The thing that struck me reading Dr. Meyers' books is his thorough discussion of objections to his arguments. He strikes me as both knowledgeable and honest.
Honest? He has been shown he are wrong on this point so many times. Yet, the next day he repeat the same lie again. We don't need people like that in this world.
@patticarey9016 You don’t get out much ole Patti because there are much smarter people than delusional Meyer who completely refute everything he says!! That’s the problem when faith, belief without evidence, comes up against science!!
@@sheilasmith7779 "State your evidence that Meyer is "delusional.""- he's been peddling the same discredited rubbish for decades now. No research, no data, no experiment, no papers, no progress in cobbling together anything which might resemble a scientific theory to replace evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Denying it is delusional on its face. Unless you're Meyer's crony Berlinski- he denies it because, having failed as an academic, he needs the money.
I love Dr Meyer. One of my favorite humans and someone I would really like to meet one day and have lunch with. A long lunch LOL. He explains very complicated things and understandable ways and has really encouraged my love for science and math / probability.
Just challenging the idea put forth that a probably calculation can be done at all. There is only one universe that we know exists and that universe has properties that we label as Constance that as far as we can tell, can’t be any different than what they are. The strong nuclear force works the way it works. The weak nuclear force works the way that it works. Electromagnetism works the way that it works. Gravity works the way that it works. There is no evidence that it could be any other way than what it is so ask yourself how likely when you only have one of some thing and nothing else to compare it to could be any different. You have no basis for the assertion. Example if you have two universe’s and they each have different properties of physics. Then you can say that universe is, could come with some degree of certainty like this one or like that one the probability would be 50% of the time you get this one and 50% of the time you get the other kind. One of one there is nothing to do any probability about. Because we have the fact of our universe you still can’t say that a different universe is more likely than another that’s identical. For the simple fact that we know that the universe that we experience works. I know I’m a little bit deep in the weeds. This is an idea that we are really limited in our ability to investigate. When dealing cards a ROYAL FLUSH A K Q J 10 ♠️ has the same odds as any pre identified 5 card group. Like 2 ♠️ 7♥️ J♦️ A♥️ 10♣️ So even when they say it like rolling a 6 seventy times in a row. It’s no different than pre selecting a seventy 6 sided die sequence where are you randomly select one of the six numbers for each of the 70 rolls and everyone Hass to get the number for that specific role. The odds are identical. And they had to be what they are for us to be able to wonder about it. How arrogant and self-centered do you have to be to think that all of this was done so we could think it must’ve been done for us. Look at this universe. We exist in a place that we can’t survive Everywhere on the earth. And the rest of the universe is barely accessible to us. You want comfort and you are uncomfortable with the unknown. Well just making stuff up or others making stuff up for you doesn’t really solve the problem. Look up the definition of cognitive dissidents. It’s what happens when you have to maintain the belief when there’s no evidence to support it you go with the belief because too much of your life Hass to change if you except the new information that supports the reality that we see in our universe.
@@markgallemore8856 you make a fundamental mistake in assessing probability with such an example as the royal flush. Of course the royal flush is as probable as any five-card sequence. Therefore a person getting a royal flush can shrug and say it was just as probable as any of the hands anyone else had at the table. Now what if they got a royal flush five times in a row? They could no longer use that excuse because everybody would know they were cheating, or at least the dealer was cheating. They would know there was human intervention involved the same as rolling a six seventy times in a row. So what you are missing is you are only talking about complexity or very low probability while ignoring specificity or matching a functional sequence. It's the difference between "cnxjwkwkur ifjrnrjjrnrndnfhhw smxociwl" and "I am arranging these letters in a functional sequence". Furthermore, we do know something about a stronger or weaker nuclear force, gravity, or electromagnetism being changed and what would happen. The same as getting dealt 5 Royal flushes in a row (or more appropriately, 100 in a row) must be dealt with and just hand-waving it away doesn't work.
@@markgallemore8856 *probability *constants You should read the book to find out how the probabilities are calculated. Your reasoning is based on observation at the highest level. Scientists base their calculations on the properties. It’s like predicting whether a car will start, based on a single successful start, versus a calculation based on fuel type and purity, how long since the last start, battery charge, air temperature, etc. Einstein’s equations spin off into an equation called the Universal Wave Function. The function describes the universe’s properties as probabilistic. All the cosmological models (branes, inflation, string, etc.) show that universes resulting from the seed described by the function could have taken any form, and the probability of one of those universes having the properties of our universe is ridiculously low. The probabilities of individual constants have also been calculated based on other criteria such as the ranges of possible values and the degrees of precision required so that our universe would function. The probabilities always come out unthinkably low. So, yes, probability calculations can be done. Even anti-theists don’t challenge that. That’s why they keep resorting to wilder and wilder models of multiverses that belong in comic books, not science.
And yet It was done for us Or I’d say It was done for Gods glory We just benefit And the point is, if it was done for us, how much appreciation and love was shown and should be returned for that That’s why man should be in awe and on his knees with gratitude
@@nomadicrecovery1586 what is the evidence for your assertion that it was done for us ? In the text someone says that he’s a jealous God. How do you know that he didn’t do it for himself ? Oh demonstrate that the universe can be turned. You don’t get to just say it was. I think you have put the cart in front of the horse. Just saying. All you have said is there’s a universe so there’s a God. Don’t you think that there’s a whole lot of stuff demonstrating the validity in between the observation and the conclusion.
@@SeanMcDowell Unfortunately anything Stephen Meyer says has to be taken with a large pinch of salt. If you work for an organisation like the Discovery Institute, where you are required to sign a statement of faith, then you cannot go wherever the evidence suggests. Truth is whatever the Bible says it is. There is an underlying presupposition that no evidence in any field can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Consequently, Meyer and his organisation expends all their efforts attempting to undermine science that contradicts the Bible.
Oh poor @mxcollin95 living a life of make believe because it feels good?! Hey genius who created the creator!? And don’t fall back on the “I don’t have an answer” God is “eternal” as that answers nothing and is completely and utterly withougg TG any evidence whatsoever!! Ah to live life in simple childlike ignorance I guess is bliss yo you zealots…like Meyer!!
Sean McDowell does an excellent job at interviewing these incredible minds and balancing great questions with allowing them to speak. I wish I had discovered his ministry sooner. It is a huge blessing.
Went to Whitworth College with Dr. Stephen Meyer and we were both Physics majors! Dr. Tour, of RICE UNIVERSITY, has been debating Athiest scientists on the SHEER IMPROBABILITY of ABIOGENENESIS based solely on the basic biochemicals and organic synthesis concepts. I was on Campus at Purdue University and Dr. Tour was just ONE BUILDING over getting his PhD in Chemistry while I completed my PhD Physics coursework!! God Bless all ...
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Wow INCREDIBLY MATERIALISTIC INSIGHT. You will learn very soon why you have life and there is matter that came from nothing. I'm a PhD Physicist imbecile, and I have a BS in CHEMISTRY and a minor in BIOLOGY. I know things that would curl your hair. The signs of GOD and his handiwork are all around you and in you, but you have to be a little intelligent and purposeful to understand it!! The cell is becoming more complex all the time, because we are learning more and more that Darwin and early biologists were clueless about the cell. So are you obviously...
what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
Great conversation! The emphasis on physical constants is important, because these constants of physics help in understanding creation and the universe.
I like what John Lennox said while smiling: If there are unlimited universes with all possibilities existing then in one of those universes God exist. On the monkeys typing Shakespeare, I doubt they would ever type a complete play. Why? Because of meaningless repetitive actions. If there was a device that stopped them from repeating already tried combinations, then yes. They would eventually type the play given enough time. String theory made me smile. As I understand it, everything is made of vibrating "strings". It made me remember "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made." Speaking causes vibration.
I have listened to many of Dr Meyer's talks and read several of his excellent books. This was a great summary, simple and understandably explained! Thanks for posting this Sean!
@@Dlazcano02 He lies that he's a scientist. He's not and never has been. He's a lying hack at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group who abuses the work of genuine scientists in his quest to get his religion rammed down the throats of other people's children.
When I was into new atheism it surely wasn't apparent to me that there was this, or these, deep philosophical issues at the root of things. New atheism seems to bypass or ignore them. It's so weird when I saw a Hitchens vs John Lennox debate. I'd seen it before, but suddenly Lennox seemed more plausible. Great show. It's very helpful.
There are multiple detailed and devastating refutations of the fine tuning arguments. One being that it counts against an omnipotent deity. So, “god” is all powerful and yet can’t make life happen if the cosmological constant were a tiny bit different? How hard did you look?
An ideology is something that refuses to be objective and denies the obvious! While I understand that scientists need to hold tightly to naturalism to maintain their credibility amongst their peers, it’s still an ideology just the same. From the macro to the micro the complexity of the universe is a given, the probability for this complexity is astounding and incontrovertible yet the subjective attitudes of scientists over objectivity is astonishing!
@@ricksonora6656: I feel I need to refine my definition of ideology. What I’m referring to is a rigid ideology whereby a person has presuppositional views that will not change no matter what facts prove to be logical or true and will go to great lengths to suppress or destroy evidence to support their rigid ideology! I suggest people see the movie Expelled: No intelligence required.
Yeah that’s one small part, there’s not enough room to say much, and I discovered that if you try it won’t get posted, and you’ll see a message that says, Error, 400 something, I don’t remember. But the evolutionary scientists also completely abandoned their sacred scientific method, in order to mold the evidence to to fit their preconceived narrative. It’s also a bald faced lie, when they say all scientists agree with it, because they don’t, and I read an article some time ago, that detailed how a group of 500 scientists completely rejected the evolutionary narrative, and every single facet of it. And the scientists who actually follow the scientific method, are aware of the False Claims they make, and call them facts, and in spite of the evidence that either suggests and sometimes proves the exact opposite. And these are the scientists, who followed the scientific method and came to a completely different conclusion. And so it’s not so much that it’s different evidence or alternative evidence, although there also is suppressed evidence that they don’t talk about, but that’s another story on its own, that’s too much to mention here. And for the most part it’s just the interpretation of the evidence to make it fit their secular ideological religion of Evolution. The evidence that disproves it is actually staggering, but Intelligent Design is just not acceptable, and they have to go to outrageous extremes in order to avoid the obvious. But it’s difficult to fight them on it and keep your integrity, and still keep your job, and when you have a family to support. And so, it just is what it is I guess, and part of a lot of other corruption going on. And unfortunately a lot of people are like sheep being led to the slaughter, and they trust what they’re told, and on top of that, the power of indoctrination and biased prejudice is incredible, and if you don’t happen to be someone who possesses a fair amount of intellectual and personal integrity, you have no antidote against it, and are just a willing victim. And being intelligent and highly academically educated, isn’t going to help if you lack integrity, it just makes you a much more dangerous individual.
Regarding divine extravance, beyond the arguments that the universe has to be as big as it is to produce the heavy metals and sufficient carbon, it takes a gabillion raindrops and blades of grass to produce the milk that it takes to produce a block of Wisconsin sharp cheddar cheese, and a gabillion drops of water and maple tree leaves to produce a piece of Wisconsin maple sugar candy, but they both taste good!
Sean, I love your podcast and channel. I would love to be able to hear your guests better. I regularly struggle with their volume. Just constructive criticism. Thanks so much.
WE NEED SEAN ON JRE!!!!!! Sean, for your guests, do you tell them ahead of time what you will be asking them? Do you do this all the time, or just sometimes, or just for ones like this that might need it so they can prep or not at all? I probably didn’t need to give you all the options lol
Thank you very much, I love listening to both of you, always very enlightening. As far as I know Sabine Hossenfelder also makes the claim we couldn't know whether the universe is fine-tuned bc we cannot observe universes with other parameters or values. And Hossenfelder also dismisses the multiverse hypothesis. She said that in a conversation with Luke Barnes on the 'Unbelievable?' show. In your video Dr Meyer refutes the claim that we couldn't know whether the universe is fine-tuned. But maybe you can address Hossenfelder's claims in a bit more detail. Hossenfelder also believes we don't really have free will which is absurd. Without free will we couldn't even control our words and convictions - which would be the end of science altogether. Our free will alone shows: we are more than a bunch of chemicals and death is not the end. Thank Jesus we have a bridge to heaven❤
Hossenfelder’s claim about calculating probabilities is a surprisingly narrow- minded argument. It’s like saying you need to try starting multiple cars to determine whether yours will start. She’s ignoring that you can take into account how long since the car has been started, the quality and quantity of fuel, air temperature, altitude, and battery charge. Experimentation is not the only way we can estimate probabilities. We can start with the universal wave function, and we can reverse engineer by breaking down the properties of the universe, too.
free will is an illusion, did you "choose" the be theist randomly, or were you persuaded? if you were persuaded there is no way you can be otherwise. "free will" means you just pick things randomly for no reason, that would be silly. furthermore there is one past history, both for the universe and individuals, (unless we invent time travel) and i think you can infer there will be one future history too - so you take ONE path through time - where s the free will in that?
@@ricksonora6656 we have a sample of one - one universe, we have NO data other than that so you're talking nonsense, but keep it up i expect anyone coming to a religious propaganda channel for science has zero interest in the truth of science. "universal wave function" you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sean you’re great but one gentle suggestion just let him talk and lessen the “right” and “got it” so many distractive filler words that potentially stop or slow down someone’s explanation momentum. Thank you my friend!
It’s actually interview technique 101, to be 100% quiet when the subject speaks, and to let them finish. The constant «filler» words from the interviewer are definitely distracting, and also convey the feeling of impatience.
i always go straight to religious apologists for my science when i want to believe that the talking snake and donkey cult isn;t for simpletons. apologists are dishonest, mcdowell is dishonest, he is misleading YOU, and meyer should l know better, he is no scientist. what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
Well, not necessarily. I'm not sure that much would change in the world in the space of just one hour. A year, certainly. Ten years, most certainly. I think we need to take care lest we equate fine tuning with some form of predestination.
That might be true for some, but not for most. It would depend on major circumstances. For example, being born before the mom reached the hospital might cause the single mother’s death and growing up an orphan. However, sensitivity of a life to circumstances does not mean the circumstances were tuned. Fine tuning implies an agent building a detailed plan into the starting conditions of the universe. Intervention becomes redundant. Scriptures indicate that God intervenes in some events but allows others to unfold on their own. Each time that God intervenes has ripple effects such that initial conditions become less deterministic.
Actually naturalism is the logical default. Every cause we have observed has been a result of natural forces. Not once have we found an act of divine or supernatural creation. Unless you have something new.
@@rickdelatour5355 naturalism is not and cannot be the default. The Law of Biogenesis holds that living cells only come from preexisting living cells. The Cell Theory confirms this as well. That means the origin of life has to be an eternal living source. Only God meets that qualification. Abiogenesis is a nonstarter. You said, "Every cause we have observed has been a result of natural forces." No scientist has observed life arise from nonliving material (natural causes). People used to believe life arose from nonliving material in real time, but then microscopes were developed enabling us to observe life at the cellular level which allowed us to actually observe that it NEVER happens that way. Of the millions of cells we have actually observed none of them has ever arisen from nonliving material. So are atheists hoping that something we never observe is the cause of something we observe every moment of every day just so they can maintain the illogical, irrational notion of no God? Please accept observable science and documented history. Declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved.
@@refuse2bdcvd324there is no “law” of biogenesis. For 700,000,000 years this planet was dead. Now it isn’t. Either that happened by natural processes or it was magic. Science goes with the former
Me: Stephen how far down this rabbit hole are you going to take me? Stephen: Yes. 😅 Great work guys. Makes me realise that when all these scientists that label Christians having blind faith are really just projecting their own beliefs. Well done guys.
Podcasts are a better forum for conversations compared to talk radio by a long shot. Podcasts can be viewed by a larger audience, can be watched at any time, don't have commercial breaks every 5 minutes, and can be paused.
Excellent discussion...unfortunately our education system has destroyed critical thinking. Postmodernism would say, these fact do not matter. God is screaming he exists both in the micro and the macro universe. Humanity chooses to remain blind.
meyers sucks, he doesn't even seem to be aware of how his owm god works. i'm amazed at how many of you people are so dazzled by having your voodoo confirmed by a pretend scientist that you can't see where he is totally wrong. have YOU got any idea why meyers and ross and behe and tour are totally wrong? it's incredible to me you have no idea what i'm talking about.
Dawkins ignorance and incompetence is 'kinda breathtaking to me. The first page of the preface of 'The Selfish Gene' is ludicrous, utterly embarrasing.
@@carawhiting1579 Interesting choice of line breaks. It's almost soothing, you can't always derive tone from text, if ever, but that came on gentle, like an ebbing wave.
Fine tuning is one of the poorest arguments for God. God can do anything regardless of the conditions. Nothing has to be fine tuned as God does not have to abide by the laws of nature. We could just as easily have been silicone based as carbon based, or be made of alloy. As this is the only universe we have to examine, how do we know what is finely tuned? If the parameters were different then the universe would be different and be finely tuned for whatever existed in that universe. This is naturalism 101, we are a product of, and are adapted to our environment. The theistic concept of miracles destroys the idea that things have to be fine tuned. If the natural order can be suspended, this renders fine tuning otiose. When you believe in magic anything is possible.
Fine tuning requires a deep dive into the weak interaction. It has all sort of things we did not expect: parity & CP violation, flavor changing neutral currents, neutrino oscillations and ofc the Higgs mechanism . Without FCNC, nuclear and atomic physics wouldn’t work at all. It also drives supernovae and neutron star formation…which gives us heavy elements
//... the God hypothesis best explains the origin of the universe ...// I've never seen what that explanation is. The "explanation" seems to be nothing more than:- a. Here are some phenomena, e,g, a universe, some fine fine tuning. b. Science does not explain either. c. But God does. ^^ But that is not an explanation in the sense that science likes to explain things. In fact in our daily lives, we would not accept that as an explanation. Rather it's an argument for the existence of some kind of creating god. Here is the question ++++++++++++++++ So how did God or some god create the universe? Explain it to the same degree and depth you would expect a scientist to explain it. Show me what a good explanation looks like. As for Fine Tuning .... While I think it's a good argument, FT certainly has its weak points. For example, if you folk can posit an eternal god who somewhat fine tuned stuff, we can posit an eternal universe that was already fine tuned. No need to explain it because it's eternal, just like God. Then there is the idea of a multiverse which is probably no more whacky than a disembodied mind which can do stuff (e.g God). Another attack is that many of the finely tuned variables do have a small amount of slack. That is, they are not precisely fine tuned. Yet another is that we don't really know how the variables may interact. Thus, increase one may be compensated for by decreasing another. Another is that perhaps these alternative universes may be sterile for our kind of life. But who knows what other structures may exist within them which do essentially what life does in our universe - namely dissipate a lot of energy. Finally, supposed the universe is finely tuned and therefore God. That is still a long way from the Christian or the Jewish or the Muslim God.
Lots of questions here, but keep in mind that HOW God fine tunes the universe is a separate question from IF the universe bears the marks of design. It is a natural follow up question that, in no way, undermines design. And you're right about the Muslim God. That's why we look elsewhere (history, theology, etc.) to decipher between the two. But FT does rule out naturalism and pantheism, if successful.
@@SeanMcDowell Hmmm. If we live in an eternal universe that is FT, or within a multiverse, one of which is FT, I don't see how naturalism is necessarily ruled out.
@@SeanMcDowellit doesn't rule out pantheism... why would you say that? I'm an Advaita Vedantin (pantheism is the best Western way to describe my beliefs) and there is definitely fine tuning, but all mental and not physical (physical matter is merely appearing in consciousness).
@mcmanustony Yet another claim by an angry guy, a claim lacking any supportive evidence. BTW, labels mean nothing, and name calling is juvenile....therefore completely unpersuasive. Get some professional help.
@@sheilasmith7779 take a seat and work on your manners. I didn’t call him names. I accurately described him as a lying hack. He is NOT a scientist of any kind, has contributed nothing to scholarship in any discipline, cheated his way into a journal of research with a pathetic research free essay by bypassing the review process…..”simply brilliant”. His book is incompetent, dishonest tripe- and no amount of pearl clutching and performative outrage from you will alter that. What honest scholar would glue two groups of words separated by FIFTEEN PAGES…..in order to manufacture a quote that totally misrepresents a scientist? This is what Meyer did with the work of paelontologist Charles Marshall. Shameful dishonest antics. You’d do better sparing us the posturing and reading Marshall, or the standard academic text on the Cambrian- Erwin and Valentine. Or does actual science scare you?
the universe is also fine tuned for toilet paper and cell phones. it's a dumb argument but as i keep saying people who come to religious propaganda pages for their science aren't interested in truth but confirmation of the bollocks cult they are members of. you diss science when you want and you abuse science when you want, christians suck as humans.
Try and imagine, that this was the kind of thoughts you had , as you lie in bed at 3am staring at the ceiling, unable to sleep. It gives new meaning, to the old adage, Contemplating the Cosmos.
Just because we can only see this Universe doesn't mean that there aren't many others. If it could happen once, why not many times. It's that simple. And if the constants can vary, it's no surprise we find ourselves in the universe where we can exist. That's the anthropic argument.
The problem with fine tuning is not that it is not factual but rather the assumption that the result of a given tuning implied that the end result came about because of the serendipitous situation, for instance the resonant frequency apparently required to make carbon from beryllium and helium. While this may be factually true does not mean that is the way carbon came into being. There is much more that can be said but is beyond the scope of a measley comment. However, the fine tuning may still be evidence of a mind anyway.
See how he says the constants are derived from observation and experimentation. Therefore once you derived the constants, they will of course break the universe if you change any of it for the simple reason that you derived it from the observation of THIS universe. Any changes of the constants will no longer be describing the universe that you derived it from.
A tire is not sustained through constant design and molding. The processes are very different. But you do bring up an interesting question: What keeps physics from changing?Why doesn’t the universe POOF! back into nothingness?
@@ricksonora6656 appreciate the analysis, but the tire will wear down, creating the need for more tires and the process, albeit with improvements in design
Very nice video! I was wondering, some could say that the multiverse is a consequence of other theories like string theory therefore we just need to prove those theories are right and not necessarily that the multiverse is possible. I think Sean Carroll said something like that. What could we answer to that?
Your question asks what are the odds that smiting is likely. You might want to delete “are likely” and change “that the scriptures are” to “that the scriptures would be.”
If anyone has also read Super Nature by Lyall Watson - he gives multiple examples of events in nature that just blow your mind.. the unseen forces & effects that create these outcomes can only point to the fact that someone/something is looking over this chaos..
A little off topic but the chapter where it was found that plants were sentient beings when an FBI detective decided to hook up polygraph on a whim. The plant gave definite responses to cruelty, negativity & even could identify a person it witnessed committing a crime..
But if the fossil record doesn't show us or birds for example, and evolution can't explain new body plans, where did we come from? What process was involved?
Fine Tuning is usually explained in only two ways, but there is a third way. First, some say the fine tuning is there because there was a cosmic designer, a cosmic engineer: God. Others say that fine-tuning requires no God to exist, because there are, so they say, an infinite number of universes, and therefore there are bound to be a few that are exactly what is necessary for life to evolve. But there is a third way to explain why the universe appears to be so minutely tuned so as to permit the appearance of life. One can explain it by arguing that the universe is and always has been alive -- it may have been born from God and then evolved from then till now, but then it was not born from God as cosmic machinist or cosmic engineer setting a bunch of dials perfectly on a cosmic machine, rather, it was born from God more as a child comes from its parents. The universe in that case is so finely tuned to life and mind because it has always had life and mind from the beginning, and the material aspects of the universe are actually derived from that life, not the other way around. The material aspects are condensates of that life, condensates that formed gradually over huge eons of time. Matter is not eternal, though it may be that it will always be at least a potential if not always actual reality, but life and mind are eternal, and cannot be explained by anything else other than by themselves. Try to explain mind without using mind itself! You cannot. In that sense, mind, and the truth it is connected with, are self-grounded, self-caused, self-explanatory, eternal. Since human beings through their humanity have access to universal mind, it follows that human beings are the answer to the riddle of the universe. We explain it, we make it comprehensible, we are the answer, at least among incarnate and material beings, though not in higher worlds.
@Eduardude there is a fourth way to explain fine-tuning and is the simplest. Imagine your math teacher put several points on a cartesian plane (x-y plane) and told the students to find a function whose graph goes through all these points. Then you create a formula with as many variables and power and coefficients that fits the graph. Now the teacher asks you to modify any of the coefficients and you realize that your formula is fine-tuned to the graph and any changes will miss out some or all the points. This is the same with our model of the universe. We see the universe, we experimented and observed, then we created the mathematical model to simulate it. So, now, any changes we make to our Standard model will break our "universe" not because the universe is fine tuned but because our formula was fine-tuned to our observation of the universe.
There are more possibilities than 1,000,000,000,000-1, for a 12 digit keypad, because that assumes that there would be no repeating numbers. If you allow for the possibility of repeating numbers, I think that the potential combinations require a totally different formula…
The Standard Model of the Universe is a theory that is made up of mathematical models that describes the physics of this universe. Since the mathematical model was derived from the observation and experimentation, therefore that mathematical model would be expected to simulate the universe if its parameters are correct or at least very near the correct values. Now, is the universe fine tuned? The model was fined tuned to reflect the universe and not vice versa. Think of it this way, I see a block of wood and measure its dimensions. Then I gave the measurements to another person who hasn't seen the wood. Upon seeing the block of wood for the first time, the second person measures it and was amazed how it has the same dimensions as I gave him. This is the same thing. After several decades of experiments, measurements, modeling, the model that survived these experimentation and analysis will fit the universe like a glove. But it is not the universe that was fined tuned. It was the model.
In music (simply said) it's the vibration of the tone/sound, or in case that SM presented it's the reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighbouring object.
I'm highly skeptical of the big bang. It seems more likely that the universe was poofed into existence with everything already scattered far and wide, in a steady condition suitable for life. We can extrapolate backward from there and envision some ridiculously improbable initial condition that would have led to it, but what rational creator would approach it that way rather than starting with their desired result?
@dekutree64 "... but what rational creator would approach it that way rather than starting with their desired result?" A firework maker creates a small compact object that must explode with a bang and create lots of lightsto be appreciated. I guess those who make fireworks and those who watch them are all irrational.
...What? God literally tells us in His Word that he did not start with his desired result. There is an end coming that justifies the means. For the joy set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame.
Sean, we agree on one thing it’s the best of the bad arguments which isn’t saying much and saying the word fine-tuning over and over and over again doesn’t demonstrate anything other than you have presumed what you need to prove. So until you prove, don’t claim. Stop using the term fine-tuning. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that any scientist has ever gotten a Nobel prize for providing good evidence that supports how singularities weather, eternal, or non-eternal come into existence. And how long they remain like that, until something unknown allows them, or causes them to expand. So just because most things have a proceeding cause doesn’t mean that we have access to more evidence for whatever it was or is. Consider this concept maybe it’s something that we are human beings is not knowable.
1:08:15 I would only argue that as evidence that the designer is not omnipotent. I can write a computer program to randomly generate an infinite amount of unique stars and planets with no effort expended on each one, but to make one really interesting planet I'd have to devote a lot of time to it. And that's exactly what the universe looks like. Just a bunch of random stuff floating around and bumping together, whereas Earth received a great deal of attention to set it up just right and fill it with life. But there are plenty of arguments for omnipotence regardless. It's possible there are billions of fine-tuned life-filled planets out there and we just haven't seen them yet. Or maybe this is the only one and it was just a choice that it would be more interesting than having a bunch of them. Or there could be other entire universes each with one (or more) life-filled planets in them, created by the same creator.
I don't have any axes to grind with theism, but I found this reasoning lacking. 1.Universe exists. if we can explain a universe existing, whatever that reason may be, we might as well posit existence of meta-verse the same way. If one universe exists, why not...all of them? It has nothing to do with probabilities, we still have one 'cosmos' whether it consists of solely what we can observe or an infinitude of other realms. Then our own fine-tuning turns from a miracle to eventuality. Therefore fine-tuning argument doesn't hold much power on its own, it just sends us back towards the questions why *any* universe exists 2.Can we explain why universe exists? It may be a creator, or it just appeared out of nowhere for no reason, or it has infinitely long past, i.e. turtles all the way down. I don't think God hypothesis is any more compelling than the rest. It certainly has one flaw: I know universe exists - that's where I live. God is an another extra entity that we need to postulate, that decreases elegance of our theory.
People talk about initial conditions but I see that there can only be a single initial condition and that was the dimensions of the universe at its first appearing, everything else flowed from that!!
The idea of fine tuning as an explanation of the existence of a creator is an inverse interpretation of reality. It is not that there was a creator who designed the universe with the perfect parameters so that life can exist, but rather that life exists in this universe precisely because the previous conditions allowed it to exist. It is like saying, for example, that rivers that serve as borders to certain countries adapted to the form of these borders and not the other way around: borders adapt to rivers. That is, life adapts wherever there are conditions for it. The theory of multiverse, proposed and accepted today by many renowned cosmologists, states that there may be an infinite number of universes with completely different laws and physical conditions that would make the existence of life as we conceive it impossible. Also that the multiverse, being infinite by definition, will also contain an infinite number of other universes with laws, parameters and physical conditions similar to ours that do allow, indeed, the development of life as we know it.
@@Epsjdjdjdjs Please explain why you think I didn't follow thr conversation? Also, anybody who calls himself a "scientist" and still believes there is a God or similar, responsible for creation, does not deserve to be called such. It is a set of beliefs for uneducated people or, for those who do not mind insulting their own intelligence.
So when you said the Hoyle resonance was around 7 point something electron volts, that’s a total Dr Evil ransom money moment…it’s seven million something electron volts
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
@funkfamily4165 I’m a professional musician. I’m aware of fine tuning. I have a background in science- hence know that the fine tuning argument is utter nonsense
@funkfamily4165 " a background in science makes the fine-tuning argument ridiculous. "- no, the facts make it ridiculous. My education makes me aware of WHY it's ridiculous. There is no support for the notion that the physical constants can vary. How does the notion of an omnipotent god sit with the fine tuning argument? I see at least two problems: how did the constants get "out of tune"? Why can't an OMNIPOTENT deity create life in ANY configuration of constants? Some parts of the surface of one planet in one solar system are capable of sustaining life some of the time. Throw in the trivial observation that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is crudely tuned for instantaneous death and the argument falls apart. If we are the purpose for the universe, what is Saturn for? "I'll let my shop techs know that they don't have to "fine tune" the machines anymore. "- don't be so stupid. You have an analogy and are pushing it way beyond its shelf life. You seem joined at the hip to this hopeless analogy with musical instruments. It's quite comical. "Is that what you believe?"- no of course it isn't, for reasons that would be blindingly obvious to a child. As strawmen go, this is pathetic. The rest of your post is just idiotic drivel. Where there is evidence of design we infer design. I have no need of faith- that is belief in the absence of evidence. I have a large number of guitars. In almost all cases, a fender strat being an exception, I personally KNOW the people who built them as most were built to my specs. How you contort that into "design" of the universe is for you to amuse yourself with.
I almost think McDowell ehen he asks the questions but then because Meyer gives such a long explanation he just starts going uh-huh. uh okay I get it 😁 very solid and interesting topic
If the chance of an imperfect universe conductive to life is 1 in 10^1000... A universe where life isn't perfect, can only happen in a very small domain within, a universe that took a billion years to create a planet for life... Then what is the chance of the existence of an entity that is all powerful, all good, eternal, etc.. an entity that has all attributes to the maximum degree that can think up and create a universe?
@@oscargr_Apparently, the reason is not deductively obvious to you, so let’s try inductive logic. What are the odds that a pair of fair dice comes up snake eyes 1000 times in a row? If that happens, do you conclude that it makes it less likely that someone tampered with the dice? That’s what you argued. You argued that, if the universe being this way is unlikely, then it is unlikely that an intelligent agent cause it to beat the odds. When something impossible happens, it is reasonable to conclude that some Agent caused it to happen. In other words, if the odds are 10^1230 against something happening, the odds are 100% that some One caused it. And the causal Agent must have attributes sufficient to make it happen. I hope that helps.
@@ricksonora6656 "You argued that, if the universe being this way is unlikely, then it is unlikely that an intelligent agent cause it to beat the odds" That's not what I argued. "When something impossible happens, it is reasonable to conclude some Agent caused it to happen " No it isn't.
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[46] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and saying that the article had been published at the discretion of the former editor Richard Sternberg "without review by any associate editor".[
Yeah, that turned out to be untrue or a half-truth. But even if the editor were correct, using the publisher’s apology to dispute the ideas in the article would be a sort of ad populum logical fallacy.
The thing that struck me reading Dr. Meyers' books is his thorough discussion of objections to his arguments. He strikes me as both knowledgeable and honest.
Honest? He has been shown he are wrong on this point so many times. Yet, the next day he repeat the same lie again. We don't need people like that in this world.
@@wooe Your comment is incoherent. And was that a threat? Not the best look, sir.
@@davidhawley1132 How is it incoherent?
@@wooeVery interesting. Can you share an example please? Thank you.
@@wooeSo, he is wrong how? Please elaborate for us.
I am honored to have Mr. Stephen Meyer.
I think he pulled scientific thought out of the swamp it fell into.
really? he IS the swamp.
Always learn something from Stephen Meyer who does a good job of explaining complex concepts in ready to understand terms.
If you always learn something from Stephen Meyer your brain must be as wrinkly as a pool ball
@patticarey9016 You don’t get out much ole Patti because there are much smarter people than delusional Meyer who completely refute everything he says!! That’s the problem when faith, belief without evidence, comes up against science!!
@@dipdo7675State your evidence that Meyer is "delusional."
A claim is not evidence, dippydo.
@@sheilasmith7779 "State your evidence that Meyer is "delusional.""- he's been peddling the same discredited rubbish for decades now. No research, no data, no experiment, no papers, no progress in cobbling together anything which might resemble a scientific theory to replace evolution.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Denying it is delusional on its face. Unless you're Meyer's crony Berlinski- he denies it because, having failed as an academic, he needs the money.
@dipdo7675 what has he refuted?
I love Dr Meyer. One of my favorite humans and someone I would really like to meet one day and have lunch with. A long lunch LOL. He explains very complicated things and understandable ways and has really encouraged my love for science and math / probability.
Just challenging the idea put forth that a probably calculation can be done at all. There is only one universe that we know exists and that universe has properties that we label as Constance that as far as we can tell, can’t be any different than what they are. The strong nuclear force works the way it works. The weak nuclear force works the way that it works. Electromagnetism works the way that it works. Gravity works the way that it works. There is no evidence that it could be any other way than what it is so ask yourself how likely when you only have one of some thing and nothing else to compare it to could be any different. You have no basis for the assertion. Example if you have two universe’s and they each have different properties of physics. Then you can say that universe is, could come with some degree of certainty like this one or like that one the probability would be 50% of the time you get this one and 50% of the time you get the other kind. One of one there is nothing to do any probability about. Because we have the fact of our universe you still can’t say that a different universe is more likely than another that’s identical. For the simple fact that we know that the universe that we experience works. I know I’m a little bit deep in the weeds. This is an idea that we are really limited in our ability to investigate. When dealing cards a ROYAL FLUSH A K Q J 10 ♠️ has the same odds as any pre identified 5 card group. Like 2 ♠️ 7♥️ J♦️ A♥️ 10♣️
So even when they say it like rolling a 6 seventy times in a row. It’s no different than pre selecting a seventy 6 sided die sequence where are you randomly select one of the six numbers for each of the 70 rolls and everyone Hass to get the number for that specific role. The odds are identical. And they had to be what they are for us to be able to wonder about it. How arrogant and self-centered do you have to be to think that all of this was done so we could think it must’ve been done for us. Look at this universe. We exist in a place that we can’t survive Everywhere on the earth. And the rest of the universe is barely accessible to us. You want comfort and you are uncomfortable with the unknown. Well just making stuff up or others making stuff up for you doesn’t really solve the problem. Look up the definition of cognitive dissidents. It’s what happens when you have to maintain the belief when there’s no evidence to support it you go with the belief because too much of your life Hass to change if you except the new information that supports the reality that we see in our universe.
@@markgallemore8856 you make a fundamental mistake in assessing probability with such an example as the royal flush. Of course the royal flush is as probable as any five-card sequence. Therefore a person getting a royal flush can shrug and say it was just as probable as any of the hands anyone else had at the table. Now what if they got a royal flush five times in a row? They could no longer use that excuse because everybody would know they were cheating, or at least the dealer was cheating. They would know there was human intervention involved the same as rolling a six seventy times in a row. So what you are missing is you are only talking about complexity or very low probability while ignoring specificity or matching a functional sequence.
It's the difference between "cnxjwkwkur ifjrnrjjrnrndnfhhw smxociwl" and "I am arranging these letters in a functional sequence".
Furthermore, we do know something about a stronger or weaker nuclear force, gravity, or electromagnetism being changed and what would happen.
The same as getting dealt 5 Royal flushes in a row (or more appropriately, 100 in a row) must be dealt with and just hand-waving it away doesn't work.
@@markgallemore8856
*probability
*constants
You should read the book to find out how the probabilities are calculated.
Your reasoning is based on observation at the highest level. Scientists base their calculations on the properties.
It’s like predicting whether a car will start, based on a single successful start, versus a calculation based on fuel type and purity, how long since the last start, battery charge, air temperature, etc.
Einstein’s equations spin off into an equation called the Universal Wave Function. The function describes the universe’s properties as probabilistic. All the cosmological models (branes, inflation, string, etc.) show that universes resulting from the seed described by the function could have taken any form, and the probability of one of those universes having the properties of our universe is ridiculously low.
The probabilities of individual constants have also been calculated based on other criteria such as the ranges of possible values and the degrees of precision required so that our universe would function. The probabilities always come out unthinkably low.
So, yes, probability calculations can be done. Even anti-theists don’t challenge that. That’s why they keep resorting to wilder and wilder models of multiverses that belong in comic books, not science.
And yet
It was done for us
Or
I’d say
It was done for Gods glory
We just benefit
And the point is, if it was done for us, how much appreciation and love was shown and should be returned for that
That’s why man should be in awe and on his knees with gratitude
@@nomadicrecovery1586 what is the evidence for your assertion that it was done for us ?
In the text someone says that he’s a jealous God. How do you know that he didn’t do it for himself ?
Oh demonstrate that the universe can be turned. You don’t get to just say it was. I think you have put the cart in front of the horse. Just saying. All you have said is there’s a universe so there’s a God. Don’t you think that there’s a whole lot of stuff demonstrating the validity in between the observation and the conclusion.
Love hearing from Steven Meyer!!! He always has super interesting info.
Yea he does!
@@SeanMcDowell Unfortunately anything Stephen Meyer says has to be taken with a large pinch of salt. If you work for an organisation like the Discovery Institute, where you are required to sign a statement of faith, then you cannot go wherever the evidence suggests.
Truth is whatever the Bible says it is. There is an underlying presupposition that no evidence in any field can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
Consequently, Meyer and his organisation expends all their efforts attempting to undermine science that contradicts the Bible.
No, he just has lies to spew.
Oh poor @mxcollin95 living a life of make believe because it feels good?! Hey genius who created the creator!? And don’t fall back on the “I don’t have an answer” God is “eternal” as that answers nothing and is completely and utterly withougg TG any evidence whatsoever!! Ah to live life in simple childlike ignorance I guess is bliss yo you zealots…like Meyer!!
@@alexnorth3393State your evidence to support your claim that Meyer lies.
Or go away and play with your cat.
Sean McDowell does an excellent job at interviewing these incredible minds and balancing great questions with allowing them to speak. I wish I had discovered his ministry sooner. It is a huge blessing.
Have you tried listening to actual scientists rather than lying religious hacks?
he's just another dishonest apologist selling courses and books. and meyer is a charlatan.
Fabulous explanations. Thanks gentlemen.
Went to Whitworth College with Dr. Stephen Meyer and we were both Physics majors!
Dr. Tour, of RICE UNIVERSITY, has been debating Athiest scientists on the SHEER IMPROBABILITY of ABIOGENENESIS based solely on the basic biochemicals and organic synthesis concepts. I was on Campus at Purdue University and Dr. Tour was just ONE BUILDING over getting his PhD in Chemistry while I completed my PhD Physics coursework!!
God Bless all
...
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Wow INCREDIBLY MATERIALISTIC INSIGHT.
You will learn very soon why you have life and there is matter that came from nothing.
I'm a PhD Physicist imbecile, and I have a BS in CHEMISTRY and a minor in BIOLOGY. I know things that would curl your hair. The signs of GOD and his handiwork are all around you and in you, but you have to be a little intelligent and purposeful to understand it!!
The cell is becoming more complex all the time, because we are learning more and more that Darwin and early biologists were clueless about the cell. So are you obviously...
what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos
at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really
crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his
existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that
you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made
a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the
dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
Sean McDowell does so many great videos. Stephen Meyer is a legend!
He’s a lying hack at a right wing Christian pressure group. Legend?
Legend? He's a lying hack at a rightwing Christian fundamentalist pressure group. Legend?
Best Yet. Clear and understandable!
Great conversation! The emphasis on physical constants is important, because these constants of physics help in understanding creation and the universe.
I like what John Lennox said while smiling: If there are unlimited universes with all possibilities existing then in one of those universes God exist. On the monkeys typing Shakespeare, I doubt they would ever type a complete play. Why? Because of meaningless repetitive actions. If there was a device that stopped them from repeating already tried combinations, then yes. They would eventually type the play given enough time. String theory made me smile. As I understand it, everything is made of vibrating "strings". It made me remember "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made." Speaking causes vibration.
New Age religion promoters love vibrations.
Good point about speech and vibrations! It makes God speaking things into being far more plausible.
gosh you are a genius, if only god knew you existed.
Am here again. Preparing to engage someone about this. Needed a quick refresh on some things.
I have listened to many of Dr Meyer's talks and read several of his excellent books. This was a great summary, simple and understandably explained!
Thanks for posting this Sean!
Have you balanced your reading by checking out real scientists who don't have to lie about being scientists?
@@mcmanustonywhat lie did he say
@@Dlazcano02 He lies that he's a scientist. He's not and never has been. He's a lying hack at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group who abuses the work of genuine scientists in his quest to get his religion rammed down the throats of other people's children.
@@Dlazcano02 he lies about being a scientist
@@mcmanustony how exactly? He literally has a PhD in philosophy of science
Such a thought provoking discussion. Always enjoy listening to Dr. Meyer.
'You can't get specificity of outcome without specificity of income'
Great comment Meyer👍
Falling over yourself for smart sounding assertions?
😂@@mikeccall
Meaningless bafflegab. Why does it impress you?
he is a marvelous liar, i'll give him credit for that.
This was a fantastic conversation! Well done, Gentlemen.
When I was into new atheism it surely wasn't apparent to me that there was this, or these, deep philosophical issues at the root of things. New atheism seems to bypass or ignore them.
It's so weird when I saw a Hitchens vs John Lennox debate. I'd seen it before, but suddenly Lennox seemed more plausible.
Great show. It's very helpful.
There are multiple detailed and devastating refutations of the fine tuning arguments. One being that it counts against an omnipotent deity. So, “god” is all powerful and yet can’t make life happen if the cosmological constant were a tiny bit different?
How hard did you look?
An ideology is something that refuses to be objective and denies the obvious!
While I understand that scientists need to hold tightly to naturalism to maintain their credibility amongst their peers, it’s still an ideology just the same.
From the macro to the micro the complexity of the universe is a given, the probability for this complexity is astounding and incontrovertible yet the subjective attitudes of scientists over objectivity is astonishing!
That’s not a good definition of ideology, but your overall point is 💯!
@@ricksonora6656: I feel I need to refine my definition of ideology.
What I’m referring to is a rigid ideology whereby a person has presuppositional views that will not change no matter what facts prove to be logical or true and will go to great lengths to suppress or destroy evidence to support their rigid ideology! I suggest people see the movie Expelled: No intelligence required.
Yeah that’s one small part, there’s not enough room to say much, and I discovered that if you try it won’t get posted, and you’ll see a message that says, Error, 400 something, I don’t remember. But the evolutionary scientists also completely abandoned their sacred scientific method, in order to mold the evidence to to fit their preconceived narrative. It’s also a bald faced lie, when they say all scientists agree with it, because they don’t, and I read an article some time ago, that detailed how a group of 500 scientists completely rejected the evolutionary narrative, and every single facet of it.
And the scientists who actually follow the scientific method, are aware of the False Claims they make, and call them facts, and in spite of the evidence that either suggests and sometimes proves the exact opposite. And these are the scientists, who followed the scientific method and came to a completely different conclusion. And so it’s not so much that it’s different evidence or alternative evidence, although there also is suppressed evidence that they don’t talk about, but that’s another story on its own, that’s too much to mention here. And for the most part it’s just the interpretation of the evidence to make it fit their secular ideological religion of Evolution. The evidence that disproves it is actually staggering, but Intelligent Design is just not acceptable, and they have to go to outrageous extremes in order to avoid the obvious. But it’s difficult to fight them on it and keep your integrity, and still keep your job, and when you have a family to support.
And so, it just is what it is I guess, and part of a lot of other corruption going on. And unfortunately a lot of people are like sheep being led to the slaughter, and they trust what they’re told, and on top of that, the power of indoctrination and biased prejudice is incredible, and if you don’t happen to be someone who possesses a fair amount of intellectual and personal integrity, you have no antidote against it, and are just a willing victim. And being intelligent and highly academically educated, isn’t going to help if you lack integrity, it just makes you a much more dangerous individual.
They SIMPLY HATE GOD
It's damn near lunacy!
Let’s worship and praise and live in fear and all and wonder if the great fine tuner of everything created
Job 38:7 ESV - when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Sounds like some fine tuning!🙏🙏
Hahaa! I see what you did there 😂
sounds like you want it to sound like fine tuning.
@@bobdalton2062 brilliant eh. 🥱
Excellent discussion. Just amazing and opens up so many thoughts and avenues. Thanks to both of you for this .
Regarding divine extravance, beyond the arguments that the universe has to be as big as it is to produce the heavy metals and sufficient carbon, it takes a gabillion raindrops and blades of grass to produce the milk that it takes to produce a block of Wisconsin sharp cheddar cheese, and a gabillion drops of water and maple tree leaves to produce a piece of Wisconsin maple sugar candy, but they both taste good!
Gifts from God, for sure!
@@kathleennorton2228 gifts from nature, no one needs god, especially science.
Mr. Sean McDowell you are very respected , your strong Stand is a bright light of His Truth.
Sean, I love your podcast and channel. I would love to be able to hear your guests better. I regularly struggle with their volume. Just constructive criticism. Thanks so much.
Thank you for proving GOD once more 🤩
I kept getting very distracted from Dr. Meyer's points by Sean's hmms and uh huhs., etc...lol 😂
Why do you find this funny?
Oh man, I couldn’t take it anymore!
WE NEED SEAN ON JRE!!!!!!
Sean, for your guests, do you tell them ahead of time what you will be asking them? Do you do this all the time, or just sometimes, or just for ones like this that might need it so they can prep or not at all? I probably didn’t need to give you all the options lol
Thank you very much, I love listening to both of you, always very enlightening. As far as I know Sabine Hossenfelder also makes the claim we couldn't know whether the universe is fine-tuned bc we cannot observe universes with other parameters or values. And Hossenfelder also dismisses the multiverse hypothesis. She said that in a conversation with Luke Barnes on the 'Unbelievable?' show. In your video Dr Meyer refutes the claim that we couldn't know whether the universe is fine-tuned. But maybe you can address Hossenfelder's claims in a bit more detail. Hossenfelder also believes we don't really have free will which is absurd. Without free will we couldn't even control our words and convictions - which would be the end of science altogether. Our free will alone shows: we are more than a bunch of chemicals and death is not the end. Thank Jesus we have a bridge to heaven❤
The Lord can harden anyone's heart. He is the alpha and omega who knows every thought before it happens, omnipresent and omnipotent. Trust in Him.
Hossenfelder’s claim about calculating probabilities is a surprisingly narrow- minded argument.
It’s like saying you need to try starting multiple cars to determine whether yours will start. She’s ignoring that you can take into account how long since the car has been started, the quality and quantity of fuel, air temperature, altitude, and battery charge.
Experimentation is not the only way we can estimate probabilities. We can start with the universal wave function, and we can reverse engineer by breaking down the properties of the universe, too.
free will is an illusion, did you "choose" the be theist randomly, or were you persuaded? if you were persuaded there is no way you can be otherwise. "free will" means you just pick things randomly for no reason, that would be silly.
furthermore there is one past history, both for the universe and individuals, (unless we invent time travel) and i think you can infer there will be one future history too - so you take ONE path through time - where s the free will in that?
@@Simon.the.Likeable there is no lord, that's where you're going wrong. most scientists and most philosophers are atheist, gods are mythology.
@@ricksonora6656 we have a sample of one - one universe, we have NO data other than that so you're talking nonsense, but keep it up i expect anyone coming to a religious propaganda channel for science has zero interest in the truth of science. "universal wave function" you have no idea what you're talking about.
Excellent discussion! Thoroughly enjoyed, and learned much from this! Thanks to you both!
Sean you’re great but one gentle suggestion just let him talk and lessen the “right” and “got it” so many distractive filler words that potentially stop or slow down someone’s explanation momentum. Thank you my friend!
Maybe you get distracted a little to easy….. I’m gently telling you… right… ok…. 😳
@@thomasmyers9128 Thomas. Appreciate this. Love ya bro!
It’s actually interview technique 101, to be 100% quiet when the subject speaks, and to let them finish. The constant «filler» words from the interviewer are definitely distracting, and also convey the feeling of impatience.
@@baldrbraaexactly. If I were the guest I'd be stopping and asking if the host would like him to continue or not.
Utterly irrelevant comment 😂
Both of you are amazing and wonderful to listen to.
I know i have a creator always knew , thanx for confirming it
Hello
Meyer has very interesting things to say on the multiverse idea.
Great and Interesting video! 🙂🙏🏻
Loved this video. Stephen Meyers is awesome, so smart, and speaks so I can understand, a little at least.
Try listening to actual scientists and not religious activists
i always go straight to religious apologists for my science when i want to believe that the talking snake and donkey cult isn;t for simpletons.
apologists are dishonest, mcdowell is dishonest, he is misleading YOU, and meyer should l know better, he is no scientist.
what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos
at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really
crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his
existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that
you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made
a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the
dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
Isn't every life a poetry of fine tuning? If we were born an hour before or after our birth time, it would change everything we ever experienced.
Well, not necessarily. I'm not sure that much would change in the world in the space of just one hour. A year, certainly. Ten years, most certainly. I think we need to take care lest we equate fine tuning with some form of predestination.
Yes, born an hour later and the Lord may have hardened your heart.
*Puddle Analogy*
@@davidchapman4064What’s wrong with the notion of predestination? The Bible clearly teaches it.
That might be true for some, but not for most. It would depend on major circumstances. For example, being born before the mom reached the hospital might cause the single mother’s death and growing up an orphan.
However, sensitivity of a life to circumstances does not mean the circumstances were tuned.
Fine tuning implies an agent building a detailed plan into the starting conditions of the universe. Intervention becomes redundant. Scriptures indicate that God intervenes in some events but allows others to unfold on their own. Each time that God intervenes has ripple effects such that initial conditions become less deterministic.
Good video. LOTS of DEEP thought-provoking stuff there.
i always come to a religious channel for my science.
jeez
Great video! God is a logical necessity; atheism is a logical fallacy.
Actually naturalism is the logical default. Every cause we have observed has been a result of natural forces. Not once have we found an act of divine or supernatural creation. Unless you have something new.
@@rickdelatour5355 naturalism is not and cannot be the default. The Law of Biogenesis holds that living cells only come from preexisting living cells. The Cell Theory confirms this as well. That means the origin of life has to be an eternal living source. Only God meets that qualification. Abiogenesis is a nonstarter.
You said, "Every cause we have observed has been a result of natural forces."
No scientist has observed life arise from nonliving material (natural causes). People used to believe life arose from nonliving material in real time, but then microscopes were developed enabling us to observe life at the cellular level which allowed us to actually observe that it NEVER happens that way. Of the millions of cells we have actually observed none of them has ever arisen from nonliving material. So are atheists hoping that something we never observe is the cause of something we observe every moment of every day just so they can maintain the illogical, irrational notion of no God?
Please accept observable science and documented history. Declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved.
@@refuse2bdcvd324there is no “law” of biogenesis. For 700,000,000 years this planet was dead. Now it isn’t.
Either that happened by natural processes or it was magic.
Science goes with the former
@@rickdelatour5355 the universe making itself is a logical flaw
@@Swagtastic225 show me something in nature made any other way
What an intriguing and informative discussion!
Me: Stephen how far down this rabbit hole are you going to take me?
Stephen: Yes. 😅
Great work guys. Makes me realise that when all these scientists that label Christians having blind faith are really just projecting their own beliefs. Well done guys.
you're on a religious channel for science and you can;t see how dumb that is. you epitomise confirmation bias.
Podcasts are a better forum for conversations compared to talk radio by a long shot. Podcasts can be viewed by a larger audience, can be watched at any time, don't have commercial breaks every 5 minutes, and can be paused.
I like the "pause" piece 😂
Excellent discussion...unfortunately our education system has destroyed critical thinking. Postmodernism would say, these fact do not matter. God is screaming he exists both in the micro and the macro universe. Humanity chooses to remain blind.
You are not allowed, despite the antics of lying activists like Meyer, to shove your religion down the throats of other people’s children.
Cope.
One lf the most brilliant physics mind here
Meyers Rules
meyers sucks, he doesn't even seem to be aware of how his owm god works. i'm amazed at how many of you people are so dazzled by having your voodoo confirmed by a pretend scientist that you can't see where he is totally wrong.
have YOU got any idea why meyers and ross and behe and tour are totally wrong? it's incredible to me you have no idea what i'm talking about.
A BRILLIANT MAN GOD BLESS! ❤🎉❤❤❤COMMONSENSE!❤🎉🎉❤
We don't live on a common sense Universe! Multiple Religions. Quantum Theory. The Kardshians. I think I've delivered food for thought!😂
Peace
Greetings Friend 🙏
Confounded! Praise Elohim!
Dawkins ignorance and incompetence is 'kinda breathtaking to me. The first page of the preface of 'The Selfish Gene' is ludicrous, utterly embarrasing.
So is the first page of the Bible.
Stephen is one of the most brilliant and articulate thinkers of any stripe. Another great conversation detractors rebut to their peril
Professor Dave does a great take down of this clown
STOP INTERUPTING lmao
I’m so happy to see that
I wasn’t the only one
Thinking that.
@@carawhiting1579 Interesting choice of line breaks. It's almost soothing, you can't always derive tone from text, if ever, but that came on gentle, like an ebbing wave.
Qqq@@carawhiting1579
Great conversation (and intro BTW!)
Fine tuning is one of the poorest arguments for God. God can do anything regardless of the conditions. Nothing has to be fine tuned as God does not have to abide by the laws of nature. We could just as easily have been silicone based as carbon based, or be made of alloy.
As this is the only universe we have to examine, how do we know what is finely tuned? If the parameters were different then the universe would be different and be finely tuned for whatever existed in that universe. This is naturalism 101, we are a product of, and are adapted to our environment.
The theistic concept of miracles destroys the idea that things have to be fine tuned. If the natural order can be suspended, this renders fine tuning otiose.
When you believe in magic anything is possible.
Well said. I have always found this argument stupid and find it bizarre that it is given the credence it is.
the universe didn't make it'self so ur wrong
@@hooligan9794 even Stephen hawking said it was great. u just dont understand it
@Swagtastic225 oh I understand it alright.
Fine tuning requires a deep dive into the weak interaction. It has all sort of things we did not expect: parity & CP violation, flavor changing neutral currents, neutrino oscillations and ofc the Higgs mechanism . Without FCNC, nuclear and atomic physics wouldn’t work at all. It also drives supernovae and neutron star formation…which gives us heavy elements
//... the God hypothesis best explains the origin of the universe ...//
I've never seen what that explanation is. The "explanation" seems to be nothing more than:-
a. Here are some phenomena, e,g, a universe, some fine fine tuning.
b. Science does not explain either.
c. But God does.
^^ But that is not an explanation in the sense that science likes to explain things. In fact in our daily lives, we would not accept that as an explanation. Rather it's an argument for the existence of some kind of creating god.
Here is the question
++++++++++++++++
So how did God or some god create the universe? Explain it to the same degree and depth you would expect a scientist to explain it. Show me what a good explanation looks like.
As for Fine Tuning ....
While I think it's a good argument, FT certainly has its weak points. For example, if you folk can posit an eternal god who somewhat fine tuned stuff, we can posit an eternal universe that was already fine tuned. No need to explain it because it's eternal, just like God.
Then there is the idea of a multiverse which is probably no more whacky than a disembodied mind which can do stuff (e.g God).
Another attack is that many of the finely tuned variables do have a small amount of slack. That is, they are not precisely fine tuned.
Yet another is that we don't really know how the variables may interact. Thus, increase one may be compensated for by decreasing another.
Another is that perhaps these alternative universes may be sterile for our kind of life. But who knows what other structures may exist within them which do essentially what life does in our universe - namely dissipate a lot of energy.
Finally, supposed the universe is finely tuned and therefore God. That is still a long way from the Christian or the Jewish or the Muslim God.
Lots of questions here, but keep in mind that HOW God fine tunes the universe is a separate question from IF the universe bears the marks of design. It is a natural follow up question that, in no way, undermines design. And you're right about the Muslim God. That's why we look elsewhere (history, theology, etc.) to decipher between the two. But FT does rule out naturalism and pantheism, if successful.
@@SeanMcDowell
Hmmm. If we live in an eternal universe that is FT, or within a multiverse, one of which is FT, I don't see how naturalism is necessarily ruled out.
The uninverse isn’t eternal tho
@@GeorgeGilbert-dy3dd
I don't know. For starters I am not that old. And if God can be, then why not a universe?
@@SeanMcDowellit doesn't rule out pantheism... why would you say that? I'm an Advaita Vedantin (pantheism is the best Western way to describe my beliefs) and there is definitely fine tuning, but all mental and not physical (physical matter is merely appearing in consciousness).
Stephen is a smart man
An entertaining and easy-to-understand book about creation, evolution, and the Big Bang debate is Axis of Beginning.
Meyer is simply brilliant.
Read, "Darwin's Doubt."
Or better still, read an honest book by an actual scientist and not a lying fundamentalist hack.
@mcmanustony Yet another claim by an angry guy, a claim lacking any supportive evidence.
BTW, labels mean nothing, and name calling is juvenile....therefore completely unpersuasive. Get some professional help.
@@sheilasmith7779 take a seat and work on your manners.
I didn’t call him names. I accurately described him as a lying hack. He is NOT a scientist of any kind, has contributed nothing to scholarship in any discipline, cheated his way into a journal of research with a pathetic research free essay by bypassing the review process…..”simply brilliant”.
His book is incompetent, dishonest tripe- and no amount of pearl clutching and performative outrage from you will alter that.
What honest scholar would glue two groups of words separated by FIFTEEN PAGES…..in order to manufacture a quote that totally misrepresents a scientist? This is what Meyer did with the work of paelontologist Charles Marshall. Shameful dishonest antics.
You’d do better sparing us the posturing and reading Marshall, or the standard academic text on the Cambrian- Erwin and Valentine. Or does actual science scare you?
@@sheilasmith7779 You've gone a bit quiet. Are you reading some science?
@@sheilasmith7779that bit about lacking any “supportive evidence”…..you are a liar.
If you can receive it, science has come a long way since Aristotle and yet in Him we live and move and have our being.
Meaningless babble
I like the intro:
“The fine tuning argument is simply…” *boom* 😁
What
the universe is also fine tuned for toilet paper and cell phones. it's a dumb argument but as i keep saying people who come to religious propaganda pages for their science aren't interested in truth but confirmation of the bollocks cult they are members of. you diss science when you want and you abuse science when you want, christians suck as humans.
Try and imagine, that this was the kind of thoughts you had , as you lie in bed at 3am staring at the ceiling, unable to sleep.
It gives new meaning, to the old adage, Contemplating the Cosmos.
What are you talking about
Just because we can only see this Universe doesn't mean that there aren't many others. If it could happen once, why not many times. It's that simple. And if the constants can vary, it's no surprise we find ourselves in the universe where we can exist. That's the anthropic argument.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
You ask great questions
The problem with fine tuning is not that it is not factual but rather the assumption that the result of a given tuning implied that the end result came about because of the serendipitous situation, for instance the resonant frequency apparently required to make carbon from beryllium and helium. While this may be factually true does not mean that is the way carbon came into being. There is much more that can be said but is beyond the scope of a measley comment. However, the fine tuning may still be evidence of a mind anyway.
See how he says the constants are derived from observation and experimentation. Therefore once you derived the constants, they will of course break the universe if you change any of it for the simple reason that you derived it from the observation of THIS universe. Any changes of the constants will no longer be describing the universe that you derived it from.
Have you interviewed Fr. Spitzer?
I hope Sean would be averse to relying on representatives of other religions to make his case, thereby giving credibility to unbiblical religions.
The chance hypothesis , while hyper exponential, should include the probability of that happening again and again to maintain our existence
A tire is not sustained through constant design and molding. The processes are very different. But you do bring up an interesting question: What keeps physics from changing?Why doesn’t the universe POOF! back into nothingness?
This is so true, is it sheer luck that the earth rotates every day at the correct speed, that if it did not it would be disastrous?
@@ricksonora6656 appreciate the analysis, but the tire will wear down, creating the need for more tires and the process, albeit with improvements in design
I thought you were playing the Halo theme song at the beginning😂
Awesomw explanation!
Very nice video! I was wondering, some could say that the multiverse is a consequence of other theories like string theory therefore we just need to prove those theories are right and not necessarily that the multiverse is possible. I think Sean Carroll said something like that. What could we answer to that?
QUESTION: What are the odds that the Scriptures are more likely to be historically accurate than any other record known to man?
Your question asks what are the odds that smiting is likely. You might want to delete “are likely” and change “that the scriptures are” to “that the scriptures would be.”
If anyone has also read Super Nature by Lyall Watson - he gives multiple examples of events in nature that just blow your mind.. the unseen forces & effects that create these outcomes can only point to the fact that someone/something is looking over this chaos..
A little off topic but the chapter where it was found that plants were sentient beings when an FBI detective decided to hook up polygraph on a whim. The plant gave definite responses to cruelty, negativity & even could identify a person it witnessed committing a crime..
@@salfinlay2288
I read it decades ago. Mostly fluff.
Lookin' tan out here Sean 👍🏼
Oh. In LLM building, fine-tuning is training at a lower learning rate on a smaller, curated dataset.
But if the fossil record doesn't show us or birds for example, and evolution can't explain new body plans, where did we come from? What process was involved?
Have you tried reading books? This is pitiful nonsense.
Look up archaeopteryx……
Fine Tuning is usually explained in only two ways, but there is a third way. First, some say the fine tuning is there because there was a cosmic designer, a cosmic engineer: God. Others say that fine-tuning requires no God to exist, because there are, so they say, an infinite number of universes, and therefore there are bound to be a few that are exactly what is necessary for life to evolve. But there is a third way to explain why the universe appears to be so minutely tuned so as to permit the appearance of life. One can explain it by arguing that the universe is and always has been alive -- it may have been born from God and then evolved from then till now, but then it was not born from God as cosmic machinist or cosmic engineer setting a bunch of dials perfectly on a cosmic machine, rather, it was born from God more as a child comes from its parents. The universe in that case is so finely tuned to life and mind because it has always had life and mind from the beginning, and the material aspects of the universe are actually derived from that life, not the other way around. The material aspects are condensates of that life, condensates that formed gradually over huge eons of time. Matter is not eternal, though it may be that it will always be at least a potential if not always actual reality, but life and mind are eternal, and cannot be explained by anything else other than by themselves. Try to explain mind without using mind itself! You cannot. In that sense, mind, and the truth it is connected with, are self-grounded, self-caused, self-explanatory, eternal. Since human beings through their humanity have access to universal mind, it follows that human beings are the answer to the riddle of the universe. We explain it, we make it comprehensible, we are the answer, at least among incarnate and material beings, though not in higher worlds.
@Eduardude there is a fourth way to explain fine-tuning and is the simplest. Imagine your math teacher put several points on a cartesian plane (x-y plane) and told the students to find a function whose graph goes through all these points. Then you create a formula with as many variables and power and coefficients that fits the graph. Now the teacher asks you to modify any of the coefficients and you realize that your formula is fine-tuned to the graph and any changes will miss out some or all the points.
This is the same with our model of the universe. We see the universe, we experimented and observed, then we created the mathematical model to simulate it. So, now, any changes we make to our Standard model will break our "universe" not because the universe is fine tuned but because our formula was fine-tuned to our observation of the universe.
@@pulsar22so does your theory make Gods existence more likely or less likely?
There are more possibilities than 1,000,000,000,000-1, for a 12 digit keypad, because that assumes that there would be no repeating numbers. If you allow for the possibility of repeating numbers, I think that the potential combinations require a totally different formula…
The Standard Model of the Universe is a theory that is made up of mathematical models that describes the physics of this universe. Since the mathematical model was derived from the observation and experimentation, therefore that mathematical model would be expected to simulate the universe if its parameters are correct or at least very near the correct values. Now, is the universe fine tuned? The model was fined tuned to reflect the universe and not vice versa.
Think of it this way, I see a block of wood and measure its dimensions. Then I gave the measurements to another person who hasn't seen the wood. Upon seeing the block of wood for the first time, the second person measures it and was amazed how it has the same dimensions as I gave him.
This is the same thing. After several decades of experiments, measurements, modeling, the model that survived these experimentation and analysis will fit the universe like a glove. But it is not the universe that was fined tuned. It was the model.
does anyone know what this resonance....is all about...
In music (simply said) it's the vibration of the tone/sound, or in case that SM presented it's the reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighbouring object.
@@MultiSky7 thanx
I think the existence of instincts is pretty wild. How knowledge about this world that helps us survive be passed through dna?
I'm highly skeptical of the big bang. It seems more likely that the universe was poofed into existence with everything already scattered far and wide, in a steady condition suitable for life. We can extrapolate backward from there and envision some ridiculously improbable initial condition that would have led to it, but what rational creator would approach it that way rather than starting with their desired result?
@dekutree64 "... but what rational creator would approach it that way rather than starting with their desired result?"
A firework maker creates a small compact object that must explode with a bang and create lots of lightsto be appreciated. I guess those who make fireworks and those who watch them are all irrational.
...What? God literally tells us in His Word that he did not start with his desired result. There is an end coming that justifies the means. For the joy set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame.
Very helpful
Sean, we agree on one thing it’s the best of the bad arguments which isn’t saying much and saying the word fine-tuning over and over and over again doesn’t demonstrate anything other than you have presumed what you need to prove. So until you prove, don’t claim. Stop using the term fine-tuning.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that any scientist has ever gotten a Nobel prize for providing good evidence that supports how singularities weather, eternal, or non-eternal come into existence. And how long they remain like that, until something unknown allows them, or causes them to expand. So just because most things have a proceeding cause doesn’t mean that we have access to more evidence for whatever it was or is. Consider this concept maybe it’s something that we are human beings is not knowable.
1:08:15 I would only argue that as evidence that the designer is not omnipotent. I can write a computer program to randomly generate an infinite amount of unique stars and planets with no effort expended on each one, but to make one really interesting planet I'd have to devote a lot of time to it. And that's exactly what the universe looks like. Just a bunch of random stuff floating around and bumping together, whereas Earth received a great deal of attention to set it up just right and fill it with life.
But there are plenty of arguments for omnipotence regardless. It's possible there are billions of fine-tuned life-filled planets out there and we just haven't seen them yet. Or maybe this is the only one and it was just a choice that it would be more interesting than having a bunch of them. Or there could be other entire universes each with one (or more) life-filled planets in them, created by the same creator.
// "set it up just right" //
Lol tell that to the estimated 99.8% of species that once lived but are now extinct dear 🤭
I don't have any axes to grind with theism, but I found this reasoning lacking.
1.Universe exists. if we can explain a universe existing, whatever that reason may be, we might as well posit existence of meta-verse the same way. If one universe exists, why not...all of them? It has nothing to do with probabilities, we still have one 'cosmos' whether it consists of solely what we can observe or an infinitude of other realms. Then our own fine-tuning turns from a miracle to eventuality. Therefore fine-tuning argument doesn't hold much power on its own, it just sends us back towards the questions why *any* universe exists
2.Can we explain why universe exists? It may be a creator, or it just appeared out of nowhere for no reason, or it has infinitely long past, i.e. turtles all the way down.
I don't think God hypothesis is any more compelling than the rest. It certainly has one flaw: I know universe exists - that's where I live. God is an another extra entity that we need to postulate, that decreases elegance of our theory.
Fascinating!
My Engineering degree was certainly helpful for this dialogue!
Sean seems like a good guy but I wish he would be quiet when Steven is talking. Thanks for the video.
People talk about initial conditions but I see that there can only be a single initial condition and that was the dimensions of the universe at its first appearing, everything else flowed from that!!
and there were no laws.
The idea of fine tuning as an explanation of the existence of a creator is an inverse interpretation of reality. It is not that there was a creator who designed the universe with the perfect parameters so that life can exist, but rather that life exists in this universe precisely because the previous conditions allowed it to exist. It is like saying, for example, that rivers that serve as borders to certain countries adapted to the form of these borders and not the other way around: borders adapt to rivers. That is, life adapts wherever there are conditions for it.
The theory of multiverse, proposed and accepted today by many renowned cosmologists, states that there may be an infinite number of universes with completely different laws and physical conditions that would make the existence of life as we conceive it impossible. Also that the multiverse, being infinite by definition, will also contain an infinite number of other universes with laws, parameters and physical conditions similar to ours that do allow, indeed, the development of life as we know it.
You clearly haven't followed the conversation
@@Epsjdjdjdjs Please explain why you think I didn't follow thr conversation? Also, anybody who calls himself a "scientist" and still believes there is a God or similar, responsible for creation, does not deserve to be called such. It is a set of beliefs for uneducated people or, for those who do not mind insulting their own intelligence.
A good way to say ot is its 'vanishingly small' as lee croonin stated
Which proves nothing.
So when you said the Hoyle resonance was around 7 point something electron volts, that’s a total Dr Evil ransom money moment…it’s seven million something electron volts
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
Romans 1:20
In music, all the tracks have to have the right bpm, otherwise it’s just noise. Even a 1bpm difference is noticeable
What on earth is your point?
@funkfamily4165 I’m a professional musician. I’m aware of fine tuning.
I have a background in science- hence know that the fine tuning argument is utter nonsense
@funkfamily4165 this is such utter nonsense it’s hard to know where to start….
God I wish I'd never said anything 😂
@funkfamily4165 " a background in science makes the fine-tuning argument ridiculous. "- no, the facts make it ridiculous. My education makes me aware of WHY it's ridiculous.
There is no support for the notion that the physical constants can vary. How does the notion of an omnipotent god sit with the fine tuning argument? I see at least two problems: how did the constants get "out of tune"? Why can't an OMNIPOTENT deity create life in ANY configuration of constants?
Some parts of the surface of one planet in one solar system are capable of sustaining life some of the time. Throw in the trivial observation that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is crudely tuned for instantaneous death and the argument falls apart. If we are the purpose for the universe, what is Saturn for?
"I'll let my shop techs know that they don't have to "fine tune" the machines anymore. "- don't be so stupid. You have an analogy and are pushing it way beyond its shelf life.
You seem joined at the hip to this hopeless analogy with musical instruments. It's quite comical.
"Is that what you believe?"- no of course it isn't, for reasons that would be blindingly obvious to a child. As strawmen go, this is pathetic.
The rest of your post is just idiotic drivel. Where there is evidence of design we infer design. I have no need of faith- that is belief in the absence of evidence. I have a large number of guitars. In almost all cases, a fender strat being an exception, I personally KNOW the people who built them as most were built to my specs. How you contort that into "design" of the universe is for you to amuse yourself with.
I almost think McDowell ehen he asks the questions but then because Meyer gives such a long explanation he just starts going uh-huh. uh okay I get it 😁 very solid and interesting topic
Maybe the constants are fine-tuned or maybe we just don't understand why they are what they are.
If the chance of an imperfect universe conductive to life is 1 in 10^1000...
A universe where life isn't perfect, can only happen in a very small domain within, a universe that took a billion years to create a planet for life...
Then what is the chance of the existence of an entity that is all powerful, all good, eternal, etc.. an entity that has all attributes to the maximum degree that can think up and create a universe?
100%. That being would be necessary.
@@biblicalworldview1 Why?
@@oscargr_Apparently, the reason is not deductively obvious to you, so let’s try inductive logic.
What are the odds that a pair of fair dice comes up snake eyes 1000 times in a row? If that happens, do you conclude that it makes it less likely that someone tampered with the dice?
That’s what you argued. You argued that, if the universe being this way is unlikely, then it is unlikely that an intelligent agent cause it to beat the odds.
When something impossible happens, it is reasonable to conclude that some Agent caused it to happen.
In other words, if the odds are 10^1230 against something happening, the odds are 100% that some One caused it. And the causal Agent must have attributes sufficient to make it happen.
I hope that helps.
@@ricksonora6656 "You argued that, if the universe being this way is unlikely, then it is unlikely that an intelligent agent cause it to beat the odds"
That's not what I argued.
"When something impossible happens, it is reasonable to conclude some Agent caused it to happen "
No it isn't.
Very difficult to hear Dr. Meyer
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[46] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and saying that the article had been published at the discretion of the former editor Richard Sternberg "without review by any associate editor".[
Yeah, that turned out to be untrue or a half-truth. But even if the editor were correct, using the publisher’s apology to dispute the ideas in the article would be a sort of ad populum logical fallacy.
Is this really boiling down to marriage counseling?😊