How a Dice can show that God exists (Justin Brierley response)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ม.ค. 2025
- Is the universe that produced us just a result of a chance roll of the cosmic dice? Justin Brierley, presenter of the apologetics debate show "Unbelievable?" explains why his dice proves otherwise, and Paulogia explains why he's wrong.
How a Dice can show that God exists
• How a Dice can show th...
Paulogia on "Unbelievable?"
• Were the apostles mart...
CosmicSkeptic Response
• Can Dice Prove God? Ac...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Did you know that you can "join" the channel now? Get comment / chat emojis and help the work of Paulogia expand in 2021. th-cam.com/channels/IS4cWaXgWpznjwovFYQBJQ.htmljoin
Paulogia!!! HELL YEAH!!!
Nope I had no Idea!
Hey Apple sorry it's good to see you posting some good stuff and funnily enough I actually saw this guy and responded to his video pointing out how if he really wants to get that into it with probability then in your standard 64 card poker deck there are so many different possibilities of combinations of hands that you can have but if one person who has never played poker sat down beside a try to get every single possible combination it would take like three times or something like that the amount the universe has existed for him to get every single possible combination by himself enter each hand you draw is so impossibly possible got it feels functionally impossible to expect to get any one hand but it happens and more than that if you have an extra hundred or an extra thousand or if we're going to compare it to the universe and life-sustaining planets an extra 40 million chances per every one of those hundred million people that you end up having doing it all and it's guaranteed it's going to happen and be done over and over and over again
Also paulogia Senpai notice me
I have.. Where's my emojis? I want my Matt Dillahunty emoji😃
Fun fact: life capable of observing the universe has a 100% chance of observing a universe that sustains life capable of observing.
@Anden Ekadi how did you determine the odds of such a universe?
@Anden Ekadi I never said god didn’t do anything, I never said he didn’t create a multiverse, or all of that other stuff. I simply asked how you came to the conclusion that the odds of our universe coming into existence without the conclusion of a god was astronomical
@Anden Ekadi have you observed other universes to determine what the odds are? And even then, if all of the evidence toward the universe as a natural proposition would somehow collapse on itself and get debunked by a theist and stumped all of science and biology... it wouldn’t prove that your god exists? So how could you get to that conclusion from mere conspiracies or ideas that such a natural process over billions of years isn’t plausible? Anything natural is logically more plausible than the supernatural by definition
@Anden Ekadi no. You’re assuming that if proposition A is incorrect then that automatically assumes that B is correct. Which I don’t have a standpoint on either. And ecosystems aren’t my field of study so I’m afraid I’m going to have to answer I don’t know. Which is better than acting like I do know the every answer( not accusing you of such ) we have no evidence of the supernatural. So how can we conclude that it exists? Sure you can say that it’s possible, but is it probable?
@Anden Ekadi so because the Bible relates to your idea... it’s true? I don’t get it. You have no evidence that backs up the claims of this book.... but... you refute naturalistic propositions and instead refer to some magical being who didn’t need to be created? That’s kind of weird
Biggest issue I have is that he calls a singular die, dice.
That's becoming more popular. As one RPG put it, "we've already used die quite enough for other things".
@@goldenalt3166 It's not terribly popular, though. And it's incorrect.
My biggest issue that a "gods-believer" has the audacity to think they have a logical argument for their personally preferred imaginary friend existing OUTSIDE their brainwashed heads.
@@Epsilon-Eleven If you want speech police, you'll have to move to France. In America, we have the freedom to say one thing and mean another.
@@Epsilon-Eleven And language changes all the time, some words die, some new get born and other few change.
Language is terribly dependent on what is popular
.
The problem with people like Justin is that their errors have been explained to them multiple times and they continue to use these arguments as if they haven't been. It' s dishonest AF.
I have yet to meet an honest religious apologist.
Justin's video didn't change that.
@Eris Socratou Probably for the best, as he's married.
The problem in this case is that the atheist rebuttal is also speculative. "Perhaps it's the only constant possible," is itself a conjecture. And I say this as an atheist.
@@kevindavis5966 Except that isn't a problem for the atheist - because we aren't trying to argue for some specific cause.
With morons like Justin no matter what their told it just goes one ear and out the other. They can never admit they can ever be wrong.
He says a loaded die requires someone to make it loaded. I challenge him to show me a fair die without someone carefully making it. "Loaded" dice take much less design than fair ones.
The fact that he immediately assumes that probabilities must all operate under a uniform probability density function by default just shows how ignorant he is about probability theory as a whole.
Hell, dice become loaded naturally through wear despite the desire to keep them fair. His analogy is just flat out wrong.
@@Krikenemp18 Yes. Experiments also show that dice are in fact not fair, as the sides with more paint, or less holes, are less likely that than the others. Even before they get worn, they are already unfair simply from manufacturing. Fair die are merely a mathematical, abstract construction useful for learning probability theory, but they are not physically real.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Not all dice have holes. And the really good ones have so little paint that you'd never measure the deviation from complete fairness. Indeed, it would be trivial to make dice that have the same amount of paint on each side anyway.
Conversely, it's easy to design dice with holes of different depths and/or diameters, so they balance.
@@jursamaj I never implied all dice have holes. You seem to have missed the entire point of my comment. Not kosher of you.
This was one of the best responses to the fine tuning argument I've ever seen. Concise and very well communicated. Thank you Paul!
I 100% agree with you.
Actually Justin responded to his own claims very well with the "maybe, but we dont have scientific evidence for that" 😁
@@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος All claims that theistic apologists make can be replied to with "there is no scientific evidence for this." Theistic apologists think they are so sly, trying to use science to prove the existence of a monic deity, but their understanding of science is so low and bad that they fail miserably, because they fail to understand even the most basic of ideas. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to explain to a religious person that the law of conservation of energy in physics does not work the way they think it does, and that the law only holds locally over a sufficiently large period of time at the quantum scale, and that it implies absolutely nothing about the nonphysical concepts of "nothingness" and "somethingness." It is incredible, but it is the truth. Most of these apologists would not be theists if they actually understood science.
It is egotistical to claim that because something rare occurred and they have observed the occurrence must mean they are special and created and most of the outcomes in their life were blessing from God. Being self centered is beneficial to an organism in order to continue living and procreating and finding a place in society.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Well said, science is anathema to them, if they understood it the fairy tale ends.
Is anyone else annoyed af at Justin's constant use of "dice", where "die" is the singular? Nails on a chalkboard to me.
Yes, I'm very annoyed. You roll dice, you roll a die.
Confucius say: *For this you will die a thousand deaths* , or was it Fu Man Chu ?
Yup yup yup!
He is probably judging the literacy level of his audience quite well.
(raises hand) Yes, "a dice" irks me too. It's like saying "a cattle" or "a teeth" or something. Ugh! :)
The creationist says the chance that one specific rain drop landing on your head is so mathematically unlikely that it must have been deliberate.
The atheist says that the chance of being struck in the head by a raindrop in a thunderstorm is mathematically likely to happen.
I'd say it is physically impossible not to have a wet head while in rain with no head cover
unless your head or place you stand in is emitting an air stream that pushes raindrops aside
Meanwhile, the rational person uses an umbrella.
@@michaelsommers2356 Good one :P
Let's apply his logic to other natural causes.
How does the river know what bits of a stone to erode away to leave the perfect skimming stone?
It doesn't erosion is fake, every pebble is hand made!
If you believe water can do it, you are an erosionist and that's a religion!
@@chrispitchforth621 One of the best “let’s apply “evolutionist” to other sciences” jokes I’ve ever seen. Good work.
LOL Any time I hear a creationist use the words "There's no scientific evidence of that".
DUDE... BRO... Tell me about the magic sky father again.
Kinda as silly as telling me about your magical singularity that existed without time or space, yet still decided to "rapidly expand, NOT explode" with SUCH slow escape velocity? Given the universe's current rate of expansion seems to be accelerating, how do you escape a universal black hole at our current rate of expansion MINUS 13 billion years of acceleration? Or did the universe start expanding at a sufficient escape velocity for space itself to escape a universal black hole (in which case, where did the excess of infinite energy come from)?
Oh, sorry. "That's cheating. We're only allowed to discuss the big bang AFTER it violates thermodynamics, relativity, entropy, and causality itself. Just ignore those parts and have faith that these only became applicable after my timeless, spaceless, causeless magical poof happened."
My bad.
@@morielrorschach8090
Still more than you guys got. That Bible of yours is just a collection of fairy tales.
@@morielrorschach8090 « decided »
As far as we know it didn’t « decide » anything.
« SUCH slow escape velocity »
... Escape velocity ? The heck are you on about ? Since when is the expansion of the universe an « escape velocity » ? We aren’t talking about something moving in space here, we are talking about space itself expanding.
« a universal black hole »
Source ? Both black holes and the original singularity are singularities, but not all singularities are the same, so unless you have some paper to say those are the exact same...
Not that it’d be terribly relevant by the way, because the Big Bang is not matter and energy going out of a black hole, rather it’s space and time expanding.
« AFTER it violates thermodynamics, relativity, entropy and causality itself »
How do you know it did any of that exactly ?
@@morielrorschach8090 *Kinda as silly as telling me about your magical singularity that existed without time or space*
What? Who said anything about any singularity existing "without space and time"? There is not a single scientific model even proposing such a thing. It also has nothing to do with how silly theism is.
*yet decided to "rapidly expand, NOT explode" with SUCH slow escape velocity?*
Your phrase is incoherent. You are just mashing scientific terms together randomly, without understanding what they mean or how they are supposed to use them. Hence, the phrases you form with them are nonsense.
*Given the universe's current rate of expansion seems to be accelerating, how do you escape a universal black hole at our current rate of expansion MINUS 13 billion years of acceleration?*
Universal black hole? What are you talking about? How is that relevant to accelerated expansion of the universe? You are just saying incoherent things.
*Or did the universe start expanding at a sufficient escape velocity for space itself to escape a universal black hole*
Your misunderstandings of the concepts of a black hole, the expansion, and of escape velocity are so bad, that I am not even actually sure what you are misunderstanding. Escape velocity has absolutely nothing to do with spacetime expansion, and I know of no physicist who thinks there ever existed a universal black hole.
*in which case, where did the excess of infinite energy come from?*
Who said anything about infinite energy? Where do you get the idea that the Big Bang even featured such a thing?
*We're only allowed to discuss the Big Bang AFTER it violates thermodynamics, relativity, entropy, and causality itself.*
Let me tackle this in order.
0. It does not violate thermodynamics. To the contrary, the very earliest ideas of an old expanding universe existing originated precisely from considering the laws of thermodynamics at a cosmological scale and taking these consideration to their logical conclusion.
1. It does not violate relativity either. Instead, general relativity, under certain parameters, and along with the laws of thermodynamics, predicts the Big Bang, and here, the formulation is more rigorous and precise.
2. Entropy? Entropy is not a law, so talking about "violating entropy" makes no sense whatsoever. Entropy is a physical quantity in statistical thermodynamics. Entropy is a logarithmic measure of how many microstates per macrostate of the system exist for a given configuration. In other words, entropy is a statistical measure of information. I can define it precisely as S = kB·ln(Ω); where Ω is the number of microstates given as a function of the macrostate, which is specified by the number of particles, the volume, the internal energy content, among other things; ln() is the natural logarithm operator, which you would know if you studied calculus in college; kB is Boltzmann constant, which you can think of as the natural unit of entropy, for if Ω = e, which is 1 nat of information, then S = kB exactly.
3. There is no evidence that the Big Bang violates causality. You should stop listening to your local pastor talk about the Big Bang and instead start talking to the physicists.
*these only become applicable after my timeless, spaceless, causeless magical poof happened.*
The Big Bang is not a timeless, spaceless, causeless, or magical.
*My bad.*
Your bad indeed.
@Nathan Jora 1: Yes. We decide things. The concept of everything being a fixed consequences of the set of circumstances is just a rebranding of the concept of fixed destinies.
2-4: If all that existed was empty spacetime and a stream of hawking radiation... sure. That would be a relevant distinction. But, if you'll look down, you'll notice you exist. As matter. Not within that universal black hole. If you suspend general relativity to allow space to expand from within the event horizon of a black hole (which presupposes you allow a magical object to exist without time or space), you still don't get anything but empty space, and perhaps a stream of hawking radiation.
The evidence for that singularity is equal to the evidence of ANY mythology based on nothing more than the presumption that something could have happened, and anything we see must be a result of that magical thing. But, a special preacher read to you from their special book that you must have faith and accept the ineffable divine mystery of the miraculous poof.
Justin Brierly, the guy that can write a book about listening to hundreds of solid arguments against his own beliefs but proudly declare that he's ignored them all and still buys into the BS. Well done sir.
Indoctrination is a hell of a thing.
@@Jan_von_Gratschoff definitely
Justin "Gambler's Fallacy Into Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" Brierly you mean?
@@Jan_von_Gratschoff Don't forget the profit motive… “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
"but proudly declare that he's ignored them all and still buys into the BS."
You mean SELLS the BS...
The biggest problem with this "it's so unlikely" "argument" - apart from the fact that there is no basis for the likelihood they claim it is, as it would require us to know all the possible states and how they are weighed and we know neither - is that it starts with the assumption that it was an intended outcome at all. It's begging the question all the way.
We would also need to know how many times the dice get rolled, so to speak -- if there are a million universes "out there" in some capacity, it's no surprise we happen to exist in one where we can exist.
There is even a more glaring error in his """argument""":
Take a glass of water. What is the likelihood of those exact atoms being and that exact configuration in that exact moment in time? Correct - 0 ! By his flawed reasoning that therefore means it can not happen.
@@Zoe_A_MacDonald exactly, it isn't as if we could exist in one where we can't exist in. We wouldn't be there to assume it had to be made for us.
In fact THAT would give some validity to a god idea, if we existed in a universe where it's not possible for us to exist. Then you'd start having a point by saying a god is needed for that (although of course, the more likely explanation is still that you can exist there, you just don't understand how yet)
@@ABaumstumpf Technically the odds are not 0, almost zero, like 0,00[...]01 - the fact that something *can* happen proves that the odds are non-zero, even if they are astronomical.
@@LadyDoomsinger "Technically the odds are not 0, almost zero"
Yes - and no. Depends if we assume locations to be discrete or continuous. In the former case it is a value indistinguishable from 0 (and only when integrated over an infinite range end up with a finite number).
Or with discrete locations it would just be a very very tiny number.
Even just having the exact atoms in a glass of water, only considering the atoms in our solar-system.... we are talking about 10^24 atoms out of 10^57 ... the odds are now "only" insanely low.
"A dice?"
I got an ad about a starving child before this. Quite lovely how this creator treats us.
I use a lot of polyhedral dice, I'm in a poly relationship, and I'm a polytheist. Coincidence?
I THINK NOT!!!
Check and mate atheists, roll initiative
@@AschKris Is that a d20?
Are you a mathematician studying some subject matter related to polygons?
How many languages can you speak? Are you polylingual?
They keep acting like this is the only possibility of existence.
*I am GLAD, that you are a Hater of GOD!!!!*
The way I look at it, any time someone throws out a percentage chance, no matter how small, I instantly tune out and think, “yeah but that’s not 0 so it is still possible no matter how unlikely”
What is the chance since the beginning of the universe that that one specific oxygen molecule I just breathed in 3 seconds ago ends up in my lungs on 13:51:34...... CET 20. 01. 2021.?
The "Universe" ancient Hebrews imagined, which is crystalized in the Genesis tale, is far more fine-tuned for humans than the real Universe.
Which are the odds of that!?
That solid expanse dividing the waters above and below, encircling the Earth supported by pillars, would be incalculably harder to get by random chance, and thus you may infer design...
Well, compared to that extreme fine-tuned Universe, with impossible natural origin, the real Universe is not like that.
So there.
Paul, I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate your channel. I am a Christian, or better said I’m someone who is not ready to not call himself a Christian yet. As you know, leaving the faith can be a struggle, even to the point of an personal mental crisis. Over the last few months, I’ve had breakdowns of all sorts as I’ve watched the foundations on which I built my life erode away. But I take comfort in truth. And truth can be hard. Keep doing what you do. Thx. - Craig
Shuffle a deck of cards. Lay the cards out, face up, one by one. The odds of you getting that specific order of cards is about 8.6 x 10 ^ 63. Yet you just did it. Justin is relying on his audience not being familiar with how odds work and their being impressed by big numbers.
I keep trying to tell people the odds of something happening that has happened is 1/1. It's only repeating it that the odds can get crazy.
@@vamjin7071 That too.
Exactly, total misrepresentation of odds and probabilities. I don’t know if these people actually don’t understand or rather don’t want to understand. Probably both.
To think I was still fooled by that in high school. Oh boy.
"Dice" is plural. "A dice" is like saying "a houses", or "a bananas".
or "a phenomena" which we hear all the time
@@mrdProf42 It's just that if you use the word "phenomenon" it sounds like the "mahna mahna" song.
A mice.
@@DjVortex-w PHENOMENON! doot doooo de do do 🎶
@@DjVortex-w 100% Correct!!!! 😂
Paul I don't know anything about statics, I suck at math, and science isn't my strong suit. However, I can say as someone who plays warhammer and have needed 6s on my occasions I can say that rolling a 6 is not the same because 6s know when you want them and will refuse or oblige depending on how they feel and the offerings given up to the dice God's.
Seriously though great video I don't know how people still need this topic explained to them.
The Simpsons depictions of Christians is scarily spot on..
Perfect choice, Paul!
Especially the children, and very sad.
there's a saying - it's funny cause it' true
and The Simpsons is a comedy show
@@papaunderwater3316 Is the Bible funny? No? Well then... ;-)
@@sirquentincrispy1071 Right on, there. Flanders is a judgy arrogant prick who helps people out out of duty as much as (if not more than) a desire to actually help others, so he's borderline tolerable, but the shit he put his kids through?
Simpsons is a cartoon and none of them actually exist, but _people like that_ do. You subconsciously keep hoping those kids grow up and come to their senses. What a miserable life for them. And I do mean the Flanders kids as well as their real-life inspiration.
The universe is 99.999999999999999999999999999% immediately hostile to life.
Theists: "this universe was fine tuned for life"
When I see this type of argument, I always think of the Puddle Parable. I'll have to go and re-watch your video on it.
What me think there is something in a god is the fact everything seems layed out for us.The air we breath food water.It all seems too much for it not being a god.
@@paulrichards6894 We evolved to fit the world as it exists around us. That's why it fits us so well.
This argument leads nowhere: Even if we lean over backwards and consider it seriously as a hypothesis, then what is the probability that out of all the logically possible deities, it is the Christian one that created the universe?
Ditto
We all knew the Sumerian gods did it, the Egyptian gods did it, the Mayan gods did it, the Greek gods did it. Non of these goddesses and gods pay special attention to that tribal infant god named Jahweh. They still invite his wife Asherah to their parties as she is one of the old goddesses.
Theists using math is like a roulette addict trying to justify his gambler's fallacy.
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT A FALLACY IS??
You don't think probability odds are real??? You must deny reality to maintain your faith.
@@FFF-cb2im MY FAITH IS THE SAME AS YOURS....WE CONFIRM REALITY TO MAINTAIN OUR FAITH...
@@davidsmith5946 disagree with an atheist and they will label it a fallacy. As is turns out atheists know everything and theists know nothing. Almost every atheist tells me this. They seem to think that arrogance is a virtue.
@@FFF-cb2im MY DAD TAUGHT ME,,,PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE,,,,DOES THAT MEAN ALL DOCTORS ARE VIRTUOS?
"We don't have scientific evidence for it." is the smartest thing Justin said in the whole video.
We at least have evidence that a universe can exist, so positing that there might be more than one isn't unfounded. We have no evidence that any kind of god even can exist.
The editing is fantastic! Making him admit the mistakes he makes with his own words is genius!
There's billions of houses out there. So what were the chances I was living in the same house just like my Mum? 🤔
Underrated comment
Oooohhh mind blown!!
In the US, there are 26 vacant houses for every ONE homeless person.
How can there be creationists still buying these stupid arguments? Great video, Paulogia!
Because their need to "believe" is deeply rooted in a need to "believe".
A lot of people don't seem to understand how probabilities are calculated.
It's a combination of two things being said above ^^. Most religious people aren't sufficiently educated in mathematics and science. Apologists take advantage of this lack of education to then give these people a reason to want to believe, and then they'll appeal to their pathos and ethos in some way as the finishing touch. It's that theists want to have a reason to believe, AND they find those reasons easily because of how poorly the understand mathematics, science, and philosophy in general. And it should be noted that most apologists don't even have a degree in theology, much less a degree in philosophy, mathematics, or science. They have no business trying to use science to prove God exists, when they don't even understand the basics of the law of conservation of energy.
Plus, to them it is their whole identity.
Scientifically illiterate goes a long way to explain this.
Love the vids Paul, but it's two dice, one die.
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" - Douglas Adams.
one of the fun things about dice rolls and how people use it like they do in the video is that every possible series of rolls have the exact same probability, you could roll 1,000 dice and record each roll in order, and you would have the exact same probability of rolling that sequence as you would for rolling 1,000 6's and you rolled it on your very first try. this works for any number of dice being rolled.
At risk of sounding pedentic, there is actually a lowest temperature, which is the zero kelvin point.
Yupp
So you would think, except for the fact that achieving negative temperatures in the Kelvin scale is completely possible, and in statistical thermodynamics, there is a demonstration of how this is the case.
At the risk of sounding like a smartass,
It's "pedantic"
@@oscargr_ trying to win the pedantic crown
There is also a highest temperature, presumably: the Planck Temperature.
Here's another question: why does "evidence" of intelligent design point to a Christian god? It's like he's a default for "unknown" even though that hole could be filled with anything.
Good point
I find it arrogant in my opinion even though they've never actually proven or observed their god being capable of anything
@@thedragonofechigo7878 Highly arrogant. Agreed. Personally, I am a Christian, but I'm annoyed when they just go to their views as the "default" because they haven't bothered to look something up.
I think I've annoyed a few people when they ask me "Do you believe in God?" and my response is "Which one?"
(Though my favorite reaction was when I was asked "Have you found Jesus?" and I responded "Why? Is his body still missing?")
@@bretsheeley4034 Ditto
I wonder if he also says " A mice got caught in the trap" or " lets have a big roasted geese for dinner".
That's the level of education most theists have.
Love that comments!
I've never heard anyone use "mice" to refer to a single mouse or to use "geese" to refer to a single goose. Using "dice" for a single die, however, is quite common. I get that you are probably just having a bit of fun as his expense, but this sort of uncharitable characterization only increases the "us vs them" element that makes it less likely to get through people.
@@watcherfox9698
I didn't think my post would get through to anyone. It was just meant to be ( mildly) amusing.
Paul! Great video as always, just one small problem I had with the video.
At around the 1:20 mark you defended Fatalism, a position which implies that with enough knowlodge of the physical states of the universe would inevitably lead to knowing everything about the universe with enough time. However, this position cannot be true in our version of reality due to the weird ways Quantum Mechanics behaves, for all we know, some things are indeed random, without any variables determining them. If you would like me to explain it more deeply and actually provide evidence, reply to this comment if you end up seeing it.
Great video though! Have a nice day.
Please do, but be aware I'm fuzzy on the details of quantum anything as most people are.
"Product of an intelligent mind that intended for us to be here."
I think Carl Sagan mentioned something about a sentient puddle of water thinking the universe was created for it because it fit so perfectly into its container.
Douglas Adams.
@@leslieviljoen Oops! You're right. I can't believe I mixed that up.
Paulogia if you have not seen the series "Devs" on Netflix you should check it out.
It's about determinism vs free will. Very cool series.
I would hate to play poker with Justin.
Deal 1, Justin looks at his random collection of 5 cards and screams "It's a miracle, the chance of this particular hand is only 1 in 2,598,960!!!"
Deal 2, Justin looks at his new random collection of 5 cards and screams "It's a miracle, the chance of this particular hand is only 1 in 2,598,960!!!"
Deal 3, Justin looks at his new random collection of 5 cards and screams "It's a miracle, the chance of this particular hand is only 1 in 2,598,960!!!"
etc, etc, etc.
Deal 12, all the players quit because they're tired of his endless screaming. Justin claims victory.
This is so good, I’m deeming it brilliant. Well done Paul.
Theists can rebrand the fine tuning argument all they want, it's still backwards thinking.
Agreed. It is extremely likely, in fact almost certain, that I do not exist. The chances, over millions of generations, that those specific sex partners came together to produce their specific offspring who all lived to repeat the process, has so many thousands noughts in the number that we can assume it is impossible (Justin would say). Yet here I am!
@@niallevans2375 Exactly, There are more possible iterations of chess games than there are atoms in the observable universe, but you can still play chess even if the game you play is highly unlikely.
@@conicalreason2981 Sadly, my playing a decent chess games is highly unlikely and approaching impossible!
Maybe Justin could give us the probability of an "intelligent mind" creating a universe? If this is even more improbable than 70 rolls of a six-sided dice, then it may be more likely the universe appeared as a quantum fluctuation and not as the musings of an "intelligent mind". Ok, over to you Justin, to get a credible value for that probability - _based on fundamental principles_ - and not on hand-waving personal incredulity type arguments.
But a god who creates this is even more improbable but he believes that.
Why is a God who creates more improbable than something creating itself?
@@sgloobal3091 did not say it created itself. My claim is that something that created the universe would be more complex than the universe. Thus more improbable than the universe itself. So god would have to be created by a still more complex god ad infinitum.
@@sgloobal3091 Why would it not be? Why would the probability of a "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all-benevolent, incomprehensible, timeless, immaterial, all-compassionate, justice-driven, all-forgiving, wrathful god" be higher than the probability of the universe existing via some natural process, especially when some of the qualities above are mutually contradicting? In the first place, the concept of probability is not applicable to deterministic processes, only stochastic, "random" processes. Stated differently: the probability that any process predetermined by the laws of physics will happen is 1.
Thus, in order for the fine-tuning argument to even have stand a chance of not being fallacious, the theist has to prove to us that the universe, at the cosmological scale, is not deterministic, and that there cannot exist a natural process by which the universe could have possibly originated. Unfortunately, this is impossible to do. Any theist who wants to do this would have to become an expert in ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, and then go on to become an expert in many areas of physics, primarily in quantum field theory, cosmology, astrophysics, general relativity, and then start studying the many proposals for a potential grand unified theory. If a theist can *somehow* become an expert in these topics and then still come to the conclusion that there is no possible way a natural process could ever explain how the universe began, and that, not even 100 000 years in the future, will we be able to find such an explanation, THEN, and only then, can we start thinking about whether it is necessary to consider the possibility that the universe originated in a non-deterministic fashion. ONLY THEN will the fine-tuning argument actually have a reason to be considered worth looking at.
Although, even then, the fine tuning argument will have many many MANY problems. Why? Hahaha. Let me tell you why. Because *even if,* SOMEHOW, a person could overcome all the hurdles mentioned above, and prove for a fact that the universe could not have had a naturalistic, deterministic origin, you still need to use probability theory rigorously and use scientific evidence to finally prove that the claim "the probability that our universe would exist by virtue of random chance is near 0." How would you do this? You need to first state *and prove* what the sample space is, i.e, what are all the possible values of the parameters that characterize a universe. In other words, (1) you need to prove that the parameters you claim characterize a universe uniquely do indeed do so (2) identify what are all the possible values for each one of those individual parameters, *and prove* that those are indeed all of the possible values. This is just for the sample space, which already should be enough to discourage you, because there is no scientific evidence to even figure out what those parameters are supposed to be. Anyway, after you have proven that the sample space is indeed what you claim it is, you then need to provide a probability measure that operates on the power set of this sample space, *and* you need to prove that this is indeed the correct probability measure acting on that space with scientific evidence. Again, I have no idea how this could even be possible. It is only after someone has accomplished *all of the above* that you can then actually begin to assert the very first premise of the fine tuning argument as a sound, irrefutable claim.
To all that, here is what I have to say: good luck.
@@sgloobal3091 Oh, and I forget to mention: you need to somehow prove that our universe is special.
Ironically, for the fine-tuning argument to work, the theist would somehow have to prove the multiverse hypothesis and be able to somehow point out that all the other physically possible universe are devoid of intelligent life. Again, like I said: good luck with an endeavor of this caliber.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 In fact, your attempt at philosophy falls far short of a good argument. You use the word “proof” as if there is any such thing in the world of science. There is not. Instead, to approach science one needs to make several important starting assumptions. Are you awake? Is the universe real? Can you actually know what you know? You cannot even ‘prove’ that the universe was not created yesterday and that false memories were implanted in your brain. Of course, this is ridiculous, but why is it ridiculous? It is because such ideas do not fit into the grand edifice of knowledge we have built from our basic assumptions. The universe is real, it is logical, and we have the ability to comprehend it. We believe these things are true because God is true. Non-theists have to assume they are true without a reason. But all I am trying to say is that science is squarely based on philosophy and your question ignores this very important fact.
Well done Paul. Top work. Concise, clear and making the relevant points.
Many thanks!
Quantum mechanics shows that enough information to make such predictive power is unknowable even in principle
Correct. In other words, it's not that our understanding of deterministic information in quantum mechanics is insufficient. Rather, it's that such deterministic information inherently can't exist to begin with. But as Paul said, that is just his non-expert uninformed analysis. And the truth is that an acknowledgement of quantum theory doesn't give credence to theism any more than its rejection, since at the macroscopic, relevant scale, physics is still sufficiently accurately approximated by classical theory. This is called the principle of the Heisenberg limit, and this holds due to the fact that h is a relatively small constant of nature.
We haven't even fully explored our own planet.
Life could be quite prevalent in this universe.
We may never know, but we keep searching.
If the d6 is proof that there’s a God (I’m not convinced), the d4 is proof that said God is evil. ;)
Other dice: numbers on the faces
d4: begin the war for our lord and savior the top point!
@@diamondflaw I must be a heretic. I use d8s that has 2 each of the numbers 1-4. No "top point".
Imagine a d20 with 1 on every side.
If you add the two numbers on opposite sides on an ordinary d6, you get the sum seven. (6+1, 5+2, 4+3)
Six sides times seven is... fortytwo. Is that answer? :-)
What is the median (middle) value of an ordinary d6...?
( If you roll a fair d6 seventy times, the median value of these rolls will likely converge towards 3.5 )
Thanks! They always mix up factor with odds. Here’s the example I like to use:
Example: let’s say a spark plug should have a gap of .030 inches, and the plug will not work if it’s .003 inches or more off (this is made up, but illustrates the point). So if it’s off by a factor of 1 in 10, it will not work. Does that mean that every 10th spark plug won’t work? No. It’s not an odds, it’s a factor. To see the odds you might need to research the quality assurance standards at the spark plug factory. Let’s say 1 spark plug in a thousand will accidentally be .003 inches or more off. So the odds of it happening is 1 in 1000.
Factor is not odds.
They do not understand the concept of error bounds in scientific measurements, and what those mean, and how those are different from probabilities. Also, for that matter, there is 0 scientific evidence that the cosmological constant *must* be within a particular range of values for life to be possible, because the *only* way to have such evidence is to be able to observe a universe which has a different value for the cosmological constant than ours. Such a thing has never been done.
Some of the most well respected debate minds
Um you had Dave Rubin in that line up 😳
Purely to provide a baseline to compare against, I'm sure. Though honestly, supporting Creationism doesn't really get people all *that* much higher than Dave Rubin.
@@lnsflare1 he’s a charlatan just like them
Serious question about dice rolls and determinism. For context go watch "what we cannot know with Marcus du sautoy". Im summarizing by memory, but using mathematical models to predict the outcome of a dice roll based on how it was rolled, Marcus concludes that the solution results in a fractal, essentially infinitely varying outcomes depending on how much you are 'zooming in' on the fractal or how precise the observer is. Maybe theoretical physical models like this dont account for eventually zooming into fundamental indivisible particles, but how does determinism hold up with fractals/chaos theory in mind?
Ah yes, a misunderstanding of statistical probability again, therefore god 🤦
'One of billions of possibilities occurred... therefore god!' I mean, _someone_ had to create atheists, right? Er,, wait a minute...
Sometimes “I don’t know” is the most honest powerful answers you can give - because it encourages you to look for one. Just think if the first humans had never acknowledged this we would probably still be living in caves.
I'd find his arguments pretty compelling if I was an 8 year old, maybe a 7 year old.
Don't you dare to insult my granddaughter 😡
As always an excellently reasoned disection of dubious claims, Paulogia. Thank you so much for your efforts and sharing them with us. Take care and keep well and safe. Later!
We have 1 known example of a universe and we are in it so 1:1?
Several years ago, after learning that no prayer is trivial or unrealistic to God, I decided to pray over and over-totally sincerely-for heads instead of tails. So I got a quarter and flipped it, and I kept track of how many times heads came up. Heads came up less than tails came up.
Until someone explains the odds of the existence of a God who has always existed, anything else they have to say about odds is BS.
One hour ago physicist Sabine Hossenfelder released a video on TH-cam titled "Was the Universe Made for Us?" Obviously, the release of this video so soon after Paulogia's video on the subject is evidence of a divine supernatural intelligent creature who wants us to understand why the fine tuning argument is nonsense. My thanks to this creature for organizing Sabine and Paul. Those people who regularly enjoy Paulogia's channel will likely also enjoy Sabine.
There is no "a dice." It is a die. Dice is plural.
I'd like to mention something about dice being random. In a casino where dice are tossed, you have to thrown them against the wall (that has a texture) and have them land on the table. A person who's really good at dice games can manipulate the die in their hands and toss them on to the table in a way that causes the wanted pips to show. The wall is designed to add randomness to the toss due to its texture (at 1:32 you can see a triangular texture that's supposed to throw the careful planning of a die toss).
Edit:
You either throw it at the wall or have to have it bounce off the wall.
Gee, if God made the universe specifically to allow us, why did it take him over 14 billion years to do so?
That's a long time to wait for the ass-kissers to show up!
2 things
1. Who says 14 billion years?
2. God has always been so 100 years.
or 1 trillion makes no difference to.
him.
Man says 14 billion God did creation in 6 days according to the Bible.
When was it man came up with 14 billion? After he miscalculated the original billions and billions and billions of years.
Now the Biblical account HAS NOT CHANGED at all. The Bible is still here and so are the believers of the Almighty God. Satan is still attempting to blind, confuse and deceive just as he did to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Some won't believe just as Gods word says:
Matthew 7:13-14
New King James Version
The Narrow Way(A)
13 (B)“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 [a]Because narrow is the gate and [b]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Believe in man's assessment of the universe if you want to and go ahead and give that wide path a travel unfortunately it is a one way travel.
Maybe it was their first time creating a universe, and all the dead planets are it's failed attempts.
Though 14 billion years is a sign of dedication :)
@@darinb.3273 Yeah no friend, your theism is irrelevant.
Peace.
@@smochygrice465 Yep isn't it amazing those inspired writers knew it long before you were even thought of.
Rod or Todd's (I forget which) line "It's less fun that way!" on The Simpsons always gets me. Nice inclusion Paul.
Isn’t the odd of everything being as it is 100%?
It being as it is? Yeah, 100%. But it having gotten to this point with all the other possibilities? No
That's his argument. He's looking at one thing and ignoring the rest. It's like the whole evolutionary fit argument, where creationists say that our world fits us, but science says that we try to fit the world. Pretty sure water bears are more evolutionarily sound than we are. And not just because our "design" was terribly done.
@@catelynh1020 Water bears are underrated.
I just wanna point out, that this argument with dice basically argues "i cant get six 70 times,so therefore a 100 trillion other tries cant" it is unlikely, yes, but since the galaxy we live in is bloody huge, it is not so impossible as they make it out to be. And that is not even considering other galaxies, or whatever existed before that
The success of my gaming nights depends on how many times I can roll a six on a d6. Tabletop gamers the world over destroy any dice based statistics. I played a D&D game where three 20s in a row with a d20 was an automatic kill. This happened a lot. So either my gamers stole the rest of the world's odds or triple 20s are really easy to get.
Funny how they never say it is impossible, just very unlikely. so what? unlikely is still possible and is no indication of a god.
Love the content learning multiple times a vid and never gets bland
Rod: “Convert the heathens!”
The universe is for the most part utterly unsuitable for life as we know it.
God should go to a casino, win a load of money and then give it to cancer research.
My view is that there are truly random processes happening on the quantum scale, that have effects on bigger scales and the effects are smaller on proportionally bigger scales.
Events that are determined by large scale processes (like the gravity between planets) are therefore accurately predictable, while for instance the processes in a brain (like controlling
the throw of dice) are determined on such a small scale (dendrites receiving neurotransmitter signals) and the quantum level effects the outcome to such an extend, that they wouldn't be predictable with accuracy or not even at all. It would be impossible to determine how the brain throws the dice or even whether the brain decides to first take another sip of its drink.
The same random processes on the quantum level would also make evolution unpredictable and therefore anything happening on our planet.
"A dice"?
I really like your temperature range for liquid water analogy
Justin needs to stick with being a radio host , when he tries to do apologetics he is awful.
Okay I'm know I'm being pedantic, but the singular of dice is die. His video starts by talking about rolling "a dice." It has no bearing on the truth claim of his argument, but it does just irritate me.
That was quite an assertion about quantum mechanics being deterministic...
Quite, it was ludicrous. You can't know position and momentum simultaneously so calculating a "clockwork state" of the universe is sheer absurdity.
@@davidmurphy563 Right? And even if we COULD, but just don’t know that we can and don’t know how to yet, it’s still a bad idea to take on that burden of proof.
You are correct, but everyday macro experience tends to make one believe in a deterministic universe.
I certainly clung to hidden variables, except experiment results say no.
@@davidmurphy563 Paul's statement was ludicrous because he didn't just say the universe was deterministic. He said it was, in theory, predictable. The uncertainty principle makes that impossible, but it does not rule out the possibility that it's deterministic. Not knowing the state of the universe at a given time does not mean it didn't have a state at that time.
@@stevethecatcouch6532 Absolutely, I accept the distinction. That's what I was alluding to when I said "clockwork state" rather than determinism.
Between this response, and TMMs "why do we need a universe in the first place", fine tuning doesn't have much to stand on.
The fine tuning argument always made me wonder if Christians actually believe the kind of creator god they also argue for!
Why would such creator need to fine tune anything? Was he constrained by the values needed for the universe, as it stands, to allow beings like us?
Was it impossible for him to define another expansion rate and fail to create the universe?
As a Christian Apologist critic of this argument once said (I cannot remember who he was!): God doesn’t need to hit the bullseye, he is the one creating the target.
Indeed; if matter is not necessary for consciousness, why would an immaterial being even bother with matter? Just like with our brains; why isn't there just motor function hardware surrounding an immaterial soul module? So much wasted energy.
That was a brilliant analysis!
One of the big issues with fundamentalist Christianity, is that according to that doctrine, "We don't know," isn't an acceptable option. "We don't know," is basically the proof of God, rather than an incentive to study further in order to try to find out. I can totally sympathise with those who find that not knowing all the answers is frightening, but it's something we simply have to get used to. "We don't know," is actually that beautiful place where imagination can roam freely and where dreams are made.
The probability that sentient beings exist on any world in which sentient beings are discussing the probability of their existence is ...now lemme see...
When I was LDS, it was defined in "Hope for things not seen". This is a fine definition for that which has minimal evidence, where your devotion is required without evidence sufficient to sue in court.
Faith, by definition, is contrary to epistemological principles, and contrary to the burden of proof. The concept of faith literally demands that you believe without evidence.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 perhaps. I'm not really sure why you'd feel the need to tell me that, though.
@@benjaminwaterman9580 I'm just adding on to what you said. Nothing personal.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Ok. It wasn't clear. Thanks!
I really loved what you do, and what you've already did❤️❤️😊,, lucky to be born on 21st century where many eye opening videos and youtubers spread good and true measage that can be verified👍👍👍
I love this video because it touches on a a difficulty I've had trying to articulate that "randomness" doesn't exist in reality like people assume it does. Even random number generators use algorithms to produce numbers that "feel" random. This comes into play a lot when speaking about free will.
randomness actually exists in quantum mechanics, as far as we know
@@macx7760 AS FAR AS WE KNOW
@@macx7760 yeah
"I've had trying to articulate that "randomness" doesn't exist in reality like people assume it does"
The trouble is that you are wrong.
Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We do NOT live in a Newtonian or Classical universe. We live in a quantum mechanical universe.
@@iamlordstarbuilder5595
"AS FAR AS WE KNOW"
Not quite as the evidence is exceeding clear. There is zero evidence against Uncertainty at the level of atoms.
Two things about quantum “determinism”. Quantum uncertainty isn’t about the accuracy of our measurements. Certain states/positions of quantum particles (even the term “particle” is a misnomer in this case) really are indeterminate.
The other thing : it is still unsure how much information is lost when matter falls into a black hole. I once hear Hawking lecture on this - his conclusion, at that time, was that the identity of any objects (including organisms) falling into a singularity is lost. The mass/energy is conserved, and, eventually, returned to the cosmos when the black hole evaporated (something called Hawking radiation means what goes in usually comes back out), but not in it’s original form. The upshot of this is : you can’t calculate the previous state of the universe, based on its present state, because some of the information you would need was lost in various black holes.
Justin asserts that the only other possible explanation is chance, when in reality, we don't have an agreed-upon explanation yet, so how can he possibly gauge the probability of an explanation that we don't have? He seems to think that saying, "I don't know how the universe formed" is equivalent to saying, "I think the universe was formed by chance", which is obviously a strawman.
excellent point
One response to the fine-tuning argument I like is to point out that if there really is an all-powerful god, then the whole premise of certain values of physical constants being "required" is completely wrong. An all-powerful god could make a universe with whatever constants he wanted, or no constants, and still have it contain life. If you think he couldn't, that he HAD to make it with specific constants, then you don't believe he's all-powerful. The apologists are arguing against their own position.
Just noticed that your intro theme is the same as the movie "The Boondocks Saints",and that is quite excellent. :)
Christians didn't even know the Sun was a star, now they think they can tell us about the "birth" and structure of the universe...
This is a bit of a disingenuous comment. There are many christians in very prominent fields of science and that contribute greatly to it. A priest and a professor of physics Lemaître was instrumental in the big bang theory. So your comment implies that being christian is a disqualifier in talking about the universe then I disagree with your claim even though I'm an atheist.
On determinism: I recommend "The Drunkard's Walk" by Leonard Mlodinow, especially how determinism can result in randomness. It means that, however precise our knowledge of initial conditions, we cannot determine the future precisely. I doubt you find many quantum dynamicists who agree that quantum mechanics was fundamentally deterministic. A corollary is that, given end conditions, we cannot necessarily determine the original conditions.
How can one see that universe is explicitly Determined, and also deny a "grand plan"?
Hypothesize that I necro the Anthropic Principle. Is there some compelling philosophical defeater against that idea evidencing the ability of dice throws to demonstrate the existence of divinity? Will it keep defeating that principle?
Well, I once heard a creationist speaker state, "If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails. That means if I flip a heads, the next flip will be tails." So at least Justin's grasp of probability surpassed that guy's.
What about a 20 sided dice? Or 8, or 100?
infinity sided dice
About the statement of the determinism of the universe. If quantum mechanics has an unknown mechanism that determines the outcome of events, like rolling dice, was a big question in physics a while ago. These unknown mechanisms and values are called hidden-variables, e.g. on a die, this would be rotational and transversal velocities for example.
Bells theorem proves that quantum mechanics as observed do not work with local hidden-variables. This means the hidden-variables cannot be an unknown part/property of the particle.
Quantum mechanics is still compatible with non-local hidden-variables. But this would require two particles influencing each other faster than the speed of light can carry information.
This is a bit of a strange topic like all quantum mechanics are. But here is the link to the Wikipedia article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Pi is the most finely tuned constant we know. So fine tuned that it is impossible to write it down its absolute value. If it had been even slightly different then circles wouldn't exist. Or maybe squares wouldn't exist. Or perhaps both...I don't know.
You definitely can write down its absolute value. You merely cannot write down the decimal digital string representation of that absolute value. We have other ways of writing down its absolute value, though. For example, we can define π as the integral on the interval -1 < t < 1 of 1/sqrt(1 - t^2) with respect to the differential one-form dt. This is an exact representation of the constant, not an approximation. You should not confuse the decimal representation of a number with the number itself. In fact, dyadic rational numbers have two different decimal representations that are equal. The most well-known example is 0.(9) = 1, where (9) here stands for an infinite string containing the digit 9 repeated. 1 and 0.(9) are both valid decimal representations of the number "one."
You should be at a million+ subscribers Paul. Keep up the 'unbelievable' altruism!
(Only watched to 3:33 so far) well, you know what also gets exponentially more unlikely? Rolling this exact sequence: 6,2,4,6,1,3,5,1,4,4,2,5,6... each sequence is equally unlikely, but one must happen.
Good video. One question, what makes you think that matter and energy predates the universe? I have not heard that before. And where would they have existed if there was no space to exist in? Maybe someone can answer. Thanks!