0:00 to 0:05. You said it buddy!

@minetime6881

3 жыл бұрын

After a year, they never fixed it ha

@supersmart671

2 жыл бұрын

Wow...

@iliyakuryakin4671

11 ай бұрын

This video has not been fine tuned.

Can the first 5 seconds be fine tuned?

@justinthillens2853

4 жыл бұрын

XD

@vijayjpeter

2 жыл бұрын

😂

@JudoMateo

Жыл бұрын

That’s the kind of results to be expected by random chance.

@jaimegolven8471

11 ай бұрын

Haha

@marujob6619

9 ай бұрын

😂😂

“I don’t like it, but it’s possible”-Sir Roger Penrose. Mere mortals: “Whoa.”

Not really a conversation. One thinks he knows, the other admits he doesn't know. One thing is clear, if Roger Penrose doesn't know, nobody does.

@ellyam991

Ай бұрын

It's because Craig is trying to make claims about extremely difficult subjects by using philosophy, which has been proven to not be that useful in the case of the extreme physical conditions of our universe. Penrose on the other hand has studied the subject and understands the disagreement and difficulties present, rather than trying to overstep his case and arrive at his favorite conclusion

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

I love Penrose's work but I don't think you should fall pray to this way of thinking. Idolatry I guess? If Newton and Maxwell disagreed, what are we to do?

@CupOfSweetTea

Ай бұрын

@@crabb9966 what does fall prey to a way of thinking mean?

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

@@CupOfSweetTea simplistic idolatry. Penrose said it, therefore it must be so! I am not disputing any argument, I think Penrose is quite lucid and very right even pertaining this issue, which doesn't mean he is right about everything.

@CupOfSweetTea

Ай бұрын

@@crabb9966 ok. Well I'm not sure I understand your question about Newton and Maxwell. In a way they did disagree. But both Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations are perfectly valid, even if entirely wrong. The only thing in science with caring about is validity, since correct cannot be demonstrated.

Congratulations to Mr. Penrose for winning the 2020 Nobel Prize!

@jmike2039

2 жыл бұрын

Crazy what happens when you don't invoke magic into your exploration of reality

@Nameless-pt6oj

2 жыл бұрын

Over 60% of Nobel Prize winners in the 20th Century were Christians, and 90% believed in God. And don’t presuppose like you did in your comment.

@infinitrixtv5847

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nameless-pt6oj Exactly my friend.

@bryant475

Жыл бұрын

@@jmike2039 Please check out Dr. Hugh Ross, he's an astrophysicist and ex-atheist, who realized that God exists precisely because of the scientific evidence. After that, he analyzed the holy books and saw that the bible is the only one that accurately describes the chronology of the early Universe/Earth, etc. (17/17 of the criteria). The others didn't even come close. Then he looked into the evidence for the bible, Jesus, etc. Other ones to look into are Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They all have videos on here, sites, and books. I pray that you look into all of this and come to the Truth one day, God bless!

Fine tuning is for those of us who arnt capable of not having an explanation for our own existence. "I don't know" is the most intellectually honest interpretation of what facts we have to observe, opposed to the arrogance of presupposing a supernatural explanation of the missing pieces to our existential puzzle.

@fallen1world294

4 жыл бұрын

That's not even remotely intellectually appealing on any scale. You're just fundamentally excusing facts with existential nonsense. What happened to the "let's stick to the science" crowd? Changing course when it doesn't go their way lol. When something is scary, it's easier to pretend it isn't happening, I know, but you can't rely on it forever.

@justinthillens2853

4 жыл бұрын

@@fallen1world294 whether it's appealing or not is irrelevant in the context of a claim that has no evidence to support itself

@justinthillens2853

3 жыл бұрын

@Déjà Siku I'm sorry. There's definitely a heaven and hell that exist and the good creator chose to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could create a loophole for rules that he created because he created us to be predisposed to breaking them and we are damned to eternal conscious torture from the start.... because he loves us.... unconditionally..... Oh, and this is all obviously proved because the universe is so complex that I can't think of any other way it could exist.

@MrFossil367ab45gfyth

Жыл бұрын

You can't just assert something is supernatural or not if we don't know. Maybe in the future as science advances we'll find an answer. But the supernatural can be an answer, if so I don't know how you'll prove or disprove it.

@justinthillens2853

Жыл бұрын

@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth I never asserted any claim either way, that's the key difference that I'm trying to expose, but I have to add that the fact that it hasn't been disproved doesn't make it true or even possible. Again, the only intellectually honest opinion regarding a truth claim that we have no means to validate is "I don't know". That doesn't mean you can't have faith in Christianity, it just means you can't assert claims that are contingent upon that faith. Every claim is contingent upon an application of epistemological standards relative to itself.

I love how this is a discussion and not an argument.

3:47 A conscious being imagining that there could be conscious beings. Then finding it hard to.

So who fine-tuned the fine-tuner?

@ATOK_

2 ай бұрын

Exactly

@tannerlink566

Ай бұрын

That question presupposes that the fine-tuner is subject to the laws of physics and time that it would have created.

@WurstelFestchen

7 күн бұрын

​@@tannerlink566Didn't it give what information it already contained and by transfer, combination and transformation rearranged it to create time? You know, just in the way logic itself works?

The look on Penrose's face @0:45 LOL

The framing of the question is loaded. "Is the universe fine-tuned for life?" It assumes that life is the purpose of fine-tuning! How do you justify going any further than "the universe is fine-tuned for matter/mass?" Anything beyond that is cherry picked to make an argument for your favorite pet theory. "The universe is fine-tuned for smart phones. The universe is fine-tuned for bee hives. The universe is fine-tuned for volcanoes." Come on. This apologetic argument is BS.

@nero2814

3 жыл бұрын

it was also fined tuned for dinasorse. now its not anymore. this theory is only how humans are ignorant. theist belive like we are at the center of everything. like in ancient times they believed everything revolve around us, god gave us the earth and control over all animals etc. this human centric notion led to believe that universe is meant for us. seriously, the observable universe is 93 billion light year in diameter and somehow they believe that we, who live in a dust particle of this cosmic landfill and somehow we feel like everything is meant for us humans. such arrogance.

@turksungerbob728

3 жыл бұрын

The universe is more like fine tuned for black holes given their prevelance in the universe.

@turksungerbob728

3 жыл бұрын

@ben henault when asking that last question of yours, we should try to find a plausible, natural explanation instead of throwing up our hands in the air and saying goddidit. And no, when talking about fine tuning, apologists reference life as the final and most important product as a result of the constants being fine tuned.

@shilohplatt789

3 жыл бұрын

@@turksungerbob728 The problem is...you still have fine-tuning. It is ignorant to say that it is a bad "argument" because theists use it. Theists are not the ignorant people here but Atheists are because they do not want to see the clear cosmological constants which are extremely fine tuned. Also, how do you wanna get an explaination for "Ex Nihilo"? There is none. Deal with it.

@turksungerbob728

3 жыл бұрын

@@shilohplatt789 how much straw must you have to make such a comment?

"As long as there's a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that Christianity is true, it's worth believing" - Dr. William Lane Craig(low bar Bill)

@elijahhope4581

4 ай бұрын

As long as there's a 1 in a 1 with more zeros than atoms in the universe chance then Atheism is worth adhering too. -Too many atheist and agnostics ("anything but God" atheist world wide)

@thedude0000

4 ай бұрын

@@elijahhope4581 Except @dane947's example is real and yours is made up.

@Seticzech

3 ай бұрын

@@thedude0000 What is the diferrence between "real" and "made up" examples? 😄

@thedude0000

3 ай бұрын

@@Seticzech_What is the diferrence between "real" and "made up" examples?_ Do you apply this reasoning to Bible?

@dane947

3 ай бұрын

@@user-lb3lo2vu9b WRONG! Keeping dreaming though. Bill Craig became a Christian on an "appeal to emotion". Then went on to become Dr. William Lane Craig through higher education, so he could become an "appeal to authority" to Christian's earning his living off Jesus. Facts. The man literally laughs at Genesis 1 - 11 and calls it Mytho-History. There's is no out of context going on.

This video shows the Dunning-Kruger Effect perfectly. One side, there is a physics and mathematics professor(who is a master of his fields) tells you that "we have still limited information about universe" and the other side, a philosopher tells him that he's denying the truth. Its just funny to watch it.

@djkostya76

5 ай бұрын

I guess if you claim that you don’t know all, then why having statements ? Just be a “don’t know” , that would be honest.

@JM-jj3eg

5 ай бұрын

Of course, we know very little about the Universe. But that's no excuse to deny what we know.

@elijahhope4581

4 ай бұрын

um no. ...physics and mathematics professor says "we have still limited information about universe" other side, a philosopher replies, yes, But, BASE ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE the best conclusion to draw is... I'm Not sure why folks feel they seem compelled to misrepresent and negatively frame people's POV they don't like.

@therick363

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@elijahhope4581the best conclusion to draw is a natural one

@elijahhope4581

3 ай бұрын

​@@therick363 Not based on the evidence available. "Naturally" it seems IMPOSSIBLE. Penrose says "we have limited info" But the info we DO have says that Naturally it's IMPOSSIBLE for: 1. everything to come from nothing. 2. the LAYERS of complex ORDER we see at the macro & micro levels to ARISE/EVOLE spontaneously from chaos/explosion/bang/. the level of ORDER & COMPLEXITY we OBSERVE is Unnatural. there's no experimental or observed cause for the layers of order.

Even if it’s highly improbable the universe permits life, theist claim god exist outside of spacetime, so maybe our conscious experience existing outside of spacetime could have also happened but it just didn’t, and we happened to land in this particular version of sentience

@nathanielsardhan6161

2 жыл бұрын

Strawman fallacy

@nicknolder7042

2 жыл бұрын

@@nathanielsardhan6161point taken, but my argument at least shows that it’s not likely god exist outside of space time, but I guess this particular argument doesn’t refute god existing inside space time.

@ikhlashasib8256

Жыл бұрын

@@nicknolder7042 How can God be bound by his own creation it makes no sense

@123duelist

Жыл бұрын

But if its theorized that God does exist outside of space-time and we landed here inside of it, how do know that what happens after death won't be outside of space-time? How do you know there will not be life after death?

@bryant475

Жыл бұрын

Please check out Dr. Hugh Ross, he's an astrophysicist and ex-atheist, who realized that God exists precisely because of the scientific evidence. After that, he analyzed the holy books and saw that the bible is the only one that accurately describes the chronology of the early Universe/Earth, etc. (17/17 of the criteria). The others didn't even come close. Then he looked into the evidence for the bible, Jesus, etc. Other ones to look into are Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They all have videos on here, sites, and books. I pray that you look into all of this and come to the Truth one day, God bless!

Sir Roger is brilliant

Possibility is bad framing in science because them anything can happen anywhere, anytime , it doesn't give us much It's such a bad framing outside of a dream although I wouldn't say it's useless because dreams make new things possible But when having Philosophical and Scientific conversations on specific topics, probability is the framing I'd use

Even if the universe was slightly altered, whose to say another type of life could not flourish in those circumstances?

@drtak4512

3 жыл бұрын

It wouldn't be a universe at all.

@bemusedatheist5706

3 жыл бұрын

@@drtak4512 How do you know?

@drtak4512

3 жыл бұрын

@@bemusedatheist5706 it's either the universe would be blown away, or collapse on it self.

@bemusedatheist5706

3 жыл бұрын

@@drtak4512 How do you know?

@drtak4512

3 жыл бұрын

@@bemusedatheist5706 Go read some books and you will know. And do it for the sake of finding truth not for adversity ans stuborness.

Saying the universe is fine tuned for life is like looking at the waste by products created by a factory and saying the factory must have been disigned to creat these waste products. If this universe was created for some reason by an intelligent mind, not necessarily a God, then all the evidence suggests life is an unintended by product of whatever reason the universe was created for.

@cammgo8862

2 жыл бұрын

Man, do you realize that the definition of God is literally: an intelligent mind that creates things? ._., every intelligent force that the human postulates as the creator of the universe inevitably it has to be God, the only way that there is no God is that this universe has existed forever or that it has been created with some process that we still do not know, but to appeal to the latter one would be to appeal to a fallacy ad ignorantiam.

@anaccount8474

2 жыл бұрын

@@cammgo8862 what a load of bollocks

@ikhlashasib8256

Жыл бұрын

@@anaccount8474 still you have no answer to what created the universe you're chatting bollocks

@scienceexplains302

11 ай бұрын

@@cammgo8862 That is not anyone’s definition of a god, afaik. And it doesn’t matter whether you define something to match your story. You still need a logical connection. Fine-tuning doesn’t do it. For one thing, it would imply an infinite regression of previous gods fine-tuning the next god. For another, as An Account alluded to, looking at the universe as a whole, it’s purpose is clearly not life. If anything, it is to produce black holes.

On the assumption that the fine tuning argument does prove the existence of God, so which God is it? Is it a fallacy or is it sound reasonableness to go from fine tuning argument to 'my holy book and doctrines have been vindicated'? What is the name of that fallacy---assuming it is one? While we are at it, what is the name of the fallacy where the reasoning goes 'I can get to my favored conclusion fallaciously and that is enough to invalidate any argument others may offer' ?

My car's license plate reads 187KNV: the odds of that happening by chance is astronomically unlikely, as there are ten Arabic numerals (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and 26 Greek/Roman letters. My license plate therefore shows that the Motor Vehicle Department is God.

@sgusjsk

Ай бұрын

Thank you for letting me know your license plate haha I am just kidding. You do raise an interesting point. My only concern with it that would be based on randomly forming numbers for no other purpose then to identify the car. However, the fine tuning of the universe deals with gravitational, strong interaction and weak interaction forces being at an exact specific number otherwise life could not function or exist as it does even if it were moved by a decimal amount. The probability of all these coinciding together at the same time I am not sure what that probability would be. I also think that our reality is so fragile. That even the slightest changes to our biology or chemistry would be catastrophic. Neil degrasse Tyson I watched a video of his where he said of the earth stopped rotating everyone would fly eastwards at a 180mph. That even things like the human chromosome if even one chromosome was missing could lead to something called the turner effect as well as other issues. So life seems perfectly balanced. I know they say there maybe multiverses which we have not physically seen yet. Richard Dawkins himself said in an interview that he thought this was a good argument for God as opposed to the moral argument. He said at most he could be a theist but not necessarily a Christian because he doesn't see the connection between Jesus dying on the cross and the existence of our know universe....I know I wrote a lot but it is definitely worth watching. I will show you the link as well.

@Desertphile

Ай бұрын

@@sgusjsk ; "The probability of all these coinciding together at the same time I am not sure what that probability would be. " The probability is 1.

The universe is not fine tuned for life. It's possible that some planets can be more appropriate for life than most of the planets in the entire universe. And life on those planets doesn't have to be as life on earth. Gravity for example doesn't have to be exactly as ours. If the universe were fine tuned for life there would be life on most planets in it. And thinking that the universe is fined tuned for life on earth is stupid --it wouldn't need to be as ridiculously immense as it is.

@rockprime1136

11 ай бұрын

Why shouldn't the universe be immense? In order for the elements heavier than hydrogen to form, stars must exist for billions of years so their cores will produce the elements necessary for life. Because all these stars have mass therefore gravity the universe must expand otherwise all matter will collapse in on itself. The expansion must be just right. Too strong, no gravitational interaction, no stars. Too weak, universal singularity. By the time enough of these elements are produced, the universe has expanded to a ridiculously large size.

@WeiWenqing

6 ай бұрын

Explain why most of universe has no life if fine tuning true @@rockprime1136

Hugh Ross does a great job explaining this "fine tuning" phenomenon.

@adastra123

4 жыл бұрын

He does , I was only listening to him today.

@travislee3372

4 жыл бұрын

Hugh Ross is one of the best at fine-tuning.. I think the argument comes better from a scientist than a philosopher

@jasonstclair1329

4 жыл бұрын

Huge loss still has away to go , close but millions of years off

@MartTLS

4 жыл бұрын

Fine tuning is a fallacy.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@MartTLS What is your explanation for our universe?

What fascinates me often is that those who have greater depth of knowledge tends to prefer not to jump to a convenient or preferred conclusion. Apologists however would squeeze a square peg into a round hole when given half the chance.

@samo4003

4 жыл бұрын

@Paul Cox Yeah, if you rule out the possibility of life being an emergent phenomenon.

@samo4003

4 жыл бұрын

@Paul Cox Do you have any evidence that a Creator Being exists?

@samo4003

4 жыл бұрын

@Paul Cox LOL! Emergent phenomenon is pseudo science. Your joking right? Do you know that water is an emergent phenomenon? You don't know do you? You are behaving exactly as I have mentioned previously, namely, that apologists, when given half the chance, will squeeze a square peg into a round hole, even if the chance is in reality non-existing.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Sam: What is your cosmology? How did our universe come into existence?

@samo4003

4 жыл бұрын

@Paul Cox Why not? Emergence is part of the mechanism used by nature for increasing complexity. What reason do have to support your argument that life is not an emergent phenomenon? That life cannot come to non-life? If so, you are going round in circles.

Spinoza and Einstein saw all that existed as god. Spinoza was removed from his congregation for this view. It may not be contradictory. The idea of being something does not mean that existence depends on being that something as being that something does not limit or define the being itself. It is not limited by anything.

How’s this for a teleological argument: 1. It is improbable that things without a mind behind them to create oder 2. The universe has oder 3. It is improbable that the universe does not have a mind behind it Or maybe: 1. It is improbable for random accidents to create oder 2. The universe has oder 3. It is improbable the universe is a random accident

@MihaiManuta

3 жыл бұрын

Look at crystals (in general) or snowflakes and then rethink that.

@minetime6881

3 жыл бұрын

@@MihaiManuta I am not saying the cloud has a mind, I am saying that in oder for a cloud that can create oder to exist, it is more probable that there must be a mind behind it - even if it is far behind it. I think the snowflake was made by the cloud which was made by the evaporation of water which formed on the surface of the earth billions of years ago and the earth came from a big cloud which came from the Big Bang which came from God. So I believe it is improbable the snowflake does not have a mind behind it.

Even more than the gross imbalance in understanding, there's a radical difference between the protagonists here. One has no agenda other than to discover the truth; the other, someone who is determined to allow only one conclusion.

@nyscholartist

Жыл бұрын

Yes discover the truth by saying ‘I don’t like it’ 😂

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things? Lo, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Surely, He encompasses all things. Quran 41:53-54

I think the base of their argument centers around is God a part of the universe or entirely separate. Same as the base of various religions, Eastern or Western in particular. Perhaps Craig needs to see that he hasn't lost God by having him be a part of the universe - the bible says one God and Father of all, who is over all, in all, and living through all. You can find him apart from creation as well as in.

@Fundamental_Islam.

Жыл бұрын

Even Hindu scripture says; Whatever being (and objects) that are pure, active and inert, know that they proceed from Me. They are in Me, yet I am not in them. Deluded by these Natures (states or things) composed of the three qualities of Nature, world does not know Me as distinct from them and immutable. [Bhagavad Gita 7:12-13] The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent nature. I am not manifest to all (as I am), being veiled by the Yoga Maya. This deluded world does not know Me, the unborn and imperishable. [Bhagavad Gita 7:24-25]

@russellhenckel2887

Жыл бұрын

He is in all in the sense of His omnipresence. But He exists outside of His creation. For Him to create the universe, He must exist before that creation came to be and therefore, outside of it. It doesn’t follow logically that a part of creation can create itself. The verse you quoted is speaking of an attribute of God, His omnipresence

@Fundamental_Islam.

Жыл бұрын

@@russellhenckel2887 true. Don’t know why ppl can’t grasp such a common sense thing, making religion so complicated

Justin have a debate with TJump his Naturalistic Pantheism negates fine tuning and refutes your best argument.

@anticalvinist4803

4 жыл бұрын

Why should anyone embrace "naturalistic pantheism" (whatever that is?). Does Jump have any evidence for his speculation?

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

That guy is an absolute idiot. He may as well call naturalistic pantheism a green cow. He keeps referring to some definition, which if read, makes no sense.

@pauljames8958

4 жыл бұрын

"Many pantheists argue that physical conceptions are adequate to explain the entire cosmos. ..... This is also a form of pantheism popular today-often termed, scientific or naturalistic pantheism. Such worldviews make no ontological commitments beyond those sanctioned by empirical science." Mander, William, "Pantheism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

pauljames So this naturalistic pantheism has causal power, yet it had an abstract existence without intention.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@pauljames8958 Why should I care what "many pantheists argue"? I don't hear an argument. Can you articulate an argument?

All this is interesting to listen to but we will all find out soon enough when we die. I would like to put my money on existence of God who created earth and life, and able to perform miracles, and give me eternal salvation. On the other hand, if I don't believe in any of this, I will either end up a rotting corpse under ground, or in hell with rest of those who deny existence of God. It is a no brainer to me which one I choose to believe.

pls let me know if I hear this correctly: Penrose's argument against fine tuning is Science Fiction?!

@yitzhakgoldberg2404

4 жыл бұрын

No, he's saying a few things: (1) that the constants, had they been changed every so slightly, could easily have produced life, albeit a slightly different kind of life (2) that the universe, large as it is, is full of variation in regards to constants -- for example, in galaxy A, the constants could be a, b, c, and across the universe in galaxy B, x, y, z. Both, apperatly, could produce life. This argument seriously invalidates the notion that mankind is at the center of things (3) finally, there are cyclic universes, meaning, in the last aeon, the constants would have been strange to us, helping to produce life forms different from our own. Does this then mean G-d's out of the picture? Not at all! Firstly, Orch-OR (a theory co-worked by Roger Penrose and Sturat Hameroff) suggests that with each passing aeon, consciousness evolves. Thus, in regards to evolution on earth, consciousness was the guiding hand, not the application which arose by principle of physical processes. Lastly, the Abrahamic view is incorrect. This isn't to say that the Bible is false. Just our interpretation of it. Similarly to the Buddhist view of things, Judaism recounts with, vivid beauty, the truth of extraterrestrial life. Some examples of this: in the Gemara, Megiliah 18, we find a quote from Devorah, "Cursed is Meroz, cursed are its inhabitants." The Gemara takes the opinion that Meroz is a star. Sefer HaBris adds to this: if Meroz is a star [planet], than the verse must be speaking of "its inhabitants." Moreover, we find in Avodah Zarah, 3b, B.T., that G-d "flies past 18,000 worlds." This shouldn't come across to us an anthropomorphic in the slightest. In Tehillim (Psalm) 145:13, we read, "Your kingdom is a kingdom spanning all olamim [worlds]." According to the Zohar, there exists "worlds without end." Finally, there is a shift in the view of that great Kabbalist, the Ari (1534-1572), who spoke of an infinite number of spiritual worlds. So we have "spiritual worlds" along with "physical" ones. What an exciting claim! We must disperse with the notion that the whole universe was created for our sake alone. After all, who are we to dare suggest that none of these life forms were given Torah as well? Well, that's a great argument on my part aside for the fact that it is said in Berachot 32b that G-d created all of the stars in the universe for His children alone.

@user-le7ny8bq1l

2 жыл бұрын

@@yitzhakgoldberg2404 cut and paste shit

@yitzhakgoldberg2404

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-le7ny8bq1l yes, I did cut and paste the quotes, I don't know them THAT well. Mind your tongue, btw. It's made for eating, not speaking nasty stuff.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

​@@yitzhakgoldberg2404 thank you for your comment!

U forgot the volume on ur into heh

There seems to be many, many people here who settle with Penrose's assertion of "I don't know". This is of course a necessary attitude for the continuation of the pursuit of truth. But what's also needed is the proper examination and evaluation of the information we have now, in order to move forward and keep evaluating with an open mind. That being said, after hearing and learning of the intensely small and narrow range in which all the values of the components of our universe are present, and how if any of these values shift to even the smallest most minuscule extent, the universe itself could not go on, how could anyone move past the plausible conclusion that there has been something (or someone) in existence which has purposefully created our universe? In a case like this one, again, it is good to maintain an open mind and to say "I don't know". But in saying that, we cannot just settle with that. In saying that, we must look forward, seek truth, and use reason to make proper conclusions with the resources we have at hand. And making conclusions does not mean asserting something and leaving it at that. Science in essence is the constant search for truth in the material universe.

Well if it isn't fine tuned to manifest logical discernible functionality than scientific endeavor itself is a totally illogical endeavor . Its like trying to undesrstand the clear design and claiming there is no design to undesrtstand!????. You can attempt do it but you can't logically claim you did it !?!?? Weird wild stuff!! .

The universe is fine tuned to gravity, hence we see gravity everywhere. We don't see intelligent life everywhere. An architect that designed a village with only one habitable house would not be a great architect of habitable houses.

"Is the universe fine tuned for life" kind of misses the point though doesn't it? The point really is that there is life here despite the general hostility of the universe to it. So it ends up being finely tuned for where life is (a single place in the entire universe), not where life isn't.

@Necrophadez

4 жыл бұрын

This is a weird point to make. Where we exist on Earth allows for life (as we know it) and I imagine anywhere else where it’s the same the same is possible... Everywhere else there may be life as we don’t know it or no life at all.

@d3g3n3r4t3

4 жыл бұрын

I think ur statement misses part of the point of the fine tuning argument. Yes there are specifics here on earth that are finely tuned for life to exist here, but the point is that without the fine tuning of the laws of the universe on the whole, applying universally, like gravity and the nuclear forces that even allow atoms to exist, not only would we not exist, but nothing in the whole universe would exist.

@jimj9040

4 жыл бұрын

d3g3n3r4t3 The question remains...why make all this useless crap and have us just a pinpoint in an eternally unreachable universe?

@orange42

4 жыл бұрын

@@d3g3n3r4t3 Good point. I guess I was thinking there are universal conditions required but also specific location ones. Like the goldilock zone. Layers upon layers of conditions before one even arrives at the stability required for replicating codes of information. Life isn't likely or common so I'm trying to correct a possible misunderstanding of what being fine tuned means. If you get what I mean.

@orange42

4 жыл бұрын

@@Necrophadez Not a weird point at all if you have looked into the factors that have to line up for just the possibility of life here. There are over a hundred such points and the combination means that going by just probability it is extremely unlikely that it has ever happened anywhere else or will again in the future. By chance.

"I don't know", "I don't know", "I don't know", what I do know is God doesn't exist. Then he goes home and polishes his Nobel Prize.

What a stark contrast between the humble physicist and the arrogant fatuous theologian personifying the whole debate.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Peter, would you agree that God's existence can be disproven by science?

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 Obviously not as Science doesn't deal in proofs.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@51elephantchang OK. So God's existence is NOT a question of science?

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 But surely you know this already?

I love how WLC doesn't learn anything from any discussion. This was explained to him repeatedly by other scientists (like Sean Carroll for example), yet he still doesn't get it. I wonder why...

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder why Carroll never learns anything on psi or survival research, despite repeated corrections.

@alrenobenjamin6566

2 жыл бұрын

Ignorance

@user-le7ny8bq1l

2 жыл бұрын

Lol Caroll Appealed to Multiverse which violates occams razor.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-le7ny8bq1l It doesn’t violate the razor insofar as certain physical theories have a multiverse as a consequence and some of those theories have empirical evidence… Also, the razor is general scientific principle and it’s not clear how far we can apply it to metaphysical hypotheses, so one could at least propose multiverse as a metaphysical alternative. Don’t be so smug.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-le7ny8bq1l if you’re actually Laughing out loud… stop it.

Penrose wins the argument by saying, "I don't know", confusing Craig LOL

@hippykiller2775

4 жыл бұрын

Seriously, I agree with the fine tuning argument 100% but Craig just couldn't comprehend that someone might actually just still be looking for answers. That was a failed attempt by him entirely.

@pcb8059

4 жыл бұрын

@@hippykiller2775 Craig is showing his disingenuous speaking habits by tripping over Penroses "deny is too strong a word" Craig isn't thinking, he isn't In The Moment or having a genuine conversation . He is just parroting for his audience, or because it's just exspected of him. The guy is on auto pilot ...which is typical for him.

@BenWilson24

4 жыл бұрын

@@hippykiller2775 the fine tuning argument is the ultimate textbook example of an argument from incredulity fallacy

@hippykiller2775

4 жыл бұрын

@@BenWilson24 What an absolute moron you are! *LMFAO, NO BRO YOU ARE THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT FALLACY! YOU ARE JUST SUCH AN IDIOT YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO COMPREHEND IT!* Just because you are too stupid to understand a concept doesn't mean it is inherently wrong.

@hippykiller2775

4 жыл бұрын

@@pcb8059 Yeah, he is trying to "win" against someone who is honestly just thinking. That generally is a bad sign.

So here we have one person who knows what he's talking about, a Mathematical Physicist, who can build models and demonstrate theories Vs A Christian Theologian One who actually has a solid grasp on how the universe actually works Vs Someone who believes an invisible magic man "breathed" the cosmos into existence. I'll let you be the judge on who is likely to be accurate.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Do you think Penrose has a solid grasp of that? His CCC conformal cyclic cosmology posits a heat dead universe full of massless and chargeless photons spread over quintillions of light years at zero density, zero temperature, and infinite entropy. Then -- somehow -- this immense, cold haze "looks like" a hot, dense singularity with zero entropy. How did this happen? I've heard Penrose lecture on this twice and I don't hear an explanation. If you think Penrose has a solid grasp of how the universe works, I would really appreciate an explanation of that step.

@crazyprayingmantis5596

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 A Mathematical Physicist Or A man who believes an invisible non detectable man 'breathed' the universe out of his mouth into existance. I'll let you decide who might be closer to the correct answer

@crazyprayingmantis5596

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 Did you miss the part where he said several times HE DOESN'T KNOW? What we have is a man who is honest and is trying to figure things out and coming up with hypothesis, but ultimately admitting he DOESN'T KNOW Vs A man who thinks he KNOWS, and his hypothesis is, an invisible non detectable man breathed the universe into existence out of his mouth! If you want to believe the latter, that's fine. I couldn't care less, but I will think you're a little cookoo

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Given that neither of us know whether there is a threat (an angry God waiting for us when we die if we mock Him) how should we treat that threat?

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

I have seen the same arguments from other physicists such as Luke Barnes, George Ellis, Freeman Dysan etc. They all agree with The theologian. Sir Penrose was dishonest in saying “we don’t know” Read “a fortune universe” by Barnes and Lewis. Both are physicists specializing in fine tuning. One is a theist and the other an atheist.

If the universe wasn't fine tuned, life would not be possible. "With God, all things are possible" said Jesus (Matthew 19:26) One of these is wrong, just using simple logic. Which ?

@cammgo8862

2 жыл бұрын

can you explain? pls

@tedgrant2

2 жыл бұрын

@@cammgo8862 Imagine buying a car and the only thing that works is the cigar lighter. Would you say that the car is suitable for many years of happy motoring ? The universe is vast. Only this tiny planet is suitable for life, temporarily. For billions of years life wasn't possible and "soon" it will be extinguished, for ever.

@tedgrant2

2 жыл бұрын

@@cammgo8862 According to Christians, God can do anything. He didn't need to fine tune the universe. Het doesn't care about the mass of the electron. He can make anything work under any conditions.

I wonder why God bothered to create humans, who are always moaning about the living conditions. He already had a large number of happy obedient Angels who adored and praised him all day. Wasn't that enough ?

"I don't like it" so much for science.

"Logically possible but not the most plausible solution to the problem". @6.50 min. Craig could just aswell be describing belief in god/s. God, a logically plausible explanation with no connection to physical reality.

The key to the fine tuning argument is that the range that is life permitting is extremely narrow Therefore an intelligence/God had to create a universe within that range? However, if the FTA is correct, then it just identified a limitation of this intelligence/God ( the universe needing to be within a specific range to create life). which means we can eliminate any God/s claiming to have unlimited power such as the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God.

@username82765

4 жыл бұрын

@wannabchomsky I don't disagree. *However* , I have found Theists have heard people outright reject the FTA and have their canned response ready. So by approaching a different way makes people think.

@username82765

4 жыл бұрын

@wannabchomsky thanks and I do like what you had to say to. I haven't found anything that makes much sense about the Abrahamic God.

@Fundamental_Islam.

Жыл бұрын

That makes zero sense tbh! May be the reason for this fine tuning was so that we find out that someone created us and hence we submit to Him. Which is the real purpose of our existence

@username82765

Жыл бұрын

@@Fundamental_Islam. why specifically does it make zero sense?

@Fundamental_Islam.

Жыл бұрын

@@username82765 like how fine tuning is limitation of God?

I suppose the fires of Hell are fine tuned so that we can live there.

Can someone help me out here? I can't understand where is the problem? This is as is only because if it was otherwise this could not be as is. That can be 100 percent proven. If we didn't develop from the stars, we could not be. Nobody tuned it! Who df could have tuned it so perfectly? God? What does that word mean? Someone that does stuff without explanation, and no explanation is needed. Hm.

@Jesusmylivinghope

Жыл бұрын

They are discussing what's the best explanation why we exist in this vast and so complex universe

@arthurwieczorek4894

Жыл бұрын

To convince someone that an explanation is needed about something where no explanation is necessary is to create a stage for nonsense. On that stage one person's account is as good as another's. The most learned and the most foolish are equal. Everyone can be of wisdom.

Basically, Craig is trying to teach Penrose how to see the physical universe. Funny and sad!

@gamnamoo6195

Жыл бұрын

And that's your biased way of seeing it

@mynameismynametwo

Жыл бұрын

@@gamnamoo6195 Right. Guess you must be someone without bias or less biased than me. But who knows, maybe the other way around.

@bryant475

Жыл бұрын

Please check out Dr. Hugh Ross, he's an astrophysicist and ex-atheist, who realized that God exists precisely because of the scientific evidence. After that, he analyzed the holy books and saw that the bible is the only one that accurately describes the chronology of the early Universe/Earth, etc. (17/17 of the criteria). The others didn't even come close. Then he looked into the evidence for the bible, Jesus, etc. Other ones to look into are Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They all have videos on here, sites, and books. I pray that you look into all of this and come to the Truth one day, God bless!

@nyscholartist

Жыл бұрын

He did not do any such thing. You don’t even need to be a fan of Craigs to know that 🙄

Penrose's theories are based on math and physics, while WLC's theories are based on magic and wizards (credit to Professor Peter Atkins for the phrase)

@TyrellWellickEcorp

4 жыл бұрын

Freddy Lol penrose didn’t contribute anything significant to this debate. All he did was babble nonsense and ignore Craig’s arguments. At least there are many physicists out there who are honest and don’t have anti-supernatural bias who aren’t afraid to postulate that god is the only reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe (which is true).

@Necrophadez

4 жыл бұрын

Hank Moody You’re such a bad faith actor. You REEEE about anti-supernatural bias then you push your own and are glad of the bias in some physicists. Also you’re empirically and logically incorrect. It is not demonstrably true that this universe requires a creator to exist, and there is no evidence that proves a creator. Stop spreading lies and appealing to your emotions.

@Necrophadez

4 жыл бұрын

Hank Moody Also don’t copy+paste Pseudoscientific articles as a response.

@TyrellWellickEcorp

4 жыл бұрын

Necrophadez First of all, What do you mean by evidence? There are two forms of evidence: direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) and indirect evidence (everything else). Both forms of evidence are used to make cases in a court of law. There is a large body of direct evidence for God’s existence, like the testimony of those who observed the Resurrection of Jesus and the testimony of those who have experienced the miraculous intervention of God. There is also a large body of indirect evidence for God’s existence, like a universe that came into existence from nothing, the naturalistically implausible appearance of fine-tuning in the universe, the miraculous origin of life from inorganic matter, and the improbable existence of information in DNA. All this indirect evidence is most reasonably explained by a Divine Creator. If God didn’t create the universe and everything in it, then the cosmos are simply the product of physics, chemistry, space, time and matter. What evidence do you have that these features and forces can produce the consciousness or free-agency we experience? What evidence is there that physics and chemistry can produce the high-level information we find in DNA? What evidence do we have that these forces can account for the appearance of fine-tuning in the universe or the appearance of design in biological structures? If evidence is important to you, how can you accept naturalistic explanations for these features of the universe when there isn’t sufficient evidence to support such claims? Not only is there evidence in science that proves god exists but there are also historical facts surrounding the life and resurrection of Jesus which is very convincing evidence that god exists. So your true ignorance is showing when you say “there is no evidence that proves a creator”. If you want actual physical or testable evidence for gods existence, it’s not possible. It’s impossible to use natural means to explain or prove anything of the supernatural e.g. the existence of god. I don’t know why you think I copy and paste from articles.

@d3g3n3r4t3

4 жыл бұрын

@Freddy the multiverse is just kicking the can down the road and we get back to the question of how the big bang started, which is where did the multiverse come from. This is not science especially since there is no way to prove such a fairytale.

If I could work miracles, I wouldn't need to fine tune my radio. In fact, I wouldn't even need a radio at all. I could just say, "Let there be music". Ooh, that's good !

@JudoMateo

Жыл бұрын

The creator designed the world for our use, not for his own. Therefore your analogy is false. Living in an unreasonable, non uniform universe with no parameters would be maddening, torture, in which no meaningful life or knowledge could be obtained for limited beings such as us. So the fine tuning was specifically for our benefit.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@JudoMateo And God said, Let there be light and the Angel of the Lord said, What frequency dost thou require Lord ? And God saith, I want a wide range of frequencies from gamma rays to radio waves, now get on with it !

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@JudoMateo But Lord, gamma rays will be harmful to the limited beings thou aim to create later in the week ! And the LORD replied, I don't care, just do it.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@JudoMateo Then the Angel of the Lord made a suggestion to God. Lord, might I suggest that you create unlimited beings, like us, so they don't need special conditions. Then you wouldn't have to bother with problems such as cancer caused by gamma rays and the like.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@JudoMateo But the Lord had had enough of this pesky Angel and saith unto him... "Get behind me. Thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest things that be of men" And the Angel of the Lord stopped thinking and just did as he was told. Amen.

Amazes me that people find it so hard to believe that God made the world.

@mickqQ

4 жыл бұрын

Because there is no evidence a god made the world.

@pratikparmar8709

2 жыл бұрын

Amazes me that people find I so hard to believe that unicorns made the world. See? It's that easy.

@grahamrogers3345

2 жыл бұрын

@@pratikparmar8709 Amazes me that you think that sentence is a clever, meaningful or logical retort.

@pratikparmar8709

2 жыл бұрын

@@grahamrogers3345 only if you get the point....

@fatmaramadan6928

2 жыл бұрын

@@grahamrogers3345 Without something that connects either concept, a god or a unicorn, to physical reality neither make sense.

Theists who argue the universe was fine tuned for life never ask one obvious question, why would God want biological life?

@steved5960

5 күн бұрын

Why not?

@grahamblack1961

5 күн бұрын

@@steved5960 For 3 billion years on this planet alll that existed was single cell organisms, what would God want with that.

@steved5960

5 күн бұрын

@@grahamblack1961 still don’t see the point. You are seeing things from a human POV. 3 million years might be long to you but not Him

@grahamblack1961

5 күн бұрын

@@steved5960 So if 3 billion years is not a long time to him, a human lifetime must be a nanosecond. You still have explained why God would want biological life. Are you insinuating that the 3 billion years was just a build up to something else? What exactly?

@steved5960

5 күн бұрын

@@grahamblack1961 we can speculate about everything and ask why God this and that but at the end asking questions do not prove or disprove the existence of God

If you think that the odds of the universe is to the power of the number of atoms it gets even more unlikely :-) Proteins of which we are made can fold in more ways than the number of atoms in the universe and the odds of the proteins folding into something useful to create life is even greater. And remember mathematics makes some assumptions of faith and uses constants that they fine tune for formulas and wonderful as it is and useful in helping us describe universes I would be very impressed if someone could get me a bag of number seven, not seven of something just the number. There's a new emerging theory of quantum gravity which hopes to explain that there is no dimensions and wormholes to heaven which might upset believers in aliens. It's also sobering to bring the mind and heart back to planet earth and know this is reality.

It's just the same old God-of-the-gaps crap. Craig embarrassing tries to pick holes in physical theories that he doesn't understand and yet he expects his vague notion of "an intelligence" to be taken seriously as an alternative.

@quicksilver7532

2 жыл бұрын

God of the gaps? No! Metaphysical theory? Yes..

Can someone explain to me how God is so finely turned to permit life?

@LorianandLothric

9 ай бұрын

Because he’s all powerful? Seriously, you thought you had something there even though that was an elementary retort

@Chidds

9 ай бұрын

@@LorianandLothric So only shear power is required? Also, how is God so powerful?

Craig gave the most honest answer that I have ever seen from him. Without a sound, he made an uuugggghhhhhhhh!!!!! face like I had not seen in a debate, ever. The fact is that Craig does not like any answer to this quandary other than his. He is not looking for answers, he just wants other people to like the answer that he likes.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Are you a scientist, Andres? In what field?

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

So you're a scientist and an engineer, Andres? What kind of scientist are you? Physics?

@andresvillarreal9271

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 My area of expertise is electronics and computers. But the area of expertise that Craig desperately needs to learn about and which is part of the curriculum of most scientists and engineers is Probability. You can make pure and unadulterated blabber that sounds, to an illiterate in probability, like compelling arguments. But in reality, we just don't know if there is any probabilistic argument that makes any sense regarding the beginning of our universe or the beginning of life on Earth. In probability, the variables or events that you are going to study have to comply with certain rules if we want the whole analysis to make any sense at all. For example, consider this: Let's say that your parents decided that they wanted a child and started trying until you were conceived. If conception had taken place a few seconds earlier or later, you would not have been conceived. If they were more passive, you would not have been conceived. If they were more aggressive, you would not have been conceived. If they had gone to sleep earlier, you would not have been conceived. Anything at all that would have happened differently and somebody else, not you, would have been conceived. The fact that you were conceived, not somebody else, is like winning the lottery twice in one day, and yet, you are here. That is not good probability, it is bad rhetoric.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@andresvillarreal9271 That's a ridiculous analogy, two fully-developed humans mated to conceive me. There are on the order of a trillion molecules in a self-reproducing cell. Explain the sequence, beginning with the ideal mix of raw molecules. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. In fact, you KNOW you are lying -- which disgusts me.

@andresvillarreal9271

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 It is not an analogy, it is a simple fact. Lots and lots of incredibly low probability events are happening every single second, and we can make all kinds of cheap rhetoric around numbers that literally cannot be viably written as simple numbers in decimal notation because of the enormous size they have. Or, on the other hand, we can do good science and good probabilistic arguments. And by the way, a big diamond has trillions of trillions of molecules, and even a small amount of impurities ruins the whole diamond. You can throw big numbers on the table all day, and they don't mean a thing.

Is it really still a question nowadays ? Try to go into space without a suit and see if it is life friendly. Try to go under water without an oxygen bottle and see if you can stay long. We can only live decently on the thin surface of this planet. The size of the life permitted area compared to the size of the observable universe is way too small to call that fine-tuning. Looks like a side-effect to me

@Shulamitefire

4 жыл бұрын

@ vjnt1star I don't think that the current state and scope of science is sufficient to conclude that the entire observable universe is not fine-tuned, especially considering science doesn't even have the unobservable universe in view. For life to even exist, the parameters and precision power of fine-tuning must actually pre-exist, external to life. I don't have enough faith to believe that the order of life was created out of chaos.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Vnt: that doesn't prove anything. No one claims we can live everywhere.

@vjnt1star

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 My point was that we can live almost nowhere in this universe except for small part of a small planet which is why it is hard to see that it is fine-tuned for life. When we say something is fine-tuned for X you dont expect X to be part of the minority case. Is it not common sense ?

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@vjnt1star My point is that you have no explanation for reality without a Creator -- do you? What is your cosmology? You vaguely think everything happened naturally, but can you flesh that out? What happened before and during the big bang?

@antoniorobles8706

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 You have no explanation for that creator without a creator of creators... Do you? A magical creator is a panacea. Has no explanatory power.

One key fact is that if there is a designer than that designer is as smart as they are stupid. Theres numerous examples of stupid design. Why design a solar system that only has less than 1% designed for life? That's a big waste. If the universe is fine tuned for anything then its black holes.

@marveloussoftware1417

3 ай бұрын

@@Mario_Sky_521 it has to easy for a child to understand, the basis of religion focuses on indoctrinating children. Think about it for a moment. If an adult tells you he has an invisible friend that will reward you if you complements him but will torture you forever if you don't because he loves you then you may ask if he's been drinking. You are unlikely to believe him. But children (and some adults) buy it hook, line and sinker.

Bills face is the fine tuned constipation face..

Why are ppl so dumb to not understand infinity itself is an all powerful entity that originates all realities. He is the superior intelligence, the ultimate reality! “O humanity! Obey your Lord, Who created you and those before you, so that you are saved. It is He Who has made the earth a resting-place for you, and the sky a canopy; and sends down rain from the sky, causing fruits to grow as a provision for you. So do not set up rivals to Allah (in obedience) when you know (the Truth).” Quran 2:21-22 “Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were one joined-entity, then We parted them? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” (Quran 21:30) “And We have built the universe with might, and verily We are expanding it.” (Quran 51:48)

A lot of arguing from incredulity here...

@ralphgoreham3516

4 жыл бұрын

What we know: Unimaginable complexity in every cell of life, DNA way out in front, macro and micro Rnas next in line, precision membranes, ATP synthase dynamos, a few nano metres in size producing millions of recharchagable "batteries" energy to run the cell , 54 proteined ribosomes in 2 dimensions, hundreds of thousands of them producing proteins 24/7, millions of lesser nano machines , etc, etc. A telling fact is Without DNA, Ribosomes, and the RNAS ALL TOGETHER PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME = no proteins = no life. Penrose says he doesnt know how the fine tunings and physics came about, i submit is lying to keep his reputation, not his job because he has retired. Any one who now denies there is a creator responsible for this is lying also for the same reasons. The lay person like me who has a good biochemical knowledge and love of genuine science couldnt resist this post. I am also a Jehovahs witness who knows this creator very well as respects his qualities, and his purpose and urge all to study with us. (Was a one time atheist and evolutionist until I studied with them). We have quite a number of scientists who have done so. A major development in Jehovahs purpose is to liquidate this world system and under his rule bring about a paradise earth under his rule. So ask for a study. We alone have been entrusted with the truth as Christianity is dying.

@ralphgoreham3516

4 жыл бұрын

I should have said Christendom , with its 33,000 divisions is dying.

@BenWilson24

4 жыл бұрын

@@ralphgoreham3516 look up what the argument from incredulity fallacy is. That's what you've provided: amazingly complex, so god. Saying 'I don't know' is the most rational answer when we don't know. That's what scientist do, and what rational thinkers do. I know I'd sure lose my job in a hurry if I didn't admit when I don't know because it would result in massive financial losses and potentially loss of lives. Let's not resort to flat-earther-style conspiracy theories here... Not knowing an answer does not warrant the insertion of your favorite hypothesis, such as a god. Based on the fact that you referred to non-creationists as 'evolutionists,' I don't buy that you actively made the effort to understand science, and specifically, biology; anyone can regurgitate information about DNA to demonstrate it's complex, but jumping to a conclusion after that is fallacious. No one calls it 'evolutionism' but creationist committing the tu quoque fallacy by implying evolution is some sort of a religion. Evolution wasn't something people desired to be true; it came out of the piles of positive evidence and usable predictive power of the model. I was a devout catholic most of my life, but eventually accepted the fact that I had no rational reason to believe in talking snakes, virgin births, men who lived in whales, and that you should be able to beat your slave as long as they don't die within a day or two. I guess as a JW, your church has one-up'ed the catholic church at this point though: your officials at least molest women, while the catholics are still touching young boys 😂 I don't see too many JW in the phlebotomy world though 🤔 and when is the next time you guys think the world is going to end?

@dejoelhosparacristo2366

4 жыл бұрын

@@BenWilson24 I've read your commentaries, and what most intrigued me is not all your arguments or all the answers, but why you are so incomodate with people who affirm the existence and estabilish confidence in God. Why it is important to you? Till I can know only who have preachers is Christians, not science. There is conflict, not in the debates, but in your heart. If was not the case, you could simplesly leave and ignore all this things

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@dejoelhosparacristo2366 I wonder about all the atheist posters on Christian pages as well. I have a brother who is a simple atheist, he doesn't think there's a God and he never gives it another thought.

It's fine tuned for non matter. It's fine tuned for Stars... But human life is halfway tuned for this universe. We can only leave Earth with taking something from Earth with us... Let's stop the horrible argument Craig spills out... Or Religious in general. We don't understand why the constants are the way they are but to have the arrogance to claim they are made just for us... Sorry, fine tuning my ass.

The universe isn’t fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. If conditions were different then life would have arose differently too

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

Bailey M You are absolutely right that life is fine tuned to the universe. But the universe as we know it required very precise initial conditions to be a universe with stars and planets in the first place. If the initial conditions were only slightly different then we would not have a universe which could permit life.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Bailey: do you know any branch of science reasonably well, enough to have a conversation with a layman?

@fuel_

4 жыл бұрын

Da Koos And im guessing you believe that the only way these conditions could exist is if God created them

@fuel_

4 жыл бұрын

20july1944 not particularly, but I don’t claim to, just offering an idea

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

Bailey M You can also explain it with a multiverse hypothesis if you want.

God didn't create a simplistic world, sure, fine-tuned. It's much more extraordinary, beyond our understanding but perhaps not beyond imagination.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

This is just my view.

God is the only reasonable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. The same goes for information found in dna

@jimj9040

4 жыл бұрын

God doesn’t explain Anything. It’s just you appealing to a higher unexplainable power.

@TyrellWellickEcorp

4 жыл бұрын

Jim J The fine-tuning argument for God is one by analogy: does the level of fine-tuning of the environment for a specified purpose greatly exceed what we human beings are capable of or is it analogous to what happens in nature without any intelligent agency? God is behind the finetuning of the universe. Chance or necessity are both completely ruled out. You reject the hypothesis solely on philosophical grounds.

@jimj9040

4 жыл бұрын

Hank Moody I didn’t reject a thing, it’s you that reject everything but your canned answer to all the worlds questions. You obviously know that you ‘re wrong.

@BenWilson24

4 жыл бұрын

God is not a reasonable explanation for anything. You'd have to prove a God exists first. It's no different than showing up to a murder scene saying the butler did it when know even knows whether they had a butler. Saying there is no other explanation is an argument from ignorance. Saying it's so complex that it must be God is an argument from incredulity. Calling the chemicals of DNA 'information' as if it's some sort of code that requires a master coder is just a demonstration that you don't really understand what is meant when scientists call it 'information.' In physics, we refer to a lot of things as information, but it's not like it's designed. Also, the universe is huge and dead. We are a tiny fluke of life.

@jimj9040

4 жыл бұрын

Lovely Job Nope, not atheists, just normal rational people think you are full of shit. ..

Yes the universe is fined tuned for advanced life...Jesus is My Lord and Savior and God...the Prophecied Messiah Risen Messiah Christ

@Necrophadez

4 жыл бұрын

Sim Climie Is this a virtue signal?

@jimj9040

4 жыл бұрын

Fairies are obviously the entities that run the universe...if you are anti-fairy then some people might take offense to it .

@crazyprayingmantis5596

4 жыл бұрын

Zorg fine tuned the universe especially for ME. He created all of this with ME in mind, can't you see that? Look at the trees 🤣

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@crazyprayingmantis5596 You don't believe "Zorg" did anything. How do you actually think life came about? Do you ask YOURSELF that, even if you don't acknowledge it publicly?

@crazyprayingmantis5596

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 Zorg created everything Zorg is undetectable in any way and Zorg needs no explanation for how he himself came to be. Sound familiar? If it doesn't, just replace the word Zorg with God and it should.

This discussion vividly demonstrates why science and religion are not compatible in addition to the difference between a scientist and a theologian. Let me say first that even if the universe did not appear to be fine tuned, the theologian would still express his certainty about how the universe came to be. The scientist follows the evidence as far as it takes him and, while developing hypotheses that best explain the observable facts, the scientists is willing to say he doesn't know an answer when he doesn't. The theologian on the other hand is certain that he knows the answers. Whether fine tuned or not, the universe was created by the god of the Hebrew Bible. So this is really not a discussion about scientific hypotheses. Rather it is a discussion between a humble scientist and a confident theologian filled with certitude that the universe was created by the god of the Hebrews. No conclusions from science will ever change the mind of the theologian.

@ralphgoreham3516

4 жыл бұрын

By theologian you most likely mean a bible student. But there is another book to study, the book of creation which the Bible encourages. Psm 19, Romans 1. There are no little number of scientists who believe the universe was created to accommodate life by observing the design, the degree of complexities observable empirically in their specialized fields, and the undeniable wisdom built into the world around us as our mind and brains intuitively perceive. Where God came from and how he has always existed are mere EXCUSES to avoid accountabilty. Those in that camp who dont wake up will be called to account for the creator is entitled to praise and to ask for his terms to be observed. A former Australian agnostic Prime Minister when asked about his mortality answered "That doesn" bear thinking about". Does Ben Wilson and those with the same paradigm have the same disposition?

@mylord9340

4 жыл бұрын

@@ralphgoreham3516 I thought it would be obvious what a theologian is. A theologian is not a "bible student" as you think. A theologian is an expert or specialist in religion. In the case of William Lane Craig he is a Christian theologian. I hope that clarifies things for you.

@G8rfan61

4 жыл бұрын

What evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Hebrew god created the universe?

@ralphgoreham3516

4 жыл бұрын

@@mylord9340 The definition of a "theologian" may be as you say. In the grand scheme of things such is not important, at least to me. In the western world those who are called theologians are well familiar with much of the Bible but the babble of confusion in Christendom shows there is no UNDERSTANDING.

@ralphgoreham3516

4 жыл бұрын

@@G8rfan61 The list of reasons are multiple but here are the main ones. (1) Genesis account agrees with proven science. (2) A quarter of the Bible is PROPHECY and from Genesis to Revelation; the no. of them are in the 100s, closer to a 1000. Not ONE has failed. (3) rather than the earth to be destroyed it is the only book that guarantees it will be made a paradise as was his intention as he stated to Adam in the Garden of Eden.Gen 1:26--31. After the fall Jehovah had to shelve that purpose and progressively work towards solving the Gap between His holiness and mans sin and rebellion. (4) Archaeology, established history, the geographical details associated with events, and importantly, the wisdom and practicality to live successfully are superior to any other religious Book when followed. (5) The Bible is available in whole or part to 99% of the world populations languages and over half, some 4 billion copies have been distributed, far outstripping any other religious book or otherwise. (6) Though not a science book, when it touches on science it is accurate. Job 26:7, Isiah 40:22, 26. The instructions received through Moses show Jehovah made clear an understanding of how bacterial infection could be avoided. There is much more but that should suffice. Let me know if you you want more.

Concider these statements: 1) A universe without life is not a universe fine tuned for life . 2) In a universe fine tuned for life , life must occur---that's must. 3) In a universe not fine tuned for life, life cannot occur---that's cannot.

Master Roger, you talk about the possibility that life may also be a neutron star, as suggested by Hawking. So a mental-like creator could conceive forms of reality also in this sense, very far from our common sense. In my opinion you and Stephen Hawking have a restrictive concept of reality. Imagine God as a mathematician, a sort of computational phenomenon that can configure mathematical wonders that leave you amazed. This is not the way to reality, the title of his famous best-seller, Sir Penrose. God is not a mathematician, he uses mathematics to create works of art. Indeed it looks like a perfect artist. And I don't think the neutron star world has an aesthetic that could interest it.

@scienceexplains302

11 ай бұрын

Where is this perfection you speak of? Thousands of children starve to death daily. Back pain is unavoidable for a significant part of the population later in life. Only an infinitesimal part of the universe is hospitable to life. The rest of it would kill us instantly

What a huge waste of time. I hope Dr Penrose is being paid handsomely to debate with people who will never change their minds no matter what arguments or evidence is put in front of them.

@chrispalmer4317

3 жыл бұрын

@ben henault I would expect a reasonable, open-minded person not to have his mind made up in the first place, and to be at least as uncertain after hearing someone who knows orders of magnitude more than him say "we don't know." But of course, Craig isn't a reasonable, open minded person for all his learned pretensions. Instead he arrogantly thinks he's got Penrose in some sort of gotcha moment. Which is the whole point. Craig, with no evidence, already thinks he knows how the universe came about. And it wouldn't matter what Penrose said, he would never change his mind. So it's not a real debate. It's embarrassing. And Penrose isn't taking seriously the idea that God created the universe. He's saying there's so much that we don't know that why would you think this alleged fine-tuning problem was a slam dunk for an incoherent hypothesis like creationism? And finally, why WOULDN'T one change one's mind when confronted with uncertainty? Uncertainty is the only respectable position on so many questions. Only a fool respects certainty for it's own sake.

" Evolution of constants " See? Darwin doesn't only make easy biology, but cosmology as well!

Graig is a child. Hard to believe that he takes himself as serious as he does.

@dajusta87

4 жыл бұрын

Stephen Guzman just because you don’t understand him doesn’t mean he is a child

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Are you an atheist, or just don't respect WLC?

@Titan_640

4 жыл бұрын

Intelligence can sound like stupidity to the stupid

@stephenguzman9042

4 жыл бұрын

Craig really isn't as bright as he would have you gentlemen believe. He makes assertion after assertion and offers nothing substantive to back them up. He's desperate to believe what he wants and gets flustered when he's not able to convince an opposing view.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

@@stephenguzman9042 Are you an atheist, or just don't respect WLC?

Honestly who the hell is William Lane Craig to tell Roger Penrose what's plausible and what isn't

Even though I admire Roger Penrose a lot, one has to admit that he is not a great philosopher here.

@bez5297

2 жыл бұрын

Philosophy is for people who can't do science.

@giorgirazmadze5102

2 жыл бұрын

@@bez5297 DO YOU HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIM?

@bez5297

2 жыл бұрын

@@giorgirazmadze5102 Yeah, god only exists in the realm of philosophy.

@giorgirazmadze5102

2 жыл бұрын

@@bez5297 Show me a SCIENTIFIC paper about it

@bez5297

2 жыл бұрын

@@giorgirazmadze5102 All of them... Not a single one contains any evidence for god.

The puddle thinks the hole was made to fit it perfectly.

@ralphgoreham3516

4 жыл бұрын

Thats a tired bit of rationalization Sir/madam.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Is puddle water a good analogy for self-reproducing organisms? I don't think so.

@crazyprayingmantis5596

4 жыл бұрын

@@ralphgoreham3516 I agree

@crazyprayingmantis5596

4 жыл бұрын

@@20july1944 I'm not using it as one

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

This puddle would be on a planet right? The problem with this analogy is that you first need a planet. If the initial conditions were different, then we would not have stars, never mind planets for your puddle. The analogy failed dismally and is now only used at atheist church camp.

It is NOT "fine tuned"....Total bullshit.

@jadedrac0

3 ай бұрын

A appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy and not a argument. Try again.

@robertwhite1810

3 ай бұрын

No god and no religion can survive ridicule. No church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field and live. - Notebook, 1888 There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule, howsoever poor and witless. Observe the ass, for instance: his character is about perfect, he is the choicest spirit among all the humbler animals, yet see what ridicule has brought him to. Instead of feeling complimented when we are called an ass, we are left in doubt. - Pudd'nhead Wilson@@jadedrac0

@robertwhite1810

3 ай бұрын

Everything that exists appears to be "fine tuned" as there is an infinite number of variables involved. Is every snowflake individually "fine tuned" by a snowflake maker? What are the odds that you would type those exact words to me at exactly the time you did? Does that mean our exchange was "fine tuned"? How infinite must the list of causal events had to be that had to unfold exactly right for you to reply to me? 10 to the 839483th power? Ridicule is the perfect way to address the ridiculous@@jadedrac0

It's really fun to see willam craig trying to convert roger penrose to his religion 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Shf623

Жыл бұрын

Even funnier is that craig admits without noticing that the bible is useless to convert, so he tries others ways like the supposed proves in science that just exists in superstiticious minds.

@bryant475

Жыл бұрын

Please check out Dr. Hugh Ross, he's an astrophysicist and ex-atheist, who realized that God exists precisely because of the scientific evidence. After that, he analyzed the holy books and saw that the bible is the only one that accurately describes the chronology of the early Universe/Earth, etc. (17/17 of the criteria). The others didn't even come close. Then he looked into the evidence for the bible, Jesus, etc. Other ones to look into are Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel. They all have videos on here, sites, and books. I pray that you look into all of this and come to the Truth one day, God bless!

@therick363

3 ай бұрын

@@bryant475what scientific evidence ?

@rolandotoledano2996

3 ай бұрын

Conversion? They are conversing as logical as possible.

Athiests have to go to SciFi to explain FIne Tuning. It's embarrassing!

@huskydragon2000

3 жыл бұрын

Just like how Theists need a fairy tale to explain god?

@UsmanKhan-ov4fj

3 жыл бұрын

You mean Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist with a PhD from Cambridge who happens to be an atheist isn't a fan of magical wizards in the sky, was humble enough to admit ignorance, and his explanation went entirely over your ordinary, anti-scientific head? Sounds about right I'd say.

@JackRegan

3 жыл бұрын

Both of you are showing the massive chips on your shoulders while dodging the substance of my point. The refutations offered to the fine tuning argument are embarrassingly weak. Even Richard Dawkins himself admits that atheists don't yet have a coherent response to it.

@UsmanKhan-ov4fj

3 жыл бұрын

@@JackRegan Meh. I can just say you have a massive chip on your shoulder based on your original comment. Wouldn't get us anywhere. I wasn't trying to address the "substance of your point," if there was any. I was pointing out your failure in understanding what Penrose was trying to communicate in the clip. Where does Dawkins himself admit that atheists don't yet have a coherent response? I've heard him claim the opposite -- that the argument itself is fundamentally weak, before he proceeds to debunk it. Maybe I saw an old clip and he's updated his view. Can you cite the source?

@JackRegan

3 жыл бұрын

@@UsmanKhan-ov4fj Hi Usman. Apologies if my earlier posts were a little flippant. Equally, perhaps they were a little light in detail. Now that I’ve had a good sleep and I’m at an actual computer, perhaps I can do a little better on both counts… As I’m sure you’re aware, the fact that certain constants in the universe seem to be remarkable fine-tuned is well accepted in science. The weight of carbon; the force of gravity; the cosmological constant; the ‘weak force’ inside atoms; and (Penrose’s recent contribution) the amount of entropy at the Big Bang. The chances of all these things simply being tuned as they are by chance is astronomically small. Indeed, the chances of the latter alone being as it is can be calculated as one in… well, a number so large that it would need one zero on every atom in the known universe. And that’s just the physics, to say nothing of the maths around the beginnings of life on earth (not really my area!). Sticking purely with the physics and cosmology though - you seem fairly switched on, so I am sure you are well aware that this stuff is well accepted by science. What is more wrangled over is the explanation behind it. Atheists generally reach for one of four explanations - each of which is at the theoretical phase, if even that: The first is the ‘anthropic principle’ which has widely been abandoned now by serious debaters. The other three are the multiverse theory, the cyclical universe theory (of which Penrose has the latest version), and the so called ‘theory of everything’. Before I (very) briefly comment on these, I think it suffices to say that each is at best an unproven theory. Therefore, I think that theists are justified in saying (respectfully, I hope) that at the present time at least, the proven physics would seem to be more in our corner than yours. And that’s generally where I leave things when I am presenting content myself. However, let’s give a bit more detail: The multiverse and cyclical universe theories both fall down largely because there are several highly credible death scenarios for the universe (for any universe, we might say) which it is impossible for either a collection of multiverses (even infinite, given infinite time) or a cyclical universe to escape. The current theory about the end of the universe, now widely accepted, for instance, is the ‘big chill.’ Penrose offers no explanation as to how his next cyclical universe would gain the energy for another Big Bang given this hypothesis. As for the ‘theory of everything,’ well, okay, maybe it will happen one day. But the problem with the TOE is that it’s not even a theory yet, let alone a proven one. It’s akin to saying “well, I will have an awesome answer one day…” and that brings me to the Dawkins reference you asked for: It can be found in pages 157-58 of ‘The God Delusion.’ Dawkins acknowledges that we cannot at present explain fine tuning but says, referencing Darwin, that “We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics, but we shouldn’t give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics. Something as powerful as Darwin is for biology.” (that is William Lane-Craig’s paraphrase, but it is true to the original intent). But he acknowledges (same reference, or thereabouts) that we are nowhere near it yet. But if this is outdated and Dawkins has since thoroughly debunked fine-tuning and indeed provided that explanation, I would be delighted to examine any reference you can provide. Thanks for considering my response so carefully, as I’m sure you have.

Earth is flat. Change my mind.

@20july1944

4 жыл бұрын

Who cares what you think?

@hawkxlr

4 жыл бұрын

I assume your stance stems from a belief on the infallibility of scripture? If that is the case, is there really anything conceivable that could change your mind?

@Fundamental_Islam.

Жыл бұрын

@@hawkxlr he’s prolly an atheist mocking theists. Where in the Bible or Quran does it says earth is ‘flat’?

Penrose's objections are ridiculous. He is just babbling pointlessly.

@les2997

4 жыл бұрын

@@theloveofreading3563 What intellect you are you talking about? Penrose is faced with a massive evidence for fine tuning, and all he can say is "I'm agnostic".

Imagine other life discovered us , Imagine aliens with a far superior understanding of the universe and how life begins ... arrived on this planet . And began explaining the process of how life arises , and how the universe came to be . These theists would be saying Well actually your wrong , a god made the universe , and he made it special just for us , he even visited us 2000 years ago , he came down from heaven , and was born from a virgin , then died and came back to life , then went back to heaven ..... and if you don’t believe that , your going to hell . You aliens are all sinners , you need to accept our version of a provincial primitive religion , or you have no morals Now , If the same ship landed , and the aliens walked out and said “ hi , we are aliens from the church of the Latter Day Saints , we would like to talk to you about Jesus “ That’s a different story 😁😁😁

@mickqQ

3 жыл бұрын

@AetherDivision No But I do have a sense of whimsy , a sense of humour You should get one

@mickqQ

3 жыл бұрын

@AetherDivision Your welcome. 😀👍. Out of interest Is there anything about that comment you think is wrong ?

@mickqQ

3 жыл бұрын

@AetherDivision Really You are struggling to understand it Would you like me to explain it to you Which part are you struggling to comprehend

@mickqQ

3 жыл бұрын

@AetherDivision A doofus magoo Lol, that’s funnier that the thing I wrote I’m stealing that 😀 That really made me laugh 😆

@mickqQ

3 жыл бұрын

@AetherDivision Lol Painful 😣

William Lane Craig isn't intelligent, he's just desperate to make his God make sense. He constantly moves the goal posts and makes arguments out of word salad.

@Fundamental_Islam.

Жыл бұрын

Say whatever, atheism is a complete nonsense

@dtphenom

Жыл бұрын

Folks, notice how this dude is just insulting people and not once addressed Craig's actual arguments.

So Penrose says no! If you have to use Philosophy to prove the existence of a God. You have already lost the argument. We don't use Philosophy like Billy. To tell what is real vs what is imaginary.

@TyrellWellickEcorp

4 жыл бұрын

ALLAN BELL There are many physicists who agree that the fine tuning of the universe is best explained by intelligent agency (which is true).

@MrSeadawg123

4 жыл бұрын

@@TyrellWellickEcorp When all we have ever witnessed is natural Phenomenon in the universe. There is no reason to believe that a God did anything. Then you always run into. How did a God come into existence.

@TyrellWellickEcorp

4 жыл бұрын

ALLAN BELL Since the 1960s physicists have recognized that the initial conditions and the laws and constants of physics are finely tuned, against all odds, to make life possible. Even extremely slight alterations in the values of many independent factors - such as the expansion rate of the universe, the speed of light, and the precise strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction - would render life impossible. Physicists refer to these factors as “anthropic coincidences” and to the fortunate convergence of all these coincidences as the “fine-tuning of the universe.” Many have noted that this fine-tuning strongly suggests design by a pre-existent intelligence. Physicist Paul Davies has said that “the impression of design is overwhelming.” Fred Hoyle argued that, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology.” Many physicists now concur. They would argue that - in effect - the dials in the cosmic control room appear finely-tuned because someone carefully fine-tuned them. To explain the vast improbabilities associated with these fine-tuning parameters, some physicists have postulated not a “fine-tuner” or intelligent designer, but the existence of a vast number of other parallel universes. This “multiverse” concept also necessarily posits various mechanisms for producing these universes. On this view, having some mechanism for generating new universes would increase the number of opportunities for a life-friendly universe such as our own to arise - making ours something like a lucky winner of a cosmic lottery. But advocates of these multiverse proposals have overlooked an obvious problem. The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning. Indeed, all the various materialistic explanations for the origin of the fine-tuning - i.e., the explanations that attempt to explain the fine-tuning without invoking intelligent design - invariably invoke prior unexplained fine-tuning. Moreover, as Jay Richards has shown, “The fine-tuning of the universe exhibits precisely those features - extreme improbability and functional specification - that invariably trigger an awareness of, and justify an inference to, intelligent design.” Since the multiverse theory cannot explain fine-tuning without invoking prior fine-tuning, and since the fine-tuning of a physical system to accomplish a propitious end is exactly the kind of thing we know intelligent agents do, it follows that intelligent design stands as the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. And that makes intelligent design detectable in both the physical parameters of the universe and the information-bearing properties of life. You ask how god came into existence. He never came into existence, he has always existed eternally. He is an Immaterial, Spaceless, and Timeless being who created the universe out of nothing. Don’t be like other atheists out there, admit that the universe couldn’t have came into existence by itself. Matter, Space, and Time did not exist before the Big Bang.

@MrSeadawg123

4 жыл бұрын

@@TyrellWellickEcorp those making the claim of I'D. Are making a very fundamental mistake. Correlation does not equal causation. It is so easy to make that leap. And again, you are always left with. How did a God come into EXISTENCE? If only we knew for certain the origins of a God. An evolutionary process, is the best explanation of how a God came into being. Probably some super advanced alien life. That is probably long gone. Or living on through whatever they created. But the Christian God is just a myth! Like any other creation story.

@d3g3n3r4t3

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrSeadawg123 he didnt come into existence. Existence applies to that which is of and in the universe, such as space and time. If he made the universe then obviously he would have to be external to space and time and without time the question of beginning loses all meaning. U seem smart. This should be an elementary philosophical idea abundantly simple given this basic logical thesis

The one sided conversation. You betta believe in god bucko

Roger said a whole lot of nothing

@Seticzech

3 ай бұрын

Yep, too complex for simple brainwashed theistic mind.