Being with such savvy scholars in such sumptuous surroundings was an experience too lavish to replicate. Indeed, my intellectual life is fine-tuned for happiness! Thanks to Peter and the Hoover Institution for hosting this big bang of a conversation!
Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine Analogies (Observation) and the reason Mankind will always believe in "the gods" or an Unnatural intelligence. The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explain Natural phenomena (Functions) relying on fixed Laws of Nature (functions) is simply: 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Test & Predict 4. Conclude 5. Refine ( only if valid). Universal Functions easily passes the Scientific Method and proves space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy are Natural Functions with clear purpose, rules, design (Information) that can only come from the Mind of a ..... single, multidimensinal,, timeless, infinite, nonphysical Unnatural Intelligence with freewill & nature.\ Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Bang, Inflation, Emergence, etc ... fail to pass the scientific Method but have been accept since the mid 1800's as valid, true & facts of existence. There is no evidence Nature & natural processes can make & enforce rules & laws, set moral & ethical standards, gives meaning, & value to data & information, has freewill to think & do good or evil, and make, operate & improve a Function with clear purpose, rules, design (Information). Mankind will always believe in "the gods" because Man is a Natural Intelligence with an INTELLECT living in a world & Universe where EVERYTHING including Man's body ... is a Function with clear purpose, rules, processes, design. Universal Functions is the Theory of Everything . Quantum particles, atoms, molecules, elements .... space, time, laws of nature, matter, energy .... letters, numbers, symbols, words, sentences, paragraphs, paper, pen, ink, book, desk, chair, table, chalk, borad, room, window, door, glass, building, school, Library, Science are all Functions ... with clear purpose, rules, design (information) that can only "originate" from the Mind of an Intelligenc.e Classical Physics,, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, .... Calculus, Algebra, Geometry .... are Functions designed by a Natural Intelligence ....are all about explaining Man understanding interacting Functions. Universal Functions ... through the Function, Intelligence, Mind & information Categories ...proves the existence of the Unnatural & the Mind of any Intelligence has to be Unnatural (spirit). Therefore the Mind of Natural Intelligence (Man) has to be Natural (body) & unnatural (soul) with both being Functions designed by ... God of the Bible ... to give Man freewill, nature, intellect, memory, senses, feelings, & consciousness of the Natural then Unnatural. Science only supports God creating Man in His image with a body & soul ... for a reason/purpose. Atheism is a religion that believes in Nature & natural processes ... doing the unnatural. And Atheism began in the 1800's .... in Europe .... after the French Revolution which was against God, Bible & Church. All Empires before the French Revolution ... believed in "the gods" because everything clearly has purpose, rules, design. Only in the 20th Century did we get the first Atheist Empires (Communism, Nazis). that believe in Evolution and survival of the fittest. You religion is is false. Science only proves God of the Bible ....created everything ... for a reason/purpose. Christians developed the Sciences we have today not Atheists, Muslims, HIndus and are still the majority of Nobel Prize winners. Christians developed the free civilized world where the People are created Equal by God with inalienable rights including Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness. And only Pagans & Humanist Liberals ... have freely rejected God of the Bible ....caring only about Me, myself & I ...and infringing & violating the inalienable rights of every Human Being from the Bible. It's "In God we trust" not racist, sexist Liberal white Men & hypocrite Christians from Virginia named Thomas Jefferson & James Madison. Man has freewill ... to follow & obey God (Bible) or Man (ways, will, nature, ideologies_). So before the Science Revolution ... God was proved by fulfilled prophesies from the Bible or eyewitness accounts of "acts of God." And it was only in the 1800's as science was still being refined into a "Method" to acquire information & knowledge that Atheists from Europe started and corrupted the Sciences with the fairy tales of a Natural origin of the Universe & Life billions of years ago not less than 6000. And the greatest & most influential Man of all time ..... is a Jew ..... from Judea (Israel) under pagan Roman occupation who said He is the promised Messiah from the Torah ... and ... the Only begotten Son of God from the Torah. As prophesied the Messiah was rejected by the Jews who would be cursed by God for 2 x 1000 years for their sin, will die 40 years before the Temple is destroyed ... and ... will return 2 x 1000 years later in the year 6 x 1000 to rule the Earth for 1 x 1000 years. This is why God had a 6 day creation & the 7th day belongs to Him. The Son of God was the Angel of God in Genesis & Exodus .. who created Man in His image with a body & soul ... for a reason. God always knew Adam & Evei will sin, bring death to all of Mankind ...and how long it will take to save anybody of Believes ... from God's just nature to punish sin (breaking God's law) with death (body & soul). This has always been about freewill ... and to follow & obey God (Life) or Man (death). The science & bible ... only supports God (Father, Son, Spirit).
I heard what you said Brian towards the end…but you have to think….why are we here in the long run….nothing makes nothing….remember your buddy’s Stephen Meyers and Jim Tour! Still love listening to you’re discussion!❤
Thank you for these videos in general... They have intellectual AND entertainment value. It always puts a smile on my face to see Peter Robinson's intro and hear his voice. It's comforting in the way a hot chocolate is in the dead of winter.
Interesting! I yearn for conversations like this. It gets my brain going. I used to spend hours figuring out how to write a piece of software and this got my mind into that mode again. I have been retired for 4 years so there was some smoke. God Bless and keep them coming!
Yes writing code is a creative endeavor which eats up lots energy. Which leads me to look at this discussion differently than the theological view. To try and make logical sense of how things work is great, but is so different from understanding there is a whole other dimension we are connected to which transcends the “physical” world.
Life elsewhere is more a question of when rather than a question of if. I think there likely existed extraterrestrial life within radio range but in the past (or will in the future) but we're working with millions to billions of years here. The Fermi Paradox is a good place to start to think a bit deeper than the concepts presented in the video.
Now I don’t know what I don’t know even more. Brilliant discussion. Peter is still the best interviewer I have happened upon. There seems to be, however, a recent trend towards theology in the program. Does this represent an event so profound that it changed his worldview?
I love the work of Luke Barnes and Jay Richards, but nobody on the planet can discuss the fine tuning argument for ID better than Stephen Meyer. Barnes does the hands on work concerning fine tuning, but Meyer can explain and demonstrate the persuasiveness of that work more effectively imo. I know he was on UK recently, but I wish he had been here to respond to Brian Keating. But for those interested, he did have a discussion with Keating on the latter's podcast maybe a couple of years ago-- which was excellent.
Nope. I can do it better. Universal Functions ... is the hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy (Observation) and all Machine Analogies used for over 300 years by Christians to explain ID. The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explain & understand natural phenomena (Functions) relying on fixed Laws of Nature (functions) is simply: 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Test & predict ( fixed Laws). 4. Conclude 5. Refine ( only if valid/true). See. This is all you need ... to destroy Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Band, Inflation, Multiverses, String Theory. They all fail the scientific Method because the violate the fixed Laws of Nature. However, Universal Functions simply claims everything is a Function with clear purpose, rules, processes, design (INFORMATION) that can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence. And this is easily proved by fully defining the Function, Intelligence, Mind & Information Categories ... using "information" or knowledge of known subcategory times. Remember Man is a Natural Intelligence where "the gods" are powerful Unnatural intelligence. And everything in the Universe including Man's body ... is a Natural Function ... with purpose, rules, properties, rules, processes & design (Informaiton). Information is itself a Function ... with purpose,. meaning & value ... only to an Intelligence. Universal Functions ... is the Theory of Everything ... that unifies Classical Physics, General Relativity, & Quantum Mechanics. Everything is interacting Functions. Plus due to space, time, Laws of Nature, energy & matter are Natural Functions with Information, we can now fully define the Unnatural Intelligence Category ( ie Spirit). And this does prove there is ... only God.
Using latest estimates, the results of the Drake Equation can range from less than one, suggesting we might be alone in the galaxy, to millions, indicating many potential civilisations. For example, using optimistic values, the equation could suggest there are about 15,600,000 civilisations. However, due to the uncertainty in these parameters, the equation cannot provide a precise number of extraterrestrial civilisations.
We have the perfect planet for life and yet it has only begun once here. Why has life not popped up over and over throughout time here? I have never heard a good answer to this.
The fine-tuning from the 6-12 fundamental constants of physics is much stronger than the argument about the ratio of the size of the moon to the sun versus the earth. The former is immensely, immensely, exponentially more conducive to a teleological argument, so much so, that I would drop the latter, as it starts to look like it's smuggling in Christian ID. I agree the so-called Anthropic Argument is a profound proof of some sort of intelligence. To say that a universe must cohere with the constants that would support observers who observe it does not diminish the immense improbability. Nor does the multiverse "solve" this conundrum except by far more extravagance (i.e. less parsimony) than positing a deity.
String theory as one example (there are many others) allows for 10^500 different universes. If we are just one universe in a multiverse then it’s not surprising that some universes have these constants. A deity is much more difficult to explain. It would be the most complex entity ever. How did it come to be? And don’t say it’s eternal. I can say the same thing about the universe - that it’s eternal.
One thing I take from this is that it is possible indeed reasonably likely that there is no life worth considering intelligent anywhere in the cosmos. However, and perhaps more importantly, if there is, it is so far away there is no point in even speculating on the matter because if it was intelligent enough to get here, it would also be smart enough to not bother coming. I tend to believe that if intelligent alien life exists at all, it does so within an alternative dimension, may essentially occupy the same 'space' as we do and has likely been doing so for at least as long as we have. Aliens either exist among us and have done so for a very long time indeed or only within the imaginations of scientists, conspiracy theorist and science fiction writers. As soon as cosmologists start talking in light years, my eyes glaze over, and so should yours.
An alternate alternative, aliens (supernatural beings) could exist in all dimensions and only periodically interact in our dimensions. Those interactions could be described and written down, from our dimensional perspective, but discounted because we can not prove the extra dimensionality using only our dimensions.
Keating's example of a not so finely tuned parameter was _"Dark Energy!"_ This was actually his response to the implication that the universe was *designed?* A mythical un-measurable, un-detectable force that was made up to answer the wrong question! *BIG BANG* Falsified by Gravity: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Adding Dark Matter to this only compounds the problem so is also falsified 12. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* 13. The separation of space and mass is unique to the Genesis account of creation! *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*
From God's changing perspective, this planet IS the center of all creation. Adversary's perspectives differ widely with this viewpoint, and have been trying to get everyone to see their "beautiful" pointy heads with their shared brain and universal cyclops eye for billions of years.
If these people believed in survival of the consciousness would that change this conversation? In my view, if you’re interested in the potential of a designer, you really need to broaden your horizons. There is enough proof of survival that that possibility needs to be considered in this discussion.
Of course we live in a universe that supports life. It would be more strange if we were living in a universe that didn’t support life. It doesn’t matter how few or many things could have been different or did we just live in a universe that supported life. This has nothing with luck. But then we wouldn’t be here
It's generally agreed upon that we're meaning - seeking creatures. It seems to me that a material cosmology says purely material beings are incapable of making the assessment that we're meaning - seeking. There's a catch 22 happening here. Maybe this is why people like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say consciousness is an illusion. But, it seems to me that a purely material brain would be incapable of such a thought.
Man is the only known Natural Intelligence with an "Intellect" living in a world & Universe where everything including Man's body has clear purpose, rules & design( INFORMATION). This is why we will always have religions that believe in "the gods" of a powerful unnatural intelligence.
Provocative assertion. Let me stand provoked and offer several observations: 1. On other intelligent life in the universe: philosophically speaking, it is prudent to assume that we are the supreme problem solvers of the universe, and all other life and existence is relying on us to consciously work to perpetuate it (rather than passively gambling on the chance of nature). This assumption acts as a motivator, and gives us a 'point' in life, rather than remaining fatalistic and cynical. 2. On the universe being fine-tuned for life: a.) that is a backwards claim. Life is fine-tuned to the universe. If the universe changes, life will find a way to optimally adapt to it through natural selection at the very least (meaning we have advanced to conscious selection). b.) I see what he is saying, that this universe's matter and forces gave rise to life here on earth, but, as for the universe being fine-tuned for life, ask yourself what percentage of matter and/or space in this 'fine tuned' universe is habitable for life (as he knows it). Answer: 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% (which may be too large of a number). I would not call that a universe that is 'fine tuned for life'. The fallacy that he is committing should have a name given by the ancient Greeks, it is so outrageous. c.) As it is, the best that he can do is give us a Partial Truth, since any object or issue has, in theory, an infinite number of parts, and thus perspectives. This means that no one person (whose perspectives are limited) can give you the whole truth or describe all aspects of an object or issue. The second worst thing that he can do is be wrong. The worst? Being dead wrong, if it induces a wrong attitude or perspective toward something dangerous (like the harsh and deadly universe that we were born into). 3. Life can arise wherever there is matter and forces (i.e. 'change'). There is nothing special about our universe in that respect.
At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Robert Jastrow Herbert Spencer who died in 1903, claimed that all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories: time, force, action, space, and matter. So he said, everything that exists, exists in one of those five categories. Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning” - that’s time - “God” - that’s force - “created” - that’s action - “the heavens” - that’s space - “and the earth,” that’s matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in the first verse of Genesis. Now either you believe that, or you don’t. John MacArthur
How will AI alter natural intelligence if Pasterska's notion of cosmic memory indicates the universe thinks and plans four supernovae going off in the same parsec as a biochemistry experiment?
I mean, the big bang is asymmetric with huge q 23:40 quasars left as debris but still inside the cosmic donut sprinkled with galaxies we can worm hole thru off an AdSspace bang propagation curves in on itself gravometrically
Great conversation, thank you. I wonder if Gravity is a reactionary effect of ‘Expansion’, and is relative to the density of a particular spatial expansion loci?...a bit like a 3D form of Inertia?
Let's work with the postulates of Einstein's theory of relativity. And if we apply new technologies for this, using the experience of Michelson Morley on the airplane fixing speed 200, 300, 400 m/s., we will see how quantum gravity works. Such measurements are impossible on the satellite due to weightlessness.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:20-22
From the movie, "Animal House" Pinto: Okay... that means our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being (giggles)...... oh this is nuts. That means.... that..... one tiny atom in my fingernail... could be... Professor Jennings: Could be.. one... tiny... universe. Pinto: (mind blown) Could I buy some pot from you?
I don't know, Dr. Brian Keating seems like a reasonable and affable enough guy, it's fair to say he's stated the criticisms of fine tuning as coherently as I've ever heard anyone else do. However, this still all just comes across like kind of ridiculous. If a bank had it's vault door melted down and all the contents of its safe emptied, it'd be absolutely childish and unserious to keep trying to scheme up new ways that wind and erosion could be interjected as an explanation instead of the much more obvious explanation. For some reason the universe itself is the only thing that gets to have the special privilege of it being reasonable to continually assert it was wind and erosion or something similar, that is the sole explanation for it.
The development of Intelligent Life may depend on a smaller rocky planet, not too water rich, right temperature range for solid/liquid/gas, at the inner range of the habitability zone (to expose land), a planetary tilt that allows not-too-extreme seasons, a moon large enough to stabilize that axis/cause tides (but not too massive), w/tectonic plates (only planet in Solar System & vital for cycling carbon), & a magnetic field (to protect from solar/cosmic radiation). Life may need a sufficiently metallic (3rd/4th generation), relatively quiet (yellow/white dwarf) sun, with a not too slow/fast rotation rate, outer gas giants* (to act as shield for the inner planetary habitability zone) & a circular galactic orbit, in a bubble mostly free of galactic material in a quiet galaxy. Reasonably getting off the planet means it can't be much more massive than Earth, but with enough gravity to retain an atmosphere/oceans. Maintaining H2O in a gas/liquid/solid state for billions of years is a high bar. That may be no more than 1 or 2 intelligent species per galaxy. If the production of phosphorus varies widely as a function of the size of the supernova that seeded heavier elements into a new star system, so might the likelihood of life in the system. Life gets very difficult w/o abundant phosphorus. *Some debate, but this could be significant - astronomers are not finding star systems with small, rocky inner planets w/gas giants outer planets (to be fair, partially due to our limited capabilities of small planet detection).
The comment that suggested that the Universe is everything except God, limits us. Because , it is possible that everything is God. They must be aware of the holographic universe theory.
So Barnes rejects Genesis 1 on the grounds that it cannot be reconciled with big bang cosmology? I'd be interested to hear him articulate how often he thinks the big bang model has been predictive, because it seems to be it hasn't been. At all. I would have loved to have at least one individual on this panel from the electric/plasma universe school of thought. Electric universe is by no means a complete model but it has demonstrated itself to be predictive and doesn't require billions of years, which (for me at least) reopens the door for Genesis 1 to be scientifically credible.
perhaps gravity is shared among our parallel conscious universes, think schrodingers dead or alive cat experiment. 2 outcomes and in each universe when you measure gravity it seems weak, just a thought..
Perhaps the most comical observation about "the fine tuned universe" is that the people who invented the concept were only joking about actual fine tuning. It's like finding an orchid growing prolifically in a forest, we say the environment is "fine tuned for the orchid" but no one in their right mind actually believes something fine tuned the environment. Only a theist could seriously contemplate a "fine tuned universe" as actually meaning the universe was fine tuned. But theists just had to plagiarise the concept and turn it into something stupid to deceive other theists. And adding "for life" adds to the profound stupidity of the original concept. Simply put "fine tuning the universe for life" has a whole range of "this is stupid" arguments to crush it. Start with these two (and feel free to ask for more): Fine tuning of the universe for life implies a god. Wake up people a god is defined as omnipotent and the only entity that could make up the rules on life, those rules would only apply to itself and it could break them if and when it wanted i.e. a god can make as many universes as it wants and put life on any one of them so the mind numbingly obvious fact is a god doesn't need to fine tune anything and therefore wouldn't. Are you too dumb to figure that out? Fine tuning of a universe is nothing more than a scientific observation that a lot of constants need to naturally occur for it to happen (of course noting a natural universe couldn't careless if they happened or not). The bottom line is, like any lottery, someone wins the rest lose. There's life in this universe and that natural occurrence is as likely as the occurrence of any other possible universe and form of life. Wake up people: There is no requirement that a universe needs life, so the very concept of a universe being designed for life (an irrelevant blip in an irrelevant part of the universe which will die out as irrelevantly as it clearly came into existence. I hate to bring this up (maybe it's one of those facts someone needs to slap your face a few times to make you wake up). Universe = 13.8 billion years old. Life = 4 billion years old. How would a god decide to intelligently design or fine tune a universe to support life it wouldn't think about intelligently designing for another 9.8 billion years and placing on one of a trillion trillion planets or moons in a galaxy that wouldn't exist for around 8.8 billion years? How many synonyms are there for "stupid". Pick several. THE UNIVERSE ISN'T FINE TUNED. FOCUS ON SOMETHING A LITTLE LESS STUPID AND GET A LIFE.
Only a theist could contemplate a finely tuned universe? Are all the people that posit we are in a simulation theists? A universe with a gravitational constant smaller, would expand to fast for a single clump, larger, and it would instantly return to a singularity. On a continuum of gravitational constants, only ones with our constant would "exist". That works still result in infinite possible universes but the gravitational constant would be extra-universal. It was a theist that first proposed fine tuning, as a means of being able to do science, so I don't understand your plagiarism comment.
How do you know when your arguments are good??? When the opposition is just grasping at straws & making false assertions. Fine tuning isn't subjective. Even if one condition can be dismissed as unnecessary that discount all the rest. If you find out the spoiler on your car is just for looks that doesn't mean the engine, spark plugs & engine aren't necessary for locomotion. And, time, matter, space & energy began at the moment of the Big Bang. PCW Davies: "the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science ... Is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization... Upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing"("In the Beginning: In Conversation with Paul Davies and Philip Adams" (January 17, 2002), Sir Fred Hoyle & Carbon Resonance "From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 Mev level in 16 ). If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. 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" (cited in "What We Can't Not Know" by Jay Budziszewski, 2011 p 89: Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections', Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20 (1982): 16.
The idea of something (the universe) "coming into being" from "nothing" is just as irrational coming from people like Paul Davies as when it comes from Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking (as described in their books "A Universe from Nothing" and "The Grand Design" respectively). God is not nothing. And one of the attributes of God as described in the Bible is an "abundance of dynamic energy". Concerning the creation of the universe (and the visible stars from the earth's surface), the Bible says: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”-Isa. 40:26. That's not 'something (the universe or "all physical things") from nothing' as Paul Davies describes it. Energy is not nothing either. Are you familiar with the phrase energy is neither created nor destroyed? It is called "the law of conservation of energy". Who else was never created* and cannot be destroyed? *: because he has always existed. With the law of conservation of energy in mind, is the statement that 'energy began at the moment of the Big Bang' supported by the evidence (the facts/realities/certainties/truths we have observed concerning energy, as described in this law)?
Need Sean Carroll at this table to straighten a lot of assumptions. Jay Richards ...haven't seen that guy since Hitchens clobbered him. Also doesn't deserve a seat at a table with astrophysicists.
We only have one universe. I'm having a problem with asking why questions with a sample size of one. Maybe somebody could tell me how that makes sense. There is also too many emotive words like surprised, a wonder etc. that's starting to look like an argument from incredulity. I'm surprised at this therefore there must be something to be surprised about. Also when you use fine tuning you're assuming a tuner. Classic God snuggling.
1. There are 31 constants that seem to have arbitrary values. This might seem like Fine Tuning but it also might be interpreted as Sloppy Tuning. 2. The Earth has so many unique attributes that it is extremely likely that it is unique in the Universe, but it is possible to interpret from this observation that the Universe isn't Fine Tuned for our existence at all. 3. Abiogenesis is impossible but this observation is actually more aligned with atheism philosophically rather than theism, because a Universe designed for life really ought to naturally generate life without any additional divine effort. 4. The Fine Tuning argument dies when encountering the human species. God could have done better than this, yes or no? 5. There is no such thing as human free will so you can't blame all the flaws of the Universe upon human sinfulness or Original Sin.
The Lilithian Elohim much overstated their contribution to creation after destroying God's favorite planet 4.5 billion years ago. Their "one" me too plagiarizing brain is NOT God, no matter how much it looks like a tenured Ivy League professor or dean.
These guys sure do sound like they're skirting around the topic of intelligent design...which is obviously not scientific. To even approach the question presumes an answer, ergo experiments seeking a specific result due to unconscious logical bias.
Sorry but in Genesis 1 there is a bad guy. There is another God or force or whatever you wish called "chaos" and God defeats chaos. The reason why modern readers don't realize this is because translators are skilled at hiding things and the various editors of the Bible obscured the source material. But if you read all the Scriptures regarding creation in the Old Testament the mythology isn't so well hidden.
Ok you are really not understanding the text. Chaos in biblical cosmology wasn’t an actual being and it certainly wasn’t equal to Yahweh. Chaos was simply the pre created world. There was no rhyme or reason to anything and God was the one who turns something like chaos into order. Chaos is not generally an active force. Furthermore, the closest an actual being/creature gets to representing chaos in biblical cosmology is Leviathan who is roughly analogous to the Babylonian Tiamat and is clearly show to NOT be equal to Yahweh and if anything be one of his creations. So no the abrahamic religions (Christianity Islam and Judaism) are not dualistic in any way and no true scholar religious or otherwise would argue they are and they certainly wouldn’t argue this from Genesis.
Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine Analogies used by Christians for over 300 years to explain Creation, and is the definitive proof of God of the Bible only. So the Universe was created over ... 4 days .... by God starting with a space, matter & energy of Earth, and the matter & energy of a very bright Light that surrounding Earth. Over 4 days that bright Light formed the stars, & other cosmic bodies in space, and only then did God create the Solar System within the Milky Way and put Earth into its orbit & rotation ... formally defining day, year, seasons, night/day and morning evening. And this "bright Light" that surrounding Earth & would form the stars in the "heavens" explains the constant temp of the CMBR and why the "expansion" is observed to be from Earth. The Universe is not expanding. The the red shift data is due to inertial gravity from the 4 day faster than the speed of light expansion , slowing down light. There was gravity at Creation but actual time & Laws of Nature began 5994 years ago when Adam & Eve freely sinned knowing the punishment will be death (body & soul). God had a 6 day creation & the 7th day belongs to Him ... because he always knew before Creation ... that it would take 7 x 1000 years to save the Children of God (Son) from the Children of Man (Adam). The punishment for sin by Man is death (body & soul). Only Adam & Eve were created perfect with freewill, so all will sin and all must die. But all God has ever asked of Man ... to to follow & obey God (Father, Son, Spirit) not Man (nature, will, ways, ideologies). This has always been about freewill. It is freewill that thinks & does good or evil. There is only God who has always existed will freewill ... to think & do good or evil ... but God by nature chooses to think & do good. And the God decided He wanted to be a Father of actual Children and so the Angel of God who is God ... created Heaven, Hell, Universe, Earth, billions of Angels and Adam & Eve ... knowing Adam & Eve will sin and knowing He would have to be remade by God a Son of Man (Adam) with a body & soul to be the pure passover Lamb to forgive sin and to become the the Father of the Children of God (Son). Jesus was originally the Angel of God in Genesis & Exodus who had the 6 day creation with the 7th day belonging to Him agreeing to be remade by God (Father) with a puny body & soul forever .. and become God's Only begotten Son. The Science & Bible all point to Jesus. Because only an intelligence makes & enforces rules & laws, sets moral & ethical standards,. has freewill to think & do good or evil ... and makes things for a reason/purpose. The only Intelligence God created were the Angels and Adam & Eve ... for a reason/purpose. And it is their freewill .... that determines their fate ( Heaven or Hell). Hell punishes sinful Angels forever but destroys a sinful human soul in 3 days. it can not destroy a pure soul ... which is why Jesus had to die(bodY) on Earth and then spend 3 days in Hell .. to be the sin sacrifice that will satisfy God's just nature. Well done ... Jesus ( Angel of God). You always knew from the beginning..
Being with such savvy scholars in such sumptuous surroundings was an experience too lavish to replicate. Indeed, my intellectual life is fine-tuned for happiness! Thanks to Peter and the Hoover Institution for hosting this big bang of a conversation!
I hear that you've got your own wonderful podcast, Brian ... :)
😅😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Your pushbacks will certainly remind Richards and Barnes to keep on sharpening their philosophical and scientific arguments. Great conversation!
Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine Analogies (Observation) and the reason Mankind will always believe in "the gods" or an Unnatural intelligence.
The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explain Natural phenomena (Functions) relying on fixed Laws of Nature (functions) is simply:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Test & Predict
4. Conclude
5. Refine ( only if valid).
Universal Functions easily passes the Scientific Method and proves space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy are Natural Functions with clear purpose, rules, design (Information) that can only come from the Mind of a ..... single, multidimensinal,, timeless, infinite, nonphysical Unnatural Intelligence with freewill & nature.\
Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Bang, Inflation, Emergence, etc ... fail to pass the scientific Method but have been accept since the mid 1800's as valid, true & facts of existence.
There is no evidence Nature & natural processes can make & enforce rules & laws, set moral & ethical standards, gives meaning, & value to data & information, has freewill to think & do good or evil, and make, operate & improve a Function with clear purpose, rules, design (Information).
Mankind will always believe in "the gods" because Man is a Natural Intelligence with an INTELLECT living in a world & Universe where EVERYTHING including Man's body ... is a Function with clear purpose, rules, processes, design.
Universal Functions is the Theory of Everything .
Quantum particles, atoms, molecules, elements .... space, time, laws of nature, matter, energy .... letters, numbers, symbols, words, sentences, paragraphs, paper, pen, ink, book, desk, chair, table, chalk, borad, room, window, door, glass, building, school, Library, Science are all Functions ... with clear purpose, rules, design (information) that can only "originate" from the Mind of an Intelligenc.e
Classical Physics,, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, .... Calculus, Algebra, Geometry .... are Functions designed by a Natural Intelligence ....are all about explaining Man understanding interacting Functions.
Universal Functions ... through the Function, Intelligence, Mind & information Categories ...proves the existence of the Unnatural & the Mind of any Intelligence has to be Unnatural (spirit).
Therefore the Mind of Natural Intelligence (Man) has to be Natural (body) & unnatural (soul) with both being Functions designed by ... God of the Bible ... to give Man freewill, nature, intellect, memory, senses, feelings, & consciousness of the Natural then Unnatural.
Science only supports God creating Man in His image with a body & soul ... for a reason/purpose.
Atheism is a religion that believes in Nature & natural processes ... doing the unnatural.
And Atheism began in the 1800's .... in Europe .... after the French Revolution which was against God, Bible & Church. All Empires before the French Revolution ... believed in "the gods" because everything clearly has purpose, rules, design. Only in the 20th Century did we get the first Atheist Empires (Communism, Nazis). that believe in Evolution and survival of the fittest.
You religion is is false.
Science only proves God of the Bible ....created everything ... for a reason/purpose.
Christians developed the Sciences we have today not Atheists, Muslims, HIndus and are still the majority of Nobel Prize winners.
Christians developed the free civilized world where the People are created Equal by God with inalienable rights including Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
And only Pagans & Humanist Liberals ... have freely rejected God of the Bible ....caring only about Me, myself & I ...and infringing & violating the inalienable rights of every Human Being from the Bible.
It's "In God we trust" not racist, sexist Liberal white Men & hypocrite Christians from Virginia named Thomas Jefferson & James Madison.
Man has freewill ... to follow & obey God (Bible) or Man (ways, will, nature, ideologies_).
So before the Science Revolution ... God was proved by fulfilled prophesies from the Bible or eyewitness accounts of "acts of God." And it was only in the 1800's as science was still being refined into a "Method" to acquire information & knowledge that Atheists from Europe started and corrupted the Sciences with the fairy tales of a Natural origin of the Universe & Life billions of years ago not less than 6000.
And the greatest & most influential Man of all time ..... is a Jew ..... from Judea (Israel) under pagan Roman occupation who said He is the promised Messiah from the Torah ... and ... the Only begotten Son of God from the Torah. As prophesied the Messiah was rejected by the Jews who would be cursed by God for 2 x 1000 years for their sin, will die 40 years before the Temple is destroyed ... and ... will return 2 x 1000 years later in the year 6 x 1000 to rule the Earth for 1 x 1000 years. This is why God had a 6 day creation & the 7th day belongs to Him. The Son of God was the Angel of God in Genesis & Exodus .. who created Man in His image with a body & soul ... for a reason. God always knew Adam & Evei will sin, bring death to all of Mankind ...and how long it will take to save anybody of Believes ... from God's just nature to punish sin (breaking God's law) with death (body & soul).
This has always been about freewill ... and to follow & obey God (Life) or Man (death).
The science & bible ... only supports God (Father, Son, Spirit).
I heard what you said Brian towards the end…but you have to think….why are we here in the long run….nothing makes nothing….remember your buddy’s Stephen Meyers and Jim Tour! Still love listening to you’re discussion!❤
Thank you for these videos in general... They have intellectual AND entertainment value. It always puts a smile on my face to see Peter Robinson's intro and hear his voice. It's comforting in the way a hot chocolate is in the dead of winter.
Really enjoy hearing this 🙏 !
These sit downs are philosophical, scientific and unbelievably entertaining. Having guests respond to quotes is awesome. Keep up the good work!
Enlightening conversation on head spinning issues!
Best program on TH-cam. Thank you!😊
Interesting! I yearn for conversations like this. It gets my brain going. I used to spend hours figuring out how to write a piece of software and this got my mind into that mode again. I have been retired for 4 years so there was some smoke.
God Bless and keep them coming!
I just retired from 40 years of that. My mode now is guessing which day it is.
Yes writing code is a creative endeavor which eats up lots energy. Which leads me to look at this discussion differently than the theological view. To try and make logical sense of how things work is great, but is so different from understanding there is a whole other dimension we are connected to which transcends the “physical” world.
Very pleasant conversation. Thanks gentlemen
When asked what his long career as a leading entomologist had taught him, E.O. Wilson responded that “God seems uncommonly fond of beetles.”
Enthralled. Been a while since I've been so captivated and mesmerized as if time leaped forward for a few moments. Thanks.
Highly recommend Dr Hugh Ross as a guest on this topic.
Life elsewhere is more a question of when rather than a question of if. I think there likely existed extraterrestrial life within radio range but in the past (or will in the future) but we're working with millions to billions of years here. The Fermi Paradox is a good place to start to think a bit deeper than the concepts presented in the video.
Fantastic discussion - wonderful, engaging panelists. Love these 'big question' round tables. Hoover sets the standard.
how peter and Brian talk is realy like true friends
Now I don’t know what I don’t know even more. Brilliant discussion. Peter is still the best interviewer I have happened upon. There seems to be, however, a recent trend towards theology in the program. Does this represent an event so profound that it changed his worldview?
I love the work of Luke Barnes and Jay Richards, but nobody on the planet can discuss the fine tuning argument for ID better than Stephen Meyer. Barnes does the hands on work concerning fine tuning, but Meyer can explain and demonstrate the persuasiveness of that work more effectively imo. I know he was on UK recently, but I wish he had been here to respond to Brian Keating. But for those interested, he did have a discussion with Keating on the latter's podcast maybe a couple of years ago-- which was excellent.
Thanks. Steve’s coming back on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon!
Nope. I can do it better. Universal Functions ... is the hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy (Observation) and all Machine Analogies used for over 300 years by Christians to explain ID.
The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explain & understand natural phenomena (Functions) relying on fixed Laws of Nature (functions) is simply:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Test & predict ( fixed Laws).
4. Conclude
5. Refine ( only if valid/true).
See. This is all you need ... to destroy Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Band, Inflation, Multiverses, String Theory. They all fail the scientific Method because the violate the fixed Laws of Nature.
However, Universal Functions simply claims everything is a Function with clear purpose, rules, processes, design (INFORMATION) that can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence. And this is easily proved by fully defining the Function, Intelligence, Mind & Information Categories ... using "information" or knowledge of known subcategory times.
Remember Man is a Natural Intelligence where "the gods" are powerful Unnatural intelligence. And everything in the Universe including Man's body ... is a Natural Function ... with purpose, rules, properties, rules, processes & design (Informaiton).
Information is itself a Function ... with purpose,. meaning & value ... only to an Intelligence.
Universal Functions ... is the Theory of Everything ... that unifies Classical Physics, General Relativity, & Quantum Mechanics. Everything is interacting Functions.
Plus due to space, time, Laws of Nature, energy & matter are Natural Functions with Information, we can now fully define the Unnatural Intelligence Category ( ie Spirit). And this does prove there is ... only God.
This is a fantastic discussion - thanks!
Thank youRobinsin sir.
Considering that the universe sprang from a mere speck, being a mere speck is a pretty damn powerful thing to be!
Nicely said.
Well done. Thank you.
Using latest estimates, the results of the Drake Equation can range from less than one, suggesting we might be alone in the galaxy, to millions, indicating many potential civilisations. For example, using optimistic values, the equation could suggest there are about 15,600,000 civilisations. However, due to the uncertainty in these parameters, the equation cannot provide a precise number of extraterrestrial civilisations.
We have the perfect planet for life and yet it has only begun once here. Why has life not popped up over and over throughout time here?
I have never heard a good answer to this.
Found this fascinating and entertaining. Great guests! Especially loved your wrap-up question and the responses!
Prime-time !!
Many thanks to Mr. Robinson for the counter programming in this political season. PS My head hurts ...
I love these conversations around the topic of origin of life and intelligent design so much, please host more!!
Love Peter interviews! TY Hoover Institute
Also I think Keating means vague/unspecific/context-relative, not subjective.
The fine-tuning from the 6-12 fundamental constants of physics is much stronger than the argument about the ratio of the size of the moon to the sun versus the earth.
The former is immensely, immensely, exponentially more conducive to a teleological argument, so much so, that I would drop the latter, as it starts to look like it's smuggling in Christian ID.
I agree the so-called Anthropic Argument is a profound proof of some sort of intelligence. To say that a universe must cohere with the constants that would support observers who observe it does not diminish the immense improbability. Nor does the multiverse "solve" this conundrum except by far more extravagance (i.e. less parsimony) than positing a deity.
String theory as one example (there are many others) allows for 10^500 different universes. If we are just one universe in a multiverse then it’s not surprising that some universes have these constants.
A deity is much more difficult to explain. It would be the most complex entity ever. How did it come to be?
And don’t say it’s eternal. I can say the same thing about the universe - that it’s eternal.
I love the transcript!!
because vast is immense
0:05 why does the earth look like the same size as the moon while looking at it from the moons perspective in all those pictures from astronauts?
It's still earth, we are not Jupiter sized
I enjoyed that there was disagreement. Sometimes in these interviews, each of the interviewees is cheerleading for the others
One thing I take from this is that it is possible indeed reasonably likely that there is no life worth considering intelligent anywhere in the cosmos. However, and perhaps more importantly, if there is, it is so far away there is no point in even speculating on the matter because if it was intelligent enough to get here, it would also be smart enough to not bother coming. I tend to believe that if intelligent alien life exists at all, it does so within an alternative dimension, may essentially occupy the same 'space' as we do and has likely been doing so for at least as long as we have. Aliens either exist among us and have done so for a very long time indeed or only within the imaginations of scientists, conspiracy theorist and science fiction writers.
As soon as cosmologists start talking in light years, my eyes glaze over, and so should yours.
An alternate alternative, aliens (supernatural beings) could exist in all dimensions and only periodically interact in our dimensions. Those interactions could be described and written down, from our dimensional perspective, but discounted because we can not prove the extra dimensionality using only our dimensions.
Keating's example of a not so finely tuned parameter was _"Dark Energy!"_ This was actually his response to the implication that the universe was *designed?* A mythical un-measurable, un-detectable force that was made up to answer the wrong question!
*BIG BANG* Falsified by Gravity:
1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation
2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite
3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny
4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light
5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon
6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg
7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2
8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs
9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter
10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known
11. Adding Dark Matter to this only compounds the problem so is also falsified
12. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..*
13. The separation of space and mass is unique to the Genesis account of creation!
*The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*
GREAT, i always wanted to hear what these new wave of intellectuals have to say on respect to this topic......
what on earth is Keating's point about helium? What's that got to do with fine-tuning? This is why you need philosophers on the panel.
From God's changing perspective, this planet IS the center of all creation. Adversary's perspectives differ widely with this viewpoint, and have been trying to get everyone to see their "beautiful" pointy heads with their shared brain and universal cyclops eye for billions of years.
WHOAAAA!!!
If these people believed in survival of the consciousness would that change this conversation? In my view, if you’re interested in the potential of a designer, you really need to broaden your horizons. There is enough proof of survival that that possibility needs to be considered in this discussion.
Of course we live in a universe that supports life. It would be more strange if we were living in a universe that didn’t support life. It doesn’t matter how few or many things could have been different or did we just live in a universe that supported life. This has nothing with luck. But then we wouldn’t be here
15:00 you are still discussing the anthropic principle. We don't know the extent of the universe and how likely our situation is or not.
It's generally agreed upon that we're meaning - seeking creatures. It seems to me that a material cosmology says purely material beings are incapable of making the assessment that we're meaning - seeking. There's a catch 22 happening here. Maybe this is why people like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say consciousness is an illusion. But, it seems to me that a purely material brain would be incapable of such a thought.
Man is the only known Natural Intelligence with an "Intellect" living in a world & Universe where everything including Man's body has clear purpose, rules & design( INFORMATION). This is why we will always have religions that believe in "the gods" of a powerful unnatural intelligence.
yes and no we are alone in our solar system but lots of company elsewhere
Provocative assertion. Let me stand provoked and offer several observations:
1. On other intelligent life in the universe: philosophically speaking, it is prudent to assume that we are the supreme problem solvers of the universe, and all other life and existence is relying on us to consciously work to perpetuate it (rather than passively gambling on the chance of nature). This assumption acts as a motivator, and gives us a 'point' in life, rather than remaining fatalistic and cynical.
2. On the universe being fine-tuned for life:
a.) that is a backwards claim. Life is fine-tuned to the universe. If the universe changes, life will find a way to optimally adapt to it through natural selection at the very least (meaning we have advanced to conscious selection).
b.) I see what he is saying, that this universe's matter and forces gave rise to life here on earth, but, as for the universe being fine-tuned for life, ask yourself what percentage of matter and/or space in this 'fine tuned' universe is habitable for life (as he knows it). Answer: 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% (which may be too large of a number). I would not call that a universe that is 'fine tuned for life'. The fallacy that he is committing should have a name given by the ancient Greeks, it is so outrageous.
c.) As it is, the best that he can do is give us a Partial Truth, since any object or issue has, in theory, an infinite number of parts, and thus perspectives. This means that no one person (whose perspectives are limited) can give you the whole truth or describe all aspects of an object or issue. The second worst thing that he can do is be wrong. The worst? Being dead wrong, if it induces a wrong attitude or perspective toward something dangerous (like the harsh and deadly universe that we were born into).
3. Life can arise wherever there is matter and forces (i.e. 'change'). There is nothing special about our universe in that respect.
I love Hoover Institute. Peter holds such great interviews, and has amazing conversations…but Keating? Seriously?
u got beef with Keating? what is up my dude?
⭐️
Very nice 👍
Man is the measure of all things - Protagoras
At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow
Herbert Spencer who died in 1903, claimed that all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories: time, force, action, space, and matter. So he said, everything that exists, exists in one of those five categories.
Genesis 1:1,
“In the beginning” - that’s time -
“God” - that’s force -
“created” - that’s action -
“the heavens” - that’s space -
“and the earth,” that’s matter.
Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in the first verse of Genesis. Now either you believe that, or you don’t.
John MacArthur
We aren't alone but the Galactic Counsel decided that humanity posses a threat to their member societies. We have been quarantined.
How will AI alter natural intelligence if Pasterska's notion of cosmic memory indicates the universe thinks and plans four supernovae going off in the same parsec as a biochemistry experiment?
I mean, the big bang is asymmetric with huge q 23:40 quasars left as debris but still inside the cosmic donut sprinkled with galaxies we can worm hole thru off an AdSspace bang propagation curves in on itself gravometrically
Tbus explaining Hubblle tension❤
Great conversation, thank you. I wonder if Gravity is a reactionary effect of ‘Expansion’, and is relative to the density of a particular spatial expansion loci?...a bit like a 3D form of Inertia?
Let's work with the postulates of Einstein's theory of relativity.
And if we apply new technologies for this, using the experience of Michelson Morley on the airplane fixing speed 200, 300, 400 m/s., we will see how quantum gravity works. Such measurements are impossible on the satellite due to weightlessness.
Like watching Bing bang theory with real astrophysicists
No we are not alone. Read “Imminent” by Luis Elizondo.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Romans 1:20-22
From the movie, "Animal House"
Pinto: Okay... that means our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being (giggles)...... oh this is nuts. That means.... that..... one tiny atom in my fingernail... could be...
Professor Jennings: Could be.. one... tiny... universe.
Pinto: (mind blown) Could I buy some pot from you?
I don't know, Dr. Brian Keating seems like a reasonable and affable enough guy, it's fair to say he's stated the criticisms of fine tuning as coherently as I've ever heard anyone else do. However, this still all just comes across like kind of ridiculous. If a bank had it's vault door melted down and all the contents of its safe emptied, it'd be absolutely childish and unserious to keep trying to scheme up new ways that wind and erosion could be interjected as an explanation instead of the much more obvious explanation. For some reason the universe itself is the only thing that gets to have the special privilege of it being reasonable to continually assert it was wind and erosion or something similar, that is the sole explanation for it.
The development of Intelligent Life may depend on a smaller rocky planet, not too water rich, right temperature range for solid/liquid/gas, at the inner range of the habitability zone (to expose land), a planetary tilt that allows not-too-extreme seasons, a moon large enough to stabilize that axis/cause tides (but not too massive), w/tectonic plates (only planet in Solar System & vital for cycling carbon), & a magnetic field (to protect from solar/cosmic radiation). Life may need a sufficiently metallic (3rd/4th generation), relatively quiet (yellow/white dwarf) sun, with a not too slow/fast rotation rate, outer gas giants* (to act as shield for the inner planetary habitability zone) & a circular galactic orbit, in a bubble mostly free of galactic material in a quiet galaxy. Reasonably getting off the planet means it can't be much more massive than Earth, but with enough gravity to retain an atmosphere/oceans. Maintaining H2O in a gas/liquid/solid state for billions of years is a high bar. That may be no more than 1 or 2 intelligent species per galaxy. If the production of phosphorus varies widely as a function of the size of the supernova that seeded heavier elements into a new star system, so might the likelihood of life in the system. Life gets very difficult w/o abundant phosphorus.
*Some debate, but this could be significant - astronomers are not finding star systems with small, rocky inner planets w/gas giants outer planets (to be fair, partially due to our limited capabilities of small planet detection).
There is only ONE Almighy God. Seek Him, with all your might.
The comment that suggested that the Universe is everything except God, limits us. Because , it is possible that everything is God. They must be aware of the holographic universe theory.
this is a zoo planet in our own pocket universe
How so?
There is absolutely no evidence of other universes. It takes more faith to believe in that than in God, for whom there is plenty of evidence.
I agree. I’ve heard atheists reference Occam’s Razor to disprove God, but God is actually a simpler explanation than other universes.
So Barnes rejects Genesis 1 on the grounds that it cannot be reconciled with big bang cosmology? I'd be interested to hear him articulate how often he thinks the big bang model has been predictive, because it seems to be it hasn't been. At all. I would have loved to have at least one individual on this panel from the electric/plasma universe school of thought. Electric universe is by no means a complete model but it has demonstrated itself to be predictive and doesn't require billions of years, which (for me at least) reopens the door for Genesis 1 to be scientifically credible.
perhaps gravity is shared among our parallel conscious universes, think schrodingers dead or alive cat experiment. 2 outcomes and in each universe when you measure gravity it seems weak, just a thought..
Why is the fine-tuning argument persuasive to some but not to others? Do any nonreligious people believe in fine-tuning? Maybe that says something.
This discussion, and all discussions like it, are always missing one key Human. Stephen J. Gould.
Someone needs to do a compilation of all the witty things Peter Robinson says so that we, much less sharp and linguistically gifted, can study it.
Can we please get Bernardo Kastrup and Stephen Meyer together?
They just say you can change the cosmological constant with no issues? ....
Im here first
What do ya want, a cookie?
@@matta5498 have some respect, he was first. he's better than us
Perhaps the most comical observation about "the fine tuned universe" is that the people who invented the concept were only joking about actual fine tuning. It's like finding an orchid growing prolifically in a forest, we say the environment is "fine tuned for the orchid" but no one in their right mind actually believes something fine tuned the environment. Only a theist could seriously contemplate a "fine tuned universe" as actually meaning the universe was fine tuned. But theists just had to plagiarise the concept and turn it into something stupid to deceive other theists.
And adding "for life" adds to the profound stupidity of the original concept. Simply put "fine tuning the universe for life" has a whole range of "this is stupid" arguments to crush it.
Start with these two (and feel free to ask for more):
Fine tuning of the universe for life implies a god. Wake up people a god is defined as omnipotent and the only entity that could make up the rules on life, those rules would only apply to itself and it could break them if and when it wanted i.e. a god can make as many universes as it wants and put life on any one of them so the mind numbingly obvious fact is a god doesn't need to fine tune anything and therefore wouldn't. Are you too dumb to figure that out? Fine tuning of a universe is nothing more than a scientific observation that a lot of constants need to naturally occur for it to happen (of course noting a natural universe couldn't careless if they happened or not). The bottom line is, like any lottery, someone wins the rest lose. There's life in this universe and that natural occurrence is as likely as the occurrence of any other possible universe and form of life.
Wake up people: There is no requirement that a universe needs life, so the very concept of a universe being designed for life (an irrelevant blip in an irrelevant part of the universe which will die out as irrelevantly as it clearly came into existence.
I hate to bring this up (maybe it's one of those facts someone needs to slap your face a few times to make you wake up). Universe = 13.8 billion years old. Life = 4 billion years old. How would a god decide to intelligently design or fine tune a universe to support life it wouldn't think about intelligently designing for another 9.8 billion years and placing on one of a trillion trillion planets or moons in a galaxy that wouldn't exist for around 8.8 billion years? How many synonyms are there for "stupid". Pick several.
THE UNIVERSE ISN'T FINE TUNED. FOCUS ON SOMETHING A LITTLE LESS STUPID AND GET A LIFE.
Everything will change if life is found else where but earth. No more life after death and we are just nothing but dust.
How is this an argument? "If I change the parameters of the universe, things will be different, therefore it's fine tuned for life" Makes no sense.
It's so funny to hear atheists speculating about the universe. 😅😅
Honey, I was wrong about being wrong.
Only a theist could contemplate a finely tuned universe? Are all the people that posit we are in a simulation theists?
A universe with a gravitational constant smaller, would expand to fast for a single clump, larger, and it would instantly return to a singularity. On a continuum of gravitational constants, only ones with our constant would "exist". That works still result in infinite possible universes but the gravitational constant would be extra-universal.
It was a theist that first proposed fine tuning, as a means of being able to do science, so I don't understand your plagiarism comment.
1:14 nor will anyone care
You just don't get that God's matrioshka stacking dolls are Moebius Chicks
How do you know when your arguments are good???
When the opposition is just grasping at straws & making false assertions.
Fine tuning isn't subjective. Even if one condition can be dismissed as unnecessary that discount all the rest. If you find out the spoiler on your car is just for looks that doesn't mean the engine, spark plugs & engine aren't necessary for locomotion.
And, time, matter, space & energy began at the moment of the Big Bang.
PCW Davies: "the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science ... Is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization... Upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing"("In the Beginning: In Conversation with Paul Davies and Philip Adams" (January 17, 2002),
Sir Fred Hoyle & Carbon Resonance
"From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 Mev level in 16 ). If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. 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" (cited in "What We Can't Not Know" by Jay Budziszewski, 2011 p 89: Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections', Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20 (1982): 16.
The idea of something (the universe) "coming into being" from "nothing" is just as irrational coming from people like Paul Davies as when it comes from Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking (as described in their books "A Universe from Nothing" and "The Grand Design" respectively). God is not nothing. And one of the attributes of God as described in the Bible is an "abundance of dynamic energy". Concerning the creation of the universe (and the visible stars from the earth's surface), the Bible says:
“Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”-Isa. 40:26.
That's not 'something (the universe or "all physical things") from nothing' as Paul Davies describes it. Energy is not nothing either. Are you familiar with the phrase energy is neither created nor destroyed? It is called "the law of conservation of energy". Who else was never created* and cannot be destroyed? *: because he has always existed.
With the law of conservation of energy in mind, is the statement that 'energy began at the moment of the Big Bang' supported by the evidence (the facts/realities/certainties/truths we have observed concerning energy, as described in this law)?
Need Sean Carroll at this table to straighten a lot of assumptions.
Jay Richards ...haven't seen that guy since Hitchens clobbered him. Also doesn't deserve a seat at a table with astrophysicists.
Simple gasoline engines are tunable
There is an incredibly intelligent and great Creator. They all suspect that this is true, but refuse to accept it. Strange. Why?
All dreams no one knows we havent even left our own back yard yet claim we know the universe what foolishness 🤦
We only have one universe. I'm having a problem with asking why questions with a sample size of one. Maybe somebody could tell me how that makes sense.
There is also too many emotive words like surprised, a wonder etc. that's starting to look like an argument from incredulity. I'm surprised at this therefore there must be something to be surprised about. Also when you use fine tuning you're assuming a tuner. Classic God snuggling.
1. There are 31 constants that seem to have arbitrary values. This might seem like Fine Tuning but it also might be interpreted as Sloppy Tuning.
2. The Earth has so many unique attributes that it is extremely likely that it is unique in the Universe, but it is possible to interpret from this observation that the Universe isn't Fine Tuned for our existence at all.
3. Abiogenesis is impossible but this observation is actually more aligned with atheism philosophically rather than theism, because a Universe designed for life really ought to naturally generate life without any additional divine effort.
4. The Fine Tuning argument dies when encountering the human species. God could have done better than this, yes or no?
5. There is no such thing as human free will so you can't blame all the flaws of the Universe upon human sinfulness or Original Sin.
Chum, there are so many flaws in your analysis, it is actually breathtaking.
“…in his own form…” is the obvious excuse for our imperfection.
Thanks for your detailed concise explanation of all of the reasons I reject the purposeful "fine tuning" argument.
I recommend that you learn what the fine-tuning argument is.
Why is abiogenesis impossible?
lol!!!!
😅
The Lilithian Elohim much overstated their contribution to creation after destroying God's favorite planet 4.5 billion years ago. Their "one" me too plagiarizing brain is NOT God, no matter how much it looks like a tenured Ivy League professor or dean.
Why have theologians to discuss physics? They are clueless.
Truly offensive to science. There is not a single bit of observation that points to multi-anything.
Very sad.
These guys sure do sound like they're skirting around the topic of intelligent design...which is obviously not scientific. To even approach the question presumes an answer, ergo experiments seeking a specific result due to unconscious logical bias.
Big bang is a damp squid
Sorry but in Genesis 1 there is a bad guy. There is another God or force or whatever you wish called "chaos" and God defeats chaos. The reason why modern readers don't realize this is because translators are skilled at hiding things and the various editors of the Bible obscured the source material. But if you read all the Scriptures regarding creation in the Old Testament the mythology isn't so well hidden.
Ok you are really not understanding the text. Chaos in biblical cosmology wasn’t an actual being and it certainly wasn’t equal to Yahweh. Chaos was simply the pre created world. There was no rhyme or reason to anything and God was the one who turns something like chaos into order. Chaos is not generally an active force. Furthermore, the closest an actual being/creature gets to representing chaos in biblical cosmology is Leviathan who is roughly analogous to the Babylonian Tiamat and is clearly show to NOT be equal to Yahweh and if anything be one of his creations. So no the abrahamic religions (Christianity Islam and Judaism) are not dualistic in any way and no true scholar religious or otherwise would argue they are and they certainly wouldn’t argue this from Genesis.
Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine Analogies used by Christians for over 300 years to explain Creation, and is the definitive proof of God of the Bible only.
So the Universe was created over ... 4 days .... by God starting with a space, matter & energy of Earth, and the matter & energy of a very bright Light that surrounding Earth. Over 4 days that bright Light formed the stars, & other cosmic bodies in space, and only then did God create the Solar System within the Milky Way and put Earth into its orbit & rotation ... formally defining day, year, seasons, night/day and morning evening.
And this "bright Light" that surrounding Earth & would form the stars in the "heavens" explains the constant temp of the CMBR and why the "expansion" is observed to be from Earth.
The Universe is not expanding. The the red shift data is due to inertial gravity from the 4 day faster than the speed of light expansion , slowing down light. There was gravity at Creation but actual time & Laws of Nature began 5994 years ago when Adam & Eve freely sinned knowing the punishment will be death (body & soul).
God had a 6 day creation & the 7th day belongs to Him ... because he always knew before Creation ... that it would take 7 x 1000 years to save the Children of God (Son) from the Children of Man (Adam). The punishment for sin by Man is death (body & soul). Only Adam & Eve were created perfect with freewill, so all will sin and all must die.
But all God has ever asked of Man ... to to follow & obey God (Father, Son, Spirit) not Man (nature, will, ways, ideologies).
This has always been about freewill.
It is freewill that thinks & does good or evil.
There is only God who has always existed will freewill ... to think & do good or evil ... but God by nature chooses to think & do good.
And the God decided He wanted to be a Father of actual Children and so the Angel of God who is God ... created Heaven, Hell, Universe, Earth, billions of Angels and Adam & Eve ... knowing Adam & Eve will sin and knowing He would have to be remade by God a
Son of Man (Adam) with a body & soul to be the pure passover Lamb to forgive sin and to become the the Father of the Children of God (Son).
Jesus was originally the Angel of God in Genesis & Exodus who had the 6 day creation with the 7th day belonging to Him agreeing to be remade by God (Father) with a puny body & soul forever .. and become God's Only begotten Son.
The Science & Bible all point to Jesus. Because only an intelligence makes & enforces rules & laws, sets moral & ethical standards,. has freewill to think & do good or evil ... and makes things for a reason/purpose.
The only Intelligence God created were the Angels and Adam & Eve ... for a reason/purpose. And it is their freewill .... that determines their fate ( Heaven or Hell).
Hell punishes sinful Angels forever but destroys a sinful human soul in 3 days. it can not destroy a pure soul ... which is why Jesus had to die(bodY) on Earth and then spend 3 days in Hell .. to be the sin sacrifice that will satisfy God's just nature.
Well done ... Jesus ( Angel of God). You always knew from the beginning..
we are alone - get over it and stop wasting everyone's time and money (I love the hoover inst but not this stuff)
partner/collab nwcinc.