The Question That All Atheists Avoid
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- Today we'll be responding to a resopnse to Richard Dawkin's recent interview with Piers Morgan.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/...
Original Video: • Piers Morgan vs Richar...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Saying "god did it" is _at best_ as good as saying "I don't know," except that it keeps you from continuing to investigate
It's far from "at best as good as". Saying you don't know is a much better position to have. Assuming you magically know a conclusion acts as a blocker to actually wanting, trying to, or thinking you need to find out the real answer. "God did it" sabotages the very foundation of everything, it's not even close to being in the same universe as "as good as I don't know".
At best it's as good as "I don't give a damn about the real answer I'm going to believe whatever makes you angry haha take that loser".
@@EdwardHowton I think maybe Dancing meant to say that it's the theist way to replace "I don't know" without adding any explanatory power. But who knows if that's what they meant.
@@smaakjeks Eh... I tend not to concern myself with what cultists think because I have yet to be convinced that they do any such thing, so I went with the reality-based interpretation instead.
But in fairness, you are correct that cultists may very well equate the two. See above.
@@EdwardHowton "A is not at best B because A is worse than B" ... you do realize that there's actually no contradiction here, I hope? Or do you think it would be correct to say "three is not less than or equal to ten, because three is much less than ten"? That'd be a pretty big logic fail.
No no, no no, no no no. Saying "god did it" is the last word that trumps everything. It's the Uno reversal card, get out of jail free, and every cheat code to every game you've ever played all rolled into to one great big ball of presuppositional special pleading that, by its very existence, obliterates all possible debate.
Mr muslim apologist is the perfect puddle thinking the hole he fills is made for him
There is no need for personal attacks. Puddles deserve more respect than that! 😛
@@rembrandt972ify lmao true.
@@rembrandt972ify i find hole filler a respectfull occupation
He argued that the universe has laws that allow us to exist. The universe has laws that make our existence impossible mostly, and possible only in this tiny little dot of a puddle hole in which we live.
Why you mean to puddles?
The whole fine tuning argument is essentially saying "if things weren't exactly the same, they would be different", and putting that forward as some sort of profound statement about how there is some deeper meaning about how things turned out.
We exist because the universe formed in such a way to make our existence possible, and if it hadn't, we wouldn't. We don't know enough to even guess at probabilities and even if we did it would be a pointless exercise. One can easily roll a million dice and get an exceptionally unlikely occurrence, and probably poke around and come up with all sorts of arbitrary properties of that sequence of results that wouldn't happen in the vast majority of possibilities. That doesn't mean that there's any sort of hidden meaning behind why they landed as they did. They just landed the way they landed and you attached significance to it after the fact.
No thats quite the fine tuning argument, quite a strawman actually. Imagine if I say I want you to pour exactly 47 billion grains of sand into this bowl with your eyes closed, if you dont get exactly 47 bilion grains of sand, you die what do you think the chances of you pouring exactly 47 billion grains of the bowl are to save your life? The fine tuning doesnt just say that things would be different, its that the universe wouldnt exist at all in some cases or life wouldnt exist at all in many cases. Like the strength of gravity, if it was one part different in 10 to 40th, it wouldnt be that life would be different, it would be that life couldnt form at all. So actually you would have a way better chance of pouring 47 billion grains of sand into the bowl blindfolded than that happening. One thing we know that if you roll a million dice, and the only way the universe exists if they all have roll a 6. Chances of that happening are way past the chances of impossible, which is 10 50th, I believe statistcal theorists have declared. The reality is nothing will be considered a good argument, because most atheists just dont want God to exist.
@@gsp3428 It might be a good argument, yes, but no evidence. The issue is that there are just as many counter arguments. The first step to convince most atheists would be for all believers to show by their actions that their beliefs make them better people, not by trying to god-of-the-gap science.
@@gsp3428 Using the fine tuning argument to conclude that „god did it“ still remains an argument from ignorance, followed by a non-sequitur.
Asking why the physical properties of this universe are what they are is a valid question, and a fascinating one for sure. The only correct answer to it, however, at the time being remains „we don‘t know“. There are numerous very different hypotheses about it, one being that these properties were purposefully installed by some form of conscious agency, another suggests an „outer cosmos“ teeming of infinitely many universes with different properties, some of which do and many others don‘t lead to the formation of atoms and stars and planets and eventually life, and yet another wonders if there might be some underlying properties and/or interdependencies that we just haven‘t discovered yet and that those properties couldn‘t be any different to begin with. Only to name three of various such hypotheses, none of which (very much including the „conscious agency“ hypothesis) has any solid evidence to positively support it other than how plausible they may or may not seem in the context of various other phenomena for some of which we also don‘t have a well-supported explanation yet.
We. Don‘t. Know.
However, even IF we‘d somehow stumble upon any kind of compelling evidence in favor of that conscious agency behind the properties of this universe (which is something I‘d actually applaud, because I’d consider that as a major step in our pursuit to understand how reality works, but which - again! - we haven‘t found one bit of yet), there would still be nothing whatsoever to connect that conscious agency with the specific deity of whatever religion you may propose.
The fine tuning argument is actually the single one most convincing argument in favor of a conscious agency behind the properties of this universe - but that’s nothing any believer should celebrate; this only means that even their one single most convincing argument is not only weak ass fallacious to begin with, but even if it wasn‘t, it still wouldn‘t in any way support the notion of the particular god(s) they believe in. It’s a double-phase failure.
@@skyinou A good argument would be evidence. Say a jury sees the physical evidence of the case of murder. Some people think he is guilty and some people think he is innocent. Then lawyer comes and gives the reasoning why he is almost certainly innocent, and everyone now agrees with that, the argument lead to them finding the most reasonable conclusion. I dont think becoming a better person has any evidence for God, not sure what that has to do with anything, and there is no such thing as a better person if god doesnt exist. Who decides what a better person is unless there is some objective standard.
@@skyinou There is no possible argument for anything that people couldnt disagree with. Try.
"The Question that All Atheists Avoid"...
More like "The Question that the Religious Are Afraid to Ask (because they know it is stupid)"
Typical cultist posturing. I've never seen a single Question Atheists Can't Answer actually scaring anyone off. If anything it's troll bait, not a deterrent.
I _HAVE_ seen a lot of "I don't discuss the bible with nonbelievers which don't exist because I presuppose everyone believes in my god but I won't discuss it with you", though.
It's really the best cultists have. "No, YOU'RE a thief!", says the convicted felon to the judge. It's no surprise so many of them become sovereign citizens. When all you've got is a brain as dumb as a bag of hammers, ever problem is a nail you love to bang on about.
And when one is dumb enough to voice it, how utterly backward the theist approach to literally everything is put on full display. Almost every 'argument' I have ever heard a theist put forth is ruined by looking at it in a metaphorical mirror.
@@alexisartfeild2807
How Dare You Say That Dont Be So Raven Transphobic 🤬😡😠
@@alexisartfeild2807 prove it. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
I always appreciate Douglas Adams "Puddle analogy" quote:
“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!
The puddle would not think that after a heavy rainshower having it overflowing the hole, it would probably think: "Help the world is shrinking."
Your argument is absolutely correct. You could have titled this, “This guy is scared to face reality”
Not clickbait enough (at all)
@@louisrobitaille5810
How Dare You Say That Dont Be So Raven Transphobic 🤬😡😠
RD hates reality. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Found another scared one, based on their "other comments". 🙄
“You think we came from nothing? That’s impossible.”
“Where did God come from?”
“Nothing.”
But he's too cool
It's ridiculous to say, "It's a simple answer to a simple question."
The truth is that it's a simplistic answer to an incredibly complex question.
Ask any religious person for evidence, and the best they can do is refer to whatever man-made religious text they believe in.
Unholy Driver, you've been gone too long in the midnight sea
-I couldn't resist-
@@bat6353 👍😎😂
That's not true either, as I commented a few times, I'm not religious, but I'm not living in some sort of ideological bubble. They make the case that the evidence is exactly the design and order seen in life, they believe that life cannot come from non-life, they believe in objective morality, they believe that order and design cannot come from chaos, no matter the amount of time. For instance, Cliffe makes the argument that no matter how much time passes, there will never be a BMW created without intelligent design. They also don't see any creative mechanisms within evolution, rather they see adaptive and mutative, but never creative mechanisms. These are solid arguments from them, to dismiss their belief as lacking any evidence, is the same as dismissing your beliefs as lacking evidence.
You know, those in religion are always asking Atheist how this that and the other came about without god, where things came from before the big bang, what was there before the big bang. But when we ask them similar questions about God their answers are always "God's always been there", "He spoke it and it happened", "He has no beginning or end", etc. To me, that always sounds like them saying "I don't know" while trying not to admit it. But it's just funny how the look down on Atheist for admitting that they don't know the answer to the questions they ask, sometimes it's a matter of having nothing to do with the field the Atheist is actually in, and yet they have no clue either on the god side of thing because they don't look or think beyond "god did it".
And they hate it when you respond to “God’s always been there” with “So why didn’t he create the universe sooner?” Or when you ask them to justify any of the fantastical properties they attribute to their god purely because their own arguments require him to have them.
They invent their answers out of thin air.
@@trevornixon642 Exactly like their god created everything from nothing. I always shake my head when creationist make the claimmthat atheists claim the universe came from nothing when it is they themselges making that claim.
@@MrGrumblier Don't forget the pathological stupidity of claiming that life cannot possibly have come from non-living matter. While conveniently forgetting that their fairy stories state that their god made humans from earth.
@Nick Ryan There is that. Plus the fact that plants were created before the sun, and light before the stars and sun.
When you have to shout to make your point, it's usually because your point is BS.
His mic had the sound quality of a potato.
@@b0b5m1th That's because he was using it to hide his face, instead of as a microphone. If he would keep it at a normal distance from his mouth, it would sound better. The dumbest among us, when given a microphone, ALWAYS think that it needs to be touching their lips in order to work.
@@craigcorson3036 I thought he was attempting to eat it.
My favorite refutation of the ‘fine tuning’ argument is the undeniably inhospitable nature of the vast majority of the universe. If you were teleported to a random location in the universe, your odds of survival would so near zero that it is prohibitively difficult to even express in a RUclips comment. That would be a more reliable means of execution than any currently used method. If the universe is finely tuned for anything, it’s finely tuned for killing us.
Theists also never seem to have any explanation for why the near infinite expanse of the universe needs to exist at all in its current form. I mean, what's the point of "God" creating untold billions of galaxies and trillions of planets that are, to the best of our current knowledge, entirely devoid of life? Or, if that is not in fact the case (which seems highly probable) then how would other lifeforms be accounted for in the scheme of things by religions like Islam and Christianity given they are focused entirely around human life on Earth?
It's like when a fish says "it's so incredible, that the word is exactly how it needs to be for me to survive" whithout realizing that if the touches other water or land, he be dead and couldn't have asked this question
@@arctrix765Anthropic principle.
@@Grauenwolf If the constants were different, matter might exist even better suited for human life and flourishing (rather than bacteria that currently outnumber us 1000 to 1 in terms of DNA "bits" and biomass). The liars onto themselves do not admit this obvious "fine tuning" inference, that things could have been (and still can be) tuned EVEN BETTER (as Enlightenment is helpful to understand). Isn't that exact point what "heaven" is supposed to be? A more "finely tuned" realm? A realm with "better" constants (apparently including the fallibility of being able to allow evil/angelic rebellions that aren't really rebellions because the demons listen to Yahweh and Jesus anyway supposedly)?
I have heard a variant of your argument stated as " the universe is fine tuned to create black holes not life"
The way this guy makes his expensive microphone clip even when he's speaking softly is an impressive feat.
Lie. Deny. Talk loud.
It's the theist tradition.
Whatttttsssss are you ttttttsalking abouttttsss?
He believes that whoever yells the loudest is correct.
seriously, the guy can cough up 400 bucks for an SM7B but can't manage to record a clean audio track
Yeah, he needs a compressor and a popfilter on that microphone.
It sounds like he's assuming the goal of evolution was for us to become humans.
He is assuming that everyone has to hide their own subjective goals in externalized ideations like he was likely taught to, as an easy excuse.
Yes all theists make the assumption that the intent of the universe is to create life.
They also believe we have a purpose. They are not able to comprehend that the majority of the observable universe is hostile to life and it is plausible that life only evolved on one tiny rock in the entire universe by shear luck and it just happens to be the rock that we are on.
So we basically got lucky.
@@Lamster66 the majority of the earth is pretty hostile to human life too. Oh, and it doesn't just happen to be the rock we're on, if life only evolved once then it *must* be the rock we're on. It's the same as "if the lottery was won by one person last night, then that person must be the one who won the lottery" because it couldn't be anyone else.
@@PeerAdder
Yes I do actually understand the weak anthropic principle but thanks for your input!
There is a good quote from a satirist to describe what the apologist did: "Thank you for your question but let me instead answer a different question!"
the fine tuning argument is like saying that a cave is specifically designed for our living conditions while forgetting to mention all the toxic gases in underground caves and the collapsing walls.
That's a faulty analogy fallacy.
@@JCAbhishekno not really humanity survived earth because of it's own effort
We need more people like you on RUclips who uploads these things for sure.
Thank you.
Nice comment BOT. Getting much more realistic now!
@@grandnoobian2685 You're a troll, lol.
@@grandnoobian2685 huh?
@@marilynlucero9363
Richard Dawkins Isnt Even That Brave Though I Mean He Wouldnt Even Answer A Question ⁉️❓❔ About Islam From Piers Morgan LOL 🤣😂
@@GameTimeWhy
How Dare You Say That Dont Be So Raven Transphobic 🤬😡😠
I've never been able to wrap my head around why theists' think postulating a god is more reasonable then accepting the natural word is eternal in some way.
Most of them were raised to believe in God (or something similar), so postulating its (or His, or Her, or Their) existence doesn't seem strange to them.
Because the natural world cant be eternal in any sort of temporal sense. Time space and matter had a beginning, logically you couldnt even get to now if the temporal past was infinite. And if time space and matter had a beginning the cause must be timeless spaceless and immaterial. So its pretty easy to understand why theists postulate a mind behind everything. Also, the extraordinary order, beauty, uniformity of nature and regularity of nature are just a few other reasons why God most certainly exists. Actually I would say there is virtually 0 chance God doesnt exist.
Basically, they lack faith. They're supposed to believe in God regardless of the evidence, but because they lack faith, they go looking for evidence. When what they find conflicts with what they want it to prove, they do what any good theologian or bad scientist does - cherrypick a few choice facts and sweep the rest under the rug.
As a lifelong atheist with no specific beef with any religion, I'm always embarrassed for people who think that their religion ought to stand up to scrutiny. Like, it's pretty much written into every religion's fabric that you *shouldn't* go looking for evidence of God's existence, because, y'know... you're not gonna like what you find.
It's worse than many people think. For argument's sake, let's assume the existence of god. Why did a god have to obey all the natural laws when constructing life as exampled here on Earth? There is nothing about the living things we see around us that is operating on a supernatural set of laws. I want to know where god got his degree in physics, chemistry and biology? What text books did he (it) use? Who tested him (it)?
What will this guy say when the inevitable day arrives and science announces the creation of artificial life? Are we then gods? What makes him think that life as we know it is the only kind of life there is?
@@DudeTheMighty Many if not most atheists were former theists though.
I think I remember reading years ago that these were known as the Anthropic Principles. One asks why the universe is fine tuned for us to exist. The other one points out that if it wasn't then we wouldn't be here to ask why it's fine tuned.
Yes. But if the universe wasn't fine tuned, and therefore we didn't exist, that's just saying "if things were different they wouldn't be the same." It means nothing.
And If it isnt fine tuned but we exist despite of it we would also ASK why its fine tuned.
@@Kaine010487 Precicely, it is supposed to point out that it's a meaningless question.
@Blaze maybe god wanted to make dlcs but after six days he was wasted.
The Rest of the universe is fine tuned for dlcs
Hittin the nail on the head as per usual
As always, "things have physical properties that interact with one another in consistent manners, therefore GAAAAAAAAWD."
I've yet to see an apologist using the fine tuning argument ever actually give a reason for anyone to think that the universal constants *can* be something else, much less describe a mechanism for them to change in any way.
I can prove God to you in a different way if you like. Drop your insta if you wanna discuss it.
I shorten it to "Stuff exists, therefore god". With the follow-up "Therefore *my* god."
Wouldn't "things have physical properties that interact with one another in consistent manners" support the claim that God doesn't exist?
If God is an anthropomorphic immortal and the universe is consistent, then this God must have some serious OCD. For example, I like to rearrange furniture every now and then. I sometimes get bored of the same routine. God holding to these consistent laws of physics doesn't seem very human-like. I would expect God to manipulate gravity or the electromagnetic force due to boredom if it were a personal God.
@@GamesFromSpace That's the teleological/Kalam argument, which is similar but technically different from the fine tuning argument.
One of their arguments reduces to "rocks just sit there; therefore God".
All teleological arguments are essentially begging the question.
The Fine tuning argument is no exception
You atheist are blind and delusional
If you believe in a god, then "God wills it" is a simple answer to anything, including questions such as "Why do you mistreat that group of people?". No thought required, just smug sanctimony.
I tried talking to people at Answers in Genesis about the hypocrisy of genocide against the Canaanites. Yup, smug sanctimony is all I got.
"You don't really know what's out there" was clearly an attempt at the "so you don't know if my god exists because you haven't checked all of the universe" argument. Not the fine tuning argument.
It seems pretty silly to me, almost like he’s suggesting god is physically out there hiding behind a neutron star or something. Just chillin on the far side of Alpha Centauri, only peeking out when we’re not looking.
It is also the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. This occurs when someone asserts that a claim is true or false based on the absence of evidence or lack of proof to the contrary. It involves placing the burden of proof on the opposing side rather than on the person making the initial claim.
The fallacy can be illustrated by the following example:
Person A claims that unicorns exist. When asked for evidence, Person A responds, "Well, can you prove that unicorns don't exist?"
In this scenario, Person A is shifting the burden of proof onto the person challenging the claim. Instead of providing evidence to support their initial claim that unicorns exist, Person A attempts to shift the responsibility onto the other person to disprove the claim. The *lack of evidence against the claim does not make the initial claim true by default* no matter what Person A may think.
The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof is erroneous because the burden of proof typically rests on the person making a positive claim. It is up to the person making the assertion to provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to support their claim. Merely challenging or questioning a claim does not automatically require those raising the challenge or asking the questions to disprove it.
In logical discourse, the default position is generally scepticism or the suspension of belief until adequate evidence is presented. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove a claim that lacks substantial evidence. The burden lies with the one making the claim to provide evidence and logical support.
It is essential to recognize this fallacy when evaluating arguments and ensure that the burden of proof remains with the appropriate party, promoting a more logical and rational discourse. Anyone employing this tactic can reasonably be assumed to lack sufficient (or indeed any) evidence to substantiate their claim. It isn't just lazy, it is fundamentally dishonest.
Debates don't change the fact that facts are facts! Winning or losing debates is in fact irrelevant!
True, Science is not a debate you win, and it's never about who speak loudest/interrupt others the most.
But all about finding nuggets of truth, and making things coherent for our small monkey brain. :D
Earth is in the goldilocks zone, but if it wasn't for photosynthesis this planet would be more like Venus than Mars. Also, neither Venus or Mars was hit by an equivalent protoplanet like Thea which formed our Moon. If you think about it the universe is so big that statistically life was more likely to exist than not. That is the reason why I suspect the rare Earth hypothesis is probably the answer to “Fermi’s Paradox”.
I thi k the answer to the Fermi paradox is The universe is huge and matter is stuck at sub light speed. So even our most powerful signal is only 40 year away and is soft and weak as buggery.
Yes, radio was discovered in the 1980s 🤦♂️
The real Fermi paradox is not "why don't we get radio messages from aliens" but rather "why didn't aliens colonize Earth a billion years ago, preventing us from ever existing?" And the only plausible answer to that is that there aren't any, certainly not in the Milky Way, probably not in the whole Local Group.
Of course believers in the anthropic principle will just tell you that the aliens just by chance happened to miss Earth, and only Earth.
Using god as an argument is literally just like the kid who gets asked why and they say "because" and then refuse to elaborate, or go and find out the actual reaon.
So what caused the universe to begin? and you saying 'we don't know" will never make the answer GOD false.
You 0 Believers 1
5:06 My college math teacher told me this (I added what's in parentheses):
"Laws are things we can't deny the existence of, like gravity. Theories are the best models we have to explain/predict certain aspects of the universe (like general relativity or quantum mechanics). Hypotheses are untested models (like the multiple worlds hypothesis in quantum mechanics)."
Yet.. people manage to deny gravity.. smh
@@jawstrock2215 I once denied gravity, but then I did hit my head so hard to the ceiling I immideately accepted it and hit the floor.
I'm so tired of the "fine tuning" argument. Its causality is completely backwards, and they don't seem to understand how dumb it is to say the properties of a universe that existed for billions of years before we did is "fine tuned" for us.
Not to mention that more than 99.999% of our own planet is deadly to us, let alone that the proportion of the universe that would not kill us within a minute is smaller than a mung bean compared to the Milky Way.
Yes... Causality is backwards, because humans created the universe to fit us?
Thing about the "constants" is that they are an artifact of the mathematics we invented to describe our observations of our universe. They may not even exist as constants, and certainly cannot be considered to be basal to objective reality.
Even if these constants exits, they are the result of the properties of the universe, not the cause of the properties.
This is just completely contradictory to what actual physicists say
I love how atheists love to point to science right up until it's inconvenient for their faith, and then science goes directly out the window
@@fluffysheap Exactly what is contradictory?
@@fluffysheap What is it that you think contradicts what actual theoretical physicists and practicing cosmologists have told us about how things work? Do you think they don't know that we invented mathematics? do you think we did not use the mathematics we invented to describe what we observe? Do you think they say that all of the constants that have come from the mathematics we invented are actually fundamental to objective reality? I am pretty sure that all of those points are well known in the related scientific communities.
Egypt, ca. 500BC:
Person: "Why does the sun go down and come up again?"
Smart person: "I don't know."
DIsonest person: "That is not an answer! What is the best explanation? There is this chariot in the sky..."
"Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too" - John Lennon.
I love that song
@@LadyOfTheEdits especially those two lines.
Asking “how is this universe so fine-tuned for life???” is like asking “how did the Mississippi river form so perfectly along these state lines???”
And let's not forget that most of the universe is actually totally hostile to life.
With over 60,000 gods invented since people started keeping count, how will I know if I choose the right one?
Just believe in all of them. You're fcked either way. Have them battle it out over who gets to keep your soul in their afterlife. Best thing you can hope is to deadlock them in an infinite battle over you.
Here's the most simple reason that the fine tuning argument makes no sense: you cannot calculate probability in reverse. Since humans exist, the probability for that was obviously 1.
It's a bit like lottery. Once the numbers are drawn - the probability for the particular combination of numbers that were drawn, is 1. So it doesn't matter how the chances for a particular combination were before they were drawn.
His answer "god did it" is an answer for simpletons. For people who have no ability to think about complicated processes,
When your brought up to know that keeping your head attached to your body depends on saying " I believe " it limits your options
@Professor Stick, ChatGPT knows about you-
User
do you know about the youtuber "Professor Stick"?
ChatGPT
Yes, I'm familiar with the RUclipsr "Professor Stick." Professor Stick, whose real name is Ben, is a popular science RUclipsr known for creating educational videos on various topics, particularly in the fields of physics, astronomy, and cosmology. He gained popularity for his engaging and informative style of presenting complex scientific concepts in a way that is accessible to a wide audience. Professor Stick's videos often include visual aids, animations, and clear explanations to help viewers understand the subject matter. Is there something specific you would like to know about Professor Stick or his content?
Before watching I know the question:
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
32.4 kph for the European unladen swallow
64.7 kph for the African Mosque unladen swallow
Fine tuning arguments are always boring. The pond analogy debunks it perfectly.
God did it isn't an explanation, it's an assertion. It is the end of learning and the end of scientific exploration.
Not gonna lie Prof
As a league of legends player i could get behind someone claiming that its the root cause of numerous diseases spreading around
I'm sorry, no. There needs to be a LARGE RED BANNER WARNING PIERS MORGAN!
I thought about the answer too and came to the conclusion that the best answer is: the flying spaghetti monster.
It overpowers the other deities be far.
It's also the tastiest deity, which is something more people should consider when choosing a religion.
Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe would like a word with you 😆
@@locodiver8665 Leaf be upon you, brother.
Religion is Bliss.
Ignorance is Bliss.
Bliss = Bliss
ergo
Religion = Ignorance
Religion is GOD morality
Atheism is no morality
pedophilia = no morality
Atheism = pedophilia
@@belee9606 so your saying that people that don't believe in God are pedophiles?
There’s no fine tuning.
Gods aren’t real.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that a god exists is the most extraordinary claim possible….
And there’s ZERO evidence for the existence of gods.
I, therefore, do not believe.
Reason makes us human. Faith takes that away. Religion, therefore, makes us less human.
No one has ever made a logical argument against me.
I disagree, I think God is the most likely explanation of why anything exists. I would say God not existing is way more extraordinary because you have no ultimate explanation of reality and there is none. So I would say there is 0% chance God does n not exist.
@@gsp3428 *"I would say God not existing is way more extraordinary because you have no ultimate explanation of reality and there is none."*
God doesn't solve that.
Why and how does God exist?
@@gsp3428 As an atheist, I agree a god is possible, but you have to show there's a god and not just provide speculations.
@@gsp3428 First you need to explain why any of the other 3,999 gods in the world can't exist.
Science is the search for answers.
Religion tells you to "stop looking".
Does GOD exist ? Religious say "Look at this extraordinary universe that can't come from nothing" and science say "we don't know, we have no theory, but it's not god and by the way maybe nothing, will someday make something"
Ive always seen "goldilocks zones" as something like how at a certain distance from a nuclear blast, pizza would be perfectly cooked, or how at some point during baking, some tiny part inside a loaf of bread is perfectly baked because statistically, it has to be
He started yelling that proves that he must be right.
He thinks he’s so deep. This is a lot of fun though! 😂😁😂😁 I love your facts and sarcasm.
Life is chemistry. It is nothing more than very complex chemical systems doing very complex chemistry. There is no natural distinction between the chemistry of life and any other chemistry. It is us humans who have decided which sorts of complex chemical systems doing which sorts of complex chemistry are life and which are not. Life is no more special and no more tuned for than any other chemistry.
It's quite simple, the conditions of the universe shaped what we identify as life today. If those conditions were different then life would have formed according to those conditions instead. The goldilocks zone is necessary for life as WE KNOW IT, not ANY form of life. Another form of life could require a completely different sort of goldilocks zone and we can't find out what other forms of life are possible until we find another form of life. However, another form of life that needs a different environment can't exist in our environment so we wont find it here. It really isn't all that amazing that our environment supports our form of life. There's a vast universe filled with environments that don't support our form of life, of course we will develop in a region that ended up with the conditions necessary for our form of life.
This dude: What is the best answer?
Me: Me.
This dude: No, you aren't!!!! I don't accept your claim to be the BEST answer!
Me: Same as atheists.
When will theist stop getting the fine tuned argument back front, its not that the universe is fine tuned, evolution has fine tuned us to the universe we evolved in. The universe existed for a coup[le of billion of years before life existed, life evolved in the universe as presented. And someone needs to tell them that shouting just makes you look your not confined by their own arguments.
The question that Richard Dawkins answered to was about the eventuality that there is intelligent life elsewhere. His answer was : It's very probable.
Then, that buffoon bring up the old and oft debunked «fine tuning» argument...
Try to imagine what would happen if the electrons could, in addition of positive and negative spin, ALSO have zero spin ? You can now have up to three electrons per orbitals. Chemistry would be totally different. Hydrogen could make two bonds, helium would make molecules and it's lithium that would be a noble gas. Increase the weak nuclear force and heavy atoms would probably be more stable. Same would happen with a stronger strong nuclear force, and fusion would be easier to achieve.
there is a reason that buffoon is hugely successful and you are here, maybe you are the buffoon.
The fine-tuning argument is confusing to me because they seem to be saying that, if the universe that we know is the only universe that life as we currently know it could exist... that means that the universe *must* have been designed?
My problem with that idea is that it seems to start from the assumption that it matters whether someone is there to observe that the universe exists in this particular way. If the physical laws of the universe had been slightly different and the result of that was that no life could ever exist in it... would that actually be a problem? Obviously it would be a problem *for us*, and that universe would never be observed *by us*... but so what?
If we believe that the universe lacks any fundamental purpose, then it's not a problem for that (lack of) purpose *not* to require life to exist and to observe that universe. It would be no different than if a universe *did* have a fundamental purpose, but that that purpose was something completely unrelated to human observers. If a fly's egg happened to hatch inside a Vauxhall Viva, the purpose of the Vauxhall Viva does not need to be rewritten to include the fly.
It's funny how this is presented as a question that atheists avoid, because for most of us, it's not a question we even need to think about. It's a question that only matters to people who already believe a) that the universe has a purpose, and b) that that purpose has to centre on human life. Without those assumptions, the question is just someone asking "but what about me?", and the answer from the universe is "what *about* you?"
If he wants to talk about strategic responses, my answer to any claim that the universe *is* designed with humans in mind would be to assume that it's true and then consider what that design tells us about the designer's attitude towards humans. Because, based on observation, the universe seems to have been designed for the purposes of humans about as well as the Vauxhall Viva was designed for the purposes of the fly.
So this Theist doesnt believe in something coming from nothing because there's no evidence for nothing in the real world.
Says the guy that believes in God which we also have no evidence in the real world for. This is the biggest case of hypocrisy I think ive ever seen.
isn't it funny how theists are always trying to shove in the same lame argument over and over again?
"there are things i can't explain. therefore god."
lol.
No more like universe is complex and all of this can't happen in its own coz the odds are too high . Therefore God .
What's the best explanation for our continued existence? The scientific one: it's grounded in reality based on observable evidence and doesn't pick favorites in the "Gods" question. How wonderfully impartial!
So, the guy has invested significant money in a decent camera and an SM7b mic, but he didn't bother to invest the time and effort in learning about the most basic audio production concepts like gain structure.
He said I've read all of this works "practically", WHAT?
Dawkins looking and sounding good. Can't watch Piers Morgan, i barely made it though cosmic skeptic's appearance.
Nice, you're in top form. Great antidote to my exasperation when thinking of resistant believers.
Sad, realy. I mean Islam has been around for over a thousand years and that is the best answer they have come up with.
Sad, realy. I mean atheist has been around for five hundred years and the best answer they have is "we don't know but it's not god and by the way we are proud to have no morality".
@@belee9606 Except that athiests do have morality. Oh, and by the way, everybody is born an athiest.
As I see it the underlying religious argument is: "I feel important, therefore I must be at the centre of everything. I couldn't possibly be the result of a long series of random events. QED".
9:29 " A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing" Thank God that was raised by a sscientist!!😂 Does he not know what a "law" means in science or does he just not care?
I don't trust anyone who hawks their book less than a minute in. What a shameless hack this guy is.
I would love to ask him a question: "how would godless universe look like?"
simple answer 0 eternal thing = 0 thing
Exactly how it does now.
"The bible teaches us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go"
I am a theistic evolutionist, which just means I believe in a god (the label doesn't specify, but I am a Christian), but I wholeheartedly disavow the "goddidit" argument for everything... Even if I did believe that God is behind *everything* , I would believe he doesn't do things in a way that breaks the fundamentals/laws/properties of the universe he created (which I also believe was created naturally, whether or not God was behind it... God didn't just snap his fingers to make the universe, it was made naturally, in a way that can be observed or reasoned out with enough data and tech to gather said data).
I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, and it was their opposition to even learn what evolution WAS (back then I argued against evolution, and I had to learn about it to argue against it... and one guy told me to not learn to much or I might "start to believe it") that opened my eyes for how bad they actually were.
tl;dr I am a Christian, and as a Christian, I have always thought "the truth", whatever that might be, was important to search for. And how some Christians bury their heads in the sand in facing what might be the truth truly baffles me.
Yo I live Richard! Man is a legend, haven't heard from him in so long 😢
I live him too
We all live him.
And people wonder why more atheist debunkers don't spend a lot of time on Muslim apologetics. Here it is: Its just the same as the Christian arguments but dumber somehow. Probably because of Muslim penalties for apostasy etc.
dam im earlier
You were so early, the n hadn't even made it out of bed yet.
That man was so angry, he clearly feels extremely threatened by science (or atheism, I'm not sure).
The answer that all theists avoid: the puddle analogy.
It's so easily refuted that it's embarrassing that atheists keep bringing it up. I group it under the category of "arguments that were said by a funny guy so they must be true."
Any hole can contain a puddle. It's not remarkable in any way that a rainstorm would produce a puddle.
The odds of the universe existing the way it is are somewhat less likely. Imagine a rainstorm that produces just one single hailstone. The hailstone falls into a cup that happened to be thrown out of a passing airplane which then happens to fall directly into the cup on the same hole of the same golf course where the PGA tour championship is currently in progress.
@@fluffysheap As I said. You truly fail to understand the analogy. Or pretend that you don't understand.
Thank you for proving my point so clearly.
Not to mention that YOUR analogy is completely nonsensical.
To calculate odds, you need a number of FACTUAL data points for that estimate. i.e. the odds of having a six on a six-sided die is one in six, if not interfering variable is present to alter the fall of the die. Because there are six sides and only one has a six.
Now, the number of universes we have to calculate is ONE. So the chances of our universe being as it is is one on one = 100%.
Until we factually find other universes, that's the only sensible estimate you can come up with . Anything else is pure fantasy.
But then again, so is religion.
As an atheist I try to answer all questions. When I don't know the answer I simply say "I don't know".
Is there a problem?
Man, this guy.... Stick, thanks for making this response!
We're small and the universe is large is a fine tuning argument. If the universe were small and we were all large it would be silly, and crowded, and probably squished dead.
Like how every puddle finds a hole that fits it exactly
"What is the best explanation for the fact that the conditions of the universe continually allow life to exist within it?"
Because if they didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask that question?
The universe is still nothing. The average density of the universe is three neutrons in approximately the volume of your body. That's nothing.
Yeah, there's stars and galaxies out there, but they are so tiny and far away that we need giant telescopes to take pictures of them, and there's nothing in between us and them.
Anyhow. The universe is empty. That says something about its origin.
The universe was created by Ralph The Cavorting Pixie. Prove me wrong theist.
I take it you haven't heard about Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe?
@@somedutchguy7582 HERETIC ❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️
@@somedutchguy7582 LBUH, praise be, praise be.
The Best way to distinguish Religion and Science is that Science can actually say " I dont know" , when in religion they seems to know everything bcause religion can justify anything.
" Its better to be with questions without answer than answers without question " Richard Feynman
The best way to distinguish Religion and Atheism is that Religion have morality based on GOD and fear GOD when Atheism have no based morality and fear nothing. "If there is no GOD everythings is permitted" (Dostoyevsky). Atheism have no base for morality. They claim if GOD exist why there is evil. Forgeting that they are the one who can do evil without fearing in there mind to be punish by GOD. Quote of John Locke "those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of god. Promises, Covenants and Oaths wich are the bounds of human society can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of god though even in thougth dissolves all" I repeat "atheism" is the dumbest thing in universe.
I think "The Goldilocks zone" is kind of a brilliant term since a lot of people know that fairy tale and those who don't can easily look it up and grasp the concept even for dummies like me.
9:09 i find it so repugnant that theists will state that it's a ridiculous notion for something to come from nothing when that is what their book claims to have happened. "In the beginning there was nothing, and god spoke." Like.... facepalm.
That, and they flatly accept the notion that all things must have a cause.
Except for god.
Because reasons.
I enjoy pointing them out that Creatio ex Nihilo is christian theology.
Fine tuning is such a bad argument. On the face of it, it is simple to ask for any proof of fine tuning, because it sure doesn't seem all that fine. We have wide margins for life as it is to continue, and outside that range we still would be just fine with slightly different life forms. Our orbit is not exact, our temperature is not exact, our atmosphere is not exact. Life as it is now could not have existed in previous eras because the Earth was different, but it still had life. The life that existed long ago would not survive the planet as it is today. Life is adaptable by necessity, because there is no fine tuning. Life is the water filling the puddle that is the universe.
The queston that all theist avoid: "Why is the universe so unnecessarily large?"
That's even weirder when it's supposed to be made specifically for humanity.
4 light years to the next star and 2.5 MILLION light years to the next galaxy out of 200 billions of galaxies... that we know of.
for you to think about his limitless power and limitless knowledge. So large for us but so small for HIM.
It's almost like people forget the entire point of science is not knowing things and wanting to find out what it is.
Even if you find GOD you will say "that's not god". That is the thruth for who have no morality foundation.
I was so happy that your video poped up in my feed ..... I've been a sub for almost 4 years but for some reason the algorithm stopped promoting your videos to me long time ago...... this notification bell thing is a must nowadays.
Energy became unstable in the vacuum and expanded. There never was 'nothing'.
The vast, vast, VAST majority of the universe doesn't support life, the hell is he talking about? Just how ignorant is he?
I can see why it's ridiculous. Nobody over 50 can do a handstand for 15 minutes. They'd be lucky to make it to 2.
Notice how hostile the muslim guy is, needing to yell so hard it distorts the mic, because his only point is he can only deal with simplistic claims, not intelligent attempts a finding actual answers...
Wait, this apologist doesn't even know that solipsism is a thing and his nuh-uh/muh buk isn't enough to vanquish that concept? Really small fry as thinkers go...
Treading on dangerous waters? Who is he, Jesus?
1:50 If the universe is vast and we are tiny, that seems like an argument _against_ fine tuning. Was God so constrained, when magically making the cosmos for his precious chosen humans who are in his image, that he had no choice but to create this entire vast universe in order that he could then create a tiny spot in which they could live?
Classic, a dude sat on his couch, telling us the Universe is fine tuned for life. Well, I've climbed mountains, and skied and snowboarded down many more, and spent weeks out hiking, and that Universe has tried to kill me a few times. If the Universe is 'fine tuned for life' how come I have a section on my bookshelf, just for survival manuals?
The professor is unnecessarily verbose (not uncommon for professors). The shorter counter is: Scientific laws are DESCRIPTIVE rather than PRESCRIPTIVE.
"god did it"
"What god?"
"god that i worship"
"How did you know if your god exist?"
"From my holy book"
"...''
Dawkins said superhuman not superhumans... Adjective, not subject.
Some people seem quite adequate, they can form sentences that are grammatically correct. And then they utter some garbled goobledygook that has no logical meaning at all. Such a disappointment.
"Make a note of that word, Darling! 'Gobbledygook'. I like it, I want to use it more often in conversation."
The Goldilocks Zone is not actually the fine tuning of the universe. It is that stars can have a habitable zone. Some stars have planets in that zone. So far those planets have not been suitable for life.