Perhaps the most balanced agnostic POV on the topic I have seen on this channel to date. Excellent.

@haiderkhagga

Ай бұрын

Being happy to be ignorant than believing without evidence and that makes Freeman Dyson a true scientist.

@steve_____K307

Ай бұрын

Hi @haiderkhagga, I am guessing what you mean here is that everyone should be in honest pursuit of Truth following the evidence where it leads and without force-fitting the data to match some preconceived conclusion. People who rule out “design” in advance are as guilty as those that rule out “mindless chance” in advance. Follow the data where it leads.

@sujok-acupuncture9246

Ай бұрын

Freeman was really free in his views . His approach and views are fantastic.

@DJWESG1

Ай бұрын

​@stevekranz9826 desperate words from a desperate mind. Design suggests intelligence.. the universe is NOT, I repeat NOT intelligent. And for one simple reason, it produces life that thinks itself intelligent.

@thomasridley8675

Ай бұрын

If this universe is of intelligent design. The designer seems to be an idiot. This universe doesn't seem to be the cradle of life. 🙄 It's more like a prison. Everything out there wants to kill us off.

Absolutely fascinating. Your posts are always so informative and your probing questions create a wonderful atmosphere for profoundly insightful discussions that make me think about them long afterwards. Every post brings the most brilliant and interesting people in the world into my mind. Thank you.

The true nature of consciousness is the key to the question regarding the fine tuning of the universe. Since we are all conscious, the best way to know the nature of consciousness would be perhaps through meditation which allows us the opportunity to focus our attention on the functioning of pure consiousness within the mind. Due time this would fortify our awareness of the fact that we are all pure consciousness.

My notes... The fine-tuned Universe and God are intertwined. The present moment and participant (our participation) are inseparable. The observed and the observer are inseparable. Who is God? God encompasses all beings and everything, (it is you, me, us, everything). The meaning of the phrase 'I Am that I Am'. 'I Am' the one who is doing, dreaming and playing all of these. (the goal is to realize that we are part of a harmonious/holistic system of existence, and we/i/you are that) (understanding pain, suffering, obstacles, and challenges is essential because they are integral parts of existence. Just as we cannot appreciate light without darkness, we cannot grasp true enlightenment without acknowledging and embracing both aspects) Even there is a universe that is not finely-tuned, there is still God. However, God cannot participate/cannot manifest as physical or life forms because the universe lacks the refinement necessary for such processes. In this scenario, God can only observe from afar, beyond the imperfect universe. The not finely-tuned universe appears only as imagination, information, data, visualization, or as one of many possibilities, a tool for observation, a tool for awareness and cannot directly experience it due to the universe's lack of refinement to create physical manifestations or vessels. (the brain is merely a vessel to put the mind, and the mind to recieves the information, I am saying that the brain is simply a receiver, a tool, and an expression of the Divine/God/Logos/Word/Pure Consciousness. Or, should I say, 'the Word became a flesh') (we can describe the universe, which is not finely-tuned, as dormant or dead, serving merely as a tool for observing the countless possibilities it presents as information or data) If you seek to understand the Highest God. The Highest God is a whole and complete, limitless and eternal that is the Pure Consciousness the source and background of all possibilities, the one that hold and make a solid foundation of all possibilities/creations. 'We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual being (we are Pure Awareness of the Pure Consciousness) having a human experience.' Note: Pure Awareness can be interpreted as the Holy Spirit or Finely-Tuned Aligned Information, which serves as the solid foundation for the existence and appearance of physical reality, encompassing the laws, principles, and order of things. Note: if we don't understand each other, there may be a language barrier hindering the delivery of our message. However, I believe that the most effective way to convey our thoughts is through a philosophical approach. Philosophy transcends linguistic, religious, spiritual, scientific, psychological, etc boundaries, making it compatible with various styles of communication. Note: Incomplete and Experimental _________ Spirituality is for internal (inner) development and growth, while science is for external development and growth. In spirituality, you don't have to be religious; all you need to do is "Know Yourself". By knowing/understanding yourself, you will also comprehend the Universe and the concept of God. In science, if you disregard spirituality, you can't gain new insights or create and develop what we call science, technologies, medicines, etc. It comes from within before it becomes science; it stems from the mystics of the past, whom we now refer to in this generation as metahumans.

Truly, thank you for these videos.

This discussion seems to make an unimaginative assumption that only the type of life may be possible is what we know. If the properties of universe were different a different type of (what we would call) life could have come about.

@jackforeman2742

Ай бұрын

“What we would call”, also assumes that life can’t be understood to have some fixed meaning. Would you not say that life is what it is despite whatever we may call it? So, even if under a different set of parameters it’d have to have the same nature to be considered “life”

@kuyab9122

Ай бұрын

Having an unimaginative assumption outside of "what we know" is unscientific and Freeman Dyson does not want to engage that notion.

@SandipChitale

Ай бұрын

@@kuyab9122 It is a free country.

Nature, God, The Universe exists regardless of whether we believe it exists or not. How it works may never be completely or fully known or understood but we should keep trying through Science to get to the truth.

0:00: 🌌 Fine-tuned universe enables habitability through specific physical constants and properties essential for life. 2:36: 🌌 Exploring the concept of a singular versus multiple universes and their implications on the existence of life. 5:14: ⚖️ Importance of maintaining a clear distinction between science and other sources of knowledge. 7:44: 🤔 Debate on including traditional ways of knowing in scientific discussions and the dangers of scientific fundamentalism. 10:16: ⚔️ Importance of debates in education and harm of promoting dichotomous thinking between religion and science. Timestamps by Tammy AI

I often think about this subject and my idea is this. Life is very abundant in the universe and possibly even the multiverse but conditions are not about us as life just forms by chance and life adjusts to the conditions it’s found in.

Excellent.... thanks 🙏❤.

Great discussion. Physics can only explain one physical state in terms of other physical states. It cannot explain the arising of the initial physical state (hence, all physical states). Which is why the fine-tuning argument for a Creator has to be coupled with the argument from cause: the universe is not only improbably structured, it began. The alternative, to be sure, remains the various multiverse hypotheses. Which are unobservable, as Dyson says.

Outstanding!

We are find ourselves standing in a world full of choices. Where we hope to see something feigning beauty. In this place there was a silent whispering on the edge of cosmic consciousness. Where chaos and complexity segue into beams of light, and naturality branches infinitely.

Dyson is a treasure -- a brilliant yet humble scientist and thinker.

I like this conversation it's one of scientific discussions that promote truth. Science maybe a great tool but the complexity of the universe is big that it can not have all the answers or to completely crack the cosmos alone. Other human knowledge can also play their part since they've proven valid in their different applications.

I am afraid the critics tend to be philosophically driven and don't see the argument for what it is. It's rather clear that it points to a designed universe, which doesn't entail a religious God. But you know, even Einstein believed in a creator. Like every other genius, yeah...

2:43 or maybe we don"t have access to everything around us because of physical and sensory limitations...

Douglas Adams had a wonderful story about the puddle who found himself in a pothole, and the puddle was sure the hole had been made to perfectly fit him.

@Samsara_is_dukkha

Ай бұрын

Douglas Adams was great at writing nonsensical prose that made people laugh...

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

@@Samsara_is_dukkhaIt’s funny precisely because it does make sense. If it didn’t, it would just be weird and boring.

@Samsara_is_dukkha

Ай бұрын

42 makes sense? Why not 69.5? @@simonhibbs887

@mrshankerbillletmein491

Ай бұрын

The puddle does not think but nice try.

@Samsara_is_dukkha

Ай бұрын

If you think "42" makes sense as "the answer to the Universe", you need to have your head examined... it's funny precisely because it's nonsensical and absurd.@@simonhibbs887

If there is an infinite number of universes, it’s funny the kind of assumptions that are made about them; that any are tuned for life aside from ours, that other versions of ourselves exist in them (which is a logical absurdity), or that beings much more God like wouldn’t, or that flying spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns and fairies and such might not. All this to say, there is that which essentially is. The question is what is the nature of it?

does it indicate anything that the constants and laws of nature are expressed mathematically? how does mathematics fit into origination / ontology? and why does reality develop in mathematical way?

It leads to love.

@user-wx6pf2bc2r

Ай бұрын

It leads narcissism whims vains caprices megalomania self absorbment sadism etc...

@sven888

Ай бұрын

@@user-wx6pf2bc2rI am grateful you are here brother. Believe me. The world is a better place because of your presence. Blessings.

@waldwassermann

Ай бұрын

Bless you brother. Grateful you are here. @@user-wx6pf2bc2r

The thing is what would we consider godly most people don't speak of the fermament or anything to its real nature

I am always like to learn you both.

@dukeallen432

Ай бұрын

As long as you don’t believe in magic. Which one of these presenters contends could be true.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

Who are you to decide that? ​@@dukeallen432

Great mind

We call it fine tuning, but had something that can ponder the universe it’s in were to manifest in some otherwise tuned universe, it would eventually ask the same question. So there is no logical conclusion. It’s just a paradox. If a tree falls in the woods, etc.

A puddle can take on infinite shapes to fit any type of hole. It is certainly not clear that life itself can take on an infinite number of shapes or forms. It the puddle had been ice “ie only one shape” then if it found itself in a perfectly matched hole then I would say that indeed the hole was made for it. That’s the problem with this analogy.

Where are all those spheres?

Life is Eternal, it has always been in Balance, with It Self. The Eternal Life, is Name-Less in It's own Eternal Nature.

I don't think I will ever understand the notion of "accident". Isn't every accident the product of another accident? Is there an Accident Prime from which all accidents originate? The Big Oops?

Biologists understand Homo sapiens and its foibles. Purposelessness is very important. Buddha doesn’t say “there’s no God “, he says “it’s the wrong question “. The work that has to be done, to clarify and contain, to be ready, does not involve these questions. They should be rejected as they distract from the real work.

There are different types of creatures that thrive in different biomes, environments, conditions, climates etc. therefore we don't use the same laws of physics/biology/chemistry/etc. Their world is fine tuned for their survival so it's like customized. Science does a good job at answering questions and solving problems but that cannot be said about religion.

@msafit

16 күн бұрын

Thinking or believing that there is a creator, or prime mover, or source doesn’t have to be about religion or being religious. It’s about following logically the series of events that led us to this very moment. At some point, something or someone set this all in motion. Mankind has spent almost its entire existence arguing and studying and trying to figure out why and how we are here and who or what made it all. Science, religion, and philosophy are byproducts of our search for answers to it all.

I marvel at manufacturing plants that smart people built. Software engineers built amazing apps and now developing AI. Moreso on production lines that create computers from silicon. All these purposeful products and services that are fined-tune to fit their purpose are built by intelligence. If you're just stubborn, you'll argue to no end that something came from nothing. Information is not nothing, and information is only useful to concious beings

@craigwillms61

Ай бұрын

Seems so obvious, and yet really, really smart people argue that a need for God (or eternal intelligence) is unnecessary, let alone foolishness.

Please show me the proof that the constants of nature actually can be other than they are. What are the constraints on the possible values of the constants and how do you know what they are?

@willbrink

Ай бұрын

You need to research that one. There's many other vids on this channel that discuss it, and Google is your friend. It's a complex topic.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

Ай бұрын

@willbrink I have Googled it many times and watched many many videos. There are many cosmologists, physicists, etc, that agree with me.

@steve_____K307

Ай бұрын

Hi @user-gk9lg5sp4y, just a curiosity question here -- but do you have proof that the constants of nature had to be exactly as they are? You might find people divided on the topic, each taking a default speculative position, but there is, of course, only one actual Truth about the matter. Just because one camp can't show conclusive proof [yet], does not then give the nod to the opposing camp. I suspect you know this. Cheers. 🙂

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

Ай бұрын

@@steve_____K307Umm, do you understand how the burden of proof works? If you say that the constants can be any value and values we measure for them are the result of 'fine tuning' the burden of proving that assertion is on you. If I say we don't know what the possible constraints on the values of the constants are and have no idea why the values we measure for them are what they are I bear no such burden.

@steve_____K307

Ай бұрын

Hi@@user-gk9lg5sp4y, It’s about following the data where it leads and being open to drawing the best hypothesis along the way and not being hindered by unsupported presuppositions. I’ll ask you to Imagine if a future alien life form finds an abandoned Lunar Rover on our moon and after analyzing it determines that it is the result of “mindless chance”, and - with folded arms - places the burden of proof on those that speculate “design”. Wouldn’t that be utterly ridiculous? Would we say that was good science? Of course not. The honest pursuit of Truth follows the data where it leads.

What if Copernicus was wrong?

After trillions times trillions of universes, ours became stable enough to exist over time with a particular set of fundamental constants. After trillions times trillions of random trial and error, the basis for life persisted over time so that inherent evolution processes began working. If the constants had not been what they are, we would not be here to discuss them.

How refreshing! To see such an eminent scientist speaking against scientific fudamentalism in such a way. He is willing to openly admit that reductionist science might not be able to explain everything, and that some truths about the universe may only be accessible by other means. It seems to that this discussion cuts to the essence of what this channel is about.

👍👍👍

The Universe is what it is, & we are the slime mold that grows on it.

God is supposedly unscientific so let’s say we are here because of the multiverse, something impossible to prove or observe, got to love science.

Our universe WAS intelligently designed…by the Q Continuum. They inspired the writers of TNG to reveal themselves, so that we might know of them. What’s that? A ridiculous leap of logic based on a specific, manmade work? But it’s what I BELIEVE! You might think the implication of a designed universe is but one step to a specific deity or pantheon, but it’s an open-and-shut case to we Continuuists. The Q is the A, as in A-MEN!

Da Universe IS God,God IS da Universe,da Holy Spirit of da Bible being da energy of da Universe,there.....😮

@dukeallen432

Ай бұрын

Live in your self delusion. Many can’t.

@olivierdelyon8196

Ай бұрын

@@dukeallen432 Go for baptism bro,is cool.....🫡

@olivierdelyon8196

Ай бұрын

@@dukeallen432 Try baptism bro,is cool.....🫡

Sanest person ever interviewed by this man on this channel. ❤🙏

Well i have to agree with one point.... Speculation is always just a collection of possiblities. At least until we have persuasive evidence to say otherwise.

The cosmo is a type of mind and the mind is a type of cosmo, and we now have the symbolic tools to formalize those similarities and incorporate the image of the big Other as a symbol of the small Self. Memory, imagination, gravity and radiation behave in a choreographed fashion. There is music playing on the stars, and we should listen. Or else let’s play our hearts out so the stars can hear us.

If Penrose's CCC theory is correct, then it might be intelligence that's doing the fine tuning.

Does a fine-tuned universe lead to spaghetti monsters? 👹

@jackforeman2742

Ай бұрын

Multi-verse certainly could

Still say his vacuums are good, but overpriced. Except his Quantum vacuums.

Does a fine-tuned piano lead to Popeye ?

God could have made the ratio of e/m of the electron different in the 53,722,976,476,585,344,287,224,314,271,828th significant digit in order to remove childhood cancer.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

This further solidifies that your human biases blind you. The world leaders and scientific enterprise are largely made up of atheists and they are going to push the materialistic philosophy to its limits but the truth leads in another direction and child cancer is extraneous concerning this debate. Design doesn't entail a benevolent creator.

Comment on bringing up children as religious or atheists , SCIENCE comes Naturally to Curious children than "Religion" which is Imposed on them so. Science has proved to have more answers. Religion has brought Wars, Respectfully ❤

We are told that Fine tuning, 3 billion coded pairs of human DNA sequences, living molecular machines etc are just a result of mindless unguided random chance...

@HeavyMetal45

Ай бұрын

It’s science bro!!

@stephenlesliebrown5959

Ай бұрын

The laws of nature are mindless but not random 🙂

Fine tuning is an accident or a divine design, what will it be? Physicists cannot make their mind.

@stephenlesliebrown5959

Ай бұрын

Another choice is this: The universe is not finely tuned.

Wise person.

A fine tuned universe does lead to God's. Elohim. God is just a term used to describe something more superior than us.

To put religion on par with science is begging the question

A short comment please: Why is there life in our universe and trillions of other universes that are not fine tuned for life? Did God screw up? fjgiie

No.

If God created life, he also created life to die after a very short time span.

It leads to no deities.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

Greetings friend, don't let your biases blind you. See the world for what it is.

@CesarClouds

Ай бұрын

​@crabb9966 I do see it for what it is, hence, my statement.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

@@CesarClouds explain.

@CesarClouds

Ай бұрын

@@crabb9966 A deity wouldn't need to fine tune anything, it would use magic instead.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

@@CesarClouds I dismiss your opinion now, I think you are biased, embrace the truth friend, all love

Now, that's your choice if you choose to reduce science to mere particles and mathematics. That is not what science actually means, mind you. Science isn't defined as mathematics. Look into the etymology, yourself. God doesn't work the way the mind does, and little beliefs, warrents not merit for in your delimitation of the tool that is science - if in case you forgot: spirit, life, intellect, reason, and experience are fundamental and without such, there be no science; too, there be no observer nor the observable. Such persons in Dyson here, believes science is circumscribed to the sense perception organs strictly; displacing even the Intellect and Reason, such that, you now sully what is a true light of the Divine shining within man, in considering this akin to the animal nature and impulses of the corporeal organism. Such, in Dyson here, placing sense perception organs as criterion, feels that the Nous, mind, Spirit, the Divine unfoldment of light, should be brought down here to the sensual level, as opposed, to an anagogical ascent in Soul to the Divine. This is his opinion, because it's what he believes. And, is implausible. Perhaps science is now a term similar to the appellation that is God - concerning such: everybody has a different system, belief, idea, model, criterion of, and are based on ones bias, emotions, sentiments and experiences. And, all those people, with various beliefs and opinions, and are contradictory, are the very ones to be discarded in consideration by the true man of science, and such is the beginning road to real Wisdom and Knowledge and Self discovery! So very wonderful is it not! Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus; Vedanta, Nikayas, Vedas, Upanishads, the perennial philosophy, will always remain the Giants, and those who believe they are the big fish, unwiitingly, swim in the small pond. It's like the naked king out for a stroll. ah, yes...science without God, is no science at all, but a conceitful act in vainglory meriting contempt. 'Look how big you are: can build skylines and cars, etc. but, still cannot see the elephant in the room; therefore there is no elephant'. Wonderful! Absolutely wonderful! God is more real than anything. Imagine: money, cash, curreny, has actually no existential reality or attributes, other than the belief we all attach to it by our volition, and without knowing this! And everything of man's mind is akin to cash, which you all cleave to as if it is reality. You think cars exist? You think government exists? You think Jeffery epstein done himself in? The politicians are for the peoples, animals, natures, best interests? You think your "idea" of "science" is in fact existential and of reality? These guys are claiming to know what "science" is but it's a figment of the imagination! I better stop, before i make the world collapse into a black hole.

@tomjackson7755

Ай бұрын

Didn't you learn in your books of wisdom that etymology has nothing to do with the meaning of a word? That is actually a fallacy. SMH

@tomjackson7755

Ай бұрын

@@halcyon2864 You really shouldn't talk about that as you do the same thing with several accounts.

@tomjackson7755

Ай бұрын

@@halcyon2864 Oh there is a difference. He thinks he is quite the philosopher and they love to hear themselves talk(or read what they write in this case). Pity you aren't able to see how similar you are. Take the second part of your sentence there. He posts a comment saying basically the same thing at least once a week. You said it in 14 words and he uses more than a 100. Maybe all it needs is a discerning and more refined mind than yours to see the obvious. How many accounts do you troll this channel with? 3 or 4, did I miss some?

No, the "fine-tuning" of universal constants does not in any way point to "God". The proposition has a similar contradiction as "intelligent design". If human life requires "fine-tuning", would not a living, intelligent "God" also require "fine-tuning" for its own existence? The universe is practically screaming at you, "I am random!" Infinite randomness not only could but would create everything that you now see, and infinite other things that you will never see. The "fine-tuning" of universal constants is pointing to the correctness of the "multiverse" theory,

Incoherent arguments, what is it mean to be scientifically fundamentalist ? the whole scientific process is based on doubt, the religious process on absolute truth !! Fine tuning is really the ultimate god of the gaps move!!

@steve_____K307

Ай бұрын

Hi @samnavona, I am guessing what you mean here is that everyone should be in honest pursuit of Truth following the evidence where it leads and without force-fitting the data to match some preconceived conclusion. People who rule out “design” in advance are as guilty as those that rule out “mindless chance” in advance. Follow the data where it leads.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

If only religious people who claim the truth didn’t claim so many different incompatible truths.

@samnavona

Ай бұрын

@@steve_____K307 the big difference between the two is , the religious method and its conclusion are very specific to a very specific personal god , the scientific method never made such a certain claim of “mindless chance” .its very simple The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

@steve_____K307

Ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887Yes, as you know, the various world religions all represent God (and humanity) in non-reconcilable ways. As so many people point out, most of the world's religions are [necessarily] a man-made deception given the 100% certainty that they cannot all be true simultaneously. Is it possibly none of them are? We must all acknowledge that the Truth of God’s existence (however it might turn out) is one thing, but the Truth of any particular world religion is quite another.

@steve_____K307

Ай бұрын

@@samnavonaI will repeat what I said "Everyone should be in honest pursuit of Truth following the evidence where it leads and without force-fitting the data to match some preconceived conclusion. People who rule out “design” in advance are as guilty as those that rule out “mindless chance” in advance. Follow the data where it leads." It might well turn out that 100% of the world's religions are a man-made deception and yet it could also turn out that "design" is an aspect of the Truth we are pursuing; or maybe not. The existence of bad religion(s) does not lead to a conclusion for "mindless chance".

Yes, see the universe constants. With a tiny little difference the universe would have failed to exist. This is why they invented the multiverse, a weak theory.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Ай бұрын

*"This is why they invented the multiverse, a weak theory."* ... In beer terms, The Multiverse is like "God Lite," ... _all the power and ubiquity of an almighty God, but without the deity!_

The answer is that it’s more probably true than not.

@haiderkhagga

Ай бұрын

OK. Then next q would be, who created the creator?

@MrCool1948

Ай бұрын

@@haiderkhagga actually creator is not a creation. Creator is a subtlest conscious energy. And energy can’t be created snd cant be destroyed.

@PeterS123101

Ай бұрын

If time does not exist outside the universe, there is no beginning or end and therefore a creator does not need to be created.

@heartfeltteaching

Ай бұрын

@@haiderkhagga Please tell us you’re not being serious asking this 8-year-old’s question 😆

@dukeallen432

Ай бұрын

……….so probability of virgin birth?

"Does Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?" Fine-tuned Universe would be impossible without a Fine-Tuner.. if you disagree, you may need a surgeon to overhaul your brain... ..however, it is not accurate to say it leads to God but, rather, it leads to FAITH in the existence of a Loving GOD who is unknown.. Furthermore, this Universe was magnificently fine-tuned with imperfections for us to understand what is bad, good, better, or best, ugly or beautiful, so for us to have a hint that there is better or worse place out there (heaven & hell) to hopefully find faith in God. So, focus more on your soul's fate because it is your immortal soul that survives when your temporary physical body dies and rots because natural calamities, diseases, or all sufferings you undergo in this Universe can NEVER destroy you immortal soul... only losing faith or without faith in a loving God can hurt your soul... Once again, the purpose of the creation of Physical Universe is for lost souls, who fell from Heaven, to have a temporary home for a chance of salvation through regaining faith in a loving God. Our lost souls were sent here (on our request) so to have a chance of salvation by regaining the faith that we lost that ended us all in hell - a state of cold dark nothingness...We lost Heaven because we lost faith, so only by regaining this faith that we can return Home. ... In other words, we were not sent here to know but to believe because knowledge can compromise your free will to believe, so, evidence or proof is not required to have faith so for us all to be welcomed back to Heaven which is our Original Home. This is the MAIN PURPOSE of our temporary physical existence.. I do not know this. This is my understanding of the light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith. Believe it or not, you are free to choose. Pls share this light to all if you believe. This may resolve religious differences to possibly unite as one religion of faith in a loving God.

@madmax2976

Ай бұрын

Incorrect. Our universe was fine-tuned by an immortal computer science student in a different dimension. Reality as we know it is just a simulation on the computer in her closet. She doesn't want our worship, doesn't care what we believe and doesn't love or hate us, she just forgot to delete the program. At some point she may come back and flip the switch, wiping us out of existence. And as odd as that idea may be, it's as good as any of the other ideas in the attempt to explain the universe we observe.

@evaadam3635

Ай бұрын

@@madmax2976 your idea can make you hurt others including hurting yourself, feeling no accountability because simulation is to blame... this may lead to tragic ends... ...having faith in a loving God is a better idea that can inspire you to love and care for all His children to live in genuine peace and happiness... and, finally, for your soul to return to Heaven with God's grace...

@madmax2976

Ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 Nope, the simulation guarantees that accountability is important and codes for just that. It also codes for advocating love, peace and happiness while not interfering with the free will of others to do bad. I don't know how this is done, but I can live with the mystery. These were all stipulations that were laid out as part of the students research - otherwise her experiment would have been disqualified. Obviously, as with theists, I'm not required to demonstrate any of this is true, all I need to do is declare that it is. As for an afterlife, it's possible we could be transferred to another simulation, one devoid of any evil, but it's not clear yet. Simulated beings like ourselves are effectively immortal if the student wants us to be - despite the appearance of people dying within the simulation - but in reality the coding that makes us "us" doesn't truly die so she has options. It's possible she might even intervene one day and ask everyone what they'd prefer.

@evaadam3635

Ай бұрын

@@madmax2976 simulation guarantees that you are an UNACCOUNTABLE ROBOT, not free, just driven by codes you are programmed with... ..so, be honest at least.. this is what your Godless kind want so that you can do anything you desire regardless who gets hurt because computer program is to blame... ..but the truth is, you know you are not a robot... you know you can freely choose.... you just made up some justification for feeling UNACCOUNTABLE that may send your immortal soul to hell...

@craigwillms61

Ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 I'm with you on this one...

No. Next question.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

Ай бұрын

​@TyrellWellickEcorp there is no proof whatsoever that finetuning even exists. We actually have no idea what the constraints on the constants might be. They may have to be what they are. We do not know.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

Ай бұрын

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Well I'm not going to call you out for appealing to authority, because there are many many cosmologists, physicists, etc. Who agree with me and disagree with you.

@TyrellWellickEcorp

Ай бұрын

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Name one 😂

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

Ай бұрын

@@TyrellWellickEcorp OK Sparky 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@abcdefg91111

Ай бұрын

​@@TyrellWellickEcorpyet, the ones who accept the evidence do the same.

Yes, absolutely! A finely tuned universe leads to God in the same way that _not_ being able to accurately predict the position of a particle leads to a Multiverse. Both are consciousness-driven conclusions based on a *lack of information* paired with the *power of conceivability* In the case of God, if the universe appears in any way "orchestrated" (no matter how small), and the reason for this is orchestration remains unknown, then consciousness necessarily expands the source of that orchestration to the level of an infinite God. ... This is where you ultimately end up because anything beyond an infinite God would be inconceivable. Likewise, if we can't accurately predict the position of a particle and the reason for why we can't remains unknown, then consciousness necessarily kicks in and expands the position of the particle to every position it could possibly be in, which results in a Multiverse. ... This is where you ultimately end up because anything beyond an infinite Multiverse would be inconceivable. ... One day we will realize this and start rethinking how "Existence" operates.

Rubbish. It’s all rocks on fire

The fine-tuning argument is the argument for the existence of God that states the universe seems designed. Atheism is the idea that the universe was not designed by an intelligent entity, therefore it is the result of arbitrary randomness. Atheism is the idea that the universe is eternal, which is impossible. Atheism is not knowing, not wanting to know and wanting to make others believe it is not possible to know. An example of the fine-tuning argument could be water that boils at 100 degrees and freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. Do you think the neat numbers are a coincidence? Are 0 and 100 random? Bear in mind there are infinite numbers and for example water could have boiled at 116 and freezed at 1.7 or any other two odd numbers. Can you think of any other features of the universe that points to the universe being designed? You don't have to believe in God because God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator. What has a beginning of existence must be created from what is eternal. What has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Nothing is absence of existence, nothing is what innocent and vulnerable children understand by nothing. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes and effects, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that caused what has a beginning of existence must exist. God is the first uncaused cause that is not talked about in churches, mosques, synagogues and atheist platforms, that's all!. God decided to create the universe uncaused. I think God is literally everything that exist past present and future, do you like God?. To end the war and other undesirable suffering the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Emergency! Share to collaborate. Thank you.

Oh sure. Why not? It just isn't the Jews' god.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

Ай бұрын

Whose god, then? Who is your favorite god or mixture of gods?

@werefeat0356

Ай бұрын

@@CosmoPhiloPharmacoIt's not a "Who" for starters. That's why the Islamics freak out when someone puts out a face on Muhammad. And why they are against idolatry. Look at the patterns on their carpets. Same for the Hindus. Incomprehensible, eternal relationships, not people. There's a movie called "Mindwalk" if you wish.

NO, grow up....

@steve_____K307

Ай бұрын

Hi @windowman929, I am guessing what you mean here is that everyone should be in honest pursuit of Truth following the evidence where it leads and without force-fitting the data to match some preconceived conclusion. People who rule out “design” in advance are as guilty as those that rule out “mindless chance” in advance. Follow the data where it leads.

Brothers & Susters: please read Quran

@nickboi9740

Ай бұрын

no. believe in nothing

@A.--.

Ай бұрын

@@nickboi9740 how can nothing create such a miraculous universe and life? Will nothing hold us accountable for bad actions or did Hitler get away with it? Will nothing reward the good? Then why be good? How will society prosper with such a belief in nothing? Love you my brother in humanity, please read Quran.

@samnavona

Ай бұрын

Yup read the quran to know how mohamed stole his son’s “adopted “ wife than made adoption “haram” forbidden, you laughing stock of human civilization 😂

@dr_shrinker

Ай бұрын

@@A.--.the universe was not created. It is infinite.

@A.--.

Ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker was the Singularity not its origin?

Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God? No, but Islam does.

@PeterS123101

Ай бұрын

Not to a very loving god.

@rizwanrafeek3811

Ай бұрын

@@PeterS123101 _"Not to a very loving god. "_ Because your Christians' 'god' needed human blood and manslaughter for mercy, forgiveness and salvation? In Islam, God forgives those who turn to Him, it has been repeated 216 times, that God forgives those who turn to HIM..

@S3RAVA3LM

Ай бұрын

​@@rizwanrafeek3811 Allah spoke now to me this: only a fool hinders more people than they do attract, and such ignoramus have no authority concerning the matter, but a pompous and conceitful vainglory, and would do greater good by precluding themselves altogether, until they first become conversant in Wisdom which is the essence of Allah. Allah words. Peace be to all.

@rizwanrafeek3811

Ай бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM _"Allah spoke now to me this "_ In the current state you are in Allah would not speak to you for surety, because I see no humility in you, just for a record, Allah is unlike your Hindus deities.

@rizwanrafeek3811

Ай бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM c1) _"only a fool hinders more people than they do attract, and such ignoramus have no authority concerning the matter, but a pompous and conceitful vainglory, and would do greater good by precluding themselves altogether, "_ When humility is gone from people, then people would behave in the way you have described at line c1.