CuddleWithTrump - keep in mind that all the variety of comments just supports more what we learn in the Bible, how we humans were created with a freewill. If we thought all the same, like the left wants, you might think there was no God!
Arthwick Brother what contradicts others believes can make them angry it is normal, we are emotional beings, but what is not normal is the violent attitude that is due to this anger which then makes people say and do stuff they don't usually do, forgive them :), sincerely your Muslim brother
Marc R The goal is to get them to explain and make the case for why the Matrix doesn't exist. In my experience the best way to shake someone of beliefs unsupported by evidence is to get them to first disprove other belief systems using skepticism and critical thinking.
Wild Academy Interesting question - the whole philosophy of epistemology is based upon your question, and has been studied by centuries by the likes of Rene Descartes who started his famous works trying to establish the basis of knowledge by asserting, "I think, therefore I am."
Wild Academy Your favorite strategy is also a logical fallacy, meaning it isn't valid whatsoever in an argument. That logical fallacy is BURDEN OF PROO.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
It seems people in the comments thinks they are more intelligent, than people that had been studying dedicating their lifes for decades in the subject, i really love how in youtube everyone think is right. Just be polite guys, that is the key. The real thing we know is... nothing.
+DigitalBerserk Ever stop to think that some of the people in the comments are part of " people that had been studying dedicating their lifes for decades in the subject" but simply don't share the same opinion as the video? "i really love how in youtube everyone think is right."
007VitaminD well actually, it's more "there's probably a reason behind this, but our scientific knowledge isn't to that point yet. Maybe we will know one day".
PBGellie But to be fair, at this stage in the timeline of history +007VitaminD is completely right, the two of you are simply giving binary arguments, neither has provided any true evidence. Until this scientific knowledge that you are relying on surfaces, both stances are equally hopeless - I think the problem here is the fact that you're trying to use the wrong tool for the wrong job. Science never sought to answer the question of God, and atheism, just like theism is a belief (the absence of a belief, that one has given thought to is still a belief). Perhaps one day; we will stumble upon the answer of how the universe came to be, in exquisite detail, but for now; these answers don't exist! So you'd be wise to avoid wasting your time arguing a hopeless stance!
PBGellie It's not about accepting God as the explanation, it's about acknowledging that science doesn't know enough to rule God out of the equation just yet.
That is a leap of logic There are many many many reason why supporting life is soo hard and rare to happen But there millions of planets so even if the odds are 0.00000001% there will always be a single planet that will beat those odds. And remember there are hundreds of religions which means the chances of yours being right is also low. And just because the chances are low for life to exist you seen to forget the fact that it took millions of years for life to even be born and other couple millions years for human to exist. This took time lots of it. So in that time frame life could of happened. Also this video was just a video saying how low the odds were but no evidence that a god even exists or any of the contradictions and complexities that can have to the world we live in
@Lily Yu you are just flat out lying about everything. that document doesn't say that. we have observed speciation.just because you have your head in the sand and don't know this doesn't mean it is not there. you need to learn what evolution is, a fact and how it works. nobody, but stupid creatards, says that there should be half formed animals. you are a moron.
+Siddiq Ismail dude, it's very simple. The argument is that not believing in a Creator is as much a faith statement than saying that there is. Of course in the end there might not be a Creator, but that belief is not more rational than the opposite. You atheist are so self-absorbed that you can't even hear to reasons, and you end up sounding like stubborn supersticious waks.
RinaldoDegliAlbizzi How? You contradicted yourself, you said not believing is as much a faith statement as believing, yet you say that believing is more rational? The whole concept of faith is irrational, as it is essentially believing without being given proof. I'm not self-absorbed, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Tell me ONE thing in this universe that points to the existence of a sentient power/creator. You'll find none. And remember, something that can't be explained doesn't currently doesn't mean "GOD DID IT". We thought Gods and spirits made waves, then we realized it was the moon. Point me to irrefutable evidence that God exist, not something you don't know.
Flip that coin for an infinite amount of time and suddenly that instance of being heads One Quintilian times in a row is almost guarantied to happen at some point. As for fine tuning the universe, in infinite time and space all possible settings will eventually happen, and we would only know of the specific settings that we exist in. There could be settings better for life in the universe, but we just happen to exist at this point in space and time. We can't know how many other possibilities have happened or will happen.
+samtheweebo That's exactly what I was thinking. Have you heard of 'The Bubble Theory'? It is where it is speculated that there are separate realities within the universe. These realities are either so far apart we can't ever hope to reach them, or they are in another dimension. In fact, given the infinite amount of time and space within the universe, there is the immense possibility that there are parallel universes to our own. With never-ending time, you can almost guarantee that there will be never-ending worlds, with never-ending realities. Many of these theoretical realities can even contain multiple 'you's' or 'me's' or 'us's', where we make different choices. And with the infinite amount of choices people are given in life, you can be sure there are infinite outcomes to everyone's life. Just let that blow your mind for a little...
yup, the thing is with infinite time and space anything that is possible will happen. The question is what is possible? We don't know. Maybe our big bang and universe is the only possible thing, or maybe infinite universes are possible.
Default User94 Well that's within our universe. Who knows if there is an "outside" of our universe or a cyclical system of the universe starting over. All we can ever know is what we can detect and infer. We can detect that space as we know it expanded out of nothing. But we have no way of knowing what was there before, or even if there was anything before. Was time something that was functioning before the universe began? Will time still function after the heat death of our universe? Will a heat dead universe eventually start over? All questions that are likely impossible to know the answers to.
The fallacy of this argument is that it assumes that time and space is infinite, and that there are infinite multiverses. If it can make those assumptions, then I can make the assumption that god exists therefore making this argument worthless to disprove him. And if you concede that there is no evidence that time and space is infinite, and that there is no evidence that there are infinite multiverses, then the math still stands.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an Atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg
I think being a scientist makes it even more difficult to deny the obvious evidences that surround all of us that we were intelligently made. Here is a list of the greatest mental giants of science: Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Boyle, Faraday, Bernoulli, Euler, Mendel, Kelvin, Arrhenius, Milankovitch, Mendeleev, Lorentz, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, and von Neumann.
Whooooa, whoa. Hold on, there. SOME people realize how stupid they are - and they are the blessed few. Most I meet these days can't get over how smart they are and how much they've figured out from reading HuffPost science articles.
Religion means "bound up beliefs" . The more we think we know , the more religious we get. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" Proverbs 3:5 It wasn't until a week or so after I was born again , that I realized the Bible is actually Holy. God spoke to me so much in that first week . He still does. Science has it's place , it is good to question everything . But when you know Jesus is the Holy and Righteous One , your spiritual hearing is opened up. ❤️✝️
Amen! @Jon the Baptist. Grace and Peace to Each of you who can see just how small we are in comparison to how Great Our Heavenly Father is. Much Love Everyone, - Shalom
Dude, all these factors have to be fulfilled for us to think about our origin. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here. If these odds were not fulfilled on earth but on another planet, the species there would ask itself the same kind of questions.
The first half of the video is weak, because there are a billion other planets in the galaxy. However, the second part of the video talks about the fine-tuned universe, which is much more solid argument because we only know of one universe and literally the only evidence we have that there are multiple universes is that it allows us to doubt the existence of God.
@@Dennis-nc3vw That is demonstrably false. The multiverse model is based on an equation, not because 'our universe sustains life'. Erwin Schrodinger, who came up with it, believed in god or gods, I'm not entirely sure myself, he described science as an approach to the 'godhead'. Besides, 99.99% of the observable universe does not have life so it doesnt seem very fine tuned.
somuchfortalent Step 0: Define what evidence you will accept for successful completion of Step 1. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you want "empirical evidence" but since all empirical systems are based on your body's sensory systems for verification and those systems cannot themselves be verified by empirical means, I don't know how you will successfully define Step 0 using any empirical argument. If you weren't going there then please ignore.
So that discredits the Big Bang Theory I guess if it comes from a Belgian priest. Even if they can pinpoint when and where it occurred in space. And time.
@Master Dav Doesn't matter who created it or who coined it the point is they used it to infer that there is no God and to try to discredit the Bible by using different words to describe the creation event.
This, I agree with. The more I study physics and astronomy, the more I find the more belieavable and sensible alternative to be the existence of a Creator, rather than dumb luck perfectly meeting inconcievably small odds.
+MordredMS Tell me what was god doing before creating the universe, was he thinking of creating one.. what the hell took him so long that our universe is only 14.5 billions years old..and dont the god think were do my ass come from and its awesome for him but why the hell i got so much power and shit to magically appear any thing he want..and why the hell he want to do things if he is not a physical being... so my question is were is god now what the hell is he doing and how the god popped out of nothing with all the magical powers that he even dont know how it happened..
+saurav budathoki First of all, please watch your grammar and orthography, I had to re-read your comment half a dozen times to understand what you said. The third person singular form is still «doesn't», if things haven't changed recently. Secondly... well, those are all good questions. Perhaps this deity did create other universes before, and it's all just them playing Terraria; perhaps what we call nature and "universe" is merely a small part of a larger physical universe, in which this creator is a physical being that is part of nature itself; perhaps, as St. Augustine famously said centuries ago, it is nonsense to talk about a time before God created the universe, as before that point there was no concept of time, maybe not even time itself; heck, perhaps this deity or deities are above time and can be in and/or see all time at once, like Chzo in the Chzo Mythos series; perhaps this deity or deities didn't actually create the universe but were born WITH the universe as natural entities and simply directed its course a certain way. What I'm trying to say is, I don't know and there is no way, for the time being, for any human to know. We're talking about things fat beyond our reach, on which we may only talk hypothetically. There are a huge number of possible scenarios. But here's my point: none of this invalidates religion. Any religion. The striking similarities among so many of them, even very far away from each other, to me is a sign that there is an underlying common ground of truth upon which many different interpretations are built. That's why, to me, the only position for a truly rational man to take is agnosticism, besides which any person can have their own idea. «I don't know for sure, but I think...». To me, someone who is so sure of their atheism that they believe all religious people are ignorant and stupid has the exact same arrogance of the most fervent believers.
You need to consider the fact that while there is an infinitesmall chance of a state occurring there must be some state. if the states were not this way you wouldn't be here to observe them. you simply can't observe any other state cause if another state existed you can't exist. it appears to be fine tuned cause you are only exposed to one possible state.
Intelligent design is not science, and it can never be. If anything, this is an argument from ignorance. Trying to use the science of "unknowns" to assert a deity. Shame that, as it puts your deity into an ever smaller and smaller box.
***** "We have no direct evidence of God, therefore there must be no God?" You can say the same thing about anything fictional, the major difference is that theists endeavor to avoid specifically defining a deity so that they may move the goalpost. " How is that not an appeal to ignorance?" It doesn't rely on a methodology from ignorance, it relies on what we know. Skepticism is always the default position. Without a rational basis for an assertion there is no reason to follow the assertion any farther, it would be a waste of resources. In this case, an unknown is an unknown, we ignore that which we have no data for, until there is supporting data that forms a predictive model. We use deductive reasoning to determine these things.
***** "When you really get right down to it, skepticism is a position of faith, when it is as you indicate the denial of all things that can't be proven." You are confusing faith (gullibility) with skepticism (a foundational ethic that all science relies upon, and in turn brings us results 100% of the time). We are not out to prove anything (unless you are interested in talking about mathematics). We evidence predictive models through use of a methodology. The same methodology that has brought you the internet, space travel, cures for diseases, and such. It's a reliable way to determine reality and build upon knowledge through predictive modeling.
***** " what is logical about denying what you have no evidence for?" Do you beLIEve in Heryshaf, Ahura, Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Damballa, Mbombo, Nanabozho, or Obatala, or do you deny their existence based only on the word of your own storybook *that never mentions any of them by name?* You see, you might as well beLIEve everything, from unicorns, pixies, and egg laying rabbits, if you just accept anything that doesn't have sufficient evidence to support it. Is that what you do?
***** Actually, your methodology is precisely: Accept what you have no evidence for. Seeing as you have no evidence for what you have never heard of or think might be fictitious, you must follow your methodology and accept them all. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.
***** How is that a strawman? You stated "what is logical about denying what you have no evidence for?". That directly states that it is logical within your methodology to accept everything not evidenced. " My point is that deductive logic isn't at play with either position, therefore both positions are based on faith." Faith is gullibility. This is hardly the case when evaluating assertions that lack qualitative demonstrable evidence. Thus skepticism is our guide.
Gary Gray Not really though, an atheist is bread that believes science was the baker and the chemical reactions in the oven and yeast causes them to RISE
Audrey Tompkins I have a brother that's a devout atheist and I know that the reason is is that he just doesn't like the idea of some day having to be accountable to some higher being. Too many "unmentionables" in his life. I don't think that applies to all atheists but I haven't known enough of them to be able to say.
+Gary Gray No such thing as a devout atheist. It's just Atheist or Anti-Theist. Secondly, you assume that there's a higher being to start with. Atheists are not convinced because there is no evidence of said higher being. Lastly, you say 'unmentionables'. Let's call them what you or theists call them: sins. According to your bible and doctrine, a sinner will go to hell if he does not ask forgiveness. Infinite punishment for a finite crime. Do you believe that this is in God's character to put eternal torture for something as trivial as not believing in him?
Given enough time, anything and everything can happen. We don’t know how long it took for the universe to be created, so even if the chances were one-quintillionth of a quintillionth of a percent, given enough time the universe was guaranteed to exist. The same is true for planets with intelligent life on them. Last time I checked, we didn’t know the size of the entire universe. The entirety of the unknown sections could have intelligent life in them for all we know, but even if that isn’t the case, at least 1 planet meeting the criteria for it is guaranteed given enough time. It just seems impossible because we’re comparing the amount of time required to our human time. The universe doesn’t run on human time, it runs on universe time, so applying human time to it to try and explain things that require universe time is just illogical. It would be like saying that a 3 year old lion is still just a harmless toddler because 3 years of human time is a toddler. In actuality, 3 years of lion time is enough for that lion to overpower a human, kill them, and then eat them.
You're almost totally right man. I have no idea why people don't understand such basic concepts. The only reason i said almost right is that we do have a pretty good idea of the age of the universe. That's because from our observations, everything started from the big bang. We can see stuff all flying outward from the center and after looking at their speed, we can estimate how long it has been since the initial explosion that was the birth of the universe as we know it. What happened before that? No idea. Was time itself created during the big bang? Hell if I know. Also, the probability of life developing in an earth like planet is pretty high. Most people don't understand the phenomena, but basically, under the right conditions, the natural trajectory would be for life to be created. It all has to do with how probability works. To kind of put it in perspective, here's an example: Lets think about a grocery store. They only have parking lots that can only fit a limited amount of people. This is not a problem because people come throughout the day, and the parking lot usually doesn't go over capacity. But if everyone happened to decide to go to the grocery store at the same exact time, there would be WAY too many cars for the lot to handle. But this is so unlikely, it's pretty much impossible, but there is still a chance it can happen. Well, this is pretty common sense right? The thing is, most people think that life existing is like the chance of everyone going to the store at the same time, except the odds of basically an infinite number of people all deciding to go to the store at the same time. This assumption is where the error is. The amazing thing about life and how evolution works is that if certain conditions come together, probability prefers the development of life. To demonstrate this, let me take you on another little thought experiment. Do you know those little coin donation funnels that you sometimes see in stores? (I don't know if they're still around, but I used to see them when i was a kid.) If you don't, just look it up. Basically, we can represent evolution of life with this. Lets represent every planet in the universe as a 1 mile wide circle. Now, this circle has a surface that has a randomized shape. And lets represent the change of having life on a planet as randomly dropping a coin on the outer edge of the circle and having it END UP within 1 foot of the center. (crazy low odds. We're randomly dropping a coin on the edge of this huge circle. The odds of getting a coin to the center are almost impossible) Now, some surfaces of the circles might look like a single mountain. Some might look like a bunch of little islands. Some like a series of sand dunes. When we go through enough circles with these different surface shapes, we'll eventually get to one with a funnel shape like the coin donation funnels with the center of the funnel in the middle of the circle. Earth is one of these planets. When we roll the on earth, it ends up in the center. Bingo. This super long and kinda convoluted analogy is kinda how probability of life works. The surface shape is a representation of the factors that make a planet support life. Why does the funnel make sense? That's a much more complicated discussion but basically, because the nature of evolution is towards the spontaneous manifestation of life. I would recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins if you want to learn about this. There's an awesome audiobook version if you don't wanna read it, but it shows you how given the right conditions, the course of nature will result in the spontaneous manifestation of ever complex replicating units. These replicators went from replicating molecules to clumps of molecules to nested molecules to primitive cells and then to multicellular clumps and eventually, after a long road, complicated animals. This was all with the coin rolling down the funnel. A direction that is preferred by probability. I hope this was remotely helpful. I know it was very crude and kinda nonsensical but one can hope. D:
@@samuel08790 well, its a basic concept in mathematics, and mathematics is not like natural or social science, its doesnt have to be proven in lab or by experimences.
OMG, this deck of cards in my hand must have been intelligently designed, the chances that all the cards are arranged the way they are is 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000. You think that happened on ACCIDENT? It's proof that my God, The Flying Spagetti Monster, put this deck of cards here. There is literally no other way it could have possibly happened! Please science, you think you're so smart, try to explain it. Oh, thats right. YOU CAN'T! #HeLives
But those cards were created by humans or machines programmed by humans, weren't they? Where exactly were you trying to go with that poorly back-firing example of yours? lol
For it to be a joke there has to be irony in it. This was really nothing more than a pathetic insult. But most evolutionist aren't very smart to figure that out, so they just go with the flow and pretend "they get it". The joke is really on them lol
@@lamestudiosinc418 in what way is it less effort? I would argue the reverse. It takes a lot of effort to remain loyal to God in a rapidly increasing Godless world. I for one believe both God and Science are interchangeable, and as silly as it might seem I like to use the quote for the film Thor - "Magic is just science we don't understand". What we can explain is amazing. Science has taught us so much. But there is yet more to discover than we can ever fathom.
If material and time are infinite, there would be infinitely many "universes" and "big bangs". No matter how infinitesimal the odds of fine-tuning are, as long as it is non-zero (and we know it *is* non-zero because of our *own* existence), there will be infinitely many intelligent lives. I don't understand this "oooooh look the number is sooooo small" argument.
I'm skeptical of the multiverse theory since it's as unobservable and untestable as God's existence, but there are other good ways to argue against the "fine tuning" argument. There is also no way of knowing whether the constants the universe is likely or unlikely to come into existence, since there has only ever been one universe. So technically, the chances of the universe existing is 100%. It's also important to remember that true chance doesn't exist. Assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry were constant from before the Big Bang to now, the Big Bang had a 100% chance of happening the way it did, since all motion is predictable. Taking the dice example, on a surface level, it does certainly seem like the dice has a possibility of landing on multiple different numbers. However, if someone knew what the force of the throw would be, the original position of the dice, the surface texture of the ground, the force of the wind, as well as the mathematical equations of gravity and force, they could always predict which number the dice will land on.
@@maryeverett2266 the problem here is "assuming the laws of physics and chemistry are constant". How do you assume that? Each passing decade we learn more about how our knowledge of physics are limited around blackholes and many of our known "rules" don't exactly apply there. What about quantum physics that we mostly can only theorize about? The idea that the laws were constant as we know TODAY before the formation of our current universe requires a huge leap of faith based on the evidence that they already aren't constant in our observable spectrum. That's why the odds of it's formation get increasingly lower the more we learn about the universe.
@@WARPDANCE Your claim that there is no good evidence to suggest the laws of physics and chemistry were constant to today’s before the Big Bang is insightful, but the follow up you made to that seems to be the opposite of what such a claim suggests. If the laws of reality were different before the Big Bang, there would be no way to know whether the Big Bang was probable or not. There wouldn’t even be a way to know that probability existed at that time. We would literally just have no information to go off of to make any claims at all about what made the Big Bang happen. I don’t understand why you think the laws of reality being different before means the odds of the Big Bang’s formation “get increasingly lower.”
You are assuming that, given enough time, even the rarest of events will ultimately repeat themselves an infinite number of times. Can't agree with that. It would still be theoretically possible for an infinitely rare event to happen only once, no matter how many years are involved. Other events will never occur at all. I don't care how many years you wait, if you place a rock on display somewhere, it will never ultimately transform into a living thing. Never. Never ever. Therefore, to theorize infinitely many "big bangs" is quite a stretch.
Dear, oh dear. Because we don't understand the universe, we'll believe in gods instead. No, we don't understand everything, but that is no excuse for superstition.
+Robert Brynin Well, we know that the universe had a beginning. The first uncaused first cause is what many call god. Call it what you may but a cause outside of time, matter, and space had to start the universe because these things came into existence all at the same time. Something had to be the start. I think many call this god.
+Matt Cali Many great thinkers, most notably & consistently Einstein, resisted the "Big Bang" theory because it had "religious overtones". It's very interesting that now people point to it as counting God out. I guess it's all in how you look at things. For instance, I look at all of the Hubble images & am moved, and makes me believe in God more, because of the greatness. I also love science because it's given us that opportunity to see them. It's very interesting that with science(though we do give ourselves much too much credit in that regard), we still haven't disproved the existence of God. If that day comes, I will have no choice but to agree. I really like what you've said, there's a certain force, and many refer to this as God. I've felt the same. I don't think of God as "an old man in the sky", as I think that could be too much projection on our part, as humans. ;) Just the vastness & greatness of space alone is enough for me to admire whatever is behind its existence.
"Created as it is at least once" created by what? More like popped into existence for no reason with no cause. Idk sounds sketchy to me but believe what you will.
In the description it says "the odds are less than zero" Edit: It seems my remark sparked quite the discussion which is not a bad thing in of itself. I didn't mean to disregard the ideas presented in the video in any way but I formulated the comment poorly. I apologize.
_For two cents, you should get change. Belief is not required where there is evidence. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is ALWAYS provisional. As additional evidence comes to light that supports that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. One's 'belief' is not part of that process. Belief is required where there is NO evidence. That is why religions are called belief systems. Beliefs exist in the human mind, they do not manifest themselves as evidence of any sort. Most of the 'information' one receives in life is OPINION, not fact. That is what religions are; opinions. They are opinions for which people kill in order to prove their opinion to be the correct one. This is NOT rational thought. Belief is an idea that neither seeks nor requires verifiable evidence. "A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind."_ - Robert Oxton Bolton
good show me evidence that god does not exist - you cannot have it both ways - ignorant atheist make me laugh - by the way NEWTON believed in god - but of course he was just a genius hahaha
Science has nothing to say about God because there is no empirical evidence. At the same time it has to allow for the possibility as one possible theory. Atheism is therefore illogical. A suspension of belief, an agnostic position, is a far more reasonable approach than atheism.
I love the quote, as someone who believes in God in my opinion it is important to reject religion as it slows down scientific progress which can help us reveal the force behind our existence.
Random Ness the major flaw with this quote is that evidence requires interpretation. It requires opinion. I am a scientist, the evidence in my experiments do not tell me truth, I must interpret the data to find the truth. Interpretation at any level is subjective. This is why many scientific “truths” have later been proven to be false. They required human opinion which is flawed. Quoting a philosophers logic, is a belief in the philosophical opinion. Things don’t magically appear to be true. You chose it. Truth requires opinion or choice. Every human on the planet has had error in interpretation, whether acknowledged or not.
*_Does science argue for or against god?_* Which god? If you are talking about the Christian god, then you've got a heavy burden to meet. - Talking snakes - Talking donkeys - Women coming from ribs - Men living inside of giant fish for days - Etc. Oh, let me guess, your god isn't bound by the laws of nature. How wonderfully convenient!
Well, I guess we'll start from the basis of your argument, which hypothetically suggests the existence of God. If God created the universe, then would he not have also created the laws of nature? Also, if we're using the Jewish/Christian God, doesn't the Bible say he's all-powerful?
Then who created god or is god just eternal? And if you believe eternity is a real concept then couldn't the universe be eternal? There are multiple theories about how it started including the big crunch theory. It goes like this: Big bang happens> stars begin to slow down at a point> Gravity takes over and starts to pull them back>Black holes consume the universe>black holes mix due to others gravity>Hyper dense singularity explodes and another big bang happens. Also we don't know what the universe is expanding into and scientists believe it could be a multiverse or the theory I just described.
+Manu Perez And Muslims have faith that Allah exists, and Romans had faith that their gods existed, and Greeks their gods, and so on. What makes you naivety - I mean faith, any different?
"could every one of those perfect parameters been met by accident?" yes, they could have, you said yourself there are an estimated 1x10^23 planets in the universe, it's not crazy to think that at least one of that seemingly infinite number of planets has the 200 requirements needed for carbon based life. and that's another thing, who said life on another planet has to be carbon based? who said other life has to necessarily be like ours? who's to say another planet doesn't have say, berillium based life? and as for all of those ratio's that were determined to have been made at the start of the big bang, who's to say changing them would have made the universe not exist? what if it just existed with different laws? if whatever insane creatures that might have existed in that universe tried to make this same argument, we would know it's invalid because chance just made it so that the requirements for their universe came about instead of the ones for ours.
can I ask you a Question ? Look at the human body ....it is the most detailed and complicated creature design ever. with it's detailed shape and parts that work together in a very organized way and aaaallll of this detail happened by....coincidence ? ..k
Lauren Daniel The human body is full of flaws as well. The eyes have a blind spot, and aren’t necessarily the most efficient, yet they were good enough for humans to work with them. Why would god create a body with such flaws? Going onward, why would god cause illness and cancer? So the things he created could suffer?
@@laurendaniel1912 The human body is not a good design. A good design is not unnecessarily complicated for its purpose. To say that God designed us in this imperfect way just because he wanted and that bad design is still design is just special pleading.
@@laurendaniel1912 We have very weak bodies with very few natural defenses against the many larger and far deadlier predators on earth. Our respiratory systems are beyond crude and rudimentary, perhaps the most vulnerable appendage on the male sits outside the protection of our skeletons, we ave vestigial orgasms that while useful certainly do not function as they once did in our evolutionary past. We are flawed in every sense of the word, and we show clear signs that we are the product of evolution uses what is best available to us, not what is most ideal or "perfect" as a god would surely provide for us.
If you make an infinite number of planets, then you'll eventually get one that supports life (by chance). If you make an infinite number of universes, at least one will end up similar to ours. We just have a 100% chance of being born on a planet that supports life, in a universe that didn't end up in smithereens.
Tae Lim Kook But here is the problem of the mutliverse theory; it's completely unsupported by scientific evidence. It's something that is highly speculative and honestly from my research seems to be the biproduct of arguments like these which have unavoidable conclusions for a divine creator.
Tae Lim Kook great now show that there are any more universes than the one we inhabit. the only evidence we have to go on with multiverse theory is string theory which is still incomplete.
+Andrew Hoffer Our Earth is but a tiny dot in our solar system, which is but a tiny dot in our Milky Way galaxy, which is but a tiny dot in the known universe which in all probability is just a tiny dot in an even bigger "megaverse".
***** Are you really that stupid? He is not a scientist and it is NOT necessary to be a scientist in order to be a professor at university. Stop humiliating yourself and check his education profile.
+Richard Sherman's Face After The Superbowl He talks about science, so he must be a scientist and must have studied the subject. No he is not a scientist and he is doesn't necessarily know what he is talking about., because if you actually did some fact-checking you would know that he is misleading you with the arguments he uses. Prager university is always misleading in their videos.
+Voin Eslaw So if I have, say, a doctorate in philosophy or English lit I'm a science expert? Just being a professor of _something_ doesn't magically make you an expert on everything, and anyone who goes with long-debunked arguments like this guy can be safely said to not be an expert on the subject in question.
***** No that's not my logic at all, can you read? Your logic is "he is a professor so he must be right." You can just come up with arguments and evidence against his statements, so an unbiased video would have adressed this.
For the record I'm Christian and I am also a HUGE fan of Carl Sagan. I obviously don't agree with the atheism aspect of his ideology, but science certainly allows me to appreciate the beauty of creation and the Almighty. Having said that, I think it's important to note that Carl Sagan used the Drake equation in his Cosmos series in 1980. That equation has been modified by others to include some of the parameters that are in the above video. I think there is a very high probability of life on other planets. Not gray aliens, but perhaps beings that we cannot possibly imagine. On the other hand I am open to the possibility that we are the only ones in the universe. It's a possibility. If that is the case then millions of years from now humanity will be the ones to venture to the stars and colonize planets and Earth will become a myth. A legend. A place where people came from. Who knows. It's interesting to think about. I'm certainly an optimist and I think human exploration it still in it's infancy and I think God just wants to sit back and watch the show to see what we'll do next.
I have to agree with your second option. I think that we were created by God and that we are the only ones out here. It is up to us, as the first civilization, to expand into the cosmos and then maybe Earth will become a myth. Then again, that may never happen depending on when the end begins...
NightWolfWillis, I find it a little shortsighted, maybe even myopic that we refer to God as the "Almighty" and accept His omniscience, and then limit Him to one world. And I have always found it odd that when people venture far enough to consider beings on other planets, they are "grey aliens" or some other mystical creature. Being created in His image, I think we are about as good as it gets. Yes, the mortal physical body has imperfections and limitations, but those are all temporary and serve a purpose.
NightWolfWillis seems rather selfish to think God would only create a single sentient race in a whole galaxy, let alone the universe. God has the power to bring about entire universes, why would God only stop with one? And it is very likely that God is not even close to how we portray Him, though in our time, we will never know.
Hmmmmmmmm.... let me put my viewpoint this way: I don't believe God created other intelligent life in this universe. But I'll be dashed if we don't check. And, rather than sitting on the sidelines, I imagine God will empower us to do just that.
+David Smith God and man are two different things. Matter and God are the same thing. God created us, but he can not control us, but can control our atmosphere. (metamorphically)
Anticipating that we can explain everything about our world and universe is equally appalling behavior I say. Therefore a God could potentially do something that we do not understand, might never know about, and may never be able to explain... what exactly is your point here good sir.
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." ~C. S. Lewis
Common sense tells us that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there was a Creator. We cannot have a Creation without a Creator. We don't need faith to believe in a Creator. We just need a brain that works!
@@barbthiessen7413 I can't believe people are still blindly following these tired, cliche rebuttals. Simply abysmal. Growing up in a Christian home for 19 years I have heard these supposed 'oh-so-obvious' reasons for God's existence. They're so unbelievably dull. You all want to feel special and you will fight tooth and nail to keep yourself in your bubble. Sad.
@@noahconstable5760 Yes, they are so very obvious! The evolutionists don't come up with anything new, it's the same old tired story.... How NOTHING created everything! They continually search for evidence and find none.... Like the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." What is very sad is that what evolutionists have is "blind faith".
+ *Barb* Creation is 100% logical proof there was a creator, yes, because that's the definition of creation. What hasn't been proved is the assumption that the Universe is a creation in the first place. Evolution has nothing to do with "nothing creating everything". Science says nothing about "nothing creating everything". Something coming from nothing is an idea exclusive to religion.
@@Demiligne The evolutionists theory is that a bunch of swirling gases and dust met up with a big bang, gravity pulled it all together and formed a spinning ball, we call Earth! Then we evolved from apes, but perhaps since my school days that story has been changed. That's the problem with error taught as truth, it always changes and so yesterday's facts become tomorrow's lies!! God's truth NEVER changes! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen. 1:1
i usually enjoy prager u's vids and generally agree with them but this one is too much bs for me to handle, "because its very unlikely it means that god did it *cue my profile picture* "
While they brought up the magnitude of the size of the universe, they forgot to mention that it still perfectly explains how we can come to be. In fact, even if you factor in these parameters, you can still get that there are more than one planet like ours. Plus, this video neglects the idea that life elsewhere can be different than life on Earth. As far as the universe, you have to take up the magnitude of time (note i'm using time as an analogy). If the multi-verse exists, than it is inevitable that a universe exactly like ours would pop up more than once.
iPhotonQ ok we get it your athirst but the chances of any kind of life are too low, I love science and I have a religion but I'm not all into it but it's nice to lie to yourself once in a while ;)
Jeffrey Muu Actually, I never said I was atheist, that has nothing to do with what I said. The truth doesn't care about my personal beliefs (or non-beliefs). The chances of life are not that low when you consider the vastness of our Universe. In our Galaxy alone, we've discovered numerous candidate planets that may support (Earth-like) life (but we can't be certain). When people consider the probability for the universe to exist the way it does, they tend to not be considering every possibility. And there are explanations for why we haven't received any radio signals from any extraterrestrials. Note that I am not necessarily saying that extraterrestrials even exist, but that we can't jump to any conclusions here. The entire point I am trying to make that it is deeply wrong to draw any conclusions. God may exist, or God may not exist. We don't know. And given our current ignorance when it comes to the universe itself, we can't use the God of the gaps idea. We are far from knowing everything there is to know.
no matter how you slice it, something created the universe... all estimates of what that was are based on unknowns. These are things that cannot have any probability attached to them. The only thing we can put a probability on are things in this universe. And this universe does not look kindly on the idea of randomly generated life at the moment. I'm sure you disagree, but the first point in not able to be reasonably refuted by any believer in science at the moment. Therefore, all external possibilities can be justified to some extent.
The problem with the "multi-verse" theory is that it is even more difficult to prove than intelligent design. We have evidence of intelligent design due to the fine-tuning of the universe and the fine-tuning of living organisms. However, there is *no* evidence of a multi-verse, and there can never be, because we are restricted by the natural laws of our universe, therefore any theoretical multi-verse would have a different set of laws and therefore any matter in the two universes cannot interact or exist conceivably in the other. Thus, a multi-verse is beyond the natural laws of our universe, and therefore supernatural, and cannot be reached or proven using science (study of natural laws of the universe). Thus, there is absolutely no way of proving if there are multi-verses, and there is no evidence within our universe to suggest that multi-verses exist, much less their nature. Multi-verse theory is a flight of fancy that is impossible to prove and is another far-fetched narrative used to insist that we're here by coincidence. In fact, it is more of an exercise of blind faith in the supernatural than creationism ever was. We don't know that multiple universes exist, we know that one universe exists, and we know that it appears suspiciously likely that this universe was tailored perfectly to exist and harbour life in a way that a coincidence could not convincingly have created.
You're right I just assumed it was the judeo-christian god as it's always him that prager U argue for. Also how many other monotheistic gods are there? Allha?
And now you got a problem here. Who created the creator? and who created that creator of that creator?? It can go for infinite possibilities. Also were does God gets resources to create a universe.
An object outside of time and space isn't something that has been observed. It's not known how it would behave or what it's properties would be. It's not even known whether it's a valid concept.
Mohammad Butt My point is, there may be other possibilities. The human idea of creation is not necessarily the best thing to describe the beginning of the universe. Physics doesn't care about what people think is rational. In the past people were surprised many times when they discovered physical laws that seemed to violate logic.
Mohammad Butt "there is nothing that begins to exist without a cause" There are many problems with that statement. It is very vague. What does it mean to begin to exist? If I change one part of an object, do I have a new thing that began to exist, or just a rearrangement of old things? What if I change all parts of an object? What is a thing? If I have an apple, that can be a thing. What if I divide it into halves? Do I now have two things? What if I don't divide it? Can I still call half of an apple a thing? Can I call a molecule in that apple a thing? What is a cause? An object, an event, or just the circumstances during the beginning of the thing? Can something have multiple causes?
Bro a microbe can fall on Venus and still find a way to live there. We only know life in this type. We don't know if there are any other types of life forms. It's redic to try and say "But there are too many planets and too many conditions to be met" because we can see shit of our universe. But whatever.
He saying that people who use theism or atheism as explanations for the reason why we exist are not suggested by science but in my opinion you can’t assume there is a god because science hasn’t disproven it yet
Lefty Cheddar102, I’d go further and say that it is impossible to disprove God. The only work science can do in the other direction is to display just how unlikely it is that we are here by accident.
@@gingerale2131 "Writing long words doesnt make you smart" This is pretty much the intellectual level of argument in all Prager's videos from the theistic side. Astonishing heh?
@@Dr-Curious Science does not deny God -- that's of course a platitude. Even my atheist-materialistic professors of metaphysics and epistemology could tell you that.
Expressions such 4:00 to 4:12 is what self-demolishes the own arguments. Please, if using sciene, tell the numbers correctly and well referenced by proper citation. It is not hopeless, just strengthen the evidence. Do not resort to demagoguery.
Well actually you seem to be way too appreciative of the tech that we have at SETI. You can only detect intelligent life forms in the universe if they are emitting an EM wave for you to discover and as you know, EM waves travel at the speed of light (light is an EM wave). There are planets millions of light years away, which means it would take millions of years for EM waves to reach us. There can be planets out there that were formed a million years ago but you still can’t even see it from a telescope because light reflected from the planet is yet to reach you. We have only discovered tech like EM waves in the past couple of centuries. So, if a life form on another planet millions of light years away had invented such tech around the same time, you can imagine how much time is still left before their signals reach us. PS: Life can also exist in conditions that were previously thought of as not being capable of supporting life, so you never know what kind of life forms you are going to find. PPS: Scientists are now working on a theory of everything that would explain all those fundamental forces that you mentioned, using quantum mechanics. Maybe other life forms already have that grand unifying theory and are using tech that we cannot detect. It is possible that they skipped the EM tech entirely.
Ral Crux Atheist: "I don't see God. Therefore God does not exist?" Well, just read about the story of fatima apparitions, zaitun apparition, and others. These are apparition of the Mother of God. Miracles happened. And Atheist just blindly reject even though evidence shows that they are indeed miracleS. Miracle is one way to prove that God exist.
Michael W Wrong, it is more like _"There is no evidence of god, therefore it's irrational to believe in god."_ All your so called "apparitions" and "miracles" can be explained by the simplest natural phenomena and/or mass delusion.
KingWorstie Also there isn't evidence of magic, so it must be real too...¬_¬ Obviously you haven't heard of *falsifiability.* And you are changing my words, that is intellectual dishonesty. By the way, one cannot prove the existence of what doesn't exist, not even its non-existence. Reason cannot start with a conclusion and try to prove it right, you start with evidence and go wherever it takes you. You are intellectually incompetent, if you think you can get away doing so.
Alvaro Ayque _"i can´t explain the apparitions, it must be mass delusion"_ What you refer to as "apparitions" does have scientific explanations. You are fabricating a *_Strawman Fallacy._* Everything in the universe has a rational and natural explanation. Any supernatural explanation is irrational from the very start. Now, even if such _"apparitions"_ had any resemblance to a supernatural manifestation, there is no evidence it was any god at all. Look, your thing isn't logical reasoning. You cannot grasp the bare basic concepts of the science called *Logic.* And you are committing too many logical fallacies in a single comment.
well, if the rest of the universe is basicly useless for life, why should a god create it? what are the odds that a god would make oktillions of uninhabitable worlds?^^ (i dont stand for one side or the other tough, im an agnostic...)
Some Christians believe that, however that is not everybody. Mormons for example, we believe that there are other planets out there with more children of God on them, or in other words, we believe that there are other humans on other planets. Where do you think people get all those bizarre rumors about Mormons worshiping aliens? All those rumors just come from people taking that one simple piece and saying it's our entire religion. Why there are so many uninhabitable worlds I do not know, and I doubt any of us will be able to answer that correctly until the afterlife. A possibility could be for the very fact of making those odds that the above video speaks of. When one looks at the odds and the chances for things to go wrong for life it is uncomprehendingly high, there are many prophecies of how science will be one of the pillars supporting God in the last days; such chances are likely the beginning of the fulfillment of those prophesies. With the fine tuning argument being so strong towards having a creator it can be used to get those who are still trying to decide what is truth in their mind to see things in a different light. Allowing them to better decide for themselves. The mere fact of having more ways to bring people to a new understanding could also be a reason for creating the odds mentioned in this video.
the fine tuning argument meets its oponent in the believe that there could be as many different tuned universes as there are planets in our universe. that would mean most if not all other universes fail and we can think about that because we are luckily in that one possibility wich turns out well. but i admit that the problem with any kind of multiverse theory is that its outside of the scientific realm as long as we are limited to the speed of light as the fastest way to move stuff, energy or information trough space. if the bubble theory would be correct, we would never see other universes because they are too far out and even our own expanses so fast that we could never ever reach its edge. if other universes are some kind of parallel dfimensions and "here, but not here", we have no clue how or if we can get there to find out how they might look. for me, the thing that makes me a theistic agnostic is not the fine tuning argument, but it is, that there is something at all. if we take any mass, energy, stuff that we didn't know about yet of the past, the future and all possible universes, they have one thing in common: they are physical. and every physical thing needs a cause. it may be a probabalistic cause, maybe just a quantum fluctation, but even this is a cause. and this bears the question why there is the logic that there is anything. problem here is that we just can't say that its a natural/physical cause that follows physical logic (or probabilastic logic), because then its part of "everything that there is". the source of it all, ofeverything, has to be either a non-physical thing/eintity/pure enternal will to just be, or, 0=1 and all logic ends. either way the source of everything can't be restrained by logic at all. its ultra-free, free from every logic and limits. and if so, it seems kinda possible that there are more universes, or even things we can't even imagine. via logical reasoning this showed me that there is a part of existence wich jsut can't be logical explained, because the source of all logical/physical stuff can't be logical stuff again, that would basicly mean there was no source at all. and like i said, that would mean all logic ends, because in our physical world everything needs a cause. me the big bang be a thing, then this may be the link to the non-physical. it may had no physical cause, but another. quantum fluctuation bears still the question of "who or what made this rules?". if i would have to decide what i thing i believe, than i would say that there was a undefined thing that wanted borders to explore possibilities and basicly things/dreams the entire physical wourld. we are part of this and so we are part of this undefined unity or now plurality. but before anything physical, it might be very empty. no tought, no words, no feelings. just the will to be rather than not to exist. and since logic already ended, itself needs no cause, no time, no before and after. maybe all is what humans what call a tought. trying out things and playing with possibilities by setting besic rules and limits. on the other handy, maybe its just 0=1, all logic ends by creating rules, energy and stuff out of nothing, nopt even an eternal undefined meh. if there usnt anything that is non-physical, the universe makes no sense at all and if noone experiences it (wich/who is not bounded to be in it), then it would make no difference if it wouldnt be there. but it is there, because stuff is there. we can say its there because we exist and anything exists. come on hardcore atheists, prove my reasoning wrong. being an atheist would basicly mean giving up logic at all, 0=1 and A=>A without any cause. no matter how many big bangs you would set before this universe, even infinite big bangs doesnt solve the question of the first cause of everything.
before anone gets started: i dont see this as god in a classical way. with morals and stuff. there just wasn't any need for anything before there where anything (or any need for anything at all). so no moral ideal and history is not written yet (unless something can reverse it to thing/dream the universe again, maybe even all possible outcomes trough. morals and ethics may be just created when we create and shape them, not before. and maybe there are other self-reflecting beings in the physical universe wich are also take part of, well, everything. to get more perspectives of this existence.
I think most atheists are agnostic. No one can prove god's non existence. Dawkins admitted the same. But gods existence can be compared to that of the the tooth fairy unicorns leprechauns etc
I'm not sure if others have answered, but the Bible says the heavens were created for God's glory. It shows just how powerful and wise God is, because it leaves us with awe. Creation reflects God like the moon reflects the sun.
Fighting science and religion is being close minded. Sometimes you can use them together, sometimes you can't. There are things science can't explain and neither religion because of its metaphoric nature. I'm Catholic and I love science too and there has never ever been a moment in my life where those two things collided in my mind. Just get your head out of your asses, both sides, and embrace knowledge and culture. The moment the world's going to be in peace is not when religions disappear (they won't ever, get over it), it will be when we all respect, tolerate and learn from each other.
@Greg Fakerson So, with everything you said, you just proved my point. Science and religion cannot win between each other because they're so different and forcing them to is just senseless. This is not a competition, this is about possibility of adquiring new knowledge (which is what I care) and learning more and more about the world we live in from different points of view (studying other religions you can see how other culture's are). Religion doesn't care about proving anything because is not science, you yourself said it, so I see no valid reason to separate them in the way atheists tend to do. Religion helps itself with science all the time, theology exists for that reason. No one has to believe if they don't want to, but looking and expecting science to erase religion won't ever happen; just the basic: science cannot prove God's inexistence such as religion cannot prove his existence. So while there's no way science can deny certain things and religion can't prove them, we're all in a vicious circle. I follow the example of religious scientists, whose job is to look out for the truth but find space to keep their faith in.
@@fridamoreno4224 Something being different doesn't mean they can't compete. Either science or religion is wrong. From everything that has happened in the past to the present day, it's very obvious that science is winning, if not has won already. The most basic belief in the scientific method is that we examine what exists to come to a conclusion. In summary, evidence before conclusion. Based on this, God doesn't exist. Please don't tell me that you don't believe in the scientific method. It has proven to be extremely effective for figuring out reality for thousands of years. To say that it's wrong is actually insane.
As a fellow Catholic I can relate to this, and I hate how some atheists say that science is incompatible with religion and some Catholics think our religion is incompatible with science. They both fit together.
@@ash_11117 they don’t “fit” it’s just you believe one thing that’s based in the natural world (science) and another that can’t be proved by the natural world and it’s laws (existence of a god). Faith in the supernatural is literally impossible to refute with science, because it’s based on faith.
Sedevizo Kielienyü Evidence could be that we have found reasons for things happening, and so can definitely state that God did not do it. For instance, say you find a loaf of bread on the counter. You could say that it was put there by god, but then you find the oven is hot, the bag of flour is lighter, there is some yeast spilled onto the floor, and there is a baking pan in the sink. Yes, you could say that God created the bread and leave it at that, or you could put the pieces together and actually find what happened.
The odds are not just very small, but we humans can't even imagine the magnitude of that number, that's why the probability of creation is higher. And this is only one of the arguments for a created universe.
The odds that it was a magic man in the sky are higher? How exactly is that? No, this is a fallacy called the god of the gaps. I don't know, therefore I somehow do know and it was a wizard.
PonzooonTheGreat It's not that I alone or we christians do not know, we all humans have no ideea, and as I said, it's not the only argument, there are plenty evidence that point out (not demonstrate, because ultimately you have to believe) to God. Christianity brings far more credible evidence than any other theory. It's not a "magic guy" with a "magic wand", it's an all powerfull being. We can not fully understand what that means, but it's easy to speculate that an all knowing all powerful being could easily make the universe possible rather than, chance.
"but it's easy to speculate that an all knowing all powerful being could easily make the universe possible" It's also easy to speculate that non-intelligent fundamental eternal causes could easily make the universe possible.
This guy is awesome. He is using logic, common sense, and science to rightfully defend God. Why so much hate for someone who's defending an argument the right way?
Because it's a bogus argument that's old as hell. It's based on a misunderstanding of low probability vs. impossibility. Here's a question: what are the odds that you would grow to be (insert height here)? Let's say we measure in real numbers, not integers, and your adult height is 71.348329423472347 inches. Or to whatever precision you'd like. What are the odds that you'd grow to that *exact* height? Out of the *infinite* amount of possible heights you could grow to instead? For instance, 69.238423942835 inches tall instead. The odds that out of all possible heights you'd end up at ONE specific height are incredibly tiny, and if we're using the infinite set of real numbers between 54 and 90 (arbitrarily chosen max and min heights for a human being), then the odds are zero. But I measured you and that's your height, and I can see that you're not slouching or standing on your toes or anything, so you must've grown to that height. Do you understand now?
Your comparison makes no sense as its irrelevant to the argument. Your example is that of a (1) fractioned number between two other numbers. However, the example in the video is referring to the numerous variables implied in just the requirements for a planet to habitable (how life emerge is still a mystery to atheist). So I really don't understand where you where trying to go with this. Now if you want to talk about precised numbers, even fine tuning seriously puts into question the faith many scientist place on chance. Arriving to precised measurements down to the exact fraction time after time after time which would otherwise destroy our universe is plain stupid and illogical unless you can prove any of it. Not to mention no one has ever witnessed a law spring out of chance.
Did you really understand it? Or are you just assuming you're right because you hate being wrong? Lol. Watch it again, it is clearly speaking of the criteria necessary for life to exist, right from the beginning of the video. Idk how you got everything confused so quickly lol. But like they say, ppl hear what hear want to hear.
One of the first thing you learn in science is that claims need to be backed up by evidence. I'm an atheist and have enjoyed many PragerU videos on youtube but these 5min 'informative' videos would really benefit from having sources otherwise it just sounds like a bunch of cherry picked punch lines and a few quotes from some religious scientists...
Questions to our friend atheists: Question 1: Do everything that we believe that exists can be proven scientifically? Does Science have an answer to everything? Five rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science--but you would agree to be real. 1. Logic and Mathematics - Science pre-supposes logic and mathematics but can't be proven by science. 2. Metaphysical truths - The past wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age. 3. Ethical beliefs - Murdering a person in exchange of millions of dollars is evil. 4. Aesthetic judgments - The sunset is beautiful. 5. Science itself - Example: Science only relies in the assumption that the speed of light is constant in any points between A and B but can't be scientifically proven. Science is a good tool to understand the PHYSICAL realm and create technological wonders but it's limited to that only. It doesn't address other important non-materialistic issues in life. Some atheists are proud of saying "I'm on the side of Science and not religion" but you can actually be on both. Question 2: Killings caused by religious wars in the ENTIRE HISTORY for DISOBEYING God's command to love your enemies amounted to a very small number compared to killings caused by Atheists (Polpot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc) in just a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN MODERN HISTORY amounted to 124,047,000. Considering these facts, if these people had the teaching LOVE YOUR ENEMIES in their hearts, do you think they would have done these evil things? YES or NO? In case you don't believe that HITLER shared the same atheistic ideology of Stalin before he betrayed him-check out what Hitler said below: the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61 “Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7 Hitler PRETENDED to be a Christian to win the support of his people but he's in fact a closet atheist. Question 3: What would make it wrong to murder someone when you know you have a way not to get caught and you will be paid 100 million dollars to do it? Question 4: Scientists have proven that the universe had a beginning which started with replicating molecules, which came from atoms, which came from quarks, which came from? Did it pop out out of nowhere like magic? Let's say that the size of molecules is 3, atom is 2, quarks is 1. Obviously the next is 0. And we know for a fact that out of nothing nothing comes.
Also points 3 and 4 are opinions and can't be proved because it's subjective. Science has no way to prove if a person likes a sunset. There are thousands of opinions on a sunset that are acceptable. Creation of the universe should be viewed as objective, because there should be ONE way that it actually happened. There might be different factors that led to a creation but all in all all of those factors combine to the way it happened. Not bashing I just don't see what those points are trying to accomplish.
The amount of ignorance in these questions are why "Atheists" have a hard time debating with the religious. Question 1: 1. Logic and Math are proven, we use it every day in just about everything. if it were unproven we couldn't build simple machines such as buildings. Your "Holy Houses" are all built using mathematics, all religions build grand cathedrals with these amazing arches and domes because of math. 2. I am assuming you are talking about being conscious or the ability to be aware. This can be with or without a creator. The fact that a universe with infinite possibilities can exist would prove this. However, with such a small timeframe to work from, it is hard to have definitive evidence, however, God still isn't the answer here either. 3. This is so stupid! Are all Atheists murderers? No! Religion has nothing to do with ethics. People from all religions and from all ages have a fundamental understanding of ethics. Murdering someone is bad because it disrupts the community, without community the individuals chance to survive is seriously impacted. This is an evolutionary trait. 4. Subjective; not all sunsets are beautiful all the time, beauty is still an evolutionary trait where beautiful things last while gross things don't. If we were nocturnal would sunsets be beautiful? 5. Science is wonderful in the fact that it doesn't have to be right all the time. The biggest difference for someone who is religious is that they will take the word of "God" without questioning anything. This is ridged thinking and is dangerous. Science allows you to be wrong and adjusts its premise based on newly found evidence. Religion is stuck in the mud to say the least. Question 2: HOW WRONG YOU ARE! Almost all wars are religious based! Not even enough time to list them all. BTW Hitler was baptised and confirmed in Catholic church, Stalin was brought up by a catholic priest and was severely beaten by his father, Both of your examples are how religion caused the actions of these men, if they grew up atheist the actions of their fathers would not have caused such evil. A child is a product of their environment, in which the case for these two dictators, a catholic upbringing. I would argue that these men were anti-catholic more than an atheist, people confuse this and give atheists bad reputation. The fact that Hitler killed "Jews" proves that he was religious. Atheists are non-biased toward any religion. Question 3: See question 1, number 3. Evolution prevents us from doing this. Also, what would make it wrong to murder someone in the name of God? Gods murder in the thousands! Question 4: Seriously? replace "universe" with God and answer your own question. Science doesn't have all the answers, but we don't stop at God. If an atom is 3,.. 2,..1 then we dont jump to 0 right away, there could be more beyond that, in which we haven't figured out yet. We might come to a conclusion that an atom is actually 33 and there are 32 things below it. Science is not ridged! Most Religious people have a hard time understanding atheism. Most think that we are Anti-god, where in fact we are non-believers. Trying to debate us frustrates us. Imagine trying to debate the existence of dragons with someone. You don't believe dragons exist or have ever existed and are figments of stories of long ago. But the person insists that they are real. Does their belief in dragons impact you in any way? No they do not and you pay no attention to them. Atheist feel the same. However, religion does impact us where we are treated unfairly for not believing in YOUR god, nevermind any God. This is where you get angry atheists. Atheism in itself is not evil, bad, or wrong. Its those who are unjust to us. You preach, love thy neighbour, but then cast stones at him for minding his own business. Try to see everyone's point of view on the world and you will see that "God" is a man-made object to control and oppress populations. However, the thought of a creator is not uncommon and may be true, but to physically fight over this is silly. For all we know we are in a computer simulation created by a teenager who has nothing better to do. In which case science and math created us. /rant
Both of you gave the same answers. The point is about "Scientifically" proving something for both MATH and LOGIC. That's why term "pre-supposed" is used. Let's focus on the simplest YES or NO topic here instead of jumping back and forth in the other topics. We know that killings caused by religious wars in the ENTIRE HISTORY for DISOBEYING God's command to love your enemies amounted to a very small number compared to killings caused by Atheists (Polpot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc) in just a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN MODERN HISTORY amounted to 124,047,000. Considering these facts, if these people had the teaching LOVE YOUR ENEMIES in their hearts, do you think they would have done these evil things? YES or NO? Yes he's baptized a Catholic but did he stay a Catholic? Did you even read what he said below? the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61 “Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7 Hitler PRETENDED to be a Christian to win the support of his people but he's in fact a closet atheist. Don't TRY to evade the question above. Again YES or NO?
Probably, can't give a definite answer and neither can you but I believe Hitler was evil no matter how many times you told the man to love his neighbors. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove you're right so please tell me again why you're using this point in an argument? If you're asking would he have done it if he truly believed to love his neighbors than the answer is no but that's the same as saying what if Hitler was born in America? You're asking me if I think Hitler would have killed people if he was a good person and religion does not always equal a good person. And again cause you never actually answered me, what was the point of some of you're other arguments? I see you believe you're right about the math section (I'm not arguing that anymore, I tried to put it as simple as possible but somehow you still don't think what I said makes sense) but I'm just so confused what you were trying to prove.
Classic God of gaps arguement, we don't fully understand how we came to be therefore God and it leaves how God came to be unanswered. If the probability of universe happening by itself is improbable then probability of God happening by itself is infinitely improbable.
George George It pretty much is a god of the gaps argument though. We don’t know what kind of life might emerge if the values were different. Ever heard of the puddle analogy?
Its no different to science which argues that if we don't understand it now, we will for sure in the future, leaving any room for alternate explanations. Yes its sort of a god of gaps argument
I dont think you saw the video. It says pretty simply and crystal clear, that as science advances more and more, the concept of the inexistence of God becomes increasingly unlikely. To the point where if God doesnt exist our existence would be a literal miracle and therefore proof of God. Marvelous!
+Galaxy SII Dear friendless troll, Taking Allah, Vishnu and magic Jesus on Faith alone from stories half-educated men wrote long ago is more like stupidity I think. Why you Christians and the many billions of your story believing Hindu and Muslim friends have chosen that wide easy path of just believing tales that comfort you, and give you hope a magic god will save you from the pains and realities of life and death is more like stupidity.
Does science argue for or against God? That is a good question. I would say that science as a whole is neutral, agnostic. However, some parts of science proves that Bible is wrong about some certain things, MANY things, so it definetly not a true word of God. Sure, Earth looks like designed for life. But what about the rest of the universe - why is it so "undesigned" for life and so much bigger than Earth? What about the laws of nature, animals fighting each other and surviving the fitest? And what about the physical laws that doesnt allow us to fly, travel through time, do magic healings and miracles, but doesnt prevent us from killing or harming people? It looks like the real Creator is either not existing, or weak, or stupid, or evil and ignorant and doesnt deserve our belief and worshiping.
Madeline Wendorf well don't, cuz that's what TH-cam wants. Your emotions and you getting a little bit more of a skewed perspective on life. Don't let them win. It's just adolescence manifesting in a opinionated society You win! Not them
Ibraham Lincon Existence is a function of time. God is 'beyond' time = god doesn't exist. You can't have it both ways. Either god exists somewhere in space and time, or god doesn't exist.
I believe that science is just mankind's limited understanding of what God already created and knows. Also, it wouldn't bother me one bit to discover that God has other children on other planets all around the universe.
Man's knowledge is limited, we could do all the science that we want to do but we could never measure up to the ultimate creator. I believe science is a gift and a blessing from God, we use it to improve our lives here on Earth, in medicine, engineering, and other fields of study. God blessed us with a brain that is capable to reason. However, our sinful nature ought to use it in various ways, ironically, it is our desire to hurt others and conduct warfare which really drove science and technology. Nevertheless, the more we know about science, the more it feels as if a pattern and a code was put in place by a creator and personally, the more we do not know about stuff, the more I feel humbled that we simply could not know it all and thus we must rely on our creator more.
@@MisterMcKinney There is a Christian organization called the John Templeton Foundation that did a study on God. They did a 10 year long compressive study with a control group and they had people pray for people with debilitating diseases with one control group not being prayed for, another group being prayed for, and another group being prayed for and being told they were being prayed for. Their conclusion proves that prayer does not work at all. They found that prayer and recovery rate happened at the rate of chance, which means prayer offered no benefit to the people being prayed for. Keep in mind the people who were praying were devout christians who were doing it with good intentions in mind, the foundation themselves did not let them know what they were doing so to not corrupt the intention. Prayer has been scientifically proven by Christians to not be accurate.
@@maryeverett2266 It isn't new. It's pretty common and its been common for a long time. Which is the exact reason why so many scientist are agnostic or atheist and why christianity is on the decline.
Dan Weeks When one says "God is dead," as did famously Nietzsche, one is being metaphorical. God exists in the minds of His believers; God is dead once the last believer stops believing.
Here's the thing, when people make the argument that it was very improbable that life would emerge they are assuming that: 1. The laws of physics could have been different (has anyone proven that this was POSSIBLE? Something being possible, and something being conceivable, are different things.) 2. There was an insignificant chance that our kind of universe would get created (remember, the fact that the parameters allowed for different values, doesn't mean that the values were equally likely to happen). 3. Other combinations of universal laws couldn't have created life, but maybe they could have? Maybe not OUR kind of life, but maybe different? 4. There are no other unknown laws of physics in other universes that could have created life, but how would you know that?
I think your mistaken about the assumption of different physics is incorporated in the argument.. Aside from a few hypothesis like the multi verse idea, must assume physics are a constant and would be the same regardless of development of matter or life. In fact physics are what this argument is based on. With known physical law it seems improbable that all of the necessary components that we have in order today would have ever become ordered in a random process. Unless you're first point was just stated differently than you intended..
Levi Strodtman "must assume physics are a constant and would be the same regardless of development of matter or life." That would still be an ASSUMPTION, wouldn't it?
rationalindian11 my question was regarding your first point.. Are you saying that the author of the video is assuming that the laws of physics would be different or are you saying that making the assumption that the the laws could be different is a reasonable argument against his case?
Levi Strodtman I think Sebastrian Lundh is questioning the premise of the video uploader that the laws will be the same throughout the Universe. As for me, i have NO CLUE as to what a Universe means because i don't know where the Universe begins and where it ends! I have NO POSITION on what a Universe looks like and i do NOT want to assume/presume what it might be like because it is beyond my imagination.
I am an atheist. Lets assume that there is a God. But which "God" should I believe in ? , it is easy to destroy the existence of God by analysing their crap holy books rather than argumenting about the existence of God itself....
You can believe in God and have a relationship with God without being involved in any religion. Religion is the porta-potty of spirituality. If you have ever felt pure love, you have been in the presence of God. God doesn't have his hand in everyone's pocket, he's not handing out awards to his favorites. And you don't need Jesus in order to be in God's presence. You don't need to martyr yourself through suicide to be in a heaven with beautiful women surrounding you. All you need is love.
If you have an infinite number of trials to get something right, no matter how small the chance, you will eventually get that right. Nobody knows how many big bangs there have been and how many have failed
With the evidences of the age of the universe I don't see real problem here. It is not infinite but big enough to nullify meaning of luck and a need of creator
So because the aligning of characteristics to make life are very improbable, there is someone who made all of this, which is supposed to be more probable?
The argument is that statistically is more probable for a Creator to exist than for the basic parameters of the forces of the universe to have gotten their values by chance.
@A Moye For someone who told someone to google Pascal's wager it's funny that you don't know it's fallacious. How do you know you're worshipping the right God? If you only "believe" out of fear of hell then you don't really believe and an all-knowing God will know that. If you believe regardless then the threat of hell is irrelevant.
@@boomkablamo Let me return your question. What are the odds for reality to exist? Isn't it more probable that you are just a floating brain that just exists for the second you read my message and that your memories are just patterns formed for an instant?
Gasp! Is almost like you cant make arguments from your arse, and an argument should have a common logic behind it! Damn atheist, incapable of coming up with their own original, made up, non-consecuent logic
***** "Arguments from your arse" Lol thats literally creationists in a nutshell. "We BELIEVE our feelings are true about this overrated ancient 2000 year old book about God/gods and demons to be true just on pure belief!"
Indeed,science and religiom are totally the same, Like with the big bang, in wich god created the universe in seven days... And evoution, in wich god created all the animals out of thin air...
Fun fact, it was a Belgian Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre who first began the theory that is now popularly known as 'The Big Bang Theory.' He did it before Edward Hubble who later confirmed it. Science and religion, everyone! ^^
David Gilmour A scientific theory is literally proven. Gravity and evolution are both theories too. What you people define as theories are literally just Hypotheses
Guamie Commie If it was proven, it would be a scientific fact. A scientific theory means that they collected enough evidence to guess that this is what pretty much happened.
David Gilmour, the big bang theory is the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe as we see it today. It is very widely accepted by science. Maiya, there is no difference between "scientific theory" and "scientific fact." You clearly don't understand basic science.
I believe science and god go hand in hand. The problem is when people insist that their millennial old interpretation of god, one of the thousands of interpretations, is the correct one beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Note to people in these comments who try to clarify the already crystal clear fine tuning argument this video makes in showing the odds: Just because the dude on screen says, "I don't think so" to a coin flipping heads Quintillions or even a Marioplex (shout out to Matt Pat and Game Theory) number of times does not mean it cannot happen. We are arguing over whether science being unable to explain everything equals God. It doesn't. The fact that we continue to find how unique we are in the cosmos makes NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER as to any being whom is responsible for this occurrence. You are making that claim as theists have before we even knew what stars are. With every discovery, you claim without evidence that it was due to God. With every discovery that explains more detail debunking your previous God explanation, you simply respond, "yeah, this is how God did it." Is it? How do you know? Did you talk to him? Did you watch him do it? Or are you just placing your deity on the shoulders of Science? All are important questions to ask yourself if you want to, *reads pro God comments* "keep an open mind". An open mind does not make claims without evidence, so those of you pushing God into everything because you may have an existential crisis if it's not the case need to confront your fears so you may be objective in the scientific field.
Let me ask you, have you seen any proof whatsoever that he doesn't exist? Have YOU died and seen what's after this? Did you watch the earth magically appear? Every rhetorical question you asked to prove your point can actually be applied to atheism as well. Please explain what you are attempting to disprove with your comment with all due respect.
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam" you should check it, it is a fallacy, it's saying that something it is sure to exist just because there are no proof against it. But even saying that something it is surely to not exist just because there is no proof to it, is considerated "argumentum ad ignorantiam", dogmatic atheism is very good to recognize that logic and scientific fallacy but when it is used as a proof of God existence, but always fail to recognize it when with it people try to disprove something that can not be logically disproven
The reverse is true. Just because a dude on comment section says universe can be created without God also doesn't mean there is no God. In fact, your side also do the same fallacy. With every discovery, you claim your evidence that universe was possible even without the existence of God. In reality, even your side, with the technologies we currently have, also can't explain for sure the creation of the universe. 'But then we'll find it eventually' and when is 'then'? No one knows for sure. 'Universe can't exist on their own, therefore God' and 'We don't know how it's possible but we will someday', both of them can't be proven true right now, so both of them are belief system. 'We will someday' but again, I want the proof right now. But don't worry. It is what it is. For every people in every belief/ideology system, every discovery we found validates our own belief. The narration goes like 'Look, there is this new thing, this must be proof of God/evolution/divine design/whatever'. Because everyone believes in something, and they want those beliefs/ideology to be proven right. That's just how people works. It's okay, and we all have this kind of fallacy.
***** Allah, Zeus, Demons, Big Foot, Miracles, God, Jesus, Aliens, Xenu, Dragons. They all fit in the same unfalseafiable camp of claims that science can't investigate disproving a negative.
+Enid Redden I'm BA-ACK! Xenu is an alien. Sorry, I don't think even aliens could survive the empty coldness of nothing. Nothing is actually less than a vacuum. It's just absence. Can't be Xenu. Goodbye Xenu.
No need to. You've already established that your claim gets special rules and special exceptions to investigation. Can't have a logical conversation who won't evaluate the world without starting with the conclusion first. You said, "You can call Yahweh whatever you want..." and yet that claim has no evidence.
+Bombalurina05 You don't NEED evidence to give an object a name. It's Shakespeare's famous rose quote "A rose, by any other name, would smell just as sweet". God is largely considered both omnipotent and omniscient. Something you suspiciously seemed to have overlooked. The simple fact is that you don't even know what a God is. None of the creatures and "gods" listed are truly both omniscient and omnipotent. In fact, all the creatures listed were neither. The gods listed didn't qualify for either as well. This is a simple case of ignorance: you don't even know what the great I Am is.
If one of the "fine tuned" factors of the universe was off by just a tiny bit, then you're right, our universe wouldn't exist. However, that's not to say any universe couldn't exist. It's just that life as we know it couldn't be the same, if it exists at all. Even then though, there doesn't need to be life for objects to exist.
However, this universe was created, and this one specifically. Without God, there is no possible way to explain why the universe was created the way that it was, and not in some other way. That's what this video is saying, that the universe AS WE KNOW IT has an unfathomably low chance of existing without a God controlling and operating it's creation.
Tyler Roberts who is to say this is the first iteration of the universe? Perhaps due to the incredibly low chance of a universe like this being created, there were other failed universes before this one.
Well, if we are to believe in the big bang, the idea that all matter and all time began in a violent expansion that is still happening today, than it wouldn't make much sense for there to be a universe before the one we exist in today. How could there possibly be matter and time before this universe, if this universe's beginning also is the beginning of all matter and all time?
Tyler Roberts It was just speculation. I'm going off theories different theories that scientists have made over the years. The truth is, we don't know for sure how the universe began. The big bang is just the most supported theory we have so far, thus it is taught in schools. We don't teach creationism because then people would argue about which religion gets it right even more than they already are.
From the video's description: "[The latest science] says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero." Less than zero? Please show me where science has said that.
What’s the possibility for a computer to be created by nothing? Very low. Right? Zero? Human body is much more complicated than a computer. What’s the possibility for us to be created by nothing? Lower than you imagine. Less than zero. If that doesn’t convince you, idk what can.
"Back in the day" your argument was based on the watch. How can there be a watch w/o a watchmaker? But being up to date, modern sophisticates people now prefer to use the computer because it is SO COMPLICATED! But the answer is still the same -The universe is not a machine. APPLES AND ORANGES, RIGHT?/OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES, RIGHT? The analogy fell flat on its face in the 16th century when clocks and watches were on the cutting edge of technology, just as it does today in the wonderful world of MICROSOFT & APPLE. Try to do better next time.
Gary L So... was that you disproving what he said? I mean you still havent explained your view. You stopped at, "a universe is not a machine" well ok thats really easy to disprove. A horse doesnt pop into being. An orange doesnt pop into being. You didnt pop into being. Not one person can pop into being. I mean I could just go on and on...
How can you make a claim from probability when we have a sample size of 1? Why does the absence of scientific proof for the existence of other planets have to imply the existence of god? God of gaps is strong on this one. If it is however determined, who says it is god and not a simulation? You can't disprove god, but that doesn't prove him either.
what do you mean a simulation? and this has nothing to do with other planets it has to do with the incredible complexity of life that points to a designer
Even if it is a "simulation" (stupid theory), there would still be a creator behind it. And behind that simulation creator there might be a God behind their existence. Lol.
The more you 'Think', and live in your mind, the more and more and still yet more do NOT find God-who is your very own True self(not your False self-which has doubts and has to Think)...............there isn't life-you just think there really is-there is absolutely only God.....and He cannot be explained or 'Thought of', that is pointless, that insults Your (His) True intelligence....
I still think life can exist outside what we currently know. Just because we haven't found life beyond our limited reach doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This still does not change my belief that their is a God who created everything. It would be awesome if God spread love of life to many places in the universe instead of just our one grain of sand.
ikr , idk why atheist scientist always think that they are right, even albert einstein dont say god is dont exist, i know tons of scientist that religious, and no they dont play internet, personally tho.. i believe in god trough science
Science never said it is right, science evolves unlike the bible if somthing doesnt work out as its supost to do then science gets altert untill it can fit the practical observations where the bible stil has the same 20000 errors as when it got created science trys to fix itself when it finds a error all the way until there are no errors posible but at that time we literly would have found out how to make our own mini-universe
Look. I'm christian, but I think this video approaches God from wrong angle. Don't use science to explain God. Don't use God to explain science. When you spoke about fine tuning arguement, i viewed it like: there are roughly 10 to 24 planets, so some of them are bound to just happen to fit into those strict criteria for supporting life. That doesn't mean, that God didn't create us, but it also doesn't mean, that he did. Galileo Galilei said: "the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" ps: The School of Life (channel) approached this topic in better way by presenting importance of faith, not by trying to argue for Gods existence. If you truly have faith, you don't need to prove God.
Well, thinking about it, YES! God is beyond any kind of human logic, so to us, he is illogical. My God, which I belive in (Catholic God) is outside logic. I don't even try to understand him rationally. I take the morals of what He teaches us and try to apply them to my normal life in order to be the best person I can. If a different god, set of gods, secular belief or whatever does this for you, then you have found your religion. I'm saying this, because I don't want to impose my God to you, I'm pointing out why He's great.
that's what religion should do but sometime it's not the case religion make rules against human right,and some people do them in order to be the best person they can
+Staremperor If you can live a good life like that, all fine by me I personally want a logical explanation and world view. But if something illogical makes you a better person: keep doing what your doing then.
The people that disliked this were the ones that came here for proof of no God only to be taught that even science is starting to believe in a creator the more they understand these things.
No, the dislikes are because nearly half of this video is full of gross oversimplification, estimates, and simply incorrect facts, along with poor critical thinking.
Is the guy in the video talking about conditions suitable for the terrestrial life, or ANY form of life? Actually we don't know how many forms of life might be out there. Any conditions that are hostile for terrestrial life may be sufficient or even great for some form of extraterrestrial life. Regarding "fine tuning argument". That has been debunked many times. I randomly pick just one of many videos. Copy and watch this /watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY
Dammit. I used to admire and support Prager University videos for their healthy and rational stances on freedom of speech, feminism and so on. And then I stumble across this video making all the old tired fallacious arguments and, pretty much directly, lies about what science says. It took only 45 seconds for this video to make its first fallacious argument (an argument that has been debunked a million times *by science* but which creationists still keep repeating like a mantra, ignoring *science's* objections to it). And it only goes downhill from there. Sigh. And I used to like PragerU videos for being actually rational.
noun, plural oc·til·lions, (as after a numeral) oc·til·lion. a cardinal number represented in the U.S. by 1 followed by 27 zeros, and in Great Britain by 1 followed by 48 zeros. amounting to one octillion in number.
Please explain how three zeros discredits the point? I do not think it does. As for the whole "odds are less than zero" thing, that is a turn of phrase meant to act as a buzzword. I cannot defend that but it is nowhere near enough to discredit the whole video.
I AM COMPLETELY SHOCKED AND SURPRISED BY THIS VIDEO OF PRAGER U. I watched plenty of videos of yours and almost always shared your exact opinion. I thought you are people who pursue facts and science. This video does not represent what science says about the universe and god at all. Dont get me wrong, science does not say there is no god, cause there is no proof of it not existing and vice versa. The problem is you make it sound like science says there is most likely is a god, and you blow out of proportions the data presented in this video. Most astrophysicists would most definitely say this video does NOT represent science. There are plenty of videos of famous physicists talking about the same subject if you are interested in looking it up, and the story they portray is much much different than what you gave. It would of been nice if when talking about a scientific matter, you bring an actual scientist of that subject to talk about it and not an author. Just some of the points that were taking out of proportions- the number you gave of the planets in the universe is only the amount in the OBSERVABLE universe, not the whole actual universe, which is presumably much much much larger. Plus, even though there are many conditions that must be met to have life in a planet, it is not that crazy when it comes to the scale of the universe, and we already know of many planets that meet those criteria. And the amount of planets that we do know their info is not nearly as much there are in the observable universe, we have so much we could still learn because we havent had enough time to do so. ASK THE ABSOLUTE MOST OF ASTROPHYSICISTS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU IT IS UTTERLY STUPID TO THINK WE ARE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE. I am so disappointed in PragerU.
Tal Zysberg So if most astrophysicists say we aren't alone, are they right? Is science based on consensus? Was the earth only round when most scientists thought it was?
4 ปีที่แล้ว +1
How many created things must you see to believe in a creator? How much evidence, how many calculations, how much time? The big questions are, how much time do you have? You can't answer that. Will everyone die? Yes. If there is a God and he has made himself known, will we be held accountable for the lives we lived when we die? Makes sense. We know there is right and wrong. We have laws, punishments, ect. If we are all just a bunch of accidents, what does anything we do matter? Without God, and it's clearly shown in those who don't believe, human life isn't that valuable, even compared to let's say animal life. I'm no scientist but I can look another human in the eyes and know they didn't get here by accident, they are valuable, made in the image of someone amazing, have a purpose, a soul, and a destination. I'm not so afraid that I have to believe in heaven or believe in nothing to cope with death. I look at the universe and know the creator of all this, who holds everything in a perfect balance and loves us, meaning love in its nature is free to choose, giving the option to accept what is plainly in front of us, has something better in store for those who believe and accept with a humble heart. Pride ends in and with the grave. You can keep searching but all you are going to find is more amazing CREATED things and miss the most amazing thing of all, the creator. It would be tragic, for all eternity to think it was so simple and I made it so complicated.
@ Hmm...I think I'd have to see one created thing to believe in a creator. By which I mean, I'd have to see one thing that doesn't have an explanation for how it got here _besides_ a creator. Animals, plants, planets, stars - all of that has an alternative explanation. So show me something that doesn't, and I'll believe in a creator. And no. We don't know there is right and wrong. Human conceptions are all that right and wrong is. We humans fear death and pain. For whatever reason, we have also evolved empathy, which makes feel upset when we see others experiencing things we don't like. Ergo, we decide that death and pain are "wrong", and that things that prevent them are "right". There's no more to it than that. They're not inbuilt parts of the universe, else we would see some kind of evidence for that. But you know what? I understand why you feel the way you do. The universe is a darn scary place. It's frightening, knowing even a small part of the truth of reality. So I won't ask you to stop thinking that way. I'll just ask you to consider the opposite opinion.
@ You too, my friend. And I stand by what I say - this is how religion should be used. It's not a weapon, like so many people make it out to be. It's not even really a worldview - or if it is, it's not a very good one. It's a shield. A shield to protect against the dark, uncaring insanity that is the real universe, against the meaningless, arbitrary cruelty of real life. It's a way to give yourself purpose, to convince yourself that there is a point to all this, that you will be rewarded for all your work. And I can respect someone who'd want that. So good luck to you, and I wish you peace and happiness.
I think that their argument that planets with intelligent life probably don't exist is just invalid. These "parameters" that he mentions are just about Earth specifically, but we should remember that some organisms can survive in the vacuum of space. My point is that some organisms on other planets could be hugely different, since they could have evolved differently, or even forms of life made of different compounds than on Earth. We now know of multiple planets outside of the solar system with the possibility of life, and that life might even exist on Mars, or on some of the gas giant's moons.
and a hole is just the right size for the puddle in it... not too small so that the puddle would spill out not too big that it leaves space for air... how perfectly balanced by the cars rolling over the street.....
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)
If God created the universe with just us humans in it, then he\she\it\they etc wasted a lot of space and materials. I opted out of religion for good a long time ago because I couldn't figure out which god is the real God- there are too many and each has different demands ( how to dress, what to eat, when to pray). So I decided that it's better just to live a good life, be a good person and if there's a god out there judging me, I hope he\she\it\they will appreciate my honesty. You can't fake belief, you either have it or not.
mihutza79 personally I don't really follow religion but I do believe in a higher whatever lol "god" and science equally I don't think one has to be religious to believe in the possibility of something like "god"
mihutza79 I'm not going to force to change your belief, that's your choice and I respect that, However, what if the rest of the infinite (I use infinite loosely) could play a larger role that humanity is yet to discover.
mihutza79 So God wasting material and space is your argument against His existence? God is almighty, He can do whatever He wants. We humans are indeed the only intelligent life form in existence and Earth is the only inhabited planet. God created time and space itself so there is nothing to waste for Him, He has made everything out of nothing. He doesn't have a limited amount of space or material to create things. He created this giant universe around us not to prove His material and space managment issues but to show us His power and for it to be of use to us. The (visible) stars and all other celestial bodies have been indispensable tools for navigation and time measuring since the beginning of humanity. Your other point actually makes sense. If you simply believe in God without knowing what He wants from you, the faith doesn't make any sense. If there is one allmighty, all-knowing and all-loving god, he only makes sense if he reveals his will to us and how we should live it. So for believing in God, it is essential that you also have a divine source of information that you can fully trust. That source of information has to contain rules but also a perfect example of a human life. This source of information is the Bible. It is a very good attitude to want to live a good life and be a good person as you said, but no matter how good you'll be as a human, your goodness can never be enough to save you. You still do bad things, everyone does, and bad things don't get drowned out by good things. For God to accept you, you have to be without sins, and only then your good deeds will be visible. The Bible tells us how God created the world and the human history. It does tell us how to dress, what to eat and to pray. Every other ('holy') book has errors and contradictions, but the Bible in its original form is the absolute truth and even tells us things about the future. But the most important thing, it tells you about Jesus who is the perfect and only example of an errorless life. Not only this, He also died for your sins, so you don't have to do any deeds to get salvation (which is impossible anyway) but only have to ask Him for forgivness and he will accept you.
Ever heard of the anthropic principle? The odds of the universe being as it is might be minuscule, but if it were different, we would not be here to know that the odds are miniscule. There were a lot of coincidences in the emergence of life, but they are dependent on the ones before. So yeah, I still think everything is just a giant series of coincidences.
@@chadwick5080 The coincidences that led to the emergence of life are not independent of each other. It is NOT like tossing a coin ten quintillion times and have heads each time, because the coin doesn't care what it showed the last 9,999,999,999,999,999,999 times (although I think he used the example just to show the order of magnitude the probability lies within). Each coincidence is dependent on the preceding coincidences. This might still look hell of improbable if you where looking at it from the beginning. But we as humans are (for now) at the END of this chain of coincidences, where everything has already happened, and if id didn't, we wouldn't exist. Think about sleeping beauty, but instead of kissing her, the prince would have to roll three yahtzees of sixes in a row. It's highly improbable, but if sleeping beauty awakens, will she be suprised to find three cups with 15 dice showing a six? No, becuase her conciousness is dependent on the prince having succeeded in this highly improbable task.
Omg, I have literally thought this a hundred times and knew that there had to be a name for it, but no matter how many times I tried describing this principle in google search, I could never find a name for it. Anthropic Principle. Much appreciated. I knew this reasoning had to be out there somewhere lol
From what the scientific method has concluded about how the universe came into being, your argument doesn’t hold much weight. It’s like survivor’s bias on a cosmic scale- the fact we exist doesn’t mean that it’s likely that we exist; the coincidences that created our universe are so improbable to happen again if we were to try and recreate it by making a new universe in a test tube [ and scientists have tried ] that we cannot conclude that the eruption of our universe in the big bang was anything less than a miracle. The anthropic principle can’t be applied to the entire universe, because the anthropic principle only applies to objects within the universe itself. What’s outside of our universe likely applies to none of the rules that govern what’s inside our universe. So the odds of our universe forming in the only possible way specifically to support life suggests further that we were intelligently designed.
This argument is self-refuting. It is tantamount to saying that if 10 marksmen who form a firing squad shoot at a condemned man and they all somehow miss, and the condemned man, realising he is still alive, asks in astonishment, 'How was it that they all missed?', the answer is, 'Well, of course they all missed, otherwise you wouldn't be able to ask the question, "How was it that they all missed?" That is not an answer to the question!
"What are the odds that out of all possible planets only ours supports life?" is such a horrible fallacy. It reminds me of that one great tweet: "I'm so glad I wasn't born in Mexico. I don't speak a word of Spanish!"
I don't even really want to read the comments bc I know there is going to be a war down there
Don't care about them.
CuddleWithTrump And you know what son? War never changes.
CuddleWithTrump - keep in mind that all the variety of comments just supports more what we learn in the Bible, how we humans were created with a freewill. If we thought all the same, like the left wants, you might think there was no God!
Yeah its pretty sad, people can't just watch a video about Christianity without getting butthurt
Arthwick Brother what contradicts others believes can make them angry it is normal, we are emotional beings, but what is not normal is the violent attitude that is due to this anger which then makes people say and do stuff they don't usually do, forgive them :), sincerely your Muslim brother
Yo shoutout to my boy Jupiter, thanks for protecting our rock man, stay awesome bro!
you might wanna hear that:
th-cam.com/video/xjjoeBUkuYY/w-d-xo.html
Sorry to tell you buddy but Jupiter didn't catch all of them. Put an F in the for are dinos.
+f
F
@@KILLJOY522 Hey, no planet's perfect!
"We're in the Matrix. Prove me wrong."
My favorite go to strategy when family wants to talk about religion.
Wild Academy How does it go ? I never had this kind of "family talks" ^^
Marc R I convert them to Matrixism and we end the discussion with a prayer to our robot overlords.
Marc R The goal is to get them to explain and make the case for why the Matrix doesn't exist.
In my experience the best way to shake someone of beliefs unsupported by evidence is to get them to first disprove other belief systems using skepticism and critical thinking.
Wild Academy Interesting question - the whole philosophy of epistemology is based upon your question, and has been studied by centuries by the likes of Rene Descartes who started his famous works trying to establish the basis of knowledge by asserting, "I think, therefore I am."
Wild Academy Your favorite strategy is also a logical fallacy, meaning it isn't valid whatsoever in an argument. That logical fallacy is BURDEN OF PROO.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Jupiter, you tha real MVP
Im a more Zeus Guy
No
@@yosoft7695 yes
@@sydn2698 no
No. Idiot. Even Jupiter was designed by God. Come on, use your brain every once in awhile.
"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." -Arthur C. Clark
Sounds like the guy was a paranoid living in fear as his only choice. I don't know. I would chose wonder about both scenarios.
He helped develop communications technologies, even designed the first telecommunications satellite
It is not terrifying that we are not alone unless you believe that beings are inherently evil
@Brian that would be fairly reasonable
Agreed
It seems people in the comments thinks they are more intelligent, than people that had been studying dedicating their lifes for decades in the subject, i really love how in youtube everyone think is right. Just be polite guys, that is the key. The real thing we know is... nothing.
+DigitalBerserk Ever stop to think that some of the people in the comments are part of " people that had been studying dedicating their lifes for decades in the subject" but simply don't share the same opinion as the video?
"i really love how in youtube everyone think is right."
+Vinion Coda Yes precisely, we both are doing the same thing i just posted.
LOL the irony! I love it. You sir deserve a cookie.
Vinion Coda Yeah the real thing is we dont know nothing.
whatdahfukkz Exactly.
"I don't get it and it doesn't seem likely. Must be God."
007VitaminD
Looooool Nice
PBGellie Atheism: "I also don't get it and it doesn't seem likely. Must not be God."
007VitaminD well actually, it's more "there's probably a reason behind this, but our scientific knowledge isn't to that point yet. Maybe we will know one day".
PBGellie But to be fair, at this stage in the timeline of history +007VitaminD is completely right, the two of you are simply giving binary arguments, neither has provided any true evidence. Until this scientific knowledge that you are relying on surfaces, both stances are equally hopeless - I think the problem here is the fact that you're trying to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.
Science never sought to answer the question of God, and atheism, just like theism is a belief (the absence of a belief, that one has given thought to is still a belief). Perhaps one day; we will stumble upon the answer of how the universe came to be, in exquisite detail, but for now; these answers don't exist! So you'd be wise to avoid wasting your time arguing a hopeless stance!
PBGellie It's not about accepting God as the explanation, it's about acknowledging that science doesn't know enough to rule God out of the equation just yet.
That is a leap of logic
There are many many many reason why supporting life is soo hard and rare to happen
But there millions of planets so even if the odds are 0.00000001% there will always be a single planet that will beat those odds. And remember there are hundreds of religions which means the chances of yours being right is also low. And just because the chances are low for life to exist you seen to forget the fact that it took millions of years for life to even be born and other couple millions years for human to exist. This took time lots of it. So in that time frame life could of happened. Also this video was just a video saying how low the odds were but no evidence that a god even exists or any of the contradictions and complexities that can have to the world we live in
it took billions of years after life appeared for humans to appear. get it right.
It took billions of years for any life more complex than single celled organisms to appear let alone humans.
@Lily Yu you are just flat out lying about everything. that document doesn't say that. we have observed speciation.just because you have your head in the sand and don't know this doesn't mean it is not there. you need to learn what evolution is, a fact and how it works. nobody, but stupid creatards, says that there should be half formed animals. you are a moron.
where do people get the idea that there is a chance of life to happen? life does not just appear out of nothingness
nobody just picks a "religion" and hopes its the right one. religion is not the lottery.
This is, at best, an argument from ignorance.
"We don't get it, must've been god"
+Siddiq Ismail dude, it's very simple. The argument is that not believing in a Creator is as much a faith statement than saying that there is. Of course in the end there might not be a Creator, but that belief is not more rational than the opposite. You atheist are so self-absorbed that you can't even hear to reasons, and you end up sounding like stubborn supersticious waks.
RinaldoDegliAlbizzi How? You contradicted yourself, you said not believing is as much a faith statement as believing, yet you say that believing is more rational? The whole concept of faith is irrational, as it is essentially believing without being given proof.
I'm not self-absorbed, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Tell me ONE thing in this universe that points to the existence of a sentient power/creator. You'll find none.
And remember, something that can't be explained doesn't currently doesn't mean "GOD DID IT". We thought Gods and spirits made waves, then we realized it was the moon.
Point me to irrefutable evidence that God exist, not something you don't know.
+Siddiq Ismail so do you believe in the big bang
+Obi Reid Kenobi Yes, because unlike the god Prager stupidly preaches about, there's proof for it.
+Siddiq Ismail so then tell me where the first speck of matter came from, is there proof? the universe had to start from somewhere
*Loads Beretta and picks up flashlight* "I'm going into the comments section, if I don't come out, tell my girlfriend I love her."
Dinodogdude 209 RIP Because I brought an ar-15
Godspeed brother
*presents Remington 870 and crucifix* you might need this.
You're going to tell her that *Grabs Minigun*
all I got is an AK to protect me
Flip that coin for an infinite amount of time and suddenly that instance of being heads One Quintilian times in a row is almost guarantied to happen at some point. As for fine tuning the universe, in infinite time and space all possible settings will eventually happen, and we would only know of the specific settings that we exist in. There could be settings better for life in the universe, but we just happen to exist at this point in space and time. We can't know how many other possibilities have happened or will happen.
+samtheweebo That's exactly what I was thinking.
Have you heard of 'The Bubble Theory'? It is where it is speculated that there are separate realities within the universe. These realities are either so far apart we can't ever hope to reach them, or they are in another dimension. In fact, given the infinite amount of time and space within the universe, there is the immense possibility that there are parallel universes to our own. With never-ending time, you can almost guarantee that there will be never-ending worlds, with never-ending realities. Many of these theoretical realities can even contain multiple 'you's' or 'me's' or 'us's', where we make different choices. And with the infinite amount of choices people are given in life, you can be sure there are infinite outcomes to everyone's life.
Just let that blow your mind for a little...
yup, the thing is with infinite time and space anything that is possible will happen. The question is what is possible? We don't know. Maybe our big bang and universe is the only possible thing, or maybe infinite universes are possible.
Space and time are not infinite according to "modern" cosmology itself. Then what are you claiming?
Default User94
Well that's within our universe. Who knows if there is an "outside" of our universe or a cyclical system of the universe starting over. All we can ever know is what we can detect and infer. We can detect that space as we know it expanded out of nothing. But we have no way of knowing what was there before, or even if there was anything before. Was time something that was functioning before the universe began? Will time still function after the heat death of our universe? Will a heat dead universe eventually start over? All questions that are likely impossible to know the answers to.
The fallacy of this argument is that it assumes that time and space is infinite, and that there are infinite multiverses. If it can make those assumptions, then I can make the assumption that god exists therefore making this argument worthless to disprove him. And if you concede that there is no evidence that time and space is infinite, and that there is no evidence that there are infinite multiverses, then the math still stands.
As a scientist, people always ask me how I can believe in God and this is pretty much what I attempt to articulate.
What branch of science are you a part of?
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an Atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg
@@TheBooBomber609 , I am a chemist.
I think being a scientist makes it even more difficult to deny the obvious evidences that surround all of us that we were intelligently made. Here is a list of the greatest mental giants of science: Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Boyle, Faraday, Bernoulli, Euler, Mendel, Kelvin, Arrhenius, Milankovitch, Mendeleev, Lorentz, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, and von Neumann.
Their names arr irrelevant. What evidence did thry have?
The smarter we become, the more we realize how utterly stupid we are.
Whooooa, whoa. Hold on, there. SOME people realize how stupid they are - and they are the blessed few. Most I meet these days can't get over how smart they are and how much they've figured out from reading HuffPost science articles.
@@mrpankau I agree. I read one once, and I became woke af
The more you know the less you realize you know.
Religion means "bound up beliefs" . The more we think we know , the more religious we get.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
Proverbs 3:5
It wasn't until a week or so after I was born again , that I realized the Bible is actually Holy. God spoke to me so much in that first week . He still does.
Science has it's place , it is good to question everything . But when you know Jesus is the Holy and Righteous One , your spiritual hearing is opened up. ❤️✝️
Amen! @Jon the Baptist. Grace and Peace to Each of you who can see just how small we are in comparison to how Great Our Heavenly Father is. Much Love Everyone,
- Shalom
Dude, all these factors have to be fulfilled for us to think about our origin. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
If these odds were not fulfilled on earth but on another planet, the species there would ask itself the same kind of questions.
Doktor Thomas Stey Yep
What're the chances of any other planet having the same results
The first half of the video is weak, because there are a billion other planets in the galaxy. However, the second part of the video talks about the fine-tuned universe, which is much more solid argument because we only know of one universe and literally the only evidence we have that there are multiple universes is that it allows us to doubt the existence of God.
@@Dennis-nc3vw both parts are equally weak
@@Dennis-nc3vw That is demonstrably false. The multiverse model is based on an equation, not because 'our universe sustains life'. Erwin Schrodinger, who came up with it, believed in god or gods, I'm not entirely sure myself, he described science as an approach to the 'godhead'. Besides, 99.99% of the observable universe does not have life so it doesnt seem very fine tuned.
Which God?
somuchfortalent God is one because He is Eternal, you can't use plural on something infinite. Which Nothingness?
Lot of assertions without evidence. Try again.
Step 1: Prove "He"
He is referring to the Judeo-Christian God of the Hebrew Scriptures and Bible.
somuchfortalent Step 0: Define what evidence you will accept for successful completion of Step 1.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you want "empirical evidence" but since all empirical systems are based on your body's sensory systems for verification and those systems cannot themselves be verified by empirical means, I don't know how you will successfully define Step 0 using any empirical argument.
If you weren't going there then please ignore.
And how does he conclude that is the correct God?
the creator of the big bang theory was a belgium priest
So that discredits the Big Bang Theory I guess if it comes from a Belgian priest. Even if they can pinpoint when and where it occurred in space. And time.
@Master Dav
Doesn't matter who created it or who coined it the point is they used it to infer that there is no God and to try to discredit the Bible by using different words to describe the creation event.
Yes. He was Fr. Lemaître...
The Big Bang theory has been debunked.
@Projal Paul Thekkanath I'm afraid scientists will disagree with you.
This, I agree with. The more I study physics and astronomy, the more I find the more belieavable and sensible alternative to be the existence of a Creator, rather than dumb luck perfectly meeting inconcievably small odds.
+MordredMS Tell me what was god doing before creating the universe, was he thinking of creating one.. what the hell took him so long that our universe is only 14.5 billions years old..and dont the god think were do my ass come from and its awesome for him but why the hell i got so much power and shit to magically appear any thing he want..and why the hell he want to do things if he is not a physical being... so my question is were is god now what the hell is he doing and how the god popped out of nothing with all the magical powers that he even dont know how it happened..
+saurav budathoki First of all, please watch your grammar and orthography, I had to re-read your comment half a dozen times to understand what you said. The third person singular form is still «doesn't», if things haven't changed recently.
Secondly... well, those are all good questions. Perhaps this deity did create other universes before, and it's all just them playing Terraria; perhaps what we call nature and "universe" is merely a small part of a larger physical universe, in which this creator is a physical being that is part of nature itself; perhaps, as St. Augustine famously said centuries ago, it is nonsense to talk about a time before God created the universe, as before that point there was no concept of time, maybe not even time itself; heck, perhaps this deity or deities are above time and can be in and/or see all time at once, like Chzo in the Chzo Mythos series; perhaps this deity or deities didn't actually create the universe but were born WITH the universe as natural entities and simply directed its course a certain way.
What I'm trying to say is, I don't know and there is no way, for the time being, for any human to know. We're talking about things fat beyond our reach, on which we may only talk hypothetically. There are a huge number of possible scenarios. But here's my point: none of this invalidates religion. Any religion. The striking similarities among so many of them, even very far away from each other, to me is a sign that there is an underlying common ground of truth upon which many different interpretations are built.
That's why, to me, the only position for a truly rational man to take is agnosticism, besides which any person can have their own idea. «I don't know for sure, but I think...». To me, someone who is so sure of their atheism that they believe all religious people are ignorant and stupid has the exact same arrogance of the most fervent believers.
+MordredMS Perhaps study math, hit me up when you finish a course on probability.
+MordredMS
It's called probability, a concept you should learn if these are subjects you intend to study.
You need to consider the fact that while there is an infinitesmall chance of a state occurring there must be some state. if the states were not this way you wouldn't be here to observe them. you simply can't observe any other state cause if another state existed you can't exist. it appears to be fine tuned cause you are only exposed to one possible state.
Intelligent design is not science, and it can never be. If anything, this is an argument from ignorance. Trying to use the science of "unknowns" to assert a deity. Shame that, as it puts your deity into an ever smaller and smaller box.
***** "We have no direct evidence of God, therefore there must be no God?" You can say the same thing about anything fictional, the major difference is that theists endeavor to avoid specifically defining a deity so that they may move the goalpost.
" How is that not an appeal to ignorance?" It doesn't rely on a methodology from ignorance, it relies on what we know. Skepticism is always the default position. Without a rational basis for an assertion there is no reason to follow the assertion any farther, it would be a waste of resources. In this case, an unknown is an unknown, we ignore that which we have no data for, until there is supporting data that forms a predictive model. We use deductive reasoning to determine these things.
***** "When you really get right down to it, skepticism is a position of faith, when it is as you indicate the denial of all things that can't be proven." You are confusing faith (gullibility) with skepticism (a foundational ethic that all science relies upon, and in turn brings us results 100% of the time). We are not out to prove anything (unless you are interested in talking about mathematics). We evidence predictive models through use of a methodology. The same methodology that has brought you the internet, space travel, cures for diseases, and such. It's a reliable way to determine reality and build upon knowledge through predictive modeling.
***** " what is logical about denying what you have no evidence for?" Do you beLIEve in Heryshaf, Ahura, Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Damballa, Mbombo, Nanabozho, or Obatala, or do you deny their existence based only on the word of your own storybook *that never mentions any of them by name?* You see, you might as well beLIEve everything, from unicorns, pixies, and egg laying rabbits, if you just accept anything that doesn't have sufficient evidence to support it. Is that what you do?
***** Actually, your methodology is precisely:
Accept what you have no evidence for.
Seeing as you have no evidence for what you have never heard of or think might be fictitious, you must follow your methodology and accept them all. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.
***** How is that a strawman? You stated "what is logical about denying what you have no evidence for?". That directly states that it is logical within your methodology to accept everything not evidenced.
" My point is that deductive logic isn't at play with either position, therefore both positions are based on faith." Faith is gullibility. This is hardly the case when evaluating assertions that lack qualitative demonstrable evidence. Thus skepticism is our guide.
Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
Gary Gray Not really though, an atheist is bread that believes science was the baker and the chemical reactions in the oven and yeast causes them to RISE
Audrey Tompkins I have a brother that's a devout atheist and I know that the reason is is that he just doesn't like the idea of some day having to be accountable to some higher being. Too many "unmentionables" in his life. I don't think that applies to all atheists but I haven't known enough of them to be able to say.
Gary Gray shit I responded to the wrong comment lmao sorry. Yeah I get what you’re saying
Audrey Tompkins No worries :)
+Gary Gray
No such thing as a devout atheist. It's just Atheist or Anti-Theist.
Secondly, you assume that there's a higher being to start with. Atheists are not convinced because there is no evidence of said higher being.
Lastly, you say 'unmentionables'. Let's call them what you or theists call them: sins. According to your bible and doctrine, a sinner will go to hell if he does not ask forgiveness. Infinite punishment for a finite crime. Do you believe that this is in God's character to put eternal torture for something as trivial as not believing in him?
Given enough time, anything and everything can happen. We don’t know how long it took for the universe to be created, so even if the chances were one-quintillionth of a quintillionth of a percent, given enough time the universe was guaranteed to exist.
The same is true for planets with intelligent life on them. Last time I checked, we didn’t know the size of the entire universe. The entirety of the unknown sections could have intelligent life in them for all we know, but even if that isn’t the case, at least 1 planet meeting the criteria for it is guaranteed given enough time. It just seems impossible because we’re comparing the amount of time required to our human time. The universe doesn’t run on human time, it runs on universe time, so applying human time to it to try and explain things that require universe time is just illogical. It would be like saying that a 3 year old lion is still just a harmless toddler because 3 years of human time is a toddler. In actuality, 3 years of lion time is enough for that lion to overpower a human, kill them, and then eat them.
You're almost totally right man. I have no idea why people don't understand such basic concepts. The only reason i said almost right is that we do have a pretty good idea of the age of the universe. That's because from our observations, everything started from the big bang. We can see stuff all flying outward from the center and after looking at their speed, we can estimate how long it has been since the initial explosion that was the birth of the universe as we know it. What happened before that? No idea. Was time itself created during the big bang? Hell if I know.
Also, the probability of life developing in an earth like planet is pretty high. Most people don't understand the phenomena, but basically, under the right conditions, the natural trajectory would be for life to be created.
It all has to do with how probability works. To kind of put it in perspective, here's an example:
Lets think about a grocery store. They only have parking lots that can only fit a limited amount of people. This is not a problem because people come throughout the day, and the parking lot usually doesn't go over capacity. But if everyone happened to decide to go to the grocery store at the same exact time, there would be WAY too many cars for the lot to handle. But this is so unlikely, it's pretty much impossible, but there is still a chance it can happen.
Well, this is pretty common sense right? The thing is, most people think that life existing is like the chance of everyone going to the store at the same time, except the odds of basically an infinite number of people all deciding to go to the store at the same time.
This assumption is where the error is. The amazing thing about life and how evolution works is that if certain conditions come together, probability prefers the development of life. To demonstrate this, let me take you on another little thought experiment.
Do you know those little coin donation funnels that you sometimes see in stores? (I don't know if they're still around, but I used to see them when i was a kid.) If you don't, just look it up. Basically, we can represent evolution of life with this. Lets represent every planet in the universe as a 1 mile wide circle. Now, this circle has a surface that has a randomized shape. And lets represent the change of having life on a planet as randomly dropping a coin on the outer edge of the circle and having it END UP within 1 foot of the center. (crazy low odds. We're randomly dropping a coin on the edge of this huge circle. The odds of getting a coin to the center are almost impossible)
Now, some surfaces of the circles might look like a single mountain. Some might look like a bunch of little islands. Some like a series of sand dunes. When we go through enough circles with these different surface shapes, we'll eventually get to one with a funnel shape like the coin donation funnels with the center of the funnel in the middle of the circle. Earth is one of these planets. When we roll the on earth, it ends up in the center.
Bingo. This super long and kinda convoluted analogy is kinda how probability of life works. The surface shape is a representation of the factors that make a planet support life. Why does the funnel make sense? That's a much more complicated discussion but basically, because the nature of evolution is towards the spontaneous manifestation of life. I would recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins if you want to learn about this. There's an awesome audiobook version if you don't wanna read it, but it shows you how given the right conditions, the course of nature will result in the spontaneous manifestation of ever complex replicating units. These replicators went from replicating molecules to clumps of molecules to nested molecules to primitive cells and then to multicellular clumps and eventually, after a long road, complicated animals. This was all with the coin rolling down the funnel. A direction that is preferred by probability.
I hope this was remotely helpful. I know it was very crude and kinda nonsensical but one can hope. D:
ur argument need faith to justify. and it can’t be tested in lab or falsifiable. therefore it’s not sciences.
@@samuel08790 No, therefore it's irrational.
@staticlion99 ur argument need faith to justify. and it can’t be tested in lab or falsifiable. therefore it’s not sciences.
@@samuel08790 well, its a basic concept in mathematics, and mathematics is not like natural or social science, its doesnt have to be proven in lab or by experimences.
Why would God create Jupiter to pull asteroids away from earth? Why wouldn't he just not create asteroids?
Because you've been duped by NASA. There's no such a phenomena.
to trick people. god is an asshole like that.
+type moon he would be if he existed
+Galaxy Uh... People have been observing asteroids since before NASA even existed.
+Michael Hurwitz Yes he does, he knows God didn't make it. He's a lot smarter than you.
OMG, this deck of cards in my hand must have been intelligently designed, the chances that all the cards are arranged the way they are is 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000. You think that happened on ACCIDENT? It's proof that my God, The Flying Spagetti Monster, put this deck of cards here. There is literally no other way it could have possibly happened! Please science, you think you're so smart, try to explain it. Oh, thats right. YOU CAN'T! #HeLives
no you can't
But those cards were created by humans or machines programmed by humans, weren't they? Where exactly were you trying to go with that poorly back-firing example of yours? lol
+Adrian Mata I refuse to listen to your logic! I have faith!
Don't listen to me, listen to Michael Hill. His logic and illustrations are impeccable lol
For it to be a joke there has to be irony in it. This was really nothing more than a pathetic insult. But most evolutionist aren't very smart to figure that out, so they just go with the flow and pretend "they get it". The joke is really on them lol
How this is proof of God exists?
The point is that everything is far to perfect to just be a random product. Way to perfect to not be created.
Pretty much the same reason of why I am an agnostic.
@@midlifecl How exactly is everything "far [too] perfect?"
@@midlifecl Well, perhaps things aren't too perfect and you prefer the argument of god because it requires less effort.
@@lamestudiosinc418 in what way is it less effort? I would argue the reverse. It takes a lot of effort to remain loyal to God in a rapidly increasing Godless world. I for one believe both God and Science are interchangeable, and as silly as it might seem I like to use the quote for the film Thor - "Magic is just science we don't understand".
What we can explain is amazing. Science has taught us so much. But there is yet more to discover than we can ever fathom.
If material and time are infinite, there would be infinitely many "universes" and "big bangs". No matter how infinitesimal the odds of fine-tuning are, as long as it is non-zero (and we know it *is* non-zero because of our *own* existence), there will be infinitely many intelligent lives.
I don't understand this "oooooh look the number is sooooo small" argument.
yeah exactly, infinity sorts all the odds out
I'm skeptical of the multiverse theory since it's as unobservable and untestable as God's existence, but there are other good ways to argue against the "fine tuning" argument. There is also no way of knowing whether the constants the universe is likely or unlikely to come into existence, since there has only ever been one universe. So technically, the chances of the universe existing is 100%. It's also important to remember that true chance doesn't exist. Assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry were constant from before the Big Bang to now, the Big Bang had a 100% chance of happening the way it did, since all motion is predictable. Taking the dice example, on a surface level, it does certainly seem like the dice has a possibility of landing on multiple different numbers. However, if someone knew what the force of the throw would be, the original position of the dice, the surface texture of the ground, the force of the wind, as well as the mathematical equations of gravity and force, they could always predict which number the dice will land on.
@@maryeverett2266 the problem here is "assuming the laws of physics and chemistry are constant". How do you assume that? Each passing decade we learn more about how our knowledge of physics are limited around blackholes and many of our known "rules" don't exactly apply there. What about quantum physics that we mostly can only theorize about?
The idea that the laws were constant as we know TODAY before the formation of our current universe requires a huge leap of faith based on the evidence that they already aren't constant in our observable spectrum. That's why the odds of it's formation get increasingly lower the more we learn about the universe.
@@WARPDANCE Your claim that there is no good evidence to suggest the laws of physics and chemistry were constant to today’s before the Big Bang is insightful, but the follow up you made to that seems to be the opposite of what such a claim suggests. If the laws of reality were different before the Big Bang, there would be no way to know whether the Big Bang was probable or not. There wouldn’t even be a way to know that probability existed at that time. We would literally just have no information to go off of to make any claims at all about what made the Big Bang happen. I don’t understand why you think the laws of reality being different before means the odds of the Big Bang’s formation “get increasingly lower.”
You are assuming that, given enough time, even the rarest of events will ultimately repeat themselves an infinite number of times. Can't agree with that. It would still be theoretically possible for an infinitely rare event to happen only once, no matter how many years are involved. Other events will never occur at all. I don't care how many years you wait, if you place a rock on display somewhere, it will never ultimately transform into a living thing. Never. Never ever. Therefore, to theorize infinitely many "big bangs" is quite a stretch.
Dear, oh dear. Because we don't understand the universe, we'll believe in gods instead. No, we don't understand everything, but that is no excuse for superstition.
+Robert Brynin Well, we know that the universe had a beginning. The first uncaused first cause is what many call god. Call it what you may but a cause outside of time, matter, and space had to start the universe because these things came into existence all at the same time. Something had to be the start. I think many call this god.
+Matt Cali Many great thinkers, most notably & consistently Einstein, resisted the "Big Bang" theory because it had "religious overtones". It's very interesting that now people point to it as counting God out. I guess it's all in how you look at things. For instance, I look at all of the Hubble images & am moved, and makes me believe in God more, because of the greatness. I also love science because it's given us that opportunity to see them. It's very interesting that with science(though we do give ourselves much too much credit in that regard), we still haven't disproved the existence of God. If that day comes, I will have no choice but to agree.
I really like what you've said, there's a certain force, and many refer to this as God. I've felt the same. I don't think of God as "an old man in the sky", as I think that could be too much projection on our part, as humans. ;) Just the vastness & greatness of space alone is enough for me to admire whatever is behind its existence.
+Jaseeka Rawr Untill it's PROVEN that there is no invisible wizard standing behind me I WILL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE SO!
+Nerdy Nachos That's not at all an apt analogy.
+Jaseeka Rawr Explain to me how it is different from your belief.
It doesn't matter what the odds are because they were evidently good enough for the universe to be created as it is at least once.
Anthropic principle 👍
+Samuel Andrychowski True, but which side do you think is believable? It has to be either God or odds.
+Ali Can Metan Love it lol
"Created as it is at least once" created by what? More like popped into existence for no reason with no cause. Idk sounds sketchy to me but believe what you will.
+Joel HK
What are the odds of God, though?
In the description it says "the odds are less than zero"
Edit: It seems my remark sparked quite the discussion which is not a bad thing in of itself. I didn't mean to disregard the ideas presented in the video in any way but I formulated the comment poorly. I apologize.
Lol. Nice catch
It should be the odds are less than 0.0000000000000000001 But anyways great video
it's an expression chill lol
@@Wolfman5678 You don't know what the odds are, don't play pretend.
The odds are no chance.
_For two cents, you should get change. Belief is not required where there is evidence. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is ALWAYS provisional. As additional evidence comes to light that supports that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. One's 'belief' is not part of that process. Belief is required where there is NO evidence. That is why religions are called belief systems. Beliefs exist in the human mind, they do not manifest themselves as evidence of any sort. Most of the 'information' one receives in life is OPINION, not fact. That is what religions are; opinions. They are opinions for which people kill in order to prove their opinion to be the correct one. This is NOT rational thought. Belief is an idea that neither seeks nor requires verifiable evidence. "A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind."_
- Robert Oxton Bolton
good show me evidence that god does not exist - you cannot have it both ways - ignorant atheist make me laugh - by the way NEWTON believed in god - but of course he was just a genius hahaha
@@studiobencivengamarcusbenc5272
I think Newton, like many, was a deist, not a theist or atheist.
Science has nothing to say about God because there is no empirical evidence. At the same time it has to allow for the possibility as one possible theory. Atheism is therefore illogical. A suspension of belief, an agnostic position, is a far more reasonable approach than atheism.
I love the quote, as someone who believes in God in my opinion it is important to reject religion as it slows down scientific progress which can help us reveal the force behind our existence.
Random Ness the major flaw with this quote is that evidence requires interpretation. It requires opinion. I am a scientist, the evidence in my experiments do not tell me truth, I must interpret the data to find the truth. Interpretation at any level is subjective. This is why many scientific “truths” have later been proven to be false. They required human opinion which is flawed. Quoting a philosophers logic, is a belief in the philosophical opinion. Things don’t magically appear to be true. You chose it. Truth requires opinion or choice. Every human on the planet has had error in interpretation, whether acknowledged or not.
*_Does science argue for or against god?_*
Which god? If you are talking about the Christian god, then you've got a heavy burden to meet.
- Talking snakes
- Talking donkeys
- Women coming from ribs
- Men living inside of giant fish for days
- Etc.
Oh, let me guess, your god isn't bound by the laws of nature. How wonderfully convenient!
LOL
Well, I guess we'll start from the basis of your argument, which hypothetically suggests the existence of God. If God created the universe, then would he not have also created the laws of nature?
Also, if we're using the Jewish/Christian God, doesn't the Bible say he's all-powerful?
Then who created god or is god just eternal? And if you believe eternity is a real concept then couldn't the universe be eternal? There are multiple theories about how it started including the big crunch theory. It goes like this:
Big bang happens> stars begin to slow down at a point> Gravity takes over and starts to pull them back>Black holes consume the universe>black holes mix due to others gravity>Hyper dense singularity explodes and another big bang happens. Also we don't know what the universe is expanding into and scientists believe it could be a multiverse or the theory I just described.
Why would a God that created everything be bound by the nature he created? ....I'll pray for you....
Have you ever heard of figurative language? You should look into it I think it's very interesting. : )
There is also a DEFENING SILINCE FROM GOD
+ds5221 That's why it's called faith. We have faith he exists, even if there's no evidence.
+Manu Perez And Muslims have faith that Allah exists, and Romans had faith that their gods existed, and Greeks their gods, and so on. What makes you naivety - I mean faith, any different?
James Loftus I didn't say it was any different. Nowhere in my comment did I even imply that it was different and special.
+Manu Perez I know, and I'm telling you why I think that faith is stupid.
James Loftus Why is it stupid then? I saw nothing in your comment explaining this belief of yours.
"could every one of those perfect parameters been met by accident?"
yes, they could have, you said yourself there are an estimated 1x10^23 planets in the universe, it's not crazy to think that at least one of that seemingly infinite number of planets has the 200 requirements needed for carbon based life.
and that's another thing, who said life on another planet has to be carbon based? who said other life has to necessarily be like ours? who's to say another planet doesn't have say, berillium based life?
and as for all of those ratio's that were determined to have been made at the start of the big bang, who's to say changing them would have made the universe not exist? what if it just existed with different laws? if whatever insane creatures that might have existed in that universe tried to make this same argument, we would know it's invalid because chance just made it so that the requirements for their universe came about instead of the ones for ours.
can I ask you a Question ?
Look at the human body ....it is the most detailed and complicated creature design ever. with it's detailed shape and parts that work together in a very organized way
and aaaallll of this detail happened by....coincidence ? ..k
Lauren Daniel The human body is full of flaws as well. The eyes have a blind spot, and aren’t necessarily the most efficient, yet they were good enough for humans to work with them. Why would god create a body with such flaws? Going onward, why would god cause illness and cancer? So the things he created could suffer?
@@laurendaniel1912 The human body is not a good design. A good design is not unnecessarily complicated for its purpose. To say that God designed us in this imperfect way just because he wanted and that bad design is still design is just special pleading.
@@laurendaniel1912 We have very weak bodies with very few natural defenses against the many larger and far deadlier predators on earth. Our respiratory systems are beyond crude and rudimentary, perhaps the most vulnerable appendage on the male sits outside the protection of our skeletons, we ave vestigial orgasms that while useful certainly do not function as they once did in our evolutionary past. We are flawed in every sense of the word, and we show clear signs that we are the product of evolution uses what is best available to us, not what is most ideal or "perfect" as a god would surely provide for us.
I need my own personal Jupiter to sail through this life 😄😄
god
Jesus is
Amen 🤣
Popcorn doesn’t exist.
*grabs god*
Then explain this emoji 🍿. Checkmate (this comment was made from 🍿gang)
@@ba3b that's God. 🍿 Is God, and he is more powerful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Subtexto O'Politan I don’t find that very respectful as a pastafarian. 🍝 long live linguini!
@Fake as Fade thank you for your comment. Keep it up!
Gangrel mind blown.
If you make an infinite number of planets, then you'll eventually get one that supports life (by chance). If you make an infinite number of universes, at least one will end up similar to ours. We just have a 100% chance of being born on a planet that supports life, in a universe that didn't end up in smithereens.
Tae Lim Kook You got it in one, congrats on being smart!
Tae Lim Kook But here is the problem of the mutliverse theory; it's completely unsupported by scientific evidence. It's something that is highly speculative and honestly from my research seems to be the biproduct of arguments like these which have unavoidable conclusions for a divine creator.
Tae Lim Kook great now show that there are any more universes than the one we inhabit. the only evidence we have to go on with multiverse theory is string theory which is still incomplete.
+Andrew Hoffer Our Earth is but a tiny dot in our solar system, which is but a tiny dot in our Milky Way galaxy, which is but a tiny dot in the known universe which in all probability is just a tiny dot in an even bigger "megaverse".
Tae Lim Kook Life cannot create itself from a chance combination of nonliving chemicals. By the way, there is only 1 universe.
This guy obviously never heard about the anthropic principle. This is by far the most ridiculous video of this channel.
*****
Since when an author and radio host knows science better than a scientist?
*****
Are you really that stupid? He is not a scientist and it is NOT necessary to be a scientist in order to be a professor at university. Stop humiliating yourself and check his education profile.
+Richard Sherman's Face After The Superbowl He talks about science, so he must be a scientist and must have studied the subject. No he is not a scientist and he is doesn't necessarily know what he is talking about., because if you actually did some fact-checking you would know that he is misleading you with the arguments he uses. Prager university is always misleading in their videos.
+Voin Eslaw
So if I have, say, a doctorate in philosophy or English lit I'm a science expert? Just being a professor of _something_ doesn't magically make you an expert on everything, and anyone who goes with long-debunked arguments like this guy can be safely said to not be an expert on the subject in question.
*****
No that's not my logic at all, can you read?
Your logic is "he is a professor so he must be right." You can just come up with arguments and evidence against his statements, so an unbiased video would have adressed this.
im not here to argue im here to read the arguements
For the record I'm Christian and I am also a HUGE fan of Carl Sagan. I obviously don't agree with the atheism aspect of his ideology, but science certainly allows me to appreciate the beauty of creation and the Almighty.
Having said that, I think it's important to note that Carl Sagan used the Drake equation in his Cosmos series in 1980. That equation has been modified by others to include some of the parameters that are in the above video. I think there is a very high probability of life on other planets. Not gray aliens, but perhaps beings that we cannot possibly imagine.
On the other hand I am open to the possibility that we are the only ones in the universe. It's a possibility. If that is the case then millions of years from now humanity will be the ones to venture to the stars and colonize planets and Earth will become a myth. A legend. A place where people came from. Who knows. It's interesting to think about. I'm certainly an optimist and I think human exploration it still in it's infancy and I think God just wants to sit back and watch the show to see what we'll do next.
I, personally, don't like the thought of us being alone in this universe, cause it kinda feels creepy and... well, lonely. I dunno
I have to agree with your second option. I think that we were created by God and that we are the only ones out here. It is up to us, as the first civilization, to expand into the cosmos and then maybe Earth will become a myth. Then again, that may never happen depending on when the end begins...
NightWolfWillis, I find it a little shortsighted, maybe even myopic that we refer to God as the "Almighty" and accept His omniscience, and then limit Him to one world. And I have always found it odd that when people venture far enough to consider beings on other planets, they are "grey aliens" or some other mystical creature. Being created in His image, I think we are about as good as it gets. Yes, the mortal physical body has imperfections and limitations, but those are all temporary and serve a purpose.
NightWolfWillis seems rather selfish to think God would only create a single sentient race in a whole galaxy, let alone the universe. God has the power to bring about entire universes, why would God only stop with one? And it is very likely that God is not even close to how we portray Him, though in our time, we will never know.
Hmmmmmmmm.... let me put my viewpoint this way:
I don't believe God created other intelligent life in this universe. But I'll be dashed if we don't check. And, rather than sitting on the sidelines, I imagine God will empower us to do just that.
We don't understand something, therefore god did it!
Well.. God did everything... so he gets credit for the things you do understand too...
+David Smith God and man are two different things. Matter and God are the same thing. God created us, but he can not control us, but can control our atmosphere. (metamorphically)
Anticipating that we can explain everything about our world and universe is equally appalling behavior I say. Therefore a God could potentially do something that we do not understand, might never know about, and may never be able to explain... what exactly is your point here good sir.
+joe shortt God does have control over us, but he chose to let us have free will
and God is Jesus, or Yahweh, or Allah...
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." ~C. S. Lewis
Love this quote, absolute logic. Looking up the source for further study.
Which god?
@@insightfultoaster2965 Christian God
@@colokolito1 what about other gods? Where do they fit in this world view?
@@insightfultoaster2965 the multiple gods in Polytheism are probably the equivalent of Angels.
Not having an answer doesn't prove "god" exists
Common sense tells us that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there was a Creator. We cannot have a Creation without a Creator. We don't need faith to believe in a Creator. We just need a brain that works!
@@barbthiessen7413 I can't believe people are still blindly following these tired, cliche rebuttals. Simply abysmal. Growing up in a Christian home for 19 years I have heard these supposed 'oh-so-obvious' reasons for God's existence. They're so unbelievably dull. You all want to feel special and you will fight tooth and nail to keep yourself in your bubble. Sad.
@@noahconstable5760 Yes, they are so very obvious! The evolutionists don't come up with anything new, it's the same old tired story.... How NOTHING created everything! They continually search for evidence and find none.... Like the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." What is very sad is that what evolutionists have is "blind faith".
+ *Barb* Creation is 100% logical proof there was a creator, yes, because that's the definition of creation. What hasn't been proved is the assumption that the Universe is a creation in the first place.
Evolution has nothing to do with "nothing creating everything". Science says nothing about "nothing creating everything". Something coming from nothing is an idea exclusive to religion.
@@Demiligne The evolutionists theory is that a bunch of swirling gases and dust met up with a big bang, gravity pulled it all together and formed a spinning ball, we call Earth! Then we evolved from apes, but perhaps since my school days that story has been changed. That's the problem with error taught as truth, it always changes and so yesterday's facts become tomorrow's lies!! God's truth NEVER changes! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen. 1:1
I just came for the toxic comment
Poison.
Mushrooms.
Chlorine gas.
Carbon Monoxide.
Toxic subject too .. someone will kill you over wrong God.
I'd recommend to seek out the comment sections of funny cats video's instead if you want to avoid toxicity.
@@21area21 creativily hilarious
My Bullshit-o-meter is going crazy
just quote a so called "atheist" out of context and you´ve got a god argument :D wow.
i usually enjoy prager u's vids and generally agree with them but this one is too much bs for me to handle, "because its very unlikely it means that god did it *cue my profile picture* "
Alvin Unbekannt Damn bro. You OWNED this video just by saying it's bullshit. Look at all the thumbs up you're getting for your insightful comment.
I know, I am just an examplary gentlemen, who has an astonishing lingustic repertoire and practises perfectly contructive and reasoned criticism.
Alvin Unbekannt You're more than one man? That's awesome.
While they brought up the magnitude of the size of the universe, they forgot to mention that it still perfectly explains how we can come to be. In fact, even if you factor in these parameters, you can still get that there are more than one planet like ours. Plus, this video neglects the idea that life elsewhere can be different than life on Earth.
As far as the universe, you have to take up the magnitude of time (note i'm using time as an analogy). If the multi-verse exists, than it is inevitable that a universe exactly like ours would pop up more than once.
iPhotonQ ok we get it your athirst but the chances of any kind of life are too low, I love science and I have a religion but I'm not all into it but it's nice to lie to yourself once in a while ;)
Jeffrey Muu Actually, I never said I was atheist, that has nothing to do with what I said. The truth doesn't care about my personal beliefs (or non-beliefs).
The chances of life are not that low when you consider the vastness of our Universe. In our Galaxy alone, we've discovered numerous candidate planets that may support (Earth-like) life (but we can't be certain). When people consider the probability for the universe to exist the way it does, they tend to not be considering every possibility.
And there are explanations for why we haven't received any radio signals from any extraterrestrials. Note that I am not necessarily saying that extraterrestrials even exist, but that we can't jump to any conclusions here.
The entire point I am trying to make that it is deeply wrong to draw any conclusions. God may exist, or God may not exist. We don't know. And given our current ignorance when it comes to the universe itself, we can't use the God of the gaps idea.
We are far from knowing everything there is to know.
no matter how you slice it, something created the universe... all estimates of what that was are based on unknowns. These are things that cannot have any probability attached to them. The only thing we can put a probability on are things in this universe. And this universe does not look kindly on the idea of randomly generated life at the moment.
I'm sure you disagree, but the first point in not able to be reasonably refuted by any believer in science at the moment. Therefore, all external possibilities can be justified to some extent.
DeadtomGC Actually, in reality we do not even know that. The truth is that we are too ignorant currently to come to any conclusions.
The problem with the "multi-verse" theory is that it is even more difficult to prove than intelligent design. We have evidence of intelligent design due to the fine-tuning of the universe and the fine-tuning of living organisms. However, there is *no* evidence of a multi-verse, and there can never be, because we are restricted by the natural laws of our universe, therefore any theoretical multi-verse would have a different set of laws and therefore any matter in the two universes cannot interact or exist conceivably in the other. Thus, a multi-verse is beyond the natural laws of our universe, and therefore supernatural, and cannot be reached or proven using science (study of natural laws of the universe). Thus, there is absolutely no way of proving if there are multi-verses, and there is no evidence within our universe to suggest that multi-verses exist, much less their nature. Multi-verse theory is a flight of fancy that is impossible to prove and is another far-fetched narrative used to insist that we're here by coincidence. In fact, it is more of an exercise of blind faith in the supernatural than creationism ever was. We don't know that multiple universes exist, we know that one universe exists, and we know that it appears suspiciously likely that this universe was tailored perfectly to exist and harbour life in a way that a coincidence could not convincingly have created.
Well by his agruements Zeus and Jupiter are just as probable as the christian god he is argueing for.
He didn't even mention Christianity.
@@sirlegrand4427 but he is referring to monotheism ;)
You're right I just assumed it was the judeo-christian god as it's always him that prager U argue for. Also how many other monotheistic gods are there? Allha?
And now you got a problem here. Who created the creator? and who created that creator of that creator?? It can go for infinite possibilities. Also were does God gets resources to create a universe.
but who created the universe?
Remember Jesus But that means that if your claiming God is eternal than that's means the universe could
Be eternal also without a creator.
An object outside of time and space isn't something that has been observed. It's not known how it would behave or what it's properties would be. It's not even known whether it's a valid concept.
Mohammad Butt
My point is, there may be other possibilities. The human idea of creation is not necessarily the best thing to describe the beginning of the universe. Physics doesn't care about what people think is rational. In the past people were surprised many times when they discovered physical laws that seemed to violate logic.
Mohammad Butt
"there is nothing that begins to exist without a cause"
There are many problems with that statement. It is very vague. What does it mean to begin to exist? If I change one part of an object, do I have a new thing that began to exist, or just a rearrangement of old things? What if I change all parts of an object? What is a thing? If I have an apple, that can be a thing. What if I divide it into halves? Do I now have two things? What if I don't divide it? Can I still call half of an apple a thing? Can I call a molecule in that apple a thing? What is a cause? An object, an event, or just the circumstances during the beginning of the thing? Can something have multiple causes?
I am not convinced. Life evolves to it's enviornment, so use of parametars that WE need is pointless.
Physic laws: biological life is supported by some parameters. Except, of course, if we refer to virtual or non ohysical life.
So you are using physics to argue biology? Great job mate, keep it going.
Joseph Ang You need a base for life to start upon, but it is very "broad", the rest is adaption from the life form to the local conditions
Bro a microbe can fall on Venus and still find a way to live there. We only know life in this type. We don't know if there are any other types of life forms. It's redic to try and say "But there are too many planets and too many conditions to be met" because we can see shit of our universe. But whatever.
Mike Minkov The parameters are not set to what "we" need. They are set to what any kind of life whatsoever would need, intelligent or otherwise.
neither. science is just a method. though you do have "scientists" who use science as a basis of metaphysical philosophy based in materialism.
Writing long words doesnt make you smart
He saying that people who use theism or atheism as explanations for the reason why we exist are not suggested by science but in my opinion you can’t assume there is a god because science hasn’t disproven it yet
Lefty Cheddar102, I’d go further and say that it is impossible to disprove God. The only work science can do in the other direction is to display just how unlikely it is that we are here by accident.
@@gingerale2131
"Writing long words doesnt make you smart"
This is pretty much the intellectual level of argument in all Prager's videos from the theistic side.
Astonishing heh?
@@Dr-Curious Science does not deny God -- that's of course a platitude. Even my atheist-materialistic professors of metaphysics and epistemology could tell you that.
Expressions such 4:00 to 4:12 is what self-demolishes the own arguments.
Please, if using sciene, tell the numbers correctly and well referenced by proper citation.
It is not hopeless, just strengthen the evidence. Do not resort to demagoguery.
Well actually you seem to be way too appreciative of the tech that we have at SETI. You can only detect intelligent life forms in the universe if they are emitting an EM wave for you to discover and as you know, EM waves travel at the speed of light (light is an EM wave). There are planets millions of light years away, which means it would take millions of years for EM waves to reach us. There can be planets out there that were formed a million years ago but you still can’t even see it from a telescope because light reflected from the planet is yet to reach you. We have only discovered tech like EM waves in the past couple of centuries. So, if a life form on another planet millions of light years away had invented such tech around the same time, you can imagine how much time is still left before their signals reach us.
PS: Life can also exist in conditions that were previously thought of as not being capable of supporting life, so you never know what kind of life forms you are going to find.
PPS: Scientists are now working on a theory of everything that would explain all those fundamental forces that you mentioned, using quantum mechanics. Maybe other life forms already have that grand unifying theory and are using tech that we cannot detect. It is possible that they skipped the EM tech entirely.
Tldr please?
@@linusschanreitner5825 the video is dishonest
@@lizardbyheart2817 thx m8
I honestly was about to say this but with less explanation. Basically, light years exist.
What about the big bang. The fundamental forces chances of being exact were almost nothing. Might aswell have been. Please explain that.
*Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.* _"I do not know, then it must be god!"_ ಠ_ಠ
Ral Crux Atheist: "I don't see God. Therefore God does not exist?" Well, just read about the story of fatima apparitions, zaitun apparition, and others. These are apparition of the Mother of God. Miracles happened. And Atheist just blindly reject even though evidence shows that they are indeed miracleS. Miracle is one way to prove that God exist.
Michael W Wrong, it is more like _"There is no evidence of god, therefore it's irrational to believe in god."_
All your so called "apparitions" and "miracles" can be explained by the simplest natural phenomena and/or mass delusion.
+Ral Crux Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. "Humans haven't found evidence of a god, therefore there is no god." ಠ_ಠ
KingWorstie Also there isn't evidence of magic, so it must be real too...¬_¬ Obviously you haven't heard of *falsifiability.* And you are changing my words, that is intellectual dishonesty.
By the way, one cannot prove the existence of what doesn't exist, not even its non-existence.
Reason cannot start with a conclusion and try to prove it right, you start with evidence and go wherever it takes you. You are intellectually incompetent, if you think you can get away doing so.
Alvaro Ayque _"i can´t explain the apparitions, it must be mass delusion"_ What you refer to as "apparitions" does have scientific explanations. You are fabricating a *_Strawman Fallacy._*
Everything in the universe has a rational and natural explanation. Any supernatural explanation is irrational from the very start.
Now, even if such _"apparitions"_ had any resemblance to a supernatural manifestation, there is no evidence it was any god at all.
Look, your thing isn't logical reasoning. You cannot grasp the bare basic concepts of the science called *Logic.* And you are committing too many logical fallacies in a single comment.
well, if the rest of the universe is basicly useless for life, why should a god create it? what are the odds that a god would make oktillions of uninhabitable worlds?^^
(i dont stand for one side or the other tough, im an agnostic...)
Some Christians believe that, however that is not everybody. Mormons for example, we believe that there are other planets out there with more children of God on them, or in other words, we believe that there are other humans on other planets. Where do you think people get all those bizarre rumors about Mormons worshiping aliens? All those rumors just come from people taking that one simple piece and saying it's our entire religion. Why there are so many uninhabitable worlds I do not know, and I doubt any of us will be able to answer that correctly until the afterlife. A possibility could be for the very fact of making those odds that the above video speaks of. When one looks at the odds and the chances for things to go wrong for life it is uncomprehendingly high, there are many prophecies of how science will be one of the pillars supporting God in the last days; such chances are likely the beginning of the fulfillment of those prophesies.
With the fine tuning argument being so strong towards having a creator it can be used to get those who are still trying to decide what is truth in their mind to see things in a different light. Allowing them to better decide for themselves. The mere fact of having more ways to bring people to a new understanding could also be a reason for creating the odds mentioned in this video.
the fine tuning argument meets its oponent in the believe that there could be as many different tuned universes as there are planets in our universe. that would mean most if not all other universes fail and we can think about that because we are luckily in that one possibility wich turns out well.
but i admit that the problem with any kind of multiverse theory is that its outside of the scientific realm as long as we are limited to the speed of light as the fastest way to move stuff, energy or information trough space. if the bubble theory would be correct, we would never see other universes because they are too far out and even our own expanses so fast that we could never ever reach its edge.
if other universes are some kind of parallel dfimensions and "here, but not here", we have no clue how or if we can get there to find out how they might look.
for me, the thing that makes me a theistic agnostic is not the fine tuning argument, but it is, that there is something at all.
if we take any mass, energy, stuff that we didn't know about yet of the past, the future and all possible universes, they have one thing in common: they are physical. and every physical thing needs a cause. it may be a probabalistic cause, maybe just a quantum fluctation, but even this is a cause. and this bears the question why there is the logic that there is anything.
problem here is that we just can't say that its a natural/physical cause that follows physical logic (or probabilastic logic), because then its part of "everything that there is".
the source of it all, ofeverything, has to be either a non-physical thing/eintity/pure enternal will to just be, or, 0=1 and all logic ends. either way the source of everything can't be restrained by logic at all. its ultra-free, free from every logic and limits. and if so, it seems kinda possible that there are more universes, or even things we can't even imagine. via logical reasoning this showed me that there is a part of existence wich jsut can't be logical explained, because the source of all logical/physical stuff can't be logical stuff again, that would basicly mean there was no source at all. and like i said, that would mean all logic ends, because in our physical world everything needs a cause.
me the big bang be a thing, then this may be the link to the non-physical. it may had no physical cause, but another. quantum fluctuation bears still the question of "who or what made this rules?".
if i would have to decide what i thing i believe, than i would say that there was a undefined thing that wanted borders to explore possibilities and basicly things/dreams the entire physical wourld. we are part of this and so we are part of this undefined unity or now plurality. but before anything physical, it might be very empty. no tought, no words, no feelings. just the will to be rather than not to exist. and since logic already ended, itself needs no cause, no time, no before and after. maybe all is what humans what call a tought. trying out things and playing with possibilities by setting besic rules and limits.
on the other handy, maybe its just 0=1, all logic ends by creating rules, energy and stuff out of nothing, nopt even an eternal undefined meh. if there usnt anything that is non-physical, the universe makes no sense at all and if noone experiences it (wich/who is not bounded to be in it), then it would make no difference if it wouldnt be there. but it is there, because stuff is there. we can say its there because we exist and anything exists.
come on hardcore atheists, prove my reasoning wrong.
being an atheist would basicly mean giving up logic at all, 0=1 and A=>A without any cause. no matter how many big bangs you would set before this universe, even infinite big bangs doesnt solve the question of the first cause of everything.
before anone gets started: i dont see this as god in a classical way. with morals and stuff. there just wasn't any need for anything before there where anything (or any need for anything at all). so no moral ideal and history is not written yet (unless something can reverse it to thing/dream the universe again, maybe even all possible outcomes trough. morals and ethics may be just created when we create and shape them, not before. and maybe there are other self-reflecting beings in the physical universe wich are also take part of, well, everything. to get more perspectives of this existence.
I think most atheists are agnostic. No one can prove god's non existence. Dawkins admitted the same. But gods existence can be compared to that of the the tooth fairy unicorns leprechauns etc
I'm not sure if others have answered, but the Bible says the heavens were created for God's glory. It shows just how powerful and wise God is, because it leaves us with awe. Creation reflects God like the moon reflects the sun.
Fighting science and religion is being close minded. Sometimes you can use them together, sometimes you can't. There are things science can't explain and neither religion because of its metaphoric nature.
I'm Catholic and I love science too and there has never ever been a moment in my life where those two things collided in my mind.
Just get your head out of your asses, both sides, and embrace knowledge and culture.
The moment the world's going to be in peace is not when religions disappear (they won't ever, get over it), it will be when we all respect, tolerate and learn from each other.
@Greg Fakerson So, with everything you said, you just proved my point. Science and religion cannot win between each other because they're so different and forcing them to is just senseless. This is not a competition, this is about possibility of adquiring new knowledge (which is what I care) and learning more and more about the world we live in from different points of view (studying other religions you can see how other culture's are).
Religion doesn't care about proving anything because is not science, you yourself said it, so I see no valid reason to separate them in the way atheists tend to do. Religion helps itself with science all the time, theology exists for that reason.
No one has to believe if they don't want to, but looking and expecting science to erase religion won't ever happen; just the basic: science cannot prove God's inexistence such as religion cannot prove his existence. So while there's no way science can deny certain things and religion can't prove them, we're all in a vicious circle.
I follow the example of religious scientists, whose job is to look out for the truth but find space to keep their faith in.
@@fridamoreno4224 Something being different doesn't mean they can't compete. Either science or religion is wrong. From everything that has happened in the past to the present day, it's very obvious that science is winning, if not has won already. The most basic belief in the scientific method is that we examine what exists to come to a conclusion. In summary, evidence before conclusion. Based on this, God doesn't exist. Please don't tell me that you don't believe in the scientific method. It has proven to be extremely effective for figuring out reality for thousands of years. To say that it's wrong is actually insane.
As a fellow Catholic I can relate to this, and I hate how some atheists say that science is incompatible with religion and some Catholics think our religion is incompatible with science. They both fit together.
@@ash_11117 they don’t “fit” it’s just you believe one thing that’s based in the natural world (science) and another that can’t be proved by the natural world and it’s laws (existence of a god). Faith in the supernatural is literally impossible to refute with science, because it’s based on faith.
@@ash_11117 btw, I have no issue with that. You believe what you want, I do the same and we treat eachother with respect.
Science is just the study of gods work?
and it found that god didnt do anything
SAM M Correct.
Zanta 100 Can you give me a solid proof for your statement?
you ask me for evidence of a negative state....
Sedevizo Kielienyü Evidence could be that we have found reasons for things happening, and so can definitely state that God did not do it. For instance, say you find a loaf of bread on the counter. You could say that it was put there by god, but then you find the oven is hot, the bag of flour is lighter, there is some yeast spilled onto the floor, and there is a baking pan in the sink. Yes, you could say that God created the bread and leave it at that, or you could put the pieces together and actually find what happened.
"What are the odds....THEREFORE GOD"
Sums this up pretty well I'd say
The odds are not just very small, but we humans can't even imagine the magnitude of that number, that's why the probability of creation is higher.
And this is only one of the arguments for a created universe.
The odds that it was a magic man in the sky are higher?
How exactly is that?
No, this is a fallacy called the god of the gaps. I don't know, therefore I somehow do know and it was a wizard.
PonzooonTheGreat It's not that I alone or we christians do not know, we all humans have no ideea, and as I said, it's not the only argument, there are plenty evidence that point out (not demonstrate, because ultimately you have to believe) to God. Christianity brings far more credible evidence than any other theory.
It's not a "magic guy" with a "magic wand", it's an all powerfull being. We can not fully understand what that means, but it's easy to speculate that an all knowing all powerful being could easily make the universe possible rather than, chance.
"but it's easy to speculate that an all knowing all powerful being could easily make the universe possible"
It's also easy to speculate that non-intelligent fundamental eternal causes could easily make the universe possible.
This guy is awesome. He is using logic, common sense, and science to rightfully defend God. Why so much hate for someone who's defending an argument the right way?
Because it's a bogus argument that's old as hell. It's based on a misunderstanding of low probability vs. impossibility.
Here's a question: what are the odds that you would grow to be (insert height here)? Let's say we measure in real numbers, not integers, and your adult height is 71.348329423472347 inches. Or to whatever precision you'd like. What are the odds that you'd grow to that *exact* height? Out of the *infinite* amount of possible heights you could grow to instead? For instance, 69.238423942835 inches tall instead. The odds that out of all possible heights you'd end up at ONE specific height are incredibly tiny, and if we're using the infinite set of real numbers between 54 and 90 (arbitrarily chosen max and min heights for a human being), then the odds are zero. But I measured you and that's your height, and I can see that you're not slouching or standing on your toes or anything, so you must've grown to that height. Do you understand now?
Your comparison makes no sense as its irrelevant to the argument. Your example is that of a (1) fractioned number between two other numbers. However, the example in the video is referring to the numerous variables implied in just the requirements for a planet to habitable (how life emerge is still a mystery to atheist). So I really don't understand where you where trying to go with this.
Now if you want to talk about precised numbers, even fine tuning seriously puts into question the faith many scientist place on chance. Arriving to precised measurements down to the exact fraction time after time after time which would otherwise destroy our universe is plain stupid and illogical unless you can prove any of it. Not to mention no one has ever witnessed a law spring out of chance.
Lmao, I don't think you even understood the argument in the video, let alone my succinct rebuttal.
Did you really understand it? Or are you just assuming you're right because you hate being wrong? Lol. Watch it again, it is clearly speaking of the criteria necessary for life to exist, right from the beginning of the video. Idk how you got everything confused so quickly lol. But like they say, ppl hear what hear want to hear.
He even said nowadays the criteria is 200 separate requirements. Did you miss that statement too? Lol
One of the first thing you learn in science is that claims need to be backed up by evidence. I'm an atheist and have enjoyed many PragerU videos on youtube but these 5min 'informative' videos would really benefit from having sources otherwise it just sounds like a bunch of cherry picked punch lines and a few quotes from some religious scientists...
The amount of cope from you guys is delicious
Questions to our friend atheists:
Question 1: Do everything that we believe that exists can be proven scientifically? Does Science have an answer to everything?
Five rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science--but you would agree to be real.
1. Logic and Mathematics - Science pre-supposes logic and mathematics but can't be proven by science.
2. Metaphysical truths - The past wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.
3. Ethical beliefs - Murdering a person in exchange of millions of dollars is evil.
4. Aesthetic judgments - The sunset is beautiful.
5. Science itself - Example: Science only relies in the assumption that the speed of light is constant in any points between A and B but can't be scientifically proven.
Science is a good tool to understand the PHYSICAL realm and create technological wonders but it's limited to that only.
It doesn't address other important non-materialistic issues in life. Some atheists are proud of saying "I'm on the side of Science and not religion"
but you can actually be on both.
Question 2: Killings caused by religious wars in the ENTIRE HISTORY for DISOBEYING God's command to love your enemies amounted to a very small number compared to killings caused by Atheists (Polpot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc) in just a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN MODERN HISTORY amounted to 124,047,000.
Considering these facts, if these people had the teaching LOVE YOUR ENEMIES in their hearts, do you think they would have done these evil things? YES or NO?
In case you don't believe that HITLER shared the same atheistic ideology of Stalin before he betrayed him-check out what Hitler said below:
the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7
Hitler PRETENDED to be a Christian to win the support of his people but he's in fact a closet atheist.
Question 3: What would make it wrong to murder someone when you know you have a way not to get caught and you will be paid 100 million dollars to do it?
Question 4: Scientists have proven that the universe had a beginning which started with replicating molecules, which came from atoms, which came from quarks, which came from?
Did it pop out out of nowhere like magic?
Let's say that the size of molecules is 3, atom is 2, quarks is 1. Obviously the next is 0. And we know for a fact that out of nothing nothing comes.
How can math not be proven? Maybe some theory's can't but if I have one apple and someone gives me another apple I now have two apples. No debate
Also points 3 and 4 are opinions and can't be proved because it's subjective. Science has no way to prove if a person likes a sunset. There are thousands of opinions on a sunset that are acceptable. Creation of the universe should be viewed as objective, because there should be ONE way that it actually happened. There might be different factors that led to a creation but all in all all of those factors combine to the way it happened. Not bashing I just don't see what those points are trying to accomplish.
The amount of ignorance in these questions are why "Atheists" have a hard time debating with the religious.
Question 1: 1. Logic and Math are proven, we use it every day in just about everything. if it were unproven we couldn't build simple machines such as buildings. Your "Holy Houses" are all built using mathematics, all religions build grand cathedrals with these amazing arches and domes because of math.
2. I am assuming you are talking about being conscious or the ability to be aware. This can be with or without a creator. The fact that a universe with infinite possibilities can exist would prove this. However, with such a small timeframe to work from, it is hard to have definitive evidence, however, God still isn't the answer here either.
3. This is so stupid! Are all Atheists murderers? No! Religion has nothing to do with ethics. People from all religions and from all ages have a fundamental understanding of ethics. Murdering someone is bad because it disrupts the community, without community the individuals chance to survive is seriously impacted. This is an evolutionary trait.
4. Subjective; not all sunsets are beautiful all the time, beauty is still an evolutionary trait where beautiful things last while gross things don't. If we were nocturnal would sunsets be beautiful?
5. Science is wonderful in the fact that it doesn't have to be right all the time. The biggest difference for someone who is religious is that they will take the word of "God" without questioning anything. This is ridged thinking and is dangerous. Science allows you to be wrong and adjusts its premise based on newly found evidence. Religion is stuck in the mud to say the least.
Question 2: HOW WRONG YOU ARE! Almost all wars are religious based! Not even enough time to list them all. BTW Hitler was baptised and confirmed in Catholic church, Stalin was brought up by a catholic priest and was severely beaten by his father, Both of your examples are how religion caused the actions of these men, if they grew up atheist the actions of their fathers would not have caused such evil. A child is a product of their environment, in which the case for these two dictators, a catholic upbringing. I would argue that these men were anti-catholic more than an atheist, people confuse this and give atheists bad reputation. The fact that Hitler killed "Jews" proves that he was religious. Atheists are non-biased toward any religion.
Question 3: See question 1, number 3. Evolution prevents us from doing this. Also, what would make it wrong to murder someone in the name of God? Gods murder in the thousands!
Question 4: Seriously? replace "universe" with God and answer your own question. Science doesn't have all the answers, but we don't stop at God. If an atom is 3,.. 2,..1 then we dont jump to 0 right away, there could be more beyond that, in which we haven't figured out yet. We might come to a conclusion that an atom is actually 33 and there are 32 things below it. Science is not ridged!
Most Religious people have a hard time understanding atheism. Most think that we are Anti-god, where in fact we are non-believers. Trying to debate us frustrates us. Imagine trying to debate the existence of dragons with someone. You don't believe dragons exist or have ever existed and are figments of stories of long ago. But the person insists that they are real. Does their belief in dragons impact you in any way? No they do not and you pay no attention to them. Atheist feel the same. However, religion does impact us where we are treated unfairly for not believing in YOUR god, nevermind any God. This is where you get angry atheists. Atheism in itself is not evil, bad, or wrong. Its those who are unjust to us. You preach, love thy neighbour, but then cast stones at him for minding his own business.
Try to see everyone's point of view on the world and you will see that "God" is a man-made object to control and oppress populations. However, the thought of a creator is not uncommon and may be true, but to physically fight over this is silly. For all we know we are in a computer simulation created by a teenager who has nothing better to do. In which case science and math created us.
/rant
Both of you gave the same answers. The point is about "Scientifically" proving something for both MATH and LOGIC. That's why term "pre-supposed" is used.
Let's focus on the simplest YES or NO topic here instead of jumping back and forth in the other topics.
We know that killings caused by religious wars in the ENTIRE HISTORY for DISOBEYING God's command to love your enemies amounted to a very small number compared to killings caused by Atheists (Polpot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc) in just a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN MODERN HISTORY amounted to 124,047,000.
Considering these facts, if these people had the teaching LOVE YOUR ENEMIES in their hearts, do you think they would have done these evil things? YES or NO?
Yes he's baptized a Catholic but did he stay a Catholic? Did you even read what he said below?
the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7
Hitler PRETENDED to be a Christian to win the support of his people but he's in fact a closet atheist.
Don't TRY to evade the question above. Again YES or NO?
Probably, can't give a definite answer and neither can you but I believe Hitler was evil no matter how many times you told the man to love his neighbors. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove you're right so please tell me again why you're using this point in an argument? If you're asking would he have done it if he truly believed to love his neighbors than the answer is no but that's the same as saying what if Hitler was born in America? You're asking me if I think Hitler would have killed people if he was a good person and religion does not always equal a good person. And again cause you never actually answered me, what was the point of some of you're other arguments? I see you believe you're right about the math section (I'm not arguing that anymore, I tried to put it as simple as possible but somehow you still don't think what I said makes sense) but I'm just so confused what you were trying to prove.
Classic God of gaps arguement, we don't fully understand how we came to be therefore God and it leaves how God came to be unanswered. If the probability of universe happening by itself is improbable then probability of God happening by itself is infinitely improbable.
typical christian
no argument but lot of insults
George George It pretty much is a god of the gaps argument though. We don’t know what kind of life might emerge if the values were different. Ever heard of the puddle analogy?
Its no different to science which argues that if we don't understand it now, we will for sure in the future, leaving any room for alternate explanations. Yes its sort of a god of gaps argument
I dont think you saw the video. It says pretty simply and crystal clear, that as science advances more and more, the concept of the inexistence of God becomes increasingly unlikely. To the point where if God doesnt exist our existence would be a literal miracle and therefore proof of God. Marvelous!
rather science of the gaps from your side
This argument only works for Deism though.
Michael Groesbeck Well, shit. I am not very informed in this specific area of discussion. I am conflicted. what religion are you?
Dude, you know that the Big bang theory is pretty solid... And, also your points can be counted by one thing: There can be multiple big bangs.
That's enough. Point is atheism is stupidity.
+Galaxy SII Dear friendless troll, Taking Allah, Vishnu and magic Jesus on Faith alone from stories half-educated men wrote long ago is more like stupidity I think. Why you Christians and the many billions of your story believing Hindu and Muslim friends have chosen that wide easy path of just believing tales that comfort you, and give you hope a magic god will save you from the pains and realities of life and death is more like stupidity.
***** You're just encouraging people to study more Mythos, aren't you.
Does science argue for or against God? That is a good question. I would say that science as a whole is neutral, agnostic. However, some parts of science proves that Bible is wrong about some certain things, MANY things, so it definetly not a true word of God.
Sure, Earth looks like designed for life. But what about the rest of the universe - why is it so "undesigned" for life and so much bigger than Earth? What about the laws of nature, animals fighting each other and surviving the fitest? And what about the physical laws that doesnt allow us to fly, travel through time, do magic healings and miracles, but doesnt prevent us from killing or harming people? It looks like the real Creator is either not existing, or weak, or stupid, or evil and ignorant and doesnt deserve our belief and worshiping.
These comments make me lose my faith in humanity.
Religion has that effect on people
Madeline Wendorf some people are just retarded
take heart kind stranger! it is merely the youtube atheist brigade, they are not a representative sample of humankind!
Madeline Wendorf well don't, cuz that's what TH-cam wants. Your emotions and you getting a little bit more of a skewed perspective on life. Don't let them win. It's just adolescence manifesting in a opinionated society
You win! Not them
Ah good one, I see what you did there.
God of the gaps: because we don't know why it must be a god. Go look it up. This video is based on a logical fallacy.
What is the logical fallacy?
If god could be without a cause so why the universe could not be without a cause ?
Maybe God is trolling
Before the big bang they was no time so the question about cause is unreasonable because causality require time
Ibraham Lincon absolutely right, finally someone who thinks
Ibraham Lincon Existence is a function of time. God is 'beyond' time = god doesn't exist.
You can't have it both ways. Either god exists somewhere in space and time, or god doesn't exist.
Profezor Snayp "Existence is a function of time"
Prove it
I believe that science is just mankind's limited understanding of what God already created and knows.
Also, it wouldn't bother me one bit to discover that God has other children on other planets all around the universe.
Man's knowledge is limited, we could do all the science that we want to do but we could never measure up to the ultimate creator. I believe science is a gift and a blessing from God, we use it to improve our lives here on Earth, in medicine, engineering, and other fields of study. God blessed us with a brain that is capable to reason. However, our sinful nature ought to use it in various ways, ironically, it is our desire to hurt others and conduct warfare which really drove science and technology. Nevertheless, the more we know about science, the more it feels as if a pattern and a code was put in place by a creator and personally, the more we do not know about stuff, the more I feel humbled that we simply could not know it all and thus we must rely on our creator more.
Does God answer prayers? If yes, then science can study God.
@@MisterMcKinney There is a Christian organization called the John Templeton Foundation that did a study on God. They did a 10 year long compressive study with a control group and they had people pray for people with debilitating diseases with one control group not being prayed for, another group being prayed for, and another group being prayed for and being told they were being prayed for.
Their conclusion proves that prayer does not work at all. They found that prayer and recovery rate happened at the rate of chance, which means prayer offered no benefit to the people being prayed for. Keep in mind the people who were praying were devout christians who were doing it with good intentions in mind, the foundation themselves did not let them know what they were doing so to not corrupt the intention.
Prayer has been scientifically proven by Christians to not be accurate.
@@olmis6289 Christians being honest enough to publish findings that went against their beliefs? That’s new.
@@maryeverett2266 It isn't new. It's pretty common and its been common for a long time. Which is the exact reason why so many scientist are agnostic or atheist and why christianity is on the decline.
God isn't dead.
One has to exist in order have lived, and then died.
Dan Weeks *tips Fedora*
Harvard study - average IQ by religion
Muslim- 92
Christian- 98
Pagan- 98
Hindu- 104
Buddhist- 108
Jew- 115
Atheist- 119
ed smith not if the atheist actively pushes away dogma
Dan Weeks When one says "God is dead," as did famously Nietzsche, one is being metaphorical. God exists in the minds of His believers; God is dead once the last believer stops believing.
It's like "I think, therefore I am," only "YOU think, therefore I am."
No one knows everything.
Zanta100 It says that it should be to you self-evident that creation is not omniscient.
Zanta100 Landon claimed it and you responded to Landon.
Prove your hypotheses that we are uncreated.
Zanta100 can you imagine your early ancestor were microbes, fishes, apes, even dinosaur? Your ancestors belong in the zoo and yet here you are.
Zanta100 what? dinosaurs dont count? but no, i dont believe in evolution
Zanta100 well alright then, our ancestor might as well be bananas since 60% of our DNA are the same with bananas. will you believe that tho?
Here's the thing, when people make the argument that it was very improbable that life would emerge they are assuming that:
1. The laws of physics could have been different (has anyone proven that this was POSSIBLE? Something being possible, and something being conceivable, are different things.)
2. There was an insignificant chance that our kind of universe would get created (remember, the fact that the parameters allowed for different values, doesn't mean that the values were equally likely to happen).
3. Other combinations of universal laws couldn't have created life, but maybe they could have? Maybe not OUR kind of life, but maybe different?
4. There are no other unknown laws of physics in other universes that could have created life, but how would you know that?
Damn good questions :-) We humans have a miniscule understanding of the Universe.
I think your mistaken about the assumption of different physics is incorporated in the argument.. Aside from a few hypothesis like the multi verse idea, must assume physics are a constant and would be the same regardless of development of matter or life. In fact physics are what this argument is based on. With known physical law it seems improbable that all of the necessary components that we have in order today would have ever become ordered in a random process. Unless you're first point was just stated differently than you intended..
Levi Strodtman "must assume physics are a constant and would be the same regardless of development of matter or life."
That would still be an ASSUMPTION, wouldn't it?
rationalindian11 my question was regarding your first point.. Are you saying that the author of the video is assuming that the laws of physics would be different or are you saying that making the assumption that the the laws could be different is a reasonable argument against his case?
Levi Strodtman I think Sebastrian Lundh is questioning the premise of the video uploader that the laws will be the same throughout the Universe. As for me, i have NO CLUE as to what a Universe means because i don't know where the Universe begins and where it ends! I have NO POSITION on what a Universe looks like and i do NOT want to assume/presume what it might be like because it is beyond my imagination.
I am an atheist. Lets assume that there is a God. But which "God" should I believe in ? , it is easy to destroy the existence of God by analysing their crap holy books rather than argumenting about the existence of God itself....
You can believe in God and have a relationship with God without being involved in any religion. Religion is the porta-potty of spirituality. If you have ever felt pure love, you have been in the presence of God. God doesn't have his hand in everyone's pocket, he's not handing out awards to his favorites. And you don't need Jesus in order to be in God's presence. You don't need to martyr yourself through suicide to be in a heaven with beautiful women surrounding you. All you need is love.
If you have an infinite number of trials to get something right, no matter how small the chance, you will eventually get that right. Nobody knows how many big bangs there have been and how many have failed
With the evidences of the age of the universe I don't see real problem here. It is not infinite but big enough to nullify meaning of luck and a need of creator
Why is it self-refuting?
The odds of winning the lottery are 23,000,000 to 1 but someone will still win it
@@pallasathena1555 up that to 600 billion and wait for a decade and at least one person will get it.
Anyone know what kind or brand of glasses he's wearing? they honestly look dynamite
They look like the ones that Harry Potter uses lmao
So because the aligning of characteristics to make life are very improbable, there is someone who made all of this, which is supposed to be more probable?
Just like how we make things and try and imitate the authority of God. In like everything nearly. Weird. It eh
The argument is that statistically is more probable for a Creator to exist than for the basic parameters of the forces of the universe to have gotten their values by chance.
@A Moye For someone who told someone to google Pascal's wager it's funny that you don't know it's fallacious. How do you know you're worshipping the right God? If you only "believe" out of fear of hell then you don't really believe and an all-knowing God will know that. If you believe regardless then the threat of hell is irrelevant.
@@tasosalexiadis7748 So what are the odds for a creator to exist? Have those been calculated? How was this done?
@@boomkablamo Let me return your question. What are the odds for reality to exist? Isn't it more probable that you are just a floating brain that just exists for the second you read my message and that your memories are just patterns formed for an instant?
OR we are just a simulation on some teenage alien's computer that got bored while doing his homework
That's my personal favorite theory.
The Sims exposed itself
paul ubongen, no u
The Sims 2020
Bob Bob the power of no u
I love how the atheists in these comments don't put anything original it's like they all went to Reddit and asked for arguments from each other
Yes because believing in a being/beings the live outside the space-time continuum with magical powers is original, right?
+Weapon Valhalla so how's Reddit?
vincent hernandez So how's reality?
Gasp! Is almost like you cant make arguments from your arse, and an argument should have a common logic behind it!
Damn atheist, incapable of coming up with their own original, made up, non-consecuent logic
***** "Arguments from your arse" Lol thats literally creationists in a nutshell. "We BELIEVE our feelings are true about this overrated ancient 2000 year old book about God/gods and demons to be true just on pure belief!"
Why do I believe God? Simply because of science.
Indeed,science and religiom are totally the same, Like with the big bang, in wich god created the universe in seven days...
And evoution, in wich god created all the animals out of thin air...
Fun fact, it was a Belgian Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre who first began the theory that is now popularly known as 'The Big Bang Theory.' He did it before Edward Hubble who later confirmed it. Science and religion, everyone! ^^
Very few scientists believe in the big bang and if they do, it is still a theory and not proven.
David Gilmour A scientific theory is literally proven. Gravity and evolution are both theories too. What you people define as theories are literally just Hypotheses
Guamie Commie
If it was proven, it would be a scientific fact. A scientific theory means that they collected enough evidence to guess that this is what pretty much happened.
David Gilmour, the big bang theory is the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe as we see it today. It is very widely accepted by science.
Maiya, there is no difference between "scientific theory" and "scientific fact." You clearly don't understand basic science.
@@lameduck1690 just because it's the accepted doesn't mean it's true, we really know little about the universe to theorise how it came about
I believe science and god go hand in hand. The problem is when people insist that their millennial old interpretation of god, one of the thousands of interpretations, is the correct one beyond any shadow of a doubt.
God not real
Note to people in these comments who try to clarify the already crystal clear fine tuning argument this video makes in showing the odds:
Just because the dude on screen says, "I don't think so" to a coin flipping heads Quintillions or even a Marioplex (shout out to Matt Pat and Game Theory) number of times does not mean it cannot happen.
We are arguing over whether science being unable to explain everything equals God. It doesn't.
The fact that we continue to find how unique we are in the cosmos makes NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER as to any being whom is responsible for this occurrence. You are making that claim as theists have before we even knew what stars are. With every discovery, you claim without evidence that it was due to God. With every discovery that explains more detail debunking your previous God explanation, you simply respond, "yeah, this is how God did it." Is it? How do you know? Did you talk to him? Did you watch him do it? Or are you just placing your deity on the shoulders of Science?
All are important questions to ask yourself if you want to, *reads pro God comments* "keep an open mind". An open mind does not make claims without evidence, so those of you pushing God into everything because you may have an existential crisis if it's not the case need to confront your fears so you may be objective in the scientific field.
Let me ask you, have you seen any proof whatsoever that he doesn't exist? Have YOU died and seen what's after this? Did you watch the earth magically appear? Every rhetorical question you asked to prove your point can actually be applied to atheism as well. Please explain what you are attempting to disprove with your comment with all due respect.
@@alexisroyall2921 Do you have any proof that Allah doesn't exist? Or do you only make that argument with your Christian god?
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam" you should check it, it is a fallacy, it's saying that something it is sure to exist just because there are no proof against it. But even saying that something it is surely to not exist just because there is no proof to it, is considerated "argumentum ad ignorantiam", dogmatic atheism is very good to recognize that logic and scientific fallacy but when it is used as a proof of God existence, but always fail to recognize it when with it people try to disprove something that can not be logically disproven
The reverse is true. Just because a dude on comment section says universe can be created without God also doesn't mean there is no God.
In fact, your side also do the same fallacy. With every discovery, you claim your evidence that universe was possible even without the existence of God. In reality, even your side, with the technologies we currently have, also can't explain for sure the creation of the universe. 'But then we'll find it eventually' and when is 'then'? No one knows for sure. 'Universe can't exist on their own, therefore God' and 'We don't know how it's possible but we will someday', both of them can't be proven true right now, so both of them are belief system. 'We will someday' but again, I want the proof right now.
But don't worry. It is what it is. For every people in every belief/ideology system, every discovery we found validates our own belief. The narration goes like 'Look, there is this new thing, this must be proof of God/evolution/divine design/whatever'. Because everyone believes in something, and they want those beliefs/ideology to be proven right. That's just how people works. It's okay, and we all have this kind of fallacy.
Does Science Argue for or against -God- Santa?
Yep, still fits.
*****
Allah, Zeus, Demons, Big Foot, Miracles, God, Jesus, Aliens, Xenu, Dragons.
They all fit in the same unfalseafiable camp of claims that science can't investigate disproving a negative.
+Enid Redden I'm BA-ACK! Xenu is an alien. Sorry, I don't think even aliens could survive the empty coldness of nothing. Nothing is actually less than a vacuum. It's just absence. Can't be Xenu. Goodbye Xenu.
+Bombalurina05 Got any more?
No need to. You've already established that your claim gets special rules and special exceptions to investigation. Can't have a logical conversation who won't evaluate the world without starting with the conclusion first.
You said, "You can call Yahweh whatever you want..." and yet that claim has no evidence.
+Bombalurina05 You don't NEED evidence to give an object a name. It's Shakespeare's famous rose quote "A rose, by any other name, would smell just as sweet". God is largely considered both omnipotent and omniscient. Something you suspiciously seemed to have overlooked. The simple fact is that you don't even know what a God is. None of the creatures and "gods" listed are truly both omniscient and omnipotent. In fact, all the creatures listed were neither. The gods listed didn't qualify for either as well. This is a simple case of ignorance: you don't even know what the great I Am is.
If one of the "fine tuned" factors of the universe was off by just a tiny bit, then you're right, our universe wouldn't exist. However, that's not to say any universe couldn't exist. It's just that life as we know it couldn't be the same, if it exists at all. Even then though, there doesn't need to be life for objects to exist.
yes, exactly.
However, this universe was created, and this one specifically. Without God, there is no possible way to explain why the universe was created the way that it was, and not in some other way. That's what this video is saying, that the universe AS WE KNOW IT has an unfathomably low chance of existing without a God controlling and operating it's creation.
Tyler Roberts who is to say this is the first iteration of the universe? Perhaps due to the incredibly low chance of a universe like this being created, there were other failed universes before this one.
Well, if we are to believe in the big bang, the idea that all matter and all time began in a violent expansion that is still happening today, than it wouldn't make much sense for there to be a universe before the one we exist in today. How could there possibly be matter and time before this universe, if this universe's beginning also is the beginning of all matter and all time?
Tyler Roberts It was just speculation. I'm going off theories different theories that scientists have made over the years. The truth is, we don't know for sure how the universe began. The big bang is just the most supported theory we have so far, thus it is taught in schools. We don't teach creationism because then people would argue about which religion gets it right even more than they already are.
The God of religions has been created by man in his own image.
Oh that's a good line, is it from anything?
From the video's description: "[The latest science] says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero."
Less than zero? Please show me where science has said that.
What’s the possibility for a computer to be created by nothing? Very low. Right? Zero?
Human body is much more complicated than a computer. What’s the possibility for us to be created by nothing? Lower than you imagine. Less than zero.
If that doesn’t convince you, idk what can.
"Back in the day" your argument was based on the watch. How can there be a watch w/o a watchmaker? But being up to date, modern sophisticates people now prefer to use the computer because it is SO COMPLICATED! But the answer is still the same -The universe is not a machine. APPLES AND ORANGES, RIGHT?/OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES, RIGHT? The analogy fell flat on its face in the 16th century when clocks and watches were on the cutting edge of technology, just as it does today in the wonderful world of MICROSOFT & APPLE. Try to do better next time.
Gary L So... was that you disproving what he said? I mean you still havent explained your view. You stopped at, "a universe is not a machine" well ok thats really easy to disprove. A horse doesnt pop into being. An orange doesnt pop into being. You didnt pop into being. Not one person can pop into being. I mean I could just go on and on...
Very low is still greater than zero!
Hung Vu what's the possibility of god created by nothing?
How can you make a claim from probability when we have a sample size of 1?
Why does the absence of scientific proof for the existence of other planets have to imply the existence of god?
God of gaps is strong on this one.
If it is however determined, who says it is god and not a simulation?
You can't disprove god, but that doesn't prove him either.
what do you mean a simulation? and this has nothing to do with other planets it has to do with the incredible complexity of life that points to a designer
We aren’t living in a simulation that’s just the only thing you have to fall back on since your other theories are being terminated
@@Alreadyno can you disprove we are living in a simulation? how do you know?
Even if it is a "simulation" (stupid theory), there would still be a creator behind it. And behind that simulation creator there might be a God behind their existence.
Lol.
《Berry Frosty》 behind the simulation creator there is another simulation creator, and another and another and so on
Basically: We dont know. lol
The more you 'Think', and live in your mind, the more and more and still yet more do NOT find God-who is your very own True self(not your False self-which has doubts and has to Think)...............there isn't life-you just think there really is-there is absolutely only God.....and He cannot be explained or 'Thought of', that is pointless, that insults Your (His) True intelligence....
onefoot7 stop trying to explain life through riddles u sound like a moron... it’s 3 dots btw not 20
why is it that anytime one of my boys drops knowledge like this, someone from the other side says, welp neither side realms knows what’s goin on?
Basically: science argues for God
Perfect!
I still think life can exist outside what we currently know. Just because we haven't found life beyond our limited reach doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This still does not change my belief that their is a God who created everything. It would be awesome if God spread love of life to many places in the universe instead of just our one grain of sand.
I believe
I can fly.
Your light attitude is drastically needed considering the war going on in the comments. I commend you lol
I believe.....
I can touch the sky.
I think about it every night and day.
@Daniel Kolbin You can't tell me what I can and can't do *MOM*
@@joshuaramirez9088 thanks lol
ikr , idk why atheist scientist always think that they are right, even albert einstein dont say god is dont exist, i know tons of scientist that religious, and no they dont play internet, personally tho.. i believe in god trough science
they think they are right because they have evidence
you know what that is?
the thing theists are never able to show if asked
This video doesn’t prove god to exist. It just says “oh aren’t we lucky, so god”
Zanta 100 people like you are stupid "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR RELIGION" there is evidence for everything I rest my case
Science never said it is right, science evolves unlike the bible if somthing doesnt work out as its supost to do then science gets altert untill it can fit the practical observations where the bible stil has the same 20000 errors as when it got created science trys to fix itself when it finds a error all the way until there are no errors posible but at that time we literly would have found out how to make our own mini-universe
Look. I'm christian, but I think this video approaches God from wrong angle. Don't use science to explain God. Don't use God to explain science. When you spoke about fine tuning arguement, i viewed it like: there are roughly 10 to 24 planets, so some of them are bound to just happen to fit into those strict criteria for supporting life.
That doesn't mean, that God didn't create us, but it also doesn't mean, that he did.
Galileo Galilei said: "the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"
ps: The School of Life (channel) approached this topic in better way by presenting importance of faith, not by trying to argue for Gods existence. If you truly have faith, you don't need to prove God.
that's like saying,god is illogical,but it makes me feel good,so i believe it
Well, thinking about it, YES!
God is beyond any kind of human logic, so to us, he is illogical.
My God, which I belive in (Catholic God) is outside logic. I don't even try to understand him rationally. I take the morals of what He teaches us and try to apply them to my normal life in order to be the best person I can.
If a different god, set of gods, secular belief or whatever does this for you, then you have found your religion.
I'm saying this, because I don't want to impose my God to you, I'm pointing out why He's great.
that's what religion should do
but sometime it's not the case
religion make rules against human right,and some people do them in order to be the best person they can
+Cheeky Ifa You are right. But this is not exclusive for religions. even secular ideologies can make one to commit atrocities.
+Staremperor
If you can live a good life like that, all fine by me
I personally want a logical explanation and world view.
But if something illogical makes you a better person:
keep doing what your doing then.
The people that disliked this were the ones that came here for proof of no God only to be taught that even science is starting to believe in a creator the more they understand these things.
th-cam.com/video/WIwKhX-1gZQ/w-d-xo.html
Is that what you got out of the video? Jesus. Millions of years of evolution only to end up with a moron without critical thinking skills such as you
No, the dislikes are because nearly half of this video is full of gross oversimplification, estimates, and simply incorrect facts, along with poor critical thinking.
Leonard Hofstadter has aged terribly.
+John Cunningham
Select text.
Right-click.
Click "Search Google for 'Leonard Hofstadter".
LOL.
Yeah he also caught the disease of rationalizing the illogical.
Is the guy in the video talking about conditions suitable for the terrestrial life, or ANY form of life? Actually we don't know how many forms of life might be out there. Any conditions that are hostile for terrestrial life may be sufficient or even great for some form of extraterrestrial life.
Regarding "fine tuning argument". That has been debunked many times.
I randomly pick just one of many videos. Copy and watch this /watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY
Dammit. I used to admire and support Prager University videos for their healthy and rational stances on freedom of speech, feminism and so on. And then I stumble across this video making all the old tired fallacious arguments and, pretty much directly, lies about what science says. It took only 45 seconds for this video to make its first fallacious argument (an argument that has been debunked a million times *by science* but which creationists still keep repeating like a mantra, ignoring *science's* objections to it). And it only goes downhill from there.
Sigh. And I used to like PragerU videos for being actually rational.
can you link the video of the man disproving the claim? I'm very intrigued, and I'm not against you, I'm atheist.
+Dill Pickle He didn't say anything was debunked by a video, he said it was debunked by science. The URL is www.google.com
crickets
standev1
snap
+WarpRulez Yep I subscribed 10min ago after watching a vid on liberalism. Then I saw and watched this junk, and bye bye subscription.
An octillion is one followed by twenty-seven zeroes smh
Does it matter?!!!
@@joyhassantutu9545 yes...
noun, plural oc·til·lions, (as after a numeral) oc·til·lion. a cardinal number represented in the U.S. by 1 followed by 27 zeros, and in Great Britain by 1 followed by 48 zeros. amounting to one octillion in number.
Holy cow, that 'university' can't get even numbers right
Please explain how three zeros discredits the point? I do not think it does.
As for the whole "odds are less than zero" thing, that is a turn of phrase meant to act as a buzzword. I cannot defend that but it is nowhere near enough to discredit the whole video.
I AM COMPLETELY SHOCKED AND SURPRISED BY THIS VIDEO OF PRAGER U.
I watched plenty of videos of yours and almost always shared your exact opinion. I thought you are people who pursue facts and science. This video does not represent what science says about the universe and god at all. Dont get me wrong, science does not say there is no god, cause there is no proof of it not existing and vice versa. The problem is you make it sound like science says there is most likely is a god, and you blow out of proportions the data presented in this video.
Most astrophysicists would most definitely say this video does NOT represent science. There are plenty of videos of famous physicists talking about the same subject if you are interested in looking it up, and the story they portray is much much different than what you gave.
It would of been nice if when talking about a scientific matter, you bring an actual scientist of that subject to talk about it and not an author.
Just some of the points that were taking out of proportions- the number you gave of the planets in the universe is only the amount in the OBSERVABLE universe, not the whole actual universe, which is presumably much much much larger. Plus, even though there are many conditions that must be met to have life in a planet, it is not that crazy when it comes to the scale of the universe, and we already know of many planets that meet those criteria. And the amount of planets that we do know their info is not nearly as much there are in the observable universe, we have so much we could still learn because we havent had enough time to do so.
ASK THE ABSOLUTE MOST OF ASTROPHYSICISTS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU IT IS UTTERLY STUPID TO THINK WE ARE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE.
I am so disappointed in PragerU.
The truth does not come from science, it comes from philosophy. Astrophysicists are poor philosophers.
Tal Zysberg So if most astrophysicists say we aren't alone, are they right? Is science based on consensus? Was the earth only round when most scientists thought it was?
How many created things must you see to believe in a creator? How much evidence, how many calculations, how much time? The big questions are, how much time do you have? You can't answer that. Will everyone die? Yes. If there is a God and he has made himself known, will we be held accountable for the lives we lived when we die? Makes sense. We know there is right and wrong. We have laws, punishments, ect. If we are all just a bunch of accidents, what does anything we do matter? Without God, and it's clearly shown in those who don't believe, human life isn't that valuable, even compared to let's say animal life. I'm no scientist but I can look another human in the eyes and know they didn't get here by accident, they are valuable, made in the image of someone amazing, have a purpose, a soul, and a destination. I'm not so afraid that I have to believe in heaven or believe in nothing to cope with death. I look at the universe and know the creator of all this, who holds everything in a perfect balance and loves us, meaning love in its nature is free to choose, giving the option to accept what is plainly in front of us, has something better in store for those who believe and accept with a humble heart. Pride ends in and with the grave. You can keep searching but all you are going to find is more amazing CREATED things and miss the most amazing thing of all, the creator. It would be tragic, for all eternity to think it was so simple and I made it so complicated.
@ Hmm...I think I'd have to see one created thing to believe in a creator. By which I mean, I'd have to see one thing that doesn't have an explanation for how it got here _besides_ a creator. Animals, plants, planets, stars - all of that has an alternative explanation. So show me something that doesn't, and I'll believe in a creator. And no. We don't know there is right and wrong. Human conceptions are all that right and wrong is. We humans fear death and pain. For whatever reason, we have also evolved empathy, which makes feel upset when we see others experiencing things we don't like. Ergo, we decide that death and pain are "wrong", and that things that prevent them are "right". There's no more to it than that. They're not inbuilt parts of the universe, else we would see some kind of evidence for that. But you know what? I understand why you feel the way you do. The universe is a darn scary place. It's frightening, knowing even a small part of the truth of reality. So I won't ask you to stop thinking that way. I'll just ask you to consider the opposite opinion.
@ You too, my friend. And I stand by what I say - this is how religion should be used. It's not a weapon, like so many people make it out to be. It's not even really a worldview - or if it is, it's not a very good one. It's a shield. A shield to protect against the dark, uncaring insanity that is the real universe, against the meaningless, arbitrary cruelty of real life. It's a way to give yourself purpose, to convince yourself that there is a point to all this, that you will be rewarded for all your work. And I can respect someone who'd want that. So good luck to you, and I wish you peace and happiness.
I think that their argument that planets with intelligent life probably don't exist is just invalid. These "parameters" that he mentions are just about Earth specifically, but we should remember that some organisms can survive in the vacuum of space. My point is that some organisms on other planets could be hugely different, since they could have evolved differently, or even forms of life made of different compounds than on Earth. We now know of multiple planets outside of the solar system with the possibility of life, and that life might even exist on Mars, or on some of the gas giant's moons.
men have you ever seen evolution in your eyes or even saience even proofed that ?
The answer to that question is no. Science does NOT argue for or against the existence of God.
The sun, the moon, and the other planets seem to have coalesced into just the right "thing" that we humans needed to BE. Thanks, God!
and a hole is just the right size for the puddle in it...
not too small so that the puddle would spill out
not too big that it leaves space for air...
how perfectly balanced by the cars rolling over the street.....
Sean M And the exactly right conditions for his church to be plagued by pedophiles.
Thanks god
@@VlRGlL nothing to do with my comment, Virgil. Did your cat get a hold of your computer, or are you just a sourpuss?
Sean M We can also thank god for COVID
@@VlRGlL I see, so you're just a sourpuss. Your choice!
Okay PragerU but what if i now say its Allah who is that god? probably not going to be as supportive of this claim are you
The question is, Is PragerU more supportive of Allah or atheists?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)
why do theists think a qoute from a selfcontradicting book would be a valaid argument?
I'm not trying to present an argument; I'm sowing seeds.
th-cam.com/video/VDKLYFYc40Q/w-d-xo.html
And the word was 'a' god ( spokesman for the Almighty God ).
@@Zanta100 "Self-contradicting." I'm curious, please elaborate.
If God created the universe with just us humans in it, then he\she\it\they etc wasted a lot of space and materials. I opted out of religion for good a long time ago because I couldn't figure out which god is the real God- there are too many and each has different demands ( how to dress, what to eat, when to pray). So I decided that it's better just to live a good life, be a good person and if there's a god out there judging me, I hope he\she\it\they will appreciate my honesty. You can't fake belief, you either have it or not.
Did you just ignore everything he just said?
Smiley
It's like you stopped reading after " I opted out of religion for good a long time ago"
mihutza79 personally I don't really follow religion but I do believe in a higher whatever lol "god" and science equally I don't think one has to be religious to believe in the possibility of something like "god"
mihutza79 I'm not going to force to change your belief, that's your choice and I respect that, However, what if the rest of the infinite (I use infinite loosely) could play a larger role that humanity is yet to discover.
mihutza79
So God wasting material and space is your argument against His existence?
God is almighty, He can do whatever He wants. We humans are indeed the only intelligent life form in existence and Earth is the only inhabited planet.
God created time and space itself so there is nothing to waste for Him, He has made everything out of nothing. He doesn't have a limited amount of space or material to create things.
He created this giant universe around us not to prove His material and space managment issues but to show us His power and for it to be of use to us. The (visible) stars and all other celestial bodies have been indispensable tools for navigation and time measuring since the beginning of humanity.
Your other point actually makes sense. If you simply believe in God without knowing what He wants from you, the faith doesn't make any sense. If there is one allmighty, all-knowing and all-loving god, he only makes sense if he reveals his will to us and how we should live it. So for believing in God, it is essential that you also have a divine source of information that you can fully trust. That source of information has to contain rules but also a perfect example of a human life. This source of information is the Bible.
It is a very good attitude to want to live a good life and be a good person as you said, but no matter how good you'll be as a human, your goodness can never be enough to save you. You still do bad things, everyone does, and bad things don't get drowned out by good things. For God to accept you, you have to be without sins, and only then your good deeds will be visible.
The Bible tells us how God created the world and the human history. It does tell us how to dress, what to eat and to pray. Every other ('holy') book has errors and contradictions, but the Bible in its original form is the absolute truth and even tells us things about the future. But the most important thing, it tells you about Jesus who is the perfect and only example of an errorless life. Not only this, He also died for your sins, so you don't have to do any deeds to get salvation (which is impossible anyway) but only have to ask Him for forgivness and he will accept you.
Ever heard of the anthropic principle? The odds of the universe being as it is might be minuscule, but if it were different, we would not be here to know that the odds are miniscule.
There were a lot of coincidences in the emergence of life, but they are dependent on the ones before. So yeah, I still think everything is just a giant series of coincidences.
ahh im little bit confused
@@chadwick5080 The coincidences that led to the emergence of life are not independent of each other. It is NOT like tossing a coin ten quintillion times and have heads each time, because the coin doesn't care what it showed the last 9,999,999,999,999,999,999 times (although I think he used the example just to show the order of magnitude the probability lies within).
Each coincidence is dependent on the preceding coincidences. This might still look hell of improbable if you where looking at it from the beginning. But we as humans are (for now) at the END of this chain of coincidences, where everything has already happened, and if id didn't, we wouldn't exist.
Think about sleeping beauty, but instead of kissing her, the prince would have to roll three yahtzees of sixes in a row. It's highly improbable, but if sleeping beauty awakens, will she be suprised to find three cups with 15 dice showing a six? No, becuase her conciousness is dependent on the prince having succeeded in this highly improbable task.
Omg, I have literally thought this a hundred times and knew that there had to be a name for it, but no matter how many times I tried describing this principle in google search, I could never find a name for it. Anthropic Principle. Much appreciated. I knew this reasoning had to be out there somewhere lol
From what the scientific method has concluded about how the universe came into being, your argument doesn’t hold much weight. It’s like survivor’s bias on a cosmic scale- the fact we exist doesn’t mean that it’s likely that we exist; the coincidences that created our universe are so improbable to happen again if we were to try and recreate it by making a new universe in a test tube [ and scientists have tried ] that we cannot conclude that the eruption of our universe in the big bang was anything less than a miracle. The anthropic principle can’t be applied to the entire universe, because the anthropic principle only applies to objects within the universe itself. What’s outside of our universe likely applies to none of the rules that govern what’s inside our universe. So the odds of our universe forming in the only possible way specifically to support life suggests further that we were intelligently designed.
This argument is self-refuting. It is tantamount to saying that if 10 marksmen who form a firing squad shoot at a condemned man and they all somehow miss, and the condemned man, realising he is still alive, asks in astonishment, 'How was it that they all missed?', the answer is, 'Well, of course they all missed, otherwise you wouldn't be able to ask the question, "How was it that they all missed?" That is not an answer to the question!
"What are the odds that out of all possible planets only ours supports life?" is such a horrible fallacy. It reminds me of that one great tweet: "I'm so glad I wasn't born in Mexico. I don't speak a word of Spanish!"
Who wrote that tweet?
Atheism should be considered a fallacy lmao