Nothing like man. He can’t entertain the idea of a creator, but as we observe fine tuning, he can then creat the idea of a multi-verse to explain that fine tuning. Man knows only an immeasurably fraction of what there is to know about any of it.

However, Roger Penrose notes that the fine tuning of the entropy of the early universe is such an enormous number (10 to the 10 to the 123) that one cannot use the multiverse argument that Leonard is using here. See his interview on fine tuning on this channel

Multiverse is an overkill and not necessary to explain fine tuning. It is sufficient for the one and only universe to recycle itself with different parameters ("random mutation") until the "finely tuned" version comes out and life and intelligence take advantage of this rare opportunity.

@solgato5186

3 жыл бұрын

ecology

@dougg1075

3 жыл бұрын

Ok , put that in the pot with multiverses and god. Shake it up good

@solgato5186

3 жыл бұрын

Steven Froman is this channel intentionally for theists?

@KasiusKlej

3 жыл бұрын

Perhaps multiverse serves as an analogy in this story. The story of course goes like this. Just like we are living in one particular universe among many multiverses, so we also live in one fine tuned universe among many not so fine tuned ones. Trouble is, both those ideas are excellent, but none of them can be checked out. We can never know whether there are other universes with other natural constants, however the idea that the thing recycles itself until it is fine tuned, is one of the best possible explanations.

@dec335

3 жыл бұрын

The problem with that theory is that there is absolutely no proof that the universe will recycle itself with different parameters. There is proof of a singular big bang and that the universe is expanding. Right now, there is absolutely no proof that it will ever collapse in on itself and start again.

Absolutely brilliant interview. It's a service to the public to be doing these videos

"Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.

@mockupguy3577

3 жыл бұрын

True. But I argue that it is plausible that other humans are aware too. Even if it seems impossible to prove beyond any doubt.

@hlmco

2 жыл бұрын

@@mockupguy3577 maybe we are all one

@theinformationcenter9289

Жыл бұрын

@@hlmco on the phone

The title should be “Why the naturally emerging and obvious observations of fine tuning do not convince me of the obvious”. It’s a longer title but one I think suits it just fine.

Very insightful interview! Thank you!

Fully agree with Leonard, only believe in what can be verified or atleast calculated. A lot scientists want to imagine up stuff then call it science.

I like his scientific explanations but also his acceptance of whatever we find that seems to be true. His approach to the subject is better than what I've heard from other scientists.

@my-back-yard

2 жыл бұрын

He's saying that the "industry" didn't want to talk about fine tuning until they came up with the (completely unproveable) multiverse theory, so as to avoid stating the obvious. Lol It's why they cling to super symmetry; something from nothing for free (with just a hint of an imbalance) allows them to hold on to materialism.

[11:17] “No, I’m ‘happy’ with whatever gives us predictions that we can verify. You know, that’s funny cause when I first came to CalTech, I was in the same floor with Feynman, and I remember he was _volciferously_ against this idea of wanting nature to appear one way. And that time was very much people were talking about _the theory of everything,_ _the unified field theory_ that Einstein was looking for, and he [Feynman] was very much against that _desire,_ cause he just said: “Well, maybe nature is this way, maybe there’s support theories. Why do you need _the theory of everything?”._ And mathematically speaking, people would go: “Oh, it’s more beautiful!”, but he was very much rooted in what really is. I’m not for or against the multiverse, I’m just for whatever we find that seems to be true, and then that will guide me in terms of what I believe.” #IntellectualHonesty

@dongshengdi773

2 жыл бұрын

Feynman said , In Communist countries … atheism is taught in schools. … Having grown up in communist Bulgaria - a culture where blind nonbelief was as dogmatically mandated by the government as blind belief is by the church elsewhere. … I don’t believe that a real conflict with science will arise in the ethical aspect, because I believe that moral questions are outside of the scientific realm. … Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question - any question, philosophical or other - which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment … is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science. ~ famous physicist Richard Feynman

@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy

2 жыл бұрын

@@dongshengdi773, I don't know which parts are from Feynman and which parts are from you. In any case, science is not evidence-based or test-based/testability-based, science is explanation-based. So is philosophy and moral philosophy: ethics.

Great conversation keep up the great work Robert Lawrence Kuhn!!!!

I love the clumsiness of conversations like this. They're being candid and honest about a very difficult subject and I think the conclusion that a testable explanation is satisfying even if it points to god, is a smart way to look at it.

This is fantastic!!

It is human to think that something created the universe. It is the beautiful mind that realizes, we have to keep studying.

How many lotteries you gotta win before you figure it’s rigged?

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

3 жыл бұрын

Good point

Could it be said that the idea of "infinite multi-universes" is really no different than the idea of "the god of the gaps"? So scientist who give God the credit for the design of the universe are accused of simply using "the god of the gaps" argument. But scientist who reject "the god of the gaps" argument are happy to embrace "infinite multi-universes". What is the difference?

@anteodedi8937

2 жыл бұрын

Mlodinow already explained in the video how multiverse is predicted by theories, not the same as god.

Is the multiverse conjecture able to be falsified? If not why does the scientific community believe it gives a causal explanation for why fine-tuning exists in our universe? Also, if multiverses exist surely each one will be fine-tuned and therefore, by definition, validate the fine-tuning argument.

They keep ignoring the idea that the values may not be changeable at all and the idea of changing them simply doesn't make sense perhaps. Just because we assign a number to something, a value, doesn't mean other arbitrary numbers are suddenly a consideration. In otherwords, the mystery may be of our own creation.

Doesn't Penrose's conformal cosmology proposition or Everet's many-worlds concept preclude the notion of 'variable constants' and the kind of multiverse the hand-waving of inflationary cosmology suggests? Also, why is it that inflationary cosmology must ultimately imply 'variable constants'? That seems like a tacked-on hack to solve a totally different problem.

There is a sense that the story science is telling itself (and us) is confined by its own rules. Can it be that self-consistency is designed? Logic is logical? Which is more valid the needle in the groove of a turning record, or the music that can be heard? There is a sense that science is stuck in the story of the needle in the groove.

@MrCoffis

3 жыл бұрын

It's a problem of consciousness itself. Like a mirror looking into another mirror which in turn looks into itself which then looks into the other etc... at infinitum.

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

Any hypothesis you can make is valid. But play by the rules. Make it testable and falsifiable than we can look for the evidence else it's just an hypothesis. And a bad one to.

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

The RULES of science that science deniers like yourself always imply are UNTRUSTWORTHY, are the SAME rules that pulled our species out of the dark ages, cured diseases, feed the hungry, doubled life spans, created modern transportation, communications, the electronics age AND the space age..A continuous map of progress..What has ANY other so-called rules or beliefs ever done to advance our condition? I have a "SENSE" that the rules YOU might subscribe to certainly never has, but It's possible I'm wrong..

@kallianpublico7517

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bill..N Your written thoughts are ignorant. Science was built on war and murder. From the trajectory of cannonballs to human and animal testing and eugenics. Who is denying science? You are, with your sycophantic worship at its feet. If you cannot or will not see science for what it is then you are part of the problem and not the solution. Science is not defended by fools nor practiced by angels. The rules you are talking about do not preclude criticism or any other thought. The progress you describe is not detached from the history and economics of flawed human beings. Prior success is not proof of future success. Prior preparation (practice) , or rules, is no guarantor of future conquest. The most prepared hero may fail where the unprepared youth succeeds. That is the rule that reigns.

Excellent

2:26 "The electromagenetic force can not change outside of a few percent, without destroying life as we know it." Indeed!

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

This makes it look like a highly fine tuned universe right. The value we found or the tolerance we find for this value is hardly interesting at all. It's the wrong question. The question should be can it have other values. Is is possible that many of the things we see as variable can only have a finite number of possibilities. Maybe even one. Than we should look at what this so called fine tuning leads to. We will than see that it leads to more and more black holes. The only reason why we think it's all fine tuned for us is because we are so f-ing stupid to think that we are the most special thing the universe has produced.

@divertissementmonas

3 жыл бұрын

@@Carlos-fl6ch I think the world would lose all its colour if all people thought the same thing... Imagine not being able to bounce ideas off each other, or see things from different perspectives or other points of view. I mean what would be the point of language and communication? The question(s) ought to remain open.

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

@@divertissementmonas you are absolutely right. But questions should not remain open. We should look for answers cause as soon as we get answers we get more questions. The reason why we should have different ideas is because than we can explore different ideas and find new answers. That's is the beauty of science

Why does fine-tuning assume life is so special? Aren't we ascribing it that specialness? What _if_ the universe was different in its numbers; there'd be phenomena that would exist there that doesn't exist in our version. Maybe not life, or stars, but interactions and things unfamiliar to us. But to "them", life and stars would be unfamiliar concepts. So why is it remarkable our universe allows for life, when there's possibly an infinite amount of things it doesn't allow for?

It’s kinda like this; Jim buys a Powerball ticket and wins....the lottery congratulates him and gives him a big check. Jim is one lucky guy! Then next month Jim buys another Powerball ticket and incredibly wins again! The lottery congratulates him and writes him another big check. Jim is a historically lucky guy!!! Then, yep, Jim buys another ticket and you guessed it - he wins a third time! This time the lottery commission calls the FBI and the Bureau investigates Jim, Jim’s family, friends, co-workers and everyone who works at the store where Jim bought his tickets as well as undertakes an internal investigation to see if Jim’s good fortune was an inside job. Jim’s lawyer asks the lottery why all the fuss? They reply that what happened to Jim was one chance out of 10E20...so it is billions of times more likely that what happened to Jim wasn’t chance but rather by design. The unbelievably long odds of the cosmological constants being so precisely tuned the way they are makes winning three Powerballs in a row look like a sure thing.

The realm of the unknown dives deep beneath the surface, our current ignorance is not only quantitative but qualitative. I think that in the years to come, unsuspected ties between past, present and future could be revealed. The fact the universe seemed to be designed could be due to a feedback mechanism between past and present, by which the right values of constants adjusts in order to outcome a functional, life holding universe, ultimately leading to our own existing. It would also explain the apparently random mutations giving rise to new species. No need for multiverse, or even god, maybe.

The multiverse problem. By Paul Davies, a cosmologist not bound by any tradition. "I usually say two cheers for the multiverse because there are good reasons of physics and cosmology for supposing that what we see may not be all you get. That there may be other regions of space and time that could be different. So it's not an unreasonable speculation. However, it falls far short of being a complete theory of existence, which is often presented as. That as if there's a multiverse, then we can forget about all the mysteries of the universe because it's all explained. Everything is out there somewhere. End of story. Well, it's simply not true, because to get a multiverse, you need a universe-generating mechanism. Something has got to make all those big bangs go bang. So you're going to need some laws of physics to do that. And you can say, well, where do they all come from? So all you've done is shift the problem of existence up from the level of universe to the level of multiverse, but you haven't explained it. I suppose, for me, the main problem is that what we're trying to do is explain why the universe is as it is by appealing to something outside of it. In this case an infinite number of universes outside of it. That, to me, is no better than traditional religion that appeals to an unseen unexplained God that is outside of the universe. I'm prepared to accept that what we see isn't the totality, that there may be regions of space and time, other universes, if you like, that could be rather different from what we observe. But I certainly don't believe that all possible universes are out there, and that the explanation for the universe that we see is because everything imaginable exists, and that this particular one we see, just because it happens to be one that we live in. I think that falls far short of a proper explanation. Indeed, I think it's contradictory and absurd."

I am not religious but I have to argue that even if multi-verses do exist with their own laws, this doesn't instantly dismiss intelligent design..it may be each universe has been intelligently designed by one or several "designers"..I would not call this "god"..I would say the "intelligence" could be a higher consciousness. HOWEVER the bigger question then becomes who designed that grander "consciousness" ..it can't just have popped into existence, just as the universe(s) couldn't just pop into existence.. I suppose the consciousness or "designer" may have always existed..there may never have been a beginning , but with an expanding universe, I suppose there has to be a starting point. Very deep questions which are intriguing and mystifying, but you never get anywhere except asking more questions.. I know there have been people who had Near Death Experiences and say they communicated with a "higher loving being" who is usually in the form of energy or light..very interesting indeed.

In the year 2525,if man is still alive, will we be any closer to truth?

@HanifBarnwell

3 жыл бұрын

Hah! You transported me XX years ago as a child listening to that sci-fi song on a transistor radio in my childhood home. I wonder if they remastered that song...brb edit: nope whoever mastered that song only for AM radio should be embarrassed.

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

The Truth is a direction and if it is a location, it would reside in the Spiritual, not the logical.

Is the fine-tuning still correct? Because some physicists have written skeptical articles. Including Fred Adams. Please someone tell me.

@ManiBalajiC

3 жыл бұрын

If universe is fine tuned , there is absolutely no need for particles to mix with others to evolve it a new one. Everything possible would already have existed. Its not like some creator decides add along everything to create life as in Life being the ultimate goal when he should be knowing exactly what's needed from the start.

Did a creator fine tune the universe so life as we know it could exist, or did evolution randomly mutate life so it could exist in a universe with these specific parameters?

@mattcorregan4760

2 жыл бұрын

Evolution doesn't even come into the picture until carbon based life existed in the universe. Carbon based life is totally dependent on the very specific values of fundamental forces. It would be like trying to build a Ferrari before any of the parts of the Ferrari were made.

@Fundamental_Islam.

Жыл бұрын

Do you know way before agnostic Darwin the idea of evolution was given by some Muslim scientists? Read about Ibn Khaldun (b. 1332), Rumi (b. 1207), Al-Jahiz (d. 868), Ibn Miskawayh (b.932). But they didn’t reject the creator. So evolution is not an excuse! Also if you go deeper at the molecular level of DNA (which 19th century Darwin didn’t know) there is a quaternary digital code far more complex than a binary computer code! Believing in random mutation is as dumb as believing a dog, randomly tapping keyboard, produce a Microsoft or iOS code, not just once but billions of times, each more advance than before.

When are you going to do an episode for simulation theory?

@gowdsake7103

3 жыл бұрын

What would be the point ? If your in a simulation then any discussion is bound to confirm your delusion !

Even if the existence of intelligent life is rare or rare across multiuniverses we then find the requirements to bring about such a result special. I wonder if that is just a human construct. When does something become special? If the probability is at a specific percent? If we deem the thing created as special and rare like intelligence? Why cant the universe create a finely tuned result without requiring a special case? Maybe the finely tuned Universe is easy to form considering the origin of the universe.

We cannot look out at the observable universe and conclude that there’s anything more past that edge than additional universe that we then have within our ability to observe, simply creating a new edge of the universe that we can’t see beyond. There could be parts of the universe whose math doesn’t equate to that in our current observable universe, but calling it a multi-verse is simply a designation of man, and still doesn’t eliminate a creator who could have fine tuned one area for a type of life, and who could have tuned other parts of the universe for a different kind of life whose math and elements of life are entirely different than our own. I say that in the big picture, man knows nothing when you measure against all there is to know. Man evening thinking he must know has led to many scientific blunders.

If it would be possible for a universe to exist without life (which I doubt), what would he say is the ratio of universes with life to universes without life?

@JacobMDittman

Жыл бұрын

Well it would be possible, if a universe expands too quickly, matter cannot coalesce to form galaxies, stars with planets around them and ultimately life. I would say maybe there are more possibilities which doesn’t allow for life to exist in a most of the many universes. I say this only off one premise, that understanding that our own universe can be teeming with life, which I do believe to be true, but simultaneously it rare, if you say 1 planet for every 8 or 9 planets. What this means is that the universe is relatively hostile, our own planet isn’t perfect, it is just good enough; kind of like in evolutionary biology, how evolution isn’t a perfect process. Just like with survival of the fittest, all this really means is survival of the organisms with adaptations that are good enough.

If one can use faith to justify any belief, then no belief can be justified by faith. If nothing in reality can change your belief, then your belief is based on nothing in reality.

@salims2793

3 жыл бұрын

Is the fine-tuning still correct? Because some physicists have written skeptical articles. Including Fred Adams. Please someone tell me.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

"Men are not to be reasoned out of an opinion that they have not reasoned themselves into." (Fisher Ames)

@tedbates1236

3 жыл бұрын

You absolutely don't know what you are talking about.

We perceive fine tuning because we are here because of it...otherwise, we would not be here to recognize it!

@17711bellybutton

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. I'm surprised he struggled to answer this question without relating it to intelligent design .

I remember this guy in the audience when Sam Harris was ridiculing Deepak Chopra, and this guy joined in, claiming Deepak was talking a load of crap.

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

Mostly when people say that Deepak is talking crap they are closer to truth.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

Deepak Chopra is full of crap.

Fixed the sound finally.

And that's how we get cheesecake!

Yes it's me through my ability to control all the atoms that you percieve and experience All through quantum entanglement which isn't the correct correlation the example if ask will be well

Omg, I thought it was Tony Stark talking about universe.

Well it demands an explanation!

"we find such coincidences." In every other place where we see complexity that is fine tuned, we see a tuner. Or laws exist, we see a law giver. Except here. Very interesting. And "come upon the necessity for there to be multiple universes." The multiverse idea wasnt developed to refute fine tuning but it is being used that way. THE ISSUE IS, fine tuning is in no way necessary for fine tuning to exist and it is simply impossible to prove or even guess at. WE have no empirical evidence of the multiverse whatsoever. Necessity isnt really necessary. Multiverse isnt needed. Fred Hoyle himself stated that the numbers make the potential of a greater intelligence had adjusted the physical properties of the universe to sustain life. Interesting conversation.

Maybe instead of looking to the multiverse and saying this one is special and is capable of harboring life because of how it is tuned, we look at the universe we have and say life can develop in many ways and it did so according to what it was approached with here in this universe and thus life on Earth was as such-as opposed to life in another universe which developed according to the laws which govern it respectively. Unfalsifiable as of now, but it is a possibility.

What do goldfish in a fishbowl know about the fish bowl, or what's outside the fishbowl?

Even with a multiverse if each are fined tuned the same laws would apply. Or different laws if those would suit the particular universe still it would be because of laws and how did the laws come into being. The multiverse does not solve the problem of fine tuning without intelligence.

I think most would agree, it takes about the same leap of faith to postulate there’s a multiverse as it does that there is a Creator. The only difference between the two groups is that one thinks they can prove it, and the other has faith.

@aceventura5398

Жыл бұрын

Some have had personal proof of a creator. So to those a creator's existence is not faith based. Faith in their creator is for the things to come.

Surely it’s premature to talk abut “fine-tuning”? I mean, we presumably aren’t at the end or our journey of understanding physics, and it may well turn out in the future that the number of parameters goes down.

The natural driver might be designed, that driver however just achieves the fine-tuning, see the following article: frenxiv.org/mt3cu/ For more comprehensive view of the last part in the article, see the following video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/e2V7layxXbSXibw.html

I've always had a doubt about fine tuning that why do we think the universe is fine tuned and not that whatever was possible with the given parameters happened just like how life adapts to the surrounding for example maybe the parameters were just right for creation of certain elements and not others

@TactileTherapy

3 жыл бұрын

Because its just as easy for the universe to not be the universe that we live in. In other words, it shouldnt be fine-tuned.

@kenkaplan3654

3 ай бұрын

The probabilities against fine tuning are far too astronomical.

As to why the universe is "fine tuned for life", short answer: It is a mystery. And one possible explanation is a mysterious being, called God. (But most probably not the god that you are imagining.)

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

Actually it is more fine tuned for black holes

@nihlify

3 жыл бұрын

We don't know what's possible. Argument from ignorance is not a pathway to truth.

@Kelberi

3 жыл бұрын

It is simple. If there was no life we won't be talking about it now.

Why always assume that the "fine-tuning" we see in our Universe/ environment is somehow limited to things necessary for our existence? The relationship between the Earth, Moon, and Sun, for example, appears to stem from a unique solution to the "Square the Circle" geometrical problem, which also happens to be embedded/ revealed in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge. Not to mention the phenomenon of total eclipses of the Sun as seen from the surface of the Earth. None of this aesthetic, or informational, or experiential "fine-tuning," however, is in any way necessary for our existence, so cannot be explained away by speculation about the existence of multiple universes.

He's right on the money

Obviously!! The big bang is the answer? The only,thing about that? Is the ,"namechange,"? of the "source" of the ,origin of all existence. Therefore, its a matter of a belief in which,one submission to a Creator, or is the creator themselves, by way of their own intelligence, of which is derived from influences and intuition, and not exactly of thier own doing.

If our universe is finite, what is beyond it if not another universe? If our universe is infinite, then every possible thing must exist.

I love how Robert's is not afraid to explore any logical conclusion. We can see here that most other scientists simply aren't psychologically cut out for it. The evidence currently suggests that either a) there is an almost infinite multiverse, each with slightly different settings for elementary forces; or b) the universe is in some sense designed or finely adjusted. As far as I can tell, there's not much evidence to determine which of these is correct. Scientists stay away from (b) because the idea of design terrifies them. What would should be doing is more deeply exploring (b). Fine tuning does not have to mean God. It doesn't have to be some alien kid playing with a toy kit that creates universes. Maybe we should be exploring something like retro-causation. Maybe something else. But we shouldn't just accept the multiverse because (b) makes us uncomfortable. That's unscientific. We don't have to prove the existence of another universe to demonstrate the multiverse. But we do need to show not just that there could be a great variety of universes with different settings, but we need to define a mechanism for creating a nearly infinite variety. If creation is tuning through types of universes, what is the radio dial? The mere existence of finely tuned settings does not prove that there are places with other settings. To me, the way many scientists cling to the multiverse now seems indistinguishable from faith. It's their own type of faith, because they don't require evidence to believe in it or a mechanism to explain it. I'm an atheist, but atheism is not my religion. A creator or creators remains a possibility to me. Everything is possible. Even the alien kid with the science kit.

@aceventura5398

Жыл бұрын

Hi YCT. Ide like to share my thoughts with you on the subject of belief. I too believe Science and Religion can be minted onto the same coin. Both sides have many unanswered questions. Both relying on faith in most case's, to be accepted. Both hope it will secure their future. Thankfully it doesn't matter if we afford both, or just one side of the coin valuable. Our debts have been paid in full. So a poor man need not care for tomorrow. Be safe and well.

@yellowcottagetales

Жыл бұрын

@@aceventura5398 For me, there might be things I prefer to believe, and then there's the evidence and what's logical. I don't allow my preferences to slant where I think the evidence is going. I try not to anyway. Thanks, Ace.

@aceventura5398

Жыл бұрын

@@yellowcottagetales All we can do is follow the trail that opens before us. If it leads to a dark filthy bat infested cave,... then so be it. I aint touching it thou ! No.. spank you.

@pskehan8601

Жыл бұрын

Interesting points Yct well expressed.Perhaps our advanced ape brains simply aren’t up to understanding every facet of how the universe functions.As has been said before the universe doesn’t owe us an explanation or have to make complete sense to us

I don't understand why scientists hesitate so much when it comes to saying probably God exists. It's as if it's uncool to believe that. This poor guy looked petrified saying that this could be a possibility. As if he will be excommunicado like John Wick by the scientific community if he says the word "God".

@meibing4912

3 жыл бұрын

Because not understanding something does not make it more likely that a god exists or is behind anything than finding a natural reason - as countless scientific breakthroughs over the last 5.000 years has taught us. And that is why we no longer think lighting comes from Thor's hammer (I understand you may do so?).

@hamzaalikhoso6688

3 жыл бұрын

@@meibing4912 I get where you're coming from. I see it this way. The gentleman in the video himself said that we do not need direct evidence of something to believe in it. Somethings are inferred or postulated by other facts even though there's no direct evidence of it. Now assuming the multiverse doesn't exist (which is quite possible), then the idea of an intelligent creative power is highly probable philosophically, given the almost impossible probability for the existence of human beings.

@meibing4912

3 жыл бұрын

@@hamzaalikhoso6688 it is not. And given your train of reasoning you probably know that. Drop the science references which are useless and say you prefer to believe in spite of zero evidence. Its the only viable stance. Maybe read some Kirkegaard for guidance.

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

3 жыл бұрын

Well said. Spineless intellects.

I think the title is a bit misleading.. Interesting discussion at any rate

The multiverse theory came up as a counter to the fine tuning argument. In a lot of ways, it is the same need that Einstein had, in order to explain away design. In those days it was believed that the Universe was static and infinite. It took Einstein 10 years and a catholic priest to convince him of what HIS OWN equations were yelling at him. That the Universe is either contracting or expanding, which was eventually proved as expansion and implies a point of origin, which, in turn, alludes to design. Consider how powerful bias and preconception is! It is similar to arguing about the origin of life. We KNOW that the Universe is waaaay too young to be all that lucky in order to generate life through abiogenesis. The odds are insanely against it. Any honest scientist understands that the Miller experiment is a failure and a fraud. Obviously, we cannot fake the paramaters of the known Universe, so we tweak the odds outside of it, which we have no way to test, and most importantly, WE NEVER WILL. It is an unknowable 'truth'. So, no matter how bad the odds are, we can always add infinity scenarios and shape it in a favourable view. Weirdly enough, the ones arguing against the idea of design are the ones in need of impossible odds and a belief in miracles. Ultimately the incessant question of "what came before that?" is a logical fallacy. And although we have no examples of infinities in our reality, the only feasible explanation is a designer or a cause with no beginning. As always, irony has a sense of humour. Consequently, it demands an agency outside of time, but outside of time causality dissipates. Wrap your head around THAT, would you?

" Many Worlds theory" and the " Multiverse Theory" offer an explanation for how reality might work. The problem is they are both so unlikely, you might as well say God created everything.

@TactileTherapy

3 жыл бұрын

Only theyre not. You just contradicted yourself in a single post - a theory has evidence that backs it up. God does not

@kychemclass5850

3 жыл бұрын

@@TactileTherapy Please provide me the evidence of the multiverse.

@Michael-vp4zt

3 жыл бұрын

Let's assume god did it... so what is god. I kind of doubt it is some guy telling the Israelites where to go. Maybe it's some quantum computer/intelegence??? telling everything where to go.

@tmBlackWings

3 жыл бұрын

I can understand and somewhat relate to you. both the theories seem so unlikely to us bcoz maybe we can not comprehend them as of our third dimensional physical perspective. Perhaps for some, the idea of god is as bizarre as the other theories but a lot more comforting :3

@alexeypopov314

3 жыл бұрын

As soon as you introduce infinity in your reasoning you can prove anything. That's why I avoid multiverse.

9:20 [Mlodinow] "If there is no multiverse, than there is a huge coincidence that everything is so fine tuned to give life" - I think this is where the whole problem with this discussion lies, anthropocentrism. Who said universe is fine tuned to give life? We might as well spend decades trying to figure out why the whole universe was designed to allow moss to grow on trees. This is a false premise.

@sophonax661

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! And the assumption the universe were fine-tuned for life is quite ridiculous to begin with considering that 99,9999% of it (at least of its visible part) are absolutely hostile to living organisms.

multi-verse in places coincides with temporary life until permanent or 67% correct

Is mathematics a natural development in physical universe and human brain / mind?

@Kelberi

3 жыл бұрын

It is the truth, written by the universe. We are merely discovering ways to get to the same answer.

If we use the quantum mechanics on the macroscopic level it becomes absurd. That’s the point with Schrødinger’s cat and the many world theory seems more absurd. Schrødinger’s cat is an experiment we can imagine, but we are not able to do it. There are experiments that show quantum effect on the macroscopic level, that’s how we know it, like the doble slit experiment. Bell’s theorem can be shown by three polarizing filters, it’s very fascinating. The conclusion is that quantum mechanics is complete. But what about life? Animals. Humans. What about our free will? Many educated people think of it in two ways, somehow you have a free will, somehow not, with regards to their theories and then it seems like the question is if it is consistent with their theories. Then it may turn out like the traditional question, is there something wrong with you or with their theories? The square of a wave-function may have two peaks A and B, where it is likely that the particle may be. But it can’t be in the middle between A and B. If it was like this on the macroscopic level, when you want to travel from A1 to B1 and back, suddenly you are at A1 then on B1 and the on A1, but in the meanwhile you were not in the middle between A1 and B1. In the many world theory you are both in A1 and B1 at the same time, but it has become different worlds, when you mean you are in A1, you are also in B1 but are not quite aware of it. When you mean you are in B1, you also are in A1, but you are not aware of it. But is this the way quantum mechanics is shown on macroscopic level? What if you imagine that you are the elementary particle? You refer to the wave function and obeys it, you can be in A or B and it is more like you are in both A and B at the same time. An interaction from the macroscopic level is like when somebody open the box and looked at the cat. But at the microscopic level there must have been another elementary particle with its wavefunction that interacts with your wavefunction. Then you made a choice, let’s say A. So how could this quantum effect possibly be shown at the macroscopic level? That we are free to choose! Of course we have a free will and in my opinion it is not very fruitful to discuss it. But what is fruitful is to learn to know what are the good choices. Then the many world theory may be interesting as a theory, but in the way that at the very present time we can choose between different world to go in to. And the valuable point to you is that you can make a god choice to get a good future.

The religion of pure science believes in multiple universes

Why assume the laws of conjectured universes would have different laws? It's speculation

Even if multiverse exist, intelligent design concept "hypothesis(in the language of science)" is not overruled

@klegs79

7 ай бұрын

Exactly. The multiverse has to be fined tuned itself. These dudes just want to hide from God

The First Law of Thermodynamics prevents proving the existence of other Universes in a "Multiverse" context.

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

I'm surprised Lenny is missing the Cyclic Universe...which can also fine tune parameters

with or without the multiverse, why is it so incomprehensible to believe that our universe came from nothing. we won the powerball lottery of being here. thats it!!!

Fine tuning? It is what it is. We're here. The universe doesnt need an excuse. This fine tuning shit baffles me. It's all just time and possibility.

The expanding electrons does it all. Prior? to that, unknown.The “ most complicated thing in the universe- human brain-“ has obvious limits. Of course without a proper TOE/FT ( done in 2002- “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon) even the foundation is missing.

6:17 The host totally baited him here.

An unstated value judgement operates within every fine tuning argument: that at or "before" the beginning of our universe, conscious life and the furniture of our universe somehow possessed INtrinsic value. If you don't buy this premise, if instead you think we bestow EXtrinsic value on our lives and on our universe (we like 'em), then fine tuning is unpersuasive. Imagine a universe whose random but unique arrangement of constants renders it completely empty except for a few ounces of gravel unique to that universe. Would anyone appeal to fine tuning to explain it?

@TactileTherapy

3 жыл бұрын

Intrinsic value or otherwise has no bearing on why the universe works. That's what makes it so intriguing. Randomness should be ubiquitous but instead we get fine-tuning for no reason

@drawn2myattention641

3 жыл бұрын

@@TactileTherapy I'm not sure a completely chaotic universe is possible. I can't even imagine a "place" where the laws of logic and math wouldn't apply, at least to momentary states of that place. And even a completely chaotic universe would have at least one law: that it was completely chaotic. And why is an ordered universe more intrinsically valuable/meaningful/intriguing than a disordered one, other than we find it so?

@TactileTherapy

3 жыл бұрын

@@drawn2myattention641 it doesnt have to be completely random. Some universes can be 100% random while others can be 99%. Whats intriguing is that ours seem less random than it should be

@drawn2myattention641

3 жыл бұрын

@@TactileTherapy Most apologists using the fine tuning argument concede that almost any universe with it's own unique laws and constants will be ordered and will "work". It just probably won't contain conscious life or anything of interest or value to humans. So order by itself is no big deal. But suppose that was not true: suppose that absent a designer, most universes would be completely or mostly chaotic. Why is an ordered universe more intrinsically valuable/meaningful/intriguing than a disordered one, other than that we find it so? And we can't just help ourselves to an anthropomorphic designer who conveniently shares our peculiar values, our preferences for order or our sense of the intriguing.

I'm surprised Lenny is missing the Cyclic Universe...which can also fine tune parameters

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@Ψ Actually Inflation might have problems..regarding Hawking radiation Points..Penrose has shown Inflation can come before Big Bangs etc

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

But I think his explanations are excellent ( at least for me ) John in Florida

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@Ψ Yes,indeed but he only devised this Model because Inflation has flaws..so does QM actually

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y5WAlNaglczWhNI.html

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@Ψ Penrose has just won the Nobel Prize,so he is correct to doubt post bang inflation kzread.info/dash/bejne/m3xouqyBepunf9o.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/fZN6t86oaKWsabw.html

Penrose laughs at the multi-verse proposition and calls it illogical.

😍🙏

"Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed" The presupposition with this question is strong, and that's not an honest way to search for the truth of anything. There is no evidence to support the idea that the universe or this planet were 'fine tuned' for human life. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that either there was no such tuning, or the tuner was grossly incompetent if there was a tuner. And it's not all 'random'. Chaotic perhaps, unguided, but random isn't right for this. When an event happens, like 2 asteroids collide in deep space at crazy speeds, say 100km / second collision, the results will not be 'random', you won't see them collide and produce chocolate ice cream. They will abide with the physical laws they are subject to, which is not to say they will abide by our expectations. We do not yet know everything there is to know about physics, nor do we know with great precision exactly how those rocks are put together, meaning their density on a very detailed scale throughout their makeup. But at collision time those details will follow the full set of physical laws (most of which we do know) and they will do what rocks do when they collide like that. Mainly become smaller rocks. It's not random. Same is true of DNA, chemistry, water, etc. These things aren't random, but they also are not guided with an end goal. We are not the pinnacle of evolution (that would seem to be crabs somehow).

They would rather say Bruce Wayne is fighting crime in some other universe, than say this reality could be a creation. Yes the multiverse does say Bruce Wayne is out there fighting crime as Batman

The Multiverse was disproved many years ago. In computer simulations, the maximum size it could be was 10. However theoreticians talk about at least a half billion such universes, so the whole concept is obvious nonsense concocted just to avoid recognising G-D. It also flies in the face of Economy of Hypotheses. For what reason do we need it in the first place?

If the experts don’t really know what they talk about when they talk about fine tune seems designed (fundamental issue designed by who?) , is it any wonder that you and I don’t, either? At the very least, we might want to avoid the word “intelligence” when referring to such designed, because nobody really knows what it means and what is the truth. For example, Google’s Go-playing computer system was “smart” enough to beat the world’s best human intelligence-but if you try to get it to generalize what it “learned” about Go to any other domain, you’ll find it’s dumber than a houseplant (weakest intelligence). Even Alan Turing, the genius who mathematically defined what a computer is, considered the question of defining intelligence too hard; his eponymous Turing test dodges it, essentially saying “intelligence is as intelligence does.” Fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and discovered by human intelligence. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? No GOD but Advance Artificial Intelligence or Superior Intelligence or Rees (p.353) as "Europe's leading cosmologist and astrophysicist." Rees cites 6 numerical ways that our universe is apparently fine-tuned, and there are a number of other ways also or in the believe of 6 days creation from fairy tales or science fiction of multi verse? This is not any good until have an answer to how to conclude that our universe(s) are tuned? A fundamental logical element (FLE), may be necessary but not sufficient proof. There is a lot of advanced thinking as well as strong critical thinking on Research gate. One good way to develop the intellect is through the clash and cohesion of different ideas. Human intelligence and consciousness are only effects produced by ourselves (materials brains and spiritual minds.) Ourselves (human intelligence) is not yet a creator of superior intelligence to do such designed. There are superior intelligence that understand deeper between anti matter and matter by evolving. It is the deeper understanding of dark matter, dark energy and gravity that becomes energy when it begins to move. Both gravity and energy are indestructible. Energy is affected by gravity. General relativity sees gravity as curvature of space and time, and all our observations are consistent with this view. Energy lives in space and time and is thus influenced by its curvature: Direction of energy is changed by gravity. We live in a universe awash with energy in various forms - kinetic, potential, mass and so on. It keeps stars glowing, plants growing, molecules bouncing and everything happening. For all we know it came from the big bang, because energy is indestructible and every quantum of it winds up somewhere. Read more: www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg22029404-900-quantum-question/#ixzz6b5O8N6nh

Wow scientism at its finest.

@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy

3 жыл бұрын

Is it though?

why can't there be multiple universes of which _many of them are conducive to life?

The most sophisticated entity in the universe is a conscious, intelligent organism. Does it not follow that we are a natural progression in a universal evolutionary story?

The multiverse in no way shape or form disproves intelligent design, the multiverse still needs an inception not to mention the laws that govern it so this whole idea of God vs the multiverse makes no sense at all. God could have just as easily created the multiverse or a single universe.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@mars laredo I sort of agree with you, but I like to use my imagination. Maybe the Creator used star dust ( from exploding stars ) to give life to earth's first inhabitants.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@mars laredo Oh... I accept that idea but the imagination part was referring to a Creator who collected star dust and breathed life into it's form. Thanks for sharing.

@thomasridley8675

3 жыл бұрын

The first problem is the history of religious beliefs. Showing how easily we will follow practically anything with a god stamp of approval on it. I haven't checked myself. But its said that we have had over 300,000 gods and assorted deities over the years. That's one shit load of 'i guess our god did it'.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@mars laredo I agree with you on grounding beliefs to reality. I don't see any "conflict" between cyanobacteria "oxygenating the planet" and an initial creator who set things in motion. I do admit I don't understand evolution clearly. Thanks for your link. John

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@mars laredo That link is very interesting. Although a bit technical for me, I like it. Thanks for sharing

People really sweat when pushed to the corner & asked to say God is a probable answer. They rather create a divine and unverifiable alternative as a multuverse, which indeed counter Okham'sRazor principle of economy

Better get right

..there is a book by Tony Tymstra …here is a chapter you might find interesting ...the book is on amazon the link is below. THE THEORY OF ONE Life in the Universe is unique The Theory of One suggests that everything in the Universe is an essential substructure used to create and support life here on this planet. Every single thing in the Universe is connected, and everything in it is needed or was needed to produce this unique place of life we called Earth. All the stars, all the galaxies, all the planets, everything in the Universe helped produced this single outcome. Life in the Universe only exists here and that Earth and the Universe are one place. The Theory of One examines three principal elements for life in the Universe to be unique. 1. Requirements. 2. Essential Conditions. 3. Necessary Connections and Cosmic Relationships. A simple example of a Requirement for life is the need for "sunlight." The Sun, which is a star, produces a broad spectrum of energy in the form of charged particles and electromagnetic radiation. Sunlight is only a small part of that spectrum. Plants use sunlight directly by turning carbon dioxide into sugars in a process called photosynthesis. But deep in the ocean, there are some autotrophs, a type of bacteria that do not need direct sunlight. They use the energy from the Earth's hot core. These bacteria use chemicals like methane and hydrogen sulfide emitted from hydrothermal vents on the ocean's floor to make their food. They need the Sun's energy indirectly; without this sunlight, the Earth would not have enough of its own heat to sustain them. The second principle element is the Essential Conditions, and as such, this "required sunlight" needs a unique sun. This sun will need to be the ideal candidate. We do not want a sun that produces intense bursts of deadly gamma rays or x-rays for example. The third element is the Necessary Connections and Cosmic Relationships that exist among all objects, both directly and indirectly. Continuing to follow through with this sunlight example, it would mean that this ideal sun and its delicate attributes have established a unique relationship with this planet. The Earth's magnetic field interacts with this "sunlight," providing a protective shield. This magnetic field is dependent on the structure of the planet's molten core. And as such, the Sun has a complicated relationship with Earth. It generates our weather patterns, produces the albedo effect, and even helps to develop vitamin D in the human body. The Sun's electromagnetic radiation plays a role in a countless number of other natural events here on Earth. The emerging consequences from examining these three key elements suggest that the "Requirements" for life are extremely precise and that the "Conditions" are seemingly endless. More importantly, these "Connections and Relationships" are extraordinarily demanding and far-reaching. The Theory of One goes on to say that these three principles produce an expanding relationship and profound connective dependence, which ultimately includes everything in the Universe. The Earth and the Universe are indeed one place. What are some of the logistical requirements for life to emerge on Earth? Here on this planet, we have acquired the proper blend of chemical elements needed to develop life. This correct chemical balance was only possible because of this planet's remarkable location in the Milky Way Galaxy. This planet's position is critical because if the Earth formed closer to the center of the Milky Way, then we would have acquired too many of the lighter elements, and the existence of life would have become highly unlikely. If, on the other hand, this planet was formed farther out in the galaxy, we would then have too many of the heavier elements and the possibility of life evolving and flourishing would also be highly unlikely. We can continue to expand on these aspects and requirements. For example, we also need the Moon, but not just any moon. We need this Moon and its exact properties. The Moon stabilizes the Earth's motion producing a needed steady and reliable weather system. The Moon also affects Earth's plate tectonics, which in turn plays a role in our carbon cycle. The Moon also produces the tides, which ultimately helped develop life. Our Sun is 93,000,000 miles away (150 million kilometers), for life to exist on this planet we depend on this Sun. It is an exceptional Sun; it is one which is not too hot and not too cold. This Sun needed to be in a stable state and in the proper stage of development long enough for life to develop on Earth. Not only do we need this Sun to be the right type and size of star, but we also need it to be in the correct position and distance. Now, if the Sun were just a fraction of a distance closer, then Earth's water would have eventually evaporated into space. And yet, on the other hand, if it were a fraction of the distance further away we would have become a cold dead planet of ice. This Sun has its' own vast complex requirements and "far off" external influences. Those cosmic interactions ultimately complement and support our existence. And those "far off" external influences and interactions demand their own requirements. Furthermore, we need a solar system with massive planets like Jupiter and Saturn. These planets protect us. They shield this planet from incoming asteroid disasters and comet impacts-these giant planets "sweep clean" our solar system. We needed and still need their size and gravitational strength to prevail, even though these planets are millions upon millions of miles away. But it doesn't end there. Just these two planets alone have many of their own cosmic prerequisites. They have a vast number of critical conditions and precise requirements, which are also complicated and far-reaching. All these conditions and requirements are time-sensitive; they all need to be created within a similar time period. That requirement alone is an incredible plight. We can continue to expand the idea behind the Theory of One. The Milky Way Galaxy, which we are located in, has its own vast complex requirements and correspondence. As such, it interacts with other galaxies, which in turn have their own interactions and conditions. These direct and indirect relationships support our existence and extend the connection to everything in the Universe. It is truly remarkable. This network does not stop or fade away with distance. In conclusion, The Theory of One suggests that everything in the Universe is connected and is required to support life here on this planet. Is it possible for life to exist elsewhere in the Universe? I can imagine it, but the necessary conditions to reoccur somewhere else would be astronomically rare, with an outrageously small probability. We are probably unique in this Universe. www.amazon.com/Possible-Impossible-Probable-Proof-exists/dp/B088B4SKSK/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=tony+tymstra&qid=1607226097&s=books&sr=1-1

Still no closure to the truth.

The laws of nature take care of the fine tuning. The question is where did the laws of nature come from?

"we accept any dogma as long it is not God."

@gowdsake7103

3 жыл бұрын

Umm no. God has ZERO evidence period

@woofie8647

3 жыл бұрын

@@gowdsake7103 The multiverse concept has no evidence, and it likely never will.

@LeeGee

3 жыл бұрын

The joke is the denial without a definition, extremely unscientific.

@tedbates1236

3 жыл бұрын

Your idea of dogma is either spelled doggie or idiot.

The figures don't lie but that never stopped liars from figuring. Man will never know how we were created maybe after death and maybe never?

Thomas Winthrop John in rectangle BOX0 PLanets

"Because the laws of physics would have to be so carefully calibrated to enable stars and planets to form and life to emerge, it would seem to require some kind of design. But there are other explanations." Asserting that the laws of physics seem to require some kind of design does not explain anything.

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

Perfect point

@Corteum

3 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure it's meant to explain as much as it is meant to provoke alternative thought-streams or theory-making.

@rembrandt972ify

3 жыл бұрын

@@Corteum If the OP didn't mean to explain, he shouldn't have used the word explanation. But of course he didn't mean to explain, he is just pretending to know things he does not know.

@Corteum

3 жыл бұрын

@@rembrandt972ify True that. I'm just looking at the takeaway side of it that there may be other theories or hypothesis to explore alongside the existing dominant theories.

Because you would have infinitesimaly small probability of a universe evolving out in such a way that tiny creatures like us in it are thinking on this subject.

Because of special pleading and narcissism maybe

…whatever happen (natural selection, randomness) is a design by a 'rule' !? CNHO follow a rule. Riding a horse on the country road or riding a high speed train on the rail(s), there are randomness, destructive and constructive events are following a rule. Evolution is following a rule.

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

Can you make a logical argument that anything that follows a rule needs a designer?

@bruceylwang

3 жыл бұрын

@@Carlos-fl6ch Designer follows a rule, not a rule follows designer.

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

@@bruceylwang That is just your personal assumption or something that you heard someone say? All your saying is that whenever you see something that appears organized in anyway you suspect agency. First of all if I take ten cards out of a deck do you consider it a random act when the cards appear in a random order and an intelligent act when they appear in a specific order?

@bruceylwang

3 жыл бұрын

@@Carlos-fl6ch Hmm... card game, that is magic. Whatever it appears, it follows a rule.…whatever happen (natural selection, randomness) is a design by a 'rule' !?

@Carlos-fl6ch

3 жыл бұрын

@@bruceylwang nonsense. Following a rule doesn't mean design. It just means that you are obligated not make a valid hypothesis and substantiate it which you can't

Atoms are special in the extreme, biochemistry showcasing a good measure of their character. Science, physics cosmology are shells of theory without an explanation for the complexity problem and fine tuning problem. The good news is the answer is now known, just not widely. The universal fine tuning is evidence of a natural organisational principle. That should sound like common sense. The only such principle noteworthy that is mindless but none the less can achieve awe inspiring complex and ordered structures and processes is Darwinian evolution. Showcased by biology. Its just that a cosmological model that allows for its mechanisms hadnt been conceived of before now. look at the similarities between biology and physics, life having evolved cells that eventually evolved bonding capabilities that lead to multicellular organisms. Compare that to the Atom which possesses electron bonds which form molecular bodies. I'm going to post some further details down the page. Its a conversation that occurred elsewhere, forgive the spelling and grammar. It portrays a good many details worthy of consideration. The Universe is a Darwinian Cascade from its inception and of simple state, through to the highly complex ordered structures and processes we observe in the universe today. Its time for a revelation.......................

@DarwinianUniversal

3 жыл бұрын

Its late here. I'll return to this tomorrow. Stay tuned But I'm going to tell you about how space possesses an energy field Auv which atoms are exploiting to generate atomic forces Tuv, and the atomic forces then motivate the formation and maintenance of atomic structures and processes. The revelation is that this complex atomic state is evolved and optimised for exploiting this natural available energy field of space in the same way that life is optimised of form and process to exploit the natural available energy that allows it to persist. Think any organism within terms of the energy form it exploits to persist, like a plants exploitation of the suns energy for example, and how the plants form/structure and its functions/processes are evolved and optimised for this mode of existence. So a regenerating universal energy field Auv, and atoms exploit it to generate atomic activity via atomic force. Atomic activity which incidentally we use as a clock to track times passage. See the connection? Time is an account of atomic activity, and atomic activity is generated by atomic forces. Time is a measurement which provides a reflection of force generated atomic activity. Life, the theme of its evolved complex forms and processes center around the energy it pursues to persist. The same theme is true of the Baryon universe evolved of optimised form and processes to exploit/harvest a regenerating energy field continuously born of the vacuum of space. This is why Auv = Guv = Tuv. Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis is not a set of cosmic coincidences, the connections are litteral

Is there any proof of the multiverse? No

Because it’s the path of least resistance

The idea of omnipotent god(s) is a product of evolution through natural selection that has programmed every organism with the instinctive command "Survive!". When the human brain gained abstract thinking, people realized that they were mortal, which was in direct conflict with the instinctive command to "Survive!". The idea of an afterlife that preserves a person's thoughts, memories, and consciousness quelled the anxiety of unavoidable physical death. Apologetics supports the cognitive dissonance when one's belief in the afterlife (and thus one's belief in eternal survival) is threatened by reason and evidence. This is the true threat of atheism: Realizing that life is finite, with a definite beginning and an ultimate demise of everything that makes a person unique. If religion did not promise eternal life after physical death, then there would be no religion.

@phild249

3 жыл бұрын

I think these comments are typical armchair speculations made without any research into that which they are criticising.