วีดีโอ

*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human life and consciousness on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: Oxygen level • On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere • That precise figure is an Anthropic constant that make life in earth possible. • If oxygen were 25 percent fire would erept spontaneously • If it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate Carbon dioxide level • If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop, and we would all burnt up • If the level was lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis, and we would all suffocate _fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_ For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_

Good evening Myk. You are Little bit sinic. The irony is expecting a predigesse result it's like going diner to your Mother and law , in sunday like every sunday. But that sunday when you just arrived she jump on you and grab you saying how mutch she love you and whow she is so lucky to have you in here Life. Some Time you have to whait to,. Whait because you control nothing, it's not because it's your time today that you Gona have the result you whant or need may be. No one control Nature. Thus no one should expect nothing in time. Sincères amitiés

Greetings Geo, from Theo, (a) That science does not "bother" with theology does not make the latter futile, only, at best, irrelevant to doing science. So what? The rules of snakes and ladders are irrelevant when playing chess but both are still legitimate activities. On the whole I think that complaining about theology because it isn't science is about as bright as complaining about ballet because it isn't football. ("Those darned ballerinas don't even try to score goals.") Science and Theology are in very different playing fields. (b) I would urge a little more caution about basing scientific method so exclusively on Popper. There are issues with his simplistic doctrine of falsification, as philosophers of science will tell you. Though you don't overtly say otherwise, it is, perhaps, also worth noting here that Popper was insistent that falsification demarcated science from non-science, not science from nonsense. (c) Theology is not based on NOTHING! It's based on the very opposite of nothing, i.e., SOMETHING! It is rational discourse about what people have taken to be God. If you have some alternative account of what folk call 'God', that would itself be to engage in Theology. Cheers, Theo

@@theophilus749 Right, theology is not nothing. It's crap, empty.

@@theophilus749 "If you have some alternative account of what folk call 'God', that would itself be to engage in Theology." There simply is NONE!

@@GeoCoppens Thanks for reminding us that the village atheist and the village idiot are often one and the same.

@@JHarder1000 ‘There is no greater joy than to be taken for an idiot by an imbecile.’ Oscar Wilde

They’re actually not. The problem is that ID is actually philosophy pretending to be science. All of their experiments have failed.

No intelligent design is _very_ easy to refute but don't take that on faith (why take anything on faith when anything could be?) *See* how we can know this for sure here: th-cam.com/video/cO1a1Ek-HD0/w-d-xo.html

“Better for them to deny the mind--and with it rationality, truth, and science itself--than to admit the soul. Once again, the secularist manifests the very dogmatism of which he accuses the religious believer, and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no religious believer has ever dreamed.” (Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism). “Many philosophers [like Daniel Dennett] think the self is unreal because you cannot see it in the brain. They say this is not a failure of neuroscience, it’s simply evidence that the self is an illusion. But those that argue that the self is an illusion have to explain how we have arrived at that illusion. It requires an awful lot of self to argue for the illusion of the self” (Raymond Tallis). According to the physicist William Bragg.. “Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1915).