Does Science Argue for or against God? | 5 Minute Video
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Why are we here? Literally. The latest science says we shouldn’t be. It says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero. So, is science the greatest threat to the idea of Intelligent Design or is science its greatest advocate? Best-selling author and lecturer, Eric Metaxas, poses this intriguing question and comes up with a very unexpected and challenging answer.
🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE 👉 www.prageru.com/join/
📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage...
Download for Android ➡ play.google.com/store/apps/de...
📳 Join PragerU's text list! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
Script:
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: "Is God Dead?" The cover reflected the fact that many people had accepted the cultural narrative that God is obsolete -- that, as science progresses there is less need for a "God" to explain the universe. It turns out, though, that the rumors of God's death were premature. In fact, perhaps the best arguments for his existence come from -- of all places -- science itself.
Here's the story: The same year Time featured its now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two necessary criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion planets in the universe -- that's 1 followed by 24 zeros -- there should have been about septillion planets -- that's 1 followed by 21 zeros -- capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, scientists were optimistic that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, known by its initials, SETI, an ambitious project launched in the 1960's, was sure to turn up something soon. With a vast radio telescopic network, scientists listened for signals that resembled coded intelligence. But as the years passed, the silence from the universe was deafening. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis, nada, zilch, which is to say zero followed by an infinite number of zeros.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were, in fact, far more factors necessary for life -- let alone intelligent life -- than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10, then 20, and then 50, which meant that the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine that strongly affirms atheism: "In light of new findings and insights . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable."
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. For example, without a massive, gravity-rich planet like Jupiter nearby to draw away asteroids, Earth would be more like an interstellar dartboard than the verdant orb that it is.
Simply put, the odds against life in the universe are astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfectly met by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that it is science itself that suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions in fact require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds?
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.com/videos/does-s...
"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.
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
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.
im not here to argue im here to read the arguements
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:
ruclips.net/video/xjjoeBUkuYY/видео.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!
Science doesn’t give a shit if there’s a god or not.
I need my own personal Jupiter to sail through this life 😄😄
god
Jesus is
Amen 🤣
"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
This video uses some overzealous paraphrasing to the point of being really misleading. For example, look at the quote they put in the video @2:13. If you actually read the article, you’ll find that it actually says (I’ll put in bold only the parts they showed in the video): “However, in the interest of science and sound skepticism, I believe it is time to take the *new findings and insights* into account, to dampen excessive SETI euphoria and to adopt a more pragmatic and down-to-earth stand, compatible with facts. *We should quietly admit that the early estimates* - that there may be a million, a hundred thousand, or ten thousand advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy - *may no longer be tenable*.” See how Prager cherry picked this narrative? Why would they do that? Because there’s at least 100 billion galaxies, so even if there was only one planet with intelligent life per galaxy, that’s still 100 billion planets with intelligent life that are totally beyond communication, which greatly weakens Prager’s narrative. What’s worse is that the article was written in 2006, years before Kepler discovered all those extrasolar planets, bringing the galactic estimate to _at least_ 100 billion planets in our galaxy alone, all of which are currently beyond our ability to communicate with even if there is intelligent life on any of them. I wonder how many other quotes in this video are misleading. I've already wasted enough time with the one quote and I don't want to waste time on the others, but if you'd like to reply to this comment with your findings, please do so.
Despite all this, time is the most important variable and it’s completely ignored in this video. A planet can have life on it for billions of years, and intelligent life for millions of years, and still not have the ability to communicate with distant planets. In fact, that’s exactly Earth’s situation. So, to say that because our immensely limited species, “hasn’t found intelligent life in the universe yet” after only a few decades of primitive research, and use that as any sort of argument about the nature of the universe, is to exemplify a gross misunderstanding of the subject matter.
Finally, having never observed other universes, we can currently only state that the odds of our universe coming into existence are 1:1. Anything else requires appealing to the unknown as if it’s known. Furthermore, if God had to greatly fine-tune, then it means He was bound by rules that _forced_ Him to do so. The greater the odds, the more restricted the god. The more restricted the god, the more impotent the god. So, omnipotence is sacrificed to make this argument, which is untenable for the Abrahamic god. Let us not forget that this also leads to the question of who created the rules that dictated the requirements for God’s fine-tuning? Example: you fine-tune a car, because physics prevents you from getting the car to do what you want it to do unless you take those physics into consideration and base your fine-tuning around them. So, what was preventing “God” from getting the universe to do what He wanted, thereby forcing Him to take such considerations that resulted in the need for this supposed extreme fine-tuning? The fine-tuning argument actually kills the classical monotheistc god, yet Prager still uses it.
Well that just means we don't know. We'll never know until we die...
The argument also dose not explain where did god come into play and how this extremely fine tuned universe would need a god that would have to be way more complex then the universe would be. This argument is called passing the buck and falls apart at even remotely thinking deeper into what prager is saying.
+DarkMatter2525 I know you you make video's about god but you do bad research
+darkmatter2525 the crux of both statements is the same...a shorter statement makes it easier for viewers...you of all people should know that.
ques. why haven't we found intelligent life outside earth? ans. must be because we haven't had enough time.
Ad hoc much?
odds of our universe coming into existence is just 1:1. ok let's just throw theoretical physics out the window, shall we?
"if God had to fine-tune, then he had to have been restricted by rules that forced him to do so"...that's an assumption/your opinion, not a fact.
grab a plate darkmatter, you just got served.
Glen DSouza don't waste time with that troll he so lost with fantasy its sad
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.
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?
"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
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
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.
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.
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
*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.
The idea of a creator is NOT the BEST but the EASIEST
Not the universe is designed for life, but life is designed for the universe.
*_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. : )
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.
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.
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
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.
*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
_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.
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.
Existence is the greatest evidence of a creator.
"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
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.
"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.
Religion is basically the old version of science. Science is based on facts, religion is based on guesses.
>60 perfectly fitting books with 40 different authors is pretty well fitting
A model that can't make planetesimals isnt
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....
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?
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.
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.
@@demiligne3456 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
This video is like taking a spoonfull of the ocean and saying that whales don't exist.
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
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.
Does science prove or disprove the giant spaghetti monster? Of course it doesnt!
Abrahamic faith is nonesense
@IdkGoodName Vilius are you referring to anti theists?
@IdkGoodName Vilius Quick question, can you believe in the possibility of life on other planets, and the possibility of god at the same time? I'm wondering this because what if god exists, but god decided to create other life forms that developed, evolved, and created their own societies other then us humans on earth.
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.
ruclips.net/video/WIwKhX-1gZQ/видео.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.
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."
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.
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?
The puddle also thinks the pothole was specifically designed for itself since it’s edges so perfectly match the puddle’s.
Ok... but your atheist bias is showing by grasping for straws
visionware pot
Uhh what?
Who said I was an atheist? Even religious people can admit when someone makes a bad argument laced abundantly with logical fallacies.
If this guy said 1+1=3 and I said 1+1=2 there’d still be people saying that’s just my atheist bias.
And it’s funny how the only people who think atheists have a collectivist view of the world like Christians and Jews are religious people.
Well said!
Could not have put it better myself. 15/10.
Water cannot puddle without boundaries on a planet with gravity. Therefore, a container such as a pothole is necessary for a puddle to even form. Your pothole argument has so many holes in it the water's draining out.
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?
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.
The fact that you can't explain why we are here doesn't mean that God exists. Just admit that you can't explain everything.
@Yang Wen Li Hum evolution is perfectly explained, always has been in fact
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
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.
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.
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?
Well, the odds aren’t inconceivable seeing as there are 1000000000000000000000000
It’s not luck it’s simply inevitable, so many stars that change over time for such a long time, eventually the right scenario was bound to happen…
The Big Bang created time space matter so there is no time for ur god to exist
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.
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.
You can tell the video is going to be good when the description starts off saying "the chance life exists at all is less than zero."
Guess I’ll die?
Actually anyone who says the chance is less than zero clearly has no idea what they're talking about
There's a lot that we don't know. I find it ridiculous when people talk about the universe as if we got all the facts about the universe.
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.
@@JustInertia How exactly is everything "far [too] perfect?"
@@JustInertia 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.
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.
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.
You dip a pint glass into the ocean, take it out and look at it.
“Nope no fish”
Dont even try to go that route, under a microscope there are planktons and bacteria. Even a pinch of dust from the desert has life or evidence thereof.
@@josiahjudah3126 but we are talking fish not microbes
@@shawnwilliams3604 technically planktons are not microbes, they are small plant and animal life. Hahaha
@@josiahjudah3126 again we are still talking fish whole fish not microscopic life or non-fish :)
@@shawnwilliams3604 Damn, but fishes are animal life like zooplaktons not microbes. How do you intend to interpret his argument in the first place?
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.
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...
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.
To be honest, in regards to the quote “there are two possibilities; either we are alone in this universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying” I would have to say the most terrifying one is “not alone,” for the sole reason of the unknown. If there is nothing to know out there, there is nothing to fear. If there is at least one civilization out there that isn’t ours, then we don’t know if there are more. Even if we find it.
To be honest, in regards to the quote "there are two possibilities: either we are alone in this universe or we are not, both of which are equally terrifying," I would have to say "not alone" is the most terrifying.
NLEC 5_LACERNA,JERVIE GLYDE
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
@@el_perro_feliz6647 You don't know what the odds are, don't play pretend.
The odds are no chance.
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
Thing is, who says that the chances are random?
As a physicist, I am annoyed when people use physics discoveries without understanding them. When one talks about fine tuning, one should also talk about the multiverse and also the fact that since we do not yet understand what happened during the very early universe, we do NOT know yet if the fundamental constants are fine-tuned or if there is a physical explanation to their values. Also, one should that when Hoyle coined the term Big Bang during an interview, he was ridiculing the concept of a Big Bang (he was a proponent of the continuous creation theory) and he has since then been proven wrong (the Big Bang theory actually describes the evolution of the Universe after the very early times, and it has been spectacularly confirmed).
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?
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
Great example of the god of gaps fallacy!
This video literally does not make logical sense. So there is a extremely minuscule chance of life existing on planets, so therefore the universe is "finely tuned"? Despite the fact we have not yet found any life to begin with.
@@andr0meda313 I think you may be missing the point a bit. He's not saying that the universe is finely-tuned because of the fact that there probably isn't any life on other planets. He said it was finely-tuned in ways such as the ratios of the forces which must have been determined a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. And the earth is finely-tuned because it meets an astonishing amount of criteria spot-on, against all odds. The fact that we have not yet found any life elsewhere only serves to confirm that a planet with such perfect conditions isn't as easy to happen upon as scientists once thought.
@VLOH Could you explain how he was fallacious? I don't know a lot about different kinds of fallacies but he seemed perfectly logical to me.
Avro Arrow Where does god come from?
Avro Arrow
The universe is not finely tuned for us, dude. The vast majority of our cosmos can kill you flat within seconds if not milliseconds if you do not have the correct tools that rational people (NOT religious people, that is) have been making sense the dawn of civilization.
This is similar to a puddle of water saying that the pothole is so efficient and meant for him since it clearly contains it perfectly.
Research on the god of gaps fallacy. It’s a real fallacy you theologians use to push your narrative that was FED to you since you were an infant.
Jupiter is now my best friend.
*Mars disliked that*
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.
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.
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
I thought the universe was fine-tuned for life... why isn’t it teeming with it?
i thought the practically infinite universe wasn't fine-tuned for life... why is the earth teeming with it?
@@Zimbobroke Because Earth is literally nothing but a tiny tiny microbic space dust that is completely insignificant compared to the rest of the universe. So one small blink having some life in the grand scheme is literally nothing.
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 RUclips 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.
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?
The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.
Great comment Doyle. This short video mainly covers the undeniable scientific evidence that our universe and Earth were intelligently designed. Being so short it would be tough to give some time to the marvelousness of the cell. The manufacturing/ departmenalized complexity of human cell…The human cell contains some of the most compelling evidence that something intelligent started all of this. Again, I agree with your sentiment and love other videos that cover the cell and intricacies of the human body. No way did we macro evolve.
But, if the big bang happens infinately, creating infinite universes, even with the odds of EVERYTHING (universe, cells, life, laws, etc.) being incomprehensably small, infinity nullifies all the chance
Man, the probability of the existence of life on any randomly selected planet is stupendously low, but how many exoplanets have we discovered till now which are hospitable to life? An extremely low probability doesn't imply the impossibility of an event and in this vast cosmos, life had to evolve somewhere. Luckily though, it did on the earth.
@@Bookshelf823 Correct.
4:33 I think Hoyle, although an atheist, criticized Darwin and the theory of evolution at times.
Hoyle often said things to push his failed hypothesis, the Steady State Theory. The willfully ignorant like to pretend that Hoyle supports them. No he did not.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 I never said that Hoyle was a creationist. He was far from it undoubtedly. That is why I pointed out the fact that he was an atheist. I just wanted to point out his criticism because I thought it to be interesting as he seemed different from the average evolutionist at the time. It's kind of like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Trumpists do not think Sanders is one of them or a supporter and they disagree with a lot of his rhetoric, but they recognize that he is outside of the Democrat political establishment and feel he is wrongly treated by them, even if they represent two totally different breeds of populism. I think Hoyle was outside of the scientific establishment even though I have no doubt he was on the opposite side of the spectrum that pitted him against creationists, as he was snubbed of a Nobel Prize and did have a tendency to break from the scientific establihsment during his lifetime, even if he did it for totally different reasons than creationists. I thought it was just worthy to note.
@@andrewthetextbook489
" I just wanted to point out his criticism because I thought it to be interesting as he seemed different from the average evolutionist "
He was not an evolutionist, they are imaginary. OK there are maybe two people in real science that call themselves that. The only one that I am aware of has a hidden agenda. Its a Creationist term. In any case he didn't know biology and the one thing that Creationists abuse him for is that idiotic airplane in a junkyard quotemine that only shows how little he knew on the subject. Life is not built, it grows, there is no blueprint.
". It's kind of like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. "
That is not a sane opposition.
" I think Hoyle was outside of the scientific establishment
So far outside that he was Knighted. Hm, seems was not outside, but he did age into crankery because, like Creationists, he would not give up a false assumption that was long disproved, his Steady State theory.
"as he was snubbed of a Nobel Prize a"
Seems like he should have won it but that was for something that had nothing to do with his long term crankery.
"I thought it was just worthy to note."
And I think its worthy to note that he was ignorant about biology and that silly quote mine only shows badly he understood the subject. Just like Creationists.
He turned into a crank. Not really a good thing.
Ey he wasnt based
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
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.
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?
Soooo delighted it’s Eric Metaxas speaking in this video! So check out his channel Socrates In The City if you don’t know him!!
ruclips.net/video/WIwKhX-1gZQ/видео.html
Why would be delighted that he made a nonsense video for a channel filled with nonsense and bad reasoning?
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” ― Isaac Newton
@@stevenshay2855 "Our understanding of the formation of the universe and our solar system traces back to the later half of the 20th century, therefore, if you witness any advocate of theocracy claiming the genius of Isaac Newton or Galileo, be unperturbed by his oblivious attitude towards knowledge and scrutiny and don't allow his opinions to intervene in your worldview." - Shivang Srivastava
This is one of the most disingenuous arguments for scientific proof of god I’ve ever heard.
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
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.
It makes me physically anxious hearing him throw around scientific 'facts' while clearly not understanding what he's talking about.
Don’t you really believe in arch-angels¿
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.
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.
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?
@hill billy 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.
@hill billy 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.
Tal Zysberg No where in this video was the suggestion that we are ultimately alone in the universe, but only that there needs to be extreme finetuning for life to be able to exist.
We hear from zero aliens and zero gods.
One of the requirements is for the planet to be flat, otherwise the planet will fall to the ground as a sphere doesn't fly like a disc.
Elijah Miniuk Best comment ever
Elijah Miniuk I hope you're kidding
Elijah Miniuk underrated comment
Lol, I need your help to spread the truth around.
The Flat Earth Society has members all *around* the globe
"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.
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.
Wow I learned so much by reading the comments of all these RUclips philosophers, astronomers, scientists, and physicists. It’s amazing how these nobodies think they know more than actual experts.
Eric relays dozens of scientific facts that can each be studied and explored. The evidence is right in front of your eyes. Obvious conclusion for most. How others can deny Ill never know.
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.
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.
Studying and exploring science and concluding God does not exist make as much sense as reading “The God Delusion” and concluding that Richard Dawkins does not exist. Atheism makes zero logical sense in science, while faith in God makes perfect harmonious sense.
How does god make perfect sense ? Which god are you even talking about cause there is more than 3000 of them
Thunderfoot brought me here
he was late to the party tho....