Basic Christianity evidence IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
@@blakejohnson1264 Uh hey dude Most people, including myself are atheistic for philosophical reasons, not materialistic ones, so if you could show actual proof of your Abrahamic god, then I would convert back to Christianity, and I’m sure a lot of others would to. But the burden of poor is on you, not me, I don’t have to refute your god and play your sad little game of apologetics because I’m not bothering people with it. Im just trying to exist in my own space. Also you fail to realize that all of your arguments have been refuted in the last like, 3 decades? Yeah. The reason why we don’t go back to Christianity, is because there’s nothing actually true about your apologetics. Most of it is just pedantic tautologist sophistry based in primitive philosophy.
@@vmast_vids I haven’t seen William Lane Craigs arguments get refuted once. There is no full proof of anything outside mathematics technically so you’re asking for something you know can’t happen. Even if God appeared in the sky we could say it’s only evidence not proof since we can be in a simulation or some other reason. I think you should research the Christian perspective. Watch or read William Lane Craig’s stuff or Hugh Ross. God bless
Of course, dice is not proof for God...you're totally missing the point just like the guy presenting the video. He's trying to show the odds of the universe being just right for life...if it was off by just 1x10 to the 55th power or 1x10x10x10...55 times, we would not be here...nothing would. Also, as far as the odds of rolling a six on any single roll being 1 in 6...that's correct, but...70 times in a row...think about it.
Basic Christianity evidence IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
@@coolguy886 the answer to the biggest question in the universe is right here with this evidence. Ignorance is bliss on earth at times. The after life is another story. Seek truth and make your choices carefully. Basic Christianity evidence IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. Also what do you have to lose? If you find this claim to be true you have answered the biggest question in the universe. If you find it to be false your life has no objective meaning anyway so the time you spent Research wouldn’t hurt whatsoever. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus loves his creation died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live an objectively purposeless life so by researching and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. If Christianity is true you discover the BIGGEST answer to the BIGGEST question in the entire known universe. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. Remember this. Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Also many people don’t fully understand the faith and have MANY misconceptions that if they actually did research on the Christian point of view rather than just looking into atheistic objections they would see what i’m arguing for. I urge you to research. My personally reasons for faith. The reason I believe and have faith in that belief is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, everything we as humans know about science, and my life experience. I’ve witnessed miracles, signs, and wonders science could never explain. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument. Think about how things like purpose and love seem like they actually matter rather than irrelevant chemical reactions. Look into the law and order of the known universe. The only reason we can even do science the way we do is on the assumption the universe has order. Look into Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, Watch near death experiences where people see Jesus or heaven and hell (especially from former atheists), look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, look science stated in the Bible before humans discovered it. Look into the archeological evidence for Christianity. Look into the laws of logic especially cause and effect and how that would point to a creator along with many other things. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t just trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. The Bible says those who seek God, find him. God bless you! Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
@@blakejohnson1264 @Blake Johnson @Blake Johnson Well, you're certainly passionate about the subject as any rational person who believes should be. After all if your belief is true, it's the single most important fact, right? You don't want anyone in hell, right? However, can we examine if the ways you've listed are reliable ways to ascertain the truth? Just a few questions for you: You mentioned personal experiences of others and yourself. Is this a reliable way to know that God is true? What about people from other religions who claim their God is real because of personal experiences? You mention non-believers having eternity to lose if they're wrong. But what if you're wrong and the true God is actually that of another religion? What if the real God values atheists the most? If you look at all the philosophical arguments like fine tuning and cosmological arguments etc. Are they falsifiable or refutable? If they were refuted in your eyes, would that lower your confidence in your faith? You say you've seen miracles, signs, and wonders that can't be explained. If you found out that they had good scientific explanations, would that lower your confidence in your God claim? What about purpose. Is your faith the only way to achieve purpose? What about non-believers and their own purposes. What do you suppose they may have as purpose? What about emotions such as love. If they are explained by science in a natural way, do they become any less real of an experience? And how about the historical evidence. If you found likely scientific alternatives to that evidence, would that lower your confidence in your belief? If you are one who truly values truth and reason, please answer these questions so we can have a respectful discussion. This is critical because of the impact beliefs, and especially false bliefs can have on individuals and society. Thanks.
I honestly and truly believe, that not accepting scientific theories because they don't talk about our "purpose" or they say how unlikely it is for us to exist, is just plain old narcissism.
There is no such thing as a scientific theory. You have theories and scientific facts. Just because a scientist can think of a theory, that doesn't make it scientific.
@@STREEEEEET Do you even know what a scientific theory is? To be a scientific theory it has to have a shit ton of evidence. Even fucking gravity is considered "jUsT a ThEoRy".
@@tohotorisykero2247 Unfortunately i do know what i'm talking about. I know what a theory is and why they like to call it a scientific theory, cause otherwise no one would give a crap about their guesses. Take gravity for instance. Nobody prove it even exists. Everything you see in that regard can be BETTER explained by relative density which so happens to be demonstrable. Now you tell me what's the scientific method and what is gravity. Let's see how you do it.
Now, that can be applied to the almost impossible chance for ribosomes to make up proteins. By the way ,you need proteins to make basic cell structures and you inturn need ribosomes 4 proteins. Now don't be stunned u actually need proteins to make ribosomes.
Thomas Korn No... Sepia is brown tones only and it's faded. The colors are too vivid to be sepia and plus, there are more colors than brown in this, such as green and red.
Max Orbit puddles are made of water or a material like water such materials can fit into any shape they want due to not having a fixed shape therefore any hole can fit a puddle
That’s actually a very good analogy. We are the way we are because of how the universe turned out, not the other way around. It really doesn’t make sense that the universe is the way it is because we are a certain way since the universe is way way way older. It’s like saying that the hole looks a certain way because of the shape of the puddle, even though the hole existed before the puddle and the puddle itself cannot be a set shape, exactly like life. If the universe changed (of course if it was a slow change) then we would also change along with it so we could survive in it.
Alex returns to the dice analogy to explain the liklihood of 2,3,4,5 is as likely as 6,6,6,6 this is true but it is also kind of the point of the video. Many equally likely outcomes are possible but only a limited number of outcomes allow for any kind of complexity in the universe at all. Given all the variables it would be unfathomably more likely that the universe would collapse or be homogenous or rapidly expand with no complexity and therfore no life. The rules of the universe are not subject to evolutionary processes in the way suggested. They are more the parameters under which evolutionary processes occur. You could make a kind of evolutionary argument if there is an infinite multiverse out there but that remains speculation. As it stands we have a sample size of one universe. That is the central point of the video imo. Given a sample size of one universe isn't it remarkable that its shaken out the way that it has, given the possible arrangements vs the arrangements that could support any kind of complexity, nevermind life. Obviously life could adapt to some variance in conditions but there are many key variables which have to have values that support any kind of a complex universe at all. Alex gets around this by suggesting that the universal constants were constrained in some way, that would counteract the improbability of the observation of the universal constants as they all are. But essentially this just boils down to the point that there might be an explanation that we aren't aware of, which is of course possible but is kind of throwing the hands up.
You don't even need a mathematician to explain it. You can't establish the probability of something from a sample of one, with no probability distribution. So, the theist can't show that the fundamental constants having the values that they do is improbable. For all they can show, they may be overwhelmingly probable, or even necessary.
Interesting that people like this guy assume that the universe is so perfect and everything happened in an unbelievably perfect sequence when failure is so common. Who's to say there wasn't a long sequence of failed universes? Just like life is a sequence of trial and error, why couldn't the universe also be a huge sequence of failures that just happened to have been "successful" for life to occur this time?
Really? Who do you think came up with the hypothesis in the first place? Don't say stupid stuff like that when you are using the internet. Google a bit before you reply, please.
+Jordan Peckham - How the Big Bang started isn't known, but the background radiation - and the present average heat levels of that radiation, coupled with the knowledge that the universe is presently expanding (because of the red shift seen in objects far away from us), which implies that there was something that happened to "push" everything that way. There's more, and it's interesting reading. But there is a lot of evidence that the Universe began with an expansion. Not necessarily an explosion in the supernova sense (The term "Big Bang" is misleading in that regard), but an expansion. .A very rapid one. So, either you've been under a rock for about the past 80 or so years, don't read scientific information that follows the rules of the scientific method, or you're a troll...or some combination of the three. The scientific method absolutely supports the notion of a rapid initial expansion, and based on existing evidence, that initial expansion took place about 14 billion years ago. The difference between the scientific method and religion: Science says, "I don't know" when there isn't evidence to support a good hypothesis. Religion says, "I know" - just like Ken Ham does in some of his videos and writings, when there is no way for them to have any certainty - at all - about what they believe.
Bryan Berg but ham has a book that alleges some of the stuff he believes had eye witnesses! like the parts of the book of genesis detailing events before eye witnesses existed! oh, wait....
People, I know that 'die' is the singular of 'dice', but technically both are in fact permissible as singular nouns according to modern standard English, and I personally think the latter reads slightly better. Hope you enjoyed the video! en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice
Die is the singular of dice in _American_ English. You're allowed to say "a dice" if you do it in a British accent. Same reason we'd let you say "maths" if you wanted to.
"I had a mathematician friend work it out for me" Is the single most believable source I've seen from the types of videos trying to prove god. Idunno how I feel about that.
Also, we have no idea how many times the universe has "banged" until it got it right. The process could have happened trillions of times before and we wouldn't know any better.
Perhaps It happens every moment with atoms popping or banging into "reality" before it goes back into the cosmic ether and or other dimensions to evolve it's energetic body. Maybe it will return again as an atom of another expression of existence or evolve into a cell, until one day it evolves and expands into a more intelligent subjective being to observe the universe as a new expression of itself.
My theory is that multiple or infinite amount of atoms imagined themselves into existence all at once to create a coexistence that they could learn, grow, evolve, and expand themselves into. This happened from a singular point of pure consciousness that all life comes from and returns to that is timeless.
Another problem with this guy's logic is that he's approaching the math with the supposition that the numbers rolled must be determined beforehand. Take a die, roll it 70 times ans record the results. The chances of that exact string of numbers occuring is also 1x10^55. That seems impossibly small, but you rolled it, so you wouldn't turn around and argue that it didn't happen.
Nope. If anything it's Beta Carotene (which your body can turn into Vitamin A) you can get from watching orange things... not ascorbic acid. Although i DO get an acrid reflux from watching CERTAIN orange things too often... it's just not Vitamin C :P
Basic Christianity evidence IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
I’ve been watching channels like Jeff Holiday, Mr. Atheist, Telltale, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Rachel Oates, Rationality Rules, etc. for the last couple years, and just very recently found you- don’t know why either I or the algorithm managed to dodge you so long. Your content is excellent, even here, 3 years ago, really articulate points, citing sources, all the things the science-y/skeptic side of me loves. I’d like to point out your quote from the end of this video. (Though a common line of thinking in the general atheist/skeptic circle,! I just found it really well said.) “We have no way of knowing if the universe wanted or needed to end up this way, we just have to accept that it did. Let’s not presuppose that there’s any kind of goal or ultimate plan to the universe. Why would we want to abide by some kind of cosmic plan when we could create our own?” Very glad I’ve found another channel to watch, have a good one bro.
Knowing Better is a less religion focused but similar style of channel. His Mormonism video is what led me to telltale, which led me to a few others on your list.
Hello, my friend 😊 About the quote. I see a very bold paradox in this statement. How does planning without knowing possible? The first step to planning something is by knowing it. Isn't it? I also see some sort of bold "believe": "We have no way of knowing if the universe wanted or needed to end up this way". It's like at age e.g 10 I say to myself I don't know and never can know why I'm going to school so I will create my own school! I'm sure everyone can know the big "Why" someday. I also found an illusional way of thinking: "Let’s not presuppose that there’s any kind of goal or ultimate plan to the universe" It's only the opposite of other "organized religions" they say let's suppose there is the plan, here he says let's suppose there is no plan. What I'm saying basically is that just believing in something is not very useful
This dice guy makes a very common misuse of probabilities.Probabilities cannot be applied to the past, they are a tool for predicting the future. The probability that the past happened as it did is exactly 1. In addition, the universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is just what matter sometimes does (probably reasonably rarely) and matter as we experience it every day accounts for maybe 1 or 2 percent of the total energy of the universe. If the universe is finely tuned for anything, it is finely tuned for making black holes as they are far more common that life. He also propagates the misconception that a probability of 1 in 10 to the 55th power means that it will take that many years to roll his sequence. While probability says that the sequence will only occur on average once in that time, it could just as easily happen on the first 72 rolls as anywhere else. As an example, let's play Yahtzee. The probability of rolling five of a kind on a single roll is less than one in ten thousand but I have seen it done many times and have not seen anywhere near as many as ten thousand rolls. And finally, he is assuming that the universe could only happen once, which is not a valid assumption, it lacks proof. Maybe we live in the 10 to the 75th universe to form and one like ours was long overdue.
If we rule out quantum mechanics, probabilities are just a lack of information. In a deterministic universe, the arrow of time isn't important and probabilities can be used in the past as much as for the future. But that's not important.
And also, the die analogy wasn't incorrect. ComicSkeptic misunderstood. The probability of getting that ONE combination, 6666, is 1/1296. The probability of getting ANY OTHER COMBINATION is 1295/1296. In other words a 99.922839506% chance that you won't get that combination . Aaand there is a .00077160493% chance that you will get that one combination.
Whoops, your addition is wrong. the second number should be 0.077160493%. Also, that only works as a valid analogy when all four die must be rolled at once. For events that don't depend on each other (unrelated events that occur sequentially) once each roll occurs, the probabilities are reset so you get a 1 in 6 followed by a 1 in 6 ... and they don't multiply to form an overall probability. Once an event is in the past, its probability changes to 1.
just remember kids... if you have a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of event "A" occurring, the science says... Bet against it if it causes cognitive dissonance by going against your philosophy.
Yasir Yonus we invented so much, yet we know so little. The big bang is only a theorie, but it's the most likely theorie. But I want to make a point, you simply don't know for sure if 'God' exists. Humans just don't know anything in this universe (Tbh I'm so obsessed with it). So to get to it, you can't say that we invented him for sure.
Alienated Atomy It is near certain Humans invented God, the obvious clue is it existing in every civilization in one form or the other. There are actual psychological academic articles that explain why the human brain out of its primitive programming that evolution has given us, would invent such a being.!
You made two major errors... Well three... A "We know so little" you are pressuming you know how much knowledge and progress is still unknown, you are making the same mistake like people saying "We know everything". God is a metaphysical object, it can't be proven nor disproven, there is nothing other than us (And maybe aliens *Wink*) that can make up metaphysical objects, not only that ,but when you take a look on our Gods, you realize patterns, that point to it was us who made them, all of them... A scientific theory is quite different from what the public thinks of theory, you should check it out.
"What are the chances of us being here?" - uh, let's see... 1 in 1? Because we are here? Not only is my calculation actually correct, it's so much simpler, too.
3:38 Also, no, the numbers do not check out. His "mathematician friend" actually fucked it up so badly I doubt that person actually exists. If we calculate it like this... "roll 70 times, check if they're all 6s, if not try again" ...we'd expect to have it happen once in ~3*10^54 tries (once in 6^70, easy stuff). With 5 seconds per roll, that's 350s per attempt, so in total ~10^50 years. That's a big number, but if you were to write it out, then write as many zeroes AGAIN as the real solution has, you'd still be nowhere close to what he said. And this is still an overestimate. What if you rolled 35 ones and then 35 sixes, and then 35 sixes followed by 35 twos? You'd get 70 sixes in a row then, just spread between two series of rolls, not something this calculation accounted for. Without going into detail, accounting for it gives us ~5*10^47 years, so 500 times less than that still. How one would POSSIBLY get to 10^122 from any of these, man was not meant to know.
@@joppippoj It's been a while so I don't remember the details of this problem, but in general the baseline is such things don't matter for probabilities since you can just mark those dice with numbers and then check them in order. Unless we're counting something else like total roll time, as is the case here... which would make it faster than rolling 1 after the other. That doesn't help him as his answer was instead so, so, SO much slower it's not even funny.
Exactly. We have a sample of one. We have no probability distribution. The proponent of fine-tuning may believe that the physical constants having the particular values that they do is improbable... but they can't actually show that they are improbable. For all they can show, they could be extremely probable or even necessary. We just don't know. All we know is, as you say, that we're 1-for-1.
@Abdul Masaiev. Your 1 in 1 argument is like me saying, what were the odds of me rolling a 6, well ofcourse it must have been 1 in 1, because I rolled a six. Look, both the argument and @cosmicsceptic conterargument had flaws. All I see is people believing what they agree with, not what is true.
Since when is he a creationist? (Oh you are talking about the dude in the video he responded to) ComicSkeptic misunderstood. The probability of getting that ONE combination, 6666, is 1/1296. The probability of getting ANY OTHER COMBINATION is 1295/1296. In other words a 99.922839506% chance that you will get any other combination.
I hate to tell you this @CosmicSkeptic but dice DO prove there is a god. The one true god...Nuffle! The god of the dice, all gamers pray to him when needing the perfect roll to win or stop defeat. Even if you have not heard his name, if you have played any games with dice you have seen his powers. ALL PRAISE NUFFLE!!!
Here's the main problem with his argument: His argument relies on the idea that carbon based lifeforms are the ONLY kind of lifeforms that could've existed. In this universe as far as we know yes. But if the universe expanded faster then other elements would've existed. And there's an equal likelyhood that this universe would sustain life as that one that expanded faster. So his argument that our universe is something special because it sustains life is completely false.
Shady Charlotte also, while unlikely, as I understand it, this universe could support noncarbon based life like silicon based life. Silicon based life is at least possible in this universe. www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/researchers-take-small-step-toward-silicon-based-life
Patty Ice how does this disprove anything? We currently know life can exist in a universe, and we haven't found any universes without life, so this doesn't bring any weight to the argument to claim that God exists because life only exists in this universe. We don't know that.
Edge Is Love, Edge Is Life It doesn't prove or disprove anything in either case. "We haven't found anything else, so there must be a god" and "we don't know of there is anything else, but there might be" are both speculative. Neither statement is ultimately based on science. You're taking a chance and saying "well there MIGHT be something out there, so God doesn't exist." That's not scientific at all. But the fact remains that, so far, we have not found any other life in the universe, a fact that supports the Bible's historical credibility. Dealing with what we have now is more scientific than trying to make conclusions and assertions on maybes.
Yea patty i guess we havent found life in the universe but lets not forget that we havent personally been to a single planet besides earth. Saying this gives credibility to the bible is like saying the fact that we cant see the earths core gives credibility to the believe that the core does not exist.
Basic Christianity evidence IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html Apologetics th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
What I find endlessly frustrating about arguments like this is how there is no way they can connect the dots to their own subjective perception of a god and yet they do it anyway. This is just as ludicrous as claiming unicorns exist because there are horses without horns, and there are other animals which have horns, so naturally horses with horns are possible. Therefore unicorns are magic and you can use a virgin to trap one and oh by the way the Faerie realm and dragons are real too. No connecting the dots but even if you don't grant them an inch, they'll take miles. As pointed out at the end of this video, even if this "roll of the dice" argument were convincing, which it's not, that still doesn't prove the Abrahamic god was the "First Mover." It's simply that the Believer only has that god in mind and so assumes if we can prove someone rigged the dice, that someone must be their personal sky daddy. There are other sky daddies, and there are other Creator concepts, and there are possible explanations that don't require gods or magic, and there's also the simple fact we don't yet know because we require more data, and we may never know for several generations, and that should be perfectly okay to accept. For them it's not, so connect the dots without dots. What frustrates me further is that I have known for years that the Abrahamic god has technically been debunked since Galileo, perhaps even before that. I was born into an entire society that has blatantly lied to me, and I didn't figure it out until less than a decade ago. Most recently, the scientific discipline of genetics has proved that the story of Adam and Eve could not have happened literally as described in the bible or quran. When we mapped the human genome, there was enough evidence there to debunk Abrahamics once and for all. Therefore, judeo-christian-islamic beliefs are soundly illegitimate. It's not just "well you can't prove my god doesn't exist!" If it's the Abrahamic god, yes we have. On multiple fronts, but I only need this one: The X chromosome preceded the Y chromosome. Therefore Eve was never made from Adam. If there is a god, it's not the one described in Abrahamic dogma. And yet NO ONE cares about this! Believers and nonbelievers alike agree that the bible and quran tell stories which are allegorical, and yet still believers insist that despite this acknowledgement of fiction, they still claim Abrahamic dogma is the literal word of their god. So now we connect the dots without dots or lines or even paper. There's nothing here and yet dots are magically presumed to be connected. It is impossible to argue this further with people who do not accept the idea of science. We reach an impasse between those who accept facts and those who prefer delusions over the observable universe. Trying to explain this to Believers is like trying to teach a pigeon how to play chess. Literally.. okay figuratively, but it feels like it should be literally.
Great post and I agree completely! In what way is any of that proof of god!? LMFAO this video reminds me of a Chuck Missler video I've seen called Beyond Coincidence! Its a 2 hour video that is summed up as such......big number, big number, big number and even bigger number there for god! Its mind blowing the mental gymnastics these people go through trying to connect dots that aren't even there to be connected in the first place!
Zachs Mind Beautifully said. It gets to the point where science simply gets shoved aside out of ignorance. The only parts of science that religious people claim to be untrue are the only parts that contradict their god. However they don't seem to realise that all science is linked - if evolution is false, then genetics would be false, then genetic mutation/diversity would be false, then medicine would be false etc. It's always funny seeing a creationist using quantum physics (however poorly) to back up their claims. I have never heard a decent argument for the existence of a specific god. Both Christians and Muslims love using the same old deist arguments to prove their specific god. Its ridiculous.
Zachs Mind People who prefer delusions cannot be reached. it's so frustrating. i'm not even saying that beig religious makes you delusional but favoring the bible's explanations over science DOES make you delusional/brainwashed.
I find it odd how I have never seen anyone use the Bible for evidence of God's existence. It would have been literally impossible for it to be written by man. "People who prefer delusions cannot be reached." That's pretty much my thinking of most atheists. They don't even consider what you have to say. Sit down in a room and have a reasonable discussion.
Could I request a video? Do a video on Jehovah's Witnesses. It's really hard for JW's to find objective information about their shady religion. Maybe you could aid them in their search for a way out of the cult and be of guidance.
+nark the only one that has popped up to me has been the one about homosexuality. I meant something along the lines of him talking about them as a whole.
Basically Flying Productions The Bible I'm pretty sure kills JW denomination. Using KJ as far as I know. My grandma said it was 1 Peter something. I'm not Christian I swear :)
I asked a theist that same question and he claimed the light was not daylight, but the light of god's countenance. Perhaps god had a hell of a case of sunburn that day.
Majora's Mask wth are you talking about their was a Big Bang and if any of what your saying "human fell from the sky" then I will see you in hell my friend. By the way I'm gay hahahha
Bravo!!! Loved this argument... I was stumped the first time I saw that man proving God with a dice... I couldn't counter it... But now CosmicSceptic's argument blew my.mind... You are the next Dawkins brother... We are Atheism!!!
My bag of loose change (around 1200 coins) split the other day when I picked it up in the lounge. The coins have fallen and rolled all over the place, rolling behind chairs, table legs, under the radiator, down cracks in the floorboards and even into the kitchen. Some were on top of others, some on their side. Any miniscule change in the height and momentum of the bag above ground immediately before/during the bag split, or air flow in the house, arrangement of coins within the bag, imperceptible weakness of the plastic bag that determined how it split, etc. would have meant that the coins would have ended up in different places, or maybe the bag would not have split at all. That doesn't sound remarkable or amazing unless you give the actual arrangement of spilt coins some special significance. If the conditions and nature of the universe were different then... things would be different.
The average time, in years, it would take to roll 70 sixes in a row, at one roll per 5 seconds, is actually nowhere near 10^122 - it's actually 5*10^47. The point (or lack of a point in that guy's case) is still the same.
@@travcollier Well, mathematicians are known to be prone to arithmetic errors, because math is not about counting - it is about structure. During my math postdoc, I've rarely seen number other than 0 and 1, and those were also not numbers, but rather functions with constant 0 and unit value. Having this said, I don't believe his "mathematician friend" is a mathematician.
@ 5:47 - "...I don't know. But *you* don't know, either!" Very well said, Alex. And that of course encapsulates the difference between someone looking at evidence from a rational, scientific viewpoint (i.e., the willingness to admit when we don't know something... *yet* ) vs. someone with a religious worldview simply asserting stuff *as if* they know the answers, when in truth all they have is a blind faith in an unproven book and one of several competing/contradictory sets of dogma (all of which are ostensibly and allegedly supported by that same book).
Isn't it ironic how religious people have the audacity to TRY and USE science to prove THIER point while AT THE SAME TIME telling you science is wrong about what ever god(small g) THEY happen to believe in. Ironic.
yoyo youcef Shifting the goal post and shifted the burden of proof/evidence and to top it all off....asking to prove a negative. Congrats, you've been entered to win the coveted Golden Crockaduck Award :)
Jackie M seriously, what the fuck does that even mean? Scientists UNDER priests? Man you people are freakin really stupid in every way possible. It's actually starting to be really sad.
lmao! 2314 are the numbers on my main email account. and the odds of you naming those exact four digits are 1 in 10000. God must have compelled you to say those for me 😂😂😂
Well yes and no. As we are more likely to us numbers 1 to 4 in names/passwords in a cyber setting, those number a have a higher probability of occurring than 1/10 - because we choose them and we’re not random generators like dice are.
Not quite, because if the constants he is talking about in the video were different (i.e. the expantion rate, the 4 basic forces, etc...) we wouldn't necessarily get different kinds of matter, we might not get matter at all. In the puddle analogy if the hole of the puddle was different we would have gotten a different puddle, in his claim we wouldn't get any kind of puddle. The puddle analogy works best for things like perfect bodies, perfect solar systems, perfect ecologies (they are'nt perfect but that's how the argument ussualy goes). Stuff that could have gone differently and give results, just different ones.
Jordan Peckham but they do actual science and keep their religion out...unless they are liars like Jason Lisle...then they just dissemble, distort and misrepresent actual cosmology since Young Earth Creationism is entirely incompatible with physical cosmology.
yeh but this guy with the dice isn't a cosmologist, that's the irony. he's trying desperately to find a loophole that can allow for his belief to not be falsified. theists spend their whole life convincing themselves due to fear.
I raised a question in the original that's still unanswered. If anyone wants to progress in the conversation I raise it again here: " You say this universe is a 1/(10^55) chance. What's your study set? Where did you get the 10^55 universes to compare and conclude this is the only one? Where do you get those values could vary? Why would you confuse the Statistics of the dice with the clockwork mechanism of causality of the universe? Are you aware that the values of all constants of the universe are just a human construction to talk about them, not inherited into there core being of them, they just are what they are, not "tuned", just there? Also, something that happened, to have happened, by definition, is always 1. " So... aren't the probability of fundamental laws of the universe to be like this 1/1?
EXACTLY. I always try to tell people this. They almost never understand that a sample space has to be defined before any notion of probability can be used.
Julio Toboso García Okay, noted that the probability of humans to exist was 1. Any arguing that the purpose of the universe was to create human life because no other option was possible from the start?
+Ben Fisher That... makes no sense. No, the purpose of the universe was not to create human life. There is no purpose to the universe, it just is. But fine, let's arbitrarily assume there is a purpose to the universe. Why would it's purpose be SOLELY to create HUMAN life? Why not other forms of life? Why would the universe be infinitely large, yet it's entire purpose was to create a world so small, it's tinier than even an atom compared to it's size? I can't tell whether you actually believe the universe's purpose was to create human life, or if you're just bringing up the question as a topic of discussion.
Rocky Otter No offense but you clearly didn't understand the meaning of my comment: The original comment said: "Also, something that happened, to have happened, by definition, is always 1. " So... aren't the probability of fundamental laws of the universe to be like this 1/1?" If this is true, since human life exists, the probability of human life to exist was 1 in the universe. But if the probability of a system to create something is 1, it's pretty safe to say that the purpose of the system was to create the thing in question (in this case: human life). But the truth that the probability of something that happened, to have happened, being 1, doesn't mean that its probability was 1 from the start, so the original commenter is wrong, his point is invalid. If not, then human life IS the purpose (or better one of the purposes) of the universe, you choose...
*Everything* in life, every little event at every little moment is also as big a rarity as the dice example he used, providing we look back at it and, reversing a couple of seconds, we decide to *make it* our goal! If i throw a rock it will have to land *somewhere,* right? Well, if i check the spot it landed and decide to repeat the event again i could be there for a few trillion years as well, but it doesn't change the fact that i got it *right* the very first time. Was it a miracle? NO, no more than any other little event at every moment is. The rock had to land somewhere; we simply looked back and made THAT spot our goal for the sake of it. No wonder it seems amazing to us... because we are post-reasoning it (ad-hoc)! That's the fallacy the guys commits. He grabs the Universe as it is presented today and decides to make it his repeatable goal... How does he know that THIS state of affairs wasn't always the *only* possible outcome of the Universe, or that it actually isn't anything special and we missed out on many other *better* versions of life/reality? He simply doesn't kow.
who's to say there werent many many many (1x10^55?) big bangs that took place that werent stable and collapsed in on itself, and by chance it was the rate that this universe happens to expand at that is stable.
Yes, perhaps. It doesn't even have to be 1x10^55. If your theory is "the Big Bang was a random fluctuation in a higher energy vaccum state", the probability of it happening somewhere in particular is low, but the probability of it happening anywhere over a long period of time is 1. And the finely tuned argument is bullshit. We are as we are because things were created according to the physical laws. With different laws, something different and unnimaginable could have happened.
That's funny, because I had the same thought. Since all data is wiped out in a big crunch, we could be first in a very long series, or quite late in the experiment.
@@AlcyonEldara This is a really good argument. One thing. "over a long period of time" is slightly problematic because supposedly time itself is meaningful only for a given universe, and would collapse along with space when each universe collapses. So it wouldn't necessarily be the case that many many spacetimes bigbang into existence and then collapse within the spacetime of an uberuniverse. It's just hard for us to imagine activity apart from time.
@@robertaylor9218 not even "late" because that's a time word and time is a dimension of a universe. Alex did a great job but really would have nailed the case shut if he had gone this route, especially with his opponent betting on the persuasion of all those zeroes of time a person would have to spend rolling dice. The passage of time in one universe is totally distinct from that in another universe, and it stands to reason that there's no such thing as time shared between universes.
Everything being random, why should life even be a thing? We can't create it, we don't understand how it started, no scientific theory predicts the existence of it. If we found a cave painting of a city miles underneath the Earth, would we speculate something just threw paint at the wall and it happens to resemble something familiar? Or, would we assume some intention must have been behind it's creation and we just haven't figured out how it got there yet?
First time I see someone explaining my thoughts so perfectly xD it's really hard to tell people exactly what u did so I'll just link them this video xD thanks a million
Alex quotes Dawkins, but Alex doesn't mention that bit of The God Delusion, where the author shows that whilst the odds of life / intelligent life, appearing in the universe are very low, the odds against a 'perfect' creator making the known universe are incredibly much lower ! The facts are that most of the observable universe is extremely hostile to life as we know it.
I’ve been watching these videos for a while, which has been very interesting to me as an observant Jew. But, it all still lines up with my world view the way he explains things. Please don’t judge all us religious folk by these idiots on the internet! I really appreciate how CosmicSkeptic stays respectful throughout all his arguments, as it allows me to really take it in and appreciate the logic at play! Great video!
easy refutation: you drive somewhere. you pass 100 intersections where you could go straight, left, or right. So you had a only a 1 in 3^100 chance of arriving at your destination, right? It must have been divine intervention that you arrived. A miracle every day!
Except that the vehicle returns to the same position each failed attempt and the driver of the car does not achieve sentience unless they reach the end
AlphaOmega115 In the portions of the original included here, the speaker did not take the extra step of referring to "a" dice. If it's acceptable in OED, it's because of spreading ignorance. It's an important distinction to make since the mathematical implications are very profound; unlike, say, having a mice in your cupboard.
It's amazing that you manage to support EVERY single one of your arguments. You're one of the few people that do it and that's why I immediately subscribed to your channel.
Religious people say, that god can heal them. Why do they visit doctor then? Do they all feel (somewhere deep inside) there is no healing god? I would love to hear your opinions.
Ondra Pšenička It's because people pick what sections they want to believe from the Bible, although, there are some people who don't go to the doctors and who rely on God for help, which I hate because there are some people who die because they would rather "trust in God" then trust in modern medicine. What some religious people might say is, because God created humans, he placed all of the supplies we would need to make ourselves better, here on Earth for us humans to find them, then in a way we are still relying on God for help because if he hadn't blessed" us with the items to make this cure then we would be dead.
Thats just not how god works. For example... A child wants to get a bicycle on christmas, prays for it, but never gets one. Thats because this is not how god works. The child should steal the bicycle and then pray for the forgiveness of his sins. Thats how god works perfectly fine. :)
Another good job Alex, Bravo! Your interlocutor has presented a series of presuppositions and logical fallacies that you recognized and countered well. The assumption is that there is one being rolling a die, in fact the universe has already existed for billions of years at least, and random combinations in that amount of time, with no direction, can be viewed as a kind of "evolution" with survival of the fittest results. From a human perspective "fittest" obviously means most suitable for humanity as we know it on the world as we know it. Considering the difficulties presented by human anatomy [far from perfect], an environment fairly hostile to human life [including diseases, parasites, predators, the often hostile climate, etc.], and, of course, the plain evidence that the vast majority of the universe [even considering only the radiation and near vacuum of space] is not only hostile to humans but to life itself [as far as we know it], the fine tuning argument is absurd. It amounts to special pleading and argument from incredulity. I am neither a mathematician, nor philosopher, but given very long, if not exactly infinite, time the possibility or probability of results can hardly be so easily discerned, nor can chance be dismissed in favor of a comforting anthropomorphic "Prime Cause." Keep up the good work.
gawd rolls the dice, he lands a big bang, makes the earth and humans as a result... realizes what a bad idea gambling was and never did anything that foolish again. lol jk no god
Your description of the fallacies this boy is making are great! Also, I'd like to point out that this guy is describing the roll of the die in a flawed way. The way he describes it, he basically rolls a die, it lands on a 6, and he goes, "WOW! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?!" Essentially he describes the results of the roll, as well as the state of the universe, and our existence as the way things were "meant to be." Recently, I was thinking to myself about theists and others who make this assumption. I realized that the argument they're making doesn't really work. In any universe or any place where the things required in order to yield life aren't met, there would be no one to make the observation that: "this is the likely outcome." Probability is a comprehensive and effective measurement of likelihood and answering "Why?", but I don't find it all that productive to figure out the probability of something occurring, after it has already happened (unless it is for science, or this event may occur again). I'm not saying it's bad to do, but it can't really be used as a crutch in place of evidence. Again, probability in tandem with other evidence can be used effectively and validly. Anyway, what I was getting at was our inherent human logical fallacy for assuming that events, especially ones we interpret to be unlikely, must have a reason. Well, they don't. At least not that I know of. And, even if they do, the reason isn't to spread Christianity. My point here I guess is just that if the events necessary to create us hadn't occurred, you wouldn't be here to question them. I don't know if this makes sense or not, I guess just lmk.
well the creation of a character requires various dice rolls sometimes even requiring you to roll more than one dice or a dice with a different probability
"Everything is perfect, therefore the God who created the earth 6000 or whatever years ago, flooded it, instructed some old fart to build a boat and gather all the earth's animals, yada yada must be true." That's quite the leap. Is there a god? Perhaps. Is it any of the pantheons we've had on earth? No. Is it the Abrahamic "God" that is oh so popular here in the west? Most definitely not. The deities that have been worshipped on earth are simply reflections of us, we created them in our image. It's a bit more apparent when you look at Shintou, Hinduism, the old Greco/Roman, Celtic and Norse pantheons, as these Gods often possess character flaws that are incredibly human (e.g. the story about Arachne, or the Apple of Discord). Is there a possibility for some kind of creator force to exist? Sure, we haven't been able to prove otherwise. Arguing however that it's the ever fickle "God" that likes to unleash hell upon mankind, just to embrace it later, is just plain idiotic.
2 years ago today, you were happy about 10,000 subscribers! Look at you now! Thank god for your existence! ;) Congratulations about this amazing progress!!
I remember learning about this in elementary school. I remember my teacher rolling a dice and then saying how probable is it to get another 6? and we all said it was more and she explained how it wasn't true.
I see a bright future for you, you're a very wise and logical guy for your age, I hope that you'll go far. I'm always happy to watch your videos, every time they give me some extra information and an additional value to what I've already gathered.
So which version of God does it prove- Yahweh, The Catholic God, The Pentecostal or Baptist God,...,Allah,..., Jeff Stryker? Or do they all have different odds respectively?
The funny thing is that his argument is based off of his own misunderstanding. The probability of getting that one combination, 6666, is 1/1296. The probability of getting _any other_ combination is 1295/1296. In other words a 99.922839506% chance that you will get any other combination.
one thing I hate is when people bring up chance, so if the world was different would we still say what's the chances of it turning out how it did? do you see where I'm going with this? no matter how things turn out it's all one in whatever big number you want to give.
someone once said to me that the chance to roll a 6 on a dice is 50/50. you either do or don't roll a 6. I found this thought very entertaining. thought I'd share it with you all for a good giggle at least.
Well explained. Just like a card analogy, every single hand (or sequence of rolls) is equally unlikely, which means that rarity in and of itself tells us nothing. It's not until we imbue certain outcomes with importance that their scarcity becomes meaningful.... which makes the entire exercise a question begging circle jerk. _"I can prove the universe was uniquely designed for life.... so long as you let me presume it was designed for life!"_
just found ur channel and watched a couple of videos. damn you are very bright. I love this logical thinking. keep up the great work. you are really great
Here is another huge problem with these arguments about the "probability" of life happening. Anything that occurs, in hindsight, is going to be outstanding improbable to have occurred. Everything is completely improbable if you are tracing things back billions of years to the origin of our universe. Take for instance something as simple as me picking up a pencil. To calculate the odds of that happening tracing back to even the beginning of recorded history is going to be a larger number than you can write out in a lifetime. Just think about all the things that had to occur in the proceeding thousands of years for my parents to be born, then my parents to meet, for them to have sex at just the right moment and the sperm that would become me to win out against all those billions of other sperm, then for me to go through all the events in my life that would lead me to picking up that pencil.
A die is rolled once. Find the probability of obtaining a. a 5 b. a 6 c. an odd number That activity helped you recall your knowledge of probability of simple events. If you roll a die, the number that would come up be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. When the die is rolled, it is equally likely to land on one face as on any other. Therefore, the probability of getting a "5" is one out of 6. In symbol, We use P(getting a 5) = 1/6. Always remember that 1/6 is the probability that any of the faces show up Activities such as rolling a dies, tossing a coin, or randomly choosing a ball from a box which could be repeated over and over again and which have well- defined results are called "experiments". The results of an experiment are called "outcome". This set of all outcomes in an experiment is called a "sample space". An event is a subset of a sample space. SIMPLE EVENTS: Consider rolling a die a. "Getting a number 5" is called a simple event. b. "Getting a 6" is also a simple event. What about the event of "getting an odd number"? PROBABLY OF SIMPLE EVENT: If each of the outcomes in the simple space is equally likely or occur, then the probability of an event E, denoted as P(E) is given by P(E) = number of ways the event can occur / number of possible outcomes Or P(E) = number of outcomes in the event / number of outcomes in the sample space The probability of getting an odd number in one die is P(odd number) = 3/6 or 1/2
Great video. But I don't like using the phrased "fine-tuning" or "tuned". These imply that someone tuned the universe, which is false. Various numbers or constants are what they are, and if they were slightly different, life may have turned out differently or not at all: there is no way to know and it is pure speculation. We don't even have a good definition of life, and there may be forms of life vastly different than our own, in other parts of the universe. Statistically unlikely events happen all the time in a universe as vast as ours. All gods are human inventions, the creation of primitive people who used superstition and religion to explain the world, before the scientific method replaced those archaic practices. Most people cling to religion because it was inculcated in them as children via tradition and culture. Religion will eventually die out like many viruses.
+Locutus D'Borg "All gods are human inventions, the creation of primitive people who used superstition and religion to explain the world," I agree, except for the "primitive people"... after all we see new religions like Mormonism or Scientology or redefinitions of old beliefs like the whole woowoo of "New Age" pseudo religious movements emerge in cultures that are not exactly primitive in the caveman sense... Religions are the attempt to give an answer and potentially a soothing explanation for a question that does not even make sense... where do we go when we die. What do you mean "go"? It's all a sham targeted at minimising the fear of the unknown which in this case basically means the awareness of our mortality and how short life is measured against the vast length of time e.g. our planet existed... And the only BAD part in it is that a) the answers people found for themselves to sooth their fears also include this highly missionary fervor to get others to join you in these fruitless enterprises and b) that more often than not a certain type of human will insert itself in between the happy followers that feel honestly attached to the answer and the "higher authority" and will abuse the trust and faith of the believers to enrich themselves and enjoy the sweet lifestyle without any rational base for their life comforts... If you'd remove churches and priests from the equasion and could convince everybody to keep their answer for themselves if not specifically asked for it (especially not forcing it into their kids heads to feel safer about them sharing the "after death" fate of your choice with you) religion would be harmless and could be ignored. Everybody has strange ideas in the depths of their minds. It is only this zealousy to spread them out and forcefeed them to everybody else, including through actual physical force that makes religions so vile and disgusting.
Urs: Great post. The creator of LDS was a canny con man, as was the creator of Scientology. Their followers were not primitive, but gullible. I stand corrected.
2:07 When he said "times by" I I knew it would be bad. In this context 'times' means 'multiplied by' so, effectively he said 'multiplied by by'. Sorry,... but if he's going to try and 'prove' anything with logic he could at least try to use his native language logically and correctly.
Christian Apologists actually can understand Maths and Science.... but just as long as it proves their point... and even then they jump to whatever conclusion is convenient to them
I appreciate you taking the time to record the video on Mars.
I thought he was on the set of BReaking bad
Basic Christianity evidence
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
@@blakejohnson1264 Uh hey dude
Most people, including myself are atheistic for philosophical reasons, not materialistic ones, so if you could show actual proof of your Abrahamic god, then I would convert back to Christianity, and I’m sure a lot of others would to.
But the burden of poor is on you, not me, I don’t have to refute your god and play your sad little game of apologetics because I’m not bothering people with it. Im just trying to exist in my own space.
Also you fail to realize that all of your arguments have been refuted in the last like, 3 decades? Yeah.
The reason why we don’t go back to Christianity, is because there’s nothing actually true about your apologetics. Most of it is just pedantic tautologist sophistry based in primitive philosophy.
@@vmast_vids I haven’t seen William Lane Craigs arguments get refuted once. There is no full proof of anything outside mathematics technically so you’re asking for something you know can’t happen. Even if God appeared in the sky we could say it’s only evidence not proof since we can be in a simulation or some other reason. I think you should research the Christian perspective. Watch or read William Lane Craig’s stuff or Hugh Ross. God bless
@@blakejohnson1264 I’ve been a Christian, and I know William Lane Craig’s arguments, and I know how contrived they are.
Dice is not a proof of god.
Dice is proof of a Dungeon Master.
I needed this 😂
Well...we are fucked.
Of course, dice is not proof for God...you're totally missing the point just like the guy presenting the video. He's trying to show the odds of the universe being just right for life...if it was off by just 1x10 to the 55th power or 1x10x10x10...55 times, we would not be here...nothing would. Also, as far as the odds of rolling a six on any single roll being 1 in 6...that's correct, but...70 times in a row...think about it.
Another kind of god
this guy trying to prove god exists failed his Wisdom save
I love this syllogism.
If things were different, then things wouldn't be the same.
Things aren't different.
Therefore God
im pissing myself lmao
Basic Christianity evidence
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
@@blakejohnson1264 wtf nobody gonna read that shite
@@coolguy886 the answer to the biggest question in the universe is right here with this evidence. Ignorance is bliss on earth at times. The after life is another story. Seek truth and make your choices carefully.
Basic Christianity evidence
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. Also what do you have to lose? If you find this claim to be true you have answered the biggest question in the universe. If you find it to be false your life has no objective meaning anyway so the time you spent Research wouldn’t hurt whatsoever.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus loves his creation died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live an objectively purposeless life so by researching and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. If Christianity is true you discover the BIGGEST answer to the BIGGEST question in the entire known universe. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. Remember this. Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Also many people don’t fully understand the faith and have MANY misconceptions that if they actually did research on the Christian point of view rather than just looking into atheistic objections they would see what i’m arguing for. I urge you to research.
My personally reasons for faith.
The reason I believe and have faith in that belief is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, everything we as humans know about science, and my life experience. I’ve witnessed miracles, signs, and wonders science could never explain.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument. Think about how things like purpose and love seem like they actually matter rather than irrelevant chemical reactions. Look into the law and order of the known universe. The only reason we can even do science the way we do is on the assumption the universe has order. Look into Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, Watch near death experiences where people see Jesus or heaven and hell (especially from former atheists), look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, look science stated in the Bible before humans discovered it. Look into the archeological evidence for Christianity. Look into the laws of logic especially cause and effect and how that would point to a creator along with many other things. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t just trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. The Bible says those who seek God, find him.
God bless you!
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
@@blakejohnson1264 @Blake Johnson @Blake Johnson Well, you're certainly passionate about the subject as any rational person who believes should be. After all if your belief is true, it's the single most important fact, right? You don't want anyone in hell, right?
However, can we examine if the ways you've listed are reliable ways to ascertain the truth?
Just a few questions for you:
You mentioned personal experiences of others and yourself. Is this a reliable way to know that God is true? What about people from other religions who claim their God is real because of personal experiences?
You mention non-believers having eternity to lose if they're wrong. But what if you're wrong and the true God is actually that of another religion? What if the real God values atheists the most?
If you look at all the philosophical arguments like fine tuning and cosmological arguments etc. Are they falsifiable or refutable? If they were refuted in your eyes, would that lower your confidence in your faith?
You say you've seen miracles, signs, and wonders that can't be explained. If you found out that they had good scientific explanations, would that lower your confidence in your God claim?
What about purpose. Is your faith the only way to achieve purpose? What about non-believers and their own purposes. What do you suppose they may have as purpose?
What about emotions such as love. If they are explained by science in a natural way, do they become any less real of an experience?
And how about the historical evidence. If you found likely scientific alternatives to that evidence, would that lower your confidence in your belief?
If you are one who truly values truth and reason, please answer these questions so we can have a respectful discussion. This is critical because of the impact beliefs, and especially false bliefs can have on individuals and society.
Thanks.
I could flip a coin 100 times get a random sequence of heads and tails, then say I'm god because it takes you 1000000 tries to get the same....
Ashton Simmons that's just because your the messiah
I heard your more likely to get tails because the head on it is heavier
@@shelliblossom8953 that's true but it's by 0.1 percent
@@johnwilkins11 i didnt know the percentage and makes sense when you think about it its funny the obvious stuff you dont think of
No you can’t cuz there’s already a God.
I honestly and truly believe, that not accepting scientific theories because they don't talk about our "purpose" or they say how unlikely it is for us to exist, is just plain old narcissism.
_shakes hands_
Helloooooow!
Well, you're not wrong.
There is no such thing as a scientific theory. You have theories and scientific facts.
Just because a scientist can think of a theory, that doesn't make it scientific.
@@STREEEEEET Do you even know what a scientific theory is? To be a scientific theory it has to have a shit ton of evidence. Even fucking gravity is considered "jUsT a ThEoRy".
@@tohotorisykero2247 Unfortunately i do know what i'm talking about. I know what a theory is and why they like to call it a scientific theory, cause otherwise no one would give a crap about their guesses.
Take gravity for instance. Nobody prove it even exists. Everything you see in that regard can be BETTER explained by relative density which so happens to be demonstrable.
Now you tell me what's the scientific method and what is gravity. Let's see how you do it.
He's got a mathematician friend ? If he was a true friend, he would tell him why his arguments are nonsense...
John Lennox.
why does he even need a mathematician for this basic mathproblrmm
@@kowikowi465 the same reason you need an English teacher for your English problem
Now, that can be applied to the almost impossible chance for ribosomes to make up proteins.
By the way ,you need proteins to make basic cell structures and you inturn need ribosomes 4 proteins.
Now don't be stunned u actually need proteins to make ribosomes.
@@lincthomas7178 I hope you speak a better french that I speak english
FYI.. it's not "orangness" its sepia tone and its classy
Please don't let Trump snatch that phrase :/
Thomas Korn No... Sepia is brown tones only and it's faded. The colors are too vivid to be sepia and plus, there are more colors than brown in this, such as green and red.
How Lovely is Thy Rose shh... don't use your facts at me!
Thomas Korn XD
Thomas Korn It's the Trump tone
If the hole was any different shape, the puddle wouldn't fit.
Max Orbit
puddles are made of water or a material like water
such materials can fit into any shape they want due to not having a fixed shape
therefore any hole can fit a puddle
name change Yes, that was the point that the guy is trying to make
That’s actually a very good analogy. We are the way we are because of how the universe turned out, not the other way around. It really doesn’t make sense that the universe is the way it is because we are a certain way since the universe is way way way older. It’s like saying that the hole looks a certain way because of the shape of the puddle, even though the hole existed before the puddle and the puddle itself cannot be a set shape, exactly like life. If the universe changed (of course if it was a slow change) then we would also change along with it so we could survive in it.
Max Orbit mind blown, the puddle is god
And if it doesn't support life, then we wouldn't be here and no one would know (with the exception of us being in a simulation)
maybe the original poster's "mathematician friend" should have explained probability to him?
Given how ridiculously wrong the answer was, I'm guessing his "mathematician friend" doesn't understand probability (or doesn't exist).
@@travcollier It's the guy Carl Baugh uses: John Heffner.
Alex returns to the dice analogy to explain the liklihood of 2,3,4,5 is as likely as 6,6,6,6 this is true but it is also kind of the point of the video. Many equally likely outcomes are possible but only a limited number of outcomes allow for any kind of complexity in the universe at all. Given all the variables it would be unfathomably more likely that the universe would collapse or be homogenous or rapidly expand with no complexity and therfore no life.
The rules of the universe are not subject to evolutionary processes in the way suggested. They are more the parameters under which evolutionary processes occur. You could make a kind of evolutionary argument if there is an infinite multiverse out there but that remains speculation. As it stands we have a sample size of one universe. That is the central point of the video imo. Given a sample size of one universe isn't it remarkable that its shaken out the way that it has, given the possible arrangements vs the arrangements that could support any kind of complexity, nevermind life. Obviously life could adapt to some variance in conditions but there are many key variables which have to have values that support any kind of a complex universe at all.
Alex gets around this by suggesting that the universal constants were constrained in some way, that would counteract the improbability of the observation of the universal constants as they all are. But essentially this just boils down to the point that there might be an explanation that we aren't aware of, which is of course possible but is kind of throwing the hands up.
he say some people say an he does say he don't believe we can prove god with everything and anything we can't understand an yes he can be right
You don't even need a mathematician to explain it. You can't establish the probability of something from a sample of one, with no probability distribution. So, the theist can't show that the fundamental constants having the values that they do is improbable. For all they can show, they may be overwhelmingly probable, or even necessary.
"YOU NEED PURPOSE"
- Me "I'm just happy to be here"
Well, if it matters to you, you matter too
It's probably the ultimate purpose and you are already there 😃
I like how he needed a mathematician to multiply 10^55 by 5 and then convert the seconds into years
Don't expect too much from him.
Interesting that people like this guy assume that the universe is so perfect and everything happened in an unbelievably perfect sequence when failure is so common. Who's to say there wasn't a long sequence of failed universes? Just like life is a sequence of trial and error, why couldn't the universe also be a huge sequence of failures that just happened to have been "successful" for life to occur this time?
skynet3d
Nice nice :DD
But how tho? The big bang isn't even remotely supported by science.
Really? Who do you think came up with the hypothesis in the first place? Don't say stupid stuff like that when you are using the internet. Google a bit before you reply, please.
+Jordan Peckham - How the Big Bang started isn't known, but the background radiation - and the present average heat levels of that radiation, coupled with the knowledge that the universe is presently expanding (because of the red shift seen in objects far away from us), which implies that there was something that happened to "push" everything that way. There's more, and it's interesting reading. But there is a lot of evidence that the Universe began with an expansion. Not necessarily an explosion in the supernova sense (The term "Big Bang" is misleading in that regard), but an expansion. .A very rapid one. So, either you've been under a rock for about the past 80 or so years, don't read scientific information that follows the rules of the scientific method, or you're a troll...or some combination of the three. The scientific method absolutely supports the notion of a rapid initial expansion, and based on existing evidence, that initial expansion took place about 14 billion years ago.
The difference between the scientific method and religion: Science says, "I don't know" when there isn't evidence to support a good hypothesis. Religion says, "I know" - just like Ken Ham does in some of his videos and writings, when there is no way for them to have any certainty - at all - about what they believe.
Bryan Berg but ham has a book that alleges some of the stuff he believes had eye witnesses! like the parts of the book of genesis detailing events before eye witnesses existed! oh, wait....
People, I know that 'die' is the singular of 'dice', but technically both are in fact permissible as singular nouns according to modern standard English, and I personally think the latter reads slightly better.
Hope you enjoyed the video!
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice
CosmicSkeptic oh no. Now every time I corrected my friends, being a smartass, I can get called out for...
Hi
Hi
Die is the singular of dice in _American_ English. You're allowed to say "a dice" if you do it in a British accent.
Same reason we'd let you say "maths" if you wanted to.
CosmicSkeptic well now it's "can a dice prove God? According to this guy!" Cliff hanger or lack of answer
*Ok so I'm gonna roll this dice with six religions on it...*
Terrence Rollins
OHHHHHHHHHHHH
"I had a mathematician friend work it out for me" Is the single most believable source I've seen from the types of videos trying to prove god.
Idunno how I feel about that.
Also, we have no idea how many times the universe has "banged" until it got it right. The process could have happened trillions of times before and we wouldn't know any better.
Victor Chaidez I bang lots of universes
Perhaps It happens every moment with atoms popping or banging into "reality" before it goes back into the cosmic ether and or other dimensions to evolve it's energetic body. Maybe it will return again as an atom of another expression of existence or evolve into a cell, until one day it evolves and expands into a more intelligent subjective being to observe the universe as a new expression of itself.
My theory is that multiple or infinite amount of atoms imagined themselves into existence all at once to create a coexistence that they could learn, grow, evolve, and expand themselves into. This happened from a singular point of pure consciousness that all life comes from and returns to that is timeless.
Black holes is where they come out of and return to. Like a holographic projection.
Another problem with this guy's logic is that he's approaching the math with the supposition that the numbers rolled must be determined beforehand. Take a die, roll it 70 times ans record the results. The chances of that exact string of numbers occuring is also 1x10^55. That seems impossibly small, but you rolled it, so you wouldn't turn around and argue that it didn't happen.
You miss one thing: How many of that 10^55 sequence will create a sustainable universe?
@@GameCrafter467 yep that's one of the key factors
You what they say...
Orange is the new whitebalance
Lol.
I see what you did there😂😂
They say watching orange videos gives you plenty of Vitamin C.
I love this comment. So much so I had to reply to it.
Nope. If anything it's Beta Carotene (which your body can turn into Vitamin A) you can get from watching orange things... not ascorbic acid.
Although i DO get an acrid reflux from watching CERTAIN orange things too often... it's just not Vitamin C :P
Is this the camera settings they use for Donald trump?
LOL
LOL
LOL
Basic Christianity evidence
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
I’ve been watching channels like Jeff Holiday, Mr. Atheist, Telltale, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Rachel Oates, Rationality Rules, etc. for the last couple years, and just very recently found you- don’t know why either I or the algorithm managed to dodge you so long. Your content is excellent, even here, 3 years ago, really articulate points, citing sources, all the things the science-y/skeptic side of me loves. I’d like to point out your quote from the end of this video. (Though a common line of thinking in the general atheist/skeptic circle,! I just found it really well said.) “We have no way of knowing if the universe wanted or needed to end up this way, we just have to accept that it did. Let’s not presuppose that there’s any kind of goal or ultimate plan to the universe. Why would we want to abide by some kind of cosmic plan when we could create our own?”
Very glad I’ve found another channel to watch, have a good one bro.
Knowing Better is a less religion focused but similar style of channel. His Mormonism video is what led me to telltale, which led me to a few others on your list.
Hello, my friend 😊 About the quote.
I see a very bold paradox in this statement. How does planning without knowing possible? The first step to planning something is by knowing it. Isn't it?
I also see some sort of bold "believe": "We have no way of knowing if the universe wanted or needed to end up this way". It's like at age e.g 10 I say to myself I don't know and never can know why I'm going to school so I will create my own school! I'm sure everyone can know the big "Why" someday.
I also found an illusional way of thinking: "Let’s not presuppose that there’s any kind of goal or ultimate plan to the universe" It's only the opposite of other "organized religions" they say let's suppose there is the plan, here he says let's suppose there is no plan.
What I'm saying basically is that just believing in something is not very useful
This dice guy makes a very common misuse of probabilities.Probabilities cannot be applied to the past, they are a tool for predicting the future. The probability that the past happened as it did is exactly 1. In addition, the universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is just what matter sometimes does (probably reasonably rarely) and matter as we experience it every day accounts for maybe 1 or 2 percent of the total energy of the universe. If the universe is finely tuned for anything, it is finely tuned for making black holes as they are far more common that life. He also propagates the misconception that a probability of 1 in 10 to the 55th power means that it will take that many years to roll his sequence. While probability says that the sequence will only occur on average once in that time, it could just as easily happen on the first 72 rolls as anywhere else. As an example, let's play Yahtzee. The probability of rolling five of a kind on a single roll is less than one in ten thousand but I have seen it done many times and have not seen anywhere near as many as ten thousand rolls. And finally, he is assuming that the universe could only happen once, which is not a valid assumption, it lacks proof. Maybe we live in the 10 to the 75th universe to form and one like ours was long overdue.
If we rule out quantum mechanics, probabilities are just a lack of information. In a deterministic universe, the arrow of time isn't important and probabilities can be used in the past as much as for the future. But that's not important.
And also, the die analogy wasn't incorrect. ComicSkeptic misunderstood.
The probability of getting that ONE combination, 6666, is 1/1296.
The probability of getting ANY OTHER COMBINATION is 1295/1296.
In other words a 99.922839506% chance that you won't get that combination .
Aaand there is a .00077160493% chance that you will get that one combination.
Whoops, your addition is wrong. the second number should be 0.077160493%.
Also, that only works as a valid analogy when all four die must be rolled at once. For events that don't depend on each other (unrelated events that occur sequentially) once each roll occurs, the probabilities are reset so you get a 1 in 6 followed by a 1 in 6 ... and they don't multiply to form an overall probability. Once an event is in the past, its probability changes to 1.
No it doesn't. The probability is the same for every single sequence.
That's like saying, after getting 1234 "wow, only 1 chance out of 1296".
just remember kids... if you have a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of event "A" occurring, the science says... Bet against it if it causes cognitive dissonance by going against your philosophy.
Humans invented the die and they also invented God!
SLuG Quick!!! this dude just had an asthma attack ! Someone help him!
Yasir Yonus we invented so much, yet we know so little. The big bang is only a theorie, but it's the most likely theorie. But I want to make a point, you simply don't know for sure if 'God' exists. Humans just don't know anything in this universe (Tbh I'm so obsessed with it). So to get to it, you can't say that we invented him for sure.
Alienated Atomy It is near certain Humans invented God, the obvious clue is it existing in every civilization in one form or the other. There are actual psychological academic articles that explain why the human brain out of its primitive programming that evolution has given us, would invent such a being.!
People need to learn what theory means in science.
You made two major errors... Well three... A "We know so little" you are pressuming you know how much knowledge and progress is still unknown, you are making the same mistake like people saying "We know everything".
God is a metaphysical object, it can't be proven nor disproven, there is nothing other than us (And maybe aliens *Wink*) that can make up metaphysical objects, not only that ,but when you take a look on our Gods, you realize patterns, that point to it was us who made them, all of them...
A scientific theory is quite different from what the public thinks of theory, you should check it out.
"What are the chances of us being here?" - uh, let's see... 1 in 1? Because we are here?
Not only is my calculation actually correct, it's so much simpler, too.
3:38 Also, no, the numbers do not check out. His "mathematician friend" actually fucked it up so badly I doubt that person actually exists. If we calculate it like this...
"roll 70 times, check if they're all 6s, if not try again"
...we'd expect to have it happen once in ~3*10^54 tries (once in 6^70, easy stuff). With 5 seconds per roll, that's 350s per attempt, so in total ~10^50 years. That's a big number, but if you were to write it out, then write as many zeroes AGAIN as the real solution has, you'd still be nowhere close to what he said.
And this is still an overestimate. What if you rolled 35 ones and then 35 sixes, and then 35 sixes followed by 35 twos? You'd get 70 sixes in a row then, just spread between two series of rolls, not something this calculation accounted for. Without going into detail, accounting for it gives us ~5*10^47 years, so 500 times less than that still.
How one would POSSIBLY get to 10^122 from any of these, man was not meant to know.
@@abdulmasaiev9024 what if you would invest a bit of money in 70 dices and roll them all at once.
@@joppippoj It's been a while so I don't remember the details of this problem, but in general the baseline is such things don't matter for probabilities since you can just mark those dice with numbers and then check them in order. Unless we're counting something else like total roll time, as is the case here... which would make it faster than rolling 1 after the other. That doesn't help him as his answer was instead so, so, SO much slower it's not even funny.
Exactly. We have a sample of one. We have no probability distribution. The proponent of fine-tuning may believe that the physical constants having the particular values that they do is improbable... but they can't actually show that they are improbable. For all they can show, they could be extremely probable or even necessary. We just don't know. All we know is, as you say, that we're 1-for-1.
@Abdul Masaiev. Your 1 in 1 argument is like me saying, what were the odds of me rolling a 6, well ofcourse it must have been 1 in 1, because I rolled a six. Look, both the argument and @cosmicsceptic conterargument had flaws. All I see is people believing what they agree with, not what is true.
He doesn't understand the difference between odds and probability
The King are you sure he's a creationist? He doesn't seem THAT unreasonable.
Tim Pieper Well, he is. But he's one of the more philisophical and smart creationists that don't shove it down your throat
Since when is he a creationist? (Oh you are talking about the dude in the video he responded to)
ComicSkeptic misunderstood.
The probability of getting that ONE combination, 6666, is 1/1296.
The probability of getting ANY OTHER COMBINATION is 1295/1296.
In other words a 99.922839506% chance that you will get any other combination.
the flat earth society has members all over the globe.
good one
1011101 I have seen it on a post 😁
They don't seem like very well-rounded people.
That one is really getting old
1011101 you only say that cause your a square
I hate to tell you this @CosmicSkeptic but dice DO prove there is a god. The one true god...Nuffle! The god of the dice, all gamers pray to him when needing the perfect roll to win or stop defeat. Even if you have not heard his name, if you have played any games with dice you have seen his powers.
ALL PRAISE NUFFLE!!!
Hahaha!!!! NICE!
Hi I'm Nuffle. Definitely
Blood Bowl!
We pray to the Lady, we may not invoke her name, for her name males her look away, or worse in scorn and we shall lose all we gained
Is Nuffle like the Christian God where if you ask for his help he can choose to say "no"? xD
skeptic, you look like one of the beatles
Not Ringo I hope?
CosmicSkeptic Sorry Mate
We're all skeptic on the yellow submarine, the yellow submarine...
CosmicSkeptic To be fair to Ringo, he did marry a Bond babe.
I'm curious of why you didn't mentioned the Multiverses and the Quantum laws of physics :)
(Sorry for my lack of English skill)
Here's the main problem with his argument: His argument relies on the idea that carbon based lifeforms are the ONLY kind of lifeforms that could've existed. In this universe as far as we know yes. But if the universe expanded faster then other elements would've existed. And there's an equal likelyhood that this universe would sustain life as that one that expanded faster. So his argument that our universe is something special because it sustains life is completely false.
Shady Charlotte also, while unlikely, as I understand it, this universe could support noncarbon based life like silicon based life. Silicon based life is at least possible in this universe.
www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/researchers-take-small-step-toward-silicon-based-life
munstrumridcully Let us know when you find another universe with either.
Patty Ice how does this disprove anything? We currently know life can exist in a universe, and we haven't found any universes without life, so this doesn't bring any weight to the argument to claim that God exists because life only exists in this universe. We don't know that.
Edge Is Love, Edge Is Life It doesn't prove or disprove anything in either case. "We haven't found anything else, so there must be a god" and "we don't know of there is anything else, but there might be" are both speculative. Neither statement is ultimately based on science. You're taking a chance and saying "well there MIGHT be something out there, so God doesn't exist." That's not scientific at all.
But the fact remains that, so far, we have not found any other life in the universe, a fact that supports the Bible's historical credibility. Dealing with what we have now is more scientific than trying to make conclusions and assertions on maybes.
Yea patty i guess we havent found life in the universe but lets not forget that we havent personally been to a single planet besides earth. Saying this gives credibility to the bible is like saying the fact that we cant see the earths core gives credibility to the believe that the core does not exist.
"a dice" - *screams internally*
Technically, a die. "Dice" is the plural. One die, many dice.
Yes, a six sided die
Basic Christianity evidence
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real anyway. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
What I find endlessly frustrating about arguments like this is how there is no way they can connect the dots to their own subjective perception of a god and yet they do it anyway. This is just as ludicrous as claiming unicorns exist because there are horses without horns, and there are other animals which have horns, so naturally horses with horns are possible. Therefore unicorns are magic and you can use a virgin to trap one and oh by the way the Faerie realm and dragons are real too. No connecting the dots but even if you don't grant them an inch, they'll take miles.
As pointed out at the end of this video, even if this "roll of the dice" argument were convincing, which it's not, that still doesn't prove the Abrahamic god was the "First Mover." It's simply that the Believer only has that god in mind and so assumes if we can prove someone rigged the dice, that someone must be their personal sky daddy. There are other sky daddies, and there are other Creator concepts, and there are possible explanations that don't require gods or magic, and there's also the simple fact we don't yet know because we require more data, and we may never know for several generations, and that should be perfectly okay to accept. For them it's not, so connect the dots without dots.
What frustrates me further is that I have known for years that the Abrahamic god has technically been debunked since Galileo, perhaps even before that. I was born into an entire society that has blatantly lied to me, and I didn't figure it out until less than a decade ago. Most recently, the scientific discipline of genetics has proved that the story of Adam and Eve could not have happened literally as described in the bible or quran. When we mapped the human genome, there was enough evidence there to debunk Abrahamics once and for all. Therefore, judeo-christian-islamic beliefs are soundly illegitimate. It's not just "well you can't prove my god doesn't exist!" If it's the Abrahamic god, yes we have. On multiple fronts, but I only need this one: The X chromosome preceded the Y chromosome. Therefore Eve was never made from Adam. If there is a god, it's not the one described in Abrahamic dogma. And yet NO ONE cares about this! Believers and nonbelievers alike agree that the bible and quran tell stories which are allegorical, and yet still believers insist that despite this acknowledgement of fiction, they still claim Abrahamic dogma is the literal word of their god. So now we connect the dots without dots or lines or even paper. There's nothing here and yet dots are magically presumed to be connected.
It is impossible to argue this further with people who do not accept the idea of science. We reach an impasse between those who accept facts and those who prefer delusions over the observable universe. Trying to explain this to Believers is like trying to teach a pigeon how to play chess. Literally.. okay figuratively, but it feels like it should be literally.
Great post and I agree completely! In what way is any of that proof of god!? LMFAO this video reminds me of a Chuck Missler video I've seen called Beyond Coincidence! Its a 2 hour video that is summed up as such......big number, big number, big number and even bigger number there for god! Its mind blowing the mental gymnastics these people go through trying to connect dots that aren't even there to be connected in the first place!
Zachs Mind Beautifully said. It gets to the point where science simply gets shoved aside out of ignorance. The only parts of science that religious people claim to be untrue are the only parts that contradict their god. However they don't seem to realise that all science is linked - if evolution is false, then genetics would be false, then genetic mutation/diversity would be false, then medicine would be false etc. It's always funny seeing a creationist using quantum physics (however poorly) to back up their claims.
I have never heard a decent argument for the existence of a specific god. Both Christians and Muslims love using the same old deist arguments to prove their specific god. Its ridiculous.
Zachs Mind People who prefer delusions cannot be reached. it's so frustrating. i'm not even saying that beig religious makes you delusional but favoring the bible's explanations over science DOES make you delusional/brainwashed.
Zachs Mind And even if they could prove a creator how do they claim to know so much about him? i could go on
I find it odd how I have never seen anyone use the Bible for evidence of God's existence. It would have been literally impossible for it to be written by man.
"People who prefer delusions cannot be reached."
That's pretty much my thinking of most atheists. They don't even consider what you have to say. Sit down in a room and have a reasonable discussion.
Could I request a video? Do a video on Jehovah's Witnesses. It's really hard for JW's to find objective information about their shady religion. Maybe you could aid them in their search for a way out of the cult and be of guidance.
Basically Flying Productions he did one
+nark the only one that has popped up to me has been the one about homosexuality. I meant something along the lines of him talking about them as a whole.
Basically Flying Productions
Maybe this would be useful:
www.jwescape.libsyn.com
Basically Flying Productions The Bible I'm pretty sure kills JW denomination. Using KJ as far as I know. My grandma said it was 1 Peter something. I'm not Christian I swear :)
That hair cut is giving me strong Paul McCartney vibes
Really? I thought Ian Curtis really
What is he talking about, earth was created in 7 days and humans have fallen from the sky.
But how did 7 days pass without a planet and a sun? XD
A WHOLE lot of weed and a stack of GTA games
I asked a theist that same question and he claimed the light was not daylight, but the light of god's countenance. Perhaps god had a hell of a case of sunburn that day.
Majora's Mask wth are you talking about their was a Big Bang and if any of what your saying "human fell from the sky" then I will see you in hell my friend. By the way I'm gay hahahha
He's joking.
Bravo!!! Loved this argument... I was stumped the first time I saw that man proving God with a dice... I couldn't counter it... But now CosmicSceptic's argument blew my.mind... You are the next Dawkins brother... We are Atheism!!!
My bag of loose change (around 1200 coins) split the other day when I picked it up in the lounge. The coins have fallen and rolled all over the place, rolling behind chairs, table legs, under the radiator, down cracks in the floorboards and even into the kitchen. Some were on top of others, some on their side. Any miniscule change in the height and momentum of the bag above ground immediately before/during the bag split, or air flow in the house, arrangement of coins within the bag, imperceptible weakness of the plastic bag that determined how it split, etc. would have meant that the coins would have ended up in different places, or maybe the bag would not have split at all. That doesn't sound remarkable or amazing unless you give the actual arrangement of spilt coins some special significance. If the conditions and nature of the universe were different then... things would be different.
The average time, in years, it would take to roll 70 sixes in a row, at one roll per 5 seconds, is actually nowhere near 10^122 - it's actually 5*10^47. The point (or lack of a point in that guy's case) is still the same.
Yeah... I was going to mock him for having to ask a "mathematician friend" to do a simple calculation, but then saw his answer was ridiculously off.
@@travcollier Well, mathematicians are known to be prone to arithmetic errors, because math is not about counting - it is about structure. During my math postdoc, I've rarely seen number other than 0 and 1, and those were also not numbers, but rather functions with constant 0 and unit value.
Having this said, I don't believe his "mathematician friend" is a mathematician.
this and swish are the only channels that I get SUPER exited when they upload 💙
@ 5:47 - "...I don't know. But *you* don't know, either!" Very well said, Alex.
And that of course encapsulates the difference between someone looking at evidence from a rational, scientific viewpoint (i.e., the willingness to admit when we don't know something... *yet* ) vs. someone with a religious worldview simply asserting stuff *as if* they know the answers, when in truth all they have is a blind faith in an unproven book and one of several competing/contradictory sets of dogma (all of which are ostensibly and allegedly supported by that same book).
Isn't it ironic how religious people have the audacity to TRY and USE science to prove THIER point while AT THE SAME TIME telling you science is wrong about what ever god(small g) THEY happen to believe in. Ironic.
Paul De Lamarre i assume you already have the proof of the inexistance of God ?
yoyo youcef Shifting the goal post and shifted the burden of proof/evidence and to top it all off....asking to prove a negative.
Congrats, you've been entered to win the coveted Golden Crockaduck Award :)
Paul De Lamarre science is "under" God. just like scientists are beneath preists.
Jackie M seriously, what the fuck does that even mean? Scientists UNDER priests? Man you people are freakin really stupid in every way possible. It's actually starting to be really sad.
Isn't it ironic when people use the term ironic in the wrong way ?
lmao! 2314 are the numbers on my main email account. and the odds of you naming those exact four digits are 1 in 10000. God must have compelled you to say those for me 😂😂😂
Actually it's 1/1296.
Lel.
Jordan Peckham *"lel"*
Jordan Peckham
Because a keyboard has six different digits, just like a dice.
Lel.
Well yes and no. As we are more likely to us numbers 1 to 4 in names/passwords in a cyber setting, those number a have a higher probability of occurring than 1/10 - because we choose them and we’re not random generators like dice are.
The best counter to this could be the puddle analogy
Not quite, because if the constants he is talking about in the video were different (i.e. the expantion rate, the 4 basic forces, etc...) we wouldn't necessarily get different kinds of matter, we might not get matter at all.
In the puddle analogy if the hole of the puddle was different we would have gotten a different puddle, in his claim we wouldn't get any kind of puddle.
The puddle analogy works best for things like perfect bodies, perfect solar systems, perfect ecologies (they are'nt perfect but that's how the argument ussualy goes). Stuff that could have gone differently and give results, just different ones.
Damn alex, you make me feel stupid. And i'm 46 with a phd. Keep up the great work
It's so funny, when believers in ancient fairy tales suddenly become cosmologists, knowing more than actual scientisis.
There are many theists who are cosmologists. As well as scientists, biologists even.
It's not rare.
Jordan Peckham but they do actual science and keep their religion out...unless they are liars like Jason Lisle...then they just dissemble, distort and misrepresent actual cosmology since Young Earth Creationism is entirely incompatible with physical cosmology.
yeh but this guy with the dice isn't a cosmologist, that's the irony.
he's trying desperately to find a loophole that can allow for his belief to not be falsified.
theists spend their whole life convincing themselves due to fear.
Etothe2iPi As if Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact lol! I'd say it's the much bigger fairy tale.
It isn't scientific fact, it's a provable theory. God however is not, that is an non provable belief or faith.
I raised a question in the original that's still unanswered. If anyone wants to progress in the conversation I raise it again here:
"
You say this universe is a 1/(10^55) chance. What's your study set? Where did you get the 10^55 universes to compare and conclude this is the only one? Where do you get those values could vary? Why would you confuse the Statistics of the dice with the clockwork mechanism of causality of the universe? Are you aware that the values of all constants of the universe are just a human construction to talk about them, not inherited into there core being of them, they just are what they are, not "tuned", just there?
Also, something that happened, to have happened, by definition, is always 1. "
So... aren't the probability of fundamental laws of the universe to be like this 1/1?
EXACTLY. I always try to tell people this. They almost never understand that a sample space has to be defined before any notion of probability can be used.
Julio Toboso García
Okay, noted that the probability of humans to exist was 1. Any arguing that the purpose of the universe was to create human life because no other option was possible from the start?
+Ben Fisher
That... makes no sense. No, the purpose of the universe was not to create human life. There is no purpose to the universe, it just is. But fine, let's arbitrarily assume there is a purpose to the universe. Why would it's purpose be SOLELY to create HUMAN life? Why not other forms of life? Why would the universe be infinitely large, yet it's entire purpose was to create a world so small, it's tinier than even an atom compared to it's size?
I can't tell whether you actually believe the universe's purpose was to create human life, or if you're just bringing up the question as a topic of discussion.
Rocky Otter
No offense but you clearly didn't understand the meaning of my comment:
The original comment said:
"Also, something that happened, to have happened, by definition, is always 1. "
So... aren't the probability of fundamental laws of the universe to be like this 1/1?"
If this is true, since human life exists, the probability of human life to exist was 1 in the universe.
But if the probability of a system to create something is 1, it's pretty safe to say that the purpose of the system was to create the thing in question (in this case: human life).
But the truth that the probability of something that happened, to have happened, being 1, doesn't mean that its probability was 1 from the start, so the original commenter is wrong, his point is invalid.
If not, then human life IS the purpose (or better one of the purposes) of the universe, you choose...
Okay, I see. I obviously missed point b in your adventure from A to C. I had no idea what that statement had to do with anything. My apologies.
*Everything* in life, every little event at every little moment is also as big a rarity as the dice example he used, providing we look back at it and, reversing a couple of seconds, we decide to *make it* our goal! If i throw a rock it will have to land *somewhere,* right? Well, if i check the spot it landed and decide to repeat the event again i could be there for a few trillion years as well, but it doesn't change the fact that i got it *right* the very first time. Was it a miracle? NO, no more than any other little event at every moment is. The rock had to land somewhere; we simply looked back and made THAT spot our goal for the sake of it. No wonder it seems amazing to us... because we are post-reasoning it (ad-hoc)!
That's the fallacy the guys commits. He grabs the Universe as it is presented today and decides to make it his repeatable goal... How does he know that THIS state of affairs wasn't always the *only* possible outcome of the Universe, or that it actually isn't anything special and we missed out on many other *better* versions of life/reality? He simply doesn't kow.
Jimmy David This is really clever
who's to say there werent many many many (1x10^55?) big bangs that took place that werent stable and collapsed in on itself, and by chance it was the rate that this universe happens to expand at that is stable.
Yes, perhaps. It doesn't even have to be 1x10^55. If your theory is "the Big Bang was a random fluctuation in a higher energy vaccum state", the probability of it happening somewhere in particular is low, but the probability of it happening anywhere over a long period of time is 1.
And the finely tuned argument is bullshit. We are as we are because things were created according to the physical laws. With different laws, something different and unnimaginable could have happened.
That's funny, because I had the same thought. Since all data is wiped out in a big crunch, we could be first in a very long series, or quite late in the experiment.
@@AlcyonEldara This is a really good argument. One thing. "over a long period of time" is slightly problematic because supposedly time itself is meaningful only for a given universe, and would collapse along with space when each universe collapses. So it wouldn't necessarily be the case that many many spacetimes bigbang into existence and then collapse within the spacetime of an uberuniverse. It's just hard for us to imagine activity apart from time.
@@robertaylor9218 not even "late" because that's a time word and time is a dimension of a universe. Alex did a great job but really would have nailed the case shut if he had gone this route, especially with his opponent betting on the persuasion of all those zeroes of time a person would have to spend rolling dice. The passage of time in one universe is totally distinct from that in another universe, and it stands to reason that there's no such thing as time shared between universes.
@@dancancro5524 When I said "late in the experiment" I was referring to sequentially, not chronologically.
"Sorry for orangeness"
Me: I wont mind orange is my fav color lel
2:26 you should say:
"but of course if the universe was tuned in any other way then that life would develop differently than what it is now"
Everything being random, why should life even be a thing? We can't create it, we don't understand how it started, no scientific theory predicts the existence of it. If we found a cave painting of a city miles underneath the Earth, would we speculate something just threw paint at the wall and it happens to resemble something familiar? Or, would we assume some intention must have been behind it's creation and we just haven't figured out how it got there yet?
Too much orangeness! Oranger than Donald Trump!
+ExileGamer I didn't look at the twitter I just thought of it, I wouldn't expect it to be very original though.
Mayan Bagels Is that even possible?
Yeah, I'd say this is axiomatically impossible.
First time I see someone explaining my thoughts so perfectly xD it's really hard to tell people exactly what u did so I'll just link them this video xD thanks a million
Hmm, dice can prove God?
Let's see if it can prove whether my existance is pointless or not.
*Rolls dice, and it lands on 6*
Shit.
Alex quotes Dawkins, but Alex doesn't mention that bit of The God Delusion, where the author shows that whilst the odds of life / intelligent life, appearing in the universe are very low, the odds against a 'perfect' creator making the known universe are incredibly much lower !
The facts are that most of the observable universe is extremely hostile to life as we know it.
I’ve been watching these videos for a while, which has been very interesting to me as an observant Jew. But, it all still lines up with my world view the way he explains things. Please don’t judge all us religious folk by these idiots on the internet! I really appreciate how CosmicSkeptic stays respectful throughout all his arguments, as it allows me to really take it in and appreciate the logic at play! Great video!
easy refutation: you drive somewhere. you pass 100 intersections where you could go straight, left, or right. So you had a only a 1 in 3^100 chance of arriving at your destination, right? It must have been divine intervention that you arrived. A miracle every day!
Except that the vehicle returns to the same position each failed attempt and the driver of the car does not achieve sentience unless they reach the end
@@sybro9786 why would it return to the same position each time?
Enis Zita Why does the universe collapse in on itself after a while?
"Dice" is plural. "Die" is singular.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, both are acceptable. Also, the original video uses dice instead of die as well
AlphaOmega115
In the portions of the original included here, the speaker did not take the extra step of referring to "a" dice. If it's acceptable in OED, it's because of spreading ignorance. It's an important distinction to make since the mathematical implications are very profound; unlike, say, having a mice in your cupboard.
Liam ads
Don't hold your breath waiting for me to prove you right.
DynaCatlovesme chill nigga oxford said it's k
DynaCatlovesme thnx for commenting that so I don't have to
It's amazing that you manage to support EVERY single one of your arguments. You're one of the few people that do it and that's why I immediately subscribed to your channel.
Nicely done, Alex. Start writing the book already. :-)
Religious people say, that god can heal them. Why do they visit doctor then? Do they all feel (somewhere deep inside) there is no healing god? I would love to hear your opinions.
Ondra Pšenička It's because people pick what sections they want to believe from the Bible, although, there are some people who don't go to the doctors and who rely on God for help, which I hate because there are some people who die because they would rather "trust in God" then trust in modern medicine. What some religious people might say is, because God created humans, he placed all of the supplies we would need to make ourselves better, here on Earth for us humans to find them, then in a way we are still relying on God for help because if he hadn't blessed" us with the items to make this cure then we would be dead.
Ondra Pšenička I hope that kind of made sense
Thats just not how god works. For example...
A child wants to get a bicycle on christmas, prays for it, but never gets one. Thats because this is not how god works.
The child should steal the bicycle and then pray for the forgiveness of his sins. Thats how god works perfectly fine. :)
Ondra Pšenička Religion isn't meant to be taken literally.
*seriously, you spelled seriously wrong...
Another good job Alex, Bravo!
Your interlocutor has presented a series of presuppositions and logical fallacies that you recognized and countered well.
The assumption is that there is one being rolling a die, in fact the universe has already existed for billions of years at least, and random combinations in that amount of time, with no direction, can be viewed as a kind of "evolution" with survival of the fittest results. From a human perspective "fittest" obviously means most suitable for humanity as we know it on the world as we know it.
Considering the difficulties presented by human anatomy [far from perfect], an environment fairly hostile to human life [including diseases, parasites, predators, the often hostile climate, etc.], and, of course, the plain evidence that the vast majority of the universe [even considering only the radiation and near vacuum of space] is not only hostile to humans but to life itself [as far as we know it], the fine tuning argument is absurd. It amounts to special pleading and argument from incredulity.
I am neither a mathematician, nor philosopher, but given very long, if not exactly infinite, time the possibility or probability of results can hardly be so easily discerned, nor can chance be dismissed in favor of a comforting anthropomorphic "Prime Cause."
Keep up the good work.
gawd rolls the dice, he lands a big bang, makes the earth and humans as a result... realizes what a bad idea gambling was and never did anything that foolish again. lol jk no god
When he said "if I roll this 70 times and get all 6's the first time..." I was like um it probably wasn't the first try for the universe either tho.
I really enjoyed your conversation with Justin on your Podcast.
I flipped a coin the other day, I hit heads 7x straight. Handed to my mate and she got tails instantly.
That just proves that your mate is a witch (err, warlock). Burn him at the stake or burn his steak...either or.
Thats a sign that you need to get some head from a girl.
+TH-cam Comments Suck And she needs some "tails".
TH-cam Comments Suck EXACTLY!!!
grats you just proved god
Next, your going to tell me that bananas are evidence of God. That'd be rather scandalous!
Your description of the fallacies this boy is making are great! Also, I'd like to point out that this guy is describing the roll of the die in a flawed way. The way he describes it, he basically rolls a die, it lands on a 6, and he goes, "WOW! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?!" Essentially he describes the results of the roll, as well as the state of the universe, and our existence as the way things were "meant to be." Recently, I was thinking to myself about theists and others who make this assumption. I realized that the argument they're making doesn't really work. In any universe or any place where the things required in order to yield life aren't met, there would be no one to make the observation that: "this is the likely outcome." Probability is a comprehensive and effective measurement of likelihood and answering "Why?", but I don't find it all that productive to figure out the probability of something occurring, after it has already happened (unless it is for science, or this event may occur again). I'm not saying it's bad to do, but it can't really be used as a crutch in place of evidence. Again, probability in tandem with other evidence can be used effectively and validly. Anyway, what I was getting at was our inherent human logical fallacy for assuming that events, especially ones we interpret to be unlikely, must have a reason. Well, they don't. At least not that I know of. And, even if they do, the reason isn't to spread Christianity. My point here I guess is just that if the events necessary to create us hadn't occurred, you wouldn't be here to question them. I don't know if this makes sense or not, I guess just lmk.
well the creation of a character requires various dice rolls sometimes even requiring you to roll more than one dice or a dice with a different probability
"Everything is perfect, therefore the God who created the earth 6000 or whatever years ago, flooded it, instructed some old fart to build a boat and gather all the earth's animals, yada yada must be true."
That's quite the leap. Is there a god? Perhaps. Is it any of the pantheons we've had on earth? No. Is it the Abrahamic "God" that is oh so popular here in the west? Most definitely not.
The deities that have been worshipped on earth are simply reflections of us, we created them in our image. It's a bit more apparent when you look at Shintou, Hinduism, the old Greco/Roman, Celtic and Norse pantheons, as these Gods often possess character flaws that are incredibly human (e.g. the story about Arachne, or the Apple of Discord).
Is there a possibility for some kind of creator force to exist? Sure, we haven't been able to prove otherwise. Arguing however that it's the ever fickle "God" that likes to unleash hell upon mankind, just to embrace it later, is just plain idiotic.
2 years ago today, you were happy about 10,000 subscribers! Look at you now! Thank god for your existence! ;)
Congratulations about this amazing progress!!
7:20 "first time"
Who says this universe is the first
Great work! Thank goodness that there are people like you out there to counter all this crap!
I remember learning about this in elementary school. I remember my teacher rolling a dice and then saying how probable is it to get another 6? and we all said it was more and she explained how it wasn't true.
If god really existed then he wouldn't have allowed the white balance to be off.
I see a bright future for you, you're a very wise and logical guy for your age, I hope that you'll go far. I'm always happy to watch your videos, every time they give me some extra information and an additional value to what I've already gathered.
So which version of God does it prove- Yahweh, The Catholic God, The Pentecostal or Baptist God,...,Allah,..., Jeff Stryker? Or do they all have different odds respectively?
modvs1 the flying spaghetti monster, for sure
The funny thing is that his argument is based off of his own misunderstanding.
The probability of getting that one combination, 6666, is 1/1296.
The probability of getting _any other_ combination is 1295/1296.
In other words a 99.922839506% chance that you will get any other combination.
I don't think it alone proves anything, but I do think that it adds some even more reason to be confident.
I'm sorry, I find it hilarious that you gave five examples of the same god, just different theological conceptions.
A Small Box. A Jeff Stryker fan I take it?
0:22 I see what you did there
It's scary how good the quality of production in the video of the dice-guy is.
one thing I hate is when people bring up chance, so if the world was different would we still say what's the chances of it turning out how it did? do you see where I'm going with this? no matter how things turn out it's all one in whatever big number you want to give.
Jason Kellogg Simple but elusive concept
someone once said to me that the chance to roll a 6 on a dice is 50/50. you either do or don't roll a 6. I found this thought very entertaining. thought I'd share it with you all for a good giggle at least.
Well explained. Just like a card analogy, every single hand (or sequence of rolls) is equally unlikely, which means that rarity in and of itself tells us nothing. It's not until we imbue certain outcomes with importance that their scarcity becomes meaningful.... which makes the entire exercise a question begging circle jerk. _"I can prove the universe was uniquely designed for life.... so long as you let me presume it was designed for life!"_
"Thats a long time"lovelygood thing we have literally all the time to roll dice
came for some dude saying you can prove god with dice.
got a math lesson
...and a dude saying you can prove god with dice.
just found ur channel and watched a couple of videos. damn you are very bright. I love this logical thinking. keep up the great work. you are really great
Finally a new episode of the simpsons ;)
Here is another huge problem with these arguments about the "probability" of life happening. Anything that occurs, in hindsight, is going to be outstanding improbable to have occurred. Everything is completely improbable if you are tracing things back billions of years to the origin of our universe.
Take for instance something as simple as me picking up a pencil. To calculate the odds of that happening tracing back to even the beginning of recorded history is going to be a larger number than you can write out in a lifetime.
Just think about all the things that had to occur in the proceeding thousands of years for my parents to be born, then my parents to meet, for them to have sex at just the right moment and the sperm that would become me to win out against all those billions of other sperm, then for me to go through all the events in my life that would lead me to picking up that pencil.
A die is rolled once. Find the probability of obtaining
a. a 5
b. a 6
c. an odd number
That activity helped you recall your knowledge of probability of simple events. If you roll a die, the number that would come up be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. When the die is rolled, it is equally likely to land on one face as on any other. Therefore, the probability of getting a "5" is one out of 6. In symbol,
We use P(getting a 5) = 1/6. Always remember that 1/6 is the probability that any of the faces show up
Activities such as rolling a dies, tossing a coin, or randomly choosing a ball from a box which could be repeated over and over again and which have well- defined results are called "experiments". The results of an experiment are called "outcome". This set of all outcomes in an experiment is called a "sample space". An event is a subset of a sample space.
SIMPLE EVENTS: Consider rolling a die
a. "Getting a number 5" is called a simple event.
b. "Getting a 6" is also a simple event.
What about the event of "getting an odd number"?
PROBABLY OF SIMPLE EVENT: If each of the outcomes in the simple space is equally likely or occur, then the probability of an event E, denoted as P(E) is given by
P(E) = number of ways the event can occur / number of possible outcomes
Or
P(E) = number of outcomes in the event / number of outcomes in the sample space
The probability of getting an odd number in one die is
P(odd number) = 3/6 or 1/2
Did you just give a math lesson
Great video. But I don't like using the phrased "fine-tuning" or "tuned". These imply that someone tuned the universe, which is false. Various numbers or constants are what they are, and if they were slightly different, life may have turned out differently or not at all: there is no way to know and it is pure speculation.
We don't even have a good definition of life, and there may be forms of life vastly different than our own, in other parts of the universe. Statistically unlikely events happen all the time in a universe as vast as ours.
All gods are human inventions, the creation of primitive people who used superstition and religion to explain the world, before the scientific method replaced those archaic practices. Most people cling to religion because it was inculcated in them as children via tradition and culture. Religion will eventually die out like many viruses.
+Locutus D'Borg
"All gods are human inventions, the creation of primitive people who used superstition and religion to explain the world,"
I agree, except for the "primitive people"... after all we see new religions like Mormonism or Scientology or redefinitions of old beliefs like the whole woowoo of "New Age" pseudo religious movements emerge in cultures that are not exactly primitive in the caveman sense...
Religions are the attempt to give an answer and potentially a soothing explanation for a question that does not even make sense... where do we go when we die. What do you mean "go"?
It's all a sham targeted at minimising the fear of the unknown which in this case basically means the awareness of our mortality and how short life is measured against the vast length of time e.g. our planet existed... And the only BAD part in it is that a) the answers people found for themselves to sooth their fears also include this highly missionary fervor to get others to join you in these fruitless enterprises and b) that more often than not a certain type of human will insert itself in between the happy followers that feel honestly attached to the answer and the "higher authority" and will abuse the trust and faith of the believers to enrich themselves and enjoy the sweet lifestyle without any rational base for their life comforts...
If you'd remove churches and priests from the equasion and could convince everybody to keep their answer for themselves if not specifically asked for it (especially not forcing it into their kids heads to feel safer about them sharing the "after death" fate of your choice with you) religion would be harmless and could be ignored. Everybody has strange ideas in the depths of their minds. It is only this zealousy to spread them out and forcefeed them to everybody else, including through actual physical force that makes religions so vile and disgusting.
Urs: Great post. The creator of LDS was a canny con man, as was the creator of Scientology. Their followers were not primitive, but gullible. I stand corrected.
Ah, Creationist math. Funnier than Seinfeld! 8^D
Warren NZ kkkk
Warren NZ kkkkkkkkk
Warren NZ nothing... is funnier... than Seinfeld. Maybe Seinfeld is a god?
Yeah I was exaggerating. But every time I hear a Creationist spout numbers like one followed by a million zeroes it makes me laugh. 8^)
Seinfeld has become funny? When did that happen? }:->
Near the video’s end, I was just getting ready to comment “Theists’ arguments like this at best make the case for only Deism,” and sure enough....
2:07 When he said "times by" I I knew it would be bad. In this context 'times' means 'multiplied by' so, effectively he said 'multiplied by by'. Sorry,... but if he's going to try and 'prove' anything with logic he could at least try to use his native language logically and correctly.
But then CS used the same word, along with both of them calling a single die "a dice."
Christian Apologists actually can understand Maths and Science.... but just as long as it proves their point... and even then they jump to whatever conclusion is convenient to them
That's seriously good content! Pls keep up the good work🙏👑
Hello Cosmic Tangerine
His explanations discredits every multiverse theories necessity.
The "Donald Trump-ness" of your video c:
I wanna smooch your cute face
★ Cuddlepuff ★ cringe
What's cringy? The joke or my desire to smooch his cute face? Either way, I don't regret c:
hes so cuteeeeee
I love all the 666 imagery in this video.
If Ray Comfort can "prove" God's existence using a banana, certainly this genius's "proof" is even more convincing.
Not my proudest fap.
Kim Jong-un There is a tiny dick joke in here.
J Nebrasky just a tiny tiny joke
comsicskeptic is my proudest would happily turn gay
last time i was this early i still believed in god
Your white balance is a bit off mate
so you didn't read the opening card?
drazezard thats comic skeptics friends account. there just slagging him