*Fine tuning argument as explained by Douglas Adams* “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
Even the earth isn't very 'finely tuned' for life to exist, very small changes in conditions cause extinctions of species all the time, 99.9% of all species ever on earth have gone extinct for whatever reason.
Exactly. 75% of our planet is water and the last time I checked, we didn't have gills. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is hostile to us. (Give or take a dozen or so 9s.) That certainly indicates the universe isn't "fine tuned" for us.
@@MrEdwardCollins And Jen brought up a great point too: if it was fine tuned for us, why is there only one place in the universe where we exist? Was God just playing a bad game of Sim Universe?
It's sad how often they make the "If god had given us all the answers, it would have been like building a robot." It's also eerie how often they use all the same phrasings. Equally sad is the fact that they don't realize that they're acting like robots themselves. They assimilate the operating system of their parents and congregation. If they run into a problem they're told to contact an authorized maintenance partner such as WLC, Ken Hamm or Kent Hovind, preferably all of them. But rather than debugging, they just implement workarounds that feed into one other, creating these infinite feedback loops to avoid confronting the possibility that the OS is faulty. So the program ends up running around in circles, repeating the same thing over and over, just like old robots that would endlessly try to enter a doorway that's 3 feet to their left.
'The universe is very complex so something must have created it so we call that a 'first cause' being (god of the old testament of course)'... but that being has to be infinitely MORE complex than the entire universe.....so then where did that being come from? An even more infinitely complex being? Don't THOSE beings require an explanation as well, since the universe does since it's so 'complex'? Why does a being which created the whole thing get a free pass from requiring an explanation? This is where the 'first cause' and other such arguments get exposed as nonsense.
Jen completely and totally dismantled the fine tuning argument. Best destruction of it I have ever heard! Way to go! I'm just sad that in all the times I have argued similar things, I have never thought to put it so succinctly.
"Fine-tuning" Why does the universe have to be made for us? Could it NOT be that we have evolved as a result of the circumstantial properties of the universe....
The claim that the universe was fine tuned for us or that we are the end product is the most arrogant claim that the religious mind could conceive of. It does not matter that their bible supports the idea, it is utter crap.
The most startling commandment from Jesus was "Love your enemies". He didn't say cut off their heads!. He said if someone steals your shirt, also give them your coat. I interpret this as, if someone steals your car, also give them your house. He also said "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple". How odd that so-called Christians ignore his sayings. If this is a Christian country, why do we manufacture bombs that could wipe out all life on earth ? I don't think Jesus would approve of such weapons.
i bet if any of these theists heard someone arguing with someone else using the same type arguments, about ANY other topic, they would think they were on drugs.
It never ceases to amaze me how patient these guys are. With the ability to hang up on anyone just inches away, I don't think I'd have the self control to let these calls go on as long as they do. :P
Playing numbskull's advocate here - if these dolts could accept a god with limited power, then the "fine tuning" might be highly relevant to our existence. Of course you would have to accept as axioms that the god is not all-powerful, and that we were an intended consequence of "creation". In which case the universe would have to be as it is or we would not be here. But as long as they insist on an all-powerful god we could live in any environment. We could even live inside the entrails of a giant fish for three days! But let's not be silly here...
Also they'd have to convince me the entire universe with its billions of planets was all just made for 'fine tuning' of this 1 little planet, and that's not believable.
The Douglas Adam quote Matt almost got to: Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
It is easier to believe that man invented the idea of God than to believe that God made man in His image. During the olden times when we did not know the function of the nose, skin, mouth, hair etc. it was easy to pass a phrase like "God made us in His image." We did not even give a second thought of what that sentence mean. Did that mean that God has a nose thru which he has to breath air and oxygen? He has mouth so he can eat? Teeth? Hair?
Jesus said that we should not be like the heathen, repeating the same prayer over and over again in public, thinking that they will be heard by much repetition (they have their reward), instead, we should go into our privy and pray to the Father in private and we will be heard. He then gave an example of how to pray, which we now call "The Lord's Prayer". Given his previous points, not to repeat etc., it seems odd to me that Christians see no problem in repeating this example over and over again IN PUBLIC, which is what the heathen do !
His "reasoning" to atribute intelligence to (what he likes to call) First Cause, his due to a common fallacy that makes people link a goal with an observed post-result. If i arrive at a scenario where there are a bunch of different parked cars and there's a big rock that obviously rolled down from a hill and is positioned against a destroyed honda, my (fallacious) question would be: "who or what has caused the rock to come downhill to destroy that honda?". I'm atributing a *goal* to the rock's motion (or whoever caused it) based on what the observable outcome happen to be (wich is a smashed honda instead of any other car). Situations observed post-action should NOT be interpreted that way. First of all, i can't prove that there was any intention to hit the honda or if the rock simply rolled down the ONLY possible path that Physics allowed (a mix of speed, direction, natural hurdles, etc). The same way, this guy is observing the Universe as it is and assuming that whatever/whoever sparked its origin already had THAT scenario in mind. That's why he atributes intelligence to it. But, as shown, it's a fallacy.
My reaction to the caller was the same as Matt's between 2:20 and 2:28. His inability to make a coherent argument is a harder fail than something that fails beyond an epic degree, I can't even come up with a humorous analogy.
If the universe is tuned to anything, it is tuned to being vast, cold, dark, mostly empty, hostile, uncaring, unforgiving and having no apparent purpose. It was like this long before we came onto the scene, and it will continue to be that way long after we are all gone. For someone to assume it was all created for us or tuned for us is arrogance and stupidity beyond belief.
Matt had an annoying tendency to pause long enough for the caller to start talking only to have Matt start talking over him. I'm sure Matt's looking for feedback from the caller, but I could see how it would be frustrating if every time I wanted to make a counterpoint, however flawed, the person I'm talking to jumps in as I speak. Still, this was a knock-down, drag-out conversation. The caller was in over his head from the get-go.
Kenny obviously called to recite an argument that he read on the internet and finds it to be persuasive. I like how the hosts quickly derailed his attempt to regurgitate this argument and forced him to have a discussion with them.
"How do I get into the show earlier?" "Call earlier" Sorry, I don't normally pointlessly quote lines from videos that we can all see for ourselves, but that was a classic! And it did seem to kind of sum up this guy's level of intellectual enquiry.
The caller is a prime example of perhaps the most infuriating thing I encounter in debates with theist: a person who's attempts at logical arguments demonstrate a profound ignorance of the rules of logic.
Well, I am a fierce atheist, and I am here because a religious friend tried this exact same argument on me. My answer was that we don’t know what happened before the big bang. He insisted on the First Cause proposition, this powerful force, intelligent, omnipotent, loving entity, that could only be God, that set everything in motion, of which his only proof of existence was: “what else could have done it then?”
I have a deep dislike of religious people because they are 100% sure that their view of the world is correct. Science on the other hand, is always willing to listen to new evidence, to new scientific discoveries and is willing to grant that, if we have strong evidence to support a claim, even if the evidence opposes prevalent ideas, it will be evaluated and adopted if has merit. Damn ... science is awesome!!!
And why humans are so naturally suited to survive on so much of the earth's surface, so glad I can breathe water, and my blood will not boil or freeze.
If we were made by magic we would be magically animated marzipan men, with no need to breath or shit or anything. I cant believe the crap they believe.
I almost feel sorry for the guy on the phone. He's so determined, and knows that his arguments are falling apart in front of him. The presenters are pretty brutal and could do with more understanding like Douglas Adams or Richard Dawkins. This wasn't a debate, it was a whitewash.
I remember the voice of this caller. He was pretty obviously following a script sketched out by somebody else and he didn't fully even grasp his own side of the arguments. Probably still a lost sheep over a decade later.
What was the real name of "Jesus" ? Jeshua in Aramaic, Joshua in Hebrew. (Jesus is the anglicized form of the Greek version, so was NOT his name). So if you pray to Jesus, Jeshua will think you are talking to someone else !
@chrismac1980 When you were talking about physics yesterday and energy and how there can't be an infinite amount of events, were you talking about philosophy or science?
Amen Jazzlover06. Though I wonder if it wasnt deserved, I mean the guy still did persist in his assertions. Man, could you imagine if that was Hitchens there talking to him instead? *shudder*
@thegillotine09 This is the difference between a root cause and a sub cause. The seed itself is just a part of another process at work. The seeds and trees are just loops in a system. What interests us are the root causes.
@chrismac1980 One event interacts with another through out history and in biology. Species react to enviornments. Environments react to physical traits around them. Tides are affected by orbits... land formations are affected by tides... civilzations adapt to physical factors around them... Every action is connected to another based on previous stimuli. These chain reactions can be observed today. What STARTED the ball rolling is the question that I don't know the answer to
Actually, I think most of these people A) don't really understand the hosts counter arguments, and B) when they do, they still can't accept that they could be right, so like this guy, they go off to their preacher, or an apologetics website to get a dose of reaffirmation. For them it's very emotional, for us it's just learning. If someone proved tomorrow that the big bang never happened, it wouldn't upset us, but take away god and they get scared.
@ChrisDevl "The universe isnt fine tuned for us.. If anything, we're fine tuned for it.." We exist inside the Universe and our bodies are made of old star dust. If we're a part of the universe it's just like saying the Universe is fined tuned for itself which is whimsical. And people aren't fine tuned for the universe since we can't breath in vacuum.
This is embarrassing. I'm glad that they didn't just hang up on him. It would give theists "cause" to say, "These atheists don't have an answer to these challenges, so they just tune them out."
@dannywizz Example: Tree. It must have been an intelligent mechanic to assemble the parts! No, it was a seed - a natural process. Everything you see in nature has a natural explanation.
Caller forgot the part that gawd must be unchanging because she is outside time. Change implies time. But if gawdipoo decided to create the universe then something changed. Her mind. So we've deduced that gawd has a mind. But all minds depend on a physical foundation we happen to call a brain. This is as certain as the premise that everything which begins has a cause. But a physical thing logically must exist in relation to the thing it exists in. And that thing must change since things in it can change. Yet Change implies time. So gawd both is outside of time and in time. Reductio ad absurdum. *courtesies*
@chrismac1980 You misunderstood me. The 'first cause' is not exempt from the law - all events have causes. This is a fallacy inherent in the first cause argument, stating the law and then declaring that one thing - the alleged 'first cause' - is exempt from it. The Big Bang was preceded by a singularity - all matter at maximum density. What came before is not necessarily a timeless, spacless void. It could have been another universe which contracted. We have no way of learning what preceded it.
lmaoo that was funny. All he had to do was know his argument, and it would have resulted in the hosts saying "i don't know". All he has to say is there cannot be infinite regressions, and he even admitted it, saying infinity isn't a number, its a concept, so there cannot be "an" infinite amount of anything. So then the universe has to be finite. So we all agree the universe had a beginning. If someone knocks on the door, you don't know who it was, but you that someone or something knocked it.
Isn't this the same guy that Martin and Don were talking to in "A Caller attempts a Cosmological Argument"? The voice is similar and he uses a lot of the same phrases.
No, that is why we need science. If you had no idea where cars came from, it would not be unreasonable to suspect a designer and a factory, but only because all things like it have that origin. STILL, you would not be justified in believing that you had proved their origin without evidence like going to the design studio and the factory and seeing it happen. Philosophy and logic help one develop cogent ideas, but science is required to find out if those ideas are actually right.
My argument for gnostic (strong) atheism A logical absolute: Something must come from something. Something cannot come from nothing. So "god" (a very big something) must have come from something - which does not fit the god definition. Or "god" is nothing - just an idea. Matter and energy must come from matter and energy, infinitely, in the past and in the future. Because if there was ever absolute nothingness, nothing could come from that. A "fist cause" is a logical impossibility.
We have to sit through so much stupidity to hear a few of their gems of knowledge .I wish these videos had some rating system (other than the stars ) to know wich videos are good enough to watch.
@t0xyg3n I agree, when people start to say "my way or the highway" i tend to stop listening. I feel like the "concepts" we come to that describe our understanding of anything are finite in their very definitions and usage. When we think about the universe and or anything that is around us we can boil it down to this unknown becasue it is what it is. Kinda like when the host of the show said no one knows what was before the begining, we just have theories. The process of coming to that ...
Развлечения
*Fine tuning argument as explained by Douglas Adams*
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
+Allan Floyd Adams gave me a mindgasm. Thanx for that quote.
Even the earth isn't very 'finely tuned' for life to exist, very small changes in conditions cause extinctions of species all the time, 99.9% of all species ever on earth have gone extinct for whatever reason.
Exactly.
75% of our planet is water and the last time I checked, we didn't have gills.
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is hostile to us. (Give or take a dozen or so 9s.) That certainly indicates the universe isn't "fine tuned" for us.
@@MrEdwardCollins And Jen brought up a great point too: if it was fine tuned for us, why is there only one place in the universe where we exist? Was God just playing a bad game of Sim Universe?
It's sad how often they make the "If god had given us all the answers, it would have been like building a robot." It's also eerie how often they use all the same phrasings. Equally sad is the fact that they don't realize that they're acting like robots themselves. They assimilate the operating system of their parents and congregation. If they run into a problem they're told to contact an authorized maintenance partner such as WLC, Ken Hamm or Kent Hovind, preferably all of them. But rather than debugging, they just implement workarounds that feed into one other, creating these infinite feedback loops to avoid confronting the possibility that the OS is faulty. So the program ends up running around in circles, repeating the same thing over and over, just like old robots that would endlessly try to enter a doorway that's 3 feet to their left.
+GuerillaBunny
That's why I call them the Borg. It is a hiive mind, and they have been assimilated.
+GuerillaBunny God apparently didn't just give us no answers, he didn't even give us the questions until science started looking
Or causes the robot to pick up and drop a sardine over and over again
'The universe is very complex so something must have created it so we call that a 'first cause' being (god of the old testament of course)'... but that being has to be infinitely MORE complex than the entire universe.....so then where did that being come from? An even more infinitely complex being? Don't THOSE beings require an explanation as well, since the universe does since it's so 'complex'? Why does a being which created the whole thing get a free pass from requiring an explanation? This is where the 'first cause' and other such arguments get exposed as nonsense.
That was painful
Jen completely and totally dismantled the fine tuning argument. Best destruction of it I have ever heard! Way to go! I'm just sad that in all the times I have argued similar things, I have never thought to put it so succinctly.
+Pat Doyle Jen be smart.
Lol the outro music is so Legendary
"Fine-tuning" Why does the universe have to be made for us? Could it NOT be that we have evolved as a result of the circumstantial properties of the universe....
Nope, it could ONLY be god-magic!
The claim that the universe was fine tuned for us or that we are the end product is the most arrogant claim that the religious mind could conceive of. It does not matter that their bible supports the idea, it is utter crap.
I like how all these callers who propose an argument are so obviously just reading someone else's argument without completely understanding it.
This was a good one. I love the sound of defeat at the end
The most startling commandment from Jesus was "Love your enemies". He didn't say cut off their heads!. He said if someone steals your shirt, also give them your coat. I interpret this as, if someone steals your car, also give them your house. He also said "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple". How odd that so-called Christians ignore his sayings.
If this is a Christian country, why do we manufacture bombs that could wipe out all life on earth ?
I don't think Jesus would approve of such weapons.
i bet if any of these theists heard someone arguing with someone else using the same type arguments, about ANY other topic, they would think they were on drugs.
"I know through logical deduction..."
Okay.
"...scientific inquiry..."
This sounds good so far.
"...and biblical revelation..."
Wait a second.
"uhhhh can I call back another time?"
Lol!
The self-restraint of these two people is incredibly admirable.
It never ceases to amaze me how patient these guys are. With the ability to hang up on anyone just inches away, I don't think I'd have the self control to let these calls go on as long as they do. :P
'It's relevant for us to exist'.....no it isnt, the rest of this vast universe is completely indifferent to our existence.
Playing numbskull's advocate here - if these dolts could accept a god with limited power, then the "fine tuning" might be highly relevant to our existence. Of course you would have to accept as axioms that the god is not all-powerful, and that we were an intended consequence of "creation". In which case the universe would have to be as it is or we would not be here. But as long as they insist on an all-powerful god we could live in any environment. We could even live inside the entrails of a giant fish for three days! But let's not be silly here...
Also they'd have to convince me the entire universe with its billions of planets was all just made for 'fine tuning' of this 1 little planet, and that's not believable.
davids11131113
It does seem ridiculously far-fetched under any circumstances, but at least with a limited god, it is not absolutely logically absurd.
The Douglas Adam quote Matt almost got to: Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
lol their faces in the end are priceless, its almost as if you can see how disappointed they are in humanity
brilliant point I will use that next time i hear the fine tuning argument.
This is so good. I love watching these videos!
These are the phone calls I love LOL....
If ever there was an argument for the supernatural, it would be the supernatural patience of the Atheist Experience hosts.
We still need to give him some credit for trying. Most people don't bother and get angry when anyone suggests they try and understand science.
It is easier to believe that man invented the idea of God than to believe that God made man in His image.
During the olden times when we did not know the function of the nose, skin, mouth, hair etc. it was easy to pass a phrase like "God made us in His image." We did not even give a second thought of what that sentence mean. Did that mean that God has a nose thru which he has to breath air and oxygen? He has mouth so he can eat? Teeth? Hair?
If there really is a god, you'd think he would have told that poor guy not to call up a live TV show and embarrass himself.
This is how a Ray Comfort - Carl Sagan debate would be =O
That dude seemed really polite.
People who, despite being clueless in science and logic, pontificate on science & logic are so entertaining.
Jesus said that we should not be like the heathen, repeating the same prayer over and over again in public, thinking that they will be heard by much repetition (they have their reward), instead, we should go into our privy and pray to the Father in private and we will be heard. He then gave an example of how to pray, which we now call "The Lord's Prayer".
Given his previous points, not to repeat etc., it seems odd to me that Christians see no problem in repeating this example over and over again IN PUBLIC, which is what the heathen do !
His "reasoning" to atribute intelligence to (what he likes to call) First Cause, his due to a common fallacy that makes people link a goal with an observed post-result. If i arrive at a scenario where there are a bunch of different parked cars and there's a big rock that obviously rolled down from a hill and is positioned against a destroyed honda, my (fallacious) question would be: "who or what has caused the rock to come downhill to destroy that honda?". I'm atributing a *goal* to the rock's motion (or whoever caused it) based on what the observable outcome happen to be (wich is a smashed honda instead of any other car).
Situations observed post-action should NOT be interpreted that way. First of all, i can't prove that there was any intention to hit the honda or if the rock simply rolled down the ONLY possible path that Physics allowed (a mix of speed, direction, natural hurdles, etc).
The same way, this guy is observing the Universe as it is and assuming that whatever/whoever sparked its origin already had THAT scenario in mind. That's why he atributes intelligence to it. But, as shown, it's a fallacy.
This is too painful to watch.
"How do I get on earlier?" - Call earlier.
"How do I email?" - Stick your head in the oven.
"Could I call back another time?"
Yeah, you do that. :D
Matt I think said he believes there was no first cause and that the universe and time was infinite. Oh my goodness!
My reaction to the caller was the same as Matt's between 2:20 and 2:28. His inability to make a coherent argument is a harder fail than something that fails beyond an epic degree, I can't even come up with a humorous analogy.
If the universe is tuned to anything, it is tuned to being vast, cold, dark, mostly empty, hostile, uncaring, unforgiving and having no apparent purpose. It was like this long before we came onto the scene, and it will continue to be that way long after we are all gone. For someone to assume it was all created for us or tuned for us is arrogance and stupidity beyond belief.
Matt had an annoying tendency to pause long enough for the caller to start talking only to have Matt start talking over him. I'm sure Matt's looking for feedback from the caller, but I could see how it would be frustrating if every time I wanted to make a counterpoint, however flawed, the person I'm talking to jumps in as I speak.
Still, this was a knock-down, drag-out conversation. The caller was in over his head from the get-go.
2:27 (starting from 2:22) deserves a poster. Matt's in pain!
That was almost painful to sit through. lol
Kenny obviously called to recite an argument that he read on the internet and finds it to be persuasive. I like how the hosts quickly derailed his attempt to regurgitate this argument and forced him to have a discussion with them.
Kenny thinks his weak arguments, which he is reading directly from some web site, are so compelling.
"How do I get into the show earlier?"
"Call earlier"
Sorry, I don't normally pointlessly quote lines from videos that we can all see for ourselves, but that was a classic!
And it did seem to kind of sum up this guy's level of intellectual enquiry.
The caller is a prime example of perhaps the most infuriating thing I encounter in debates with theist: a person who's attempts at logical arguments demonstrate a profound ignorance of the rules of logic.
Well, I am a fierce atheist, and I am here because a religious friend tried this exact same argument on me. My answer was that we don’t know what happened before the big bang. He insisted on the First Cause proposition, this powerful force, intelligent, omnipotent, loving entity, that could only be God, that set everything in motion, of which his only proof of existence was: “what else could have done it then?”
I have a deep dislike of religious people because they are 100% sure that their view of the world is correct. Science on the other hand, is always willing to listen to new evidence, to new scientific discoveries and is willing to grant that, if we have strong evidence to support a claim, even if the evidence opposes prevalent ideas, it will be evaluated and adopted if has merit. Damn ... science is awesome!!!
DAMN, JUST DAMN.
So funny how he cant answer that in the end, so he just act like he need more time to explain, like "how can I e-mail you my great answer"? LOL!
This guy went into a gunfight unarmed
I have to say, he's a good caller. At the very least he isn't staying on the same dumb argument, like most.
2:41 eyeroll. XD
Love the way he keeps pronouncing 'infinite' as 'infininate'.
Knocked in the face from the first bell and left to stagger for twenty minutes, before he fell under his own weight.
we can prove feelings
Lol, "How can I call earlier".
Hey, does anyone know how to replay the video?
And why humans are so naturally suited to survive on so much of the earth's surface, so glad I can breathe water, and my blood will not boil or freeze.
lmfao, wat a caller
I'm not convinced this guy "knows" where he left his car. :-)
how do i email??
If we were made by magic we would be magically animated marzipan men, with no need to breath or shit or anything.
I cant believe the crap they believe.
I almost feel sorry for the guy on the phone. He's so determined, and knows that his arguments are falling apart in front of him. The presenters are pretty brutal and could do with more understanding like Douglas Adams or Richard Dawkins. This wasn't a debate, it was a whitewash.
I love this show
I remember the voice of this caller. He was pretty obviously following a script sketched out by somebody else and he didn't fully even grasp his own side of the arguments. Probably still a lost sheep over a decade later.
What was the real name of "Jesus" ?
Jeshua in Aramaic, Joshua in Hebrew.
(Jesus is the anglicized form of the Greek version, so was NOT his name).
So if you pray to Jesus, Jeshua will think you are talking to someone else !
Jen was very clever on this one.
Yeah, Ken called 3-4 weeks in a row. He never actually got anywhere, but he kept on calling.
I wish Matt would debate William Lane Craig.
He must think if he says logic enough times he'll make a point.
@chrismac1980
When you were talking about physics yesterday and energy and how there can't be an infinite amount of events, were you talking about philosophy or science?
Oh my, here we go again.This guy has called so many times I can tell just by his voice.
Caller has the reasoning ability of a boiled potato. And not even a very smart potato.
i don't understand how they can sit there with straight faces every time a caller stammers and babbles. i guess they've been doing it for so long...
Amen Jazzlover06. Though I wonder if it wasnt deserved, I mean the guy still did persist in his assertions. Man, could you imagine if that was Hitchens there talking to him instead? *shudder*
this guy's high as a kite! good on him.
Dude, humans can't even live in MOST PLACES on Earth.
Damn, these callers hurt my head with their tangled up reasoning that results in a: lol wut? Fail more, please?
I can answer any questing I use facts and the word I don't know
Some people think the universe HAS to be intelligent, and my question for them is why? Why does it HAVE to be intelligent, why can't it just be chaos?
@thegillotine09 This is the difference between a root cause and a sub cause. The seed itself is just a part of another process at work. The seeds and trees are just loops in a system.
What interests us are the root causes.
@chrismac1980
One event interacts with another through out history and in biology. Species react to enviornments. Environments react to physical traits around them. Tides are affected by orbits... land formations are affected by tides... civilzations adapt to physical factors around them... Every action is connected to another based on previous stimuli. These chain reactions can be observed today.
What STARTED the ball rolling is the question that I don't know the answer to
Actually, I think most of these people A) don't really understand the hosts counter arguments, and B) when they do, they still can't accept that they could be right, so like this guy, they go off to their preacher, or an apologetics website to get a dose of reaffirmation. For them it's very emotional, for us it's just learning. If someone proved tomorrow that the big bang never happened, it wouldn't upset us, but take away god and they get scared.
@ChrisDevl "The universe isnt fine tuned for us.. If anything, we're fine tuned for it.."
We exist inside the Universe and our bodies are made of old star dust. If we're a part of the universe it's just like saying the Universe is fined tuned for itself which is whimsical. And people aren't fine tuned for the universe since we can't breath in vacuum.
This guy is reading out a dictionary of obscure scientific terms...without looking at the definitions!
This is embarrassing. I'm glad that they didn't just hang up on him. It would give theists "cause" to say, "These atheists don't have an answer to these challenges, so they just tune them out."
@dannywizz
Example: Tree. It must have been an intelligent mechanic to assemble the parts!
No, it was a seed - a natural process.
Everything you see in nature has a natural explanation.
Caller forgot the part that gawd must be unchanging because she is outside time. Change implies time. But if gawdipoo decided to create the universe then something changed. Her mind. So we've deduced that gawd has a mind. But all minds depend on a physical foundation we happen to call a brain. This is as certain as the premise that everything which begins has a cause. But a physical thing logically must exist in relation to the thing it exists in. And that thing must change since things in it can change. Yet Change implies time. So gawd both is outside of time and in time. Reductio ad absurdum. *courtesies*
Ignorance ignorance and more ignorance
They allways wait till the last resort to quote Bible.
@chrismac1980 You misunderstood me. The 'first cause' is not exempt from the law - all events have causes. This is a fallacy inherent in the first cause argument, stating the law and then declaring that one thing - the alleged 'first cause' - is exempt from it. The Big Bang was preceded by a singularity - all matter at maximum density. What came before is not necessarily a timeless, spacless void. It could have been another universe which contracted. We have no way of learning what preceded it.
lmaoo that was funny. All he had to do was know his argument, and it would have resulted in the hosts saying "i don't know". All he has to say is there cannot be infinite regressions, and he even admitted it, saying infinity isn't a number, its a concept, so there cannot be "an" infinite amount of anything. So then the universe has to be finite. So we all agree the universe had a beginning. If someone knocks on the door, you don't know who it was, but you that someone or something knocked it.
Isn't this the same guy that Martin and Don were talking to in "A Caller attempts a Cosmological Argument"? The voice is similar and he uses a lot of the same phrases.
No, that is why we need science. If you had no idea where cars came from, it would not be unreasonable to suspect a designer and a factory, but only because all things like it have that origin. STILL, you would not be justified in believing that you had proved their origin without evidence like going to the design studio and the factory and seeing it happen. Philosophy and logic help one develop cogent ideas, but science is required to find out if those ideas are actually right.
@chrismac1980
Do you think embracing things with your heart without evidence is a good method of scientific discovery?
What do you mean by "maybe the first cause is that matter exists"?
My argument for gnostic (strong) atheism
A logical absolute: Something must come from something. Something cannot come from nothing. So "god" (a very big something) must have come from something - which does not fit the god definition. Or "god" is nothing - just an idea.
Matter and energy must come from matter and energy, infinitely, in the past and in the future. Because if there was ever absolute nothingness, nothing could come from that. A "fist cause" is a logical impossibility.
I want to hear about the pupal of water. =(
We have to sit through so much stupidity to hear a few of their gems of knowledge .I wish these videos had some rating system (other than the stars ) to know wich videos are good enough to watch.
@t0xyg3n I agree, when people start to say "my way or the highway" i tend to stop listening. I feel like the "concepts" we come to that describe our understanding of anything are finite in their very definitions and usage. When we think about the universe and or anything that is around us we can boil it down to this unknown becasue it is what it is. Kinda like when the host of the show said no one knows what was before the begining, we just have theories. The process of coming to that ...
@Direkin It was a pretty brilliant facepalm, that's for sure.
"most of the universe is very hostile to life"
.... most of our solar system is hostile to life XD
better to keep quiet and be presumed a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt