A TOP TIER Argument For God's Existence

[@ryanevans2655]

Intellectual Christianity is so back

[@Meyer-gp7nq]

We are so back indeed

[@XCrucifiable]

we are so back

[@Libra-_-]

I’m not the smartest guy but with God I one day hope to be more intelligent.

[@pvpbot42]

we are so back

[@vesmanYT]

It never leaved though

[@musingsofahomeschooler5332]

0:01 "imagine you're stuck in some twisted dystopian future" I don't have to imagine it

[@johndee2990]

At least we get to see Project Mayhem

[@Celestial_Chip]

The generational fumble of not calling the video God-tier argument for god needs to be studied

[@maximumswag]

True@@Celestial_Chip

[@Spekil1ce]

We can't replicate God's goodness. Therefore, something from humans cannot be considered "God-tier"

[@janterri3539]

@@Spekil1ce bruh

[@abledadood2842]

Yea but wouldn't that be kinda blasphemous though? "God-tier" is objectively incorrect so it kinda defeats the whole purpose of "I made this video because I love and respect God"

[@nawlfr]

the horrific brute forcing of all these slang lingo trends into one sentence should be studied.

[@EliasVisualProductions]

It’s so funny as a millennial Christian for 15 years to see these arguments repackaged in Gen Z format. Same arguments but much more effective. Good work

[@Hailstorm-v1r]

Not really... we don't know how old the universe is, for this example it might as well be infinite. However since infinity is just a concept, we can say that the universe has the potential to be infinite. with x as our POTENCIAL chances of forming as x [ (x>0) * (infinity) ] means x = (infinity [we will form not matter what]). One important thing to remember is that while the potential for us forming is infinite, but we are (most likely) existing at a certain point in time. This in turn means that the chances of us existing are very high BUT NOT INFINITE. What I am attempting to say with this is that since I do not believe that eyewitness is perfect (even if I see it for myself the chances of my belief would not be 100%), the chances of our world existing with a god are LESS THAN the chances of our world without a god. My argument is mostly based on OPINIONS which I believe to be the most popular in society. In the end, my argument does not disprove the existence of a god, only stating that i believe in the probably most likely option. Also I can think of several evolutionary reasons for our belief in a god but this comment is getting way to long.

[@comhaltacht315]

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, it at the bottom of the glass is God waiting for you.” -Werner Heisenberg

[@Hello-bi1pm]

That seems to be longest possible and brainmelting road to God

[@TehEricAlmeida777]

Can you tell me why 90% of biologists are atheists?

[@milkyJuman]

@@comhaltacht315 he never said that please stop spreading false information

[@comhaltacht315]

@@milkyJuman Did he not? Who said it?

[@milkyJuman]

@@comhaltacht315 idk but he definitely did not. It's a fabricated quote.

[@polishscribe674]

1. Jesus existed. In fact, He is better documented than the roman emperor and even atheist scholars agree that He lived, teached, and got crucifued. 2. Tha apostles must have believed He ressurected, otherwise they wouldn't have died for him. 3. His body must've gone missing. If it didn't, Jewish farizes would just show it to disprove His resurection.

[@anto69-420]

1. No, he is not better documneted than the emperor. Outside of the christian writings, we have like other 4-5 brief mentions of him. The emperor had personal scribes and literally had his head on the coins. 2. They didnt die for the faith. The church says that they did, but there is no evidence for this. 3. Maybe, just maybe, the zealous followers did actually take the body.

[@KopperNeoman]

4. The 3D photonegative on the Shroud of Turin can only now be replicated with theoretical modern laser technology with power output in the billions of watts, technology that far outstrips what any medieval or period forger would have ever be able to even comprehend.

[@Chance_Rice]

I am Christian but this is so low tier, and which Roman emperor do you mean?

[@polishscribe674]

@@Chance_Rice Tiberius

[@CrazyBeastlyDude]

@@anto69-420 So we’re also going to ignore the eye witness accounts and claims of 500+ people saying they saw Jesus after he died? Some of them weren’t even his followers or believers. We’re going to ignore those who served the Emporer (soldiers, governors, scholars, etc.) claiming they agree that Jesus was the Son of God? What about current Athiest historians agreeing that a man named Jesus was crucified? I guess because you haven’t read those documents or heard about those people then makes the Bible a bunch of hoopla. Got it

[@qb101]

I have a lot of people I went to college with who are agnostic or atheists. However, the primary thing that studying a B.S. and then an M.S. in physics taught me about God is what is presented precisely in this argument. I find it very difficult to ignore the math of fine tuning and even graduate level quantum mechanics can't really make the mutli-verse stick. Extra dimensions? Absolutely. But, the multi-verse really just came off as a way for scientists to duck the question of theism and decide the math "really does work after all". I love physics. Physics tells me God is not an at all unlikely or impossible first cause. Edit: I have turned off comment alerts on this thread. It's now 90% atheist trolls making the same arguments over and over that I have already responded to elsewhere in the thread. Sorry to those of you looking for genuine engagement, conversation, and/or debate. As usual, the know-nothing trolls have ruined it and are now even fighting amongst themselves.

[@skimmilk2774]

@@qb101 I also have a degree in physics. Just want to second this. Very well put.

[@MetroMan13]

Real

[@Ultra_Catholic]

@@MetroMan13Why do I see you everywhere?

[@Juliosguitarstuffs]

Hey, biochemist here, just a BS, nothing too fancy or credible, but the complexity and information packed into DNA shows me that there is a programmer (God) that wrote the code for the human genome! God is good!

[@MetroMan13]

​@@Ultra_Catholic Commenting is keeping me sane and alive. Real. Also, MetroMan is omnipresent.

[@Thenewhollowknight]

Honestly, whenever anyone says that god’s not real, I just get sad that people say something like that in front of a Christian. Like I wouldn’t walk up to someone who is Muslim and say, “Hey, your god isn’t real” that’s just not something you would do.

[@mantlerivan7869]

Plus if you did that that would be "hateful and offensive"

[@nekk008]

@@mantlerivan7869 Yeye average American get sad over a small thing, grow up

[@lexcitly]

free speech

[@Mx.WolfoFr]

Well yeah and in their religion they're supposed to kill you if you say stuff like that, Muslims have quite a violent religion, infact most religions are pretty violent, I say most because some are based purely in peace

[@Windwaker_is_the_goat]

​@@lexcitlyfr

[@BorchikYes]

Okay so here is the issue with this argument: 1. The argument doesnt point to anything in particular even if its granted. Say we have an intelligent designer. Okay, so what? The argument doesnt tell you its your god, it would just tell you its something that caused things to be this way. Any number of made up gods could be true. 2. What if the reason we have theese constants is that they couldnt have been any different at all? We already baisically have that with gravity. Gravity isnt just some kinda force, its a consequence of the fact that spacetime can be moved and it simply couldnt have been any other value. It could be the same with all other constants. This is just an assumption though. 3. As much as youd like it not to be, this is still god of the gaps thinking. We dont know why exactly the constants are like that, so you assume god. This is really my main point with this comment. Does that mean there isnt any possible way God could exist? Nope. But at the end of the day, the god hypothesis is unfalsifyable. You cant prove it beond reasonable doubt and you cant disprove it with any amount of evidence either. Until some kind of evidence is found that either proves or disproves gods existance, it will stay a hypothesis and wont be accepted as science. We admit that we dont know why the constants are this way yet, instead of trying to make up an explaination that we cant prove. sorry for any typos or gramatical errors btw :) Edit: not gonna be answering any more replies anymore scince im getting kinda tired of it. The conversations were surprisingly civil tho :D

[@joshuaparsons887]

Are you aware of the transcendental argument?

[@BorchikYes]

Just looked it up and so far I dont find it convincing. Maybe I just dont get the argument tho. As far as I understand the argument says that because we cant prove many of our axioms (for example that logic makes sense and that truth exists) we need something like god to ground theese beliefs on. Correct?

[@JP-jo5lo]

​@@BorchikYesIt's an interesting argument but one could just point out that we are able to comprehend logic and reasoning because it's how our brains developed after millions of years. Our intellect is a unique evolutionary adaptation, it helped us survive and thus it kept developing to the point where we are now. Sure, it could be that God drove evolution for millions of years to end up where we are today but can we prove it? No of course not. The burden of proof still lies on the believers even if a hypothesis they come up with theoretically possible, especially when using god of the gaps

[@randomservant777]

1 - This argument only tries to prove an intelligent designer. The goal is to first show that God must exist and why Christianity is an entire different discussion. 2 - That's a moot point. If the universe only allows these constants to have these exactly values because of how the universe is structured, it would only prove this argument further. Why is it that the universe only possible values are so fine-tuned for the existence of life? It goes back in circles. 3 - Not really. It does not matter why the constants are how they are, only that they are. If one is to prove that every single constant of the universe could never ever have any other value you would completely remove the multiverse counter point and reinforces the Inteligent Designer. Why would the universe self rules not only be logically consistent but also so precise to the existence of life to the point that it seems too convenient? Multiverse answers that by pure infinite variations and raw chance, therefore is the only strong contender apart from Inteligent Designer. But multiverse is pure speculation and not in any form a serious scientific theory. English is not my first language. I apologize for any mistake.

[@JP-jo5lo]

@@randomservant777 Intelligent designer is as much speculation as any other attempt to explain the world until proven otherwise though

[@unknownsoul1206]

Been a pantheist most of my life. Last year i had an experience that forced me to believe, but it still didnt feel right. Then i accepted Jesus as my lord, and i started reading the bible. Now it feels like im actually acknowledging the experience and honoring Him for saving me. I need to do better, but I'm doing better. Thank you Father for stepping in, saving me and giving me the answers i needed. I vow to be better, do better, and live Your teachings.

[@dabdillon6318]

If youre feeling up to it read about the eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires, Argentina

[@crankfastle7919]

@@unknownsoul1206 fantastic to hear you’re doing better! When we throw our hands up in frustration, and give God permission to work through us; things become so much easier. I know for myself I struggled with knowing which way to go in my life, plenty of times… and God seems to reveal the way, one small piece at a time. It’s about putting our fate in his hands and not trying to use our human body and mind to try and work around trusting ourselves into his hands.

[@gbgas1388]

You went through a moment of difficulty where you felt helpless, a perfect moment in which all religions attack you in your vulnerability to convert to their religion. I have already read this story thousands of times with all kinds of religions.

[@unknownsoul1206]

@@gbgas1388 actually I killed myself and when I was in the dark watching reality fade away, God came. He answered my questions, told me I was strong, to have faith. Then He sent me back, and now there is no way for me to blind myself to His glory. I can hold no other gods because I know the truth absolutely, so now with that knowledge. I have no excuse but to try to live my life by the word of His only son.

[@WillyPhonken]

The bible IS polytheistic. The monotheistic nature of the bible was something that was retconned halfway through. But, there are still many verses referring to the elder god (el-shaddai) having created the other gods (uncluding Jehovah).

[@VCLegos]

For the universe to be considered 'fine-tuned,' one must first assume that the universe had the potential not to be fine-tuned. This implies that there are other possible configurations of universes, which aligns with the multiverse theory-something that you have denied in your discussion. This raises a potential contradiction: either the multiverse exists, allowing for naturalistic explanations, or it doesn’t, in which case the universe simply exists in the way it must, without the need for fine-tuning or a creator. Moreover, this brings up a deeper philosophical question: why must the universe require a creator at all? Could it not be possible that the universe simply exists as a self-sustaining reality, without the need for external causation? After all, if we believe that God can exist eternally and independently, is it not conceivable that the universe could share that same property?

[@festus5226]

@@VCLegos i wanted to write something similar but i found your comment and since i completele agree with what you said i didn't

[@somebodyontheinternet5338]

I don't see how "it could have happened differently" mean a multiversity absolutely exists. If you could clarify what you mean that whould be great. Also no. The universe can't have existed forever because we know that's not the case. We know it began to exist at some point when it didn't before that point. The fine tuning argument then argues that the most likely cause of the begging of the universe is God.

[@EternalFinity]

Causation exists as a property and/or result of time, a dimension of our universe. X must occur so that it can cause Y, before Y can happen. Being outside of the universe itself, the universe does not need a cause.

[@noodle67]

Why are you assuming that these constants are left up to chance in the first place? Also no, it could have existed forever, and if it did then the constants couldn’t have been left up to chance.

[@davidhryhoryev696]

for your first argument he literally said in the video that if we consider the multiverse theory to te true then there must be instead be a creator or a machine that creatures all those universes with different configurations

[@bronks_gd]

4:32 Right, now try to replace "multiverse" and "universes" with "God" and it still makes sense

[@Burningflame97]

The anthropic objection is also circular reasoning. _"We got here by random chance because here we are (by random chance)!"_ Also, when they resort to multiverse theory, they are resorting to an ad hoc rescue.

[@paperbackwriter19]

wouldn't you agree that their would be a universe that the firing squad kept missing if you took out all the times you died, and instead only looked at the times you were alive.

[@nicuciocan-wd40]

why would you mention multiverse believers are wrong because they use ad hoc rescue when y'all use it all the time by saying stuff like "god might have helped them in that impossible scenario"

[@Tiwad]

@@paperbackwriter19 Atheist like to complain about there being "no evidence" for God, but there is absolutely 0 evidence for a multiverse. You're willing to blindly believe in something like that, without any evidence, but God is just nonsense?💀

[@lukajovanovic6437]

@@nicuciocan-wd40 because of the magical word "might". But to disprove an argument, you cant you a "might" or "maybe". Theres a difference between "God MIGHT have been involved" and "the universe MIGHT work like this, therefore you argument is false"

[@lulny12]

@@paperbackwriter19there is literally NO evidence for the multiverse existing.

[@prodromosmakpon8432]

Problem is, the universe isnt fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for the universe. The universe was made first then the humans. Remember, life can only observe the universe if it has conditions for life, otherwise thats impossible.

[@Blessed_Bill]

This is actually completely false? While the world was being created it had to gradually become sustainable for life by developing an ozone to protect from uv rays and then it had to create a gas for combustion so that living things can produce energy we are fine tuned to live here to an extent but not the extent you speak of

[@zimton539]

The heck are you talking about?? Life on earth wasn't always suited for humans to live on. But it was for other kinds of lifeforms. Only after millions of years it was possible for us to live and in a couple of million years the environment will be changed again, impossible for us to live in if we don't adapt (!finetune!). Just because earth currently allows us to live without issues, doesn't mean we are the chosen and everything revolves around us. Don't be so egocentric to believe we are the ultimate lifeform chosen by this planet who became perfect for us too live in and made other lifeforms extinct. Our end will come too if we don't adapt. And "it had to create a gas for combustion so that living things can produce energy" doesn't make any sense. Creating energy out of gas is on of millions of ways humans learned how to create energy. We simply adapted to our environment and found an easy way to use gas in such a way.

[@ricoseb]

⁠@@zimton539what he’s saying is the fine tuning argument is stupid. The probability of the conditions required for human life is so low that it must have a creator? Well just look at the probability the conditions required for human life exists, given that humans exist… ah, it’s 100% !! Not so unlikely anymore. 😂

[@prodromosmakpon8432]

Exactly ricoseb. For us to be viewing that life is possible we need to be alive.. so the argument of fine tuning becomes stupid if you think about it.

[@BossOfAllTrades]

Simple things like atmospheric pressure or oxygen concentration would not allow us to be able to use fire to cook and our species would have died out during the ice age along with never getting our increased brain size due to cooking our food.

[@FerventforJesus]

im starting to think that you draw al the wojaks

[@TestifyApologetics]

No

[@MetroMan13]

​@@TestifyApologetics Yes

[@JesusPerez-wd3tq]

​@@TestifyApologeticsyes you did!!! 😮

[@okokaytxrfo]

@@TestifyApologetics You did

[@CrazyBeastlyDude]

@@TestifyApologetics you did

[@grandmidoister8661]

Fine tuning is interesting but the universe we live in could have these fine tuning constants just because it’s the only constants that allow for our existence. Not necessarily because a God set them, but because these are the only fine tunings that would allow for the universe to exist. So it cannot be anything else. Maybe it’s a creator, maybe it’s not. The only way we can tell is if the creator of the universe gave us a clear “Yes” if we asked if they existed or not. Like writing “Yes” in a field of grass, forming words from dead and living grass in real time. (One of many examples a god could portray their complete control/power over the universe while giving an answer to their existence in an extremely straight forward way lol) But for someone reason, the creator is completely silent. I never understood how he was so involved in the beginning and slowly became less involved with humanity as time passed. It’s just too convenient. If this creator decided to pull any of the undeniable miracles and shows of power to the world we live in today that they performed in the past AKA the age of information, the world would not be able to deny his existence. But it’s oddly convenient that now that we have the tools to record records perfectly, suddenly there is nothing to record. Kinda like how UFOs videos become more scarce as soon as high definition video capturing equipment is available. Why is it always a phone camera with terrible quality, leaving us to guess its authenticity?

[@Neo_Knight]

The bible shows that God steps away from us because he gave us free will. Humanity often rejects God so he respects our free will enough to step away. The bible has more details to it. You should look into it more.

[@PaulHyjal]

@@Neo_Knight Rejection of God is a result of doubt. Doubt is fundamentally human, it's the reason we have all the technology around us. One does not simply choose his belief, it's influenced by the external world. It is completely illogical to send people to eternal torment over, quite literally, being unable to believe due to simply how their brain is wired.

[@darkwolf7740]

Of all the arguments for God, fine-tuning is certainly the one I like the most. Chance can't explain it. Multiverses make the problem worse. So it's either a set of necessary conditions or a timeless spaceless entity created the universe 🤔

[@Vanta1111]

Another goated Darkwolf comment 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥💯💯‼️‼️🦅🦅

[@kresovk5]

How would multiverses make the problem worse? Can you deny their existence? If you can't deny their existence, argument is nullified. It becomes an opinion at that point. Comforting opinion, opinion that can move people in good direction, but opinion nonetheless.

[@lulny12]

@@kresovk5how can you confirm the existence tho?

[@joe5959]

​@@kresovk5Lets say the multiverse is a thing, there must be something to cause those things. I dont see how "comfort" has anything to do with this.

[@LawlessNate]

The teleological argument is strong. It also appeals to our society's love of science. Me personally, I love the Kalam Cosmological argument. Unlike atheists who will affirm absolutely anything, no matter how ridiculous, so long as it lets them deny God's existence, I have always been satisfied with pure logic. I know there aren't any married bachelors and I feel no need to search the world to see if there are any simply because the concept itself is logically impossible. Similarly, the KCA uses obviously true premises and its conclusion follows necessarily from them. The conclusion has obvious theistic implications. There's no rational way to reject its conclusion or the theistic implications that follow from it. Every time I talk with an atheist about the KCA they always, and I mean always, end up either denying the validity of logic, denying the first law of thermodynamics (usually with 'but in the beginning the laws of science totally didn't count!'), or try to affirm a past-eternal universe (which denies the physical evidence that supports the Big Bang being the beginning of spacetime itself AND the notion being logically impossible itself due to requiring an actually infinite quantity of past causes).

[@axiom6000]

Is Testify trying to become the strongest Christian apologist???😱😱😱

[@okokaytxrfo]

GodLogic >>>>>>>>>

[@okokaytxrfo]

(my opinion)

[@Duckz4bucks]

Man is speed running apologetics and I am here for it

[@MetroMan13]

​​@@okokaytxrfo Doesn't GodLogic mainly deal with Islam. I would say that Christian Prince or Sam Shamoun would be better suited in the Islam area.

[@okokaytxrfo]

@@MetroMan13 You're right. I'd say Sam is better. G

[@MetroMan13]

God is Real because MetroMan says so. MetroMan knows best.

[@TheTemplar168]

Can’t argue with that logic 😂

[@okokaytxrfo]

You're right. Edit: I accidentally liked my own comment 😂 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Brandon2777]

No objections here mate

[@Just_A._Tablespoon]

Can't believe atheists haven't noticed this yet, smh

[@okokaytxrfo]

@Just_A._Tablespoon They will.

[@ChristianContents]

Your videos by far are the most entertaining I've ever seen by an apologist. You're a gift. Thank you

[@ottomolnar5821]

This video came at the perfect time. In the past few days, I have come across several arguments that have so far tested my faith in God the most. I was very depressed and my faith was shaken. I tried to gather as much information as I could, and in a short time I burned out by the amount of information. I cried out to the Lord to forgive me and help me not to shift away from Him and help me strengthen my faith. A few minutes later this video helped. God really listens. Thank you brother for your work. Thank you my Lord.

[@user-jb5qf4zp9p]

im agnostic and this puzzles me why are you following this faith/religion if it brings you this much stress? you were having blind faith and the moment something caused you to question this blind faith you were depressed is it because of fear that you would go to hell? this video does not support christianity specifically it only says that there is likely or potentially a creator or a god of some sort there is a infinite possible amount of gods

[@spoodysnail7624]

@@ottomolnar5821 here is another message Balls

[@Rang15]

your god made you depressed and ur still thanking him lol

[@yippe-jd8oq]

​@Rang15 how god made him stress?

[@letmetellyouabouttheconsti139]

People like you turn to God when you can’t make sense of things. Religion exists because we needed a way to cope with our limited understanding of the world. Our brain can’t even comprehend big numbers so what makes you think the science that we know of are top notch? There’s an explanation and explanations that will be for anything and everything. No one designed us.

[@YahyaBey-vz4gx]

There might have been endless failed universes before ours and we would not know about it. Only reason we even argue that god exists is because we exist. We simply exist and universe having such sharp constants is not a miracle. Just think that you have a quantum computer and run a simulation that randomly tries every number and every possibility in order to create life. And once you get the perfect combination, it is not a miracle but certainty. If the simulation failed countless times before, it is not a miracle.

[@mastershake4641]

Its like yall dont even watch the video. He literally addressed that the multiverse theory is just 1 step removed from the same arguement. Nothing you said changes anything. Now prove theres a multiverse. Good luck.

[@jeusmarcomascarina4102]

Multiverse is just a fiction. What idiot would like a mess. Yes, an idiot Stuck in books of what if because they failed life miserably and can't take responsibility.

[@DefinitelyNotJerry5]

@@mastershake4641 Now prove theres a god, good luck.

[@EmmanuelGiouvanopoulos]

@@DefinitelyNotJerry5 thats what the video does you goofball

[@DefinitelyNotJerry5]

​@@EmmanuelGiouvanopoulos If that's what you believe probably not worth arguing. Nevertheless, he didn't make a single argument proving that the god exsits. He only tried and failed to disprove the counter arguments to it.

[@RionIGuess]

Although i am a theist, there is a possibility that the universe simply kept restarting over and over again until it created life PS: JESUS CHRIST STOP COMMENTING ON THIS I JUST MADE SOMETHING UP 😭

[@scorpionarthur]

My thought too, we can only realise the universe when we're alive, so the probability for a life containing universe in which we exist, so we can realise it, is 100%

[@McSmurfy]

That would still mean there is an intelligent thing to guide this restart, like someone using a slot machine until hitting the jackpot. That still doesn't make sense if there is no creative mind behind it because then there is just matter and energy.

[@RionIGuess]

@@McSmurfyThat is a good argument, but what i meant is there's a theory that big bang happens then the universe dies then it happens again then dies and it's just this cycle. And in this cycle we can only exist in good conditions so we have a guaranteed chance of being alive as long as it happens even once every googolplex something years. Yes we don't know how big bang happened so i do also believe that god created it, however i just simply provided an argument for the opposition due to the fact that "no understand=god did" argument isn't always true(like with the egyptian gods)

[@McSmurfy]

@RionIGuess That makes sense. I think for that argument, I heard atheists say that we are valuable because of that very little possibility happening, but then we come to morals being relative and all the other things. I still look up at the sky at night in AWE of how God created it all and it is beautiful.

[@RionIGuess]

@@McSmurfy why did my comment get deleted-

[@LarryXLR]

God has blessed Testify with an abundance of based

[@AndyZach]

My own counter to the multiverse theory (before that was invented, there was a collapsing universe theory, which has since been disproved), is that you're switching your object of faith from God to chance. Since we see beauty everywhere in the universe and beauty has no value in survival, that tilts the choice away from chance to a loving, intelligent God.

[@KopperNeoman]

The secular counter to that is that it is beneficial to survival to find things that we need beautiful, and that our intelligence caused us to replicate that which we find beautiful. A housefly finds things like cowpats and refuse beautiful, for they are perfect places for its offspring. The secular only say that because they've never been held in the arms of the Spirit like I have. I was once the secular. I pray for them.

[@nicuciocan-wd40]

lol beauty absolutely has value in survival, especially since beauty is subjective: fresh colorful fruits are beautiful because they are nutritious and safe to eat while rotten ones are ugly because they can kill you, symmetry is beautiful because people with symmetric faces are more likely to be healthy strong and have less genetic defects. This kind of misinformation is exactly why i'm against religon, believe in what you want but don't try to force that belief onto others via information that you didn't even sit to think if its right

[@Tiwad]

@@nicuciocan-wd40 I don't think this is the best argument for God myself, but you're misunderstanding the argument. To use your example, the point is that theres no reason for the good fruits to be beautiful and the rotten ones to look ugly. Secondly, people dont have symmetric faces at all, its moreso symmetric then those who are deformed, but the point still stands. Also, no ones forcing anyone to do anything. We spread the Gospel because we truly believe people will go to hell, eternal suffering, without it. If you wish to ignore it, thats on you, no one's gonna find your address to evangelize you. The point is that it would take a lot of hate to believe someone is on the way to hell and just look away like nothing happened. It'd be like if I saw someone sneeking up on you with a knife, and I just turned around like nothing was happening

[@williamgreenfield9991]

What makes you assume that beauty has no value for survival? Flowers are beautiful (visually and aromatically) precisely to help attract the pollinators that ensure their survival and spread. And besides, we all know "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, and natural selection is not just "by chance", it favors survival, and it works.

[@williamgreenfield9991]

@@Tiwad So you're on a "mission" to try and get as many folks "saved" from the curse that your "God" placed on humanity early in the Christian creation myth. Why would this "God" dude do such a vile thing to his own creations? Is cursing every offspring of an offender with being tormented for eternity your idea of a loving and just "God"? When you start to realize that the main character of the Bible is a moral monster, only then can you begin to escape the grasp of the tentacles that have ensnared you and most of humanity, by the billions, for ages.

[@electrictaser4571]

4:33 I can't observe it measure it or even know if it exists, that is why the multiverse theory is wrong. Therefore the theory of god in which I can't observe, measure it, or even know if it exists is correct. Completely flawless logic.

[@mantlerivan7869]

I always say that science is the "in world explanation" for god

[@Unknown-q1v8d]

I find it fascinating that the odds of stars, carbon, water, and other elements forming are 0.0000000...1%, BUT the odds of an ultra-intelligent, ultra-complex, almighty being forming instantly from nothing are considered 100%

[@rockyneely749]

its not considered 100%, its considered a possibility.

[@wuffpack0195]

@@Unknown-q1v8d God is the only being not created. He didn't form from nothing since before our universe there wasn't nothing, only Him. When He created the universe that is when we get space, matter, and time. I hope this makes things clearer.

[@brooklyn8745]

@@wuffpack0195 ?? still brings up the same question of who made him

[@guardian7773]

@@brooklyn8745 nobody made God. He simply is, as He exists outside of time. We are limited by time and can only perceive what is affected by it, but God doesn’t fall into that category

[@Unknown-q1v8d]

Well, why can't we say the same about the universe.. it is, always has been, and always will be? Why do we need to take a step back and say someone created it, only to end up with the same proposition that the creator has always existed and always will?

[@tylimlibwaar4924]

I am frustrated by how people try to put limits on God as if He were merely human. God is beyond our understanding; if He desired to be a black hole, He could easily do so. If He chose to manifest as a burning bush, that is within His power as well. Yet, too many people struggle to accept that God made Himself human in mortal flesh, died, and then resurrected Himself. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Let me be clear: we cannot impose human limitations on an all-powerful being. Take matter, for instance. It is a fundamental principle that matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet the galaxy is full of it. So how did it come into existence? It was made. By whom? God. And how? That's the point-He's God, and we will never fully comprehend His ways. I use the pronoun "He" because the only human form God is known to have taken is that of a man, specifically Jesus Christ. We need to accept the reality of God's nature without confining Him to our limited perspectives.

[@MrIronJustice]

Don't forget about His human form to talk to Abraham. And possibly another human form to give Revelation to John.

[@FaridAliyev-b6r]

There is no definitive evidence of god's existence. if you do come across any, please share it with me

[@voxuuu9551]

@@FaridAliyev-b6r how can you make evidence on something metaphysical?

[@scythe2194]

I also believe "God" does exist but not in the human form (e.g. floating man in the sky) we perceive him as. The universe as we know it, space, time, the beginning, and the end all exist due to some force and still continues to exist due to this force. Before and after the universe is incomprehensible, and our human existence is as well. There has to be something greater that created something from nothing, and I believe this is what we call "God," even though he may very well be the laws of the universe.

[@FaridAliyev-b6r]

@@voxuuu9551 You... cant

[@jeanlucdecoster]

And the best part about this? Is it ONLY discusses the external world. Dive into the internal world of Man? Why we have morals? Why we can feel fulfillment? Why we suffer? Why we have free will? This video is only HALF of the arguement! Love it.

[@OmegaX-Jr]

Uhm because we have those from the start? We have pain inhabators to know what can hurt us, we have free will by simply having an more advanced brain from the rest of the life forms on earth.

[@jackfoudray]

@@OmegaX-Jr At the end of the day, if there isn't a God that provides humans with morals, who is to say what is and isn't wrong. Maybe you can argue murder is wrong because it involves the killing of your species. But why is rape, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. wrong? Relativism is a dangerous way to think about morality, as it subjects the most disgusting things to being "morally justified." Time and time again, things point to a God. What/who is God? That's an entirely different argument. But to suggest their isn't a creator actively involves one to believe we are just clumps of cells that miraculously have life with no meaning.

[@OmegaX-Jr]

@jackfoudray well we are actually clumps of cells, you are made up of atoms you know?

[@OmegaX-Jr]

@jackfoudray nah humanity learned whats right and wrong over time

[@jackfoudray]

@@OmegaX-Jr Yeah, that makes no sense. You can't learn right from wrong with no moral compass.

[@valhalla_1129]

"look, I depicted myself as the chad and you as the wojak. Therefore, I am right."

[@ggplayerbr2883]

*Ignores all the arguments in the video and proceeds to attack the creator because he use wojacks*

[@leonardoc0rtez289]

God is real, and he who rejects him all life good luck in the afterlife.

[@Okabe_Rintaro_]

​@@leonardoc0rtez289 "krishna is the real God and you eat meat so goodluck in afterlife"

[@leonardoc0rtez289]

@@Okabe_Rintaro_ who is krishna lmao. A Demon in disquise playing a false God. Pagan lul.

[@leonardoc0rtez289]

@@Okabe_Rintaro_ Pagan

[@dielucas100]

I think the puddle analogy could actually be used to prove the existence of God. Water doesn't change its shape to fit every hole it's in out of sheer luck but becuase it has an inherent tendency to do so. In the same way, the universe doesn't support life out of sheer luck but because it has an inherent tendency to form life. But why does it have that tendency? That points to design.

[@AristizabalixGrimm]

I'm screenshotting this. You're onto something here.

[@GogakuOtaku]

I might have to screenshot this too

[@onshlaught]

Also, biological life is unfathomably more complex than a puddle. A puddle can take a near infinite amount of shapes, while life can only take a handful at most

[@dielucas100]

@@onshlaught Isn't it the other way around?

[@AnymMusic]

it has a tendency to form life?? The sole evidence we have found for life is us. That's not a tendency

[@williamli3797]

Hey, Christian here. I would like to give some comments: 1. So the shooting squad all miss, so there must be something beyond them. The shooting squad analogy assumes that we exist, are capable of understanding our existence, and understand how the shooting squad would nullify it. In retrospect as the victim, it is indeed surprising that I am still alive. One issue I thought of is amount of information. If we knew that the firing squad would miss, it would be a trivial scenario. The non-believer can argue we are rushing to conclusions with our limited knowledge. 2. The "shooting" itself perhaps is better analogous to extinction events or the constancy of universal parameters. I would say it is indeed miraculous that life is capable of surviving all those extinction events (unless you are young Earth creationist, and if so just ignore this point), and has allowed such complex beautiful lifeforms to emerge. I would say instead of pointing to a designer, this points to a protector instead. 3. The fact that the universal are constant is miraculous. This also points towards a sustainer or protector figure. Then again, the non-believer can argue that we simply lack understanding of the universe, and this could be trivial. 4. We do not know what the expected behavior of the universe should be. Going on pure randomness, obviously the parameters could be anything, and the idea of an expected value for the parameters is meaningless. But there might be an a prior probability distribution that narrows down the values. We simply don't know. Perhaps it is God who defined this probability distribution, but we can't definitively prove it for now. The non-believer can argue it is in the nature of the universe to support life, instead of external factors. 6. Infinite dice rolls before time: We only know how long our universe as existed, and it is meaningless to think about 'time before the universe'. As theists we argue that the probability of the universe being the way it is is miniscule, but perhaps all possible iterations have been tried already without us knowing? This is similar to the multiverse argument. The non-believer that we are only aware of the current iteration of the universe, and perhaps the infinite possible combinations of parameters have already been tried sequentially before we came to be. Again, very nice, and thought provoking video from Testify. I'm just trying to understand the Fine tuning argument more. God bless.

[@anonanon5072]

Actually a reasonable take. We cannot prove/disprove God, and if we ever do, it wont be in a shortform KZbin video.

[@LoganThePolandLover]

Hi! Atheist here! Just wanted to hop in real quick and say that yes, while the probability for life is low, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. If the evidence points to something other than the Big Bang creating life, (which you explained pretty well why that’s unlikely, great job) you would need to also account for several other possibilities, not just a creator. For example, we have just as much evidence for a creator as we do an eternal universe or even a simulation. Even if it was a creator, you will still need to prove that it is a specific creator, since many different religions claim their creator is correct. So just some evidence for that would be great!

[@ggplayerbr2883]

The idea that we are in a simulation is already refuted by many arguments and im not gonna elaborate here. In the topic of the origin of the universe, the Universe indeed has a "beginning" and a "cause" for its existence, but it doesnt mean that all things require these concepts to exist. Things like Time and Void dont have a beginning, a cause and matter, which means they're immaterial beings that always existed in our universe, and therefore "immaterial" and "unexplained" thing can and do exist in our universe and a possibility of a Creator is very high. And the topic of the religions, no religion can prove they're right as the same thing Atheism cannot prove they're right, because there is no proof or evidence that all religions are wrong and a creator doesnt exist

[@LoganThePolandLover]

@@ggplayerbr2883 ah, but the problem here is that theism has the burden of proof. The amazing thing about science is that people are perfectly within their own right to say “I don’t know” and then analyze multiple solutions. Theism makes the claim of a creator, which needs its own scientific evidence on how the creator got here and who the creator is. This means that the argument for a creator is not more likely than any other argument, but instead just as likely as any other argument, including an eternal universe or a simulation.

[@EdwardRichtofen69]

​@@ggplayerbr2883you're not gonna elaborate because you can't prove yourself right

[@DreyZ-gv8cv]

We have evidence that a man who claimed to be an eternal creator was able to beat death and his followers did too. His name is Jesus...

[@EdwardRichtofen69]

@DreyZ-gv8cv "claimed"

[@filipe_paixao]

There's 1 thing: to be able to think, we need to exist. We are seeing ourselves and the area around us at the point in time where we are possible. A non existing person cannot think of the fact they don't exist. A non existing person cannot think: "well, the probability of me not existing is high, so that checks out". As long as there's a possibility for someone to exist, if they in fact think "what's the probability of me existing? Or in fact, what are the chances of me having the chances for thinking about this?" They are in fact falling into the the survivors fallacy. You can think because you exist. All the non existing people will not think about how high their probably was because they don't exist.

[@Trieux-j8f]

That literally changes absolutely nothing. I agree, non-existing people cannot think about thier non-existence. However, People that CAN exist, can think after they exist. They however, cannot think BEFORE they exist, only after. So they can't fine-tune themselves into existing because they can think if they could exist. That's not possible. It's the same thing as being born, basically. 1 in 400,000,000,000,000, but you will never know if you weren't born, because you don't exist. Either you will exist or you won't, and just think about how many people don't exist/aren't born, I guess. So my point is, you cannot fine-tune yourself into existing because you can comprehend your existance if you are given the slightest chance to exist. There are a lot of people who don't exist, but they could think if they were born. So because those people aren't here, we can't fine-tune ourselves. God Made the World.

[@LLBirk.]

the biggest problem i have with the fine tuning argument is that the universe can only support life for a finite amount of time, though it will take a lot of time, the universe will eventually not be able to support life. the fine tuning argument would be way better if the universe could support life forever. (and that the universe would have a bigger chance of life forming if some laws of universe were different)

[@MyCupOfTea101]

But what if I want to hit the gritty on the Rings of Saturn?

[@dukedevlan5457]

@MyCupOfTea101 then go and do it to make your dreams a reality

[@MyCupOfTea101]

@dukedevlan5457 With the right technology soon, I'll be able to. *downloads photoshop*

[@MyCupOfTea101]

@@dukedevlan5457 Also, where is your profile art from? It looks pretty cool.

[@Xman-j3p]

@@MyCupOfTea101 bro the end is near better pray to God than wait for the advancement of our society

[@kenspeedway1572]

Man i've never seen anyone spoking about God like this before. Keep it going, your videos are awesome.

[@Haxx0rZ-]

Also for everyone who says life is simulation: If i exist you cant and i clearly know i do,also why would the simulation give warnings that its simulation. You also clearly know you exist,and i do so the life cant be simulation

[@Al_Pachimpo]

I call this argument “Cosmic survivor guilt,” just because something is not likely to happen doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

[@milkyJuman]

@@Al_Pachimpo aka survivorship bias

[@PA-1000]

Thats not what survivorship bias is. ​@@milkyJuman

[@jmalla6656]

Dream used the same argument as you when he tried to argue that he didn't cheat. It's just not convincing. 💀

[@milkyJuman]

@@jmalla6656 dream didn't speedrun for billions of years did he

[@saladv3028]

​@@milkyJumanThe natural laws like time, space, and gravity will still never form after a few billion years.

[@hellodarkness5608]

The fine tuning argument only goes as far as "proving" deism. If we follow the sketchy maths in this video and assume that there is a 99.99% percent chance of a creator, then I can just as easily argue that Christianity is only 1 of the 3000+ religions available, so the chance that Christianity is the right religion is really only 0.03% You might think that sounds stupid. Obviously the probability for different religions are not all the same. However, these are probabilities that can't be calculated. You can't really apply maths in any way that actually makes sense here, because ultimately we have no idea what the probability of a creator existing is. If you really think about it, the probability of the correct religion (or lack of if you are atheist) is 1, and every other religion is 0%. We just don't know which is correct, so we cannot apply probabilities to such things. Your "conservative estimate" of 1 in a billion means nothing, and is backed by nothing either, it's just your opinion, a random number you selected to fit your narrative, meaning your 99.99% percent chance of a creator existing also means nothing. The only thing you can do is assign a probability to the event yourself based on how convincing you find the arguments for that particular religion. And we all know how unbiased we are. Therefore, (since the probability argument doesn't really hold up) God is really just filling in a gap in our lack of understanding of the universe. This has repeatedly occurred in our past, where we credited God for something (such as lightning) until we found the actual scientific explaination of how it works. Until we have a better understanding, it's much more logical to say "I don't know" than to immediately jump to the conclusion of God.

[@-_deploy_-]

@@hellodarkness5608 I can prove all of your arguments wrong right now if you want.

[@hellodarkness5608]

@@-_deploy_- go aheah

[@laneat-o4k]

@@-_deploy_- commenting here to see your arguments

[@-_deploy_-]

@@hellodarkness5608 1st: your use of probabily is incorrect, since we can't use all the universe of possibilities in this manner. Most of the religions have no proof of what they claim being real. However, Christianity does address other religions as being real, such as all kinds of ocultism, satanism, "spirit" invocation-related cults, etc. All of them are real, but are evil. So the fact that Christianity IS real doesn't mean some dozens of others aren't, even though they are dissimulated to appear as something that they aren't. All religions that have no evidence of being real should be excluded from this count.

[@omdwivedi4982]

@@-_deploy_- Please do :)

[@spectrumjitters4672]

As a devout atheist, I found this to be really thought-provoking. Good video

[@brennanmain8906]

but the guy had no good points lol how is it thought provoking?

[@spectrumjitters4672]

@brennanmain8906 this is the only argument for God that I think is worth spending time thinking about. By no means does it convince me of God's existence, but it's interesting

[@brennanmain8906]

@@spectrumjitters4672 Alright bro whatever you want just know his points are silly

[@2sik_UK]

No it's so easy too break this down logically, he's saying it's not a cosmic dice roll, but the dice will roll over and over until something does happen, that's the problem, im agnostic, I'm not saying there isn't a god but this really does absolutely nothing too convince me, it's literally just saying that the chance we exist is slim so there must be a creator, but the fact there is apparently a creator only makes less sense as the creator would have too come from somewhere, therefore making the chance od a creator even less probable

[@gideonamalo1486]

⁠@@2sik_UK based on his argument he’s not saying the dice was rolled infinitely. It was only rolled once and tads we have constants for a universe able to contain life. And saying where does God come from is a silly argument since there is either a first cause or there is an infinite regression. Theists argue the first cause is an intelligent mind and other worldviews would say something else would be a first cause

[@holysix3348]

Given an *infinite* amount of time eventually a scenario where life is the outcome will play out despite all odds. It’s like farming for a rare equipment which drop rate’s is insanely low If you have to kill the same monster for said equipment for a year or decades eventually you’ll get it. Even if you have to reset your game because of a glitch being one of the outcomes.

[@briandiehl9257]

The constants don't change, by definition. An infinite amount of time will never make that work

[@strateks9611]

​@@briandiehl9257 What constants don't change?

[@briandiehl9257]

@strateks9611 planks constant, the gravitation constant, the fine structure constant, etc

[@fardmanadventuresthatsit.6705]

The best argument for the existence of God in my opinion is through the use of Classical Apologetics as explained by Dr. RC Sproul’s lecture series Defending Your Faith, available on Ligonier Ministries. Dr. RC Sproul uses Logic to narrow the possibilities down, meaning that it is not up to odds, it’s up to reason itself, so it’s not even something you could argue against since it’s a 100% chance.

[@elhant4994]

So, the greatest argument for god's existence is an old unproven hypothesis that is based on an incomplete scientific understanding of the forces of nature (and therefore flawd from the beginning).

[@JoaoAntonio-ox5vf]

@@elhant4994 funny how desperate some christians are to prove God existence that a lot of people sees these types of videos, most people dont even think about it and instantly agrees with everything like it is the "ultimate truth" like bro, its a youtube video. the same way an atheist at youtube is highly unlikible to debunk christianity in one video is simply absurd.

[@semicolon2599]

@@JoaoAntonio-ox5vf i don't understand why some religious people are so desperate to validate their beliefs. is it that hard to accept that the so-called evidence for a god's existence is just confirmation bias and/or straight up misinformation? there is really nothing that proves or suggests a god's existence, just as there is nothing that proves a god doesn't exist. when it comes to things like these you believe what you want to believe

[@JoaoAntonio-ox5vf]

​@@semicolon2599 I think that the reason Christians can be so stubborn and seem so desperate is because of the emotional attachment that Christianity can cause on people. One example that is very close to me is my mom. She was atheist since she was a child, but converted to catholicism when my older brother died, in a way of overcoming the pain. Did it help her? Yes, but at the same time it made her very dependent of religion and super stubborn. In any way she will question religion because of this super strong emotional attachment. I think every believer goes through something similar but in very different ways. Some want to be loved, accepted and to feel better about themselves, so if religion is able to give them that, it is only natural that they will trust that faith and feel obligated to defend what makes them happy regardless of the argument presented. Honestly. Religion makes me sick, the fact that so many people won't ever question their faith because the whole point of it is to make them more and more dependent is horrible. But hey, God loves you!

[@semicolon2599]

@@JoaoAntonio-ox5vf i completely agree. as you've said though, only some (perhaps most, but not all) religious people believe as a coping mechanism. i know my fair share of reasonable religious people who still maintain a healthy level of doubt the same way we do in research, which is what has let us advance so far technologically and scientifically overall my opinion on religion is that it's not necessarily a bad thing, there is plenty that we atheists can take away from it too. for example, just like any other good novel or work of fiction, the bible spreads a message in teaching its audience how to be better people. and it does deserve some respect on its name, it is the most popular story in the world after all

[@logandelp4033]

his reasoning is understandable as an atheist I can say that but its not outright proof. I still think we can roll the chance of life even if it was astronomically low.

[@billypathy]

It's a pretty big assumption that the universe was finely tuned. I'm agnostic mainly because I think it is arrogant to believe you know the answers to the universe when the greatest minds in science and philosophy are not even 100% certain. I don't think either god or the big bang (or any other naturalistic idea of the origins of the universe) have more merit than the other, simply because these concepts are far beyond human comprehension.

[@melendroach6331]

I think counts as a survivorship bias. Sure, the universe is fine-tuned. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. That doesn't mean someone had to create it or tune the constants.

[@Ikhthus777]

🕊️ Believing that NOTHING created EVERYTHING so complex, so beautiful, and so well-tuned, and that non-living matter evolved into living beings, requires more faith in miracles than faith in God. 🕊️

[@AaaaaAAAAHQHGAH]

@@Ikhthus777 It merely requires having paid attention in biology class. Ever heard of „survival of the fittest“?

[@Ikhthus777]

@@AaaaaAAAAHQHGAH survival of the fittest (or micro evolution in other words) concerns already created universe and organisms, but doesn't explain how NOTHING (before the so called big band) created everything so well tuned, so beautiful, so complex. It also doesn't explain how non-living evolved into living. Scientists tried to create life with "the hand of God", as they named it, meaning with their purposeful help, but they couldn't. From those experiments we can see that there is no tendency for life to be made, even with the scientists' help.

[@prodromosmakpon8432]

If god didnt exist without cause, then "something" can exist without cause, too. Your argument falls apart with your own logic

[@Ikhthus777]

@@prodromosmakpon8432 the problem is that's YOUR logic. But the world doesn't work according to your logic. There is the Creator beyond our comprehension. He's eternal. Creations are not. Read my original comment again. Questions are still the same. How NOTHING (before so called big bang) can create everything? Especially so complex, so beautiful and so well-tuned. And second, how non-living can evolve into living? There's no such tendency in nature. It's already been proven by scientists. They couldn't create life even in ideal circumstances with their intended help. Another big miracle would be the emergence of 2 different but at the same time compatible (let that sink in) sexes simultaneously in at least 2 individuals that leads to healthy reproduction.

[@gman8477]

@@prodromosmakpon8432 God is eternal meaning he is beyond the constraints of our perception of existence....he isn't a creation that is created but the creator. It's very simple to understand.

[@mattp8466]

The fine tuning argument can be explained by a pretty wild theory: Cosmological Natural Selection, proposed by Lee Smolin. This idea posits that when a black hole forms, it may create a new universe on the other side, functioning like a "white hole." Each new universe could have slightly altered physical constants, akin to biological mutations, enhancing their ability to produce more black holes. Over time, this process leads to a cosmic evolutionary force where universes proliferate, potentially optimizing conditions for life and black hole formation

[@Trieux-j8f]

Even if that were true, you still have the problem of the beggining of the first universe. The next universe would form after the tiny black hole exploded. However we still know that it is impossible for that first black hole to form. Answer: There was no "black hole". There was God.

[@Brandon2777]

As an attempt at a gotcha question a skeptic once asked me that if the universe is so fine tuned to support life, then why can’t we survive and breathe underwater… I still think about this question from time to time.

[@MetroMan13]

I'm under the water please help me.

[@darkwolf7740]

Fine-tuning is all about the specific conditions needed for the universe to allow for the existence of life. Surviving underwater, a type of evolutionary adaptation, is a false comparison. Saying that fine-tuning constants should allow humans to breathe underwater essentially claims that it should support every possible form of life to exist. Fine-tuning provides the necessary conditions for life to emerge, but it doesn’t mean every form of life can exist in every environment 🤷‍♂️

[@davidkodsy90]

This question was answered at 4:58

[@Brandon2777]

@@darkwolf7740 I agree with you 😂 I probably should’ve clarified a little better that the comment made me facepalm myself into oblivion.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@Brandon2777Haha, I see. I'm glad you did that because it's a laughably bad 'refutation'

[@yarvae]

This argument is an insult to probability and sound logic.

[@TestifyApologetics]

No this comment is

[@BlackScreen2023-df5iq]

@@TestifyApologetics you aren't as smart as you think you are

[@GDT-Studio]

How? You can't just say that without explaining.

[@yarvae]

@@GDT-Studio There are a lot of ways. The most obvious afront on probability is that we cannot know the odds of an outcome for a system we don't understand. We have no idea what mechanism, 'choses' or from what process universal constants emerge. Without that knowledge, how could we ever assign a chance value to a specific outcome. This video just assumes that the universe rolls a random number for constants on some scale that would make the 'correct'(whatever that means) constants rare. I could just as illogically assume a scale of random numbers that all but grantees our constants; maybe the numbers aren't random and find equilibrium, or maybe if one changed the others would also change so that the universe still functions as if they are variables in an equation. The bottom line is, too many assumptions about things we do not, and possible cannot know, cannot lead us to meaningful conclusions like god exists.

[@MugSack]

@@TestifyApologetics "If we don't understand it then that means it's god's work" back then people didn't know anything so everything was god and for some it's to this day. Don't you think Christianity was like an ideology but for the old times. It spread through Europe and the whole world and the one who spread it were the romans. They attacked Europe and the territory that they captured became Christian and they would kill and destroy anything that was Pagan or just not Christian. Now Rome had control of Europe and they're empire is still existing to this day except, now it's almost the entire world, it's a very good tactic. People defending something that someone created without them even knowing what it is. If a pope, priest or anyone with high status said something, everybody did it and if you disagreed or didn't listen it would mean that you're committing blasphemy and will be punished, that's how they used to get rid of people that were trying to rebel or get into the way of the leaders. Nowadays it's the same thing except it's a political ideology. I'm not against Christianity I think its a good thing it's just that you can be controlled (at least back in the day). At this time of age it doesn't matter too much because there are Political Ideology's and Nationalism that take the place. Just because you're born in a country doesn't mean you should die for it AND remember you only live once (yeah also about that soldiers were less afraid to die). As I said Christianity is a good thing but only if you actually do good things because there are people who are Christian and are more evil than non-believers. They don't even have to pray they're lazy and don't go to church. Ok but now this is getting off topic. This is my theory which is probably true that the governments are inviting many Muslim but not the good one's the ones that create havoc and it's like now everybody supposed to hate them. Nobody likes these annoying Muslim that are vandalizing culture so now when we will be in a war with the middle east we will not feel any empathy or mercy to them we will kill everyone because we got treated really badly by them here in the west so we want to treat them back badly, I'm predicting that if there will be a WW3 The west will attack the middle east. We will not care for them because they were destroying Europe and the average person had to suffer. well this was long but it's what I think.

[@er-oc4pv]

Even if the probability is incredibly low, this does not justify the existence of a "god". Let it be infinitely small, it still has the right to exist. You will be able to prove the existence of "god" ONLY when you prove to me that the probability of an event is impossible

[@briandiehl9257]

All arguments turn out to be probablistic, so you cannot even doing that

[@Raven1T2]

3:00 incorrect, the anthropic argument isn't that it's not improbable, the argument is saying that you are alive, it did happen, it might not be because of the improbability but you can't just disregard it like it's not a possibility just because it's unlikely. You are alive, everything did work out perfectly, just because its unlikely, doesn't mean that that isn't what happened and you should disregard it.

[@evilgirlypop]

idk what u expect these people always just strawman arguments lol

[@sabhishek9289]

The anthropic argument fails badly because basically it is just saying chance which is completely unreasonable.

[@evilgirlypop]

@@sabhishek9289 why is it unreasonable? if this universe is so fine-tuned for life why is our planet the only confirmed planet with life on it

[@sabhishek9289]

@@evilgirlypop That's not a valid reason to reject the fine tuning argument. It's up to the fine tuner whether there should be multiple planets to have life or not.

[@sabhishek9289]

@@evilgirlypop A person getting 10 royal flushes in a row at a casino is not luck or chance. The game is rigged in favour of this person.

[@jmitchellkeenan]

0:55 how is that like having all dice land in the same number? There are way more things in the universe that aren’t stars. An extremely small minority of things are stars. They are incredibly rare

[@truthovertea]

Bayesian bossing here, beautiful good sir

[@batmanwithprep]

Nice video, I have some objections to it and some things I want to add on. 1. This is kind of a false analogy, with the universe we wouldn't be there to see the rolls, we'd instantly come into existence the moment it rolled correctly 3 times, unlike the fact that the guy sees his own rolls. The universe isn't quite sentient. 2. It would feel rigged in our favor even if it is logically false because of biases within psychology. 3. How do we know the conditions could have been otherwise? This is a sample size of 1, you cannot derive probability from it. 4. "Low chance, of occurring therefore God". This is an argument from ignorance. 5. If gravity were to be slightly less or slightly bigger, we wouldn't be there to observe it being smaller or bigger. Us just existing automatically means that it must be the perfect amount that you gave, meaning that probability just doesn't apply because it will still occur. 6. It isn't like having a billion dice and it all landing at 6 because you would be there to observe other rolls being possible. 7. Agreeing with the skeptic response. Your analogy doesn't make sense because when you put up the firing squad example it is the actual OPPOSITE of the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is supposing that "if it were to not be the case, life wouldn't *begin to form*", but your firing squad example is "if it were not to be the case, life wouldn't *begin to die*". If you weren't even born in the first place, you cannot observe the effects of the universe being otherwise. But, you are already including life and THEN the conditions. That would be a false analogy. 8. I disagree with how the skeptic responded to you there, the real issue with the rebuttal you gave is that the analogy doesn't make sense because you presuppose life 9.I like the puddle analogy too, but I think you and I are interpreting it differently. The analogy isn’t about the specific shape of the hole or whether life could exist in a differently shaped hole. It’s making a broader point: the puddle exists only because the hole allows it to. The puddle doesn’t need to speculate about why the hole fits it perfectly because it only exists simply due to the hole being there. The analogy says that life exists because the universe’s constants allow for it. It doesn’t argue that life could arise under any conditions or “fit” into any universe. Your response seems to be saying, in simpler terms, that “it’s too unlikely, and the universe isn’t like a puddle that fits any hole.” But the analogy doesn’t claim it in that way, it is rather just saying that the puddle aka life only exists because the conditions of the hole aka the universe are correct, and the condition in the puddle analogy is the hole existing. 10. Yeah, Doug can fit in any hole, but the analogy is only saying that "X thinks it's fine tuned because Y, but if Y weren't the case then X wouldn't be there.". The odds of the two scenarios, the universe and doug the puddle, are so vastly different. However, the odds of both of these do not matter in any way because the argument is simply stating that if you were not there then you cannot think of the argument, the odds of both of them do not play any role in both arguments as it is just presenting a way of thinking of the principle. 11. The multiverse is a dumb objection to the argument from design, it only works if you ONLY use it. It just gives a reason why the conclusion is not God. I don't like it at all because it is untestable and unprovable and cannot be falsified. 12. I know I agreed that the multiverse is a dumb objection, but I want to point something out with the way you went against it. You said that it multiplies the question because there needs to be something to cause it to generate the universes. However, doesn’t this imply that you're already assuming a creator in the past arguments? This seems to apply equally to the anthropic principle and the puddle analogy. By saying that the multiverse requires a creator, and that this creator must be fine-tuned, you’re making a very large assumption. This assumption could just as easily apply to the universe itself, which leads to circular reasoning. You’re essentially arguing that something must have created the multiverse, but that could just as easily be used to argue for a creator of the universe. 13. I agree with the response to the hostile to life objection. You kinda used it for the wrong argument though, the hostile to life objection is for the version of the teleological argument that talks about the universe being fit for life, while your teleological argument is talking about how the universe is fit for just general existence of stuff. 14. Personally I don't think the god of the gaps is a valid objection to the fine tuning argument because the argument doesn't insert itself into stuff like objective morality or math or anything like that, it is meant to explain the existence of everything. 15. Hold on, you just said that the argument uses the probability that it was created by a creator VS out of chance which is why it isn't the god of the gaps. I agree it isn't the god of the gaps, but wouldn't you need to prove that it is even possible for stuff outside the universe, stuff sentient outside the universe, stuff causing things to exist when outside of the universe, and more to even make a stance on how probable it is? You have a sample size of unknown here, which is kind of circular reasoning too because it assumes stuff outside of the universe then the conclusion invokes something outside of the universe.

[@Linuss16]

It is simply not something we as humans can comprehend. We cannot prove God exists, but we cannot prove He doesn’t. Respect each other without minding each other’s differences, someone’s religion shouldn’t matter in conversation. End of argument.

[@NayBuster]

Here's an OP argument which is just one sentence. >Space cannot have an infinite past because there couldn't have been insufficient time for the present to happen yet before it did. How does this prove the existence of God? Considering the fact that something can't come from nothing and anything spacetime-less besides God is an oxymoron, God is the only possibility left for the creator. >Isn't that special pleading? There isn't such a thing as a spacetimeGod continuum as far as we know, so no.

[@darkwolf7740]

Plus, special pleading would imply that God is the exception to the rule that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'. However, since God didn't begin to exist, he doesn't have a cause. Simple.

[@KopperNeoman]

@@darkwolf7740 Even then, calling it special pleading as a fallacy is a textbook case of Fallacy Fallacy, because - yes. Saying that these three guys (YHVH, Jesus, Spirit) are the same omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God IS pleading that they're the special case that started everything else. It's not a logical fallacy, it's the entire crux of the statement.

[@nicuciocan-wd40]

actual schitzo comment here, for some reason you believe god is an exception from everything that doesn't make sense

[@NayBuster]

@@nicuciocan-wd40 If the creator was composed of creation, He wouldn't be the creator now would he?

[@SerenHoe]

@@NayBuster I don't think it's necessary OP, it's just a common cosmological argument

[@shoqed]

Take a million 6-sided dice. Roll them. Whatever you rolled, there was a 6^1000000 to 1 chance this would happen. Therefore God exists because I have no understanding of probabilities lol

[@prodcbrt]

that is not the same as taking a million normal dices and all of them landing on 6, which is literally what he said in the video

[@FalconMenace3051]

Probability (and fine-tuning) becomes obsolete with enough attempts. Both sides are highly speculative. Who's to say the universe didn't get made billions and millions of times over again before it finally went into a Stable state. The improbable becomes inevitable. It would become statistically likely that one of those universes would end up fine-tuned for life. (We cannot Accept or Deny this, because we can't prove any of the sides.) Theories about the multiverse, cyclical universes, or divine creation all stretch the boundaries of what can be empirically tested or observed. As a result, we must acknowledge that our understanding is incomplete and may always remain so. This makes it difficult to say anything conclusively about why the universe is the way it is. Without evidence for or against, we end up in the domain of belief. With both sides being speculative.

[@Arjun-lk2uk]

The way I see it with the whole chance argument is that there has been literally infinite time before our universes' formation, even with such a small chance of happening, life will form no matter what. Like with your lottery example, imagine that guy had infinite time to pull his 3 numbers in a row. No matter how many times he failed, he will eventually succeed.

[@spoodysnail7624]

Exact, nd ownly wen lief is kreeated kan it be konshious ov its own eggsistance (sorry bad English)

[@israelvaldivia2686]

@@Arjun-lk2uk he (god) pulled it

[@xn85d2]

Except there's not been infinite time according to cosmology. Not only that, but you're assuming a mechanism to reattempt the pull. But there's only one universe as far as we know. There's no indication of reattempts at all. So you only get one pull.

[@Arjun-lk2uk]

@@xn85d2 How could there not be infinite amount of time? Can something have existed before time?

[@xn85d2]

@@Arjun-lk2uk God can exist before time. He transcends time as He is a different type of existence to something purely physical. This is already a built-in part of the Christian hypothesis about the universe's beginning.

[@jonathanwick5582]

Dont forget that you have to actually multiply the already low probabilities. Its even less probable than one could imagine

[@kaydll]

@@jonathanwick5582 You dont understand probability lmao, you do not know how many potential configurations a universe could have so you cannot do calcs on that, stop yapping Math has never been yall christians field

[@aluisfar4154]

​@@kaydllYes, but ironically the iconic science fields exist because of religious people.

[@kaydll]

@@aluisfar4154 Oh yeah? Religious ppl like Tales of Mileto or Pitagoras of Samos, Yeah Yeah, famous for how religious they were lmao. If u want to go back you reach Mesopotamia, those were pantheist. Almost every scientist or genius was atheist, agnostic or believed in the God of Spinoza, the thing IS that you would be considered an outcast if you said that because religious ppl are barbaric, disgusting subhumans .

[@17PounderSherman-id6md]

​@@aluisfar4154 yes and? before the fields even existed less was known about the universe so there would be more proof of god.

[@mythiq_]

It is even less probable that it was done by a 'single' being. And if it were possibly so, this being would be questioning their existence too.

[@contentzeke]

Another fun way to prove God's existence to an Atheist: 1. Ask what caused the universe 2 answers could erupt: 2a. they'll say the big bang, so ask what caused the big bang 3. If they give some other thing such as 'dark matter' for causing the universe, ask what caused the creation of said 'reason' (dark matter in my example) 4. Eventually, they'll say the earth always exists 5. point out the fallacy Basically, just keep asking what caused their 'cause' until they say there was none, then calmly show them their own fallacy

[@Angelo-qm3pn]

What do you believe in?

[@Okabe_Rintaro_]

Who created God then 🤓☝️

[@imbored_wastaken]

works both ways bro, who created God? Oh he existed before time... right💀

[@jacobdrozhzh]

@@imbored_wastakenThis is a question for atheists too, not just theists. We figured out God exists, we just don't know how.

[@Okabe_Rintaro_]

@@jacobdrozhzh then it never solves anything You have only shifted your question one step backwards "Oh how could the universe have come from nothing? You don't know right? I know, it's because God.. wdym who created God? He was created from nothing..." 🤦

[@percival5697]

My counter-argument, is the anterior to the big bang, the big crunch. It is often known as "oscillating" universe. Basically, it is well regarded that eventually the universe will fall back down into a "big crunch." What happens after that is unknown. A well know proposal, which I agree with, is that it will go into a big bang again. That time, the gravitational constant, and everything else that needed to be perfect, might not be. OR, this "new" universe might have different laws of physics and it is things like the gravitational constant that SET the standard rather than CONFORM to the standard. Either way, the universe may have been oscillating for "eternity" with many different scenarios. This is likely the first time HUMANS have existed, but there's a very solid chance that, if there has been older "stable" universes, alternate living beings have existed. To clarify earlier, if the gravitational constant wasn't perfect previously, the big crunch would simply happen SOONER, occuring maybe even instantly, rather than spreading out first like it has in our universe.

[@bestenderslayer9302]

alright so what I'm understanding is that there is a precursor to the big bang the big crunch and its kind of a loop of big crunch's and bangs and stuff. Well if that's correct i have a counter-argument to your counter-argument how did it start? You can't prove it because its just a constant loop of what happened before you just can't no matter what the question will stay relevant what happened before? Also it doesn't apply to Christianity because God is a timeless being who created time and space

[@DanielTheRobot]

(Part 1/2 Check Replies for Part 2) "You can't explain fine tuning" Okay I'll try. I'm in the side of science but it's okay if you don't believe me. I just want to see what I can bring to the table. I'm writing this as I'm watching so please excuse me if things get mentioned before I got to them, but I'll still go back and address them. You're going to see a lot of "Well he said atheists would say that so that makes him right!" even though predicting the arguments doesn't mean you debunked them. 1 - The lottery example you provided is a good place to start. Yes, admittedly if I were to go to a casino and got 3 successes in a row, I would be very surprised, especially if I was the first. However, if I suspected that the odds were rigged, I feel like they would've been rigged against me, casinos wouldn't want anyone to win or else they'll lose money. But if we were to take into account all the time people FAILED, I would then start believe that because lots of people failed, eventually someone was going to succeed given enough time (if I didn't just assume that it was rigged and that the casino played fair). I would have to have context for the thought of someone changing it for me to survive before believing it. Do I have some connection to the casino owner? Was this a scripted event or a hidden TV show? I wouldn't have much way of knowing, so I'm not gonna try to assume anything. 2 - As yes, the universal constants. "If they were slightly off, life would be impossible." Except that kind of leaves a lot of context out. What if there were attempts at a universe that didn't have these constants, therefore didn't exist? Believing that, because it exists, it was fine tuned is survivorship bias. It wouldn't take into account universe that tried to exist but didn't, or even animals that went extinct and weren't around to live anymore, leaving the animals that exist to be seen as "finely tuned" simply because they happen to be the ones that survived. Imagine there was a hole in the ground, then it rained, the water then fills in the hole. Suddenly the puddle believes that the hole was specifically designed for them (the puddle is personified for this example), otherwise it would've never taken that SPECIFIC shape. That the odds of being "this exact shape" or 1 in a trillion (example number), but the Rain didn't really care where it ended up. It did not have a set goal in mind when filling all these holes with water, it just rained everywhere. It didn't care what specific shape the water took when entering the hole. If there was no hole, there wouldn't have been a puddle to think it was finely tuned. 3 - Regarding the poker example: That's the thing. The universal constants aren't described to be "rolling the dice 1 time and it worked". Comparing this to traditional casino odds is misrepresenting of what the opposing side claims. Also saying "this just makes more sense to me" isn't an objective point to make. Science is about separating your subjective experience to find out how the world is objectively, that's why other scientists say "Hey, Newton's law isn't the FULL picture, there's now Einstein's Relativity" and such. To say that "it's way more likely that someone rigged it, which points to design" is also quite strange because how do you know WHICH god? 4 - If you believe in a universe created by a deity, how do you know which deity is correct? Every religion has a plausible way of explaining the universe since they all say "my god or gods can do anything and are responsible for the universe creation" and it comes from their sacred texts. Their book tells them that they're right, so they believe it. Debating against other religions is kind of hard when they all kind of say the same thing and will also bring up historical or archeological assets that may point in the direction of their religion, even if maybe it describe the existence of real people, but not that the story they told take priority over other stories from other mythologies. Responding to 2:07 5 - Yes I touched on this in the 2nd point. Soliders are not the universe. They are things that we know and don't debate, can make decisions. The universe is not a sentient thing (no matter what your stance is), it doesn't make choices like a soldier. This analogy just says "I have a hunch my cousin did a thing." How is this a "top tier" argument? That's like saying "I have a feeling that my chess opponent is going to let me win. He's making a lot of obvious moves that are obviously making him lose, that must mean the universe is like a chess player who designed me to exist." This does not debunk anything, it's a false analogy. However I will say your poker and casino analogies are good, they relate to the concepts a lot more effectively so it's not as though all the analogies presented here aren't good. Responding to 3:24 6 - Oh oops, so the puddle analogy WAS covered my bad. "Life's not some fluid that'll fit in any old universe" okay well life isn't also believing a firing squad is going to miss when you know one of them is your cousin. The way the puddle and the universe are similar to each other are in the sense that they can constantly change. Stars can create new elements, gravity can bring things together, supernova's make stars create even heavier elements. Water can be turned into ice or steam, changing states of matter, it can be molded around and swam in, it can even become DRY when exposed to certain a chemical (look up dry water I'm not kidding). So while yes water isn't LITERALLY the universe, it can still change its shape, just as science proclaims that the fabric of space is expanding or that the fabric of space bends with gravity because of Einstein's General Relativity. "Tweaking even a small thing means no stars, no planets, etc." Your forgetting that this assumes that physics can't exist in other conditions. There could be models of realities that function in different universe constants and the math would still add up (even though creationists believe math was discovered). Regarding the multiverse point: 7 - Oh yes, I would say that other multiverses are definitely speculative. While the math would theoretically add up, there's no literal proof. Does that completely negate the argument about the possibility of other universes existing under different physics? Not really because this is about if 1 universe existed after countless attempts at making one that didn't work. Also saying that in order for those universes to exist it would require a fine tuned generator is just completely ad hoc. Why did you come to that conclusion? Obviously because you believe that to suit your narrative. You presented no evidence to suggest that it would require a generator in the first place, science and natural events are not like factories. Trying to compare man made objects to nature is not proportional because we know that cars, generators, and robots are man made. Randomly claiming that multiple universes would require a generator (even if you didn't mean it in a literal sense) was just completely made up.

[@DanielTheRobot]

(Part 2/2) 5:00 8 - Your response to this, was a "Changing the Goalpost" fallacy. Saying the universe is hostile doesn't necessarily say "the universe is hostile therefore it was made naturally" alone, I believe it's more about "Why would a god specifically design a world to not allow its creation to survive very easily?". By saying "No the argument is about the universal constants" is wrong, because that's completely off topic. Also what the heck does "hitting the griddy on Saturn" have anything to do with anything? If a god (who is perfect in every way) designed a universe and just arbitrarily decided what the physics would be, why did he make it so that those physics contradict the original purpose of the goal, to sustain life? You never actually answered this you just made it look like the argument came to its own conclusion to suit its own agenda (kinda like certain people I know). Regrading "God of the Gaps" 9 - You're misrepresenting probability. How? Because science doesn't say that we rolled the dice and landed on a perfect number. Physics isn't probability. You can calculate the probability of physics resulting in your hypothesis, but it is not the same type of science. For example, math and psychology are not the same thing, because while you can say you do math in your brain, that's not what pscyhology IS. It is the study of the human mind, not the calculation of numbers. The reason athiests believe in this kind of universe is because of many different factors, not just "we decided to believe that 0.0000000000000000001% chance actually happened" (also please tell me where you even got that number I'm genuinely curious). We don't say "this makes more sense so we're just gonna believe it" this is what we mean by god of the gaps. We are NOT saying that we literally believe in an impossibly low odds because the universe existing is not like a casino rolling the dice. 6:24 "would choose a life friendly universe" 10 - Again, you never addressed this point. You never explained how the universe is "life friendly". We have tornadoes, volcanoes, earthquakes, diseases, predators, meteors, etc. Those are totally friendly towards life, right. I'm not saying that not providing a response to this makes us "right" I'm just upset that this wasn't addressed but is just being treated like it's correct. Also God (from Christianity) did not even succeed in his goal in a "friendly world". He literally regretted what he created by giving free will to humans and angels and then decided the best option was to make a flood and start over. Genesis Chapter 6 Verse 6 (New International Version) says "The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." Creationists will say "they used their free will and chose evil" but will also say "you're born with evil" and must be cleansed. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, did he not foresee this would happen? He can predict the future and knows everything, which means he DID THIS knowing the world would not end up "life friendly." It's like you tried to make a world to be life friendly, but you saw with your absolute perfection that it wasn't going to work, but you did it anyway so you can blame the people you created by giving them free will. Even if Free Will was the cause, you INVENTED IT. 6:43 11 - Uh... no it doesn't. It raises that probability to 100%. Where are you getting that number (99.99%)? It's 100% percent because the likelihood of someone designing something to work (with infinite power at your disposal) is 100% GUARANTEED because you're all perfect and omnipotent. I'm even helping you calculate that, that's just basic logic. 6:53 12 - Yes it IS "god of the gaps". Because all you did was flash "99.99%" on the screen (which is still somehow WRONG) and pretend that you're believing in such a high probability while others are believing in a low probability. You're trying to present this as "believing in probability" so you can pretend it's not about believing in the bible. Again, WHERE did you get your numbers?? You didn't post your source for that in the description. God of the Gaps is, and quoting from wikipedia, "revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God." Like if you wanna get all "probability" and "scientific" then explain how the methods used to determine the age of the universe are wrong or how a lot of other scientific evidence is wrong. Radiometric dating, spectroscopy, the cosmic microwave background, geology and formation of geography, FOSSILS (and I'm not talking about monkey and humans I'm talking about all kinds of species. Noah's ark thinks that is can house 2 of each kind on the ark except forgot about penguins/polar bears work and how they wouldn't survive in a warm climate, freshwater fish surviving despite the whole world being covered in saltwater, having no "room for dinosaurs" when you have room for elephants and rino when some dinosaurs were much smaller than that), like I'm sure some of you don't even know what some of those are. Let's assume that the universal constants were finely tuned. Sure. Okay but how does that explain everything else? Why is there so much evidence against something that contradicts the universe requiring a designer to have formed, because it *doesn't* require a creator to have existed. Even if you don't believe any of it or want to say that it's all "fake evidence", fine, but can you at least try to STOP misrepresenting it? Humans did not come from monkeys, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor and science NEVER said that they were monkeys. It's an example of what creationists say to strawman the points. We aren't saying the universe is like a dice roll, and the probability of it was low but still happened. We're saying that the world constantly continues to make countless attempts to make life, that's why it would be probable to say that it would take a VERY long time, like BILLIONS of years. We're saying that things have failed, for example, the vast majority of organisms that have ever lived are extinct. You can BELIEVE the universe was like a dice roll and landed on a perfect NAT 20 million if you want, or you can say that sounds ridiculous, because it IS. It's just not what we're believing, it is misconstrued. Anyway, if this doesn't convince anyone of anything I'm cool with it. I mainly wrote all this to see what I could come up with as some random dude on the internet, you don't have to care. All I ask is to at least be open minded when talking about this stuff and stop antagonizing each other. We don't need to view each other as enemies and we can just agree or disagree. And please at least research what atheists are really saying instead of allowing creationists to lie about what we're saying (This video didn't explicitly do that but it did so indirectly). If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but please actually understand it and actually see the bigger picture of what the opposing side is saying instead of avoiding it and only watching videos that agree with you. I was open minded enough to watch this and I decided to make a response. I won't be responding to any comments

[@MrLubbs]

Something has always existed (a.k.a. something is eternal). People will say "no, nothing was there then something came"... 'nothing' is something, and therefore something is eternal. So it's really up to you to decide whether you believe that "something" is conscious of itself, or not. Considering we are conscious of ourselves, makes me lean towards the idea that this "eternal something" is also conscious of itself, otherwise how would we be conscious of ourselves and it? It wouldn't make logical sense for something not conscious of itself to bring fourth something that is conscious of itself and what brought it to be.

[@Kjmags]

I'm an atheist, and because of this video I dropped a like and subscribed. I do have several objections, however. 1. It does often appear that the universe is fine tuned for life. You offer the idea that if the fundamental forces were tweaked even slightly, the universe would not be able to support life. This is true of our variation of life, it's possible that life could still exist in some form within that tweaked universe, we just cannot observe what it might look like. Additionally, some of the values that you offer, like a 2% change in the strong nuclear force, are not subtle and instead drastic changes. 2. The anthropic objection is a solid argument. As far as we can reasonably calculate, the odds of life occurring in any one place are infinitesimally small. The odds that life occurs once in a massive universe are significantly better. You, a living thinking creature, can only exist in the place that life occurred. 3. The puddle analogy speaks more to evolution and not to the idea of fine tuning. The earth seems like a perfect place to host life because its organisms adapted to the resources it had to offer. Looking around the earth all you see are ecosystems in perfect natural balance, if an ecosystem was unbalanced then perhaps atheists could point to this and say "Look, is this the work of your perfect creator?" But this does not happen, because if an ecosystem is unbalanced it corrects itself by shifting to the available energy. If a species has too many members and not enough energy to support them, they die until they are once again in balance. In both of these examples, the organisms shifted to their environment, just as the puddle matches its shape to the hole, and not the other way around. 4. The idea of a multiverse is stupid. Absolutely agree. 5. Design argument is not backed by solid probability. The theory of evolution and abiogenesis (Process of life naturally beginning on earth) use observable systems and laws that we can study, quantify, and predict. An intelligent creator does not. God exits outside of the universe and operates in ways that cannot be explained by observable systems. However unbelievable abiogenesis is to some, it can be explained by math. God cannot and will therefore always be more unbelievable. Solid discourse. This is the way I see things: God's existence is the only true dichotomy of life, and I will never disrespect anyone for the path they choose. God could present himself at any moment to the world and everyone, including myself and every other keyboard atheist, would convert immediately. But he doesn't because he calls us to live by faith. Faith does not require proof, and a faithful man does make his foundations from evidence. Why would God then offer proof through reason? If this how you choose to live your life, live it well and serve God, but do not tell me you have found evidence to support his existence. I take issue with this life; I cannot live on faith alone. I need to explain things, I need to understand the systems around me. I have found it more believable that the world was created through natural processes then by a creator. If this is a sin, or it offends my creator then I am deeply sorry, but it was he who blessed me with a curious thinking mind.

[@assarlannerborn9342]

"The idea of a multiverse is stupid. Absolutely agree.", i agree, because we have no evidence of such a thing but that would be the case for god aswell...

[@Dobbythecat123]

@@assarlannerborn9342The multiverse is a fun idea not a real thing would be cool if it was but it isn’t also you can’t prove god exists you also can’t prove god doesn’t exist. I guess we’ll find out when we’re dead but you can’t prove anything when you’re dead. infinite paradox

[@assarlannerborn9342]

​@@Dobbythecat123 yea, it was just funny how the youtuber claimed something we can't prove is a "stupid" idea, while defending something else we can't prove

[@dhilonstephan]

Jesus' existence and records on Earth not only proves He exists, but also that He's certainly the God of the universe because of the things He did, as no other "god" has been able to do what He did, e.g heal, ressurect, ascend, and live among men where He can be seen, the video​ only explains why it'svery plausible there is a Creator of the Universe, but if you take a look at Historical records, it becomes fairly apparent there's a God who made promises to live among men and He fulfilled them by the coming of His Son, plus, there's more physical evidence in our current time like Veronica's Veil, Shroud of Turin and Biblical Archeology which support the Historical evidence all the more. @@assarlannerborn9342

[@Therandomdisciple]

As a Christian you have a good point tbh I respect you

[@vroxer21]

Its a bad one, it takes 2 minutes and maybe above 30iq (which one of I guess this comment section doesnt have) to realize that in order for us to experience the universe it had to be that way, its like having a bilion lotteries going on every second of your life but you only get to know about them once you win. Obviously after you do you will be amazed but you could go your whole life without knowing that there was anything at all.

[@fernando2862]

I believe in God because before my mother being pregnant of me she was taking contraceptive pills while the time of the conceived

[@cheeselemons-sq5pn]

correct me if you think I'm wrong, but the argument that he used to disprove the multiverse is literally the exact argument that disproves God as well...

[@LBoomsky]

The thing is this explains life as we know it, not consciousness. A materialist could say there are alternate conditions for emergence, as many often do claim for AI.

[@ФилософияотБэнни]

"as many often do claim for AI" - An appeal to magic

[@LBoomsky]

@@ФилософияотБэнни i think the same way lol, i think emergence especially under the context of non living things is dumb but the sheer number of supporters makes it a relevant talking point to address

[@talhochberg5062]

I think you missed the whole point of constants. Constants are numbers or expressions which are, well, constant. They cannot be changed. So saying "if the gravitational constant would be stronger by 1/1^40 stars wouldn't form" is nonesense, because the gravitational constant can't be changed. It was derived by the behavior of the physical world, not the other way around. if it was changed it wouldn't be the same constant anymore and we would derive another one. Take pi for example. Mathematicians found that the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter is a constant number, and called it pi. you can say "if pi was slightly larger then circles won't be circles anymore. That must be evidence that God exists."

[@briandiehl9257]

How do you know the constants cannot be changed? That is not what most theories say

[@talhochberg5062]

@@briandiehl9257 constants are just certain numbers that have certain meanings. Like I said, it's like if I would say "what if pi would be changed?" Then it would not be pi anymore and won't have the same meaning, that's it.

[@briandiehl9257]

@@talhochberg5062 For example, plankhs constant, is completely arbitrary and is believed it would be different in every universe

[@mgames3209]

@@briandiehl9257 it’s called a constant

[@briandiehl9257]

@@mgames3209 because it is constant in our universe, not that it cannot be different. Juet look up change in the cosmological constant

[@jejeo4372]

Observers only exist in a universe capable of supporting observers, the argument ignores that we could only notice fine-tuning in a universe where we exist to observe it

[@mannysaikuz5924]

Fine-tuning loses its impact if the universe has undergone infinite cycles of birth and rebirth, either through quantum fluctuations or the Big Bounce. Quantum fluctuations are random events in a vacuum where particle pairs spontaneously appear and disappear, possibly triggering new universes, like ours. The Big Bounce theory suggests the universe repeatedly expands, collapses, and is reborn. In an infinite system of universes, even highly unlikely events-like one fine-tuned for life-are bound to happen. So, while the odds seem small, in the context of infinity, they lead to life without needing a designer.

[@thribsilva]

true. It's bound to happen and so we're here

[@oggolbat7932]

How does the Big Bounce theory not break any thermodynamic law?

[@randomfalcon3593]

How can we arrive at today if the universe has existed for an infinite time?

[@mannysaikuz5924]

@oggolbat7932 it doesn't. Idk how else to put it but like no energy is created or destroyed, it's all constant, and no energy is needed for the bounce to actually happen since it's all happening via gravity

[@mannysaikuz5924]

@randomfalcon3593 OUR universe has existed for 13.8 billions years, there may have been different versions of our universe (big bounce theory) with different physics and vacuum states before ours is what I'm sayin

[@ahnok2855]

I don't think this is a top tier argument in every case. Not because I think its wrong but because it fails to convince most atheists or sceptics. I was on the other side of the discussion for most of my youth and I can tell you, they laugh at this argument because ( i guess ) they don't fully understand the scope of it.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

A top tier argument isn't an argument that convinces Atheists. Conviction is personal. Dismissing the argument without giving reasons as to why makes the Atheist a laughing stock.

[@ahnok2855]

@@raphaelfeneje486 I guess thats true. I'm just saying, its not top tier when looking for arguments to convince people.

[@facundopuerta7673]

Theres literally no argument in the world that can convince an atheist, they could see a miracle in front of them and would still not believe, only God can open their eyes, thats why i think debating them is such a waste of time

[@facundopuerta7673]

These arguments work better to increase our faith but against atheist its all pointless

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@facundopuerta7673 not entirely true. Some Atheists have come to Christ via the intellectual argument for Christianity.

[@CharaTR]

The existence of God is indisputable, everything else is ignorance.

[@RJaXsYT]

Nop

[@CharaTR]

@rjaxsyt2083 yep im not an idiot to Anyone who questions the existence of God is an idiot.

[@cnault3244]

Why are you spelling the word god with an uppercase g?

[@RJaXsYT]

@@cnault3244 you may disagree with him, but don't disrespect his customs pls

[@cnault3244]

@@RJaXsYT I asked him a question, I did not disrespect him. If he is a Christian and is referring to the god of the Bible, he shouldn't be wasting time posting on arguments for a god's existence, he should be posting evidence for the new testament claim of the resurrection of Christ.

[@theamericane2655]

I am Christian but i think the biggest hole in this is survivorship bias. Essentially this universe just happens to be a bullet whole in a non critical area of a b-17 allowing it to make it back. I'm not saying that God didn't do this but its important to know the log in you're own argument before yelling at peoples specs.

[@Joutube_is_trash]

If a universe can't just exist without intent how can a god?

[@daltondiego]

thats my question too, and that saying that God has no beginning christians say is ridiculous

[@Trickologist]

ontological perfection, a necessary existence

[@landinization]

@@daltondiego The problem with atheism is the belief that everything must have an explanation, and tend to forget that the human intellect and experience is indeed limited. You rely in faith and assumptions as an atheist as much as a believer. If God is outside of creation/universe (as the creator), then the "rules" for his existence cannot apply in the same way.

[@daltondiego]

@@landinization A belief that is against explanation is a big red flag.. Atheist's don't rely on faith, they rely on logical reasoning. its religions that rely on faith because its all not real its just fairytales and delusions that cant be proved, if they were proved then they would not be beliefs and faith anymore. The concept of God was just made up by people then every society just came up with different stories around that idea of God. Religion never answers anything, they just make assumptions that's why you have beliefs like the earth is flat, heaven is in the clouds and all these have been proved to be false...when people ask questions about religion that are logical, religious people will say "don't question religion or God" , "God has no beginning or end" ..things like that is what shows religion is just confusion...

[@sanich0811]

This is belief in the supernatural - recognition that it is beyond material laws.

[@asddes1289]

brooo, life didnt just create itself to die. it had to adapt to the situation to survive

[@MrLubbs]

Something has always existed (a.k.a. something is eternal). People will say "no, nothing was there then something came"... 'nothing' is something, and therefore something is eternal. So it's really up to you to decide whether you believe that "something" is conscious of itself, or not. Considering we are conscious of ourselves, makes me lean towards the idea that this "eternal something" is also conscious of itself, otherwise how would we be conscious of ourselves and it? It wouldn't make logical sense for something not conscious of itself to bring fourth something that is conscious of itself and what brought it to be.

[@Trieux-j8f]

@@MrLubbs No, Nothing is not something. Nothing literally means nothing. All The people who aren't born are nothing. "Something" isn't eternal either. Everything breaks down over time. You just tried to prove evolution and accidently disproved it. The beggining of the Universe according to evolution didn't know what it was doing. God did. Besides the Universe couldn't have started on it's own, a large part of matter can't be created. It just dosen't abide with science. God created it because he was the only one that could've done it. Not Nothing. I find your theory very desperate.

[@imponentusgamer3247]

Sad part is, you could build a mountain of all the arguments, proofs and evidences that God exist and some atheists would still not care because of pride.

[@LaserNotLazer]

It happens on both sides. There are many ignorant christians who don't even read the bible. However, I believe through having understanding of both sides of the argument, I believe in Jesus christ.

[@imponentusgamer3247]

@@LaserNotLazer Brother, as a pharmacy student who is very interested in science, I need to reevaluate half of what science has taught me because I'm just sick from finding lie after lie... not everything is false, but a good place where you can start discerning whether something is true or false is where science has tried to remove God from the equation... God is very real and those who say otherwise are arrogant fools...

[@miguelplays2921]

no because some of the points they bring up can be reasoned with and proven to not be factual such as why did god have to kill his sons for a mistake he hates why. If god is angry why did he sacrifice his perfect son for horrible monsters like you and me and humanity?

[@emerald10005]

@@miguelplays2921 You mention reason and facts and then say "If God is angry why this why that" where did you get any of this from? This has nothing to do with reason or facts just your personal headcanon on what you think about God. Secondly God is not angry and He doesn't hate us; you are meant to reserve this criticism for the devil but nobody ever blames the devil for their troubles. Thirdly God did not 'Kill his son', we did... God did not crucify His son, we did. And we are not horrible monsters, you reserve this for demons. We are flawed beings and Jesus died to save us even though we were the ones who killed Him

[@miguelplays2921]

@@emerald10005 yeah I understand because he made humanity and look where that took Jesus too we battered him and than we crucified him, how are we worthy to even live, why was I born 2000 years later just for me to die in hell if I don’t return to whatever I was when I was more religious, Here look I imagine I have dog and than years later I get a daughter than one day my dog mauls my daughter and you expect me to believe I would euthanize my dog for mauling my kid. Because me personally I would same logic applies to us I’m just confused that’s all

[@Bevsworld04]

The whole point of fine tuning spunds great until you realise that we are biased to it BECAUSE we are able to survive in it. Oh wow, the earths conditions ar eperfect for human life? Well, they're not perfect for other life, though. The earth didn't create us. We created ourselves to match the earths conditions

[@Just_a_simple_name]

This is EXACTLY what Neil deGrasse Tyson warned about religion. He said people who believe God created something are just saying that because you don't understand it. Scientists 100% later proved why something was happening in the universe once we got advanced enough. Then when we discovered something else that seems impossible "oh god created it" it's just an endless cycle lol.

[@chrissant6277]

Yup. I will give some generosity to this video though, it does take scientific discovery to question.

[@bicepbrah8179]

Thats why the better argument is TAG, completely foolproof.

[@xn85d2]

Just the opposite, we're saying that God created the universe precisely because we've come to understand more about it, and how specific it had to be to support life. Your claim is basically "science of the gaps" - we don't understand and can't explain the fine tuning of the universe, abiogensis, any workable mechanism for evolution to add DNA, but one day the science will fill the gaps. This is simply blind faith supported by nothing.

[@JacobWillits]

Scientists cannot possible prove that there is no god. Figure it out or your low iq. Scientists cannot possibly prove that there is no God. Show the proof that there is no God

[@christianbaas2548]

@@xn85d2 true, the only people you see in the comments playing the “but we just don't know” card and acting highly skeptical are the atheists, because that seems to be the only argument left.

[@danielweaver3361]

This argument has been used before. "Only a God could make the planets move as they do. Only God can explain the weather. Only God can explain the universe's origin." Learn from the mistakes.

[@2ndYHWH]

How did these concepts first come into existence? Do you really not go beyond the surface? 😅

[@isaiahmayle4706]

​@@2ndYHWH Stupid questions like that dont deserve an answer.

[@2ndYHWH]

@@isaiahmayle4706 You don’t even understand the point of the question 😂 You’re stupid, and that’s fine, but don’t act as if you have anything notable to contribute.

[@2ndYHWH]

@@isaiahmayle4706 Let me help you a little. Concepts are the building blocks of reality. Even the concept of reality would need an origin. These concepts would need a Supreme Arraigner for them to make sense. Who or What is the designer? Who or What is the creator of concept? The concept of concepts.

[@wiggelsfang]

@@2ndYHWH okay and who created God? I know you're going to say something like "God is the uncaused causer," but then that means that not everything has a cause, and your whole argument goes down the drain

[@karmarama9567]

Infinite time, infinite chances

[@samandthegang2326]

@@karmarama9567 its not been infinite time though has it

[@joshb7415]

@@samandthegang2326 how can you disprove that

[@AlexSanta-jl9ke]

A counter argument would be that there are most likely infinite Universes before us and with that it’s guranted for infinite Universes to have life

[@Unveriefable]

Respectfully, your argument is just a theory which can't even be adressed as "most likely" when there's no evidence for that, and I'm pretty sure that we both intelecctually honest people wouldn't put our faith on something bare concrete evidence for multiverse if even any

[@AlexSanta-jl9ke]

@@Unveriefable nu then what was before our Universe

[@Unveriefable]

@@AlexSanta-jl9ke Hello and thanks for the questions Well first it is proven that the universe has a start and it's not infinite, thus we come to the conclusion that it has a cause And that cause has to be unbound by the limitations and restrains of our world aka space, time and matter Besides the fact that the cause has to not be limited by time space and matter the cause has to be intelligent and that was explained in the video through the fine tunning argument but basically the fact that out of a infinite of posibilities for the constants to get on the right values and combinations so that life could exist is a low range out of infinite, and you have to take in consideration that this has to be done for each constant, and it has to be in coordonance with the other constants so that they work in harmony for life to exist, and this makes it more reasonable that there was a intelligent cause rather than a random cauze that made the world be a liveable world Thus we come to the conclusion that the cauze of the universe is one outside the bounds of time space and matter and it has to be intelligent, I don't know how you wanna call this cause, but for me that's quite a definition for a God, as for which, researching trough the historic resources and many such I came to the conclusion of christian God being the one true God

[@Unveriefable]

And God is literally Alfa and omega, the beginning and the end, he is the starting point, He is the baker and we are the cake, the baker isn't baked, he is the baker

[@ianbarber2937]

If time is truly infinite then our exact scenario will exist a million times over across an unthinkable amount of time.

[@MrLubbs]

Time is not infinite, it has a beginning and an end. However, something has always existed (a.k.a. something is eternal). People will say "no, nothing was there then something came"... 'nothing' is something, and therefore something is eternal. So it's really up to you to decide whether you believe that "something" is conscious of itself, or not. Considering we are conscious of ourselves, makes me lean towards the idea that this "eternal something" is also conscious of itself, otherwise how would we be conscious of ourselves and it? It wouldn't make logical sense for something not conscious of itself to bring fourth something that is conscious of itself and what brought it to be.

[@ianbarber2937]

@ do you have proof the universe wont form a singularity and form a big bang again? key word (if)

[@MrLubbs]

@ With your own logic I could refute back, where is the evidence that will occur versus not? We can’t prove either, we can only look at what evidence has been provided to us. Surely you don’t blame us for believing in historical writings, but then turn around and believe historical writings about theories of the universe lol

[@ianbarber2937]

@@MrLubbs the difference is my argument has physical evidence that can support it while yours relies on words of a story happening. Not to mention i used the word “IF” and you took that as “this is what he believes and i need to correct him because it doesn’t align with my god”

[@MrLubbs]

@@ianbarber2937 You've actually got our evidences swapped my friend. I have physical evidence, life itself has only been proven to come from other life so far. Thus, we can conclude we came from life, as a pattern repeats itself as far as we can scientifically conclude and physically prove. Your idea of not having a creator relies on words and assumptions alone. There is no physical evidence of something coming from nothing. But there is physical evidence of life only coming from life. We have not scientifically proved otherwise, we only have theories, in other words, theories that something came from nothing. There is no physical proof. But there is physical proof that life comes from life only, as far as we can scientifically prove thus far. In other words, you're trusting words and theories alone, while I'm trusting what I can physically see and physical grab to conclude the logic of life.

[@haydnschlinger6740]

Fine tuning is possibly the worst argument for God. It's a fallacy: If intelligent life didn't form (because of how rare it is) there would be no one around to debate it. However, since it did happen (because there are trillions of stars, most with their individual systems or multiple planets), we can all point to God. It's quite a simple debunk. And now, take all of your examples, and multiply them times a hundred billion trillion (to make it accurate), then come back to me.

[@xn85d2]

You've only debunked yourself, there. It's not a case of saying if intelligent life didn't form, we already have that as a given. The point is, given the universe we can see and observe, what is the most rational hypothesis that explains that universe. It's either: 1) The universe was created by an intelligent designer. The evidence from the universe all matches this perfectly. 2) The universe happened by chance. The evidence completely contradicts this idea, to the point where it becomes ludicrously, absurdly improbable.

[@haydnschlinger6740]

@@xn85d2 We have no way of knowing if the formation of our universe at all was improbable, or there are universes created every day that we can't observe. Therefore that argument is void. If instead you refer to the formation of life here on earth, refer to my previous comment which debunks the argument of God in that instance.

[@xn85d2]

@@haydnschlinger6740 But that's the point, we can calculate the probability of certain facets of the universe being just as they are. And that turns out to be far to unlikely to happen without some kind of intelligent input. Look at it this way; if you play a video game, and you see a world which has certain observable rules and facets, do you conclude that that game world appeared spontaneously, or was there a coder who set the rendered objects to just the right values to be displayed as proper 3d objects? You previous argument does not really debunk anything, because all it says is "we exist therefore we must exist". OK, true, but that's not proof one way or another.

[@haydnschlinger6740]

@@xn85d2 If the universe didn't exist, nobody could speculate about its "creators." Since the universe does exist, we can. Also, you don't need a creator to make something. Don't believe me? Who made God? That's what I thought. God is just another step in the equation. Science: Universe came into existence, then everything else Christianity: God came into existence, then the universe, then everything else. It doesn't give us insight and it is completely faith driven, meaning there is no proof of his existence by definition.

[@xn85d2]

@@haydnschlinger6740 No, that's a misrepresentation. Christianity doesn't say God is made, or that He came into existence. We say that He has always existed. Therefore God has no creator, because He is an uncreated entity. Everything that is created has a creator. (You might want to turn this around to help you understand it; if there's an omnipotent, all-loving, perfectly good, sentient entity that exists at any point in time, what's one of the things that's a moral imperative for it? To make itself so that it has always existed, and always will.) It gives us a lot of insight, and is evidence driven. We believe in God because of the evidence for God. And the insights of Chrsitianity have been a driving force in science and social understanding. For example, in many pagan schools of thought, the universe is chaotic and mysterious, meaning that there's no sense to trying to understand it. But Christianity (and Judaism before it) claims that God is a rational entity, who created humans in His image and with the capacity to reason. Moreover, the Bible says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter". This and other scriptures directly caused the scientific revolution as men believed that scientific discovery was itself a way to worship and draw closer to God. Not only that, but the underlying belief of divine dignity inherent in each human being due to us being created in the image of God has been a driving force for things like the abolition of slavery and equal rights movements.

[@miagvinjilia]

0:22 LET'S GO GAMBLING! 🎉🎲🎰💵🤑🥂

[@Icebuild777]

@@miagvinjilia BAH AWW DANG IT

[@Elkucera899]

😂

[@BotulinSpikedMarzipan]

*chk chk chk GRRRR* Aw dangit

[@robertslayerofmonsters1302]

Although I haven't fully watched the video yet, this argument seems to require an understanding of units, such as the gravitational pull of an atom. While the actual value is minuscule in kilograms, altering even a single digit in the exponent could lead to significant changes. However, in atomic units, such a change might not be as dramatic. Consider basketball player LeBron James: if we were to measure his height in light years, hypothetically speaking, to the negative twentieth power, adjusting the exponent to nineteen or twenty-one would make him either the size of an ant or a giant. In contrast, if we measure his height in inches, a one-inch difference would likely not impede his ability to play basketball.

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

0:13 i already inhabit the American healthcare system

[@briggy4359]

Hey, in Canada they literally try to upsell MAID.

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

@@briggy4359 futurama suicide booths

[@briggy4359]

@josephbrandenburg4373 Yeah, I'm praying that doesn't come here. Maybe one day, we will return to a non-health insurance based society where prices for services aren't artificially inflated because of a ludicrous money laundering scheme that has been subsidized by the US government to weaken the populace.

[@KopperNeoman]

@@briggy4359 Healthcare in America: "You need stitches? That'll be your life savings and your mortgage." Healthcare in Britain: "You need stitches? Sorry, 500 illegal immigrants have owies, you'll have to wait." Healthcare in Canada: "You need stitches? Go ask Jesus. We'll send you there."

[@briggy4359]

@@KopperNeoman based and accurate.

[@supportgap7748]

Imagine you are put into a room with a table and 100 dice. You have to roll the dice over and over and can only leave if all land on 1. but as soon as that happens your memory gets wiped. After you leave, would you wonder why all 100 dice showed a one? It is so unlikely that they just randomly happened to all show a 1, so someone must have set them up and not just randomly rolled all 1.

[@supportgap7748]

Also saying the multiverse doesn’t exist because it is just speculation and has no real evidence, while making arguments for god, is peek irony

[@NarrowPancakes]

But a universe that Repeats forever and has many ends and start like a line has two ends, the universes fabric is taking us for a Repeating ride that you have no choice too leave. Would you feel nothing or experience ups and downs, the answer is likely the latter option.

[@ALightforAttractingAttention]

_"The more you know the less you fear. The more you learn about the universe, thr more it testifies of its creator"_

[@JacobWillits]

I use laws of physics to prove god is real. We didnt invent them, no control over them, but there is laws that govern the operation of the universe. Its not random happenstance if the laws are being followed like how objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. If laws exist the universe follows it takes a high intelligence to have laws. Another one i try is how we know our universe has a biggining it banged out in a big bang. The matter was in one spot and expanded out. What was before this period of the big banging? Once you realise this question its noticable that the enture universe is actually balanced on a line of language logic. What is and isnt possible. By this i mean that in order to have finite matter something you have to have infinate non matter of nothing all over infinately. The universe had to follow logic or the universe doesnt work. The universe is logical. Every action has an equal but opposite reaction. So before there was a big bang the first action had to be that there was nothing all over and simply because of nothing being all over the equal but opposite reaction is that something has to big bang out from somewhere. So logic is why the big bang happened. If the universe didnt follpw logical actions and reactions it couldnt exist at all. So logic and laws are how the universe exists. How can there be no higher power if the universe cannot exist wothout following laws as well as logic at the same time? Jesus spoke light.

[@PersonGuy968]

Atheists simply fear what they don't understand.

[@mobovids9909]

i'm a christian myself, however i saw some issues with the video. if someone wants to know everything i saw wrong i'll tell them, but i don't feel like typing too much, so i will just say the biggest issue i saw that wasn't explained. each univers doesn't have to have the same laws as ours, there could even be laws that we can't understand because we live in this universe. an easy example would be how he said if our universe was expanding a tiny bit slower it would collapse. well what if any of the particles in that universe were lighter so gravity didn't pull as strongly? what if the higgs boson particle worked differently so mass was a completely different thing in that universe? or what if gravity just wasn't as strong? going by what he is saying there would be an infinite number of universes that would support life, and an infinite number of universes that don't support life.

[@coffeeman501]

It's these kinds of arguments why I love science and why it goes hand in hand with faith. In a manner, science to me is a means of worship and understanding of a God that put all things in motion, that designed and created every little thing including me and you. The design of the cell, to me, is evidence enough that there is a God. To elaborate, a cell is a complex organism (either single-celled or part of a multi-cell lifeform) who's design fits a little too perfectly in my opinion. The way phospholipids form and interact, the fact that particular proteins stick through the surface of the membrane to perform particular functions...and that's not getting into molecules or atoms.

[@frostscythe910]

A lot of the Bible contradicts science so this makes no sense nice try though

[@coffeeman501]

@@frostscythe910 That...doesn't do a whole lot, friend. That's the equivalent of saying, "nuh uh!" Are there are particular verses within the Bible that refutes science as a whole, or is it particular experiences you've had with Christians that refute science?

[@glitchcloud3041]

Here is my legitimate criticism with a point in this video. I identify as an agnostic. I am not here to question the historical accuracy of events or people. I am only going to criticize your main point in this video, which is the fine-tuning principle you speak about. Yes, the math may seem extremely, and I mean extremely improbable for earth to house life. Therefore, all of it must be the doings of a higher being. But to us human minds, we can't even comprehend that. We physically in our brains don't even recognize how much bigger a trillion is to quadtrillion, etc. Therefore, and formost the human mind even when presented with exact numbers isn't a good judge at scaling as we mentally see it as an astounding big number but still literally can't comprehend it. That brings me to my second point that everything is as impropable as it is 0 to infinite. Think beyond the end of the universe where all stars die out and the universe is dead or before the big bang. Before and after anything and everything, there must've been something. Whatever it was, we don't know, and it's speculation, but anything and everything has a literal infinite chance of eventually happening. Therefore, on a giant cosmic timeline spanning before time before anything, there is an infinite chance that it could've literally be anything else. Whether that was God, another Universe, and or speculated mutliverse. This brings me to my third point. Again, to restate, I am not against God. I am simply criticizing your main point. You said that the multi verse is speculative, but the fine tuning principle and the mutliverse ate both sides of the same coin. What I see the multiverse argument is that everything and anything has infinite chances to do or become anything. So as in my argument, the multiverse is not a branch of a different variable to ours, it is literally different housing for anything to happen. So one universe can have a god, one is completely dead and not have any stars. One functions so differently that it does not even function to even has protons or neurtons. Again, everything and anything beyond what the human mind can comprehend that we can't be the judge of it. I'm just saying to keep the vision more broad as anything and everything literally will eventually happen no matter what to infinity. To summarize my main argument, I reccomend to read about the Poincare recurrence or apple in a box theory. Again, this is simply my criticism and my opinion. I am not bashing religion nor bashing science. Only my personal idea on the subject matter. ​@TestifyApologetics

[@Zedicy]

id like to argue against your second point. In your argument, you assume that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time, and didn't have a beginning or end (or else not everything would have an "infinite chance of happening"). This is something you simply can't prove, and i'd say the evidence actually points to there being a distinct beggining of the universe. If you think about it, if the universe was around for an infinite amount of time, that implies that there were an infinite amount of seconds before us. Since time is linear (and can only be linear), to reach the next point in time, all previous points in time would have to have occured. Given this logic, we'd never reach the present time (due to an infinite past) and wouldn't be able to experience existence. id also like to rebuttle ur 3rd point. You say that "one universe can have a god, and one could be dead". That itself is a contradiction, as the very definition of a god is an infinitely omnipresent and maximally powerful being. How could a maximally powerful being be constrained to one universe of many? If there was a possibility of a maximally powerful being in even ONE universe, it means that he must be present across ALL multiverses, or else he wouldnt be a god. feel free to argue against these further, take care

[@MrLubbs]

Something has always existed (a.k.a. something is eternal). People will say "no, nothing was there then something came"... 'nothing' is something, and therefore something is eternal. So it's really up to you to decide whether you believe that "something" is conscious of itself, or not. Considering we are conscious of ourselves, makes me lean towards the idea that this "eternal something" is also conscious of itself, otherwise how would we be conscious of ourselves and it? It wouldn't make logical sense for something not conscious of itself to bring fourth something that is conscious of itself and what brought it to be.

[@Trieux-j8f]

1. If the Multiverse exist, (With Infinite different Universes), and You exist, then you have to be in a Universe where life worked out for you. You have an Infinite chance of that. However, you also have an infinite chance of not having it. Because you alone have to be born in a Universe. You cannot have an infinite chance of not having it and an infinite chance of having it. So there cannot be infinite Universes. 2. If God is God, then he is Above everything. When I say, everything I mean everything. So there cannot be a Universe with God and a Universe without God. God would just rule over all Universes. 3. Eveything that we can observe, is either time, space, or matter. That being said, everything that we see in our lives has a beggining. Time, Space, and Matter have individual things that have a beggining, but we don't know if they themselves have a beggining. With our minds, the Apple in the box theory does come into play with this. But we know that there IS an Apple inside the box. Because there has to be one, and someone had to grow that apple and place it inside the box. His Name Is God. The Apple did not form on it's own. That is simply unseen and impossible.

[@astorisz3547]

I’m assuming you’ll never see this comment, but if others do it’s worth it to leave it here, because maybe they’ll see why this is a pretty bad argument. If the universe requires fine tuning, then god isn’t all powerful, and therefore, not a god since he has a constraint to his power, forcing him to make it with those constants. Which either means there’s like a higher being that can puppet that god, or this argument kind of falls flat on its face in support of an all powerful god type figure. Either way, doesn’t help the christian world view. If you want to argue that another god made that god, what’s not to say an infinite regress. It’s just not a good line of thinking.

[@eeeeee1028]

I wish I could live in a world were people didn't have to go through hell to explain something like "oh God has to be real" or "oh God can't be real" we have much bigger issues like global warming. Or trump being elected. Or giant corporations controlling votes in parliament. Or trump being elected

[@sadflannel]

@@eeeeee1028 crazy how youve got the giant corporations controlling government pill swallowed but still think the two party system and our fake elections are real

[@kibbiking9122]

@@eeeeee1028 you make a good point lol

[@Mason-uc9bo]

Your assuming the god of the universe has limitations due to the constraints out upon the universe. But what if the god of the universe purposely adding these constraints on purpose? We see in certain religions such as The Christian bible where Mans flaws are explained by free will and choice. If God created man and purposely added free will knowing man would be imperfect why couldn't he do that to the universe? Moreover if the workaround for the theory presented is god is NOT all powerful meaning they are inferior to a greater diety or entity that 1. Does not disprove nor discredit his theory only reinforces and 2. Opens up the same problem as the multiverse argument just kicking the can down the road no?

[@howtoblankmiechel598]

​@@eeeeee1028What are you on? The topic of "is god real" is way more important then global warming. Because if god is real then a lot of people are going to hell for eternity.

[@Cyba_IT]

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

[@Sawatzel]

4:38 the same could be said about god

[@donutpete]

@@Sawatzel right so what you do is use rationality, basically what he’s doing this whole video, is more sensible that nothing creates infinite universes, or that God created 1?

[@BKNeifert]

Yeah, the chance of Organic Life evolving are something like 10 to the fourteen google power probability.

[@BKNeifert]

@@bettertobethoughtafool Um, the chemical processes that would need to exist, create exponentiated probabilities.

[@youngascending7980]

@@bettertobethoughtafool”Trust me bro” “Some yt apologist said so” “The sky wizard guided my typing so I know it’s right” If you need any more sources just ask

[@BKNeifert]

@@bettertobethoughtafool Well, you're going to disagree with the source, but his argument makes sense. The fact is that there's compounding probabilities of organic material combining into genetic material, and then that genetic material combining into complex life. Like there's several dozen steps it has to take, to form into complex life, and each step is complexly more improbable. So, it's just kind of something you have to see.

[@BKNeifert]

@@bettertobethoughtafool Thanks. Fred Hoyle's the original guy.

[@BKNeifert]

@@bettertobethoughtafool As you can see, the argument here makes sense. I was looking for this one video I watched a long time ago, where a kid cited an organic chemist. Can't find him, though.

[@jameslightfoot8500]

The fine-tuned argument doesn't work. Example: If a monkey on a PC has near infinite amount of time to write a Shakespeare play, and all it does is spam on the keyboard; it will eventually write a Shakespeare play by sheer chance. The same could be the same for life in the universe. The universe had more than enough time to develop life on earth just due to time. There is no need for a creator.

[@Isaac-Newton620]

If these conditions aren’t met, people will not be born no matter what. If an atom can not hold together because the forces are not perfectly balanced, there will never be building blocks for life because the laws of physics prevent it. Time is irrelevant

[@zenith1767]

@@jameslightfoot8500 The fine-tuning argument doesn't rely on a specific timeline of life development, but rather questions that of all the possible values in physics, the value that is life-permitting lies in a very narrow parameter or range. Therefore, this analogy is a false analogy, a fallacious reasoning. The universe having more time to develop life on earth doesn't coherently address why the values of these constants and forces the way they are. It wouldn't be surprising if Deism or Theism is true because of the fine-tuning, emphasizing the need of a Maximally Great Being to set these constants' values in a way that allows for life to come about.

[@john-j7r2l]

@@zenith1767 you misunderstood what he said, what was there before the universe, what will there be after. If Time was infinite, our universe represents nothing on that scale, so we have insight onto only what happened in a fraction of the Time that has been spent. We do not know what happened before and chances are there is no proof of anything happening no matter how far we look, so all we can do is speculate. Maybe there were billions of universes that lasted billions of time as long as our is going to last. Its not the idea of multiverses as multiverses mean several different universes in the same time span, I am talking about everything in existence being wiped clean and everything starting from nothing infinite times as time is infinite. Because our view is so narrow we speculate. The reality is we do not know, from the infinite of theories we can create why do we choose to believe in the one with a superior being fine tunning.

[@zaikkoz]

My most important question with God is why he would exist? Our existence is a paradox and if God created us, then God is the paradox. Why do we exist? Why God exists? Where does God come from? If God was created by something else or just existed like that, why is that possible? It doesn 't make any sense, even if there is or is not a God out there