Debate - Alex J. O'Connor vs Josh Parikh | Is the universe finely tuned for life?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2017
- In a first for this channel, here's a real, live debate between me and Oxford University PPE undergraduate Josh Parikh on the topic of fine tuning, with regards to my response to a video called "How a Dice can show that God exists", which was produced by Justin Brierly, the host of this radio show.
I'm glad to be able to share this with you, it was a fun discussion.
For the full audio version of the episode, head over to www.premierchristianradio.com...
Support the Cosmic Skeptic RUclips channel on Patreon: / cosmicskeptic
@CosmicSkeptic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
The response video in question: • Can Dice Prove God? Ac...
Josh's Twitter: / joshuaparikh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Parikh on divine hiddenness: • Schellenberg's Argumen...
realatheology.wordpress.com/2...
And on the problem of evil: www.premierchristianradio.com...
• Responding to the Prob...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
As it happens, this is the first time I've attempted to speak in public outside of making RUclips videos. It was a good experience and I'm excited to hear your responses.
I've left some of Josh's other work in the description if you're interested in his philosophy.
Also and finally, there is much more to be said on the fine tuning argument, so expect an "Arguments for God" episode sometime in the future.
- Your pal, Al
You are a rad dude 👌👌👌
I was looking for this already, glad you uploaded it.
Moreover: it would be "a crime" if you do not speak in public more often. You speak eloquent, the point, but stay respectable and make it relatable.
I said it in another comment, but thanks for being so calm and collected in all of your work. I think people are drawn to you because of that (and your obvious grasp on the material). But it's nice to watch people not yelling at the camera. So have more dialogs like this with other people who can also do that (I did appreciate the other two guys for being able to do that).
It helps to see and show the holes in arguments when our brains aren't tied up in emotion. So thanks for helping to reveal the holes!
I really liked your poker analogy: that we take an already existing concept and work backwards to make it special/significant. Knowing the answer and finding the question. Which is what I feel is done with the the stories of the bible. I felt you stopped short of connecting it to an atheists argument and linking it back to us/life. That atheists will shrug and say, "I don't know," and theists will God of the Gap it.
You were out numbered though, so I don't hold it against you. 😉
That was over Skype though, not really in person.
most people on youtube would just talk trash to each other through their videos and im just really glad to see that normal debate still exists
100% with you on that. Cursing, and insulting just leads to animosity. True debate is what this world needs to improve :D
The Dictator Well those are for entertainment. They aren't really meant as debates at all. Once one is proposed then you will see a debate.
Exactly my thoughts.
Agreed. I'm happy that some people recognize this.
Maybe relax is more interesting word rather than "normal"
So articulate. So intelligent. ONLY 18 I AM ANGRY
What The Fuckerino Kripperino and where is that?
France
What The Fuckerino Kripperino
I didn't know kripperinos existed outside of Kripp's channel.
Cynical Cheddar Kripp is love Kripp is life
+What The Fuckerino Kripperino Clever is a dime a dozen. Clear thinking, and calm? That's rare.
The universe isn't finely tuned for life. Life is finely tuned to the universe. That's what evolution is, adapting and passing on the traits best suited to surviving in an environment.
Actually you are right that the universe isn't finely tuned for life. The bible never says it was. The bible says that the earth was finely tuned for man. We were given dominion over it. We handed dominion of the earth to Lucifer. God cursed the ground and literally told man that the ground would be hostile to us so we would be forced to adapt to adverse conditions. Meanwhile Lucifer used his dominion to kill, steal and destroy whatever God created. So it's no surprise that the Earth has become hostile toward us. As for the rest of the universe, it's simply a display of God's creative power. When you see the aurora bourealis you should look up to God and say "How Great Thou Art!" Because his Art is a sight to behold.
wawuglio Sorry, but can you give me biblical examples of how satan ruled earth with absolute dominion?
wawuglio alright, I’ll retract my previous wording of “absolute dominion” and refine it to “dominion” that seems fair. Still I see no evidence that Satan had dominion to be on earth, and say he did, what gives you the idea that humanity handed the world to Lucifer? But even so, he was cast into a bottomless pit for one thousand years until he was then freed, once he was freed satan created war and rivalry, and then was cast to eternal burning and damnation. I can’t see how causing war is worthy of eternal suffering. There has been and still is plenty of religious folk who believe in the Bible with every last breath, that cause unforgivable and unconceivable atrocities, yet they don’t receive the same treatment?
@@wawuglio The bible wouldn't have been able to say anything true or relevant about the universe (cosmology) because the people who wrote it didn't know what earth or anything else was. They believed in the firmament.
@@SavageHenry777 If God was writing a science book he would have included correct information about the universe. Instead he wrote a book about the relationship between man and his Creator.
“I’d like to know Alex’s position on this, what do you think, Josh?”
Deadass🤣🤣
Josh’s arguments were so weak too, really wanted to hear Alex speak more. Was so much more thoughtful and insightful.
"it seems to me."' "it seems to me."' "it seems to me."' "it seems to me."' "it seems to me."' "it seems to me."' ... therefore morality is objective.
Subjective Boy is oblivious.
At least i'm not the only one that got bugged by that.
Kos Eighty does he understand what subjective means? I honestly wouldn't be able to sit there and not call him on that
I'm convinced he was trying to use an argument based on assumptions but couldn't think of the word.
Kos Eighty It's a flawed argument because I could simply say 'there is a pink dragon floating above me which you can't prove or disprove the existence of and since it seems to me like it's there, it must be objective'
Kos Eighty what does objective evidence even mean? ive heard it quite often and cant quite define it.
Ooh, sounds like Alex is about to make a good point, better cut him off and let the robot with a sore throat respond before changing the subject!
I swear Josh speaking lower than what his normal voice is. His voice has that vibrating sound in the back of his throat. You know when you try singing lower than your vocal chords are comfortable with? That kinda thing. His real voice broke out for a second at 31:00 lol.
Let's try not to insult people. It isn't conducive to friendly debate.
Not trying to, it's just I don't understand why people try and put on a deeper voice. It's far more bearable listening to a higher voice clearly, than a croaky deep voice.
There is a fair chance that there was something wrong with his throat during this and so it's kinda unfair to assume it is intentional. Although I do have to say that I had to go over what he said a few times because I just couldn't focus on his words due to the sound of his throat.
Tom Lloyd lol. I came to the comments just to check.if was just me that was annoyed by the voice :-)
Alex is exceptional, his talk on "I am extremely willing, if given valid evidence, to be a Christian" because it cleverly gives the religious the responsibility of proof. Just superb debating skills and humane discussion. Alex, you're special - keep going. You're calm, polite and extremely coherent.
Beautiful moment during this quote (about 16:45) when Joshes face reveals that he's processing what Alex is saying and contemplating if he himself would deconvert given appropriate evidence; and or be able to convert Alex. His eyes searching. Then proceeds to cover his mouth for a time. Lol. Owned.
Josh then opens his point with agreeable open body language stating 'We should talk about...' Then tries to redefine 'proof' and 'certainty' as 'maybe.' Hahahha
We need to protect Alex at all cost.
your only admire his construction of words rather than what is the truth factor
@nov3dt 2020
Christianity is fake.
"If given valid evidence, to be a Christian." Well, that's a pretty safe statement for an atheist. At the outset he speaks dismissively of the "Argument from Personal Experience" as though it is obviously fallacious, except that it's not. We would be nothing without our experiences. Everything we know is rooted in those experiences, and I'm pretty sure he knows that; it just makes for a more convincing narrative to exclude experiences from consideration.
The only "valid evidence" for being a Christian would be psychological, did the Christian become a better person as a result of that belief? And that of course is experiential. The fact that many a Christian suck at understanding that religion does not automatically disqualify the belief system, flawed as it is. It's more a testament to how difficult it is for people to eschew their animalistic tendencies and embrace transcending those tendencies, e.g., learning to love even one's enemies.
Sure, I have no problem ditching the mythology of it, the dogma now gets in the way of the valuable teachings contained therein. But stripped of its nonsense, it's worth practicing. Admittedly, the version of Jesus life that I cleave to comes from The Urantia Book, not the Bible.
www.urantiabook.org/urantia-book-table-of-contents
"Specialness is objective."
Yep, the dinosaurs might have thought that too, but the meteor was very fine tuned to wipe them out. Damn.
Ahahah exactly
Don't be so modest - you are an absolute delight to watch, polite, informative and extremely entertaining. You are one of the better youtubers I have seen.
the oxford student just keeps talking but never says anything
yeah, right, I sometimes just got distracted because what he said often doesn't make sense or had no real point to it
IsaTheTransJesus not to mention when he talks it's like unpoped popcorn in a blender
Everytime he is talking more as 10 seconds I notice I have problems focusing! Ppl like him give uni's a bad name.
IsaTheTransJesus totally agree! He rambled through and was given more time when speaking..
Mack Dacre At least they make a solid argument, the truth isn't always so simple.
I'm so annoyed that guy always cuts Alex off and gives the word to Josh. Alex is in the middle of his sentence and that dude just cut him off or gave the word to Josh. It really seems that he was on Josh's team, I mean it's totally fine to agree more with one than the other (which he totally does) But God dammit let them speak equally as much. 😔😔😒
Me (loudly in my house): LET THE MAN SPEAK, God damnit!!
Dad: What?
Me: Nothing!
a rigged discussion. unfamiliar w/ premierchristianradio ,though i can make an educated guess. g5 ,old methodist ,firm believer in real ,vetted scientific conclusion. i.e. an expanding ,accelerating universe ,evolving life. adore discovery and technology exponentially increasing . looking forward to solutions of "everything"
I don't get the idea that believing in something and what ever that something is that we don't know of is more logical than a God. We can make arguments for God but we can't even make arrangements for things that we don't know about.
Overall being athesist just doesn't seem logical base on those points.
If that doesn't make sense I mean that Atheists believe in a variable that we don't know about that created everthing. That itself Doesn't seem logical.
Cole Breda That’s because you don’t understand what atheism is. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s). People can reach this conclusion through any means, Alex reached it through skepticism and more, but atheism is a passive notion. Just to establish that.
Now, after that, rational atheists do NOT believe in things without reasonable evidence. One can hypothesis a solution, the next step would be to investigate and attempt to falsify/confirm said hypothesis. That is not a belief but a scientific process.
I’m not sure what this “variable we don’t know about” you’re referring too, but Alex says multiple times throughout his video that even the naturalistic side of the debate still has no evidence for hypothesis like the multiverse. The time to believe in something to be true, if after it’s been demonstrating to be true or probably true.
Lastly, simply making logical arguments in support of something doesn’t truly lend credence to that idea. So the fact that we can make arguments for god isn’t anymore of a good reason to believe, because those arguments must be sound and valid. Unfortunately, no such sound and valid argument for god exists of which I am aware. The Fine-Tuning, Specified Complexity, and Teleological arguments for god (which are perhaps the most pertinent to this video) are all unsound with faulty premises.
Anyways, I hope I cleared up some of that for you :)
@@germanshepherd2701 It is good that we can't prove that God exists. This would undermine the whole enterprise. God loves you (me) and we have to make the decision to love or not love God. In any relationship, the same goes; all the evidence in the world may not convince me to love my wife. I have to make a choice to love her and put my trust in her that she loves me. I cant prove it but think the evidence is very strong.
'Holy shit', Alex! How did you keep such composure during this discussion?
That's what makes him a hero. Also, im guessing its an age thing. He hasn't had 30 years of ridiculous people bashing up against him like a tsunami of blind brainless thinking. I lost all my patience over the years.
Best way to talk/debate with the religious is to NOT let your emotions take control. Once you get offended and show it, you've lost because the religious can't see past that.
Stay composed, research and be confident.
Oh yeah, words with more than 2 syllables seem to scramble the religious too :p
It seems he kept his composure in exactly the same way the other 2 people involved in the discussion kept theirs.
What a stupid question.
Andrew Douglas The point of the question was that the other two were being unfair in their discussion with Alex. I really hope you were intentionally missing the point, it should’ve been fairly obvious. What a stupid response.
Alex wins because he uses the word "actually" fewer times.
Thays not how you "win" a debate. As far as I know, most debates don't even have "winners".
Steve F. akchually
Fakename Andlastname ACKSHILLY
FoodFrogs ackchyually
wow ! boy you are surely special of the week ..heres your prize LOSER LOSER Lozer
This Alex guy is sharp!
That Josh guy is slightly irritating and loves his special pleading.
I am a christian but please let Alex speak !! Stop intrerupting him! He spoke like 5 minuntes...
speak on what ..he has no wisdom, because he is too young to convey anything of life whereas the other two have a godly wisdom.. to sum-up he should be doing other things. i`m surprised at you stuard. the other two have a godly conviction, alex is just full of words.
@@novdt if wisdom is godly, it isn't from life experience or age. Age wouldn't matter.
@@novdtok bro u just coping
God certainly didn't fine tune Josh's voice. Geez
lmao
Oh god, come on man.
we all have our crosses to bear
Daniel Blaney Vocal fry doesn't make him seem straight
Daniel Blaney irrelevant. But true.
Alex.....you aren't lucky, you're good....very good. please stay with it.
biggregg5 Agree! Actually he is unlucky he don't have 5X the suscribers because he deserves it!
he's gonna get them soon enough
I like how josh told Alex his comment was irrelevant but he rambled on and most of what he himself said was completely irrelevant
Well this is a very "unbiased" moderator lol
he clearly is, but i forgive him
human_abstract he put the quotation marks around unbiased for a reason lol
No such thing as an unbiased moderator. That's wishful thinking. Everyone has presuppositions. A moderator just has to be fair.
And also an asshole.
An unbiased moderator is just like objective news or unicorns. They don't exist.
The card analogy was so brilliant that it wasn't even addressed afterwards. Well done.
Why does the host keep interrupting Alex's arguments, but let's Josh speak all he wants..
elise this frustrated me too
Perhaps he's curious?
elise you noticed that too? Justin has a habit of doing that. I guess that it's his program. I once pointed it out to him on twitter and he was taken aback that I thought that he was not unbiased in his approach to the guests on his show.
Must be Josh's lovely voice. Can't get enough of it myself...
elise
Well, in any debate people shouldn't interrupt their own side of the argument.
37:00 Love this mini speech. "If the universe was designed for something, it would take an extraordinary leap of faith to believe that that something is us."
Really shows how narcissistic religious people are 😭
It seems neither of these guys are interested in any counter argument Alex makes. They're only focused on either putting him down or interrupting him with a non-starter argument.
Welcome to the world of debating christian apologists
truth has a habit of that
Didn't count exactly but it sure felt like 50 mins of the other two guys talking and 6 minutes of Alex talking.
In that 6 minutes, we saw a humility of thought (admitting where he was wrong, where his arguments could be weak on their own, and a willingness to be open to change if there was evidence presented). We also saw some great exposition; especially the Dawkins-like human-centric bit -- although I feel that any good Brit should reference Douglas Adams and his puddle example every time ;-)
The other 50 mins seemed a (mostly) well-spoken defense of someone's own cognitive bias. So many leaps and jumps. So many words and so often no substance except to show 'but it fits with my preconceived notions of what God already is.'
So thanks, Alex. Thanks for not only explaining things well, from a skeptical standpoint. But thanks for reminding me that it's better to let others talk and show themselves to be silly. You spoke just enough to make your points (or to ask for the question again... and again... funny bit!) ;-) Seriously though, thank you. Please take every chance you can to do this more.
And I do appreciate how kind and open everyone there was. I would love to see more dialog like this online. We don't need yelling and vitriolic sorts of videos. We need more calm and collected dialog.
And one thing Alex is: calm and collected. Thanks for being so and taking the time to do this.
andy stenz I agree, he did a good job. Me personally would go crazy with theological arguments as they start with a god, and always start there. It's better to argue against specific religions, as their claims are unfounded and only text.
Technically Alex got most of the time because they played his video. So they unintentionally gave him the upper hand.
+spacedoohicky I'll give you that.
Plus Alex's points were way better argued so his time is worth at least three times each one of theirs. ;)
andy stenz the funny thing is they never defined what this God was. How can you have that debate without knowing what it is you're debating
I really want to hear this Alex guy speak. He seems incredibly grounded and highly intelligent. However this radio host keeps interrupting him and reverting to the bad voice dude with the flaky run around arguments.
Completely agree!
Alex: Doesn't seem to be a purpose to the universe.
Josh: I don't agree...because reasons.
Hahahahah lmao😂😂
Christian station host.
man. I came here just to see what people were saying about the guys voice. it's painful to listen to
@@mackhomie6 especially with headphones
37:00 my jaw is on the floor 😂 this perfectly explains why Christianity’s biggest flaw is main character syndrome 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Alex’s eloquence never ceases to amaze me
Alex is the definition of "if your enemy is digging his own grave, dont interrupt"
I think we ALL can agree that Alex is one of the best, if not THE best RUclipsr there is. Funny, intelligent, kind and articulate. Maybe he is a god!
Smilla Thorén one I'd actually worship xD
Luckan Zetriel definitely 😊
😂 He is gifted and I hope he continues in this stead. We need young voices to replace ones we have lost and will lose. We must continue to cultivate spokespeople.
Christy T yeah. I agree. And Alex seem, so far, like a perfect spokesperson with his patience, knowledge and understanding of both sides.
I recommend Exurb1. He has extremely thought provoking, and comedic videos. If you love Cosmic I believe you would thoroughly enjoy exurb1a.
I see Alex writing a award winning book someday , be the first one in line to buy for sure
I doubt that will happen...you being first in line to buy his book! But, yes, he is one smart cookie!
the book is titled, boy was i wrong.
Josh just talks in circles ....
that's all they've got, god because god.
Alex 1 - Josh 0 Who's next....?
Great debate Alex. You're a rising start in the fight for objective reality
Could you please explain to me what you mean by evolution being observable through sight and touch?
Ethan Virtudazo Fossils are things we can see and touch that obviously show a change in certain species over time. I'm no expert in archaeology though, so I do suggest you do some independent research into it. I'm sure if you take a rational look at the evidence you'll see how we naturalist come to belive in evolution.
Thank you for the reply! Will look into it.
Your very welcome.
+ Ethan Virtudazo Nested sets of common traits in living taxa that are consistent with a process of descent with modification; nested hierarchies of relationships deduced from non-coding DNA and gene families that are consistent with the nested sets of common traits; nested sets of common traits in fossil taxa that are consistent with the stratigraphic order of fossil appearance; biogeographic distribution of morpholgically similar and genetically related taxa (e.g., ratite birds) that are consistent with known geological processes; rudimentary features, embryological similarities, and examples of imperfect design that are consistent with acquisition of traits from ancestors; hybrid zones demonstrating the process of reinforcement whereby two diverging species come to be genetically isolated. These are some of the many areas of observable evidence demonstrating that evolution is a definitive explanation for the diversification and adaptation of life on Earth.
That guy keeps cutting Alex but letting the other guy talk.
Blankphotograph5799 I've noticed that as well.
Haven't seen the whole video, but so far you are crushing these guys!
Fuckin hell, Josh drives me crazy.
Brand his voice is horribly nasal
I'm wearing headphones and Josh's vocal fry is like a wad of steel wool being vigorously scrubbed inside my skull.
What an eloquent description. Many metal bands looking for a screamer might want to snap him up 😂
He does have a very nasal vibration in his voice. I think he may have a deviated septum.
How very shallow of you.
I guess your the type to make fun of people with facial disfigurements as well.
People cannot help what their voice sounds like in the same way they cannot help what they look like.
Grow up!
@@andrewdouglas1963 dude, lighten up
You get used to it later
Josh said literally nothing of worth the whole debate. Just waffled.
At 53:30 Josh says that these are really difficult questions. However...
1 - He claims that our universe was infinitesimally improbable to turn out the way it did.
2 - He posits that it is more likely than not that it is designed by a creator.
3 - He then goes further to say that the creator is the God of his religion.
The reasoning on part 1 might be flawed. The leap to part two is possibly unjustified. Finally the ending comes out of nowhere. He is right that these are hard questions to answer but he works backwards from "My religion is right therefor it must be part of the explanation."
The worst part of the argument (3.) is that even if we can assume the posit that there is some supernatural creator of the universe, then jump irrationally to the conclusion that it must be the one that resembles the one of his religion is preposterous. There have been (and are) literally hundreds of thousands of religions with many thousands of gods. Which one is the correct one? (None) And, if we boil 2 down to the most exemplary possibilities, we end up with the so-called 'clockwork-god' of Deism that created the universe to work on its own and that god has no further influence. That, in my considered opinion, is equivalent to no god at all. Once you even consider 2., omitting miracles and other non-existent things, you have conceded 2. and therefore 3, leaving only 1. That our universe exists is 100% probable (because it happened). Therefore you concede 1. The entire argument from premise to conclusion fails.
Well put. It would seem a reasonable person would see the errors you pointed out and concede they have no way of knowing it is their God.
If it was infinitesimally improbable for it to turn out the way it did, doesn't that make any other way for it to turn out equally improbable (as far as any of us can know), therefore all equally probable? What even gives him such confidence about those probabilities anyway? Has he been observing universe formations?
"Sure." - Josh Parikh
Argh, I wish I'd finished the video before seeing this!
I have to say, well done. I find myself having nothing to add to what you said CosmicSkeptic. Josh tried his best but that is not an easy position to defend, also his giggling at the opposing views was kind of abnoxious. You really should try to do more of these debates when any opportunity presents itself. I don't praise people a whole lot but had to this time seeing as I'm thurroughly impressed. You earned another sub and a like :p
really ???????
@@novdt Yes, really.
Host: this is my point. Response?
Josh (robot dude): this is my point.
Alex: this is m-
Host: I think we'll get back to that one later.
If you roll 70 dice, every possible outcome - whether all 6s, all 1s, completely uninteresting random numbers, or anything else - has exactly the same odds of occurring as any other outcome (1 in 2.9552044e+54).
The fact that humans think that "All 6s" is remarkable has nothing to do with the odds of it occurring. It just shows that humans have an aesthetic preference for certain outcomes, and frequently read to much into coincidence based on these preferences.
no. it's a way of illustrating the likelihood of a certain event.
you are correct in that the same point could be made by saying one must roll a 3, and then a 5, and then a 1, and so on, but to say this is a fixation with aesthetic is to completely miss the point. surely you know this and you're just trolling or something...
@grymbaldknight
Your micro point is valid and I the host understood that, but your missing the macro/entirety of the point he was trying to make about the dice. Yes, each SINGLE roll of the dice has a 1 in 6 chance of rolling any of the six numbers BUT, the point being made is rolling that same number CONSECUTIVELY that many times. In that case the odds of that happening are in fact statistically unfathomably small and thats the point that he was trying to make, and his point is true.
Grymbaldknight
"The fact that humans think........It shows that humans have an aesthetic........."
Why do you speak about 'humans' as if you aren't one?
Anyways, to answer your point, yes, all 6s are just as likely as any other outcome, but that wasn't the point. It's saying that if the rolls were any other way, we would not be here. It's like a game where rolling a six, seventy times will result in winning. But rolling any other combination would cause the player to be killed. To roll all 6s would be extremely remarkable, maybe even showing someone must have loaded the dice.
It's a chance of *1 in 2,955,204,414,547,681,244,658,707,659,790,455,381,671,329,323,051,646,976.*
When the number is actually written out, it really shows the remarkability of it.
*You idiots don't seem to grasp that no matter what the constants ended up being, THE ODDS OF THAT OUT COME ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE CONSTANTS WE HAVE!!!!*
If god made everything, why would it need to be fine tuned for anything? I'm confused why a god would make a universe that has rules it would have to work around
And there are different opinions on the nature of god put forward by people making that argument
Some claim it's a being or entity and some claim it to be an expression of the universe.
Either way, most versions of such discussions of why they believe and how they come to that conclusion almost always end up with, "well, what/who else could it be" which is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Basically, what you are saying is:
If there was a God, why are there rules, why can't everything just be due to magic?
Which is fun, because many theists still try to reconcile natural laws with the concept of God. They still connect evolution and Big Bang with God. Next thing they'll connect is how Homosexuals are actually connected with God....
kinda, more why would a god make a sandbox for his toys and then say, "well i do have all this room but it's only this very very small corner that my toys can be in." that is if we are to believe we are the reason for everything and if not then what is the point in belief?
I like to think of an analogy of the fish tank. You ask a biologist and an architect to design a huge fish tank for your aquarium. It has to be beatiful and provide a good life for thousands of fish. After some weeks, they present you their project. It's a fish tank the size of a city block, but the fish can only live in a 1³m space. The rest of the water is either too hot or too acidic for them to even touch. And even on the space that the fish have to live, 2/3 of it are also unhabitable, and they have to struggle to survive. Would you think that this is a fine design? Would you make a contract with them?
I like that too but i'd add that the fish were designed by the biologist to live in the tank
Great discussion. Great arguments, I'm glad all of you got along the way you did. We need more discussions like this that don't get out of hand
This is one of the most civil and friendliest discussions I have seen on this topic in a long time. Good job on all sides here.
Josh Parikh sure talked a lot but said pretty much nothing of use. And you handled yourself perfectly!
YESSS. The full debate is finally here!
When you show up to the debate and your opponent is wearing the same thing.
you did a TRULY brilliant job in this debate. congratulations and thanks for keeping on giving us this kind of amazing content regularly!
poo
37:00 - 38:46 fantastically yet politely delivered. great job man.
You're too smart to just be making RUclips videos. Some of the stuff you said was ridiculously quick witted. Keep doing debate man
HIs objections were all misguided. The Gambler's fallacy doesn't apply at all, he admitted the anthropic principle was weak, and the best he could come up with was "we dont know". ruclips.net/video/eAMgPOuYx4M/видео.html
I love how theists always hate the "we don't know" reply when the truth is, WE DON'T KNOW
@@Sirblader11 Hi Daniel, thanks again for your comments. The issue that concerns theists is that many atheists seem to take refuge with the statement "we don't know" whenever inconvenient evidence is brought forward. The evidence for fine tuning is increasing, rather than decreasing (that is to say the number of fine tuned constants and quantities has increased as our knowledge of the Universe has increased). The evidence for the beginning of the Universe is increasing, rather than decreasing (that is to say our evidence of inflation and a universe that is geodesically complete in the past has increased as our knowledge of the Universe has increased). Rather than address the deliverances of modern science, they simply hand wave them off in a "science of the gaps" argument that science will somehow reverse course and throw out all the progress of the last half century or so.
More importantly, from an epistemological standpoint, the claim "we don't know" is quite problematic. What does it mean to "know"? Does it mean certainty? Well, if that is the case then we know nothing about science. Science is an inductive process, which is in principle probabalistic, unlike deductive reasoning. Now, if an atheist wants to hold to this definition of knowledge, he is welcome to, but he needs to be consistent about it. In doing so, he would be forced into deep skepticism about even our most fundamental beliefs. But, if we take a more modest definition of knowledge, like belief in something that is more probable than not (or belief that is 75% likely to be true, or 85...), then theists have every right to rebut the claim that "we don't know" is sufficient to dispatch with arguments from natural theology. The atheist would have to show why the doubt of the argument is sufficient to overwhelm whatever that agreed-upon percentage is.
@@rjonesx no the evidence for fine tuning is not increasing. You have no evidence these constants could have been otherwise for one.
You are just a puddle thinking the hole you are in was meant for you.
"We don't know" is the valid answer when we don't know, not "god did it"
It's like you don't take arguments against your assertions seriously, and it shows.
@@Sirblader11 Thank you for your response. First, we certainly have evidence that the constants could be otherwise. String theory predicts there are 10^500 potential combinations consistent with the laws of our universe, and multiverse theories uniformly acknowledge the potential variance. These constants and quantities are simply independent of the laws of physics.
As Atheist philosopher of science at Oxford University David Deutch points out, "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely". Ernan McMullin, the only person to ever hold the presidency of four of the major US philosophical associations, and Philosopher of Science with a specialty in Cosmology writes in his paper "Anthropic Explanation in Cosmology", "It seems safe to say that later theory, no matter how different it may be, will turn up approximately the same... numbers. And the numerous constrants that have to be imposed on these numbers... seem both too specific and too numerous to evaporate entirely. A dozen or more constraints have been pointed out...Migh tthey all be replaced?... It surely seems like a very long shot."
Try as you may, but you have turned your back on modern science to defend your claims. We are not a puddle of water because WE KNOW THAT OTHER HOLES COULD CONTAIN OUR PROVERBIAL WATER. We know that there are other universes consistent with the constants and quantities to permit life. We just also know they are far less likely. Perhaps your problem is you just don't understand the seriousness of these constants and quantities. It is not as if by changing them we might just evolve differently. These are fundamental changes to the Universe itself, such that, for example, it would immediately crunch back in on itself, or expand so quickly as to prevent any chemistry at all.
As for "we don't know" is the answer, I will simply reply again with my epistemological objection. If by "know" you mean "certain", then I agree. But we only find certainty in math and logic, and only after we accept certain axioms. But, if you mean the word know in its common usage, that is to say a belief that is rationally informed, then we can know that chance and necessity are wildly improbable explanations for the fine tuning of the Universe.
Thank you again for your responses. I hope you understand the corner you have placed yourself in. If certainty is your standard for knowledge, then you are thrust into a world of deep skepticism. You can't be certain of nearly anything - from what you ate for breakfast or to whether the sun will rise tomorrow. Inductive reasoning, upon which the overwhelming majority of our beliefs are formed, cannot, in principle, deliver certainty.
The finely tuned argument is hilarious to me, it always reminds me of films:
"I sometimes find myself thinking that the plot of a film is nonsensical because everything seems to happen to move the plot forward, then I have to remind myself that if the plot wasn't moving forward we wouldn't have a movie to watch. Similarly if the universe hadn't been the way it was we would not exist and therefore would not be able to wonder"
Alex did get cut off each time he attempted to go into detail on multiple points whereas Josh just spoke himself in circles using mediocre analogies and still completely lacking in evidence.
Ok I know this sounds really weird but I could actually just listen to Alex's voice all day. THE WAY HE SPEAKS IS JUST SO SOOTHING OK DON'T JUDGE ME.
Naomi Carr we all agree on that.
Rodrigo Grover I'm glad I'm not the only one😂
yes i totally agree
Yes
You're having so many subscribers in a short time because being an atheist requires knowledge of religion, science and philosophy instead of just 1 subject. Only a few have strong knowledge of all three and are capable of bringing it in a well spoken way, like yourself. I, as a fellow atheist, look up to you for being able to bring what I cannot. I can totally see you reaching 500K in another year.
A theist doesn't require much knowledge of even just 1 subject. A strong opinion and a few talking points would do. Some rhetorical tricks might help though.
Being an atheist doesn't require knowledge of anything. Babies are atheist. Making well-formed arguments is what requires a lot of knowledge.
An atheist doesn't require much knowledge of even 1 subject. A strong opinion and a few talking points would do. Some rhetorical tricks might help though.
If you don't believe my above comment is true, I strongly suggest you visit r/atheism. Spending a mere minute on that shitfest will reveal its intellectual vacuity.
Will Doyle
"An atheist doesn't require much knowledge of even 1 subject." That's true. He/she wouldn't even require talking points nor any need for rhetoric. And?
I think it's the other way around. Life is finely tuned for the universe.
obviously... to say "ohhhh but it is so unlikely that the constants fit us so well" is a common and stupid mistake because the constants were there way before life was, so...
The Jamz that's that evolution isss ;)
Here's a good analogy for their argument. You see a puddle filling a hole in the pavement and conclude that the hole was finely tuned to hold the water.
I have to admit, I've seen two of these debates from this setting and I love that it's a conversation not so much a debate. Both sides are very understanding and have much better arguments than I am more used to hearing.
The voice of the other dude OMG i cant stand it ...
Moises M I think the same thing
Like an 80 year old smoker who fused with a whiny robotic Guinea pig got a pretty bad cold and had their nose bashed in.
It doesn't help that he rambles on-end for minutes at a time, only addressing the issue or question asked for maybe 10-20 seconds, with the rest of the time being a jumble of irrelevant information and words that don't fit in context.
Absolutely agree, nothing annoys me more than rambling. Especially with Alex in the conversation whose articulate and concise, especially for his age.
+ Steve Sizelove Leave me outa this you
Alex slays them at 30:35
Holy shit, that poker metaphor was solid gold. I'm going to use that from now on.
Roll a die (the proper singular of dice) 70 times and record the outcome. Regardless of the result (all sixes, no sixes, any outcome at all), the odds of that specific outcome are still that same 1/10^55. This means that the current outcome (us) is no less likely than any other. We only place significance on it because it is, after all ... us.
That's also assuming that any other possible outcome has the same probability as the outcome that we exist within. It could be that this is the only possible outcome diverging from the birth of a universe. It could also be that this outcome was extremely unlikely to happen. We have no way of possibly knowing the odds of this specific universe, but to be fair, we already know it happened.
"hit on youtube"
16,074 likes
16,785 dislikes
hmmmmmmm
John Smith bit OTT
bit OTT
SpiritWolf2K actually, Christian parents tell their kids that. And neither of us know if they're telling the truth or not
Convergant,
Not only christian parents tell their children heaven myths, so do all the other religious and their clergy.
Anyway, as you state "And neither of us know if they're telling the truth or not" isn't an argument to accept what they're saying as possible.
They make their statement about something beyond the realm of human knowledge which instantly allows for the questioning of that statement. Without evidence to make their statement true it can easily be refuted and a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth is a lie...
To try to help you understand it a little clearer,
Lets say all the things that humans can't understand, detect or know anything about(the realm God supposedly occupies) have a value of X. That's all we can say about it. The moment you elaborate X, for example X is blue, you drag it from the realm of things that Humans can't understand into the realm of things we do understand and you're going to be asked 'well, how do you know that?' If you can't give evidence of how you know that, you have no credibility - at the very least you're guessing at the very worst you're lying...
well to be fair he was probably just talking about views.
2:27 Josh's reaction when he heard Alex said even his parents are not religious anymore. 😂😂😂
I found this so fascinating thank you so much for posting x
What a brilliant young man alex is
"We're not doing science here, we're doing philosophy."
In that one statement he coincides his point entirely.
This wasn't much of a debate. He kept interrupting CS and letting the christian kid jabber nonsense on and on.
That Which Smashes I know right. Don't cut off my boy Alex when he is the only one articulating his thoughts clearly and unbiasedly.
I liked this a lot, but I picked up on the same point.
I find your patience in the face of old, rehashed apologetics admiral. Equally so, your comfort with your own uncertainty and with scientific uncertainty in general. Also admirable is your cordiality. You possess an openness that other leading atheists are lacking. It’s a breath of fresh air really. I think your approach will greatly benefit the fields of philosophy and counter-apologetics if you can hold to it
Going through all your videos sir and its eye opening how patient you are, host interrupting you constantly to pass over to josh.
You are one in a billion sir and I can't wait to get through the next couple of hundred of your videos
Two important points that I don't think were made:
1. The universe isn't "fine tuned" for life. The vast majority of it would kill us instantly, and most of the Earth's surface is uninhabitable.
2. Even if it was fine tuned for life, that still doesn't mean Christianity is the one true religion.
Your second point is completely irrelevant. The debate is at most about whether it is reasonable to believe that a deity exists.
Feels like you are following the Rationality Rules example here, which starts a lot of his videos with a "Black & White" fallacy, saying that the argument X would not prove Y's specific God. It's more you commiting a strawman fallacy, than them commiting a black & white fallacy.
@@nicolaimanev its not irrelevant at all. The other 2 people in the video are christian and have no issue with making the leap of faith of "If fine tuning then jesus". Why would it be irrelevant ?
@@xsuploader because they discuss whether or not God exists. Jesus or Krishna is discussed by those who already agree on the existence of God. You as well can say "it's a leap of faith to say the universe use fine tuned therefore don't get drunk"
CosmicSkeptic, you're integrity and honesty is appreciated and has not gone unnoticed. I'm a Christian, it refreshing to see an atheist intellectual such as your self.
As a geologist, I often see folks getting uncomfortable with large numbers. When geologists say "instantaneous" it might be a couple of thousands of years, which usually is not considered instantaneous. So what if the number 10^55 just is not remarkable at all. Even if there is no governing rule behind this fine tuning, the universe could be the 10^55th try and in that be completely within a reasonable scale that we just feel uncomfortable with.
I really appreciate the respectful and civil nature of this debate. It's rare to see nowadays a debate about the topic discussed here that doesn't fall apart into aggression and anger.
I really liked the analogy with a deck of cards being so fine tuned to a poker game.
Timo Kerremans I couldn’t agree more, it was quick witted and left my expectations of Alex behind, making me again realise how intelligent he really is.
the other guys voice is terrible
It's called vocal fry...difficult to listen to!
Camilla Bergstrøm, this is why people employ voice coaches. Also, a reason for Alex's success is that one enjoys listening to him.
@@camillabergstrm7982 It's more than vocal fry. His vocal mannerisms are just dreadful.
Viewing some of your older videos (after becoming hooked on your channel :-)) and amazed at how articulate you were even at the young age of 17! Only two years in when this was made and looking incredibly relaxed and confident.
Josh: The universe was fine-tuned for us
Alex: But what about everything that we can't live on?
Josh: Well it wasn't designed *just* for us
. . .
the fine tuning argument is pointless as you can assign it to anything.
if I rolled a die 8 times I'd have 8 numbers, different sets of 8 rolls regardless of the outcome can be said to be fine tuned. The fine tuning argument is only relevant if you can prove a conscious element, but apart from that it's simply irrelevant. The universe existed fine with no life for billions of years, we know the universe is not fine tuned for life because life is pretty much the scarcest thing in the universe.
it's like going in the desert and seeing a tree and saying the desert is fine tuned for trees.
Your analogy at the end is great for this argument. Well the funny thing is the desert for the dice analogy would be unimaginably bigger than we could ever think of lol
Turning the poker argument around on Josh and using the cards as an example was brilliant.
imagine if they replaced alex with amazing atheist, this would be a very different conversation
And that is precisely why, I am subscribed to Alex, and not the amazing atheist.
It would at least be more entertaining :P
TJ's better.
Nice to see a well done polite debate without swearing and trading insults back and forth, nice to see you branching out.
The best analogy I can remember to use against intelligent design is the one about a sentient puddle. A puddle that thinks the mud that it sits in was designed specifically for it. Look how perfectly the puddle fits in this area, there must have been a designer. When we know there was no designer, no purpose.
CAN JOSH DO ANYTHING BUT NAME DROP?
The analogy at 30:34 made me pause the video and slowly clap
I love seeing a debate- seeing you speak and listen to opposing sides and have conversation instead of a RUclips video with no direct response from the "opposer." I'd definitely watch another of these videos!
This kind of calm, friendly, rational debate is what I'm living for at this point.
Under 1000 club! Keep up the awesome work Alex, lets see that 100K soon :)
45:00 - I'll defend Alex where he couldn't: the firing squad analogy is not applicable because it goes back to the question of specialness: in the so called analogy we're special, whereas in Alex's argument, we're not. By extension, there's the matter of probability: the more firing squad members you add, the higher the probability that's you'll get shot. Likewise, there may just be millions of universes that didn't produce life, increasing the probability that one of them would.
Well played CosmicSkeptic. Outnumbered and faced an Oxford-educated opponent, you wiped the flour with them. When Josh used the argument "I am justified in believing what it seems to be"(@32:25), you should have jumped up and done a victory dance.
Alex... this is the second debate I’ve seen from you and I’ve grown to respect you. Not only are you eloquent and very intelligent, but your way of respecting others and being open to changing your own opinion is refreshing. That’s probably why your channel is growing very quickly. I don’t agree with you and I’m a Christian who believes in a personal relationship with Jesus (not religion), but I am impressed with you and your position. Keep up the good work and seeking truth.
What would have been thought provoking is if you had asked, "Like any good hypothesis worthy of pursuit, how could you attempt to falsify it."
People concede too easily on the possibility of a deistic god. If we were created by a deistic god, that just piggybacks the problem into "who created that god?".
Frankly it's far easier to believe that complexity arose from very basic beginnings and slowly developed over a long period of time in a sort of trial-and-error fashion, rather than something as complicated as a god arising ready-made.
God spontaneously popped into existence from an abyss of special pleading.
Has anyone noticed the cosmic thumb pointing downwards in the form of a mike in front of the two people having issues with the consistency of their mind, while pointing up for Alex? :)
Josh Parikh is unable to stay on topic or produce a valid point. Alex, you showed great patience here as I would have been all over them for divergence from the topics.
To be honest, as soon as Josh started talking, I had a very difficult time listening. Not due to bias, but due to lack of hearing a focused argument and a staggeringly terrible speaking voice.
The late CH would have not hesitated to destroy these two; but he's a ruthless debater and very few can tear someone a new a$$hole like that guy. You did well though as you stayed to the topic and presented solid logical retorts.
It's unfortunate you were constantly interupted and cut short to allow that nasal talked to babble on about nothing. This is what happenes when the debate moderator is biased to one side and is obviously making an attempt to invalidate the person's argument that invalidated his dice video
you dont sound biased at all
@Oober Goober Yep. Biased moderators and unequal speaking time in a debate is a problem that everyone should be annoyed with.
At 50:30 Josh gets in to why he believes in Christianity yet doesn't get in to it. He brings up prophecy. This claim is the claim I consistently hear from people who believe. The problem is that I hear this claim from ALL RELIGIONS. There is nothing special about Biblical prophecy. It''s just as vague as other religious philosophies. Also if you count the "hits" you have to count the "misses". There are times where the Bible is wrong about what will happen.
Agreed. He didn't go in to these things deeper because they weren't the topic. However, it seems he doesn't have a backing for his religion. Every time people tell me about the prophecy of their religion they default to:
It all came true.
Therefor God.
Even if I give them that it all came true (Which can be clearly shown not to to be the case), it doesn't mean God is real. Maybe people worked towards making the prophecy happen because they want it to seem like God is true. Maybe some of the prophecy is vague. Maybe some of the prophecy was written after the event happened. It can clearly shown that just because "prophecy" came true doesn't mean God exists.
I don't mean this to be disrespectful to Josh but I didn't find his arguments to be that enlightening. Ask Cosmic Skeptic said at the end, you have to come in to a discussion with an open mind and be willing to have your positioned changed. If I ask Josh "Are there other answers besides God for why prophecy might come true? How did you decide it had to be God?" Do you think he'd answer honestly? I feel most people who answer honestly would realize prophecy does not prove God.
Who needs music when you can listen to Alex debate while doing household chores? 😉
I can't believe how well Alex handled this and how considerate and well thought his responses and statements were.
absolutely fascinating show, think all three of you are interesting people with views and thoughts that really take some rewinding and playing again.
It was funny to see your face, when you smiled or laughed slightly when Josh was saying things like he would want to show evidence in why he believes it's specifically Christian Theology that is the correct way. XD Like boy, have you not read your own holy book? Such a vague, contradictory, horrible(especially old testament) book that holds no scientific evidence for those events happening.
So much respect for all three of the participants. Accepting of others, scientifically literate, excellent speakers, if all religious people were like these two I wouldn't be anti religion.
Well two of them are excellent speakers...
Did anyone else get annoyed that the dude kept cutting Alex off mid-sentence?
That’s absolutely rude.
Yeah, why bother bringing on a polar side of the debate if you do not intend on allowing them to finish?
"House for sale,
one trillion rooms, 999,999,999,999 of them filled with lethal gas.
Perfectly-designed family home."