One of the strengths of Meyer is the precision of the language he uses. He's really good at conveying his points.

I am constantly flabbergasted at the mind that sits within Stephen's head. Just the memory of so much information is foreign to me, let alone the ability to recall it and fit the pieces of information together in a coherent way. In a word, the man is brilliant and humble in the same breath.

@ChazMcMahon

Жыл бұрын

He's the complete antithesis of the modern neodarwinist scientists.

I love this guy, so difficult to dismiss what he's saying. Creator and creation will always come together.

"It's like saying that the latitude and longitude lines on a map are responsible for the rise of the Himalayan Mountains..." Love it!

Stephen Meyer is on his game.

(As Always, I...Could...Be...Wrong) It appears to me the more we learn about the Universe and Life the more reasonable Intelligent Design becomes.

I'm so excited for Stephen Meyer's new book! Stephen is, no doubt, one of the greatest intellectuals working today.

I simply love Stephen Meyer. Using scientific terms and explanations, he destroys the fundamentals of atheism and materialism so strongly that he leaves them no space to defend their stupid ideology.

@calonstanni

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640

Жыл бұрын

Stephen Meyer never said anything about god, only a vauge “higher power” of some sort. A higher power doesn’t necessarily mean something is a god.

@davidrichmond21

11 ай бұрын

⁠Well he is demonstrating that a higher intelligence was behind the created of the Universe. This we can call God if we want to. We can deduce a lot through what he created. But since it is obvious that there is a God it is not where a Christian would like to start a discussion of faith. But because there is such a strong atheist presence in this world the Christian has no choice. If we are talking about evidence I would prefer to start with the evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Good to have someone credible who can explain things in common English. Thank you.

Even Christopher Hitchens admitted that "fine tuning" is the "best argument for the existence of God." Hitchens died before many of the design attributes were becoming more mainstream and disclosed. Even Dawkins has had problems with this and is a big proponent of the "multi-verse." He is even now facing difficulty with "problematic" questions from his University audiences. He had a stroke not too long ago. I assume he will state that THIS is the reason why he is no longer proselytizing atheism at colleges. Sanjosemike (no longer in Ca)

Dr. Meyer is my hero. thank(the intelligent designer) God for men like him.

Excellent...finally, I can feel confident in what I always questioned and now feel confident that the answers are what I had expected. Thank you

Brilliant stuff, Stephen. You speak to us as a philosopher and a scientist.

Stephen, you’re brilliant! Now go get a camera stand.

This is sensical, rational, sane and informative. Thank you for sharing this.

Awesome scientist! He really understands his stuff! No wonder he can present it effectively to ordinary folks like us.

@acortes7771

4 жыл бұрын

Vincent John, Dr. Stephen Meyer is not a scientist, he's a Philosopher of Science. Of course, understanding the science is vital in his field.

Meyers Rocks!!

Amazing. I would like Stephen to have a debate with Sean Carroll about fine tuning

Awesome video !! Thanks so much for sharing

thanks for this beautiful and useful video

Insurance Agent: What caused this fire? Fire Chief: Oxygen. Insurance Agent: Where did the oxygen come from? Fire Chief: Don't ask those questions, you God freak.

A FINELY FASHIONED WORK of ART NECESSITATES the ARTIST -Risale-i Nur Collection

At least the best explanation of the origin of universe and life on earth that I could even heard 🙂 Thanks God 🙏

THANKYOU!!

thanks Dr. Meyer!

Thank you Stephen. This helps in debates.

Zero comments? Over 6.5K views. Great points and the lat/long example was perfect! Thanks for this video.

Cool. I see Hawkins and Sheldon Cooper lost it. Cheers. [ I knew all along]

Whew, this is awesome.

Amazing ... great explanation.... you're brilliant....Hari bol 🙏

The concept "fine tuning" recalls me my tunings of the "English by Radio course from the BBC when I waa a teeneger long time ago (now I am 84 years all). My radio device was an ancient one on which I were obliged to tune the station by short wave and the dificulties came precisely from the finesse of those tuning. My name is Jordi Bassas, and I live in Barcelona Spain,.

Excellent. The fine details of creation itself give glory to God!

I did not follow his last comments on the quantum problems but I have heard Lawrence Krauss discuss his something from nothing theories which get into how quantum fluctuations in space, essentially his version of nothing, create enough energy to ultimately create matter. And yes it raises a lot of questions including where the space came from in which these fluctuations took place.

A designer must exist for a design to come out. I myself is a biology student and I can see how complex life is specifically the nucleotide sequence that any alteration will result to major changes of the entire organism. Common sense.

I need a 5+ hour lecture on this, that goes through all the "dials" in the fine-tuning argument, and then into the multiverse hypothesis and its problems in way more depth. And then perhaps finish it all off with a series of debates. XD

wow great video

Great vid,thanks for posting. There was a big fanfare when the so called God particle the Higgs boson was finally identified by the LHC , what was less publicized was that a lot of particle physicists were a bit disappointed because it too appears to be fine tuned,its perfect value for the job it does cannot be explained by the standard model.and seems to be another lucky shot.

Excellent

This was extremely remarkable, Dr.Meyer. There are, however, some proponents of the ID derivatives who defend a "young universe" theory, based on the alternative interpretation of the red shift in the galaxies and the unexpected abnormalities observed on it. Dr.Adauto Lourenço summarizes a few of the inconsistencies of the "Big-Bang interpretation" of this data: Many interconnected galaxies have different shifts (which would lead us to the weird conclusion that they have different speeds despite the connection), the quantization of the values of speed (the proportion values of the wavelengths always assuming multiples of the conjunct [0.06, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.4, 1.96], like if galaxies had "favorite speeds"). Some propositions were made in order to offer alternative explanations to the red-shift observed: Tired light mechanism (Zwick, 1929), the proportion to the universe's curvature (Segal, 1995), a shift on the speed of light itself (Troitskii, 1987). Also, the background radiation, other of the pillars underneath the Big Bang Theory, has received some divergent and not commented explanations (Like the thermic equilibrium of the cianide interstellar molecules or the result of the accumulation of thermic radiation out of the uprising entropy since the beginning of the universe). My point is: Even though the design is clearly necessary in order to sufficiently explain universe's tuning in a Big-Bang-originated scenario, have you personally considered the possibility of "getting rid" of the Big Bang? Do Hawking's theorems depend on the interpretation of galaxies' red-shift as an expansion of the Universe? Another question: isn't the Weak Anthropic Principle just a circular argument? Anyway, congratulations for all your work and knowledge. I am a med school student and also a researcher, and I've been struggling to teach on ID here in Brazil. It's been amazing, and I would really like to have some conversation with you, specially on the Cosmology topics. If you get interested, please email me on gabriel.jcd@hotmail.com. God bless you!

Fine-tuning is the smoking gun for Intelligent Design. The multi-verse is an attempt to turn the smoking gun into Russian roulette without any bullets.

I don't see why the notion of the "multiverse" would change the fine-tuning argument at all. It's just a matter of "scale". Let's just say that our solar system is like one "atom" within some "larger" system. Then we have to ask the question as to how "finely tuned" an atom needs to be in order to exist, which could be a "constant" all the way down the "tuning" chain from the macro to the micro...

Wow. ❤️

Brilliant

Muslim here. Excellent video. Well done Stephen

The weak anthropic principle is a tautology. The strong anthropic principle is equivalent to religious belief. A good resource is "Modern Physics, Ancient Faith" by Barr.

'the laws of physics alone can explain where the Universe came from' - Thats a remarkably dumb statement to come from someone as intelligent as Stephen Hawking. Its equally as ambiguous as the 'Natural Selection' abyss of Neo-Darwinism. It sounds like it means something but it really doesn't mean anything at all as far as a mechanism goes.

I’m reading Signature In The Cell, and Privileged Planet. Put together it’s just layers upon layers of improbability that we’re here. We are only here because God made us and loves us. He made us and then put us in the perfect spot to observe and learn from His creation.

@MrFossil367ab45gfyth

11 ай бұрын

I watched the movie version of Privileged Planet. I would like to get the book some day, but I thought the movie was interesting. You should check it out if your interested.

Amazing deduction.God is Real.

Great video!

Stephen, a mind blowing analysis of our Universe. Thanks for bringing the highest level of logic to the issue. The issue being that to negate a Creator, all that scientists are doing is compounding the obvious with even more improbable scenarios. By doing this they are making matters worse or furthernore, even more complicated. Why not just acknowledge that the Universe is so finely tuned that it is obvious there is some kind of Creator. Lets not debate what that Creator is, or what it looks like, because we can never comprehend It. I am reminded of verses from the Last Testament, the Quran: "We shall show them the Signs in the heavens, in the Earth and within themselves until it becomes manifest unto them that this is the Truth ( That there is only One Creator." "We (God) , has created the universe from NOTHING and it is We Who are expanding it." "We have created the Earth the Sun and the Stars each floating in space in an orbit." " We have created the Earth round like the shape of an ostrich egg." (how could anyone 1400yrs ago know that the Earth was the shape of an ostrich egg??).

The ending presents a humorous paradox by positing that a universe created by an unintelligent random quantum anomaly can only be suggested by administering the self-restricting boundaries of an equation produced with large sums of organized information. Thus, if information is necessary to create the explanation of how the universe came into existence, then information is also required in advance of the created universe. Subsequently, this information cannot be provided without a provider.

Another note for God living rent free in the head of the atheist. If they're up to speed, they will lose sleep.

I reckon Professor Dave was smart enough to sit this one out..

This absolutely proves Gods existence- as well as Intelligent design-

Wow.

To say that the universe is fine tuned is to say that the universe could have been other than it is. On what basis do we make that assumption?

@MrFossil367ab45gfyth

11 ай бұрын

True, whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?

@kenandzafic3948

10 ай бұрын

1. Based on two things. 2. The bounded principle of indifference says that if we have no reason to prefer some outcome over others then we should assign equal probability to all of them, in this case we have a huge landscape of possible constant values ​​and since we have no reason to think that the other constants are impossible we assign them equally probability that makes our universe utterly improbable. 3. Even if we assume that, for example, these constant values ​​are physically necessary, other values ​​are still metaphysically possible, so that will move the fine-tuning by one nifo, that is, from the universe to the laws of physics, but the problem will still remain unsolved.

Love the video and information, but the cameraman needs some help keeping things steady..

What if they are wrong and the tuning really doesn't have to be (and isn't) finely tuned? How certain are they that the universe is finely tuned?

Some people just don't want the existence of a creator, no matter the cost. What is the problem of accepting that there could be something bigger than us?

Very logical explanations.

I used a tuning fork to see apply all tuning of body

Whenever I talk to my dad about God sometimes we talk about arguments for God. Whenever we talk about "fine-tuning" he often says there is no way to know. There is no way to determine if it is or isn't. He said there is no way to gather data or go back in time. Then there aren't any other universes to observe "we don't know how to do so, or if a multiverse exists". If a multiverse exists though, how can we tell if all these other universes are "fine-tuned"?

If science continues to accidentally discover a designer and then creates more theories to refute it ... How in the world will they ever come to the knowledge of truth ? Its like playing monopoly and only one player being allowed to change the rules so that he wins every game. Does he really ever win ? He will never know unless he stops stacking the deck...

Lovely 😊

I have a problem with the whole materialism/non-materialism thing. Water is 'material' but the amazing water experiments of Emoto and Benveniste prove it is highly responsive to consciousness, and also can conduct complex information across the passage of time. I don't think we yet understand what material is. Thingism might be a better term for the "dead stuff" view of the material world.

This was outstanding!! Don’t forget about Antony Flew. He died in 2010. During his time he was the worlds most prominent atheist, and he wrote numerous book. Then he became a deist. Not a Christian though, but a deist. What changed his mind? He said the discovery of fine tuning. But don’t tell anyone, the atheist hate the mention of his name. Shhhhhh.

@rizdekd3912

Жыл бұрын

Some may, but I don't think most atheist 'hate' the mention of his name. I sure don't. I just realize that despite how famous he was, he just hadn't thought it all the way through and had based his atheism on faulty reasoning. It would be how you might think of a person who claimed to be a Christian theist for many years but when some tragedy struck, they became an atheist. That would suggest to you that they had been basing their Christian theism on a twisted world view that maybe held God up as some sort of 'make everything all right all the time' magician. I had to think through fine tuning before I could conclude I no longer thought God was the best explanation for the world as I knew/know it.

@PeterParker-vi2nl

7 күн бұрын

⁠@@rizdekd3912I’m curious what convinced you otherwise? Or what was faulty in his reasoning? You give an example of how the “Christian” was at fault but not yours. (No offense, I know your comment says this was a year ago, but saying he “didn’t think it through” without explaining why seems arrogant). His research may have made him change his mind. He was drawn towards something, not pushed away from a “disingenuous” worldview or practice. The example you gave however is a very real thing. But the consistency there was a commitment to the self and not to God, even under the guise as a Christian (the Bible acknowledges this problem strongly). Regardless, I’m very much open and curious as to why you came to the conclusion you have about fine tuning (hopefully neither of us tune out change🙏🏻)

Is Pi equal to 3.14 because of fine tuning or because of chance or because of necessity? Let's think... The number is incredibly precise in order to allow for the existence of circles. 3.141592653589793238 is to the 18th decimal and for example if that last 8 was off by just one point, let's say it was a 7, then no circles would be possible in the universe. Instead all "almost-circles" would just spiral inwards into a big crunch onto the center point. If that last 8 was too high, call it a 9, then all circles would spiral outwards to infinity and beyond! So now, should we consider this incredibly precise number we measure to be Pi as possibly a product of intentional design or a product of incredible odds? Is there a multiverse and we just happen to find ourselves in a rare universe where Pi just exactly equals 3.141592653589793238? Or, is Pi exactly equal to 3.141592653589793238 because that's how many times the diameter of a circle fits perfectly around the circumference of the same circle? Should this precision be fine tuned by an intelligent designer, or just by pure luck of the odds? Or is it in fact, because of necessity?

At 2:46 or so he says that list of conditions have to be just so "for life to exist." Obviously a fundamental error that undermines his thesis. He might be correct if he said "the particular kind of life that currently exists." For all he knows there are potentially a billion unimaginable other forms of life that could exists under a billion variations in conditions.

@kenandzafic3948

10 ай бұрын

This is one of the worst objections atheists can make because a universe that does not have these conditions will consist only of hydrogen so no form of complex life is possible.

Creator, Father, singlarity, God Almighty whose name is Jehovah now has one more title (job title ?)

There is only one space curvature at the warp because of being

The sun comes up on time everyday for billions of years. But materialist say there is no purpose to that. Yet if I crash into a police car at 7:30am 5 days in a row, I will be in trouble for doing it on PURPOSE

👏👏👏

Minute 3.10 "speed of light not too fast not too slow" _ I thought speed of light is constant anywhere in the universe. Does he mean what it is constant but in a good way? not clear to me.

Thank you Lord for Stephen Meyer

John Lennox debunks the notion that laws can create in one of his debates

Camera man is driving me nuts.

Hey i would like to write a research paper, is it possible to cite the sources please:)

Why is the concept that metadata must always be more information rich than the structure of the data it describes so difficult for physicists to understand? The same must consequently be true of any “meta universe” or universe generator.

Steven says Fine Tuning. Materialists say Pure Coincidence. Materialists are INVINCIBLY IGNORANT.

This guy really took his critical thinking assignments seriously 😂

Fred Hoyle coined that term Big Bang

Putting what we already know into logical arguments from a scientific perspective. It is practically impossible for everything to exist without a creator. God is the only logical, reasonable answer, and the most probable.

Could Earth have Come "Down out of Heaven" like the New Jerusalem? Confirming the amazing INTIMACY between the Spiritual and Materialistic dimensions?

Stephen is very clever and very good, particularly at identifying flaws in materialist and other arguments critical of an ontology which includes a Creator. But there remains something deeply unsatisfying in a scientific sense in an explanation which posits such a Being, as that conclusion (a) leads to no further questions - it feels like an epistemological dead end; and (b) isn't falsifiable, which is itself profoundly contrary to the scientific method.

Only our Creator can create all the visible illusions that created men believe are real.

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and I separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? " The Quran - chapter21, verse: 30

@kenandzafic3948

10 ай бұрын

I hope you are not promoting the fairy tale that the Quran somehow spoke about modern scientific theories.

Fine Tuning is the best evidence for the existence of God. Without it, I would have trouble believing that the Bible is all true. Take, for example the number pi, which has an infinite number of decimal places ! If pi was just a tiny bit bigger or smaller, circles would be impossible. Thank God for pi

@kristypickett4227

2 жыл бұрын

Look up Jason lisle fractals video too. It may be something like “seeing God in fractals” or something similar. Can’t remember the title exactly, but amazing

Well spoken. Terrible camera movement

the multiverse doesn't disprove that the multiverse is also designed.

What are the three dozen parameters?

Dr Meyer is being very inconsistent here. The fine tuning argument assumes 99% of the materialist view to be correct. Fine tuning says we live a goldilocks universe that had the precise constants for the elements needed for life to fuse within stars. So the first living cell supposedly happened through random chance billions of years ago because the finely tuned universe made that possible. After that, the tree of life arose over the course of eons as Natural Selection did its thing. But Myer's two books "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt" soundly refute the notions of materialist abiogenesis and of evolution explaining the vast tree of life found in the Cambrian layer. . Why, after writing those two books, would Dr Meyer advance the fine tuning argument?

Materialist: There is no evidence of design in nature. Steven: Hold my beer.

If everything has to be so fine tuned that the possibility of humans existing is very, very, very slim than there must be a creator.

The hypothesis of infinite multiverses presupposes that Quantum Mechanics laws which are evident in our universe, in fact, transcend this universe and form the basis of all the infinite multiverses. The question which then arises is that if quantum states are the basis of existence of multiverses, then who created these quantum states in the first place and who bound all the multiverses to exist according to one of these states?

You have it backwards. Life is fine tuned (nothing is realky fine tuned but that is another argument) to match the universe it evolved in. Step 1: universe forms Step 2: chemical reactions begin Step 3: some reactions fizzle out that aren't "fine tuned" Step 4: some reactions thag are 'fine tuned" continue on to abiogenesis You have the cause and effect backwards.

@rabbitsfoot8

6 ай бұрын

No actually you do.. and you skipped over a lot of parts. I love how you just said the universe began and everything just happened to be perfect yeah no fine-tuning there😂😂

We are fine tuned to fit this universe, not the other way around. It would be odd to find ourselves in a un8verse in which we could not exist. My cat thinks our house was "fine tuned" especially for him. People can come up with some tortured logic in an effort to prove their favorite religion.

Excuse my non specialist ignorance, are these fundamental "metaphysical" elements of philosophy? Ergo a Teleological Metaphysical argument?

Hummm ? I agree with some of this but what if it’s the other way around ? Let me explain. Instead of the universe being fine-tuned for life and humans maybe it’s the other way around. Life has find-tuned itself for the universe... lol. What do all of you think ? lol Have a good day and clear skies everyone.

If nothing existed, the laws didn’t exist. If the laws exist, they were “created.”