He describes the arrogance of man quite nicely. We even go far enough to think that we can have a personal relationship with such a creator (which actually can happen, since the creator is a figment of our imaginations, and so any such relationship would exist, but it would ultimately be with ourselves)
@@hispalismapping155 Delusion might make you happy, sure... but only if it's not too strong a delusion, only if your perception of reality isn't so warped that you start having trouble functioning in it. Because then, reality - usually in the form of society - will 'remind' you that you need to get a f*cking grip on reality or get locked up. So rationality will help a great deal with _remaining_ happy.... unless of course it should make you happy being locked away or getting shot or in some other way 'reminded' to get a grip...
...and to this day, over a decade after this was uploaded, which in turn is over a decade since the original video aired, (mostly theistic) people are still incapable of understanding this extremely basic point. One might almost hope this damn puddle evaporates as fast as humanly possible...
A lot of theists claim the universe must've been fine-tuned for life mostly for some kind of (god of the gaps) fallacy, even though it is >99.99999999% _lethal_ to life -- and life by very naturalistic definition only arises where it's possible and _it_ adapts to its environment rather than the other way around. I thought the video was pretty clear about that.
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 but some food adapted to be eaten and humans adapted to eat it. Seems way more complex unless the food was just there and we adapted to it but what if it adapted to us. More likely we adapted to it since it was around first and created our environment but it's strange like soil forming from rocks that get eroded by water that mixes with gases in the air creating a environment for algae and fungi to decompose and allow plants to grow. That blew my mind. So I think soil is the chemical process that formed all life so basically everything started with a mixture of gases,rocks and water then it grew to a large amount and created everything. But what adapted to what. for example a tree adapted to us to be eaten or we adapted to it to eat it or we adapted to each other simultaneously. It's a bad example so you probably don't know what I'm asking
All that adaptation needs is for the seeds of the "food" to mutate slightly to be indigestible. Consuming other life as a convenient source of energy and organic matter wasn't a complicated change either, but natural selection turned into an arms race. I don't think it's strange that life is found in environments where it can exist though, since it has to start somewhere possible and then just diversifies into other places. Not sure what you want to say, but life is hard to comprehend from our perspective. EVERYTHING on the scale of chemistry is.
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 This is pretty cool stuff. Was actually studying religion and ended up studying how soil was created. Now I'm studying evolution since of course dinosaurs had to come up in the midst of all this lol and of course this video also
@@kellydalstok8900 look up Joe Schmid’s mistakes about fine tuning. There are plenty of good arguments for atheism, this garbage isn’t one of them. I wonder why no philosopher takes it seriously in the literature?
So as the puddle was shrinking from the sun there wouldn't be any chance that the puddle might think, hang on a minute I used to be bigger, perhaps my original thought wasn't 100% accurate. Much like this dude did
Actually, the analogy maps really well onto the Christian conservative faction. "Climate change isn't real," after all, as any of them will tell you. "It's just warmer than it used to be."
@@rlbrett you might as well, 'ask who made god?' If you can't illustrate your answer without help from any religious text, you might as well not assume things.
@@jeremyheartriter2.063, with respect, for the hundreds of years men have been noting how similar Jesus Christ's teachings are to other religious teachings. Is it important--significant--to remember that Christianity and the resurrection of Christ, if this is not a miracle, is a sham. One cannot disprove, due to empirical historical evidence regarding history, Christianity, the life of Christ, and his resurrection. You see, even Paul the apostle said, "If Christ is not risen our faith is in vain." Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of a real person historically--Jesus Christ.
I've probably quoted The Sentient Puddle to about 1000 theists! It always comes up when they say, 'I can't believe this all happened by accident'. I then go on about how randomness does seem to be involved in our naturally evolving life to our surroundings, but its certainly not an 'accident'. Strangely I only hear theists saying 'accident', obviously they must hear this in church or something? Accidental Sun, and accidental planets, and obviously accidental people? But it wasn't an accident, we EVOLVED to our surroundings, that's 'why' (although science prefers how things happen not why they happen, since 'why' makes it sound like there was some type of intention for it to be this way. After something similar to the above has been written in reply to their 'accident' world. I usually get the response: But why is the world made so perfectly for people then? Of which I state: Because we evolved to our surroundings. Extra terrestrials may have evolved to their surroundings, life at the bottom of the ocean or inside volcanoes, evolved to THEIR surrounds. WE evolved to the place in which we live. Seems reasonable right? But NO, nope, not so easy for the deluded theist. They usually then say: Our surroundings are perfectly suited to us, and that's why I believe (always adding that and 'other' things. Of which The Sentient Puddle FINALLY gets quoted for the 1001th time. I do this daily with deluded theists, it can get boring and simplistic at times, like helping a child to count to 10. (although I'd never get bored doing this with a child). These ADULTS who finally 'get it' and understand the hole in the rock was not designed for it, then immediately go to the next fallacy, usually that science is supposedly bad, or they felt their God in a dream!!! Sometimes I do have a rest from their cognitive dissonance and wilful ignorance, especially when even a child knows better.
His analogy utterly fails because water is shapeless, it fits perfectly anywhere you moron. There's no conditions that need to be met. Fine-tuning is akin to winning the lottery and your analogy is akin to playing the lottery. It's a false comparison. The fact that you buy this drivel just goes to show that you're not a critical thinker.
PikUpYourPantsPatrol It perfectly makes sense applied to humans, nothing was put here for you, it just so happens you evolved and adapted to survive on this planet like every other species. Everything, really everything, that happens, happens because of the laws of nature that this particular universe has.
PikUpYourPantsPatrol I don't have to assume anything. I do know for a fact that it is a coincidence, it's common sense as well. Thinking our existence requires a creator is a flawed logic, in addition religions are proven to be false, there is no life after death because life as we know it only happens in the brain. Common sense, again.
What are the kidneys for? filtering blood? Heart? Pumping blood. Digestive juices? Breaking down food for digestion. Well..... No, not exactly, it's not what they're 'for'. It's what they came about to do...... Think
They came about as we evolved through the various stages of a living organism. The different functions they serve, is not a product of divine creation, but rather its benefits for a species to thrive, survive and evolve. In this clip, he is talking about everything in the universe, and how many religious people generalize those things' mere existence as having an intention, when it is really a long lasting fight of 'natural selection' with a bit of help from various natural interventions (in regards to all living things, that is).
@@Sollidi it's not just religious people that do that. It's literally almost everyone. In fact, you could go a step further and say that we read explanations into things that aren't actually there and there's loads of evidence for this.
@Mr. Michael Levin we can t do that yet cuz we re very limited in our knowledge and we may be able in the future if we survive that long . it s very good that u came with ur own calculation about the probability of such a thing with not even some professional knowledge in that field of it being impossible . where it couldn t form or died off on other planets or whatever space , there we couldn t have appeared .
@Mr. Michael Levin Terrible argument. Probability tells us nothing, nor is it calculable. You’re able to ask the question because things were “near enough” in the first place. There’s nobody standing on the moon asking this question because the environment wasn’t near-enough” to support life. In other words, it’s a prerequisite of the universe that life must exist for the question to be asked. No life, no question.
There's no connection between the belief that the Universe has been designed to have humans in it, and the idea of physics. In fact an objective physics that doesn't change according to the whims of a sentient ape any more than it changes to accomodate a puddle is incompatible with the idea of anthropocentrism, or with the idea of appeasing a god to realise your whims, or with the idea of divine punishment. This is one reason why the very idea of a god establishing the laws of the Universe that affect things was likely first brought out by Descartes in order to underwrite his revolutionary discovery of the laws of physics (SciHub > doi.org/10.1163/1573382041154051 ). The primitive Abrahamic god pulls every string himself.
If an all powerful god created the laws of physics, he/she/it could just as easily change them, so the existence of said laws is no evidence for an all powerful god.
This is such a silly argument. It's assuming the world was finely tuned for the existence of life. This is backward. Life was tuned to survive and sometimes thrive in the world in which it evolved by way of evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. She is exactly wrong.
Wrong analogy, Douglas, I'm afraid. Regarding water filling a hole: We can clearly identify principles of fluid mechanics to explain how it all "fits" properly. But physics, leading to chemistry, leading to biology, leading to psychology - is not something that can be explained as easily, if at all. Not even one transition in the numerous I've listed has an adequate explanation. The blind-chance model does not measure up. And how was the physical world formed in the first place - too remains a puzzle. Bad analogy, I must point it. Completely misses the point. By 93 billion lightyears, to be precise.
Has anyone every thought to ask this tho, if the maker of the hole did exist and told the puddle that he in fact did create the hole for the puddle, then the hole was made for the puddle and the puddle is correct in assuming this. In our very own world the created has came to us and told us that he has made it for us.
What has actually happened for certain is that a book was written saying that the maker exists and created us for this world but there is no proof that this book holds any credibility but also a part of the argument is that the puddle (us) woke up one day assumed it had purpose so wrote a book about it this is the more realistic argument since this book seems to be more likely written by misinformed ignorant men than an omnipotent higher being
A 2000 year old book a 4000 year old set of scrolls and a 1400 year old book written by humans is not proof that a divine being has talked with humanity.
Wyatt Farmer but the fact that 500 people died because of them telling the Roman authorities that they had seen the person in that book after his death pretty much sums it up nicely
@@BrockLoyd the only one claiming that was paul....in the bible...50 years after the event supposedly took place. No Roman records exist of a mass execution like that. The Romans were very good at keeping records so the fact that no such incident has been recorded anywhere but the bible doesn't really make a good case for it having happened.
The puddle analogy is very poor. If the hole is changed, the puddle will always exist in the hole regardless of its shape. If the constants of the universe are changed, life will not always exist regardless of the constants. Water can exist in all holes, life CANNOT exist in all universes.
What makes you think life would not exist if things were different? Maybe not life as we know it, because thats the point, it will adapt to the circumstances
You got the analogy backwards. In this case the universe is the hole and the constants is the puddle. If the universe was made a different way, there would simply be different constants that describe the different universe.
No, I don't have the analogy backwards. The analogy fundamentally misunderstands the point of the fine-tuning argument. The real conundrum of life in the Universe is NOT: given that we are here, why do we find ourselves in a universe with the conditions that allow us to be here? The puzzle is: why does a universe with the ability to support life exist at all? In atheism, the universe being able to support life is possible, but extremely unlikely, whereas in theism, it would be more likely, even expected.
@@doctoreggman21 in your original comment, how do you know that life cannot exist in all universes? Sure, life AS WE KNOW IT, may not exist, but other forms of life could exist and that life would have different constants to describe THEIR universe. It just happens that the universe formed the way we know it. Survivorship bias.
@@pjark471 no man, the overwhelming majority of other possible universes wouldn’t even have the conditions for ATOMS to form, let alone life. This is a question now based on physics, not philosophy alone.
I really like the meta-level of irony and sarcasm, unfortunately many just get stuck on the first level, of his irony and dont get deep enough to feel the bitter after taste. The puddle would not exist if it weren't for the hole and the water. So the puddle is right to be thankfull and appreciate the causes for its existance. But by looking at it from a self centered natural science point of view, the view point changes to: Well if i would not exist i would not be able to think about it and, be greatfull. What an idiot am i to be greatfull and thank a god. I exist, and otherwise i would not exist, therfore there is no need for any god. And Douglas brings it so well that many totally buy it. And they are distroying this world, because they believe there is no creator or purpuse. He is a meta-genious, making people proud to stay stuck on the first level of sarcasm, by which he exposes their ignorance, and self centeredness.
Ignorance and self-centeredness? Its much more ignorant and self centered to assume a God made an entire universe just for us, and made us in his holy image, and that everybody has value and purpose and a reason for existing.
@@thegrayghost1786 So its self centered to think that everybody has value and purpose? Or that the earth and life as we know it was designed with a purpose? Maybe in a way. I think you can compare it by receiving a package with a i-phone. You can use it and think it was a mistake by the post, or you could try to find out where it came from.
Pointing everything to randomness is a lazy way to say you are an ignoramus/unknowledgeable, start reading holy books dear atheists as the societies that you influenced with ur sad ideas are crumbling, it's time to gather some wisdoms to patch back the broken
@@shelbyvillerules9962 that's not being intellectually honest, that just means you are making excuse for being incompetent, so at least you have excuse it's weak not honest, especially not honest when you claim your self-fixing system is working and that it's the best system, while it's obviously not since so many people are suffering even if they are living in material abudance, you have moral/ethical problem not material just like humanity always had and atheists with their selfprofessed brilliant ideas can't fix this problem even remotely let alone minimally or fully.
So what is so wrong with destroying this planet? Where does this idea come from that life should exist on earth anyway?Perhaps because we find it convenient and suitable as if fits our thinking like the puddle? If there is no GOD then why worry about anything as it is all just chance and circumstance and there is nothing anyone can do about anything.Of course you can give your life meaning and purpose but it will only be important as the life you have in you.Once you are dead then nothing will matter anymore.Everything has a purpose even a pebble even though we can´t see it. But just because we can´t see something doesn't mean it does not exist.We believe in future generations to come that don't exist yet.In the end i can´t prove to a blind person that the moon exists anymore than i can prove GOD exist.
I can see the comment i posted on my end and yours.It might come up your end later.Anyway I can see what you mean about my remarks being non-sequitor. I had to look up what that meant so i have learned something. Basically what i was trying to say is that if the puddle argument is correct then life is meaningless as death treats everybody the same and in the end it doesn't matter if you are good or bad.So what is the purpose of life if after death we are never to exist again after experiencing this wonderful but brief moment of time. But my main disagreement with the puddle argument is order and design and being aware as i believe humans have a soul and are not just meat machine and these things can only come from a being that has a mind itself in that life must come from life and so on. Never the less i can´t prove that GOD does exist but the evidence shows that HE does. The puddle argument is insufficient to show that an all powerful being didn't create us as it doesn't deal with the soul, mind,morality and the purpose of life and what happens when we die. I hope this message gets through.
@@factotum1613 Well I can see this comment so I assume that your other one just got lost on the way to my end. It's not unheard of on RUclips. Anyways, the puddle doesn't assert that life is meaningless and has no purpose. It proposes that instead of this planet being made specifically for us, it was us that were made to fit in our environment. It doesn't attempt to tackle any claim of a god or the purpose of life or morality or what happens after death; rather it attacks a common claim theists use to try and prove intelligent design, and how that claim is wrong. As for order and design, there is none in the universe. Only a very very very tiny sliver of the universe is capable of sustaining life, that sliver being the Earth. And even the Earth wants to kill us. Our planet is actively heating, and soon it will not be habitable for us any more. A long time ago it wasn't habitable for us either, and even in the times that it was/is habitable for us, everything on this damn rock wants to kill us. The notion that this universe was made intelligently for us is laughable when you look outside of our own scope. As for a soul, there is no evidence suggesting that such a thing exists. As for the purpose of life, there is no evidence suggesting that one exists. Additionally, I find it very perplexing that you can't prove god exists, yet claim there is evidence that he exists. Evidence, by its very nature, would in fact prove he exists. That's what evidence does. And when I say evidence I mean tangible, reproducible, evidence. Not what someone feels. Not what someone claims to have seen or heard. Real, solid, tangible evidence. And if you had that evidence, well, you'd be the greatest scientist of all time. But such evidence does not exist.
@TheGrayGhost If the puddle argumemt says that theist are wrong about intelligent design then it is implying that life is meaningless because if there is no GOD then we are here by chance and circumstance and that would make us nothing special. You say there is no order and design in the univers from which i presume is because you don't see it but i could say how is that proof that there is no order and design just because you don't see it i could use the analogy of the blind man that is convinced the moon doesn't exist because he can´t experience it like the sun and wind. But our own bodys show intelligent design. But if intelligent design is not how this planet and life came into being then why can´t we create a fly or even bring a dead flea back to life as this would not require any intelligence at all. Yes you are correct that this world is slowly dying and will eventually take mankind with it. But just because this planet and all life will become extinct on it doesn't mean it is not intelligently designed. Just take a look at the many human invetions of yesterday that don't exist today. Nobody would say they where not intelligently designed because time and decay destroyed them.In fact they were replaced by something better. If you are a family man i would not tell them that they are nothing more than meat machines and that you only love them because you have no choice because the chemicals in your body are forcing you to care.The evidence for a person having a soul is the ability to sacrifice oneself for those you love.To appreciate music, beauty, poetry and have empathy. These are not things that a person goes to a science lab to test and find out if he really has them. Proof is what is testable in a science lab and will produce the same result anywhere in the world, evidence is information gathered from a set of unforseen circumstances and forming a conclusion from it by using our reason.This is what has put a lot of people behind bars for the crimes they have commited. Evidence tells us Socrates Aristotle and plato were real people and that is not something that can be reproduced. What kind of experiment would you run to show me if a person really loved you as what they do should have no bearing on how they make you feel by your standard?
This doesn't make any sense. If we were a puddle then why do we need so many other things to already exist just so we can live? Like the sun, air, water, plants for food, an earth to live on, an atmosphere and so on? Life is to complex for the Pudddle analogy to make sense.
Adam B - The puddle needs a lot of things too: The perfect temperature so it stays liquid, the perfect atmospheric pressure (also so it stays liquid), gravity so it doesn’t float away, a non-permeable container so it doesn’t simply drain into the soil, and long-term stability (no earthquakes or anything drinking it) so it has enough time to ponder its own existence.
We need those things because we adapted in order to survive in the environment provided by our planet, this is the puddle argument, it makes perfect sense. It just happens that in this universe, to create RNA based life, you need radiation and a few elements and it just so happens that an asteroid with RNA based life has hit this planet and that this planet became habitable for RNA life and allowed it to evolve/adapt to what this planet has.
Just because something is complex doesn't mean someone thought it through. Everything that happens, and I mean everything, can be explained by either physics, chemistry, biology, maths or logic. If you think we needed a creator then based off on that logic, the creator would need another creator and so on. Because he would be even more complex than us, right?
@@williampiercy2572: I get that, don’t agree with it. A complicated ecosystem of tremendous symbiotic interaction, with information in the cells of the life forms in it, defy all the probability for its existence by chance.
@@kensmith8152 You shouldn't bring up probability unless you have numbers to support your claim. The complexity of our ecosystem and the symbiotic relationships between organisms demonstrates the point he's trying to make which is that we are a product of our environment. We observe how perfectly we fit our environment and decide it must have been made for us, when in reality we were made based on our environment. If you look at different ecosystems throughout the planet you'll observe forms of life that have adapted to the conditions of that region. We are no different from them. The point the video is making is that for us to assume the world is made for us because we fit so well into it is similar to a puddle believing the world was made for it because it fits perfectly into the hole. This comparison can't be rejected solely on the basis that human life is more complex than the existence of a puddle. I would argue that the sequence of steps, the billions of years of time of all the molecules in that puddle being elsewhere and eventually coming together to fit into this hole in the road. its such a complex process, it must have been done intentionally. The premise of your argument is something we call the watchmaker analogy, which argues that complexity requires a designer. This is a fallacious argument I encourage you to research it. Even if you were able to say factually that complexity requires a designer, it still says nothing about who or what that designer may be or have been. We can't logically jump from something (complexity) to someone(a god).
This is probably one of the most inane videos on the internet. You animate a puddle to make your point? Try the science which makes the abductive argument for GOD. BTW - you said "the sun rises" - isn't that geo-centrism? hmmmm....
what a stupid argument and way of thinking.. "Why" has helped many scientific discoveries along with How, what, when, where, and who... Not even worth a minute
Because we actually know for a fact that robots are created by us, but the same isn't true for dogs. Quite on the contrary, we know for a fact that dogs weren't created by someone.
Because we have well substantiated scientific theories and observations that explain how dogs arise, such as Evolution and Abiogenesis. Of course, we have idiots like you that choose to ignore these. But anyway, you don't even need to understand the science. Here is a simple question. Have you ever seen a dog being built by a man? Of course not. Every instance of a dog coming into being that we have observed thus far is a result of observable and well understood natural processes.
Наука
He describes the arrogance of man quite nicely. We even go far enough to think that we can have a personal relationship with such a creator (which actually can happen, since the creator is a figment of our imaginations, and so any such relationship would exist, but it would ultimately be with ourselves)
+callum johnston sometimes our conscious self needs to commune with parts of our unconscious self 'god' being one of its aspects.
There are very meek men who believe in God. The man Jesus being one of them
Quasi-personal relationship*
A great writer and brilliant communicator.
Disagree on one point.
More than a science fiction writer.
You are a smart man
Rationality Rules!
✊
Rationality won't make you happy
@@hispalismapping155 Delusion might make you happy, sure... but only if it's not too strong a delusion, only if your perception of reality isn't so warped that you start having trouble functioning in it. Because then, reality - usually in the form of society - will 'remind' you that you need to get a f*cking grip on reality or get locked up.
So rationality will help a great deal with _remaining_ happy.... unless of course it should make you happy being locked away or getting shot or in some other way 'reminded' to get a grip...
@@hispalismapping155 And irrational religion will?
@@kellydalstok8900 It does
...and to this day, over a decade after this was uploaded, which in turn is over a decade since the original video aired, (mostly theistic) people are still incapable of understanding this extremely basic point. One might almost hope this damn puddle evaporates as fast as humanly possible...
I'm agnostic and I need you to explain to this to me actually since I don't get it
A lot of theists claim the universe must've been fine-tuned for life mostly for some kind of (god of the gaps) fallacy, even though it is >99.99999999% _lethal_ to life -- and life by very naturalistic definition only arises where it's possible and _it_ adapts to its environment rather than the other way around. I thought the video was pretty clear about that.
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 but some food adapted to be eaten and humans adapted to eat it. Seems way more complex unless the food was just there and we adapted to it but what if it adapted to us. More likely we adapted to it since it was around first and created our environment but it's strange like soil forming from rocks that get eroded by water that mixes with gases in the air creating a environment for algae and fungi to decompose and allow plants to grow. That blew my mind. So I think soil is the chemical process that formed all life so basically everything started with a mixture of gases,rocks and water then it grew to a large amount and created everything. But what adapted to what. for example a tree adapted to us to be eaten or we adapted to it to eat it or we adapted to each other simultaneously. It's a bad example so you probably don't know what I'm asking
All that adaptation needs is for the seeds of the "food" to mutate slightly to be indigestible. Consuming other life as a convenient source of energy and organic matter wasn't a complicated change either, but natural selection turned into an arms race. I don't think it's strange that life is found in environments where it can exist though, since it has to start somewhere possible and then just diversifies into other places. Not sure what you want to say, but life is hard to comprehend from our perspective. EVERYTHING on the scale of chemistry is.
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 This is pretty cool stuff. Was actually studying religion and ended up studying how soil was created. Now I'm studying evolution since of course dinosaurs had to come up in the midst of all this lol and of course this video also
Great analogy to understand the way things adapt to their environment.
Such a brilliant man
Lol an agnostic just refuted this nonsense
@@ILoveLuhaidan evidence?
@@kellydalstok8900 look up Joe Schmid’s mistakes about fine tuning. There are plenty of good arguments for atheism, this garbage isn’t one of them. I wonder why no philosopher takes it seriously in the literature?
Genetically Modified Skeptic brought me here.
profound
THIS is genius
So, what if I had a mould, and I poured jelly into it?
That's not the point. A puddle does not denote a pourer.
then you'd have some nice jelly that you could eat
i wish i was this theoretical jelly pourer
So as the puddle was shrinking from the sun there wouldn't be any chance that the puddle might think, hang on a minute I used to be bigger, perhaps my original thought wasn't 100% accurate. Much like this dude did
but why are so many religious people enclined to believe that all of nature has been made for man then?
so with the backs breaking for some older people permanently , maybe i wasn t meant to go on two legs huh
Actually, the analogy maps really well onto the Christian conservative faction. "Climate change isn't real," after all, as any of them will tell you. "It's just warmer than it used to be."
@@MMD88 one point of correction, he never mentions that the puddle is water. where did you get that idea?
@@vidia7400 what does the puddle's composition even bring to the table? It doesn't matter if it's a puddle of water, gas, piss, etc
@dcscccc all of life is self-replicating robots, doesn't need a designer
Who made the first robots?
Robogod
@@rlbrett you might as well, 'ask who made god?' If you can't illustrate your answer without help from any religious text, you might as well not assume things.
@@jeremyheartriter2.063, with respect, for the hundreds of years men have been noting how similar Jesus Christ's teachings are to other religious teachings. Is it important--significant--to remember that Christianity and the resurrection of Christ, if this is not a miracle, is a sham. One cannot disprove, due to empirical historical evidence regarding history, Christianity, the life of Christ, and his resurrection. You see, even Paul the apostle said, "If Christ is not risen our faith is in vain." Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of a real person historically--Jesus Christ.
@@rlbrett nope, more like mythology and too many contradictory.
romulus, etc. predates Jesus
I've probably quoted The Sentient Puddle to about 1000 theists!
It always comes up when they say, 'I can't believe this all happened by accident'.
I then go on about how randomness does seem to be involved in our naturally evolving life to our surroundings, but its certainly not an 'accident'. Strangely I only hear theists saying 'accident', obviously they must hear this in church or something? Accidental Sun, and accidental planets, and obviously accidental people? But it wasn't an accident, we EVOLVED to our surroundings, that's 'why' (although science prefers how things happen not why they happen, since 'why' makes it sound like there was some type of intention for it to be this way.
After something similar to the above has been written in reply to their 'accident' world.
I usually get the response: But why is the world made so perfectly for people then?
Of which I state: Because we evolved to our surroundings. Extra terrestrials may have evolved to their surroundings, life at the bottom of the ocean or inside volcanoes, evolved to THEIR surrounds. WE evolved to the place in which we live. Seems reasonable right?
But NO, nope, not so easy for the deluded theist. They usually then say: Our surroundings are perfectly suited to us, and that's why I believe (always adding that and 'other' things.
Of which The Sentient Puddle FINALLY gets quoted for the 1001th time.
I do this daily with deluded theists, it can get boring and simplistic at times, like helping a child to count to 10. (although I'd never get bored doing this with a child). These ADULTS who finally 'get it' and understand the hole in the rock was not designed for it, then immediately go to the next fallacy, usually that science is supposedly bad, or they felt their God in a dream!!! Sometimes I do have a rest from their cognitive dissonance and wilful ignorance, especially when even a child knows better.
His analogy utterly fails because water is shapeless, it fits perfectly anywhere you moron. There's no conditions that need to be met.
Fine-tuning is akin to winning the lottery and your analogy is akin to playing the lottery. It's a false comparison. The fact that you buy this drivel just goes to show that you're not a critical thinker.
@Rawlings its just the fallacy itself. ie I'm not a person who merely follows people for their supposed authority ;)
PikUpYourPantsPatrol It perfectly makes sense applied to humans, nothing was put here for you, it just so happens you evolved and adapted to survive on this planet like every other species. Everything, really everything, that happens, happens because of the laws of nature that this particular universe has.
@@ssxldnxm9512 Do you know that? No, you're just assuming.
Durr this key fits perfectly into this keyhole and opens this door, must be a coincidence.
PikUpYourPantsPatrol I don't have to assume anything. I do know for a fact that it is a coincidence, it's common sense as well. Thinking our existence requires a creator is a flawed logic, in addition religions are proven to be false, there is no life after death because life as we know it only happens in the brain. Common sense, again.
What are the kidneys for? filtering blood? Heart? Pumping blood. Digestive juices? Breaking down food for digestion. Well..... No, not exactly, it's not what they're 'for'. It's what they came about to do...... Think
They came about as we evolved through the various stages of a living organism. The different functions they serve, is not a product of divine creation, but rather its benefits for a species to thrive, survive and evolve. In this clip, he is talking about everything in the universe, and how many religious people generalize those things' mere existence as having an intention, when it is really a long lasting fight of 'natural selection' with a bit of help from various natural interventions (in regards to all living things, that is).
@@Sollidi it's not just religious people that do that. It's literally almost everyone. In fact, you could go a step further and say that we read explanations into things that aren't actually there and there's loads of evidence for this.
@Mr. Michael Levin we can t do that yet cuz we re very limited in our knowledge and we may be able in the future if we survive that long . it s very good that u came with ur own calculation about the probability of such a thing with not even some professional knowledge in that field of it being impossible . where it couldn t form or died off on other planets or whatever space , there we couldn t have appeared .
@Mr. Michael Levin Why would you even expect man to be able to produce the feats of natural processes at all?
@Mr. Michael Levin Terrible argument. Probability tells us nothing, nor is it calculable. You’re able to ask the question because things were “near enough” in the first place. There’s nobody standing on the moon asking this question because the environment wasn’t near-enough” to support life. In other words, it’s a prerequisite of the universe that life must exist for the question to be asked. No life, no question.
The idea that universe has laws and functions with organised ways, is then also an inheritage of that belief.
There's no connection between the belief that the Universe has been designed to have humans in it, and the idea of physics. In fact an objective physics that doesn't change according to the whims of a sentient ape any more than it changes to accomodate a puddle is incompatible with the idea of anthropocentrism, or with the idea of appeasing a god to realise your whims, or with the idea of divine punishment. This is one reason why the very idea of a god establishing the laws of the Universe that affect things was likely first brought out by Descartes in order to underwrite his revolutionary discovery of the laws of physics (SciHub > doi.org/10.1163/1573382041154051 ). The primitive Abrahamic god pulls every string himself.
If an all powerful god created the laws of physics, he/she/it could just as easily change them, so the existence of said laws is no evidence for an all powerful god.
Theists : Firing Squad Analogy 🖕
This is such a silly argument. It's assuming the world was finely tuned for the existence of life. This is backward. Life was tuned to survive and sometimes thrive in the world in which it evolved by way of evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. She is exactly wrong.
Wrong analogy, Douglas, I'm afraid. Regarding water filling a hole: We can clearly identify principles of fluid mechanics to explain how it all "fits" properly. But physics, leading to chemistry, leading to biology, leading to psychology - is not something that can be explained as easily, if at all. Not even one transition in the numerous I've listed has an adequate explanation. The blind-chance model does not measure up. And how was the physical world formed in the first place - too remains a puzzle. Bad analogy, I must point it. Completely misses the point. By 93 billion lightyears, to be precise.
That's not very precise for a hypothetical theory. Give or take a few hypotheses.
So high in the tree. Can't see it's roots.
a donkey liked the ice cream so hear this
Has anyone every thought to ask this tho, if the maker of the hole did exist and told the puddle that he in fact did create the hole for the puddle, then the hole was made for the puddle and the puddle is correct in assuming this. In our very own world the created has came to us and told us that he has made it for us.
👆🏽 this
What has actually happened for certain is that a book was written saying that the maker exists and created us for this world but there is no proof that this book holds any credibility but also a part of the argument is that the puddle (us) woke up one day assumed it had purpose so wrote a book about it this is the more realistic argument since this book seems to be more likely written by misinformed ignorant men than an omnipotent higher being
A 2000 year old book a 4000 year old set of scrolls and a 1400 year old book written by humans is not proof that a divine being has talked with humanity.
Wyatt Farmer but the fact that 500 people died because of them telling the Roman authorities that they had seen the person in that book after his death pretty much sums it up nicely
@@BrockLoyd the only one claiming that was paul....in the bible...50 years after the event supposedly took place. No Roman records exist of a mass execution like that. The Romans were very good at keeping records so the fact that no such incident has been recorded anywhere but the bible doesn't really make a good case for it having happened.
The puddle analogy is very poor. If the hole is changed, the puddle will always exist in the hole regardless of its shape. If the constants of the universe are changed, life will not always exist regardless of the constants. Water can exist in all holes, life CANNOT exist in all universes.
What makes you think life would not exist if things were different? Maybe not life as we know it, because thats the point, it will adapt to the circumstances
You got the analogy backwards. In this case the universe is the hole and the constants is the puddle. If the universe was made a different way, there would simply be different constants that describe the different universe.
No, I don't have the analogy backwards. The analogy fundamentally misunderstands the point of the fine-tuning argument. The real conundrum of life in the Universe is NOT: given that we are here, why do we find ourselves in a universe with the conditions that allow us to be here? The puzzle is: why does a universe with the ability to support life exist at all? In atheism, the universe being able to support life is possible, but extremely unlikely, whereas in theism, it would be more likely, even expected.
@@doctoreggman21 in your original comment, how do you know that life cannot exist in all universes? Sure, life AS WE KNOW IT, may not exist, but other forms of life could exist and that life would have different constants to describe THEIR universe. It just happens that the universe formed the way we know it. Survivorship bias.
@@pjark471 no man, the overwhelming majority of other possible universes wouldn’t even have the conditions for ATOMS to form, let alone life. This is a question now based on physics, not philosophy alone.
This analogy is bad... -_-
Your comment is empty of counter-argument, meaning or refutation. Cute hyphen smiley, though, well done.
You're a murderer.
I really like the meta-level of irony and sarcasm, unfortunately many just get stuck on the first level, of his irony and dont get deep enough to feel the bitter after taste. The puddle would not exist if it weren't for the hole and the water. So the puddle is right to be thankfull and appreciate the causes for its existance. But by looking at it from a self centered natural science point of view, the view point changes to: Well if i would not exist i would not be able to think about it and, be greatfull. What an idiot am i to be greatfull and thank a god. I exist, and otherwise i would not exist, therfore there is no need for any god. And Douglas brings it so well that many totally buy it. And they are distroying this world, because they believe there is no creator or purpuse. He is a meta-genious, making people proud to stay stuck on the first level of sarcasm, by which he exposes their ignorance, and self centeredness.
Ignorance and self-centeredness? Its much more ignorant and self centered to assume a God made an entire universe just for us, and made us in his holy image, and that everybody has value and purpose and a reason for existing.
@@thegrayghost1786 So its self centered to think that everybody has value and purpose? Or that the earth and life as we know it was designed with a purpose? Maybe in a way. I think you can compare it by receiving a package with a i-phone. You can use it and think it was a mistake by the post, or you could try to find out where it came from.
@@sarmesalas9230 Yes, it is self-centered to contradict science and research because it suites you better. You're analogy is a false equivalency.
reminds me of the weak anthropic principle
and why the puddle fits so deeply is because the puddle shaped itself to fit in the hole
Pointing everything to randomness is a lazy way to say you are an ignoramus/unknowledgeable, start reading holy books dear atheists as the societies that you influenced with ur sad ideas are crumbling, it's time to gather some wisdoms to patch back the broken
Being intellectually honest and saying “I don’t know” is lazy. So start reading some fairy tales.
science doesn't help with establishing morality, thats your problem and of your ilk@@shelbyvillerules9962
all knowledge is based on belief, news flash for you@@shelbyvillerules9962
Who says anything about randomness? That’s what theists always claim atheists say, but it’s just them.
@@shelbyvillerules9962 that's not being intellectually honest, that just means you are making excuse for being incompetent, so at least you have excuse
it's weak not honest, especially not honest when you claim your self-fixing system is working and that it's the best system, while it's obviously not since so many people are suffering even if they are living in material abudance, you have moral/ethical problem not material just like humanity always had and atheists with their selfprofessed brilliant ideas can't fix this problem even remotely let alone minimally or fully.
So what is so wrong with destroying this planet? Where does this idea come from that life should exist on earth anyway?Perhaps because we find it convenient and suitable as if fits our thinking like the puddle? If there is no GOD then why worry about anything as it is all just chance and circumstance and there is nothing anyone can do about anything.Of course you can give your life meaning and purpose but it will only be important as the life you have in you.Once you are dead then nothing will matter anymore.Everything has a purpose even a pebble even though we can´t see it. But just because we can´t see something doesn't mean it does not exist.We believe in future generations to come that don't exist yet.In the end i can´t prove to a blind person that the moon exists anymore than i can prove GOD exist.
It's amusing how you wrote an entire essay, and yet literally every single argument is a non-sequitur.
I'd love to respond but I actually can't see your comment. I can only see that you've posted a comment.
I can see the comment i posted on my end and yours.It might come up your end later.Anyway I can see what you mean about my remarks being non-sequitor. I had to look up what that meant so i have learned something.
Basically what i was trying to say is that if the puddle argument is correct then life is meaningless as death treats everybody the same and in the end it doesn't matter if you are good or bad.So what is the purpose of life if after death we are never to exist again after experiencing this wonderful but brief moment of time.
But my main disagreement with the puddle argument is order and design and being aware as i believe humans have a soul and are not just meat machine and these things can only come from a being that has a mind itself in that life must come from life and so on.
Never the less i can´t prove that GOD does exist but the evidence shows that HE does.
The puddle argument is insufficient to show that an all powerful being didn't create us as it doesn't deal with the soul, mind,morality and the purpose of life and what happens when we die.
I hope this message gets through.
@@factotum1613 Well I can see this comment so I assume that your other one just got lost on the way to my end. It's not unheard of on RUclips.
Anyways, the puddle doesn't assert that life is meaningless and has no purpose. It proposes that instead of this planet being made specifically for us, it was us that were made to fit in our environment. It doesn't attempt to tackle any claim of a god or the purpose of life or morality or what happens after death; rather it attacks a common claim theists use to try and prove intelligent design, and how that claim is wrong.
As for order and design, there is none in the universe. Only a very very very tiny sliver of the universe is capable of sustaining life, that sliver being the Earth. And even the Earth wants to kill us. Our planet is actively heating, and soon it will not be habitable for us any more. A long time ago it wasn't habitable for us either, and even in the times that it was/is habitable for us, everything on this damn rock wants to kill us. The notion that this universe was made intelligently for us is laughable when you look outside of our own scope.
As for a soul, there is no evidence suggesting that such a thing exists. As for the purpose of life, there is no evidence suggesting that one exists. Additionally, I find it very perplexing that you can't prove god exists, yet claim there is evidence that he exists. Evidence, by its very nature, would in fact prove he exists. That's what evidence does. And when I say evidence I mean tangible, reproducible, evidence. Not what someone feels. Not what someone claims to have seen or heard. Real, solid, tangible evidence. And if you had that evidence, well, you'd be the greatest scientist of all time. But such evidence does not exist.
@TheGrayGhost If the puddle argumemt says that theist are wrong about intelligent design then it is implying that life is meaningless because if there is no GOD then we are here by chance and circumstance and that would make us nothing special.
You say there is no order and design in the univers from which i presume is because you don't see it but i could say how is that proof that there is no order and design just because you don't see it i could use the analogy of the blind man that is convinced the moon doesn't exist because he can´t experience it like the sun and wind.
But our own bodys show intelligent design. But if intelligent design is not how this planet and life came into being then why can´t we create a fly or even bring a dead flea back to life as this would not require any intelligence at all.
Yes you are correct that this world is slowly dying and will eventually take mankind with it. But just because this planet and all life will become extinct on it doesn't mean it is not intelligently designed. Just take a look at the many human invetions of yesterday that don't exist today. Nobody would say they where not intelligently designed because time and decay destroyed them.In fact they were replaced by something better.
If you are a family man i would not tell them that they are nothing more than meat machines and that you only love them because you have no choice because the chemicals in your body are forcing you to care.The evidence for a person having a soul is the ability to sacrifice oneself for those you love.To appreciate music, beauty, poetry and have empathy. These are not things that a person goes to a science lab to test and find out if he really has them.
Proof is what is testable in a science lab and will produce the same result anywhere in the world, evidence is information gathered from a set of unforseen circumstances and forming a conclusion from it by using our reason.This is what has put a lot of people behind bars for the crimes they have commited. Evidence tells us Socrates Aristotle and plato were real people and that is not something that can be reproduced.
What kind of experiment would you run to show me if a person really loved you as what they do should have no bearing on how they make you feel by your standard?
This doesn't make any sense. If we were a puddle then why do we need so many other things to already exist just so we can live? Like the sun, air, water, plants for food, an earth to live on, an atmosphere and so on? Life is to complex for the Pudddle analogy to make sense.
Adam B - The puddle needs a lot of things too: The perfect temperature so it stays liquid, the perfect atmospheric pressure (also so it stays liquid), gravity so it doesn’t float away, a non-permeable container so it doesn’t simply drain into the soil, and long-term stability (no earthquakes or anything drinking it) so it has enough time to ponder its own existence.
truthsmiles very well put, the initial commentor clearly hadn't thought things through.
We need those things because we adapted in order to survive in the environment provided by our planet, this is the puddle argument, it makes perfect sense. It just happens that in this universe, to create RNA based life, you need radiation and a few elements and it just so happens that an asteroid with RNA based life has hit this planet and that this planet became habitable for RNA life and allowed it to evolve/adapt to what this planet has.
Just because something is complex doesn't mean someone thought it through. Everything that happens, and I mean everything, can be explained by either physics, chemistry, biology, maths or logic. If you think we needed a creator then based off on that logic, the creator would need another creator and so on. Because he would be even more complex than us, right?
so whats the purpose of suns and moons outside our solar system, there are billions of them
You’re quoting a puddle to support your philosophy?!!!! Lol 😂
It doesn't sound like you understand the analogy.
@@williampiercy2572: it just sounds a little muddied to me.
@@kensmith8152 He's saying that humans assumption that the world is made for them is like a puddle making an assumption it's hole is made for itself
@@williampiercy2572: I get that, don’t agree with it. A complicated ecosystem of tremendous symbiotic interaction, with information in the cells of the life forms in it, defy all the probability for its existence by chance.
@@kensmith8152 You shouldn't bring up probability unless you have numbers to support your claim. The complexity of our ecosystem and the symbiotic relationships between organisms demonstrates the point he's trying to make which is that we are a product of our environment. We observe how perfectly we fit our environment and decide it must have been made for us, when in reality we were made based on our environment. If you look at different ecosystems throughout the planet you'll observe forms of life that have adapted to the conditions of that region. We are no different from them. The point the video is making is that for us to assume the world is made for us because we fit so well into it is similar to a puddle believing the world was made for it because it fits perfectly into the hole. This comparison can't be rejected solely on the basis that human life is more complex than the existence of a puddle. I would argue that the sequence of steps, the billions of years of time of all the molecules in that puddle being elsewhere and eventually coming together to fit into this hole in the road. its such a complex process, it must have been done intentionally. The premise of your argument is something we call the watchmaker analogy, which argues that complexity requires a designer. This is a fallacious argument I encourage you to research it. Even if you were able to say factually that complexity requires a designer, it still says nothing about who or what that designer may be or have been. We can't logically jump from something (complexity) to someone(a god).
This is probably one of the most inane videos on the internet. You animate a puddle to make your point? Try the science which makes the abductive argument for GOD. BTW - you said "the sun rises" - isn't that geo-centrism? hmmmm....
How does science any points for a God?
@@getyourgameon1990 It all points to GOD.
@@sandypidgeon4343 If you already made it a divine feature.
@@sandypidgeon4343 you are assuming god already exists
@@Cecilia-ky3uw HE does.
Poor atheists
Because we don't believe in your book that has a talking donkey in it?
what a stupid argument and way of thinking.. "Why" has helped many scientific discoveries along with How, what, when, where, and who... Not even worth a minute
It's okay not to get it.
The puddle argument has nothing to do with scientists asking why
if a self replicat roobt need a designer why not a dog? check the creation.com site
dcscccc Because there's no proof that it did.
dcscccc well robots don't genetically evolve so they can't have created themselves
Because we actually know for a fact that robots are created by us, but the same isn't true for dogs. Quite on the contrary, we know for a fact that dogs weren't created by someone.
check the reality.com site and get back to me
Because we have well substantiated scientific theories and observations that explain how dogs arise, such as Evolution and Abiogenesis. Of course, we have idiots like you that choose to ignore these.
But anyway, you don't even need to understand the science. Here is a simple question. Have you ever seen a dog being built by a man? Of course not. Every instance of a dog coming into being that we have observed thus far is a result of observable and well understood natural processes.