Russell Stannard - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ส.ค. 2019
- If the deep laws of the universe had been ever so slightly different human beings wouldn't, and couldn't, exist. All explanations of this exquisite fine-tuning, obvious and not-so-obvious, have problems or complexities. Natural or supernatural, that is the question.
Click here to watch more interviews with Russell Stannard: bit.ly/33OyhIz
Click here to watch more interviews on a fine-tuned universe: bit.ly/2TSBHFY
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth: bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
I’ve been craving for a long time for this kind of conversation. This channel has been an awesome resource to push my thought process harder and my faith stronger. 🙏🏻 Thank you
Thank you and thank God for being fortunate to be able to listen to this intelectual man of God.
You expressed my thoughts as well.
outstanding conversation and commentary by Russell..
I will grant that the question makes sense once we can determine all conditions under which life can exist. Until we know know that and what life actually is, people shouldn't be so concrete in their ignorant opinion.
I too love this channel. Amazing too that we can’t think a thought. No one can possibly speak his own words. Xxx
If true, Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t explain our origins, it explains our diversity.
Darwin’s theory of evolution is pure speculation. It explains only adaptation on a very small scale.
@@les2997 " It explains only adaptation on a very small scale." Which additively result in large changes, on a larger timescale.
@@BenjaminGoose "The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations."
@@BenjaminGoose There is some evidence for adaptation (i.e. micro-evolution). Everything else is a massive extrapolation from a very limited and testable evidence. Evolution is a story without a known mechanism.
Species specific and flaws in this theory like randomness.
Spacetime is the symmetry of the system design which gave rise to life and there are no alternatives for it. Why it happened is a miracle, but still extremely logic.
There is nothing to compare nature with. There is digestion (of nature) and decay (of nature). What lies outside of time? What is the main function of imagination?
Excellent...thanks 🙏
When you invoke the "find tuning" argument, you're really asking whether God is subject to the laws of physics that runs our universe and was therefore compelled to create creatures in conformity with those laws, or, was it necessary for him to "tune" the universe to the needs of the only model of creature that he is capable of creating. Either way, the adherents to the fine tuning argument seem to acknowledge the limitations that are inherent within their God.
Very interesting point.
“Seem to acknowledge the limitations inherent in God”
Interesting point but you could just as easily argue that because an artist has chosen to paint physical landscapes it does not logically follow that he could never paint in the abstract, the metaphysical or the impressionist etc.
This assumption has parallels with the omnipotence paradox.
And I can’t believe people still use these kind of paradox’s as if it’s some kind of Earth shattering defeater for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism, deism or panentheism because they are logical fallacies that have been debunked centuries ago. Thing’s like a square circle and married bachelors just don’t exist and are logically incoherent as you can’t have two mutually exclusive alternatives because it’s just meaningless gibberish. Creating a physical universe that has no fine tuning for physics breaks the laws of logic such as the law of non contradiction, the law of identity and the law of excluded middle. Similarly, no being no matter how powerful they are can create a stone so heavy they can’t lift it because like a square circle and a married bachelor nonsense remains nonsense even when you speak it about the absolute ontological ground of reality and existence!!.
Furthermore, if the sceptic then predictably appeals to semantics and claims that…..
“you’ve just redefined omnipotence to escape the problem, omnipotence should include the logically impossible.”
You can just say that if the ability to do the impossible and logically contradictory is the true definition of omnipotence then this is a circular and self refuting hypothesis as you could just agree with the sceptic and just say…
“ok the absolute ontological ground of reality can create a stone that he both can’t lift and can lift.” And can create a physical universe that isn’t fine tuned for physics if they choose.
The irony is that if the sceptic then predictably appeals to the prescriptive laws of logic by saying.., “That’s impossible and logically contradictory”
You can just say “that’s right because under your definition of omnipotence God can do the impossible and logically contradictory.”
So to conclude omnipotence is not measured by the power to speak or do gibberish or create biological beings that are not biologically fine tuned to physics because nonsense remains nonsense even when we speak it about the absolute ontological ground of reality/God. It’s synonymous with asking can a one armed man win an arm wrestle against himself. The irony is that in a desperate attempt to show the incoherence of an omnipotent, absolute ontological ground of reality sceptics have straw manned themselves and undermined there own argument because this kind of scepticism relies on an incoherent and logically contradictory question in the first place. This is comedy gold!! because for the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist who appeals to the omnipotence paradox it is literally a self own on multiple levels because it is clearly a (Model Logic Fallacy).
@@sholalove6478
According to the famous atheist philosopher Anthony Flew who spent over 50 years developing some of the most sophisticated arguments against an absolute ontological ground of reality you can find…
“This fine tuning has been explained in two ways. Some scientists have said the fine tuning is evidence for divine design; many others have speculated that our universe is one of multiple others-a ‘multiverse’-with the difference that ours happened to have the right conditions for life. Virtually no major scientist today claims that the fine tuning was purely a result of chance factors at work in a single universe” (Anthony Flew).
The fascinating fact is that Flew later went on to completely reject atheism for the belief in a supreme consciousness/deism and suddenly received a lot of personal attacks regarding his mental state from his peers who previously appealed to his brilliant work to prop up their own metaphysical presuppositions.
Nevertheless, it speaks volumes that the prominent physicist Leonard Susskind who like Flew came from a non religious perspective recently admitted that the present inability of physics to explain the fine tuning of the universe that is essential for life appears to leave an opening for a Designer.”
Professor Susskind stated..
“I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design].” - (Leonard Susskind the father of modern string theory)
Similarly, according to the English physicist Paul Davies a true scientific explanation,
“is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of ‘explanation’ meaningless.” (Paul Davies).
Im not making any appeals to authority but according to the Oxford professor Richard Swinburne…
“It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.” (Richard Swinburne)
Professor Swinburne goes on to point out that….
“These universes would never be directly observable; we couldn’t even meaningfully say whether they existed ‘before’, ‘after’ or ‘alongside’ our own” (Richard Swinburne)
Furthermore, imagine entering a hotel room on your next vacation. The CD player on the bedside table is softly playing a track from your favorite recording. The framed print over the bed is identical to the image that hangs over the fireplace at home. The room is scented with your favorite fragrance. You shake your head in amazement and drop your bags on the floor.
You’re suddenly very alert. You step over to the minibar, open the door, and stare in wonder at the contents. Your favorite beverages. Your favorite cookies and candy. Even the brand of bottled water you prefer.
You turn from the mini bar, then, and gaze around the room. You notice the book on the desk: it’s the latest volume by your favorite author. You glance into the bathroom, where personal care and grooming products are lined up on the counter, each one as if it was chosen specifically for you. You switch on the television; it is tuned to your favorite channel.
Chances are, with each new discovery about your hospitable new environment, you would be less inclined to think it was all a mere coincidence, right? You might wonder how the hotel managers acquired such detailed information about you. You might marvel at their meticulous preparation. You might even double-check what all this is going to cost you. But you would certainly be inclined to believe that someone knew you were coming.
Let’s take the most basic laws of physics. It has been calculated that if the value of even one of the fundamental constants-the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for instance-had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have formed.
The recent popularity of this argument has highlighted a new dimension of the laws of nature. ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture,’ writes physicist Freeman Dyson, ‘the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming.’ In other words, the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life. This is the anthropic principle, popularized by such thinkers as Martin Rees, John Barrow, and John Leslie.
In his book Infinite Minds, John Leslie, a leading anthropic theorist, argues that fine tuning is best explained by an absolute ontological ground of reality (divine design). He says that he is impressed not by particular arguments for instances of fine tuning, but by the fact that these arguments exist in such profusion.
I’m not making any appeals to authority by the way!
Furthermore, imagine you were driving through south Dakota and picked up a hitchhiker and as you drove past Mount Rushmore the hitchhiker looks up and points to the faces and exclaims wow!! that’s George Washington, wow!! that’s Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson up there as well!!
Isn’t it amazing how the water just happened to trickle over the edge of Mount Rushmore and all it took was millions of years to carve those four unique faces completely by accident. You would look at the hitchhiker incredulously and with a little bit of suspicion and concern in your eyes. It’s the same incredulous reaction theists have when materialists, atheists and philosophical naturalists point to billions of people on the earth with not only unique faces but unique personalities, including unique qualities of experience such as the experience of empathy, compassion, altruism, beauty, bravery, meaning and purpose and ultimately love.
Equally, if strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists think that a story about a magical talking puddle has explained away fine tuning I suggest that they submit the repeatable scientific experiments to a scientific journal for peer review because they will be nominated for a Nobel prize. If stories about magical talking puddles had one ounce of credibility no one would have bothered investing in string theory or the multiverse hypothesis in the first place. It’s comedy gold that strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists think that the talking puddle story is an Earth shattering defeater for the unbelievable fine tuning of the universe!!
I rest my case!!
❤️😎
He is working backwards. It is so obvious.
Elaborate please
@@sholalove6478 -- Well, without listening to the video again (it's been over 1 year) I must have been commenting on the top-down vs. bottom-up way of thinking. Bottom up would be pro-evolution and top-down would be god did it. But I don't feel like listening again to be certain that's what I meant about this video.
Dr. Stannard is a scientist who also happens to be a Christian. He is no different from the billions of people, except that he is highly educated, who are convinced that a supernatural entity exists. What makes Dr. Stannard believe so only he knows. Yes, his notion of god is a violation of the philosophic principle of parsimony as he makes an unnecessary assumption with his belief in a god. I am not at all disturbed by his belief in a god "who started it all" but I do find his belief that it is the Christian god disturbing. Although he did not mention the Christian god in this short video, he is apparently a member of the Church of England. One positive thing about Dr. Stannard is that he appears to acknowledge the evolution of species by natural selection. The fact is that many people find the notion of a god comforting and they feel it properly answers the question of origins. However It is not the god hypothesis that is mischievous but self styled prophets and their followers who presume to know the mind of that god or gods.
because at birth we are empty and we begin to fill up to the overflow that starts with "mom", "daddy", etc, etc ... we are full of the words of others and that is why we all say the same thing, we behave like echoes or reflections not of ourselves but of others
yet we find empirically and beyond our borrowed verbiage that we do not stand up in their shoes ... our spatial coordinate system is unique even though we are billions on this Earth and that's what we do not share with no one ... each of us is somewhere where no one else is
yet there is an almost instinctive gregarism at the level of opinions: many people with unique spatial coordinates think the "same" thing but who can say who thinks and who speaks
we will not call for the respect of the opinion of others if this opinion is not their own opinion but we must pause and reflect on our own opinion to determine if it really is ours
I like this guy. 👍
"It's big (the cosmos), but it couldn't be any smaller. The sun has to be that big if its going to keep burning for 5 billion years, the right time to allow for life. Everything is just perfectly fitted to make our existence possible."
He's just describing Douglas Adam's proverbial puddle. And then goes on to say 'we know that love is such an important aspect of god'.. How did we suddenly get to that? Some sort of god shaped puddle in his heart..
Fine-tuning is a mystery, but no iteration has ever led me to think 'god did it' was a good explanation.
So fine tuned that we can't survive on 80% of our planet and 99.999999999999% of the universe would kill us. Douglas Adams puddle analogy comes to mind.
No one knows either way so whatever you believe is your belief be a good person be kind we will.all find out one day who is right
I don't find a problem with the idea of a creator. I do fail to understand why the creator must be God, if we must continue to modify him as we discover that while we are fascinating and complex, we are not special.
If the universe was fine tuned towards intelligent life then either:
1. These are early times and we are amongst the earliest intelligent life or
2. The universe is incredibly inefficient, with only one in a very small minority of planets being capable of supporting complex life.
Imagine if you tuned a guitar with the same precision as the universe, with only one in a trillion or more notes actually being in tune. Would we call that fine tuning?
Also, it's possible that biology is a phase of matter, which lies between geochemistry and whatever intelligent technology we are in the process of creating.
Another "God did it" argument. At least it was brief.
At its basic structure, DNA is code. The fact that evolution does not create life leads to the question, "Who wrote the code?". Who indeed, if not God?
@@beardedroofer maybe the devil wrote it.
@@beardedroofer I wish people would stop uncritically reading creationist nonsense on the internet, without realising that it is *intended* to be misleading... If you feed four nucleotide bases into a mincing machine, the ribosome, an amino acid pops out the other side according to some rules. So when scientists refer to the "genetic code" they are just describing those rules that the ribosome is using to translate from nucleotides to amino acids, that is all. DNA is not "code" it is just a sequence of nucleotides often arranged into "genes" that specify a particular sequence of amino acids when translated by ribosomes (we call such sequences proteins). The whole process whereby this works is entirely chemical. No one "wrote" the genes, they evolved by natural selection, that is already very clear in science. As to how the basis of this whole complicated process came about in the first place, scientists have not yet worked that out (it was 4bn years ago after all), although they have some reasonable ideas on some of the steps that may have been involved. So there is no necessity to insert some god of the gaps just yet.
@@roqsteady5290
If you think life began by chance interactions of chemicals, you're wrong. The only thing chance does is speed up entropy. I wish people would stop denouncing God as if they knew all the answers. But if you don't care about your soul and think you're the shit, go ahead and burn. It's all fun and games till you're on your deathbed and you can feel the heat awaiting you.
@@beardedroofer My intention was just to debunk your claim about DNA being a code that needed to be written by someone (it isn't and it doesn't).
We don't know exactly how life started, but so far all the investigations of science have lead to solutions involving natural forces that we all encounter in every day life and none have involved the supernatural. In fact noone has demonstrated that there even is a supernatural much less how it might be associated with life. So until that happens science will likely stick with methodological naturalism or it won't be science.
Like many christians on youtube you do sound like a most unpleasant and selfish person (probably just your religion speaking to be fair). Christians make a great song and dance about how they and their deities are so loving and benevolent, but it often doesn't turn out that way in practice - as with you and your deity. However, since I consider the ideas without any merit, your invented hell is not going to cause me any concern, except to support initiatives to try and avoid teaching this nonsense to kids in the first place. In fact I feel sorry for people like you for having to undergo this child abuse in the first place. And I'm sorry you haven't yet been able to escape the dead hand of the clerics (read that how you may) at least so far.
I really do not understand why people immediately draw a conclusion from "there is a creator/designer of the universe" to "and therefore my religion is true." Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
By "people" you mean religious people. Not regular, normal people.
@@i20010 right
@@i20010 To be fair, the vast, vast majority of humans (writing this in 2023) are religious. If anyone was to have the moniker 'people', it would be them.
Are we getting closer to the truth ?
Surely, the best way to find truth is by using the scientific method.
Sitting in a comfortable armchair and thinking really hard is not enough.
The theory of relativity is supported by experimental results, not by wishful thinking.
it's not that everything is perfectly fitted for us to exist. We are perfectly fitted with the conditions on this planet... no mystery here!
@@dnaya4583 you obviously don't understand the comment.
Correct!
“No mystery here”
Aww this is a perfect example of the (Stone Fallacy). Sorry but what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Because according to the physicist Leonard Susskind who’s coming from a non religious perspective the present inability of physics to explain the fine tuning of the universe that is essential for life appears to leave an opening for a Designer.
“I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design].” - (Leonard Susskind the father of modern string theory).
Never fear though because you can always bury your head in the sand by resorting to imaginary talking puddles.
Some SF: imagine plasma, stars, galaxies were a life form.
Then life would be everywhere in the universe and that would make much more sense. Stars would find joy in having beautiful planets. Galaxies would find joy in having beautiful shapes and ugly galaxies would be be looked down upon. Not gravity would hold a galaxy not together but the galaxy itself would form itself to hold that shape. Plasma beings would sometimes find a rock with some "organic slime" on it and would once again be amazed by the complexity and beauty of carbon based life, there in that narrow temperature zone. Perhaps that rock would for them be like a precious, lonely Edelweiss high in the mountains, to be protected.
It would be have much logic in it but OK it's not true. And even then there are some things which don't fit. The universe is like trying to make heavier elements which are not needed for plasma beings but which are very useful for that "organic slime". But perhaps for plasma beings that could be like doing useful things with garbage.
OK. but finally : what then if plasma starts to wonder why it exists??.. Now, that is a very hard nut...
I find thes statements primitive in a sense, for examples when Mr. Stannard says "that God enjoys.." God enjoys? Smiles? Gets mad? Gets tired? that is primitive antropomorphism. When he says that God made evolution to make us exist, that is a bit cruel. Think of evolution as a cruel mode of creation, many species disapearing just because the conditions are not met, how beautiful could this be? And how beautiful is to acknowledege that in order to survive you must kill, yes you must kill if you are a lion, or a tiger, or a human being. We must kill ducks, chicknes, cows etc. to survive and that is cruel. What kind of ellegancy method of creation could it be?
💕🦋
I agree, thanks
Easy there Plato
I think there is a tension between the belief that the Universe is designed, and theodicy ie. why it wasn’t designed better. Suffering is such a fundamental aspect of life (and intrinsic to Natural Selection), that to say that God used Evolution as a mechanism for creating us (involving 5 mass extinction events), seems to point to an amoral God, who, like the universe is indifferent to our suffering. I would like to have heard Prof. Stannard’s response to this conundrum which puzzles me.
There is a God there isn't a God?
I don't know but it seems to be than many say there is no God simply because religion is man made.
Does God require a religion?
Perhaps religion should be seen simply.y as a framework to support belief.
Only God knows if God exists .
"God" is a human mental creation. Human mind is very limited.
Fail.
And for those who disbelieve will be the fire of Hell. [Death] is not decreed for them1 so they may die, nor will its torment be lightened for them. Thus do We recompense every ungrateful one.
There they will be ˹fervently˺ screaming, “Our Lord! Take us out ˹and send us back˺. We will do good, unlike what we used to do.” ˹They will be told,˺ “Did We not give you lives long enough so that whoever wanted to be mindful could have done so? And the warner came to you. So taste ˹the punishment˺, for the wrongdoers have no helper.”
Indeed, God is the Knower of the unseen of the heavens and the earth. He surely knows best what is ˹hidden˺ in the heart.(Quran:fatir:34,35)
SO? Mohammed was a pedophile!
@@golden-63
You repeat what you hear without studying or verifying
@@user-df9cr1cm8g if you read Bukhari and get your Islam from Bukhari you are a sad existence , Desert Terrorist Muhammad is a lie in Bukhari that got nothing to do with Prophet of Arabia , and btw how do you be so sure that what you quote from 1924 edition of Hafs Version of the Uthman Mushaf is really correct translation of Quran ????
It's just the water puddle analogy again. It's the universe asking itself why it exists.
That's not what fine tuning means. If the cosmological constant, for example, were even a tiny fraction different, matter itself could not have formed.
@@golden-63
Well said!! The notion that the “puddle analogy” carries any weight, philosophical, scientific or otherwise is beyond ironic and absurd.
Firstly, anyone with a basic grounding in modal logic and analytical philosophy can see that the “puddle analogy” is just a straw man argument and a parlour trick as it switches from an unbelievably complex sentient being (a human) with consciousness who has the potential to experience real joy, meaning and purpose to an inanimate object (a puddle), a straw man.
Equally, it is unfalsifiable (unscientific) and clearly doesn’t do justice to the scientific method including the Design, Logos, or Telos arguments that are extremely nuanced and sophisticated in terms of depth and complexity.
Secondly, the fact is that despite the “puddle” analogies popularity among strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists as a no nonsense “rational” rebuttal of the evidence for teleology and fine tuning in the constants of the universe, in reality Douglas Adams puddle analogy doesn’t rebut anything but itself. Because it undermines all epistemology, meaning and purpose and is also just an (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) as well as a tautology. If people think that imaginary sentient puddles can stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method then they should submit their testable, repeatable experiments and results to a scientific journal and they will win a Nobel prize for solving this deep problem.
Equally, It speaks volumes that the contemporary physicist Leonard Susskind who’s coming from a non religious perspective recently admitted that the present inability of physics to explain the fine tuning of the universe that is essential for life appears to leave an opening for a Designer.
“I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design].” - (Leonard Susskind the father of modern string theory)
Similarly according to the Nobel prize winner W. Bragg…….
“Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1915
If God creates all and then leaves all to chance (through evolutionary forces), expecting that in the one universe or the many universes (it doesn't matter which) intelligence will somewhere arise, how is this God different from the Deist God, who creates (maybe perpetually because that's His thing) and then allows His creation to run its own course?
And if this Deist God indeed exists and has created/creates/will create (in His timelessness, Spacelessness), why would He/She/They demand worship or deserve love? Wouldn't we humans do better to concentrate on preserving and continuing all of this "creation," which struggles and suffers and screams in agony at all times and in all places?
And isn't there a good chance that we humans are just not intelligent enough to save ourselves (and all other living things) from premature extinction, leaving room for living cells to once more sprout from the primordial goo to begin the whole story again, hopefully in a revised edition with a different ending?
And if all or some of this is so, then God and the religions that conjure Him up are unworthy of our notice. To hell with Him and them both.
Ed Esso get off your high horse
MAXIMLS I appreciate the logical force of your response, but I’m still not totally convinced. I do have admit, though, that several of your points are so strong, so compelling that I may be forced to change my mind on this subject completely.Thank you so much!
God both exists and does not exist. At the same time. And not at all at the same time.
Michael McKinley OMG, you’ve got it! God is Schrödinger’s Cat! God, or in homage to Schrödinger, Göd with an umlaut, is a superimposed spiritual atom, simultaneously existing and not existing until the moment when He is observed, His superimposition collapses, and the observer finds out if He's alive or dead! Genius!
th-cam.com/video/CrxqTtiWxs4/w-d-xo.html
PS Don't know if you know: there's a school of Christian theology (mostly Eastern Orthodox but also found in other Churches) called Apophatic (= Speaking Negatively, the Negative Path), which emphasizes the limitations of human thought and language by proposing that "The Living God does not exist," existence being a cramped human concept that cannot be applied to a transcendant being/non-being, The Eternal Paradox.
Wait a minute! Are you by any chance a Greek Orthodox monk? If you are, nod yes and no simultaneously!
From Wikipedia: "The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology?wprov=sfti1
@@Cor6196 I'm just an American atheist. But I've found your information fascinating. Just to clarify, atheism is not a rejection of the concept of God but merely the position that "I have no proof to cause me to believe." Actually, I find no real conflict in that and the schools of thought you brought attention to. Peace -
Did he just say God created the multiverse? ....... wow.
Yup. Whenever science comes up with an idea trying to explain to real physical world, 'believers' step in with some BS explanation that god did it.
It's really really hard to shake lose religious indoctrination, even for smart, educated people.
He is stupid like that, yes.
@@i20010 you're a dumbass.
@@nicofonce
“Physical”
Religious indoctrination”
Ho the irony!!
(Militant Atheism/relativism, materialism, philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that there was nothing, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is meaningless.” (Atheism)
Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as the claim that atheism isn’t indoctrinated!!
And they mock other people’s beliefs!!
@@nicofonce
“Real physical world”
This is comedy gold and is a question begging fallacy and special pleading fallacy of the highest degree!!
The fact is that the “natural sciences” can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be. No one even knows what the “real physical world” is because no one knows what “matter” is. The “natural sciences” does not make any capital T truth claims. It’s fundamentally agnostic when it comes to ontological claims regarding reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience. Because truth with a capital T is the role of metaphysics, modal logic and analytical philosophy.
Equally, according to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky…
“There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky).
Similarly, I’m not making any appeals to authority, but on the cognitive level Albert Einstein utilised a more nuanced approach and demonstrated that “matter” is nothing more substantive than the curvature of space and time which is why he completely rejected atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. That is Einstein completely rejected atheism for the nuanced God of Spinoza/deism/panentheism. Similarly, Einstein’s closest friend Michelle Besso, who Einstein stated “was the greatest sounding board in Europe”, completely rejected atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism (Christianity). Again I’m not making any appeals to authority.
However, it never ceases to amaze me how ironic it is to listen to the so called non religious, that is strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists psychoanalyze critics of evolution and materialism pointing to religious commitment and upbringing (The Genetic Fallacy). Critiquing scientific theories is the scientific method after all. The irony is that it is the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist and not the theist, who is committed to an evolutionary account of life’s origins. But the irony is that adaptation and speciation does not even explain origins so it is a non sequitur in a philosophical debate about metaphysics. The theist has more options open and there are theistic evolutionists who accept that evolution is currently the greatest explanation regarding biology but that science is a constantly changing landscape. This commitment was aptly stated by Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin who admitted to being forced to “accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world” not by “the methods and institutions of science” but by “a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
Nevertheless, the fact is that there are prominent contemporary Christian scientists such as Francis Collins who was the (Director of the Genome Project) who enthusiastically defend evolution and in contrast you have prominent atheist philosophers such as Thomas Nagel claiming that materialism and Neo Darwinism is an incomplete theory of reality and so is false. However, which world view has the greatest explanatory power? and which is the most parsimonious hypothesis? the Christian Francis Collins defence of evolution? or the prominent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagels claim that materialism and evolution is false?
The fact is that bringing up evolution in a philosophical debate about metaphysical beliefs is a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy, a non sequitur as there are prominent scientists who are theistic evolutionists and there always has been. Because the conflict between science and faith is a myth and a false dichotomy perpetuated by militant atheism.
Plenty of Darwin's scientific contemporaries, men like John Stevens Henslow, Charles Lyell, Asa Gray, George Wright, Alexander Winchell, and James Dana etc, didn’t have any major issues with evolution and their Christian beliefs. Furthermore, the irony is that initially militant atheists liked to point to the “The Big Bang Theory” as a defeater for faith. The irony is that atheist scientists coined the phrase “Big Bang” to mock the theory holding back the science for several years. And the double irony is that George Lemaitre who developed the theory turned out to be a devout Christian and remained so. Im not making any appeals to authority by the way. Furthermore, as the prominent historian James Moore has stated "with but few exceptions the leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms quite readily with Darwinism and evolution."
Nevertheless, according to contemporary atheist philosophers such as Mary Midgley….
“Evolution, then, is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory”
“Fatalism is now offered, not as just one possible philosophical attitude among others with reasons given for and against it, but as a fact backed by the tremendous authority of science.” (Mary Midgley).
Similarly according to the eminent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse…
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.” (Michael Ruse).
“The literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” (Michael Ruse).
Equally, according to Dr Raymond Tallis…
“Within the secular world picture, Neuromania and Darwinitis are the biggest piles of rubbish.” (Raymond Tallis)
It speaks volumes that according to the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel…
“The defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement” (Thomas Nagel).
It speaks volumes that Thomas Nagel, Raymond Tallis, Mary Midgley and Michael Ruse are prominent atheist philosophers….
As I pointed out already science is a constantly changing landscape and evolution is a non sequitur in a philosophical debate about origins and metaphysical presuppositions such as prescriptive laws of logic, conscious agents, empiricism and values such as morals and ethics.
I rest my case!!
❤️
This is embarrassing really! He asked the physicists/atheists to prove the existence of the multiverse but he doesn't apply the same method of proof to his god! come on god believers this is getting old...
I don't agree with him because I don't believe in a god, but I don't think you understood him. He was actually saying he doesn't think it's an either-or situation. He seems to accept the possibility of a multiverse, while considering the possibility of a god (despite it blowing the "fine-tuning" argument out of the water in the process). I don't think his point was, "You can't prove the multiverse, so that's why you should believe in god," but more like, "Just as you cannot prove god, you cannot prove the multiverse." I don't think he was really making an argument in the affirmative for the existence of god, but, rather, explaining how he fits his idea of god into modern cosmology and evolutionary theory. Again, I don't see any reason for believing in god, but I don't think your comment is a fair critique.
There is one thing that god doesn’t posses or could ever have....limitations.
The universe is certainly not observedly fine tuned for life.. Not tuned at all for anything, it's just that the basic rules of a sub-space we currently do not understand, and perhaps cannot ever fully understand, make matter inevitable. The constants are what they have to be, no fine tuning, no control over the matter... No need to start with the most complex super-intelligence when you can start with +ve cells held together by an ethereal sea of even tinier misty -ve particles, a -ve 'flux' - a hex lattice sub space... If you use your brain from this starting point you can invent many universes. Matter is a cell kicked from it's lattice position and perhaps the hole left behind, continuously trying to 'heal' back to perfectly regular space, but ends up either just bouncing (vibrating) in and out, or even streaming +ve cells into the -ve hole that repel at the centre in all directions, forming continuous streams that bond with other matter, or perhaps form loops back to it's own center.... who knows.
@@rubiks6 .. You're missing the points and you are not excused... We do not observe a Fine Tuner so, ummm, cannot honestly conclude the universe is fine tuned for a start... I outlined a type of universe where the so called 'finely tuned constants' could emerge from a much simpler system with only 1 constant, a fundamental base charge force and 2 particle/energy quanta types with +ve and -ve charge. It's only a simplified example, I am not saying it is definitely how things are.. I am not arrogant enough to claim I know there is a Fine Tuner / Creator... There could be, but it's unlikely for many reasons... Who tuned The Fine Tuner('s universe)... It's the same old, samd old, God Did It assertion, at the end of the day.
@@rubiks6 .. If you cannot imagine a universe where most of the many constants are emergent properties of an underlying, far simpler system you do no understand classical physics, let alone theoretical quantum physics. I used a simplified example because trying to explain say Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory to the general public is not easy, nor intuitive so I use an easier to visualise example that I fully acknowledge is just a demonstration of the principle, not physical fact...
PROVE YOUR FINE TUNER EXISTS! Prove the Standard Model is DEFINITELY FUNDAMENTAL and you will get your noble prize, but given its complexity and the fact most physics is emergent (all of classical physics, for instance) I seriously doubt the Standard Model is truly fundamental, and the many fundamental constants (29 ish if I remember correctly) are non-emergent.. Some constants are dimensionless ratios of other constants so either it is emergent, or the two constants feeding it are...
@@rubiks6 .. Bad analogy, a pot it obviously manmade. Even if we didn't know pots were manmade, we could compare it to nature and see a) it is not biological life.. b) it does not resemble known natural rock formations.. c) clay does not spontaneously form itself into pots... Life is proof of life, nothing more...
If you believe the standard model emerges from something simpler, as many physicists do, or at least hope, like classical physics emerges from quantum physics then there could be between zero and quite a few less 'tunable' constants (overloaded word, not good).. Zero is unlikely, but I'd laugh if the truly fundamental constants always settled down to a life-capable universe given enough time, no matter what the starting values of the so called 'constants'..There are 29ish fundamental constants, but some are unitless ratios between two other constants.... perhaps it takes time for constants to become truly fixed, perhaps some actually vary with time... Who's doing the fine tuning then? Physical forces if you ask me...
@@rubiks6 ..Although life's existence only proves life exists we know the building blocks are naturally occuring chemicals that are not alive.... Life cannot be used as convincing evidence for a creator on its own - a lot more, very extraordinary corroborating evidence is needed... There are quite well evidenced conjectures and theories as to how biology emerged from physics and chemistry. There is no good, and much very dodgy 'evidence' for God (The Creator)...
@@rubiks6 .. I'm presuming it's properly pot shaped with a bulging middle and smaller top and bottom. This would not form naturally out of clay. A roughly bowl shaped clay object could form but would not look manmade compared to a proper bowl. It's a neat, feelgood, circular tautology - a pot needs a potter, a creation needs a creator... It starts and ends with the assumption and assertion that the object was created by a creator with no (sound) corroborating evidence of a creator.. We have much evidence of the forces of nature bringing matter together in many ways, via chemical EM forces and gravity on the large scale.
This man just assumes that there is a God and unabashedly just contradicts himself. Think about what he’s saying. He is basically saying that God is behind the fine-tuning of the universe, but by the way God also initiated evolution and created any multiverse. Life emerged in a hostile universe but also by the way one which is full of love and perfect for life. Life is an inevitable part of the plan but also Oh so very precious and fragile at the same time. Huh? No matter which way the dice come up, it comes up God anyway. Nothing new is gained by what he is saying.
Palpatine!
Aww fail!!
Amazing how this religious scientist just completely ignores any kind of investigative method when it comes to his god.
- Somehow he knows what the intention of this, never demonstrated to even exist, god is????
The Law myoho-renge-kyo represents the identity of what some scientists refer to as the ‘unified field of all consciousnesses’. In other words, it’s a sound vibration that is the essence of all of existence and non-existence, the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the true creator of everything that is, ever was and ever will be, right down to the minutest particles of dust, each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves by tapping directly into it by way of self-produced sound vibration.
On the subject of ‘Who or What Is God?’, when we compare the concept of ‘God’, as a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to Nichiren’s teachings, the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people call ‘God’ is our enlightenment, which exists nowhere else but within us.
When the disciples asked Jesus where the Kingdom of God is, didn’t he tell them that it was within them?
Some say that ‘God’ is an entity that can never be seen. I think that the vast amount of information that is constantly being conveyed via electromagnetic waves gives us proof of how an invisible state of ‘God’ could actually exist. It’s widely known that certain data being relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects, including instant global awareness of something or mass emotional reaction. As well as many other things, it’s also common knowledge that these waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to even enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars. However, none of this is possible without a receiver to decode the information that is being transmitted. Without the receiver, the information would remain impotent.
In a very similar way, it’s important for us to have our ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our life, all other life and what we and all else that exists truly is. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and switch it on. That’s because the sound vibration of myoho-renge-kyo represents the combination of the three major laws that underlie all existence.
Myoho represents the Law of latency and manifestation (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. One state of myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists. This includes our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them, our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re not being expressed, our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma, and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes obvious to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory, whenever we experience or express our emotions, or whenever a good or bad effect manifests from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it simply means that it has come out of the state of ‘myo’ (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s simply the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing something.
The second law, renge, governs and controls the functions of myoho, ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect. The two laws of myoho and renge, both functions together simultaneously, as well as underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination, kyo, is what allows the law myoho to be able to integrate with the law renge. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects together all Life and matter, as well as the past, present and future. It is often termed the Universal Law of Communication. Perhaps it could even be compared to the string theory that some scientists now suspect exists.
Just as our body cells, thoughts, feelings and all else are constantly fluctuating within us, everything in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux, in accordance with these three laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible for us to calculate or describe. And it doesn't matter how big or small, important or trivial that anything may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of myoho-renge-kyo.
These three laws are also the basis of the four fundamental forces and if they didn't function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. Simply put, all forms of existence, including the seasons, day and night, birth, death and so on, are all moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation, rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two universal states of myo and ho in absolute accordance with renge and by way of kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn in accordance with the workings of what the combination myoho-renge-kyo represents.
Nam, or Namu, on the other hand, is a password or a key; it allows us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with myoho-renge-kyo. On a more personal basis, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives from moment to moment, as well in our environment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is turning, and rhythmically chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo for a minimum of ten minutes daily, anyone can experience actual proof of its positive effects in their life.
In so doing, we can pierce through even the thickest layers of our karma and activate our Buddha Nature (the enlightened state). We’re then able to summon forth the wisdom needed to challenge, overcome and change our negative circumstances into positive ones. It brings forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that is preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we truly are, regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexual preference. We are also able to see and understand our circumstances and an environment more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations.
Actual proof soon becomes apparent to anyone who chants the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo on a regular daily basis. Everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect, so the strength of the result from chanting depends on dedication, sincerity and determination. To explain it more simply, the difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a song and so on.
NB: There are frightening, disturbing sounds and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It's the emotional result from any sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day you are producing a sound vibration that is the password to your true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things, such as your fears and desires etc. The important way to get the best result when chanting is not to see things in a conventional way (difficult to achieve but can be done), rather than reaching out to an external source, you need to reach into your own life and bring your needs and desires to fruition from within, including any help that you may need. Think of it as a seed within you that you are bringing sunshine and water to in order for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s important to understand that everything that we need in life, all the answers and potential to achieve our dreams, already exist within us.
th-cam.com/video/6CZ0XJqWRr4/w-d-xo.html OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN sings about Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
I really love this channel. It asked the questions that really matters. The fine tuned questions and the dozen of cosmological constants raises the possibility of a Creator, all the while,even that for itself raises futher questions. I too shared that view that someone or something created the universe but our human mind has a limit and therefore cannot comprehend, or is not intelligent enough to understand the questions beyond, so to say. Also , a question arises from the scientific point of view is that,do we have to worship that Creator, is that demanded of us, well that sounds like the Creator is a sort of Dictator. This Scientist puts the centrality of love. Love is something that according to me is natural and automatic and what if I don't have that Love for the Creator, is it my fault? The what if, are endless.
“Do we have to worship”
“Centrality of love”
I totally agree with you about the centrality of love. Equally, I thought the only form of worship required is to treat our fellow humans with unconditional positive regard and love. According to the brilliant philosopher Emanuel
Kants categorical imperative you should “do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Any other form of ritual and worship is just personal preference or symbolic. But symbols and rituals are a very good way of teaching and stimulating the imagination and preventing procrastination. I thought this was common knowledge to be honest!
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
(Mathew 25:40)
❤️
Amazingly, Stannard manages to make the god hypothesis sound even more insane than usual.
Lol, he speaks with such self authority, its funny.
“Even more insane than usual”
Ho the irony!! It’s because he recognises that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is insane. Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it ridiculous….
(Militant Atheism/relativism, materialism, philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that there was nothing, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is meaningless.” (Atheism)
Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your suggestion that the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism is insane!!
And they mock other peoples beliefs!!
❤️😎
@@i20010
“It’s funny”
Not as funny as your appeal to absolutes whilst claiming to be a relativist!
If you want to deny something don’t choose objective morality, absolute truth, free will, the Holocaust or Hiroshima. You’ll look silly. There’s way too much evidence! Choose the belief that there’s no real evil and depravity in the world as we are all just determined machines with no free will or choice. Or the belief that we are nothing more than brain chemicals as adaptation and speciation is a blank cheque to explain away everything even origins, values, morals and ethics.
If you want to deny something don’t choose empathy, bravery courage self sacrifice or the fact that millions of Christians including 6 million Polish Catholics died fighting the Nazis. You’ll look silly! There’s way too much evidence! Choose the belief that you are nothing more than a chemical and biological robot who is incapable of bravery because free will doesn’t exist. Or the belief that you are nothing more than an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas so self sacrifice is just an illusion created by DNA. Or the belief that you are nothing more than an overgrown amoeba. Or the belief that you are nothing more substantive than the science project of baking soda and vinegar bubbling over. Does the baking soda and vinegar bubble over bravely when it uses prevarication (clever lies) to claim that the belief in objective morality, real bravery, courage, free will and self sacrifice is “funny”? Can the baking soda and vinegar take the credit for its circular logic and self contradiction?
❤️😎
“he speaks with such self authority, it’s funny”
Lol you speak with such self authority it’s hilarious! Sorry but your comment was comedy gold!! And is an (Appeal to your own Authority Fallacy). “Speaks with such self authority it’s funny” according to who’s authority? Your authority? This is beyond ironic!!. I’m not making any appeals to authority but he has an OBE for contribution to physics and won the Templeton prize and your just a cliche internet pseudo sceptic who’s just failed to take the intellectual high ground by completely contradicting yourself. The list goes on as he is a multi award winning open university emeritus professor who was head of the physics department and pro vice chancellor of the open university. Erm…the reason he speaks with such authority is because he is an authority! He’s an highly experienced public speaker and English professor. “How dare he use the queens English and speak with such authority on something he is an authority on especially if I don’t agree with his conclusions”
Lol your comment and failed attempt at rhetoric is hilarious and is comedy gold!! Keep it up because it’s a great way of strengthening people’s faith in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism.
I rest my case!!
❤️😎
When intelligent people believe in god i find it a bit unsettling.
I think they are incapable of being comfortable with admitting there is no current answer.
Therefore he must be un-intelligent.
@@i20010he's cleverer than you though
@@bannaubrycheiniog1329 He was a high-energy nuclear physicist and has 10 videos on YT called The boundaries of the knowable which got me interested in science 10 years ago. This idiot doesn't even know what he's talking about, even if professor Stannard believes in a creator that doesn't mean he's un-intelligent. I'm an atheist myself but sometime guys like itai are making me cringe.
“Unsettling”
Sorry but this is nothing more than rhetoric and an (Appeal to Extremes Fallacy). I find it “unsettling” when people assert that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything) a belief that at worst is synonymous with the belief in magic and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles.
I don’t need secular myths and secular religion to know what right and wrong is!!
(Militant Atheism/relativism, materialism, philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that there was nothing, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is meaningless.” (Atheism)
Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as the claim that you find it “unsettling” that a physicist believes in an absolute ontological ground of truth and morality!!
And they mock other people’s beliefs!!
The universe IS mind.
Even if you say mutiverse it's still one thing, one substance, one ground of being. God.
Glad that works for you...but, if so... why are you HERE?
Why would god care about us ? Do we care about ants ?
Anthropic principle - If you change things, you don't get us. Of course. The amount you change it is limited to the amount possible, which is infinite to the infinite to the ... in infinitude. Every particle and the smallest of it to infinity has infinity. So, in that 'universe' we obviously exist - see anthropic principle - in one of an infinitely (keep it simple) universes ... a mirror that shatters into the infinite. The question is meaningless. And no, this idea isn't garbage. It is certainly mathematically supported. And, in physics it is supported. To say the universe is 'fine-tuned' is to deny the greater mystery of the "universe"
Michael McKinley
The problem is if anything possible could happen in those odds, why are we finding ourselves in a universe that was that lucky? Why the one that makes logical sense and why did we stop getting so lucky? We don’t find people who continuously get dealt4 aces in a row. Nothing has been as lucky again since life began.
@@kjustkses
Yep well said!! It’s a massive problem and if it could be just hand waved away with stories about imaginary talking puddles no one would have bothered investing money in the (multiverse hypothesis) in the first place. As I’ve already pointed out on here the prominent scientist Leonard Susskind who’s coming from a non religious perspective recently admitted that the present inability of physics to explain the fine tuning of the universe that is essential for life appears to leave an opening for a Designer.
“I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design].” - (Leonard Susskind the father of modern string theory)
“Keep it simple”
Ho the irony!! According to the English physicist Paul Davies a true scientific explanation, “is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of ‘explanation’ meaningless.”
The brilliant scientist Richard Swinburne is just as strong in his disdain for the multiverse explanation: “It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.”
“These universes would never be directly observable; we couldn’t even meaningfully say whether they existed ‘before’, ‘after’ or ‘alongside’ our own” (Richard Swinburne).
Imagine entering a hotel room on your next vacation. The CD player on the bedside table is softly playing a track from your favorite recording. The framed print over the bed is identical to the image that hangs over the fireplace at home. The room is scented with your favorite fragrance. You shake your head in amazement and drop your bags on the floor.
You’re suddenly very alert. You step over to the minibar, open the door, and stare in wonder at the contents. Your favorite beverages. Your favorite cookies and candy. Even the brand of bottled water you prefer.
You turn from the mini bar, then, and gaze around the room. You notice the book on the desk: it’s the latest volume by your favorite author. You glance into the bathroom, where personal care and grooming products are lined up on the counter, each one as if it was chosen specifically for you. You switch on the television; it is tuned to your favorite channel.
Chances are, with each new discovery about your hospitable new environment, you would be less inclined to think it was all a mere coincidence, right? You might wonder how the hotel managers acquired such detailed information about you. You might marvel at their meticulous preparation. You might even double-check what all this is going to cost you. But you would certainly be inclined to believe that someone knew you were coming.
Let’s take the most basic laws of physics. It has been calculated that if the value of even one of the fundamental constants-the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for instance-had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have formed.
The recent popularity of this argument has highlighted a new dimension of the laws of nature. ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture,’ writes physicist Freeman Dyson, ‘the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming.’ In other words, the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life. This is the anthropic principle, popularized by such thinkers as Martin Rees, John Barrow, and John Leslie.
In his book Infinite Minds, John Leslie, a leading anthropic theorist, argues that fine tuning is best explained by divine design. He says that he is impressed not by particular arguments for instances of fine tuning, but by the fact that these arguments exist in such profusion. ‘If, then, there were aspects of nature’s workings that appeared very fortunate and also entirely fundamental,’ he writes, ‘then these might well be seen as evidence specially favoring belief in God.
“Meaningless”
Imagine you were driving through south Dakota and picked up a hitchhiker and as you drove past Mount Rushmore the hitchhiker looks up and exclaims “wow!! that’s George Washington, wow!! that’s Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson up there as well!!”
“Isn’t it amazing how the water just happened to trickle over the edge of Mount Rushmore and carved those four unique faces completely by accident.”You would look at the hitchhiker incredulously and with a little bit of concern in your eyes. It’s the same incredulous reaction theists have when materialists, atheists and philosophical naturalists point to billions of people on the earth with not only unique faces but unique personalities, thoughts, including unique qualities of experience such as the experience of empathy, compassion, altruism, beauty, bravery, meaning and purpose and ultimately love.
(Militant Atheism, relativism, materialism, philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that there was nothing, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing happened to nothing forever and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is meaningless.” (Atheism)
Yeah makes perfect sense!!
About as much sense as the belief that life reality and existence is nothing more than the by product of accidental, blind, mindless, random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities!!
And they mock other people’s beliefs!!
2:33 "The universe is fitted like this to make our existence possible"Huh? This guy is delusional.
23
Don't speak for God. Let Him speaks for Himself.
"God" doesn't speak, bc "god" is a human fairy tale.
Please..leave Him searching in the rest of UNIVERSES His GOD.!!