Man, how stupid I was back when I mocked proponents of the Fine-Tuning argument. Praise be to God He took me back from atheism, even after all my mockery and disrespect. Life is Good and has a meaning, even in difficult times.
i thought people rarely change their mind on politics n religion. please give details. how old were u as an atheist, how confident u were, why u were, n same questions for when u were changing your mind n when u became theist. r u still open minded to studying various spiritual teachings n their evidence besides the Abrahamic faiths?
@@angelsordemons it literally isn't, though. Corporations have no interest in restricting who can buy and sell things, and are entirely concerned with selling as much crap as they can. Corporate power also presides over government quite a bit, especially in the USA. Lastly, Revelation is actually describing things that were, by now, supposed to have already happened. A very long time ago. A lot of it had to do with Nero and the Roman Empire from what I've heard.
i realized that when i got into software development for 4 years its crazy to assume a complex program with many features was built with chance only that's just a program but here its the universe man our eye only has enough complexity makes it hard to replicate it
Isaiah 45:18 NIV:- “For this is what the Lord says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited- he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other.”
@@muzzammilhussain7 hello my friend, are you Christian? if so :" ) The old testament prophet Isaiah calls Jesus God in a prophecy Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
@@muzzammilhussain7 if youre interested my friend 😊 in the new testament, Jesus calls himself God many times, one such is when He calls himself I AM, which is the name of the jewish God we worship we also have The trinity together at Jesus' baptism in matthew 3:16-17 16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
@@jriverariddering No one understands it because it is not real. If you dig deep in a topic which is real, the aspects of its reality starts to appear and if something is fake the lies become clearer. Even you know yourself the book/s based on which your whole ideology is formed, it is not in its original form. The whole text has been corrupted and changed many times. Try searching and bringing out if there is something uncorrupted beyond doubt, if you can get to that, well... then perhaps you have found something real.
Genuine illumination is quite accessible through practice. What you say is true. One gets to see behind the veil but the whole is beyond impossible to grasp, at least in human form.
"Mulitiverse can't be observed, detected, measured", but god can't be too If fine-tuning of the Earth for existence of life (right distance to the Sun, right mass of the Earth, magnetic field etc) is explaned by the existence of countless number of different planets in the universe, most of which happened to be lifeless and a small portion of them happened to have conditions for life, then we should prefer a similar explanation for fine-tuning of the universe: a countless number of different universes, most of which are lifeless and a small portion of them have properties for existence of life. Because we should prefer the explanation that we already saw before. For example, if you find animal footprints on the ground, you would explain it with type of animal you know to exist, like a horse, donkey, etc, not with a mythological animal, that no one saw, like a unicorn
@@mc-x4l There is abundant evidence through Astronomy for billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets, There is no observable evidence, none for a spewer of random universes. Further, fine tuning is an observable characteristic of this universe. The issue is not that it exists, but why? The flight from and fight against design is near hysteria from my perspective.
@kenkaplan3654 I already responded to that at the beginning of my comment. If we reject the possibility of existence of multiverse because there is no observable evidence for it, for the same reason, we should also reject the possibility of the existence of god. So, from your perspective, we shouldn't try to answer the question about fine-tuning at all because any answer involves something outside of our observation
The simple example I use, which I feel anybody can understand is the following: fill your clothes dryer up with clothes, run a cycle. What are the chances that all the clothes come out folded?. Well run the cycle again, did they come out all folded? OK run it again. It should be obvious to anyone you could run it for 1 million years and those clothes will not come out folded. The presumption is that everything necessarily will all come together to form circumstances for life, which is infinitely more complex than a clothes dryer full of clothes coming out, folded.
Your simple analogy between the clothes dryer and the universe is inherently and deeply flawed. The universe operates according to natural laws and processes, while a clothes dryer does not; it's mechanical, so it doesn't involve the same level of complexity or the same underlying principles. Comparing the intricate development of life over billions and billions of years to the mechanical tumble operation of a dryer oversimplifies the immensely complex processes involved in biological evolution and the emergence of life. While you might perceive it as a fitting analogy, it's actually quite misleading since it fails to accurately capture the complexity of the matter.
Wait, how is the analogy of a dryer any different? They are both operating under the same laws of nature as the others. It is not a question of material, but one of laws.
@@historictruthlarson4910 A clothes dryer is a machine designed for a specific purpose: to dry clothes. It operates under simple, direct mechanical and physical principles such as heat and tumbling actions. The outcome-whether clothes come out folded or not-is based on straightforward physical interactions within a controlled, closed environment. In contrast, the universe operates under a set of natural laws that are vastly more complex and varied. These include the laws of physics, chemistry, and eventually biology as life begins to form. The processes involved in the emergence of life, or even the formation of planets and stars, involve intricate interactions at many levels, from subatomic particles to entire galaxies. These processes are dynamic and self-organizing, and they occur over scales of time and space that are incomprehensibly vast compared to a dryer cycle. The "accidental folding of clothes by a mechanical machine" analogy misses the principle of natural selection, which plays a crucial role in the evolution of life. Unlike a dryer, where no mechanism selects for a desired outcome (like folded clothes), natural selection continuously favors organisms that are better adapted to their environments, leading to increasingly complex forms of life over billions of years. Yes, while both a dryer and the universe operate under physical laws, the scale, complexity, and the types of processes at play are fundamentally different. The dryer analogy oversimplifies the nuanced and layered nature of cosmological and biological evolution, making it a limited comparison for understanding how life and the universe operate.
Please pray for my atheist friend. He is very closed off to having any conversation remotely related to the creation of the universe or Christianity. Can’t imagine heaven w out him:(
Let him be. He has his own curriculum. Respect it. And everyone goes to heaven. There are no conditions. It was set up that way. ALL are children of and expressions of God a prori. One cannot not be what one already is. Nothing has to be earned in any way. And if God is truly great, it was all set up by infinite love so no one was ever going to be left behind. Those are human concepts.
@JesusSecondComing1 I'm sorry. I know you are sincere but I could give two cents what the "Church" believes. Which church? The Catholic Church which has run the greatest pedophile ring in human history? That church? And its *heresies*. Really. Puleeeze.
Well, the above comment is wrong Reason is the way Show him these arguments and talk and walk with him If he's your good friend he might listen If he doesn't accept : it's ok your job is to just let him know
The fact people think that the fine tuning argument is debunked lmao💀 it 's literally proven in every aspect of science that these #'s are the base of input by an intelligent mind/creator. THUS GOD.
They think of the chance option They think that probability is infinitely small but they think that somehow the universe started and then a chain reaction follows Iv had quite mant friends who believed this approach and this method requires more faith than believing in a necessary being 💀
Another aspect of this was addressed by Dr. Stephen Meyer in his book, Return of the God Hypothesis. In Chapter 16, he points out that an inflationary-string multiverse (the only kind that skeptics can posit to seemingly account for the fine-tuning of our universe) - this multiverse itself must be extremely fine-tuned (in its universe-generating mechanism) in order to exist and to produce multiple universes, which are necessary in order to seemingly account for OUR universe’s fine-tuning as if it arose by random chance. However, this won’t work because the multiverse itself requires extreme fine-tuning to begin its production of universes! Therefore, whether it’s to account for the fine-tuning of our universe (Meyer, Chapters 7, 8, & 13) OR to account for the fine-tuning of a feasible multiverse (that could hypothetically account for the fine-tuning of our universe), an intelligent Fine-Tuner or Designer of at least one universe, and possibly of a multiverse, must exist! (Meyer, Chapter 16) In essence, a Creator God must exist; there are no realistic alternatives, as long as we precisely follow the details of this evidence. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to NOT follow the evidence where it leads, in terms of its details. This is one of several reasons why I, a former atheist, am now a believer in the Christian God, which makes the most sense considering all forms of evidence.
By the way… an interesting part of fine tuning is the existence of oxygen in our atmosphere. Without oxygen, we could not live. But without other life forms, there would be no free oxygen… as is the case on all the other planets
This comment is wildly inaccurate brother. Throughout the universe, oxygen is made in cosmic processes itself. You don't always need life forms to produce oxygen
@@akumpawatjr i think that you must misunderstand. No biological process ever ever somehow creates a new element. That process to create elements happens during fusion in stars. However, it can be the case that substantially all the very reactive element oxygen haS REACTED with other elements … like with carbon to form carbon dioxide or H2o. And in those reactions, you do not destroy the oxygen… but transform it into compounds that are not free oxygen…. And without free oxygen in the atmosphere, many life cannot live. The process of turning some reacted oxygen into free oxygen on earth is called the Great Oxygenation Event. … which you can study
So without other lifeforms, we couldn't live. This is already pretty obvious since our food is made from other lifeforms. The explanation is simple: obligate aerobes arose only once there was already oxygen in the atmosphere, and among those obligate aerobes, animals arose only once there were other lifeforms suitable for animals to eat. At some point, some animals started eating other animals too. I'm not arguing against the fine-tuning argument, but the fact that we couldn't live without other lifeforms is not an example of the universe being fine-tuned for the emergence and continued existence of life.
@@peterdenner3447 interesting and true… although i misses my point. The earth as it was originally “created” was a hostile world for most life… so in that sense the original creation was not fine tuned … the earth as “created” was no garden of eden as intelligent design advocates imagine it to have been.
OK, if that was your point, then yes, I missed it. While true, it seems a bit of a straw man argument as I don't think the video is advocating a literal interpretation of Genesis with the Garden of Eden and everything, but rather claiming that the universe was fine-tuned such that life would eventually arise in some part of it. In any case, if you want to show that the Genesis creation narrative isn't literal truth, you need look no further than the Bible itself. The Genesis creation narrative is a fusion of two different stories written centuries apart from each other that contradict each other and are also contradicted by a different Old Testament creation narrative where God battles sea monsters. This third Biblical creation narrative was at some point expunged from the Hebrew Bible and has unfortunately been lost, but we know it existed because it's referred to several times elsewhere in the Old Testament.
It is incredibly mind-blowing that we live on this earth. Out of this vast universe, Earth is the only planet able to sustain life. That just goes to show how great our God is!
Considering we're just starting to be able to "see" nearby exoplanets, we don't know that at all. Not only might there be many other habitable worlds out there, there might be many planets almost identical to our own.
There could be life on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn und Uranus. So how do you think, Earth is the only planet able to sustain life? Do you know all planets in the vast universe, there are trillions of trillions of them...
It's mind-blowing that life exists on a habitable planet? I thought it is an expectable thing. It would be mind-blowing to be able to live on Venus or Pluto. What happened to your logic? If you mean it's mind-blowing that the Earth is habitable, it could be, if the Earth was only one planet in the Universe, but since there are trillions of different planets in the universe with different characteristics (different mass, different distance to the star etc), then it's expectable that some portion of them would happen to have characteristics to sustain life and one of them is the Earth
I’m no mathematician but wouldn’t a “universe generator” have to keep track of its non functioning universes? Cards can randomly give you a royal flush because the universe allows for cards. But if a “universe generator” were to spit out a bunch of universes, the same astronomical probabilities would be super-remote each time. It isn’t as though the generator says, “that last universe can not allow for playing cards, so I(the generator) will move universes closer and closer to a universe that allows for playing cards. Another way of saying this is each time the generator spits out a universe, it keeps the same astronomically remote chance that that universe will not function, same as the last. It’s not building on previous information, but rather starting over each time it produces a universe thus making it so improbable that one will function that it might as well be viewed as impossible.
Your last sentence represents the position accurately. It's the same idea as having an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters. one will eventually write Shakespeare. Sure it is unlikely, and it will take trillions of universes before a life-supporting one is made, but with infinite tries, yeah, eventually one will work.
@@masonnash9396 I disagree. I don't think it will ever work. Once more, you have to have a universe that allows for monkeys in the first place. Do you see how a universe without a creator is so unlikely? You would have to have the monkeys in the first place to type Shakespeare and those numbers by themselves are astronomical, let alone the monkeys existibting in the first place. Creation is the only answer.
@@josiahserrano6651no because the premise of an infinite number of monkeys typing shakespeare implies unbounded time and space. time and space are measurable, and they are infinite in division but not in boundaries. at some point, the monkeys needs to “start” typing (or even before that, they need to start existing) because they are contingent. similarly, the machine that is making the universes needs to turn on, thus making it contingent as well. if you want to argue that the machine is necessary, then you need to accept that it is beyond time and space (since dependent things cannot depend on dependent things ad-infinitum). and it is capable of changing its own settings re: the finetuning (if we accept that chance/accidents do not exist for necessary beings, because that implies dependence). and then we must accept that it chose its current settings, so it has a will ie consciousness/intelligence. therefore it designed the universe, because it CHOSE the “settings” needed for life to be possible. thus we have now shown that the machine is actually the Creator ie God! Who is all powerful, necessary, intelligent, and designs according to His will. q.e.d. 😅 (next step to explore would be religions, if you are convinced of Gods existence, because they all claim different things on the form of God and His attributes. )
This video does a great job of supporting God's existence. It is so incredible to look at the way this Earth has been formed and see how it points to God the Creator. Praise His name!!!
A summary of the Video. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Examining the Evidence for Design The universe, composed of galaxies, stars, and atoms, operates under a set of fundamental constants and quantities. These values have been precisely calibrated to allow for the existence of life, as we understand it. Any minor alteration in these values could result in a life-prohibiting universe. This fine-tuning has prompted the question: What is the most compelling explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon? Three potential explanations have been proposed: physical necessity, chance, or design. The physical necessity argument suggests that these constants and quantities could not be otherwise. However, there is no definitive evidence to support this claim. Chance, on the other hand, is highly unlikely due to the astronomical odds against a life-permitting universe. The multiverse theory has been suggested as a means to explain the fine-tuning through chance. Nevertheless, there is no concrete scientific evidence for the existence of a multiverse. Furthermore, the universe generator itself would necessitate fine-tuning, and the most probable observable universe would be minimal and simplistic, which contradicts our observations. Analysis Given the implausibility of both physical necessity and chance, the most plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe seems to be design. This conclusion is supported by the overwhelming appearance of design in nature and the acknowledgment of notable scientists who recognize the strong evidence for a purposeful force behind the universe. For instance, the late British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle stated, "A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." The improbabilities in a finely tuned universe are vast and numerous. For example, the strength of gravity must be precisely balanced with the strength of the other forces of nature, like the electromagnetic force, or the universe would be devoid of stars or planets. The ratio between the mass of an electron and the mass of a proton must be incredibly precise, or else atoms would not be stable and life would not exist. The amount of dark energy in the universe must also be carefully balanced or else the universe would rapidly collapse or expand. And the list goes on. All of these factors must be precisely balanced for the universe to be hospitable to life. It is highly improbable that all of these factors could have come together by chance, leading many to conclude that the universe must have been designed for life. Conclusion Upon examining the evidence, the fine-tuning of the universe appears to point towards a grand design, indicating the existence of a super intellect responsible for setting the precise values of these constants and quantities. While interpretations may vary, the intricacies of the universe serve as a testament to the possibility of a purposeful force behind its creation. imreal.life/page.php?i=item&id=1232
"Furthermore, the universe generator itself would necessitate fine-tuning, ..." No, it wouldn't. Almost all of the generated universes would be barren, but if a mind-bogglingly large number of them are generated, then a tiny fraction of them will just happen to be hospitable to life without the generator being fine-tuned at all. "... and the most probable observable universe would be minimal and simplistic" It may be true that the most probable universes are minimal and simplistic. You could also argue that the most probable universes are chaotic and disordered. However, any universe that is not sufficiently complex or not sufficiently ordered for life to emerge is by definition not observable. Therefore, the only possible observable universes are sufficiently complex and ordered for life to emerge. In any case, the fact that physical phenomena follow mathematical laws that are simple enough for us to deduce many of them suggests that our universe is actually quite simplistic. I'm not saying that I favour the multiverse over fine-tuning, just that your arguments against the multiverse don't stand up. The only real argument against the multiverse is Occam's razor, but that could be used against fine-tuning too.
@@tatonemio6388 No fine tuning? Wow, your ignorance astounds me. Every person needs arguments (better yet logic) to justify a conclusion, you included. Since we use evidence, we come to conclusions. We recognize the merit of these conclusions, and display them in writing. Can I recommend a book to you?
@@commandercodyscreations6000 Instead of a book , provide a list of published scientific papers on the topic "Fine-Tuning argument for a Creator". The Universal constants don't have a range of possible values based on empirical evidence, they are constant (same value) every time they are measured. One can image the Universal Constants having different values but this is not science. Science must be based on empirical evidence. Finally, logic alone can't prove a claim is consistent with reality, you need empirical evidence.
Whatever the ultimate reality, all observers, both atheist and theist, start from being united in agreement that what we are looking at is profoundly mysteriously awe-inspring, orderly and beautiful.
@@VulpineCortex Does that mean you do not regard nature and the universe as being mysteriously awe-inspiring, orderly, and beautiful? Ho-hum and shitty, perhaps? And what has anarchism to do with it? I am one myself.
First the conditions for life-also amazing that we are positioned perfectly for it in the universe! But yes the design behind life/biology is staggering agreed! 👍
We recently lost our 9 year old son. Afterwards I had to know if God was real and so I'd been on a search and found videos like this one. Before he passed. He had a favorite verse in the Bible. I asked him why all the time and he could never give me a good answer. Just that he did. That verse was Psalm 19:1. The one at the end of this video. It's not the first time it's popped up in my search, but it hit me hard this time. So thank you. Believe what you want. But I like to think my boy was telling me I would be on this search, and that God is real. Amen.
This is known as a synchronicity and they seem built into life and reflect one really miraculous way, among many others, the Divine communicates to us. How are these "meaningful coincidences" (a song on the radio at the right time, a call, from a friend as we are thinking of them, certain animals or flowers appearing at certain key moments) arranged except by an intelligence far beyond the human intellect. I have dealt with afterlife issues quite a bit and this type of communication seems to be quite common from those that have died. This is not your imagination and God is more real than anyone here knows. I am sorry for your loss. Your son is OK .Everyone who crosses over (and no one is barred) is more than OK. But we must bear our grief.
Okay, I am thinking. Now where the f*** did all that knowledge and power come from? How do you even begin doing something like that when you yourself are not even supposed to be there? Why would anyone choose to back something up that would arise more questions than it answers? You just want to think that even the bad stuff you've had happen in your life is some part of a majestic plan that only makes sense in your own mind. I guess I'm okay with you being happy even if it is that way, I just hope people in the future don't need these kind of reality-bending tricks to be able to wake up in the morning and do something meaningful.
@@ritishify we don't have to know that; it is something we simply can't understand with our finite minds. “I don’t understand it any more than you do, but one thing I’ve learned is that you don’t have to understand things for them to be.” -Mrs. Murry, a wrinkle in time
@James Henry Smith well Christianity is dependent on Christ's resurrection (1 corinthians 15:17) whereas the Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified and did not die (surah 4:157-58) How would you reconcile this?
@James Henry Smith that doesn't answer my question, Christianity falls on its face without the resurrection whereas the Quran denies he died in the first place, it can't be reconciled
@James Henry Smith did you even read 1 corinthians 15:17? It literally states that if Christ is not risen then your still in your sins. Also in mark 10:45 Jesus himself states that he gives his life as a ransom for many proving that his death and resurrection is the foundation of Christian faith
This is for those confused about how the constants can be "tuned." Constants describe the interactions of matter with one another. Now before the big bang, there was no space, time, or matter. It's not that there was space without any energy, and there were still those fundamental constants; there was absolutely nothing at all. We know this because space, energy, and time are all connected, and they can't exist if one is missing. No time, space, or matter means the interactions didn't exist either. When the big bang exploded, energy happened to interact in an extraordinarily precise way to develop stars, planets, and life. Constants describe those interactions through numbers and equations. This is why scientists came up with the multiverse theory. If there were tons of universes, then a life-giving universe would be easy to get! But as we see in this video, the multiverse theory doesn't make sense.
Your belief that before the big bang there was nothing at all is unsupported speculation. That is a common misunderstanding of what scientists say about the big bang.
@@canwelook No, it's just reasoning. Since the universe itself is expanding (proven by Edwin Hubble), we know that at a certain point in the past, there was no space. If there was no space, there can be no energy or time, because they're interconnected. This is proved in the theory of relativity by Einstein.
@@nobody-tw3zs No. Scientists project back to a specific time after the big bang. The big bang theory does not make any claims about what happened, or what existed, prior. There are a range of potential hypotheses proposed (e.g. the big bounce), none of which come close to matching your description, and none of which conclude there was no space, or no time.
@@zachhecita No, singularities are mathematical objects, they most probably do not exist in the real world. The theory of relativity is incomplete because it does not take quantum mechanics into account. If we combine both, we will know better what happened in the time of the so-called big bang (which was neither big nor bang).
4:24 The Multiverse is entirely hypothetical and cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved... Yet you assert that it would necessarily have to be extremely fine-tuned itself? Based on what?? How can YOU all of sudden make that claim about something that you cannot detect, cannot observe, measure, quantify or prove in any way and that is completely hypothetical??? I'm not necessarily a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis at all, but it's not ruled out by anything you have said in the video so far, and this is just one of a number of flaws in your reasoning that I've encountered so far. Another example is something you said about the rate of the cosmic expansion. You said if it was too fast, no stars or galaxies would ever have formed. Then you said that if it was too slow, it would just collapse back into a singularity. BUT if it collapsed back into a singularity wouldn't all the instability from all that heat and density simply cause it to expand outward again, anyway? Perhaps it did that several million times before finally gaining enough "momentum" or whatever to enable the existence of stars, galaxies, planets and life. I don't know. I don't think you do either, and I don't think anybody else does. The people who CLAIM that they know how existence started are almost always people who are indoctrinated into a religion.
Both of your points are wrong. 1. The reason the multiverse requires tuning is because there are many more multiverses that will not allow life than those that will and simply that again requires tuning. 2. The Big Bang Again story is some form of cyclical universe, but the problem with that is that it faces the same objections as the multiverse.
@@kenandzafic3948 1. HOW do you know that about multiverses, though? They're a COMPLETE hypothetical. Seems to me like you are just taking assumptions you are making about the universe and applying them to a multiverse as well. 2. How so? If the big bang happens over and over again ad infinitum via the universe repeatedly expanding and contracting, then eventually one with the potential for life existing in it will emerge. Let's say with each expansion the universe has a 1 in 7 trillion chance of having life. That means that roughly every 7 trillion expansions there will be a chance for life. Which means, if the process is left uninterrupted, that eventually life WILL exist in the universe. But we aren't even at these hypotheticals yet. We don't know. And neither do you. When people ask questions like "what exists beyond the physical universe?" or "what caused the big bang or the singularity [EDIT: Correction. Just "what caused the singularity?" not the big bang, because the big bang was caused by the singularity!]?" they are fooling themselves. These are misconceptions that we come up with because of the way human beings think. Cosmologists aren't really asking those questions in my understanding, because they aren't even the right questions to ask.
@@wormwood822 1. I know because it is a logical fact, a universe generator can create a multiverse where all universes are similar to each other and such a multiverse will not be set up for life, only a diverse multiverse allows life and since there are much less of such than non-diverse multiverses, this is a fact which requires adjustment. 2. Wrong again, the expansion and contraction of the universe is an absurd idea. 1) It requires that the universe not fall apart 2) The question is whether it is physically possible to get a big bang during any collapse; that requires new physics. 3) It requires a huge amount of fine-tuning because the laws of physics have to be fine-tuned so that every collapse ends with a big bang and the collapse of the universe doesn't happen. 4) Many constants, if changed, the universe would be left without any atom except hydrogen, in some cases even without atoms, this explanation requires that this should not happen, which is extremely improbable. 3. The latter is the most common lie, of course cosmologists ask what is the cause of the big bang, why do you think there are a number of models that try to answer it or why the theory of quantum gravity is being developed. 4. In the end the fine-tuning argument remains valid because both chance and physical necessity are extremely implausible explanations and that leaves us with an intelligent designer.
@@kenandzafic3948 1. What is a "universe generator" and how the hell do you know ANYTHING about it? How do you know that a "universe generator" "creates" multiverses. We don't even know how THIS universe was "created", or IF it was... and you want to make all kinds of assumptions about things that we don't even have evidence for the existence of?? You're also using terms like "similar universes" and "diverse multiverse" without defining them or what they even WOULD be. What are "similar universes"? How different would they have to be from each other to qualify as "non-similar"? You're talking about this as if it's something that is well-established in science. It's NOT. It's a HYPOTHESIS with absolutely no basis in fact. We don't even know enough about our OWN universe yet. "...this is a fact which requires adjustment." No it isn't. Everything you said in paragraph 1 is literally not factual. 2. Why? HOW do you know that? 1) What does the universe "falling apart" mean? Define. 2) Why wouldn't it be? If the universe collapses back into a singularity, then it will AGAIN be extremely hot and unstable, correct? Wouldn't that cause another expansion? It's the collapsing/contracting part that I am unsure of, myself. Most scientists believe the universe will eventually just expand until it reaches heat death. What are "new physics"? Are the physics of the universe even able to be different at all? 3) This sounds a lot like circular reasoning to me. Fine tuning is necessary because fine tuning is necessary? By the way, the way I think about expansion/contraction is that perhaps the singularity was infinitesimally small, and, after heat death happens, the universe may eventually become infinitely large... which since we would be talking about infinite "largeness" and infinite "smallness" is perhaps, in some sense, the same thing. Nobody knows what number infinity is, right? It's impossible to contextualize infinity as a value or anything else, really. This is all HYPOTHETICAL though, so I'm not claiming that I know the answers, unlike theists typically do. 4) But you're assuming the constants even COULD be changed. And even if they could to some degree, who is to say that things wouldn't have just gone differently and life, or something vaguely like life, would have emerged? If atoms didn't form, maybe some other microscopic or other structures would have. Some structures or things that, in our own universe, we couldn't even begin to understand or contextualize. Further, we're here aren't we? The only thing that we can say about that, for a FACT, is that we are here. I was born in America, and I am damn lucky that I was. I could have been a tapeworm, livestock, or a single-celled life form. Or someone who was born and lived a short and painful life in a war zone in a third world country. I could have been billions - BILLIONS - of other things than the person I am. I don't take all that and conclude "therefore God". All I know from that is that I am here, and that is the limit of my knowledge and understanding in the matter. 3. That's not what I said, though. I said they don't really ask what "caused" the SINGULARITY, not the big bang. The singularity was the state the universe was in before the big bang, right? Because a cause existing "before" time itself in order to cause something doesn't make sense at all. A cause must necessarily precede whatever it causes, right? What does it MEAN for that cause to exist "before" the singularity? What I'm saying is kind of counter to how beings IN the universe think of the universe, but it's exactly why these aren't scientifically useful considerations. Not in my understanding. 4. I'm not convinced that what happened at the start of the universe could necessarily have happened any other way. Change my mind. I think Bart Ehrmen [EDIT: Might have actually been Lawrence Krauss.] said that the universe isn't fine tuned for life, but that life is fine tuned TO the universe. This makes sense when you take into account a lot of what I said previously in this post.
@@wormwood822 1. Anything produced the multiverse, and if you're going to say it doesn't exist, then every additional university would be an additional assumption, which would be the biggest violation of Occam's Razor. 2. How do I know anything about it, I don't know, because physically we don't even know if such a thing is even possible, which is a problem with the multiverse, but I was talking more about metaphysicians. 3. It is very clear what similar universities are, universities that have very similar constants, define it however you want, it doesn't even matter; what is important is that such multiverses are possible with regard to current physics and even if they are not they are still metaphysically possible and the problem of fine tuning would then go to legal physics. 3.Also the origin of the universe is just a red herring as it has nothing to do with my points. 4. All my criticisms of the multiverse are justified. 1) Speculative is unverifiable. 2) It predicts things that are wrong like Boltzmann's brain and it is a scientific fact. 3) It does not solve the problem because the multiverse itself has to be adjusted and it is a metaphysical fact that again has nothing to do with science, science cannot talk about metaphysics because of its many limitations. 5.Yes it is unless you want to say that other multiverses are metaphysically impossible which is a strong claim and you will have to provide good evidence to back it up. 6. It means that the atoms are disintegrating and in the end only hydrogen will remain or even it will disintegrate. 7. These are assumptions that you have not substantiated if the universe collapses again, what will happen, ask God, because there are different constants of physics, which means that the laws of physics must be so adjusted to ensure, first, that the universe does not begin to expand rapidly in any cycle, and second, that at exactly every collapse is followed by a new big bang that is so ad hoc that I am speechless. 8. No, that's not circular reasoning, where did you get such nonsense from? I have explained in detail why the cyclical model has no potential to respond to fine-tuning. 9. Theists don't claim to know the answers to everything, that's a simple lie, and cosmologists generally don't take this Penrose model seriously because it requires new physics, not to mention that it doesn't solve the fine-tuning problem again. 10. Error after error, I gave several arguments why physical necessity is absurd since you didn't disprove them you were free to ignore the story of necessity. Also a universe that is not tuned will not have any chemical reactions because we will only have hydrogen and this universe has about 60 chemical reactions so the emergence of some super life is literally magic, also life requires enormous complexity the universe without chemical reactions will be extremely simple so you have a huge proof to justify that such a magical physical possibility. 11. Neto is a bad definition of the cause, the cause must causally precede the effect and not necessarily temporally. No one claims that the cause exists before time, as those who clearly do not understand the Kalam cosmological argument claim. 12. I don't know who said it but whoever said it is stupid because the universe is obviously fine-tuned for life considering the fact that there are far more universities that will not allow life than those that will.
This video is just making the pieces fit so that believers can justify that there is this marvellous “god”. But if everything has a maker then who made this “god” and fine tuned him? Who knows if out in far off space there is a planet system with different mathematics. There are over 3000 gods that are worshiped in the world but Christians are so arrogant that they are convinced that theirs is the right one. And probably the other worshippers of gods also think theirs is the true one too. Nature is not perfect, there are many physical flaws in the human body, e.g. Down’s Syndrome, which gives the person an extra chromosome, and cancer which can destroy the body before old age. So the universe and all that’s in it is not perfect. If there was a god of love can you really believe they would put their son through torture? NO. Ask any parent. Religion is just there to keep the masses in order, especially women, but the masses are getting wise to it and realising what brainwashing crap it all is. I don’t know how life and the universe began and I guess we will never know, but to twist things so that they fit your particular religion is laughable. Religion is just lawful madness. You don’t need to make fun of it, it does it all by itself. If there is a “true” god then what a c*** he must be.
Pacemakers fail to work properly sometimes, and that’s how I know that they are not manufactured by anyone. It’s also how I know that people who invented them are not as moral as I am . I’m smart.
God is absolutely incredible his wisdom and power of creation is beyond outstanding. Words could never come close to sum of his magnificence. Jesus is truly almighty
@@VietRezethis is always your explanation. If i see a watch i come to the conclusion that that watch was crafted by a designer, a genius behind it. Is that "designer of the gap" and would you say, that that watch couldve been come by - by chance?
You are using the black and white fallacy because you are leaving out the third option which is the only valid one, that the universe is fine-tuned for both black holes and life.
@@kenandzafic3948 seriously? The vacuum of space which comprises 99.99 % of all space is fine tuned for life? Even most of earth is not fine tuned for life , just parts of the surface. rofl
@@anyone9689 This is a terrible argument because it treats fine-tuning as if the universe should only have life, but God's goal was never to create only life but a vast universe with life so the objection doesn't make sense and also the argument still stands.
@@kenandzafic3948 seriously? How do you know what gods goal was ???? How do you blatantly assert things you cannot know?uhm, I addressed the classic arguement that the universe is fine tuned for life , that's the one everyone makes , nice goalpost shift , not. How do you know ? ???? How do you know gods goal? How? Roflmao, you are very funny tho .smh
A fantastic video for explaining the basic argument, but some concerns/inaccuracies to be aware of: 1. Emotive quotes from carefully selected scientists, some rogue ones (e.g. Fred Hoyle) don't by themselves demonstrate anything. WLC often uses this approach, but it's no substitute for reasons and argument 2. Emotive music and cool images of space don't prove the argument, or contribute to this, they just might make you think it's true (misleadingly) 3. Scientists don't believe anything like the 'universe generator' exists as the video states; this is a gross misrepresentation of the multiverse hypothesis. And there are many multiverse hypotheses, not just one, that scientists find useful and plausible 4. The claim that the most simple universe contains an observer is unjustified and plainly implausible; at least, it needs support, and can't be used to dismiss the multiverse hypothesis 5. The multiverse hypothesis doesn't enjoy any empirical support, but neither does the God hypothesis (at least, some needs to be provided for the argument to work) 6. King David was not a physicist and his psalms (if they are his) have no bearing on this argument 7. Scientists in general think, like Paul Davies, that fine-tuning makes the universe 'seem' designed, but this is very different from saying that it 'was' designed, and most scientists are perfectly happy with the multiverse, or just witholding judgment until more evidence is in. Most do not draw the God conclusion. In summary: an interesting argument and a great, well-animated portrayal of it; but presenting a weak and sometimes misleading case for God
Good critiques! I don't think this video is meant to be a "sound" argument. To me It's more about statistical implications. It's true that the multiverse theory was a bit misrepresented. I think in this context, the multiverse theory is an attempt to show that probability increases over time and number of attempts. And of course we would only be able to observe a successful attempt at rolling the "life dice", but given infinite time and iterations it COULD be more likely than we think. The problem is that Infinity is a purely mathematical concept. "Actual Infinity" has never been observed, but intelligent design HAS been observed (within us who are "created in God's image"🤔). IMO This is mostly just to beg the question of "who's the real crazy person?" Is it someone claiming intelligent design or someone claiming infinite universes? I particularly like this argument (although it's not sound) because from my experience, atheists kind of walk around on this high horse like everyone else just believes in Santa Claus and needs to grow up 😅
@@Slycoop Nice - agreed. The real question might be 'who's the real crazy person?' or alternatively, 'which is the most sensible, simple hypothesis?'. The video doesn't address this but I think its the heart of the argument. Both God and Multiverse have a claim on simplicity depending on how it is defined - simplicity of kind (multiverse) or simplicity of number (God). Because we are happy postulating billions of entities of the same kind already (e.g fundamental particles) I would err towards multiverse winning this one. But there are interesting arguments on both sides.
One of your crtiques being the production of the video, is really a reach. Along with many of these "critiques". Believe in your nothingness ig, but don't feel an obligation to make a comment on every God supporting youtube video you come across.
Excellent video. How about following up with a more detailed examination of the fine-tuned universe? Get specific with more of the constants, show why stars are necessary for life, and examine the function of complexity in this Creation. There's sooo much more to unveil here. Can't you revisit this fascinating question??? It's surely the most compelling modern argument in favor of the existence of God.
they seem to not have been static in the first nanoseconds of the universe they _had_ to be non static for the big bang not to just end up being a big _black hole_ then they settled on life-permitting numbers the "how" is anyone's guess. god may know something about it tho
What Bible are you reading, Dr. Craig? Mine says God created the universe of stars on the fourth day of His six days of creation. What is this "early universe" you speak of? I can't find it in my Bible.
Here's a very detailed video that explains how evolution can be reconciled with the bible ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-o-YBDTqX_ZU.html
@@griffinguy6905 - Says who? It's God's Word. Do you think He was joking? When you are brought before God, will you tell Him you thought He was just kidding?
It is almost the same like if you told to a person from the Middle Ages that there are billions of earths (planets) out there. Most of them are lifeless and we are living on the rare type that has conditions for life. Considering that everything that we can see on the sky is just the Sun, the Moon and stars, he is wondering how did you even come up with this idea
This doesn't seem sound to me. If someone told me "I'm very improbable, the exact atoms that make me just happen to make me, since I'm improbable I should believe this was intentional" I would disagree. The improbable occurring doesn't mean there's a spooky underpinning, but ok maybe I will entertain this. The video doesn't even actually show the improbability and is using science to conclude that which science isn't capable of concluding. Unless you're going to undermine logic in your science and in turn your own claims, you'll have to acknowledge things like uncaused causes or infinity aren't fully comprehensible, yet you're dealing with these when you use cosmology to 'prove god'.Imagine the universe were infinite for example. How could you solidify the physical constants as absolute metaphysical truth? You couldn't, and so even the concept of infinity seems to reinforce the significant part of what you tried to refute with your argument against the multiverse machine. And you didn't even actually refute necessity because your reasoning is a tautology. Making the statement effectively "The laws of nature aren't determined by the laws of nature" Lol. Seems like the writer made a quick but significant error here. Either way, you gave me a great idea! I won't accept something that can not be detected, observed, measured, or proved. Also just to finish, this comment isn't me being dishonest, and I don't mean to come off as rude or sarcastic.
@@itzyourmom2646 You said you will not accept something that cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved." This means you don't accept dark energy/matter, I suppose?
@@123duelist Unless I'm mistaken, dark energy and matter are a strong hypothesis that explain measured phenomena based on the way energy behaves, so it should be the consensus that what dark matter is explaining is legitimate, but they aren't sure there's a type of energy called dark matter/energy. In any case if you just look at what the scientific method is, you make falsifiable hypotheses and try to disprove them. So your answer is if you take dark matter to be a blanket term for the unknown I hold it to be legitimate, if you make any specific claims about the properties of dark matter or energy then I'm not sure. Trying to equate god with something like dark matter wouldn't seem very epistemically humble, since there's a difference between knowing that the current consensus doesn't explain everything and proposing that there might be an energy/matter based presumably on observations about how energy/matter work and making a deep and strong metaphysical claim about reality because you don't know how truths came to be. I'll grant you something like "if we 'have knowledge' that this universe is the only chance of sentience and we 'have knowledge' that consciousness/sentience is extraordinarily unlikely to occur, then that's something to take in to account when considering creationism"
To me, the Boltzmann Brain is the strongest argument that refutes the possibility of fine tuning by chance. Even if we were part of a multiverse, the odds would be that we would observe a small universe, no larger than our solar system, with less complexity and order than we currently observe.
I never understood the argument that the universe is exactly what it is. Everything is exactly what it is to the utmost precision. What do the long detailed descriptions that if anything were different in the universe the whole thing would be different prove? Should I be impressed that my height is not bigger or smaller than what it is, even a millimetre? The opposite would be impressive. If something was other than what it is.
Islam ain't even close to the truth about the universe. Islam is easily rule out of this because in Islam animals are holding up the universe. Whoever believe that is just as stupid as the person who first came up with that idea. If that's the case I rather believe Hercules was holding up the heaven.
Atheism: the belief that an infinite universe has no creator or purpose, while a 10 cents pencil has a creator and a purpose. Quran 21:30 “Do the non-believers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one mass, and then we clove them asunder, and made from water all living things.” Quran 67:3-4, 51:47 “You will not see any inconsistency in the creation of ˹God˺ the merciful. So turn your vision again ˹to the heavens˺: Do you see any rifts? Then look again, and again-your eyes will return to you humbled and perplexed." “Indeed We have built the sky with might, and it is We who are expanding it.” Quran 41:11-12 "Then He turned to the heaven when it was all smoke˹gas˺. He said to the heaven and the earth: “Come ˹into being˺, willingly or unwillingly..." And He completed them as seven heavens... and inspired in each heaven its command. And We adorned the nearest heaven with lamps [i.e, stars, for beauty] and as protection. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing." Science says: "About 300,000 years after the big bang, the universe was like a smoke-filled chamber... By the time the universe was a billion years old, the smoke had cleared almost entirely, allowing stars and galaxies to become visible." How can a 1400 year old book talk about the big bang, gaseous state of the early universe, life's origin from water, expansion of the universe, etc? Is it not impressive 🤔 I invite you to open your mind and heart and read the Quran :) Quran prophesizes its own preservation 15:9 "It is We Who have revealed it and it is indeed We Who are its guardians" - the Quran is the only book known to be preserved and memorized by millions from the time of its revelation until now (scrolls dating to the time of the Prophet match the current book, but all other religious texts have been corrupted(edited) - Quran 112:1-4 "Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is nothing comparable to Him." Quran 2:255 “God! There is no god but He, the ever-living, all-sustaining. No slumber nor sleep seizes Him. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth. Who can possibly intercede with Him without His permission? He ˹fully˺ knows ˹everything presently˺ ahead of them and what is before them, but no one can encompass any of His knowledge-except what He wills ˹to reveal˺. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation fatigues Him not. For He is the Most High, the Supreme ˹in glory˺.” - 6426
@James Henry Smith religion is superstition. Evolution is fact proven through science and technology. Keep telling yourself you’re not an animal every time you squat down to poop
So life has adapted to the conditions which prevail and prevailed in the past. Rejoice in the beauty of the ability of life. The adaptability of life needs no god and the fact that life exists does not prove a god or gods. You need to try harder. Dunning Kruger at its best.
The whole point about all the fundamental constants of the universe being specific (and thus most of this video) is kinda invalid because it mainly arises as such due to the lack of a quantum theory of gravity. If we take sting theory, which is possibly the best hypothesis for this unification, only 2 (I believe) constants need to be fixed for the rest of the laws of nature to be derived. This makes for a much stronger argument that the universe is as it is due to chance, as the variables have exponentially decreased. Also, this argument of 'its a really low chance' is also rather invalid as we only have a sample size of 1 universe, and we can only comprehend this universe as we are complex beings. What I'm getting at is that we don't know all the science yet about why the constants are the values they are, but that doesn't mean that everything was fine tuned. A perfect example is that Newton thought that gravity was this force that comes seemingly from nowhere and makes everything attract everything else. It took Einstein to come along and discover that it was actually the curvature of spacetime itself that created the illusion of gravity as a downwards acting force. Initially, we thought something was fine tuned, but later we did more science and can explain it without saying its designed specifically that way. Sorry for rambling, no hate is meant, all peace and love
Thanks for the comment. First, it's not clear that with a quantum theory of gravity, the constants and quantities would no longer be independent. A unified theory would bring the values into a single theoretical framework, but that's wholly consistent with there still being independent values. Second, the hypothesis that a quantum theory of gravity *might* unify the constants and quantities is to admit that the current evidence is in favor of independent values. In other words, to reject the argument on those grounds is to argue from a science-of-the-gaps. We can say that the science is provisional so that new evidence might cause us to update our confidence in the truth of premises, but we cannot say that the current evidence is in favor of a reduction of values. Unless new evidence comes to light, one may rationally affirm that design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning we observe. Third, the fact that we only have one universe as a sample size doesn't prevent us from doing theoretical physics which allows us to infer what the universe would have been like had the constants and quantities been different. This is the same theoretical physics which allowed for the hypothesis and discovery of the Higgs boson. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I feel like you're missing my point about the single universe sample size. What I'm saying is that we can speculate about probabilities of constants being slightly out of proportion, but we have no idea if our universe is the first, five hundredth or only universe to come into existence. I'm not talking about the multiverse, but rather theories such as conformal cyclic cosmology and the idea of creating a stable universe from nothing. However, on the topic of the multiverse I do feel that this video does misrepresent the hypothesis. The idea of a "multiverse maker" does make the argument seem silly, but it is a quite untrue statement. Theoretical physicists use ideas such as eternal inflation to explain how a multiverse is formed, and also the famous Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment adequately provides the "many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics" without the need for a "universe maker". Not only does this make the "chance" argument in your video much more plausible than an intelligent design, but if we consider that the multiverse is infinite, then any non zero probability has a probability of 1. In other words it is certain. Therefore, with the multiverse hypothesis, there will be an infinite number of universes with any and all values for the constants. Furthermore, this does not even take into account the infinite nature of our own universe. Many physicists speculate about the false resting state of the Highs field. In essence, this states that perhaps the Higgs field is not at it's minimum energy states like other quantum fields (forgive me I cannot remember off the top of my head the exact science behind this thinking). If the Higgs field's energy were to fall to a true lowest energy state in one part of our observable universe, if would completely break down all fundamental physics and prohibit life, but only in that area of our universe. Essentially, what this would cause is a ripple effect that would spread from the point of the Higgs field's energy dropping outwards at the speed of light, but depending on how far away we are from the point of drop, we could still be alive for many millions of years, or potentially forever due to the expansion of the universe. What I'm getting at is that even if we disregard the multiverse, the constants can be different in different parts of our own universe, but due to the fixed speed of light we can still live in our universe because the region of affected space has not rippled out to us yet. In turn, when we consider the infinite nature of our own universe, no matter what probabilities we have for the "fine tuning" of the universe, it is certain that there will be a region of space that can be inhabited.
If many universes have “come into existence” why assume that they would have varying constants? You’ve just made the problem worse; now universes are popping up without a creator, but with physical laws and properties being determined at random? By what?
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?
To me, this means close to nothing. Mainly because I'm no physicist/mathematician, but also because... it could just have been an accident. There is still a possibility that this would happen spontaneously and if the math is right then it did happen, we are living proof of it. To me, it is unlikely, but as the word implies, not impossible. This is still better than believing in a god because that's even less likely if measured by the same magnitudes. Why ask "why"? You are just not comfortable with the idea that living or not, the universe would make the same sense to itself. If you can't accept that it was by chance then you will naturally look for a designer or a necessity for life, which again, the universe doesn't need. We could destroy the whole planet so that it wouldn't host life anymore and the universe wouldn't care less. Whereas believers will say that someone does care about us, what they don't realize is that it's themselves. That's why you can say that god lives in you bc it's all in your head although I'm quite sure that even this simplistic view can push the idea that that's what the devil wants you to think and end up in the same place. At this point, I would agree more that this is a simulation rather than a divine creation (meanwhile I just rely on regular physics). There's nothing divine about anything but very well fabricated story-telling. Seriously whoever thought of religion in its makings as what it is today was a genius and almost like an entrepreneur.
@@kramsdrawde8159 right there you are denying it again for literally no reason! Why "no chance it is chance"? That's denying the actual fact that there are chances that it happened just by chance. Btw I felt weird using the word "chance" so much but this is how I managed to make my point, I'll edit it if it's not clear enough.
@@kramsdrawde8159 and calling something "stupid" is not a good argument. That's one of the few things I would actually qualify as stupid. Not adding anything to the debate/discussion.
consider you have a coin, what are the odds of having 100 tails in a row? very small. but if you keep trying for millions of flips, it will finally happen. same with the universe. there has been unlimited time for such a low probability incident to happen. so if you can try unlimited times it will finally happen. basically anything which has a potential to exist will finally exist, no matter what the chances are.
If the Universe is "fine tuned" for life why is it that if you were to be randomly placed in it there is a 99.9999% chance you would be dead in seconds?
You're misunderstanding the issue. The constants, at the values we observe them, are the only reason why matter can even hold itself together... It's millions of variables aligned in just the right way so as to make an observable universe even possible. That the haven for organic life in this universe is comparatively tiny is irrelevant. The fact that it's possible at all is the insane part
Bc this universe is cursed by sin. Sin's wages is death. Why would we assume we are worthy of life? When we abuse it so much by sin? All who sins deserves death. We are not even worthy of this planet. But God has given us .00001 chance to live here, even while sinning everyday. Yet God is patiently gracious to let us live every second, minute, hour, days of our lives.
@@melvincarter9640 The point is, if there is a god, why he build the universe, he could build a disc with water, plants, animals, humans and that's it. Why 99,9999999% was build too? The fact, that we live in that small area indicats, that we evolved here, because we fitted in here and not the other way round.
@@hjs6102 that sounds so stupid, ain't nothing you said prove that God didn't create the universe. The fact that we live in that small area indicates that we evolved here because we fit does not tell us nothing. Evolution can't tell us how life even started in the first place.
أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُون ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? - and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe 21:30
We know there is a god by reasonable consideration of the evidence all around us, while we know God by not only that but also His Word and Holy Spirit! (General & Special revelation)
Quran (25:02) He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and who has not taken a son and has not had a partner in dominion and has created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination.
Necessity sounds foolish, if there is no Mind behind it. It directly points to a mind seeing laws as being necessary. The fact that everything is fine tuned speaks of purpose. Get over it, get saved in time.
Finetuning is not a fact. Believers say this and misquote scientists for it. For example, Hawkins was quoted in the video, but he has very clearly said, that there is no hint for a designer in the physics and mathematics. There are many counterarguments. Only a short summary: 1. We don't know if the constants can be different. So it is pure speculation. 2. If they can be variable, we don't know in which way, continously or discret. So there is no way of calculting a possibility. 3. If you change more then one constant you may get another stable universe which is able to upbring a form of life. 4. All depends how you define possibility. MAthematically it is very important, what the question ist. If you wan't to win the next lottery, it is not likely, that you will. But it is very likely, that someone will win. But the chances of the winenr were the same as yours. So the question is, is the outcome someting you define as special or not. You dont't care who won, if it is not you. So we are the lucky winnrs, but all other possibilities are the unlucky loosers. The winner of the lottery can not claim a miracle, because all other personens would not buy it. 5. That leads to the question, why do we focus on life in teh universe? Because we define us as alife, only taht makes it special, but only for us. The stars do not care about, if there is life in their system sor not. So it is a subjekctiv argument, chauvinitic. 6. There could be other universes, without life or with other forms of life (Multiversum). 7. The universe itself is timeless, it has no beginning, so there is no creation. The "Big Bang" is only a special ära within the universe, but not the beginning. Time exists not outside the universe.
@@outofthebox7 No, it just appears to be fine-tuned. Whether it is tuned, we do not know. The question is, what is the cause and what is the effect. Of course, the conditions have to fit for us, otherwise we wouldn't be there. This is true for everything. Mold can also only exist if the conditions are right. But that doesn't mean that if your food starts to mold because you have intentionally created the conditions, it can also have been negligence or coincidence.
@@hjs6102 No. You say it yourself "because you have intentionally created the conditions.." Mold growing is something due to it rotting so something else take its place. e.g. another fruit growing; fruits are not eternal.... It's also a warning not to eat it. This is fine tuning programming serving purposes for our life. You say "Of course, the conditions have to fit for us, otherwise we wouldn't be there." Do you know what the numbers of those conditions are for so many factors all serving our ability to think, communicate, survive, live, procreate, love, create, etc.??? -Last word. you are lying to yourself or demons are lying to you. Take it or leave it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-omY5g_iauT0.html If you don't want to believe your eyes or your conscience, how are you going to believe me or any scientists? No point in discussing.
You got to hand it to this guy, he takes a simple concept, messes it up and then makes his erroneous claims. Oh well, I guess he makes a living selling people what they want to buy
What a stupid comment with no argument. Tell me about this simple concept, you seem to know a lot about it! Please also let me know which claims he made was erroneous. Thanks in advance!
@@AleInBywater That is an amazing response he has provided. You convinced yet by that deafening silence? It is a wonder someone being so unwilling to respond to absolutely predictable questions doesn't just delete his comment.
When i link this argument and after self review on random creation and after reading my own root vedic philosophy from authentic sources than i finally leave Atheisam. Sorry for mocking and trolling Ishwar😢 Now my life is going good 😊 Be happy friends
I would be hesitant to hedge my arguments on current scientific models. Every scientific theory has a half-life at which place it is replaced with something else, so it could simply be that there is information we don't know yet that could show necessity or the multiverse hypothesis as plausible explanations, making design no more or less likely than the other explanations.
Does God care about the mass of an electron? I don't understand why God would make a universe like this one? I mean , is this the best God can do? I'd say I'm not impressed with his work.
Are you saying you don't look at the stars in awe? Are you saying that when you are on a mountain top and behold the beauty laid out in front of you, you are unimpressed? Are you saying that when you look at the finely tuned cellular machine and all its incredible parts that we are only beginning to understand, your mind isn't blown?
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.
Ok good video but for those who are in favor or even against God there are two important laws that nobody seems to mention and everyone is ignoring and those are the ones mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40 : You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind, and the second law is: You must love your neighbor as yourself. These are also universal moral laws we've all been breaking and ignoring for centuries with what results? Oh very simple, the wicked and agitated world we live in, the Bible says in Galatians 6:7: Do not be misled, God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap; and how true is that! we humans have been sowing hatred, envy, lust, hubris, greed, desire of power, immorality and the list goes on, for centuries with what results? well now we are reaping the result of the sowing, a complete world in constant turmoil, war, agitation, global disasters , you name it. so in conclusion the violation of those two fundamental moral laws have been catastrophic proof or evidence enough of existence of a superior mind who should be in charge of humans affairs. As Jesus stated in Matthew 6:10 oh Father let your Kingdom come. let your will take place as in heaven , also on earth.
Physical necessity faced serious objections. First, there is no proof that constants are necessary because they are separate from the laws of physics. Secondly, the hypothesis itself is extremely improbable because a universe that does not allow life is not impossible but far more likely, for example if I were to say that dinosaurs did not exist but fossils were physically necessary it would be absurd because it is obvious that they could be different. Furthermore M theory allows for as many as 10^500 different universes so that even the best candidates for a theory of everything do not support physical necessity.
This video has it backwards. Life evolved based on the existing parameters of the universe. Whenever a mutation occurred where the life wasn't fine tuned to the universe is simply died and didn't reproduce. This can be observed on the earth. The values are not consistent accross the planet. We have oceans, deserts, ect. Fish can't live in the sand. Trees don't live in the bottom of the ocean. Life is fine tuned to its habitat.
I'm not sure if this is a parody. The argument against chance is a straw man if I ever saw one. And personal incredulity is not an argument. No one is saying that something is creating universes. That's the whole point. Anyway the fact is that we can only consider these things and ask these questions because we are here. The fact that life exists is not an argument for the existence of a god.
That would be to confuse the ontology of God with the thoughts of God. As an unembodied mind, God's ontology is quite simple. But, of course, being omniscient, God's thoughts can be quite complex. Why is God the way that he is? It is because he is a necessarily existing maximally great being. You might then ask, "Well, why can't the universe be like that?" The simple answer is that a universe is not the kind of thing that can exist necessarily, nor can it be a maximally great being. Something which exists necessarily cannot have a beginning. The universe had a beginning. It follows that the universe does not exist necessarily. If it does not exist necessarily, then it was possible for it to not have existed. A maximally great being cannot possibly not exist. So, the universe is also not a maximally great being. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos you: "The universe had a beginning" Can you prove this claim empirically? I don't think so. Your whole argument is based on an unscientific claim. you: "he is a necessarily existing maximally great being. " The fact you imagine a God define as such doesn't make it real, doesn't? It would be more honest to say: "If God exists he is a necessarily existing maximally great being" still you have to bring some sound argument to support the claim "God exist".
@@emyljenish3540 From a scientific point of view having an "explanation" not rooted in empirical evidence is useless and irrelevant. And the current Cosmology doesn't claim the "universe just happened to come out of nowhere 14 billion years ago". Try harder. you: "all the constants precise enough for life to eventually form." This is fallacious reasoning: you assumed the constant can have different values, just present evidence this is the case. If you can't prove the constants can have different values, your whole reasoning is flawed. This universe "as is" allows life to exist but life is not the reason the value of constants is what it is. It's like you need an explanation why a specific person won the lottery and/or claiming the winning numbers are precise enough to make a specific person to win which are both absurd.
Hi Mike. The strongest argument for God is that if anything exists something must have existed eternally because if ever there was nothing, then nothing would be. Any eternal thing has power of life within itself. Case closed.
No, the misunderstanding comes from a misunderstanding about the nature of time. Space and time cannot be separated from each other, they are the same, only shifted by a special metric, they are space-time. So without space there is no time. The universe itself is spaceless and timeless. Space and time are components of the universe and not independent of it. So the universe has no beginning, it is eternal, no need for a god. The big bang is only a period of time or more precisely a region in the space-time of the universe. Scientists call the Big Bang a beginning only for populist reasons, the real explanation is much more complicated and nobody would buy popular books if they tried to explain it correctly in them, because you need very deep knowledge in mathematics and physics to understand it. What scientists express publicly is like a black and white picture of the colored reality. There is no change from nothing to something, because time is not fundamental.
