I am constantly flabbergasted at the mind that sits within Stephen's head. Just the memory of so much information is foreign to me, let alone the ability to recall it and fit the pieces of information together in a coherent way. In a word, the man is brilliant and humble in the same breath.
Brilliant stuff, Stephen. You speak to us as a philosopher and a scientist.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +19
I simply love Stephen Meyer. Using scientific terms and explanations, he destroys the fundamentals of atheism and materialism so strongly that he leaves them no space to defend their stupid ideology.
Well he is demonstrating that a higher intelligence was behind the created of the Universe. This we can call God if we want to. We can deduce a lot through what he created. But since it is obvious that there is a God it is not where a Christian would like to start a discussion of faith. But because there is such a strong atheist presence in this world the Christian has no choice. If we are talking about evidence I would prefer to start with the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Insurance Agent: What caused this fire? Fire Chief: Oxygen. Insurance Agent: Where did the oxygen come from? Fire Chief: Don't ask those questions, you God freak.
Even Christopher Hitchens admitted that "fine tuning" is the "best argument for the existence of God." Hitchens died before many of the design attributes were becoming more mainstream and disclosed. Even Dawkins has had problems with this and is a big proponent of the "multi-verse." He is even now facing difficulty with "problematic" questions from his University audiences. He had a stroke not too long ago. I assume he will state that THIS is the reason why he is no longer proselytizing atheism at colleges. Sanjosemike (no longer in Ca)
Fine-tuning is the smoking gun for Intelligent Design. The multi-verse is an attempt to turn the smoking gun into Russian roulette without any bullets.
True, whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?
1. Based on two things. 2. The bounded principle of indifference says that if we have no reason to prefer some outcome over others then we should assign equal probability to all of them, in this case we have a huge landscape of possible constant values and since we have no reason to think that the other constants are impossible we assign them equally probability that makes our universe utterly improbable. 3. Even if we assume that, for example, these constant values are physically necessary, other values are still metaphysically possible, so that will move the fine-tuning by one nifo, that is, from the universe to the laws of physics, but the problem will still remain unsolved.
The concept "fine tuning" recalls me my tunings of the "English by Radio course from the BBC when I waa a teeneger long time ago (now I am 84 years all). My radio device was an ancient one on which I were obliged to tune the station by short wave and the dificulties came precisely from the finesse of those tuning. My name is Jordi Bassas, and I live in Barcelona Spain,.
I don't see why the notion of the "multiverse" would change the fine-tuning argument at all. It's just a matter of "scale". Let's just say that our solar system is like one "atom" within some "larger" system. Then we have to ask the question as to how "finely tuned" an atom needs to be in order to exist, which could be a "constant" all the way down the "tuning" chain from the macro to the micro...
This was extremely remarkable, Dr.Meyer. There are, however, some proponents of the ID derivatives who defend a "young universe" theory, based on the alternative interpretation of the red shift in the galaxies and the unexpected abnormalities observed on it. Dr.Adauto Lourenço summarizes a few of the inconsistencies of the "Big-Bang interpretation" of this data: Many interconnected galaxies have different shifts (which would lead us to the weird conclusion that they have different speeds despite the connection), the quantization of the values of speed (the proportion values of the wavelengths always assuming multiples of the conjunct [0.06, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.4, 1.96], like if galaxies had "favorite speeds"). Some propositions were made in order to offer alternative explanations to the red-shift observed: Tired light mechanism (Zwick, 1929), the proportion to the universe's curvature (Segal, 1995), a shift on the speed of light itself (Troitskii, 1987). Also, the background radiation, other of the pillars underneath the Big Bang Theory, has received some divergent and not commented explanations (Like the thermic equilibrium of the cianide interstellar molecules or the result of the accumulation of thermic radiation out of the uprising entropy since the beginning of the universe). My point is: Even though the design is clearly necessary in order to sufficiently explain universe's tuning in a Big-Bang-originated scenario, have you personally considered the possibility of "getting rid" of the Big Bang? Do Hawking's theorems depend on the interpretation of galaxies' red-shift as an expansion of the Universe? Another question: isn't the Weak Anthropic Principle just a circular argument? Anyway, congratulations for all your work and knowledge. I am a med school student and also a researcher, and I've been struggling to teach on ID here in Brazil. It's been amazing, and I would really like to have some conversation with you, specially on the Cosmology topics. If you get interested, please email me on gabriel.jcd@hotmail.com. God bless you!
I did not follow his last comments on the quantum problems but I have heard Lawrence Krauss discuss his something from nothing theories which get into how quantum fluctuations in space, essentially his version of nothing, create enough energy to ultimately create matter. And yes it raises a lot of questions including where the space came from in which these fluctuations took place.
Great vid,thanks for posting. There was a big fanfare when the so called God particle the Higgs boson was finally identified by the LHC , what was less publicized was that a lot of particle physicists were a bit disappointed because it too appears to be fine tuned,its perfect value for the job it does cannot be explained by the standard model.and seems to be another lucky shot.
I’m reading Signature In The Cell, and Privileged Planet. Put together it’s just layers upon layers of improbability that we’re here. We are only here because God made us and loves us. He made us and then put us in the perfect spot to observe and learn from His creation.
I watched the movie version of Privileged Planet. I would like to get the book some day, but I thought the movie was interesting. You should check it out if your interested.
A designer must exist for a design to come out. I myself is a biology student and I can see how complex life is specifically the nucleotide sequence that any alteration will result to major changes of the entire organism. Common sense.
Stephen, a mind blowing analysis of our Universe. Thanks for bringing the highest level of logic to the issue. The issue being that to negate a Creator, all that scientists are doing is compounding the obvious with even more improbable scenarios. By doing this they are making matters worse or furthernore, even more complicated. Why not just acknowledge that the Universe is so finely tuned that it is obvious there is some kind of Creator. Lets not debate what that Creator is, or what it looks like, because we can never comprehend It. I am reminded of verses from the Last Testament, the Quran: "We shall show them the Signs in the heavens, in the Earth and within themselves until it becomes manifest unto them that this is the Truth ( That there is only One Creator." "We (God) , has created the universe from NOTHING and it is We Who are expanding it." "We have created the Earth the Sun and the Stars each floating in space in an orbit." " We have created the Earth round like the shape of an ostrich egg." (how could anyone 1400yrs ago know that the Earth was the shape of an ostrich egg??).
I need a 5+ hour lecture on this, that goes through all the "dials" in the fine-tuning argument, and then into the multiverse hypothesis and its problems in way more depth. And then perhaps finish it all off with a series of debates. XD
4:28 Sorry you are way off, and you know it. It is not a question of "multi-billions" of other universes needed to solve the problem, it would require more universes than there are atoms in this universe. Don't deceive people about the magnitude of the problem.
The weak anthropic principle is a tautology. The strong anthropic principle is equivalent to religious belief. A good resource is "Modern Physics, Ancient Faith" by Barr.
'the laws of physics alone can explain where the Universe came from' - Thats a remarkably dumb statement to come from someone as intelligent as Stephen Hawking. Its equally as ambiguous as the 'Natural Selection' abyss of Neo-Darwinism. It sounds like it means something but it really doesn't mean anything at all as far as a mechanism goes.
If science continues to accidentally discover a designer and then creates more theories to refute it ... How in the world will they ever come to the knowledge of truth ? Its like playing monopoly and only one player being allowed to change the rules so that he wins every game. Does he really ever win ? He will never know unless he stops stacking the deck...
At 2:46 or so he says that list of conditions have to be just so "for life to exist." Obviously a fundamental error that undermines his thesis. He might be correct if he said "the particular kind of life that currently exists." For all he knows there are potentially a billion unimaginable other forms of life that could exists under a billion variations in conditions.
This is one of the worst objections atheists can make because a universe that does not have these conditions will consist only of hydrogen so no form of complex life is possible.
Some people just don't want the existence of a creator, no matter the cost. What is the problem of accepting that there could be something bigger than us?
The ending presents a humorous paradox by positing that a universe created by an unintelligent random quantum anomaly can only be suggested by administering the self-restricting boundaries of an equation produced with large sums of organized information. Thus, if information is necessary to create the explanation of how the universe came into existence, then information is also required in advance of the created universe. Subsequently, this information cannot be provided without a provider.
Whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?
The sun comes up on time everyday for billions of years. But materialist say there is no purpose to that. Yet if I crash into a police car at 7:30am 5 days in a row, I will be in trouble for doing it on PURPOSE
Putting what we already know into logical arguments from a scientific perspective. It is practically impossible for everything to exist without a creator. God is the only logical, reasonable answer, and the most probable.
This was outstanding!! Don’t forget about Antony Flew. He died in 2010. During his time he was the worlds most prominent atheist, and he wrote numerous book. Then he became a deist. Not a Christian though, but a deist. What changed his mind? He said the discovery of fine tuning. But don’t tell anyone, the atheist hate the mention of his name. Shhhhhh.
Some may, but I don't think most atheist 'hate' the mention of his name. I sure don't. I just realize that despite how famous he was, he just hadn't thought it all the way through and had based his atheism on faulty reasoning. It would be how you might think of a person who claimed to be a Christian theist for many years but when some tragedy struck, they became an atheist. That would suggest to you that they had been basing their Christian theism on a twisted world view that maybe held God up as some sort of 'make everything all right all the time' magician. I had to think through fine tuning before I could conclude I no longer thought God was the best explanation for the world as I knew/know it.
@@rizdekd3912I’m curious what convinced you otherwise? Or what was faulty in his reasoning? You give an example of how the “Christian” was at fault but not yours. (No offense, I know your comment says this was a year ago, but saying he “didn’t think it through” without explaining why seems arrogant). His research may have made him change his mind. He was drawn towards something, not pushed away from a “disingenuous” worldview or practice. The example you gave however is a very real thing. But the consistency there was a commitment to the self and not to God, even under the guise as a Christian (the Bible acknowledges this problem strongly). Regardless, I’m very much open and curious as to why you came to the conclusion you have about fine tuning (hopefully neither of us tune out change🙏🏻)
I have a problem with the whole materialism/non-materialism thing. Water is 'material' but the amazing water experiments of Emoto and Benveniste prove it is highly responsive to consciousness, and also can conduct complex information across the passage of time. I don't think we yet understand what material is. Thingism might be a better term for the "dead stuff" view of the material world.
The hypothesis of infinite multiverses presupposes that Quantum Mechanics laws which are evident in our universe, in fact, transcend this universe and form the basis of all the infinite multiverses. The question which then arises is that if quantum states are the basis of existence of multiverses, then who created these quantum states in the first place and who bound all the multiverses to exist according to one of these states?
Is Pi equal to 3.14 because of fine tuning or because of chance or because of necessity? Let's think... The number is incredibly precise in order to allow for the existence of circles. 3.141592653589793238 is to the 18th decimal and for example if that last 8 was off by just one point, let's say it was a 7, then no circles would be possible in the universe. Instead all "almost-circles" would just spiral inwards into a big crunch onto the center point. If that last 8 was too high, call it a 9, then all circles would spiral outwards to infinity and beyond! So now, should we consider this incredibly precise number we measure to be Pi as possibly a product of intentional design or a product of incredible odds? Is there a multiverse and we just happen to find ourselves in a rare universe where Pi just exactly equals 3.141592653589793238? Or, is Pi exactly equal to 3.141592653589793238 because that's how many times the diameter of a circle fits perfectly around the circumference of the same circle? Should this precision be fine tuned by an intelligent designer, or just by pure luck of the odds? Or is it in fact, because of necessity?
Fine Tuning is the best evidence for the existence of God. Without it, I would have trouble believing that the Bible is all true. Take, for example the number pi, which has an infinite number of decimal places ! If pi was just a tiny bit bigger or smaller, circles would be impossible. Thank God for pi
Look up Jason lisle fractals video too. It may be something like “seeing God in fractals” or something similar. Can’t remember the title exactly, but amazing
13:11 Sure,but why are there laws of physics to begin with?Who gives this laws of physics ? And it’s not just me who asks that question , it’s the greatest physicts ever ,like Alexander Vilenkin,Alan Guth and even Stephen Hawking himself.
Minute 3.10 "speed of light not too fast not too slow" _ I thought speed of light is constant anywhere in the universe. Does he mean what it is constant but in a good way? not clear to me.
Why is the concept that metadata must always be more information rich than the structure of the data it describes so difficult for physicists to understand? The same must consequently be true of any “meta universe” or universe generator.
Hummm ? I agree with some of this but what if it’s the other way around ? Let me explain. Instead of the universe being fine-tuned for life and humans maybe it’s the other way around. Life has find-tuned itself for the universe... lol. What do all of you think ? lol Have a good day and clear skies everyone.
Stephen is very clever and very good, particularly at identifying flaws in materialist and other arguments critical of an ontology which includes a Creator. But there remains something deeply unsatisfying in a scientific sense in an explanation which posits such a Being, as that conclusion (a) leads to no further questions - it feels like an epistemological dead end; and (b) isn't falsifiable, which is itself profoundly contrary to the scientific method.
'poor bastards' Ok. Why would someone who imagines multiple universes be a poor 'bastard?' Do you think someone's believe about cosmology has moral implications? Is (your) God unhappy with people who misunderstand the natural world? Was God unhappy with the RCC church in the middle ages when they were resolutely against thinking the earth moved and orbited the sun? Is God unhappy with folks who believed the earth was flat? Does God care what people think about the age of the earth? or whether they believe the continents drift or are fixed?
If the universe didn't have the right conditions, we'd show up later in a different form. Why is it so hard to just admit we don't know the answers to things when there's no evidence?
There is no evidence the conditions of the universe could have been different. And even if they could have been changed, who is to say it’s an improbable. And even if it is improbable, so what? Improbable doesn’t mean impossible.
1. The bounded principle of indifference states that if we have no reason to prefer some outcome over others then we should assign equal probability to all of them, in this case we have a huge landscape of possible constant values and since we have no reason to think that the other constants are impossible, we assign them equal a probability that makes our universe completely unbelievable. 2. Even if we assume that e.g. these constant values are physically necessary, other values are still metaphysically possible, so that fine-tuning will move it by one nifo, that is, from the universe to the laws of physics, but the problem will still remain unsolved. 3.Approximately, the chances of building a building with dynamite are much higher than accidentally getting a fine-tuned universe.
I am constantly flabbergasted at the mind that sits within Stephen's head. Just the memory of so much information is foreign to me, let alone the ability to recall it and fit the pieces of information together in a coherent way. In a word, the man is brilliant and humble in the same breath.
He's the complete antithesis of the modern neodarwinist scientists.
One of the strengths of Meyer is the precision of the language he uses. He's really good at conveying his points.
(As Always, I...Could...Be...Wrong) It appears to me the more we learn about the Universe and Life the more reasonable Intelligent Design becomes.
I'm so excited for Stephen Meyer's new book! Stephen is, no doubt, one of the greatest intellectuals working today.
I love this guy, so difficult to dismiss what he's saying. Creator and creation will always come together.
"It's like saying that the latitude and longitude lines on a map are responsible for the rise of the Himalayan Mountains..." Love it!
Stephen Meyer is on his game.
Good to have someone credible who can explain things in common English. Thank you.
Excellent...finally, I can feel confident in what I always questioned and now feel confident that the answers are what I had expected. Thank you
Stephen, you’re brilliant! Now go get a camera stand.
Brilliant stuff, Stephen. You speak to us as a philosopher and a scientist.
I simply love Stephen Meyer. Using scientific terms and explanations, he destroys the fundamentals of atheism and materialism so strongly that he leaves them no space to defend their stupid ideology.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Stephen Meyer never said anything about god, only a vauge “higher power” of some sort. A higher power doesn’t necessarily mean something is a god.
Well he is demonstrating that a higher intelligence was behind the created of the Universe. This we can call God if we want to.
We can deduce a lot through what he created.
But since it is obvious that there is a God it is not where a Christian would like to start a discussion of faith. But because there is such a strong atheist presence in this world the Christian has no choice.
If we are talking about evidence I would prefer to start with the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Insurance Agent: What caused this fire?
Fire Chief: Oxygen.
Insurance Agent: Where did the oxygen come from?
Fire Chief: Don't ask those questions, you God freak.
This is sensical, rational, sane and informative. Thank you for sharing this.
Excellent. The fine details of creation itself give glory to God!
Awesome scientist! He really understands his stuff! No wonder he can present it effectively to ordinary folks like us.
Vincent John, Dr. Stephen Meyer is not a scientist, he's a Philosopher of Science. Of course, understanding the science is vital in his field.
Cool. I see Hawkins and Sheldon Cooper lost it. Cheers. [ I knew all along]
Even Christopher Hitchens admitted that "fine tuning" is the "best argument for the existence of God." Hitchens died before many of the design attributes were becoming more mainstream and disclosed.
Even Dawkins has had problems with this and is a big proponent of the "multi-verse." He is even now facing difficulty with "problematic" questions from his University audiences. He had a stroke not too long ago. I assume he will state that THIS is the reason why he is no longer proselytizing atheism at colleges.
Sanjosemike (no longer in Ca)
Amazing deduction.God is Real.
Zero comments? Over 6.5K views. Great points and the lat/long example was perfect! Thanks for this video.
A FINELY FASHIONED WORK of ART NECESSITATES the ARTIST
-Risale-i Nur Collection
At least the best explanation of the origin of universe and life on earth that I could even heard 🙂
Thanks God 🙏
Amazing. I would like Stephen to have a debate with Sean Carroll about fine tuning
Fine-tuning is the smoking gun for Intelligent Design. The multi-verse is an attempt to turn the smoking gun into Russian roulette without any bullets.
To say that the universe is fine tuned is to say that the universe could have been other than it is. On what basis do we make that assumption?
True, whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?
1. Based on two things.
2. The bounded principle of indifference says that if we have no reason to prefer some outcome over others then we should assign equal probability to all of them, in this case we have a huge landscape of possible constant values and since we have no reason to think that the other constants are impossible we assign them equally probability that makes our universe utterly improbable.
3. Even if we assume that, for example, these constant values are physically necessary, other values are still metaphysically possible, so that will move the fine-tuning by one nifo, that is, from the universe to the laws of physics, but the problem will still remain unsolved.
The concept "fine tuning" recalls me my tunings of the "English by Radio course from the BBC when I waa a teeneger long time ago (now I am 84 years all). My radio device was an ancient one on which I were obliged to tune the station by short wave and the dificulties came precisely from the finesse of those tuning. My name is Jordi Bassas, and I live in Barcelona Spain,.
Thank you Stephen. This helps in debates.
Meyers Rocks!!
I don't see why the notion of the "multiverse" would change the fine-tuning argument at all. It's just a matter of "scale". Let's just say that our solar system is like one "atom" within some "larger" system. Then we have to ask the question as to how "finely tuned" an atom needs to be in order to exist, which could be a "constant" all the way down the "tuning" chain from the macro to the micro...
Awesome video !! Thanks so much for sharing
This was extremely remarkable, Dr.Meyer. There are, however, some proponents of the ID derivatives who defend a "young universe" theory, based on the alternative interpretation of the red shift in the galaxies and the unexpected abnormalities observed on it. Dr.Adauto Lourenço summarizes a few of the inconsistencies of the "Big-Bang interpretation" of this data: Many interconnected galaxies have different shifts (which would lead us to the weird conclusion that they have different speeds despite the connection), the quantization of the values of speed (the proportion values of the wavelengths always assuming multiples of the conjunct [0.06, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.4, 1.96], like if galaxies had "favorite speeds"). Some propositions were made in order to offer alternative explanations to the red-shift observed: Tired light mechanism (Zwick, 1929), the proportion to the universe's curvature (Segal, 1995), a shift on the speed of light itself (Troitskii, 1987). Also, the background radiation, other of the pillars underneath the Big Bang Theory, has received some divergent and not commented explanations (Like the thermic equilibrium of the cianide interstellar molecules or the result of the accumulation of thermic radiation out of the uprising entropy since the beginning of the universe). My point is: Even though the design is clearly necessary in order to sufficiently explain universe's tuning in a Big-Bang-originated scenario, have you personally considered the possibility of "getting rid" of the Big Bang? Do Hawking's theorems depend on the interpretation of galaxies' red-shift as an expansion of the Universe? Another question: isn't the Weak Anthropic Principle just a circular argument? Anyway, congratulations for all your work and knowledge. I am a med school student and also a researcher, and I've been struggling to teach on ID here in Brazil. It's been amazing, and I would really like to have some conversation with you, specially on the Cosmology topics. If you get interested, please email me on gabriel.jcd@hotmail.com. God bless you!
This absolutely proves Gods existence- as well as Intelligent design-
I did not follow his last comments on the quantum problems but I have heard Lawrence Krauss discuss his something from nothing theories which get into how quantum fluctuations in space, essentially his version of nothing, create enough energy to ultimately create matter. And yes it raises a lot of questions including where the space came from in which these fluctuations took place.
Great vid,thanks for posting. There was a big fanfare when the so called God particle the Higgs boson was finally identified by the LHC , what was less publicized was that a lot of particle physicists were a bit disappointed because it too appears to be fine tuned,its perfect value for the job it does cannot be explained by the standard model.and seems to be another lucky shot.
I’m reading Signature In The Cell, and Privileged Planet. Put together it’s just layers upon layers of improbability that we’re here. We are only here because God made us and loves us. He made us and then put us in the perfect spot to observe and learn from His creation.
I watched the movie version of Privileged Planet. I would like to get the book some day, but I thought the movie was interesting. You should check it out if your interested.
A designer must exist for a design to come out. I myself is a biology student and I can see how complex life is specifically the nucleotide sequence that any alteration will result to major changes of the entire organism. Common sense.
Stephen, a mind blowing analysis of our Universe. Thanks for bringing the highest level of logic to the issue. The issue being that to negate a Creator, all that scientists are doing is compounding the obvious with even more improbable scenarios. By doing this they are making matters worse or furthernore, even more complicated.
Why not just acknowledge that the Universe is so finely tuned that it is obvious there is some kind of Creator. Lets not debate what that Creator is, or what it looks like, because we can never comprehend It.
I am reminded of verses from the Last Testament, the Quran:
"We shall show them the Signs in the heavens, in the Earth and within themselves until it becomes manifest unto them that this is the Truth ( That there is only One Creator."
"We (God) , has created the universe from NOTHING and it is We Who are expanding it."
"We have created the Earth the Sun and the Stars each floating in space in an orbit."
" We have created the Earth round like the shape of an ostrich egg."
(how could anyone 1400yrs ago know that the Earth was the shape of an ostrich egg??).
Amazing ... great explanation.... you're brilliant....Hari bol 🙏
I need a 5+ hour lecture on this, that goes through all the "dials" in the fine-tuning argument, and then into the multiverse hypothesis and its problems in way more depth. And then perhaps finish it all off with a series of debates. XD
4:28 Sorry you are way off, and you know it. It is not a question of "multi-billions" of other universes needed to solve the problem, it would require more universes than there are atoms in this universe. Don't deceive people about the magnitude of the problem.
The weak anthropic principle is a tautology. The strong anthropic principle is equivalent to religious belief. A good resource is "Modern Physics, Ancient Faith" by Barr.
'the laws of physics alone can explain where the Universe came from' - Thats a remarkably dumb statement to come from someone as intelligent as Stephen Hawking. Its equally as ambiguous as the 'Natural Selection' abyss of Neo-Darwinism. It sounds like it means something but it really doesn't mean anything at all as far as a mechanism goes.
You'd be surprised of how much ambiguous language is in science.
@@jannyjt2034 You'd be even more surprised how much ambiguous language there is in the bible...
If science continues to accidentally discover a designer and then creates more theories to refute it ... How in the world will they ever come to the knowledge of truth ? Its like playing monopoly and only one player being allowed to change the rules so that he wins every game. Does he really ever win ? He will never know unless he stops stacking the deck...
At 2:46 or so he says that list of conditions have to be just so "for life to exist." Obviously a fundamental error that undermines his thesis. He might be correct if he said "the particular kind of life that currently exists." For all he knows there are potentially a billion unimaginable other forms of life that could exists under a billion variations in conditions.
This is one of the worst objections atheists can make because a universe that does not have these conditions will consist only of hydrogen so no form of complex life is possible.
absolutely great reasoning. thank you.
Some people just don't want the existence of a creator, no matter the cost. What is the problem of accepting that there could be something bigger than us?
Another note for God living rent free in the head of the atheist. If they're up to speed, they will lose sleep.
The ending presents a humorous paradox by positing that a universe created by an unintelligent random quantum anomaly can only be suggested by administering the self-restricting boundaries of an equation produced with large sums of organized information. Thus, if information is necessary to create the explanation of how the universe came into existence, then information is also required in advance of the created universe. Subsequently, this information cannot be provided without a provider.
thanks for this beautiful and useful video
Love the video and information, but the cameraman needs some help keeping things steady..
Only our Creator can create all the visible illusions that created men believe are real.
Whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?
Thank you Lord for Stephen Meyer
THANKYOU!!
Whew, this is awesome.
Dr. Meyer is my hero. thank(the intelligent designer) God for men like him.
The sun comes up on time everyday for billions of years. But materialist say there is no purpose to that. Yet if I crash into a police car at 7:30am 5 days in a row,
I will be in trouble for doing it on
PURPOSE
I don't see a contradiction...
You would get in trouble whether it was on purpose or accidental.
Putting what we already know into logical arguments from a scientific perspective. It is practically impossible for everything to exist without a creator. God is the only logical, reasonable answer, and the most probable.
This was outstanding!!
Don’t forget about Antony Flew. He died in 2010. During his time he was the worlds most prominent atheist, and he wrote numerous book. Then he became a deist. Not a Christian though, but a deist. What changed his mind? He said the discovery of fine tuning. But don’t tell anyone, the atheist hate the mention of his name. Shhhhhh.
Some may, but I don't think most atheist 'hate' the mention of his name. I sure don't. I just realize that despite how famous he was, he just hadn't thought it all the way through and had based his atheism on faulty reasoning. It would be how you might think of a person who claimed to be a Christian theist for many years but when some tragedy struck, they became an atheist. That would suggest to you that they had been basing their Christian theism on a twisted world view that maybe held God up as some sort of 'make everything all right all the time' magician. I had to think through fine tuning before I could conclude I no longer thought God was the best explanation for the world as I knew/know it.
@@rizdekd3912I’m curious what convinced you otherwise? Or what was faulty in his reasoning? You give an example of how the “Christian” was at fault but not yours. (No offense, I know your comment says this was a year ago, but saying he “didn’t think it through” without explaining why seems arrogant). His research may have made him change his mind. He was drawn towards something, not pushed away from a “disingenuous” worldview or practice. The example you gave however is a very real thing. But the consistency there was a commitment to the self and not to God, even under the guise as a Christian (the Bible acknowledges this problem strongly). Regardless, I’m very much open and curious as to why you came to the conclusion you have about fine tuning (hopefully neither of us tune out change🙏🏻)
thanks Dr. Meyer!
What if they are wrong and the tuning really doesn't have to be (and isn't) finely tuned? How certain are they that the universe is finely tuned?
wow great video
Creator, Father, singlarity, God Almighty whose name is Jehovah now has one more title (job title ?)
I used a tuning fork to see apply all tuning of body
I have a problem with the whole materialism/non-materialism thing. Water is
'material' but the amazing water experiments of Emoto and Benveniste prove it is highly responsive to consciousness, and also can conduct complex information across the passage of time. I don't think we yet understand what material is. Thingism might be a better term for the "dead stuff" view of the material world.
the multiverse doesn't disprove that the multiverse is also designed.
Camera man is driving me nuts.
The hypothesis of infinite multiverses presupposes that Quantum Mechanics laws which are evident in our universe, in fact, transcend this universe and form the basis of all the infinite multiverses. The question which then arises is that if quantum states are the basis of existence of multiverses, then who created these quantum states in the first place and who bound all the multiverses to exist according to one of these states?
Steven says Fine Tuning.
Materialists say Pure Coincidence.
Materialists are
INVINCIBLY IGNORANT.
There is only one space curvature at the warp because of being
If nothing existed, the laws didn’t exist. If the laws exist, they were “created.”
Wow. ❤️
Is Pi equal to 3.14 because of fine tuning or because of chance or because of necessity? Let's think... The number is incredibly precise in order to allow for the existence of circles. 3.141592653589793238 is to the 18th decimal and for example if that last 8 was off by just one point, let's say it was a 7, then no circles would be possible in the universe. Instead all "almost-circles" would just spiral inwards into a big crunch onto the center point. If that last 8 was too high, call it a 9, then all circles would spiral outwards to infinity and beyond! So now, should we consider this incredibly precise number we measure to be Pi as possibly a product of intentional design or a product of incredible odds? Is there a multiverse and we just happen to find ourselves in a rare universe where Pi just exactly equals 3.141592653589793238?
Or, is Pi exactly equal to 3.141592653589793238 because that's how many times the diameter of a circle fits perfectly around the circumference of the same circle?
Should this precision be fine tuned by an intelligent designer, or just by pure luck of the odds?
Or is it in fact, because of necessity?
Fine. But can we tune into the tuner? Who is tuning the tuners?
If everything has to be so fine tuned that the possibility of humans existing is very, very, very slim than there must be a creator.
Great video!
Fine Tuning is the best evidence for the existence of God.
Without it, I would have trouble believing that the Bible is all true.
Take, for example the number pi, which has an infinite number of decimal places !
If pi was just a tiny bit bigger or smaller, circles would be impossible. Thank God for pi
Look up Jason lisle fractals video too. It may be something like “seeing God in fractals” or something similar. Can’t remember the title exactly, but amazing
13:11 Sure,but why are there laws of physics to begin with?Who gives this laws of physics ?
And it’s not just me who asks that question , it’s the greatest physicts ever ,like Alexander Vilenkin,Alan Guth and even Stephen Hawking himself.
Minute 3.10 "speed of light not too fast not too slow" _ I thought speed of light is constant anywhere in the universe. Does he mean what it is constant but in a good way? not clear to me.
Why is the concept that metadata must always be more information rich than the structure of the data it describes so difficult for physicists to understand? The same must consequently be true of any “meta universe” or universe generator.
Hey i would like to write a research paper, is it possible to cite the sources please:)
John Lennox debunks the notion that laws can create in one of his debates
How great is our God!
Hummm ? I agree with some of this but what if it’s the other way around ?
Let me explain.
Instead of the universe being fine-tuned for life and humans maybe it’s the other way around. Life has find-tuned itself for the universe... lol.
What do all of you think ? lol
Have a good day and clear skies everyone.
Fine tuned for what,the formation of black holes with asteroids and meteors flying hither and thither?
Let me Help you out.In The Beginning God.Thank you Jesus my saviour
Stephen is very clever and very good, particularly at identifying flaws in materialist and other arguments critical of an ontology which includes a Creator. But there remains something deeply unsatisfying in a scientific sense in an explanation which posits such a Being, as that conclusion (a) leads to no further questions - it feels like an epistemological dead end; and (b) isn't falsifiable, which is itself profoundly contrary to the scientific method.
This guy really took his critical thinking assignments seriously 😂
Excuse my non specialist ignorance, are these fundamental "metaphysical" elements of philosophy?
Ergo a Teleological Metaphysical argument?
I reckon Professor Dave was smart enough to sit this one out..
Excellent
Brilliant
Lovely 😊
Could Earth have Come "Down out of Heaven" like the New Jerusalem? Confirming the amazing INTIMACY between the Spiritual and Materialistic dimensions?
Muslim here.
Excellent video. Well done Stephen
the multiverse is so beyond ridiculous, you have to feel pity for these poor bastards
'poor bastards' Ok. Why would someone who imagines multiple universes be a poor 'bastard?' Do you think someone's believe about cosmology has moral implications? Is (your) God unhappy with people who misunderstand the natural world? Was God unhappy with the RCC church in the middle ages when they were resolutely against thinking the earth moved and orbited the sun? Is God unhappy with folks who believed the earth was flat? Does God care what people think about the age of the earth? or whether they believe the continents drift or are fixed?
Very logical explanations.
Well spoken. Terrible camera movement
If the universe didn't have the right conditions, we'd show up later in a different form. Why is it so hard to just admit we don't know the answers to things when there's no evidence?
There is no evidence the conditions of the universe could have been different. And even if they could have been changed, who is to say it’s an improbable. And even if it is improbable, so what? Improbable doesn’t mean impossible.
1. The bounded principle of indifference states that if we have no reason to prefer some outcome over others then we should assign equal probability to all of them, in this case we have a huge landscape of possible constant values and since we have no reason to think that the other constants are impossible, we assign them equal a probability that makes our universe completely unbelievable.
2. Even if we assume that e.g. these constant values are physically necessary, other values are still metaphysically possible, so that fine-tuning will move it by one nifo, that is, from the universe to the laws of physics, but the problem will still remain unsolved.
3.Approximately, the chances of building a building with dynamite are much higher than accidentally getting a fine-tuned universe.