place.
There was a debate with Dawkins and John Lennox where Lennox did this. Lennox was having a pretty good time of it discussing at this level of creation/fine tuning, and then in his last minute or so started saying, therefore Jesus died on the cross for our sins, yadda, yadda, yadda, as if he’d made the case for all that.
Aside from other problems like sample size pointed out above, I'm always struck by the failure of imagination that goes with fine-tuning arguments. Yes, it's true, having the Earth turn out just as it is, with precisely the values of the physical constants we have may be quite unlikely (although we certainly are not sure that those constants are in any way arbitrary rather than products of a deeper physical law). Our existence is just one outcome in the set of all possible forms of intelligent life, and we just don't know how big that set is or what it looks like. Further, when we think of the events leading to our own existence, we have to acknowledge that any long causal chain will contain lots of unlikely steps, whether it leads to an interesting outcome or not. A happy accident is just that, literally, and it shouldn't surprise us. In biology, we used to say that all ecosystems *must* have access to sunlight as an energy source...until we discovered deep-sea thermal vents and chemosynthetic bacteria. Are we really arrogant enough to think that we have a grasp on all the possible ways life could evolve, to the point of estimating its likelihood? Again, estimating a probability (which is the essence of the fine-tuning argument) requires knowing how many of all possible outcomes satisfy the condition "contains intelligent life." My humble guess is that there's *lots* of ways to get some kind of integrated, intelligent life, even with bizarrely different laws of physics.
@@avastone5539 WHAT!?!?!? “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.” ― Bertrand Russell
@@avastone5539 Well, I agree with Dawkins on a lot of things but not everything and I do have MS in applied math. "The difference between a unicorn in the garden and a god is that one is testable and one is not" Neither of them is testable. How do you know that unicorns are in the garden? "unfortunately we still have a pocket watch that needs explaining." Packet watch, clock, Watchmaker, and some other similar ones. They are still at the end assertions and still not evidence.
THANK YOU JESUS! Even though I’m still struggling to put groceries in the refrigerator. I STILL TRUST YOU LORD! Faith is trusting in God durning hard times. Faith is what is getting me through my hard situation. I’m still struggling to providing for my two autistic children since losing my job over declining the vaccine. I declined due to my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and Heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption from Forsyth Hospital. My husband passed away three years ago, so I’m all alone. Both of my sons are non verbal so things are more hard on me. Every month I don’t know how we are going to make it through. Every month is a struggle, a battle to not end up on the streets. I’m so depressed and embarrassed by my situation. I’ve been put down and mocked over my circumstances. I’m so ashamed and overwhelmed. BUT because of my faith God shows up every month and provides. He has even sent strangers to help me, thank you Father. Even as I face homelessness with two young children seemingly every month! I know that God will provide abundantly. Thank you Jesus. I BELIEVE!
@@redx11x That is true, Jesus's prayer is to "our Father in heaven." On the other hand, Jesus promised to give us the things we ask for in His name -- so we have warrant for both but I pray to the Father by default.
@@chikkipop Are you an atheist? There are two categories of evidence for two different issues: 1. science, mainly physics, to show there is a Creator. 2. history to point to Jesus as the Divine Messiah. Hit me up if you want to chat about either or both.
@@20july1944 I'm an atheist. Science does not show any sign of a "creator." Even more obviously, no history could possibly show an ancient character held an absurd job title.
@davidhewes9809 The point is, fine tuning argument doesn't validate any of these explanations either, it just can't because this argument is not about "how". Let's say that you admit there is a creation, then it doesn't make YOUR god more eligible to be creator just because he happened to give an explanation. Your god, would remain of one the many explanations we could think about. It could be any form of intelligent designer, the fact that they gave an explanation or not doesn't make them more likely to be the creator, unless you can find evidence that the creation actually happened the way it's described by your religion.
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."” 1 Corinthians 1:18-31
The Fine-Tuning Argument is my favorite argument for God's existence. Here are some explanations for the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe: 1. Chance 2. Natural processes 3. Multiverse 4. God 1-3 don't necessarily discount 4. Just my opinion.
They don't, but they can also be true without the 4th. The first three options can work without each other, or in combination, but none of that proves the 4th. So you are back to square one.
What always baffles me is that people can make statements about something that is litteraly supposed to be outside our universe, and therefore outside the human mind and human reason. Couldnt there be an infinite amount of reasons for the big bang, when it was before our universe and what we called reason/science? All we know is, that we cant know anything?
This is pretty massive though. I have a great deal of admiration for Dawkins, who concedes the fact that the Fine Tuning Argument is sound. He seems to also be on the edge of atheism, teetering past agnosticism and toward deism. That is pretty substantial. The guy that wrote the God Delusion perhaps becoming a deist. I find the Moral argument to also be very sound. Atheists can find arguments in the seams, but overall, there has always and will always be a strong inclination for humanity to believe in a creator as it has incredibly impacted society. It makes sense. It works. I believe it is true. If Dawkins dies a deist, that would be a colossal victory for theists everywhere. I hope he comes around :)
Richard Dawkins says, “ I think you might convince somebody like me to be a deist but then you suddenly say okay well... you've got either you're going to stick with a fine-tuning argument which is a good argument or you've got to produce a really good argument for Jesus but don't think that because you've convinced somebody of the by the fine-tuning argument to be a deist that therefore he's then got to believe in Jesus.” -- " I think you might convince somebody like me to be a deist..."
Good-mannered and open conversation, by itself a rarity in the atheism vs. religion discourse. Prof. Dawkins is acknowledging, albeit hesitantly, a certain innate cogency about the fine-tuning argument. As a long-time admirer of his, I respectfully and equally carefully beg to differ here, for the following reason: No question that if only one, let alone several, of the physical or chemical constants were different in the (descriptive) laws of nature, our universe plainly would be unconceivable. However, one may not make draw the conclusion that then no universe could exist. While that is conceivable, it is just as much conceivable, that another universe, only with differing natural laws, might have come into being. As a matter of fact, both universes may exist in parallel, as the idea of a multiverse suggests. In other words, the conclusion that there is something divine or supernatural about the constants of our universe, appears premature if not arbitrary. Whether there might be another universe, with just a little bit different set of constants, or many parallel universes, each with differing constants, or no universe at all, because ours is the only one in which time, matter and space can co-exist in any sustainable way, is purely speculative. In the same vein, and incidentally: A similar kind of reasoning appears to be valid for the question of life. The planet earth is perhaps the only place in the vast universe with trillions of planets on which conditions are so that life could develop. As a possibility, this must be conceded for reasons of intellectual rigour. But even if it were true, it simply would be the reason why life as we know it developed on the planet earth, and not elsewhere. And for precisely the same reason all kinds of chemical, physical and perhaps biological facts on other worlds will have combined in the way that their respective conditions allow. Including the come into existence of life - or anything akin to it.
Over the millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more scientifically relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not scientifically testable. 44:30 However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable.
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciousness /intelligence. ... _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complimentarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behavior of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com) _"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data) *”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov) *_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov) Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
@@chikkipop "Nonsense." Wow, you sure know your science. All you a nitwit like you has to do is know that one word. You must be so proud of your doofus self.
@@alkristopher I’m not surprised! 2Peter 3:3 First of all, know [without any doubt] that mockers will come in the last days with their mocking, following after their own human desires
I never saw Dawkins so happy. He looks like a kid on Christmas coming to the realization his creator is out there and is a scientific and mathematical genius and in fact the creator of such things. I think Dawkins next needs to read Eugene Wigner's 'Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.' Ask the Prophet Jeremiah, once God's spirit gets a hold of you there is no resisting it! Come on Richard!!!! We are all praying for you my friend, accept the Lord and embrace our creator!!
Obviously I don't live with Dawkins 24/7, but I have watched a lot of Dawkins videos big Dennis, I don't think I ever saw the guy smile in my life. He is always angry and upset. Be happy for him. Wigner wrote an essay that adds a few more points to the Teleological argument that Christian apologists even miss, it was probably the most compelling logical argument I have ever heard for an intelligent creator.. Give it a read Dennis and we might even get a smile from you my friend!
@@davidbobalik4864 *"I don't think I ever saw the guy smile in my life. He is always angry and upset."* What you've obviously seen is Dawkins tearing into silly superstition. This is what he is asked to do, and he does it well. When criticizing bad ideas, people don't usually sit there smiling and laughing. You folks *ALWAYS* attempt to paint atheists as angry, and you're full of sh*t. Our ordinary lives are ordinary lives, but when we're taking down silly superstition - which negatively affects many who fall for it, we are justifiably angry sometimes. Sorry, but your silly stereotype is laughable. You guys try every trick in the creationist book to make us look bad, but that's no defense for your misguided belief. *"once God's spirit gets a hold of you there is no resisting it!"* Uh huh; except for all the people who once believed, but grew out of it.
@@chikkipop I will let your response speak for itself. I only spoke on Dawkins and based it on what I had seen. I prefaced my comments by saying I am not always with him, I am sure there are moments he expressed happiness. I said nothing about any other atheist. I have plenty of friends who are atheist, we eat together, workout together, watch sports together and I would not categorize them as perpetually upset or angry in life. You, seem a bit upset in messages however, why not feel happy for a man warming to the idea of an intelligent mind behind the universe we live in? He did look happy, he was smiling and the others seemed genuinely happy for him. He was not making a leap to automatically accepting Jesus of Nazareth as his Lord and Savior, but realizing that to accept that finely tuned constants and mathematical axioms existing before a celestial event brought time and space into being is not a reasonable position logically when you add to the fact that humans evolved with the cognitive ability to understand those pre-existing entities billions of years later, which is what Wigner also concluded. With regards to being an angry atheist Dennis again, I will let your messages and tone thereof speak for themselves. I, on the other hand will chose to be happy for Dawkins and this epiphany he has experienced later in life.
@@davidbobalik4864 *"You, seem a bit upset in messages however, why not feel happy for a man warming to the idea of an intelligent mind behind the universe we live in?"* That's hilarious! If I "seem a bit upset" maybe it's because I have to suffer the witless comments believers make, like that one. First, he is *NOT* "warming" to the idea, and second, why would I be happy to see an intelligent man falling for bad arguments? You are certainly rather dense. Like so many magical thinkers, you desperately wish to see Dawkins and other reputable thinkers appearing to entertain your fantasy. They don't; just as Einstein is constantly quoted out of context, you actually have the gall to say *"I, on the other hand will chose to be happy for Dawkins and this epiphany he has experienced later in life."* Speaking of laughing, Dawkins would have a good chuckle if he read that, as I did. *"Lord and Savior"* Adults, in the 21st Century, actually think there is such a thing. Astonishing what people will believe, especially when you get to them when they're young.
I think Dawkins was being honest when he felt that introducing God as the ultimate cause was only moving the problem further away. What he’s missing though is that his materialistic mind assumes God to be made up of matter too and that God then has to be even more complex than his creation in order to be more powerful. Both assumptions are wrong. God isn’t complex (as meaning “made up of sub parts”), God is spirit.
*"his materialistic mind assumes God to be made up of matter too and that God then has to be even more complex than his creation in order to be more powerful. Both assumptions are wrong. God isn’t complex (as meaning “made up of sub parts”), God is spirit."* Annnnnnd..... you know this how, exactly? You know what they call creationists who finally realize how silly they sound? Atheists.
@@chikkipop , I don't claim to "know" this in any absolute factual sense, I'm simply referring to how Christians, Jews and Muslims view the nature of God. We could probably include other religions too. Separating the spiritual word from the material world is common practice within religions, but not in Mr Dawkin's head :-).
The explanation does not refer to complexity or otherwise. Explanation has to do with what properties this God has (and it does obviously have some) and which he doesn't have. You are misportraying Dawkins' views because your way of thinking itself is limited.
I think the strongest atheist like dawkins has an agnostic mind. He couldn't reject design and fine-tuning. The strongest atheist Antony Flew became theist...
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"... As a devout Christian, I really love the fact its hard to prove GOD on a scientific scale just like metaphysics and parapsychology. It shows the significance and importance of faith.
*"As a devout Christian, I really love the fact its hard to prove GOD on a scientific scale just like metaphysics and parapsychology. It shows the significance and importance of faith."* That is SO absurd! The "significance and importance of faith" is nothing more than believing what you *WISH* to be true. No one should have "faith," and no one should *prefer* a magical story with so many assumptions about humans needing an unseen father figure who "judges" them and has "plans" for their lives, as though we don't have our OWN plans. Religions like yours - and there are many of them - are examples of humans having poor taste, like eating at White Castle and buying Velvet Elvis pictures at flea markets. Learning about the real world and understanding the incredible story of how we actually got here is light years beyond an ancient story written by superstitious men.
god has all the properties of mythological characters, i think that's worth bearing in mind. also, fine tuning, god picked the most unlikely set of numbers it seems.
@@edmundburke8490 *"why, the anger?"* Why the *COMMON* claim that anyone who criticizes a bad idea is "angry"?! *"Respect a different opinion to yours!"* Opinions are respected when they are well supported; we have no obligation to respect ideas simply because they're different. A bad idea should be called a bad idea. Chill out, dude.
Sir Richard but these constant work only in the Electro-Magnetic field of Earth .. 🌎 Could you help me understand the constants which work in a Spacetime where GRAVITY varies and Electric filed depends on mood of Electrons Left in Past..... .... ........ 😅
Professor Dawkins has finally hit the nail on the head - the answer does not lie in science 🧬 but rather in the validity of Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection! If they happened then the case is made…If not, then as St Paul realized, we may as well go to the pub with Richard.
@@oliveralexandre3607 Clear thinking will show you 'obviously' Speaking of evidence, there is none for "his life, death and resurrection! " If you have some, lets hear it. Be the first in humanity to do so, Thanks
Well I feel it is self evident that if your debating a person who believes in God. They have also tried to work the issue of “which god” until they believe they have found the most rational God they believe in to be true. Which god is the next step once you have reasoned your way to believing in God.
Thank you, you get it. “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 Too many Christian’s are evidentilist in their apologetics which outright contradicts scripture. No matter how well you reason with the person, if God doesn’t regenerate them, They. Will. Not. Believe.
Your bible quote is meaningless because it comes from Paul, not your jesus figure. And we cannot take the bible seriously until someone proves that all of it is true. That's not been done yet. In the world we live in science tells us how things work. The question of why we are here is not a science question. But if you invoke supernatural explanations then you have to show that the supernatural exists. The invisible and the imaginary look very much alike.
@@danbailey2964 thank you for proving my point and the passage that I quoted. Also you seem to misunderstand that just because Paul wrote that therefore God didn’t say it. The entire Bible is inspired and breathed out by God which is Gods words. Who said that passage Paul or God? The answer is yes. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write 1 Cor. along with the other letters.
@@Niko-zg6uq So everything in your bible is true and correct and the world should take every word in that way? But you have not proven the bible is really inspired by a god, let alone the god you have invented. Quoting a book without any foundational demonstration of it's veracity is foolish. Get out of that loop if you want to have meaningful arguments. Prove to me that Paul was inspired by god. Untili you do it is just words in a book that you have given way more credence too than it deserves. Why don't you quote Leviticus 25, 44-46? That must all be true too, right? Slaves, not servants. Or servants who did not have the freedom to leave when they wanted....still slaves. Lets talk about that too.
When I was born, I didn’t have a Texas accent. Now, I do, because of the environment I grew up in. The world is the shape it is because the universe it grew up has shaped it. If these forces were other than they are, these things would be different. I don’t understan why this argument could convince anyone of anything.
Dawkins isn't accepting of the doctrine of what is accepted as the existing religions of the world. He is simply stating that the case of the fine tuning of the natural laws of nature, of cosmology, gravity, the speed of light, the space time continuim, the theory of relavtivity, the precise configuration of all that is physics, cosmology and biology, are the best and strongest argument for a designer. We have an obsucure approach to dealing with the answer of who is it that fine tuned the constants. We have filled in the gaps with an ideology so ancient and illerate, which is unwilling to turn its head on itself to admit that it does not know. Faith is essentially a dogma that is at its core, an illiterate cognitive defence mechanisim for our ego and identity.
Dawkins makes a relevant point that the fine tuning of nature's constants might point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer but that does not automatically presuppose Christ t the ransom Saviour. For that we need Scripture not Nature. Nature confirms God to us. Scripture aline connects God to us.... through Christ. 2Cor.5 ¹⁸ Why should Richard consider carefully the Bible? If a woman found a lovely bouquet of flowers on her doorstep one morning she would be impressed and deeply touched. But what would she instinctively search for that should accompany the exquisite gift? Naturally! A card! Explaining the WHO the Giver, WHY the gift...and HOW to care for it. The gift of life in this awesome universe comes also with an accompanying "card"- the Bible. Sad she who enjoys the gift but 'discards' the card!
I finally agree with Dawkins on something -- the physics is where the best objective evidence for God resides, although I would say the origin of matter from nothing is the clearest problem.
Kalam cosmological argument... I'm surprised that they didn't discuss the practical importance of god in a system of existenial anguish, because I am a pragmatist and believe in it's theory of truth I'm also a christian.
I would say all the sciences are very good evidences for God. The very existence of the Universe os the best evidence for God. The laws of nature, the fine tunning, the tangibility of the Universe, the mathematical structure of the Universe, the order, complexity, harmony and beauty of the Universe and nature, the existence of billions of Galaxys, Solar Systems, Planets, Black Holes, SuperNovas, particles, attoms, cells, etc, the existence of life, the existence of counscious, the existence of objectives moral values, the existence of rationality and love, the existence of information on nature. Where all those things como from? Who gives being to all things? Why made the Universe um such a way? It could be in every other way.
I would like to introduce electromagnetic force into the equation. It seems that a hormonal imploding force is involved in genetic alterations. Like the higgs pulls in nuclear parts this hormonal force pulls dna together and that's important.
Richard clearly understands that if there is a God, He has a personal relation to creation and that's an intimidating thought. I can understand why he is so slow to go that direction with his previous claims
@@20july1944 *"Do you respect God, IF He exists?"* Of course not, just as I would not respect anyone else who *might* exist, since I would not know anything about them.
@@chikkipop Well, you've answered your own question -- Dawkins doesn't respect God IF He exists, either, and he realizes that that is pretty likely to anger God IF God exists. If you were suddenly confronted with God, you would shit yourself and fall on your face.
Constants are a sign that there's a unifying principle below the appearance of the constants. For example, the corners of a square are all 90.00000000 degrees, this is a consequence of a square.
@@avastone5539 Unfortunately for you, universe size measurements have already proved that this universe is too large to be simulated. Please do keep up with the state of the art.
It's virtually impossible to argue the existence of God because its so personal and relational. It would be like trying to explain to someone that my wife is the most wonderful woman in the world by using scientific evidence and expecting them to agree without having the relationship we have for me to be able to make that statement.
But nobody is trying to argue that everybody should view your wife as the most wonderful woman in the world. Most people would accept you see her as that and others would choose other people.
So when people claim they want laws to reflect what THEIR personal god wants, should we all be subject to those laws? This is the problem presented when any unproven, subjectively created god is introduced into our civil lives.
It's nice to see a rare ounce of humility. It's not about god of the gaps but let's face it, we don't know the origin of energy, we don't know the origin of the universe and let's not forget, there's trillions and trillions of galaxies, we don't know what most of the universe is made of, we don't know the origin of life, we've barely scratched the surface of understanding the human brain, the human body and our own planet, let alone consciousness. To believe that somehow complex single celled organisms just appeared and then somehow evolved into the millions of complex and diverse lifeforms, along with organisms that sustain their lives as well as complex ecosystems requires someone to ignore everything we know about science. And again it's not God of the gaps, granted most theistic belief systems must be wrong for the simple reason that they can't all be right which doesn't help the argument and the person doesn't have to believe in God because science can't answer 99.9% of the most important questions but it's a reminder of how incredibly ignorant we all are, how humble we should be and how open we need to keep our minds to try to understand more. I don't think the Bible should ever be just dismissed because of a predisposed bias: it describes the earth once being all water and covered in a thick cloud, life beginning in the oceans, humans last on the list of creation and made from the dust of the earth and the Earth being a sphere Suspended upon nothing, all of which happens to be scientifically accurate and we could say OK whatever, just a bunch of good guesses but the odds of guessing all that correct are at the very least one in several million. Luke 10:21, ...you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. What this means is, it doesn't matter how much a person studies the Scriptures, if they aren't humble, God is going to hide the truth from them because they don't deserve it. On the other hand, he's going to reveal it to young children, in other words, those who sincerely want to know the truth.
Sure, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t get you the Gospel but it does by definition get you a creator. From that starting point you get God because this creator must have certain attributes. Then from God you get Jesus and the Gospel.
You've exposed your intellectual weakness with this post. Evolution can be considered an agent of fine tuning over eons. That does not get me to a god. And because you are willing to insert a god, even though none has been demonstrated and linked to the development of our universe and planet, that just makes your claims that much more silly. Think like an adult, not a child. Just because you want the god mythology to be true doesn't mean it is.
Like other commentators I found Dawkins pretty endearing here. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he's less sneering in his maturity but I did wonder if it was that his interlocutor is a scientist of indisputable eminence.
Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.
@@AwesomeWrench Yep, a lot more research. Check out Dr James Tour BTW he is seriously impressive 700 patents I think it was, some seriously impressive number of citations. He is no one's dummy and he says we are hundreds of years away maybe from the ability to create the very simplest of cells. He explains in his videos if you watch him, he is very patient. I studied a bit of chemistry at Cambridge Uni, UK and he impresses me with his arguments of just why it is so tricky to make any progress, as far as we march forward in our knowledge, as fast or faster away the target becomes as that simplest cell becomes more and more complex. Anyway please check out Dr James Tour. There are large numbers of very clever people trying to solve this, and whoever does gets a Nobel Prize!
The point is the fact that we are so far from the simplest cell is not widely known. Many people think we already created a primitive cell from some primordial sludge and a lightning strike. Even I thought that and I was studying Natural Science at Cambridge, so I should really have known the truth way back then.
@@AwesomeWrench Yep, we need loads more research. Just check out Dr James Tour, he can explain it all far better than I can. He is a serious qualified and cited research Scientist.
@@AwesomeWrench Dr James Tour is a qualified synthetic Organic Chemist with a massive published literature in the field. 700 Patents and thousands of citations, I think he is qualified to critique other more specialised synthetic Organic Chemists. I recommend people who as far as I can tell are qualified and who have the patience to try and explain it all to the lay person. Dr James Tour is the only guy I know of in the field I follow, but I will do a deal with you, if you follow Dr James Tour's Science a bit, I can follow your favourite atheist alternative for you, a bit anyway. So you and I both give a bit to the other side. Deal?
The fine tuning argument only works for life as we know it here. Lot of space out there. We know so little and yet christains are so confident in the little story they believe.
If I'm not mistaken Einstein answered that he believes in the God of Spinoza when asked if he was religious - and it is about that far you will get with fine tuning or other cosmological arguments. You will need separate arguments that goes further to get all the way to Christianity.
Excuse me if I come off rude: I absolutely hate it when people take the Kalam or Fine-Tuning argument and think Christians mean that the argument gives evidence for Christianity. IT DOESN'T! All the argument is meant to do is give evidence for deism, Christianity is another story.
It’s almost as if existence is improbable whether or not you believe in god 🤯 Edit: also, I completely agree with what Dawkins said, 100%. My sentiments exactly. The moment you bring religion into the equation after mentioning fine tuning, you full circle from being logical to utterly illogical
I cannot follow all of these arguments, but I can most of them to some extent. My own argument was more influenced by CS Lewis although I don't know that he ever said this, but his writing got me thinking this way. I ask, which way would I rather be wrong? For myself, if no God is seeking relationship , I would rather not exist. I am not a very emotional person, and mostly couldn't tell you if I am happy or sad if you asked me. But, I don't want to exist for nothing more than the fact of existence. I see no beauty in things like the stars without relationship. So to me, the logic is to live as if God does exist, and God who wants relationship both God with the created and the created with each other. . I do not believe anyone will go to hell, so I do not believe this to hopefully save myself.
Theists could always claim fine tuning, no matter how rough tuned the universe might have been. Rough tuned universes which produce life could be almost infinite in number, but against a backdrop of infinity, that enormous number shrinks to almost nothing. As usual, believers are playing ‘heads I win, tails you loose.’
Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.
What’s disingenuous about it? This clip actually helps Dawkins set the record straight. You can call something a good argument (which he does at 5:35) without being persuaded of the conclusion (which Dawkins also makes clear such as at 4:00). As for asking “could this convert Dawkins?” that’s just asking a question, to which the answer could be “no”! :)
@ Let me explain to you why I believe in the God of Christianity in the first place so I initially came to believe in God because that the best explaination for the origin of the universe and and I've instantly came to accept Christianity because I believe that Christianity accounts for the historical surrounded the resurrection and the origin of Christianity in the 1st centuary better than all the other alternatives. The point was that if I took my reasons why I rejected the other gods and I applied those towards my belifs then that would force me to reject my view of God as well right??? So if the universe and by the way what I mean by universe is all of space all of time and all matter if the universe has not past eternal which all of our scientific evidence seems to suggest then any of those pantheistic and panetheistic religions that claim everything is God and everything is one that one is eternal then we can go ahead and cancel out all of the those conceptions of God on that point alone
Год назад
@@Theodoros_Komninos Finally, you made my point... no evidence then no fact. My question is then, why do you believe in a god who was invented a long time ago when our own knowledge of the world and cosmos was quite limited. The god in which you believe was created based on previous gods, specifically, Canaanite gods. In the end, our conversation can go on forever because it is a belief and beliefs ARE based on personal issues. If your god really exists, why he is so wicked depending on the religion (Judaism, Christianism, Islamism) in which he is adored? A big hug and best wishes from Mexico!
@@2fast2block... Dawkins - he can't see the perfectly obvious - he still needs that little beige man's boring and ugly 'logic' - 'scientific' proof for something beyond science - right in his grey idiotic face - namely the dazzling God-given miracle that is NOW. He's still getting everything back to front... It's not important what he thinks - it's whether his Creator believes in him... and it's rather sad to see him still peddling his dark, nihilistic crud while deviously wrapping it for kids in the words like 'elegant' and 'beautiful'. Christ is Eternity.
@@2fast2block I don't know what he meant exactly, but I'll say that every model of reality relies on an origin miracle. If you think yours doesn't, please share with me.
I think that the universe and the physical constants are a brute fact. Without another universe to compare them to, then it makes no sense to say that they even CAN be different. If theists/deists insist that god is not contingent then atheist insist that the universe is not contingent. Asking why, why, why eventually bottoms out at “because it just is” - either at god or at the universe.
@@chikkipop When we recognize that we have to resort to brute facts it points to the fact that there are truths, inevitable, self-sufficient, brute. We do have truth. We have reality, and ultimate reality.
@@konroh2 Of course there are things that are true, but that doesn't mean we've confirmed or even discovered them all. We know we have reality, but we don't fully understand all of it, and may never. It's not a matter of "resorting" to brute facts so much as recognizing that nature appears to have regularities which could not be any other way, given conditions.
It is interesting to hear an atheist say the fine-tuning argument is better than all the other arguments, especially the moral argument. For about two decades, design arguments in general were less convincing to me than most other arguments, including the fine tuning argument. It wasn't really until maybe the last three years or so that I've started to come around on the fine-tuning argument. The moral argument seems utterly convincing and is the only argument that really gets you something resembling a personal authoritative God as oppose to a nebulous supernatural force or an indifferent tinkerer.
@@redx11x the beginning of the universe + its fine tuning would lend great evidence to Deism. The moral argument lends great evidence to cross the bridge to theism. I believe theism is also supported by the beginning of life and the existence of higher life forms like animals and Ofcourse humans. Deism would be theres a creator who started the universe then sat back and watched. Theism is an involved Creator who interacts with His creation.
@@redx11x The moral argument? It can be summed up in three sentences: (1) There can only be a universal and transcendent standard of right and wrong if there is a God. (2) There is a universal and transcendent standard of right and wrong. (3) Therefore, there is a God.
Fine tuning is an assinine attempt at inventing a comparative model without any comparison. It's purely "what if things were different, therefore I insert a gaps fallacy" nonsense. Unless you have all three states to demonstrably evidence, you can not make a comparative model. You would need a control universe, a universe where you had life invented, and a universe where there are different constants and completely devoid of any life. You would also need to model time (have scope of all time within those universes to demonstrate that life could never be naturally forming in all three). Since this isn't remotely possible, the "appearance of fine-tuning" is dismissed as pure egotisim and nonsense from any scientific standpoint.. which is why there are no papers published in any established and respected peer reviewed scientific journals on this subject. Note that the only people who make this "argument" are theists. And as usual, we can deflate all apologetics with a single three-word axiom. Kind of telling.
All the fine tuning argument does is make a case (good or bad) for a deist god. A creator being. That's all. You still have to make massive massive leaps to get to any of the major world religions. Even if a creator were real, that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat pork or we should pray to it or that Jesus was god. So what Dawkins has said doesn't mean all that much.
Deism is a subset of theism. As long as deism is true, atheism is totally wrong. Whether Christian is false, all theist religions are wrong will not able to falsify deism or theism. As a matter of fact, why would people generalize Christianity as a whole to think of it right or wrong? Because Christianity isn't a simple binary true/false, some parts could be right some parts could be wrong.
Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.
I don't put as much weight into the fine tuning argument as these guys. Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he said, at best it can only get you to Deism. But that is true for just about every theistic argument, such as the Kalam. They all only get you to Deism and you have to shoehorn in Jesus or Muhammad, or whatever.
Dawkins already knows God exists and suppresses the truth in sin. Rom 1. Presuppositional apologetics is way more biblical and effective, generally speaking.
Check out Dr James Tour the scientists are nowhere near knowing how to make even the simplest of cells in a fully equipped Lab, let alone explaining how a cell would be produced on an early Earth.
Is this discussion after he had stroke? Illnesses and deathbeds have a way of doing numbers on you. Great progress, Richards! Keep working at it, you'll get there soon.
@@20july1944 No, I don't think it does prove a creator. To prove a creator, you have to show that something came into being. The contingency argument doesn't say the universe came into being. It only says it's contingent. To be contingent only means it depends on something else for its existence. But since it's possible for the universe to depend on something else for its existence without having been brought into existence, the argument from contingency doesn't prove a creator.
@@philochristos OK, do you understand why a star is hot and bright and doesn't last forever? The limiting factor on the universe is the amount of matter, which can't be created but definitely can be converted irrevocably into energy (stars do it all the time). Do you understand that?
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?
@@justinloder4779 so you're saying that the odds for god to exist without an explanation is higher than the universe laws to exist without an explanation? In the end the universe exists and we need to think what is the most plausible explanation: 1: a perfect eternal being that exist without a creator created us. 2: the universe exists without a creator.
Who cares? Why do we need to convince Richard Dawkins of anything? I'm not in awe of these foolish 'intellects'. He will still have to answer to God directly whether he believes now or not.
@@MrAuskiwi101 Only one of us is right. I have everything to gain if I am right and nothing to lose if I'm wrong. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain if you're right and everything to lose if you reject Christ. Think about it. God bless you.
I agree, I question the wisdom of Justin posting things like this because it suggests Dawkins has greater insight. On the other hand, I know Justin is trying to have a dialog and the fact Dawkins is changing towards the God issue will likely open other minds.
I really enjoyed the conversation between these gentlemen. Dawkins may not convert fully to Christianity, but hearing that he considers the Fine Tuning Argument a good argument causing him to slightly waiver from his atheism is moving in a positive direction.
Dawkins clearly wasn’t prepared to answer the question, “where did the laws of physics come from.” He could’ve slam dunked him with, “where did your god come from.” And when he answers, “he was just always there,” as you know he would, then he could’ve said “I can say the same about the laws of physics. The big difference between them, and the god you have faith in is I can prove the laws of physics actually exist.” He must’ve been caught off guard with that one. What they also didn’t talk about, and should have, to say the universe is fine tuned for the production of living organisms suggests significance of living organisms, which hasn’t been established. There’s nothing we’re aware of that makes living organisms more special than anything else in the universe. Big deal if we can think. In a universe where stars only burn for a few thousand years, or where there’s no supernova, there would likely evolve unique features as well. And there’s no lofty purpose it seems we’re specifically needed for. Thus, of course the universe cleared a path for us. We wouldn’t be here otherwise. If a rock rolled down a mountainside and landed in one of 10,000 equal possible slots placed on the bottom, say slot number 3,459, that doesn’t make slot 3,459 more special than any of the other 9,999 slots it could’ve landed in. You wouldn’t look at the path the rock came down on and say every bump and crack that guided it to slot 3,459 must’ve been placed there by intelligent life. It just by chance landed in slot 3,459. As with life, it’s here by chance. Furthermore, a god with unlimited magic powers, like the Hebrew god from the Bible, or the various other powerful gods from other ancient literature, wouldn’t need so much patience when he can just snap his fingers and life would appear. He wouldn’t need laws of physics, or a universe billions of light years in diameter. The fine tuned universe argument for the existence of a higher power is just plain stupid.
Sure, perhaps if a single constant was modified, we don't exist. How do we know that prior to our universe there weren't an infinite number of universes that failed to produce life? Just because we are here today to talk about universal constants does not mean that weren't countless universes before ours. To me this appears akin to rolling the universal dice a trillion times and now finally landing at our current universe where we go "oh hey! All the factors aligned now for life! This must be fine-tuned!" We just can't know.
Taking our universe as an example, what caused whatever the initial conditions were? Otherwise, you have no warrant to posit an infinite amount of previous universes.
@@20july1944 What I mean is that there is also nothing conclusive to reason that today's universe is the only one that ever was either. The fine-tuning argument suggests that our existence today is proof that the universe isn't this way by chance, that it's because it was fine tuned. However, I think the more likely, and more humbling, possibility is that we are not special. The universal dice was rolled and we are here to observe the result this time around. Let's keep learning about how universes form and "begin", rather than throwing our hands up and saying "Welp, must be god."
Exactly! And of course we are here, now, bc this Unverse is the one that works for us. Where else would we be? That's the beauty of infinity. It bogels my mind (and I believe it is pure human folly) to assume there had to be a beginning to anything. Or that we got lucky w our Universe. That said, I am in awe of right now, because this is It. And it is infinite. No God needed.
@@Defiantclient I don't use the fine-tuning argument, mine is based on thermodynamics and physics. Matter can't be created in nature, but energy can be made from matter (every star does it by the millions of tons every second), which means the universe had an absolute beginning. Do you dispute that?
@@20july1944 I think the universe "began" to exist, but I have no idea what was "before" the universe (although "before" is a loose term here as there was no concept of time without the universe).
Richard Dawkins makes a pertinent point. How can we possibly reason our way from the plausibility of the fine-tuning argument to the implausibility of religious figures and events? It seems to me that Richard is implying here that there must be a more elegant explanation of the FTA than the calling into existence of a deity. An argument based on observation and data, one made by a technologically advanced civilsation, is indeed difficult to align with an argument based on unreliable sources and ideas opposed to physical laws, made by a bronze age civilisation.
Maybe, but this is way more profound than just a scientific problem, because science by its own nature doesn't explain why the laws of the Universe are the way they are; science assumes there are such things, that can be studied through empirical methods and evidence, but is unable to give a metaphysical answer for them. Dawkins, in my opinion, isn't very aware of how profound this philosophical problems are. We can't expect to give purely scientific answers to every issue. Ofc you can discuss about the reality of miracles and supernatural events, and also about established religions and theology, but that's one step ahead.
Naturally if your saying that All Powerfull, Supreme Creator, had a son, and the son was required for a blood sacrifice to forgive humanity. And that son, is actually the same as the father, and the son died. Then you will think its unreasonable. There is only one supreme creator, he has sent guidance to making for their benefit. Now that is more reasonable and simple.
@@fabiangonzalezreyes You cannot decry science because it does not to the thing it is not tasked with doing. Science will tell you 'how' and does not seek to establish' 'why'. Science is not concerned with answering people's strong desire to understand why they are here. The god mythology was invented to scratch that itch. Science does a great job of telling us how things work. Mythology does a poor job of explaining the truth behind why.
4:47 - 4:51 "You might convince somebody like me to be a deist." I've been a deist for decades (I'm in my late 40s). We deists have believed for a long time that because of things such as the finely-tuned universe, complexity of DNA, etc., that a "divine architect" created the universe and the laws of nature that govern it, set it all in motion (perhaps via the Big Bang), and is off doing whatever It is doing. The universe does not need a conductor overseeing all aspects of it when the laws of nature can suffice. Work smarter, not harder, right?! Theists...those who believe in divine revelation, intervention, prayers, etc...have no connecting bridge to get from a deistic concept of God to their concept of God who is omnipotent, omniscient, the embodiment of good, full of love, etc. Earth is not the center of creation. Epilepsy is not demonic possession. An earthquake is not a god's wrath. We've known these things for a very long time, yet people cling to archaic notions about the nature of "God" based on writings from very ignorant people who lived millennia ago, and had no clue about the universe that they were a part of.
"When you get to the origin of the physical constants, physicists agree that if you change any of those constants even by a very small amount then we don't come into existence, the universe does not come into existence. They have to be like that for galaxys to form, for stars to form, for chemistry to form actually. And then the prerequisite for life to evolve as well. That's the nearest to a good argument for God's existence."
Most people believe there’s a god of some sort, but many believe in the god of Spinoza, (the sum total of the laws of nature). Unlike gods of mythology we know the laws of nature actually exist, because we’ve confirmed them. Ultimately this would obviously be the most reasonable god to believe in. And if you combine the laws of physics with the survival instinct, (which works the same in flies as it does in humans), a fine tuned universe can come into being without any significant intelligence. When you say god with a capital G you’re referring to a specific god…most likely that crazy, nature defying deity character from ancient unsubstantiated literature that’s currently known as the Bible, who was one of many such crazy deity characters written about at that time, only Constantine chose the religion based on this god as the official religion of Rome, which had nothing to do with evidence, (he had a few dreams about crosses, but we know dreams are influenced by the subconscious today). Thus, to say something science can’t yet explain is proof the specific Biblical god exists is like if you built a fence around a garden to keep out rabbits, later found a footprint in your garden resembling a rabbit footprint, and saying that’s proof that magical bunny that’s said to bring millions of people candy and presents once every year known as the Easter Bunny must be real. If you think about it honestly and objectively there’s hardly any difference.
@@James-ll3jb Laws of nature include laws physics, which do exist. Nietzsche was not a physicist, (and he was also an atheist, in case you didn’t know). Numerous laws of motion have been observed, and confirmed. If you’re suggesting there’s no law of gravity I would think our satellites would be in deep trouble. And if there was no law of electromagnetism our bodies would be in deep trouble. I could go on. To summarize, yes there are most definitely laws of nature. I am not wrong, you are.
@@lukeblahnik8644 I've had published a paper on Nietzsche in a psychology journal and he figures prominently in two of my books. If you were born after 1976-79 then I've been deeply familiar with Nietzsche longer than you've been alive. (Can you read German btw? Just curious.) Nietzsche isn't disputing the validity of the Newtonian physics of his day. He is merely pointing out that the regularities we observe are just that: regularities of regularities. If there were actual laws in and of themselves that phenomena inexorably, self-consciously obey, we could rest assured the sun will rise tomorrow by virtue of said laws, out of an intrinsic necessity. But this is wrong. (See Bertrand Russell's "Mysticism and Logic"). The "laws of physics" are only laws based upon an anthropomorphism, on analogy with human-made laws that human agents slavishly, unswervingly obey! Compris? And to say that "these laws exist" is just being redundant descriptively and explains nothing (e.g. when people say "things are heavy because of gravity [='gravis', heaviness]," etc.). Or that the counting operation WE make then describe by writing out "1+1=2" must 'exist' out there somewhere in the æther independently of us. "Nietzsche was not a physicist." Lol okay, sure. But were he one he still would not have agreed with you. Rather, as just "More proof," he will have said, "of that endearing hyperbolic naïvete of man, who must see HIMSELF as the 'measure of all things'!" ...
@@James-ll3jb How in the world does whether or not I speak German have to do with whether or not the universe was created by not just any god, but God, with a capital G, like what’s written your comment I replied to. That’s why I replied to it. I didn’t reply to it so I could see your resume. For what it’s worth I speak English and Spanish, and who cares. That has nothing to do with this topic. Nor does how well I know Nietzsche. I said he was an atheist, which sources conclude he was, because it’s relevant to the God topic, and the fact that he was not a physicist is relevant to your indication that there are no laws of nature, lol. I assure you no people who actually study the laws of nature, like physicists, would make such a ridiculous conclusion. Maybe the sun won’t always rise tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t laws of the universe. Hydrogen fuses into helium in the sun’s core by way of the strong nuclear force, (another law of nature I haven’t mentioned), and when there’s no more hydrogen in the core to fuse the sun will begin collapsing due to the natural law already mentioned of gravity, creating heat around the core, which burns more hydrogen and creates expansion into a red giant. Yes, at that point, probably five billion years from now, the sun won’t rise in the morning anymore. There’s also the uncertainty principle, which was discovered after Nietzsche, that prevents scientists from accurately predicting the future, primarily due to the observation effect. Just because there’s chaos, and scientists can’t accurately predict the future doesn’t mean there isn’t laws of nature. And because physics are defined by the human made language known as mathematics doesn’t mean they’re not laws either. They do the same whether they’re defined by mathematics or not. I wasn’t trying to explain anything by saying they exist, I was refuting your indication that they don’t. And it was these laws that caused elements to come together to eventually result in living organisms, which evolved into humans. The survival instinct was needed as well, as mentioned in my initial comment. And there’s no mathematics independent in space, lol. It’s a language we invented to define quantity. Furthermore, there’s no aether. Michelson and Morley proved it doesn’t exist in 1887. You haven’t said anything to dispute my initial comment.
Fine tuning argument. Is just simple science yet understood. Religious people always attribute the unknown to the magical “god”. Just like we no longer pray to rain god, this unknown will be understood by science someday. Seek knowledge not myths
Fine tuning is a poor argument since most of the universe is deadly, not just to us, but to most living things. That we exist at all simply means that life has arisen, adapted and evolved to fit the conditions on one particular planet. We are an infinitly small piece of an infinitly huge universe. Were we to disappear the universe would not notice. We need to get over ourselves.
@@LGpi314 Well, this was addressed to the commenter, and based on that comment, that person simply doesn't understand the argument. I can't say that pertaining to you, because you never said anything.
@@LGpi314 I didn't say it proves a darn thing, all I said is the original commenter doesn't understand it. However, it does set up a true dichotomy, if you fully understand the argument (from what I can tell, a vast majority of atheists simply do not). The fine tuning of the universe is so incredibly remarkable and probabilistically remote, it leaves two options. 1) God exists and created the universe the way it is. Or 2) There's an infinite number of universes in an infinite multiverse. Stephen Hawking started to understand the enormous weight of this point towards the end of his life, for example, and you can read about it in an article "Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?" In The Guardian, May 2018. There'd be no stars, light, heat or composite matter if the fine tuning parameters weren't exactly correct, approximately 1/10^10^123, which, is a number so large that if every particle in the universe was replaced with a "0", this number would be TINY in comparison.
