David's camera is blue because he's been taking tips from Mike Winger. 😂

@alexr.3504

Ай бұрын

Poor Mike 😂

@TheWhiteTrashPanda

Ай бұрын

Massively underrated comment

@JabberW00kie

Ай бұрын

The Dizzle is an undercover Wingaling! 😱

@fernandoformeloza4107

Ай бұрын

David's camera needs to be "fine tuned"

@vallewabbel9690

Ай бұрын

A bookshelf in the background AND a blue tint.... This can't be a coincidence anymore

I have a funny story to tell. Back when I was first exploring the arguments for the existence of God, I found Koolaid’s channel. I was in a bad head space at the time and his videos seemed to all have answers to my objections. I almost became an atheist, but then I thought “well maybe I can give the theist side a shot” And that’s how I found your channel. 😁 Thanks for all the work you do, Cam. God bless

@chloe-historyandgames

Ай бұрын

As a long time atheist i can confirm it sucks, depressing af, life is much better as a Christian, being filled with hope, love and fellowship

@Ricebag1482

Ай бұрын

were you a agnostic ?

@Mr_B_last

Ай бұрын

I agree somewhat. I'd rather be an theist or at least an atheist that being agnostic

@theredboneking

Ай бұрын

I wouldn’t describe being a Christian an easy life either. You are not supposed love this world, or things of this world. A wealthy person has a near impossibility to get into Heaven. You are limited in the way you make a living. And to top it off, you will be persecuted. 2 Timothy 3:12: - “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”

@MHMD.IS.Jesu.3110

Ай бұрын

​@@theredbonekingYea, loving, or IMPROPERLY using, the world, is not your best lifestyle.

Woah! CC and Roadshow! Great to see you guys working together!

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. St.Thomas Aquinas

@freddan6fly

Ай бұрын

There is no evidence, just blind belief. Why don't you believe in the invisible pink unicorn in my garage?

@ehhhhhhhhhhk

Ай бұрын

​@@freddan6flythere are arguments tho you ohio, I dont think you have much rizz

@freddan6fly

Ай бұрын

@@ehhhhhhhhhhk I don't understand stupid, can you translate to English?

@Catmonks7

Ай бұрын

@@freddan6fly Peace be with you 🙏🇻🇦✝️ start by praying if you look for the truth god will reveal himself to you.Lord Jesus Christ, I don't know if you exist, but if you do, would you reveal yourself to me in a way I can understand? Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!

@freddan6fly

Ай бұрын

@@Catmonks7 I know that the world looks exactly like all gods are man made and non is real, not even your Jesus. Sin is a fictional thought crime against a fictional character.

I can see the importance of responding to a video that gives bad arguments since the bad arguments also happen to be popular arguments. But I think it's also worth while to respond to good arguments even if they're not popular. So maybe next time you could have David and Luke on to talk about the normalizability objection to fine tuning, Sabine Hossenfelder's objection to fine tuning, and whatever other respectable arguments there might be.

@CJFCarlsson

Ай бұрын

I would suggest childcare personnel do not argue Darwinism and apologists do not have to argue astrophysics. If any atheists or youtuber wants to argue that this universe should be this way without God then let them argue that from whatever area of competence they have food production, actual but not successful career in physics, somewhat successful career in evolutionary biology and basic c-programming, and we point to the cross, because that is our strenght and that is what we know, that noone comes to heaven except through Jesus. That some of us do know quite a lot about toaster settings and maybe other subjects sometimes just removes focus from reality into speculative fantasy, like what atheists so often do.

@ricksonora6656

Ай бұрын

@@CJFCarlssonSo, you must feel that when judge answers “What is a woman?” with “I’m not a biologist,” you feel that she’s on solid ground.

@silenthero2795

Ай бұрын

Sabine Hossenfelder's arguments pretty much line up with most atheists. She believes there's no free will and there's no good/evil but her arguments in both issues are just "well, let's pretend we have them even though we don't". I don't think its respectable if you're this inconsistent in your own worldview.

@CJFCarlsson

Ай бұрын

@@ricksonora6656 I would expect anyone who is not a pilot to declare so before trying to fly me somewhere. Now do you claim atheist insights or inspiration for your astrophysics understanding?

@Leo-yx7rk

Ай бұрын

​​@@CJFCarlsson What of the idea a good idea may spring from anywhere? Surely you must be aware Benjamin Franklin left school at 12 years of age (?) Do you wish he'd got back in his box? 🤔

With a name like "Holy Koolaid" how could he *not* debunk the fine-tuning argument? 😂

@jeffmaehre7150

Ай бұрын

Yeah, because that's a principle that exists on earth.

If there is only one life in the universe (for example, only on planet Earth), an atheist will say that there is no fine-tuning since most of the universe is uninhabited. If the universe was teeming with life, an atheist would say that life (the phenomenon of life) is not something unique and does not require special explanation.

@450jms

Ай бұрын

No, an athiest would say that we have no idea how probable life is and that these kinds of arguments are based on probablistic conjectures. I would also question the notion that probability can realistically point the credence of any truth claim in these kinds of scenarios. For any situation, I could make dozens of scenarios that if true would potentially be more probabilistic than what is actually true. That is a meaningless metric that just begs the question

@intelligentdesign2295

Ай бұрын

@@450jms If this metric system is meaningless, then offer a better one. If you criticize, then offer an alternative system instead of the "probabilistic" one.

@450jms

Ай бұрын

@@intelligentdesign2295 I mean direct observations are how we understand everything and by positing a supernatural explanation you are claiming the existence of something that is beyond the capability of our observations. So, I don’t think you can

@intelligentdesign2295

Ай бұрын

@@450jms How can we use DIRECT OBSERVATIONS in metaphysics? We cannot observe God directly (because he is invisible), but just as we cannot directly observe the multiverse, since each of these universes is located at a gigantic distance from each other and we will never know if these other universes exist. An atheist similarly postulates the existence of empirically unobservable things.

@intelligentdesign2295

Ай бұрын

@@450jms We cannot directly observe the Big Bang and the development of the universe in the early stages of its formation. We cannot directly observe evolution over millions of years. We don't have the life span to capture these events directly!

David Wood: You can accept this argument and still be an atheist Also David Wood: This argument is devastating to naturalism 😆

@razoredge6130

Ай бұрын

Atheism is not automatically naturalist.

Thank you Cameroon for the session.

Multiverse of the gaps.

I am simple man i see David Wood i click video.

@Lgnno10125

Ай бұрын

Same

@sugami82

Ай бұрын

You and me both, brother 😆

@ultimatefactschampionship8758

Ай бұрын

Watched him for years, just unsubbed recently. Don't like him anymore. Most of what he does on his channel these days is scoff at everyone he disagrees with, exploit terr0rist attacks for effortless profit--never goes to the victims, even if they're Christian--hurl abuse on Tate's scam victims, and brush aside doners.

@lucidlocomotive2014

Ай бұрын

David wood and Jay dyer are both undergoing a transformation into each other

@ultimatefactschampionship8758

Ай бұрын

@@lucidlocomotive2014 Let's pray for them.

Great to see Luke, Cameron, and David in the same video! So excited!

Actually, the best argument from the rare Earth is the so called "Copernic Paradox" Argument. It states : 1 - There are millions of habitable planets in the Galaxy. 2 - In about 99,999% of these habitable planets, technology could not be developed. 3 - We are in a planet were technology and a civilization can be developed. Conclusion... I've putted data from NASA into youtube to defend premise 2.

@Mr_B_last

Ай бұрын

Whoa

@vallewabbel9690

Ай бұрын

The numbers you list in 1 and 2 make it pretty likely that such planets exist so what exactly is your conclusion here?

@EstudioVoitheia

Ай бұрын

@@vallewabbel9690 If we were placed here by chance we should be in a planet where technology could not be developed. Thus...

@freddan6fly

Ай бұрын

@@EstudioVoitheia Your numbers are just made up. There is no god.

@Andrew-pp2ql

Ай бұрын

@@EstudioVoitheiayou have to explain to me how does one determine the probability of technology being developed? Something sounds seriously amiss with this argument. Guess it’s a way to say ok so NASA has found thousands of potentially habitable exoplanets but they don’t count because NASA cannot determine if they are technologically capable planets?

Cheers, thanks to all of you guys

David is an expert on Christian apologetics, but also polemics against both Islam and Atheism

Do athiest get embarrassed by the type of debunking videos Holy Koolaid made? I ask it legitimatelly, because there are Christian videos that i cringe at, but i think David made a great point. I have heard good arguments from athiest, but for every good argument i hear, there are dozens or more, videos like this one where it seems the athiest has no clue as to what he is talking about.

@tenmilesfm

Ай бұрын

Massively embarrassing. And thanks for acknowledging that there are as many Christian videos that make you cringe. Holy Koolaid should stick his miracle debunking videos, where at least he's on firmer grounding. It irks me greatly when atheists accuse apologists of speaking about theories they do not necessarily have a formal education in, so I find it massively judgemental when they do the same thing. I can only hope that HK has made significant strides to educate himself further in cosmology.

@tennicksalvarez9079

Ай бұрын

As a atheist depends i haven't watch holy koolaid recently but i far as i remember he seemed better than most

A very minor thing to make a comment on, but I really appreciate Cameron’s stance on not harping over the labeling of fallacies. They’re useful to know, and I don’t know their definitions half as much as I should, but boy does it get my goat when you’re trying to have a respectful discussion with someone, and instead of them bothering to tell you why/how you said something wrong (whether objectively or in their opinion), they just say “well that’s just a xyz fallacy” like it’s a personal insult and continue to lambast you instead of elaborating. It just feels like an ego play to me (not always, but in certain hands and when overused.) And I’ve seen someone from every viewpoint- atheist, Christian, whomever- being guilty of this. Even me, mostly when genuine strawmen are being made of an argument. Anyway, props to CC for being relatable on that one.

Take a drink every time lukes barnes makes a facepalm

Why are you asking Mr. Blueberry why he looks like a blueberry? What if SmileToJenna is in the livechat? He might get offended that you brought up blueberries and not grapes?

@alexr.3504

Ай бұрын

🤣🤣 Yay! Another person from David and AP’s livestreams! I feel less alone now 😂

@greenbird679

Ай бұрын

or might be ali dawah 😂

AWESOME

Any Christians want to explain how literally half the world didn't notice the sun gon out for 3 hours, on literally the same day the frigging dead rose from the grave and hung out with the city of Jerusalem, but literally nobody bothered to write it down for dozens of years after the fact?

@richybambam1995

Ай бұрын

Yeah I'm pretty sure that we have barely any writings for anything right after they happened in ancient times. I think making writings back then just took a long time

@A_Stereotypical_Guy

23 күн бұрын

The Chinese and Romans recorded an eclipse right around the time of Christs death. As far as the old saints rising from the dead, that's a misunderstanding of those verses. The verses describe the temple and the ground splitting open, and all the dead come into the courtyard by the temple. We know religious Leaders were buried under temples in those days. If the temple fell and the ground did open it would make sense that those bodies would roll and fall and tumble out into the streets. There is some embellishing going on by the witnesses saying these were animated bodies and they spoke to the masses etc etc. But we know how things like that get started.

I don't know how Luke barnes can calculate the probability of theism or atheism being true because we don't have all the information about why things are the way they are. It's possible that future discoveries will reveal a naturalistic reason for why the physical constants are as they are.

Stephen Meyer and other scientists had explained the fine tuning in details.Dawkins?,he is not going to believe in God even if He appeared before him as he said.He is always in ABG (anything but God) position,not in following the evidence where it leads as scientist should be.

@benjaminwatt2436

Ай бұрын

yeah dawkins fits into that abnoxious skeptic group. the group of athiest that prefers mockery and strawmanning over intelligence and logic

@benjaminwatt2436

Ай бұрын

@@Reclaimer77 You're assuming all religions are equally probable, but only Christianity has no serious defeaters. Only Christianity has strong historical evidence. Also Christianity has a God that fits all the criteria for creating the universe with all its complexities. On the other hand as you say there are 10,000 religions that you say are all false while asserting your athiestic world view is correct based on probability you aren't on firm ground at all

@jenzihumari7425

Ай бұрын

@@Reclaimer77 Think about the Big Bang,everything came out of nothing,how is your intelligence and logic explain that?,something from nothing is not science,it's either magic or miracle. You can choose among those 10,000 or create your own religion,worshipping spoon maybe,you just can't say that there is no God because science obviously points that way since the early fathers like Socrates, Newton, Farraday, etc. they are all believers.Fun fact,all scientists do is learning about things that INTELLECTUALLY ALREADY THERE since the very beginning.

@highroller-jq3ix

Ай бұрын

Meyer is not a scientist, and he is a fundie fraud.

@tomasrocha6139

Ай бұрын

Stephen Meyer is not a scientist in any way shape or form.

When you combine the fine-tuning required for the speed of the expansion rate of the universe with the fine-tuning required for any two particles to adhere to each other when they collide, the odds of that required fine-tuning happening by chance (collision and adherence) are 1 in 10^108. That’s one chance in 1 billion centillion. Seeing as how there are only 10^87 particles in the _entire universe,_ that’s like picking the right _particle_ in the whole universe on the first try. Assuming of course you picked the right universe to begin with, for the odds against _that_ are a sextillion to one against it (10^108-10^87=10^21 possible universes where the correct particle could be hiding). And since we only have one universe to work with, that pretty much rules out random chance. Especially when we remember that this is taking into account only _two_ of the parameters that are fine-tuned for life; it doesn’t include the remaining 28+ that are considered to be fine-tuned.

@mr.preece8137

27 күн бұрын

What would you venture is the probability of the pet rock gaining popularity in the seventies. Let’s combine the probability that all of Gary Dahl’s (the creator) past relatives 1. Lived to child bearing age 2. Met and procreated with the particular individuals who make up Dahl’s lineage, and that in each case of procreation the one particular sperm fertilized an egg. Combined with the particular series of events than had to occur in Dahl’s life leading to his eventual idea to sell a rock in a box, the chances of someone else having the idea first, the chances of a rock in a box becoming a popular gift idea and so on. These chances must be Infinitesimally small. Do we suppose that the pet rock was not a random occurrence but rather a Devine gift from god?

@iiddrrii6051

23 күн бұрын

@@mr.preece8137 The fallacy is in creating a statistical chance when you have no basis that the values COULD have been different. It could be like arguing that a triangle has a 1/billion chance of it's angles adding to 180 degrees.

i REALLY liked the very Last sentence of this video ❤

Guys, there is a name for the tactic you were explaining that was used by Thomas when he used the “privileged planet” video and then tried to disprove it, instead of limiting his video to the “fine tuning” argument only. Some might think that he made his own job harder by adding another thing he had to argue against. In fact, the opposite is the case and it is the reason he used it deliberately. Its called the “straw-man argument”. So, if you cant beat someone in a debate, as a tactic for success, you replace the real argument with a weaker(straw man) argument and marginalize or beat it instead. In many cases, people are too dumb to realize the switch was even made. So the user of the straw-man argument appears to have beaten the actual argument. Face to face, this involves alot of social manipulation and requires the user to rely on triggering emotional responses in his rival so that the rival accepts straw man argument as the argument of importance. Sometimes the rival does this consciously because of social constraints or otherwise and sometimes he is actually deceived or seduced into accepting it and will not even realize it happened.

@blanktrigger8863

Ай бұрын

When you said "social manipulation", you're hinting at something I noticed about all (at least informal) fallacies, which is that they're all abuse tactics. I don't know how I noticed this, it just overlapped one day when I realized that every behavior I've ever seen that I consider to be abuse is done to distract from the Truth, which is what informal fallacies are intended to do. Then I stopped to think wait a minute, is it possible that they're not just similar but actually the same thing under the different names? They in fact are. It's been the single greatest revelation about arguing and why logic and evidence doesn't get through to most folks. They're abusers (as the Bible says, sinners are also called abusers), and abusers operate on power gaming, not logic. They don't care about what is real because their entire matrix of existence is forcing their own emotions upon everything else. It's an incredible revelation. Completely changes how I deal with folks because I've never wanted to be an abuser but was blind to the socially acceptable abuse that I was doing in all these other ways.

@chargree

Ай бұрын

@@blanktrigger8863 This is very strange to me because I had almost the exact same epiphany you are describing a couple of days ago. I mean, I had known for a long time that most things(all flora and fauna) use the resources they are able to obtain and/or manipulate to improve their survival and existence. However, it really just hit me how the politicians and world leaders have tricked people for their control. That is where I kinda started and followed a course of society down to myself. I too am trying to be my best without abusing others. It is okay to cooperate and take use of the resources available if it is with their consent. The abuse comes when that consent is obtained by deception or some other nefarious means. It is difficult to explain how I felt and how it all came together for me, but it hit a nerve when I was reading your comment because I knew what you meant.

@highroller-jq3ix

Ай бұрын

@@blanktrigger8863 That's a lot of vacuous psycho-babble. Do you have any credible, objectively sound evidence for the Christian god claim?

@highroller-jq3ix

Ай бұрын

I'm sure everyone at kindergarten level and below will appreciate this rudimentary introduction to a rudimentary concept in rhetoric and propositional logic.

@chargree

Ай бұрын

@@highroller-jq3ix It was enough to interest you apparently. Tell all your kindergartner friends to come learn along with you. I am glad I could help you where the public school system failed you.

Lawrence Krauss claims that the fine tuning argument does not hold because there may simply be a different universe from the one we know if the constants are different.

Here for David Wood. If you’re seeing this David, I love you man!!!

Why don’t you challenge Unholy Koolaid to a live debate, on Standing for Truth channel?

Just curios there was a comment about answers in genesis just wondering on thoughts, is answers in genesis a legitimate scientific platform or was the statement just that because they are Christian first scientists second that therefore atheists discredit them.

@FIRE0KING

Ай бұрын

They are not a good channel. Young Earth is highly unlikely. Go with reasons to believe with Dr. Hugh Ross, nakedbiblepodcast with Dr Micheal Heiser (RIP), and peaceful science with Dr. Josh Swamidass. These are fantastic and give differing perspectives that are scholarly but made for us lay people.

The beginning of Eternity, The end of time and space, The start of every end, The end of every place. Food for thouht? Cheers 🍻 Thank your mother for the rabbits 🐰

More of these. 😊

The dude-bro with the beard and glasses can't say ANYTHING without saying it 8 times. It's absolutely torture listening to him.

So what expertise on the topic does Snarky the Psycho offer again?

David has been fighting Muslims so much, he started to look like one with beard and hair 😂😂😂

@briansmutti

Ай бұрын

no… i know you meant this as a joke, but David’s eyes have warmth and a love for life in them

@highroller-jq3ix

Ай бұрын

Yay, Christian racism and Islamophobia on display!

@highroller-jq3ix

Ай бұрын

@@briansmutti That's a love for patricide with something dull but serviceable after repeated blows.

@briansmutti

Ай бұрын

@@highroller-jq3ix nah not actually … you can’t be more wrong … but you CAN contrast it to the look in the eyes of those who believe in cap it al punishment for refusing to convert to iz zlam and they insist they are “proud of that” and “will be watching”…. just ask ali .

@highroller-jq3ix

Ай бұрын

​@@briansmutti Yes, I'm absolutely right. All of the bizarre, kindergarten spelling just makes you seem a little insane, but maybe psychos of a feather flock together. Just ask Snarky the Psycho.

Why do some folks choose to abuse and ridicule instead of logical, evidenced argument

It is strange that humanity has always been aware of God, even before we knew him by name, some, not all, have personal experience of him, some others have come up against evil and either fallen in love or believe so firmly in its existence, that they will not believe in God, and here we are looking at statistical probabilities that can be assessed with some competence only be a select few.

It's even more possible to find a supercomputer which has meme in it (without designer/made purely by coincidence) than to find a life in universe. Why ? Life is more complex than supercomputer.

❤

They dodge the question of "why does something exist at all!" Sure, science can explain how life might have formed and evolved. Doesn't refute the existence of God. It reminds me of that joke that ends with God telling the scientist "use your own dirt"

@wet-read

Ай бұрын

A question like that may not have the sort of answer we seek, or, if it does, we may never be able to know it.

@jeff55555

Ай бұрын

@@wet-read indeed

@wet-read

Ай бұрын

And that is why I don't dwell on this stuff. I ponder it, but I don't worry about it. If something like God exists, worrying about pleasing It seems absurd to me. Besides, there is lots of stuff on offer concerning existence and its nature.

@jeff55555

Ай бұрын

@@wet-read "it"

@wet-read

Ай бұрын

@@jeff55555 Yeah. As in, why assume something like that is gendered at all?

How did you calculate the odds that a God even wants to create a universe with people in it? If you're betting on one over the other based on odds, fine, you say the naturalistic process is very unlikely so therefore God but you didn't provide the odds to compare to. You just assumed they are better. You said these odds over here are very low and so any other explanation is more likely, and especially the explanation that i already believe is true.

Isn't the fact that there is such a world as ours that could be _fine tuned to in the first place_ already miraculous? That the universe/multiverse is possessed of the possibility of life and consciousness?

Not only can a tornado build an airplane but if you also found the mathematical plans … the actual blueprints… How much faith do you put in the tornado?

How does Barnes' fine tuning argument calculate the probability of premise 3?

@450jms

Ай бұрын

How could they possibly get reasonable probabilities for any of the premises? It is pure conjecture based on a very limited dataset

No but some of the loops we hear spoken is really really strange.. like animals don’t feel pain or the cosmological argument when it goes from the universe has a cause to it must be an agent

38:26 best part of the video

If I understand Luke correctly, Carrol thinks he has an argument that the gravitational constant had to be what it is for the flat universe we have to exist, however why would the shape of the universe have to be what it is? This seems like Carrol is just pushing the problem back one step.

Does Capturing Christianity shadow ban?

@tex959

Ай бұрын

I think the KZread algorithm can shadow ban if someone gets enough thumbs down on their comment

@johnmakovec5698

Ай бұрын

@@tex959 Thank you. In that case it can create a lot of social bubbles. And commentary of this video will be full of support.

@tex959

Ай бұрын

@johnmakovec5698 correct. It does create an echo chamber. KZread wants people to get their dopamine hit without being challenged because it increases Google's revenue. If I find a video with a contentious or debated topic, I typically click on "newest"comments first because those usually seem at odds with the top comments.

👍

Fine Tuning is not what we would expect from a perfect Designer. It is what we would expect to see from a naturalistic Universe. This was adressed by many Scientists already including Carroll in a debate with Craig. I still cant figure out how someone can say this Universe was finely tuned when we have nothing to compare it to. It could just be this way or it has to be this way. It is crazy when people just pull these huge numbers and think it means something.

@Nox-mb7iu

Ай бұрын

Cope. Your atheism doesn't even allow for science. Try the problem of induction. How do you get to a universal from particulars? Empiricism ain't cutting it.

@berunto8186

Ай бұрын

@@Nox-mb7iu How do you know I am an Atheist? What does the "problem" of Induction have to do with this? Science adjusts for mistakes, Dogma doesn´t. I don´t understand the last question. Name a single better method for distinguishing between reality and imagination than the scientific method.

@Nox-mb7iu

Ай бұрын

@@berunto8186 It's circular and dumb. How do you know the future is like the past? Because it was that way in the past? Empiricism doesn't work unless the future has to be like the past. So why does the future have to be like the past?

@berunto8186

Ай бұрын

​@@Nox-mb7iu You can then scrap most of Science and you are not offering a better method. If there were massive problems with that method we could not trust any prediction, including that the sun will come up tomorrow. That is dumb. The truth is that scientific predictions helped us with pretty much all of our technology. This would simply not work if there were not patterns that we can understand like the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. If we repeatedly get predictions right it strengthens the reliability. Let me know when suddenly the Sun goes the Earth suddenly decides to rotate the other direction or when gravity doesn´t work anymore without any pattern behind that. If you have a better method I am all ears until then I am sticking with the best we have. Sadly this has nothing to do with what I said about Fine-Tuning.

@Nox-mb7iu

Ай бұрын

@@berunto8186 Better method? Any method including imagination is better than circularity. The problem isn't science. The problem is your empiricism combined with atheism. Science works if you have a reason to think the future will be like the past. Your atheism contradicts that. Why would the future be like the past? This would make sense if the universe was ordered and made with a purpose. If that's not the case then your atheism spits in the face of induction. Why would particulars make a universal rule?

Fine tuning: As for species, not talking about the universe, we evolved and the survival of species to inhabit this earth doesn't mean the earth for example is perfect for us, but rather it is just a simple fact that without the mutations that stuck to endure said environment mean just that, the evolved species that survive just survived. If God fine tuned things, the work is sloppy. Most of the earth humans cannot survive due to extreme hot/cold temperatures. Not particularly fine tuned for us. Then we have natural disasters to avoid, deadly bacteria, etc. This place is one big game of Frogger 🤪 Theists also like to point to the eye being a great example of God's work. Sure, an amazing thing, yet they say this while usually wearing glasses 🤦‍♂️ Time to just let go of the myths. Ps, none of them say that this is profoundly compelling. They just say that from the theists side, this may be the best example they can use as an argument. I would say it still fails to "win" an argument imo, nor does it actually prove anything.

It is possible that in the future there will be a theory that will explain the fine-tuning in a natural way. BUT! It is also possible that new data will appear in the future to ENHANCE fine-tuning. It is quite possible that in the future the evidence in favor of theism will be replenished. For example: previously it was believed that a biological cell was just a clot of mucus, but then it turned out that a cell is a very complex highly organized structure.

Holy Strawman strikes again!

Luke Barnes is having a field day here with holy koolaid

His video against the exodus had outdated clips and incorrect assumptions.

David Wood agreeing with an Australian ?! That can't be right surely ..... 😅😂

1:07:42 LOL

"natural disasters shouldn't be here" its funny hes mentioned this because in the bible, which im sure he has read in order to accurately refute Christianity, 3 chapters in the answer is right there! Isn't that crazy?

@greenmcbean6429

Ай бұрын

This is the worst part about people who use these awful versions of the “problem” of evil. They are disproving a god that nobody believes in.

@MacBlagic

Ай бұрын

How did chapter 3 happen? Wasn't chapter 1 a necessary precursor for chapter 3? God is directly responsible for chapter 1 and no less than indirectly responsible for chapter 3, especially if God is omniscient. Why did God do chapter 1 in such a way that chapter 3 was even remotely possible?

@tomasrocha6139

Ай бұрын

Only a vindictive and insecure being would punish mankind for being tricked by an evil that he has been too weak to stop - Celsus, The True Word

I find that this was a good review, but I think more charity in terms of lovingkindness could have been used towards Westbrook and his video, even knowing that there were big problems with it.

Yeah, he nailed it. The fine tuning argument is baseless assertions.

Guys please tackle the @Mythvision podcast!!!!! Please Dr Cargill and so many ex Christian’s talking intellectually (clearly no faith or personal relationship with God) I just am sad to see so many leaving Christ! Calling him a fictional character

30:30

The first younger gentleman clearly doesn’t grasp the fine tuning argument.

Q. What's the difference between Islamic apologetics and Christian apologetics? A. Ones true and one isn't. ..at least according to whichever proponent you are conversing with.

@randomusername3873

Ай бұрын

Yeah it's so funny

@reginaldmudford9722

20 күн бұрын

Both sides agree one is true and one is not? Both proponents agree with this proposition?

@Yossarian.

20 күн бұрын

@reginaldmudford9722 That's my point. I was being ironic. (Or at least I hope there was irony there?) Both parties would agree with the premise, and yet their subject matter is very different. It shows the absurdity of unfounded certainty.

@reginaldmudford9722

19 күн бұрын

@@Yossarian. Yes but united against agnosticism by the mutual belief in the premise of a singular objective reality or truth. (Along with atheists I might add...) To say that opposing positions disproves that there is a true position that is discernable is fallacious. It's like saying, "hey some people think Bernard killed Julie. Some people think John killed Julie. Some people think Julie killed herself. Therefore all positions are unknowable and we can never discern for ourselves how Julie died" I don't "know" Catholicism is true. Because like Immanuel Kant I agree no finite being can have true OBJECTIVE "knowledge" of anything. That does not mean I cannot use discernment to prove my faith is within reason- and perhaps MORE within reason than a conflicting claim... I will never claim that Catholicism does not require faith! But I will never deny that *ALL* positions require faith- including the agnostic who is not searching- who has faith that the search is pointless.... As beings that have subjective worldviews and knowledge; "faith" in the rawest sense is not an option. It is a mandatory component of consciousness. You can deny the component... But you are literally using the component to deny its own existence.... God bless!

@Yossarian.

19 күн бұрын

@reginaldmudford9722 Yes, I get all that. And I agree with the fallacious nature of the reasoning in my comment. But considering the fallacious nature of theistic reasoning, I'm not too bothered. My comment was a little tongue in cheek, and to me, it highlighted the nonsense that is unfounded dogmatic belief. Science bless.

I'm not blind!!

I always wondered how can one make any definite conclusion from a sample of one? We never base anything from one test….we want to retest over and over to verify its results. No one would ever take a new vaccine if the testing size was only on one individual. It appears to me reason we even debate this topic is due to the sample size….we can’t reach a consensus opinion based off the smallest sample size possible. Secondary issue is…..people have already reached a conclusion….Like Barnes I don’t anything about the man…but I would bet money he was already a Christian before becoming a physicist. Obviously, his conclusion was already established….so his arguments will be for fine tuning…would make no sense for him to argue for a non tuned universe. And no…Holy Koolaid whoever he is (I don’t care) could not of debunked a fine tune universe…due to a sample size of one. Perhaps a worthless conversation to have…though a the same time enjoyable as no facts can be established either way. Be nice if the host could get a Sean Carroll (or whoever….a skeptical opponent of fine tuning who has practical expertise on the topic) on for a deeper discussion….it loses value when the other side cannot express their deeper concerns or doubts

Another atheist W

I don't think that "apologists are blind lunatics". They're doing the same thing everyone else is -- doing the best they can with what they have to work with. Each of us is a better judge of what makes sense to himself than anyone else is. Each of us reserves the right to make his own decision about what makes sense to us, however much or little information he can throw at it, however much or little he may know about it. Everyone grows in his own direction at his own speed, throws his own correction at his own need, flows his own reflection at his own creed. Yield debunks fine-tuning unless the universe was fine-tuned for a very, very, very tiny yield. Nothing that more apologetics won't solve, right? I can come up with a good enough reason for God to do just that, but I also have a pretty good imagination.

leave theologians to theologians and science to scientists.

Why does it take 3 theists 2 hours to disect 9 minutes of an atheist video?

@cliveandersonjr.8758

Ай бұрын

Thorough responses require a fair amount of time to state properly.

Fine tuning is not evidence for a god, unless that is the black hole god. Because there are billions more black holes in the universe than living creature on earth. It is just a silly argument, since we have no other universe to compare to. If the universe was fine tuned to make life impossible and there still was life, there would be evidence for a god. You start with the conclusion that a god is real, and then try to come up with post hoc rationalization to why.

The problem is how probability is used incorrectly. Lets say you were woke up by a bird chirping. Whats the probability? How many other places could that bird have been? Measured to what level? That it chirped at that time? That it woke up when it did? That the predator that startled it did? If I pick a pile of numbers and multiply them by the possible options it becomes vanishongly small the chace that bird woke you up.

@nemrodx2185

Ай бұрын

"The problem is how probability is used incorrectly. Lets say you were woken up by a bird chirping. What's the probability? How many other places could that bird have been? Measured to what level? That it chirped at that time? That it woke up up when it did? That the predator that started it did? If I pick a pile of numbers and multiply them by the possible options it becomes vanishingly small the chance that bird woke you up." I don't see that that attacks any premise of the argument. Besides: It is not only the isolated probability but the probability + the result. Any hand in a card game is unlikely but what is surprising is that I have the winning hand and take the prize. Also, to put the last nail in the coffin. Under your interpretation of probability no view of the world could be argued since: what would make atheism or theism more probable or improbable? Any argument you use to shift the probability towards one hypothesis or another would contradict your interpretation.

@TaylorWalston

Ай бұрын

@@nemrodx2185 its called stacking the deck. If I stack the deck and multiply probabilities I can make anythong appear vanishingly small. It is abusing probability. The real question is. Is this god fictional? If it is fictional the ID argument is reality is more likely based on fiction. Given the complete lack of ability to confirm any assertions about gods and a field of thousands of likely imagined gods. I look at arguments mafe for theism and ask, is this equally useful if true or false? Would a con man making up a claim be able to support it any other way? Where is the leap of faith? Are you using a method that could discovet any other answer if yours is not true. So far, none of the arguments pass these hurdles, which does lean me in favor of these answers are fictional.

@450jms

Ай бұрын

​@@nemrodx2185 The real problem is that these "probabilities" are all made up conjectures with no real credence. Also, seems like they're just begging the question by using some made up probabilities and a bastardized statistical analysis in an attempt to verify a truth claim, essentially just saying if a theistic being exists it would be more likely that life would exist therefore that being more likely exists. Like what kind of circular reasoning is that?

@nemrodx2185

Ай бұрын

@@TaylorWalston "...I can make anything appear vanishingly small. It is abusing probability" No, you can't because you are always comparing 2 hypotheses. Theism and naturalism in this case. "The real question is. Is this god fictional? If it is fictional the ID argument is reality is more likely based on fiction. Given the complete lack of ability to confirm any assertions about gods and a field of thousands of likely imagined gods" No... if you want to ask it like this, the correct thing would be: Is theism or ATHEISM/"NATURALISM" fiction?... and given the complete lack of ability to confirm any assertions and alternatives about atheism/naturalism (almost no alternative, by the way) and its variants, the latter is probably the imaginary one. "I look at arguments mafe for theism and ask, is this equally useful if true or false? Would a con man making up a claim be able to support it any other way? Where is the leap of faith? Are you using a method that I could discover any other answer if yours is not true. So far, none of the arguments pass these hurdles, which makes me read in favor of these answers are fictional." I don't know how you are going to find superior atheism/naturalism? How am I going to apply your own criteria with this vision of the world when it depends on infinite coincidences and acceptance that everything "is like that" and I have to accept it by blind faith and feelings?! Without any justification?!

@nemrodx2185

Ай бұрын

@@450jms "The real problem is that these "probabilities" are all made up conjectures with no real credence. Also, it seems like they're just begging the question by using some made up probabilities and a bastardized statistical analysis in an attempt to verify a truth claim , essentially just saying if a theistic being exists it would be more likely that life would exist therefore that being more likely exists. Like what kind of circular reasoning is that?" What premise is this supposed to attack... none. Atheism/naturalism=total intellectual bankruptcy.

I doubt the argument would be taken seriously in any other context. The odds that Mike Winger would become a Christian KZreadr in a universe of free will is vanishingly small. (Compound the odds of all of Mike’s ancestors surviving to child bearing age, and those individuals meeting and procreating with the particular partner that led to Mike’s lineage, and Mike having the exact set of experiences that led to his beliefs, and led him to create KZread videos, etc). The odds of Mike Winger becoming a Christian KZreadr on Calvinism is not vanishingly small. (Guaranteed because it was predetermined) Therefore probability strongly favors Calvinism. Is this a “huge problem” for non Calvinists?

@LetTalesBeTold

19 күн бұрын

That’s… not even equivalent to the statements of the fine-tuning argument, though? Your example misrepresents the actual argument, as if it were about the probabilities of the outcomes themselves, not about what caused the outcomes to occur.

@mr.preece8137

19 күн бұрын

@@LetTalesBeTold please explain further. My argument is about cause. What caused mike winger to become a KZreadr? Was it a random mishmash of mortals acting upon their free will or was it divinely willed by a creator with no hope of alteration by humans? It seems that a simple summary of the fine tuning argument would be that the creation of a life permitting universe is very unlikely on naturalism and not very unlikely on theism and, therefore, theism is a better explanation for the occurrence of a fine tuned universe. My argument is correlative. Mike winger becoming a KZreadr is very unlikely on free will theology and not very unlikely on Calvinism, therefore Calvinism is a better explanation for mike winger being a KZreadr. The creation of a life permitting universe is just a one time event. There are lots of one time events. Proposing that god did it may make the event much more likely than proposing it came about by pure chance, but then it seems you would need to carry that over into all very unlikely one time events…like mike winger becoming a Christian KZreadr.

@mr.preece8137

18 күн бұрын

@@LetTalesBeToldlook at minute 7:00 in the video, their slide lays out the argument exactly as I did. Replace life permitting universe with content creating mike winger and theism/naturalism with free will/Calvinism.

@LetTalesBeTold

15 күн бұрын

@@mr.preece8137 thank you for explaining a little more in depth- I understand your argument better than I did before, and I can see some correlation, so I take back some of my skepticism. Still, I don’t think it lines up as well as you feel it does. First, Calvinism concerns itself with predestination in terms of salvation, but so far as I’ve been taught, they don’t apply the same rigidity to every single subsequent event in a person’s life; i.e. Calvinism would hold that Mike Winger was predestined without question to be saved, but would make no comment on whether it was mandated that he should be a KZreadr or not. (I may be wrong, but this is my understanding, and if you have sources confirming otherwise, I’ll gladly look into them.) Secondly, even the majority of free-will theology supports the idea that God allows certain events to occur in order to get the “desired result,” so while God didn’t “predestine” Mr. Winger to be a KZreadr, He definitely allowed certain circumstances to come together (and disallowed others) that Mr. Winger would choose to start his online ministry. Ultimately, the absolute predestination theologian and the free will theologian arrive at the same general conclusion- maybe with a mildly higher likelihood for the “all things predestined” theory, but it wouldn’t have as incredibly drastic an elevated likelihood as we see in the fine tuning debate.

@mr.preece8137

14 күн бұрын

@@LetTalesBeTold William Lane Craig lays out an excellent argument for the determinism of Calvinism if you need a reference. I must admit I am a bit baffled by the idea that God could “allow some things to happen” or “not allow some things to happen” in a world of free will. Are you suggesting that we have a limited free will in which only most of the choices we make are our own and some others are forced upon us divinely? If not, what is it, other than the free choices of individuals, that god is allowing or disallowing to happen? To make the argument more suitable, I could take it out of the realm of religion entirely and just compare the philosophy of free will to that of determinism. Mike Winger becoming a Christian KZreadr is very unlikely on free will. It is not very unlikely on determinism. Mike winger becoming a Christian KZreadr greatly favors determinism. Again, is this a ‘huge problem’ for free will advocates?

"Fine tuning" implies that there's an external constraint on the "tuner" on what it can choose.

@nathanrobbins7668

Ай бұрын

How so? The fine tuning argument doesn’t say God MUST create a finely tuned universe. But if God wanted to create life, would he not have to tune it in order to support life? I’m very confused as to what your point is

@ianosgnatiuc

Ай бұрын

@@nathanrobbins7668 You mean a God wouldn't be able to create life in a large range of conditions? Potentially any conditions? Why it has to be these specific conditions but not anything else?

@nathanrobbins7668

Ай бұрын

@@ianosgnatiuc you clearly did not pay much attention to the video. They discussed your exact point for like 10 minutes straight. The ignorance🙄

@ianosgnatiuc

Ай бұрын

@@nathanrobbins7668 Of what I'm ignorant?

@nathanrobbins7668

Ай бұрын

@@ianosgnatiuc the fact that your argument literally doesn’t address fine tuning at all. Seriously they discussed your exact argument and demonstrated why it’s irrelevant. Did you not watch the video?

When it comes to privileged planet yes our planet itself is privileged. the argument isn't outdated it's still highly valid.

@nicolasandre9886

Ай бұрын

How do you know there aren't billions of planets like Earth in the universe?

1:57:08 The issue here isn't suggesting rolling a 6 sided dice 6 times necessarily resulting in a given outcome. It was his first comment - infinite. So moving on to 1x10^24 he's not literally saying if you have the more than same number of tries it is guaranteed - he's saying if you have INFINITY chances it is necessity. But that doesn't even follow. We can conceive of an Infinite set of Universes that do not contain any life permitting Universes also, but this is now more to say that postulating a literal infinite number of Universes to explain the one not only doesn't get you there - but you don't have to try hard to produce a better hypothesis favored courtesy of Occam's Razor. Infinite Universe. Talk about multiplying beyond necessity.

I thought that was Hamza for a bit.

1:03:31 This is like when you’re first learning how to ride a bike, you need training wheels. But once you get good at riding a bike, the training wheels start to become a bit of a hindrance, so you take them off, but you’re still riding within the range that is required to keep your balance. So calling out the fallacies helps people who don’t know how to “ride bikes” understand what’s happening.

@theautodidacticlayman

Ай бұрын

1:07:44 This was the most important thing that happened to me today.

@theautodidacticlayman

Ай бұрын

1:08:54 Hold on to your socks, David!

At around the 37:00 mark, you start discussing how this is not addressing the best version of the argument. There's a few issues here. 1. You're doing the very same thing by reviewing his video because it's popular. 2. What's the best argument is very subjective. 3. The points he's addressing are very popular talking points in many apologetic circles and be to be addressed because your side of the debate are mentioning them constantly. It's surprisingly common for theists to say crazy stuff like the Earth couldn't be more than a kilometre/mile further or closer to the Sun without it being too hot or cold, hence why he addresses it.

I appreciate what you're doing, but I made it 36 minutes, and just couldn't anymore. You didn't even get to the subject of the video until 25 minutes in, and then you were pausing the video you're reviewing every 15-20 seconds to make exclamations about it. Not the style of review/rebuttal I care to ingest. Thanks anyway.

Found this collaboration a disappointment. One issue is many theist equate fine tuning to earth only…..but these people critique koolaid with arguing wrongfully well that is not the fine tuning argument yet that is exactly how creationist argue it….so some of the discussion is already off the mark. It seems a poor effort (these guys undoubtedly are smart and have thought through some of the issues) but I wanted to see a more substantial argument made. Granted it might get better after the one hour mark but I took a pass. Rather see a more detailed why fine tuning but I never got the sense that was coming. Seem more of a general criticism of a class of people that atheists present bad arguments……no rather individuals do….not atheist, not Chinese, not women…..but individuals. Please never quantify a poor statement(s) by an individual then equate that with a class of people….it is a very poor reflection on you as an individual. If someone commits a crime….that is a reflection on that person…. no generalization should be made to the color of his skin, religious beliefs, or political affiliation then declare that seems to be true of that group of people. That was some of what I was hearing…unfortunate.

Why is pi 3.14....? Is that a fine tuning, or the inevitable result from comparing the diameter to the circumference? Why do the angels of a triangle always add up to 180⁰? Is that a fine tuning or the inevitable result of joining 3 straight lines on a flat service? These are constants also. Admittedly in 2 dimensions but you cant have a circle without a value of pi. So maybe the speed of light in a vacuum is also just as inevitable. Maybe gravity is also inevitable. But the fine tuning argument for a creator is definitely a good one. But it's not irrefutable. IMO. I seriously don't like the multi verse "each universe would have it's own different laws of physics". It's a bad argument and has no proof. If there are other universes i don't think a circle would have a different value for pi. Or a triangle would be more or less than 180⁰.

Our existence is so extremely improbable, there is no way it all happened by random chance. To calculate the probability p of a number of independent events all occurring together, we take the probability of each event and multiply them together For example, if p of event A occurring is 1/8 and p of event B is 1/26, the p of both A and B occurring is 1/8 x 1/26 = 1/208. So the probability of a large number of independent events all occurring becomes an extremely small number. It actually approaches zero, meaning it is extremely unlikely or improbable. Now think about all the things that had to happen for you to be born. The Milky Way galaxy, solar system, planet earth had to be just right for life, your parents had to meet, etc, etc. Each of us is unique and so extremely improbable. So, don't let anyone put you down. And treat other people as you would want to be treated yourself. With respect and kindness.

@Darth_Vader258

Ай бұрын

The planet Jupiter is the reason Earth is not hit by a thousand comets and meteorites.

I think the probabilities actually favor naturalism. The reason is that all possible natural universes could be created by a god AND additional non natural universes could be created by a god. Therefore, if the probability of universe for naturalism universes is X=1/(set:natural) And God’s possible universes is Y=1/{(set:natural)+(set:god only)} Then X>Y Any objections?

I'll be honest with you: if I were looking for something that makes theists look stupid, I couldn't do better than THIS video. It's a bunch of dude-bros sitting around bloviating. An hour and five minutes in, and you've done nothing but name calling. That is, after your"see, other people say we're right so we must be" intro.

Trusts D Wood(Pause) to put people on blast without mercy 😂😂😂😂

The "well, the cosmos doesn't look like how I would expect a god to make it" is a poor response to fine-tuning as well as a poor response to theodicy

@mcfarvo

Ай бұрын

1:24:00 they get to this

@randomusername3873

Ай бұрын

Fine tuning implies that the universe is perfectly adapt for us, which is not

i LOVE Dr Gerald Schroeder’s books on this subject- he has PhD in physics and is a Jewish Theologian check out: The Science of God; Genesis and the Big Bang; and, The Hidden Face of God - all good books and as far as atheism goes, my argument for that is this: we can’t prove the existence of God and we can’t disprove it either when atheists mock believers with the term “sky daddy” it is truly uncalled for so consider this: IF …we can entertain the idea that WE can terraform Mars … then we should ALSO be able to entertain the idea that WE are the result of an ancient terraform, and that God’s name is E.T. Revelation 11:18 keeps me on the believing side because we are there now! .

@SmackDab​​: I have seen the video from Sabine Hosenfelder you are talking about. Mrs. Hosenfelder states that there are there possibilities how the universe came about: Chance , a creator god or a law of nature, which causes the universe to has the precise values we observe. The likelihood that this universe came about through chance is extremely low.

@user-ur8ql7xm8v

Ай бұрын

@SmackDab: I have seen the video from Sabine Hosenfelder you are talking about. Mrs. Hosenfelder states that there are there possibilities how the universe came about: Chance, a creator god or a law of nature, which causes the universe to has the precise values we observe. The likelihood that this universe came about through chance is extremely low. - Sorry I pressed by accident post. Here s the continuation: God would easily explain why the universe is as it is. If a law of nature exists that creates universes with the exact numbers needed to allow life, then this would also explain why the universe exist as it is. The problem with the law of nature explanation, and that is also the problem with a use of the multiverse explanation, is that you still need to explain why the fine-tuned law of nature or a multiverse with a fine-tuned process to create universes exists. The scientific theory why laws of natures exist go back to Thomas Aquinas and Isaac Newton, who claimed that the universe is ruled by laws of nature as it was created by a rational god.

To steel man the “statistical necessity” bit, I don’t think it’s “if it’s 1/6 chance to roll a 1 on a six-sided die, I am guaranteed to roll it once in six tries.” This is clearly observably false. I think he meant: “If it’s a 1/6 chance to roll a 1 on a six-sided die and I have an infinite number of chances without limitation, probability wouldn’t ultimately matter as it is significantly less probable that I will only roll 2-6 for eternity. If I roll a 1, I exist. I exist therefore I can assume a 1 was rolled.” There are compounded issues with that like assuming eternity which would need an uncaused cause for the universe to exist and assuming that “rolling a 1” should result in existence in the first place.

Holy Koolaid is not smart compared to children let alone Wood or luke barnes.

The Fine Tuning Argument is also good for understanding the immense intelligence of God. It’s like a devotional for me. If I’m on God’s side, I can trust His plan easily.

The irony of Kam complaining about people liking more superficial arguments while at the same time arguing against the less popular and more superficial video is almost mind boggling.

@jackplumbridge2704

Ай бұрын

How is it ironic? There is no inconsistency in wishing that people would advocate for good arguments whilst also responding to and debunking bad arguments. In fact, the latter would seem to be necessary in order to achieve the former. How can you get people to prefer good arguments over bad arguments without showing those people why the bad argument are bad arguments?

@KillmanPit

Ай бұрын

@@jackplumbridge2704 it's ironic because he does exactly what he complains about. Holy koolaid debunks ctrationist argument, weak, old, silly argument. Kam laughs at him because he doesn't address the refined philosophical one. But he himself debunks the simple, silly anti - ctrationist argument instead of refined, philosophical one. I agree. Combating bad arguments is good and important. Even old and repeatedly debunked. Kam does that. Holy koolaid also. He addresses very common creationist argument. Kam does exactly what he criticises. Hence irony.

@jackplumbridge2704

Ай бұрын

@@KillmanPit "Holy koolaid debunks ctrationist argument, weak, old, silly argument. Kam laughs at him because he doesn't address the refined philosophical one." - That isn't what happened. Holy Koolaid did indeed respond to the fine tuning argument, but because his understanding of the argument was so poor, he confused it with a completely different argument and ended up responding to two different arguments at the same time. He played multiple clips from Craig's short animated video about the fine tuning argument, which clearly shows he was trying to respond to that argument. So no, Cameron didn't do what Koolaid did. Cameron was correcting and exposing the errors in Koolaids poor attempt to debunk the fine tuning argument. So again I have to ask, what is ironic about Cameron's video? You seem to be claiming that responding to bad arguments is inherently ironic if you think people shouldn't be using bad arguments, which simply doesn't make any sense. Using bad arguments, and refuting bad arguments (or bad objections) are not the same thing. One is bad, the other is good. Bad arguments should be refuted and exposed for being bad arguments. In short, there is no irony between these two things: 1) People should not make bad arguments, and should not support bad arguments. 2) Bad arguments should be exposed as bad arguments. There is nothing ironic about believing those two things

56:41 There are two "possibilities" on the "creationist" (I do not like the word) perspective. Deism, which implies a "create and forget" is, that the creation is just set in motion and then things will just happen. Expecting a universe as the caricaturistic idea the Kool-Aid video shows could be like that. Solar systems popping with the right conditions here and there, and life popping here and there. (This is actually similar to a deterministic conception of the universe, but a deterministic-naturalistic point of view actually requires MUCH more fine tunning because it is an universe unzipping and installing life itself, and also installing you and me by default) But the fact that life is so specific, chemically (take a look at James Tour videos) that our Solar System is so specific, our place in the galaxy, our Earth and Moon, the materials present and the proportions of them, and innumerable conditions points us to a Theistic point of view. A creator that is "constantly present" giving "small touches" to our existence. A theistic concept of the universe is not only the most logical, it is also the most beautiful. 1:51:00 "Probability would be irrelevant". Well, on the contrary. The idiocy here is that instead of dividing his number to get 1 (1x10^24/1x10^24 = 1) in reality we would be multiplying that number 1x10^24x1x10^24 we are NOT on any of those unproven universes. We are in this one. That argument is saying that the conditions of for life in the universe are very slim, so slim that there are 1x10^24-1 universes that does not have us. Actually saying that our universe is... fine tunned.

Your god doesnt need to ..tune..he could make it so we breathe amonia..so the fine tuning argument diminishes its supposive power

Why is this even still a thing? *Do you have evidence a god caused fine tuning? No.* Well that's that: it's not reasonable to treat the topic as evidence of a god. Or more specifically: if you want to call it evidence of a god, it's also evidence of every other possible explanation (like leprechauns causing the fine tuning). And I agree that in the strict, technical sense it's evidence for both ideas. Just _ridiculously weak_ evidence of both.

All arguments are argument for deistic god. None of these are argument for Christian god

@MrSeedi76

Ай бұрын

Since there is only one God that's a useless point to make.

@pipMcDohl

Ай бұрын

@@MrSeedi76 /facepalm

@thadofalltrades

Ай бұрын

yes, but once you affirm a deistic God, getting to the Christian God is pretty easy. Almost none of the other gods make the claim they created the universe.

@Usman_K

Ай бұрын

​@@MrSeedi76You would still have to establish evidence for that.

@randomusername3873

Ай бұрын

​@@thadofalltradesno it's not The deistic God is neutral, the Christian one interfered with humanity for centuries before disappearing if not for some "personal relationship" with some christian and some miracles

The non optimal objection only works against general theism. Christianity specifically has a 2 creation model and the optimal universe is not here. We are in a 'very good' and not perfect universe. To rid us of evil for the new creation, the 2 creation model is necessary. Actually, most objections to fine tuning are weak against christian cosmology. They only really work when someone is ignorant of the specific scriptural passages about creation and their accurate contextual understanding. (As in not making scientific claims. Unless you are a concordist (?) Which is still a robust position)

(Christian here) I actually do not find the fine-tuning argument compelling, given our limited knowledge of what kind of life could exist in a universe governed by different physical laws. Perhaps the universe that exists is actually quite poor for sustaining life relative to what it could have been. Perhaps the laws that allow life to exist are inferior relative to other possible worlds.

@Mr_B_last

Ай бұрын

Cool take. I think your stance is reasonable. What do you think is the most compelling argument?

@theredboneking

Ай бұрын

No other Worlds other than Heaven. 1 Chronicles 16:30 - “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” Psalm 93:1 - "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” Psalm 96:10 - " The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved." Psalm 104:5 - “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.”

@Papa-dopoulos

Ай бұрын

I see what you’re getting at, and though I can’t deny it’s a possibility, I want to emphasize that if just the nuclear forces were off, we would have a universe that is constantly exploding and/or tearing itself apart lol. I hear this objection a lot, and again, I don’t think it’s terrible, but these alternative conditions are far, far less stable for any potential life than you may think.

@TheWhiteTrashPanda

Ай бұрын

I find it infinely more likely that no complex life exists anywhere else in our physical universe and that the entirety of said physical universe (and it's interconnectedness, which we are only beginning to scratch the surface of) is the framework necessary for complex life to exist on this planet. Take this fairly simple looking comment section, for example. The digital framework necessary for it to function as it does involves thousands, if not millions of lines of code, not to mention the physical servers, data cables and other hardware, or the millions upon millions of man-hours required to develop all this technology and build the infrastructure...

@josephtattum6365

Ай бұрын

@@Mr_B_last I think the argument from contingency is BY FAR the most compelling one.