An Atheist Debunks the Fine Tuning Argument - Sapient Saturdays 🌎

[@KrustyKlown]

"temp of earth is finely tuned.." and yet, creationists think global warming isn't dependant on a delicate environmental balance.

[@Xz_-bv7te]

BigCooter.com creationists dont even believe in global warming

[@thendisnye7188]

I always find it astonishing what believers believe in what what they don't believe in. Now I'm sounding like Donald Rumsfeld.

[@mistermeatyoaker8428]

Bubbles! got a joint?

[@Desdenova262]

*yes the earths temperature is finely tuned* Saying something is true does not make it true. Evidence please?

[@luminositymusic3810]

Desdenova262 what. ?

[@thebatmanover9000]

The reality is we evolved to survive the universe not the universe was created just for us.

[@rocioaguilera3613]

thebatmanover9000 Completely agree. We're the product of adaptation to the universe, not vice versa. When theists say that the universe is for us, it makes me think that religions are no more than gigantic ego

[@smokikee]

This is the simplest and best reply to "Fine Tuning" argument. We evolved to survive our environment. The environment doesn't care if it kills or pampers us.

[@fl00fydragon]

thebatmanover9000 technically that creationist argument is a massive texas shooter fallacy (ignoring how cause and effect work and instead placing the effect as the cause)

[@profesorXa]

I think were not evolving. We actually evolving backwards leaving only junk egocentrism and polution behind us. Destroying planet is not evolving from me.If we evolved we dont have free.will we are hust obv programed by nature to destroy things. We are worst spicies then. Nature is hungry for self destruction. XD

[@aldousorwell6323]

fl00fydragon what's the Texas shooter fallacy? By the description you've given it sound like post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just looking for clarification.

[@whyabadi]

This video is fine tuned for my comment.

[@surperian4340]

Abdulla Almheiri therefore god

[@a.b.h.i.j.i.t.h]

@Valpurgis Tachyon yeah, but what are the chances Abdullah would find this particular video and decide to comment? Very low, therefore god!

[@butterskywalker8785]

@@a.b.h.i.j.i.t.h what are the chances of Abdullah having this video made about his comment,therefore god

[@mileslegend7140]

*designed

[@poozer1986]

@@a.b.h.i.j.i.t.h please tell me that wasn't an honest comment

[@joecryptoe9800]

The LOTTERY is “fine tuned” for people to get rich!

[@toyosioyejobi309]

Haha but you forget the lottery is set up by someone. Great logic there

[@superfish7725]

@@toyosioyejobi309 Yep the lottery has an intelligent designer....just like us haha

[@mism847]

@@toyosioyejobi309 So what? That has nothing to do with the point he was making. The point is that the lottery wasn't made for people to get rich, as we can evidently see, just like the universe wasn't created for us, as we can evidently see from all the unnecessary complexity in the universe. If the lottery was made for people to get rich, and the universe to be created for us, things would've been very different compared to the way they are now.

[@goranmilic442]

@joashscottofficial Fine tuned universe doesn't imply intention. That would be non sequitur fallacy. If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true (this is invalid conclusion). If you live in Canada, you're North American. Bob is North American. Therefore, Bob lives in Canada (this is invalid conclusion). If thing is intentionally created, it is fine tuned. Universe is fine tuned. Therefore, universe is intentionally created (this is invalid conclusion).

[@ashley_brown6106]

Well, yeah actually

[@brendanamin7400]

The universe is not fine tuned for the life, life is fine tuned for the universe

[@johnjonson6628]

Brian We dont know how life began, so, we cant be sure if life can exist exclusively the way it exist on earth, although we know for sure that life began by chemical process.

[@vicovendale6955]

Yet another theist who has it back to front. It's 3.17 here in South Africa and I am typing with one eye closed. You are welcome to explore other sites as to the logic of our existence .

[@steelman1506]

Peter Ambrus We don't really know that is an accurate statement. It's unclear if it is even POSSIBLE for universal constants to be different than they are. This statement about universal constants is NOT a statement suggesting that there were ANY OTHER PROBABILITIES... And what is extremely funny is that you are quoting the LEAST CREDIBLE branch of science...while disregarding the more credible ones...because it suits your world view. Theoretical physics is ABSOLUTELY NOT an accurate branch of science...it is mostly conjecture. The postulated hypotheses in theoretical physics suggest pretty put there possibilities...including time travel and infinite alternate dimensions wherein every possibility is manifest somewhere... suggesting in one reality everyone is a clone of you, and jacks off to pictures of poodles. So you're quoting Theoretical quantum physics while disregarding paleontology, geology, biology, botany, and a bunch of other CONCRETE sciences

[@Blue__Oni]

Peter Ambrus You missed tbe entire point of the video then, if any constant would be different than life would adapt differently to it or the universe would eventually end and when it begins again the constants would change

[@kb24crazylaker]

No. that objection fails to appreciate the extent of the fine tuning. If not for the fine tuning, there would not even be matter and therefore no stars, no planets, no elements on the periodic table, no matter in general, and therefore obviously no life OF ANY KIND. For example, if the strong nuclear force (the force that binds together atoms) were different by 1 part in 10^80 then atoms would not be able to stick together and therefore no life of any kind could arise.

[@footsteps2179]

Great video, but I would like to give a humble suggestion: try not to make provocative titles such as "An Atheists Destroys" or "Where's Your God Now?" Sometimes, having calmer titles can be more appealing to religious people who are questioning their faiths, while more brusque titles will make them defensive, and consequently detract them from your videos. Once again, nice work :)

[@HolyKoolaid]

Thanks for the input. What do you think about the new title?

[@scotte4765]

Much improved! Better to leave the hyperbole to the creationists.

[@footsteps2179]

Looks great!

[@korykent5645]

Part of being an atheist is being a snarky bugger

[@Velvetx4cove]

Very much agree with this!

[@davidmarzolino7159]

All this argument boils down to is, if things were not exactly as they are, they would be different.

[@inukithesavage828]

If by 'different' you mean 'the big bang failed to even happen', then yes.

[@poozer1986]

@@inukithesavage828 but it didn't. It most certainly did happen. Of you see many objects, following certain paths, all moving away from a certain point, and then rewind time, what happens? Everything ends up in the same spot. Please stop using the term big bang, as that was coined by theists. It's more a great rapid expansion. Learn about what you deny, before you dial about or, otherwise you show that you don't have a clue

[@inukithesavage828]

@@poozer1986 Big Bang was coined by an atheist to mock the theory. He later became a theist because of the immense Fine Tuning of the universe. But even if he was a theist when he coined it, that would not be a mark against the theory - unless you are biased. As far as we can tell, it was a pretty violent expansion. My point was that Fine Tuning is required for a universe that supports life. If even the slightest variation occured to the strong or weak nuclear forces, we would not have atoms. If gravity was off by a hair, the universe would have collapsed in on itself. And all those forces have to be balanced against each other.

[@JohanKylander]

@@inukithesavage828 The need for fine tuning for lifes existence means there were limitations that the creator had to work around. The universe was either not created for life by (at most) an all powerful being, or it was created for life by a less than all powerful one.

[@inukithesavage828]

@@JohanKylander That is not what the evidence says, and your argument doesn't really make sense. It's kinda like saying "A master mechanic wouldn't need to design a functional car to end up with a functional car." In order for the universe to work, it needs to be finely designed and tuned. In order for it to be tuned, you need a God to tune it.

[@youstevek]

"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!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." - The Great Douglas Adams

[@jerrypresley1234]

Peter Ambrus can you explain to me how it's silly? I'm interested to see how someone would rebuttal it

[@thomasf.9717]

Peter, the only reason why you didn't explain it is because you can't. Don't pretend the reason is something else. You're acting like a 10 year old that "totally knows what porn is".

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

Its that supposed to be profound? Its simplistic. Fortune cookie philosophy right there lol. Its more of a refutation of atheism, more than anything else.

[@godofnothing428]

What's The Takeaway? Why not explain rather than throwing out useless words.

[@carlosatreides5653]

Puddles aren't sentient. You're just being silly

[@scottboatright3880]

Tardigrades can also forgo food or water for 3 or 4 decades, making them the toughest animal on the planet. They're so cute too.

[@Qattea]

I think the biggest problem for me is the fact that our sample size of observable universes is one. What if we are the only universe in existence? Then the explanations for fine tuning become either freak accident or we can’t have access to the correct mathematical information to calculate anything at all. In which case, saying it is designed answers the probability question..the thing is, it’s a blank assertion and cannot be demonstrated because we just don’t know if there are other universes or other factors at play

[@lassehoffmann625]

Even if we are the only universe in existence and it would be improbable that any given universe could support live there would still be a 100% chance for a living observer in a universe to observe that universe supporting live Because it’s a dependent probability so for even the small chance that it actually supports live nobody would be to observe if it couldn’t support live I hope that was somewhat understandable

[@jadedrac0]

String theory takes more evidence to believe in then intelligence design because there is literally zero evidence of it. From what evidence is observable points to intelligence design does it not take more faith to believe in a multiverse. It seems to me it takes more faith to be a non theist than a theist.

[@jamesm.9285]

​​@@lassehoffmann625it is understandable, but it is also circular reasoning: Do these terms not just restate the argument that, essentially, "we are the intelligent observer in our own universe and therefore our life-supporting universe wouldn't exist if we weren't there to observe it because then it wouldn't be our universe"?

[@lassehoffmann625]

@@jamesm.9285 no it is more like out of all universes with intelligent observers all of them support live There is no way an intelligent observer can observe to be in an universe that doesn’t support live so we shouldn’t be surprised that our universe supports live because our existence implies that it supports live

[@jamesm.9285]

@@lassehoffmann625 thanks for clarifying your argument. This makes more sense now. In any cases, from a philosophical and scientific perspective, the cases remain that a) the universe appears "fine-tuned" probabilistically, no matter whether one takes a purely materialistic, naturalistic approach or a theistic approach; and b) our surprise - or lack thereof - by merit of us being evolved to inhabit this universe, shouldn't be cause to assume there isn't a greater "purpose" or "cause" for our existence in a universe governed by precise life-permitting fundamental laws of nature. These discussions are always a blast, so I appreciate you engaging critically!

[@polk-e-dot8177]

this channel needs more subs. get on it guys. Can we get him to 50m? not with that attitude!

[@HolyKoolaid]

+joshanator I too am a Pastafarian. I just come from a different denomination. Most people believe the flying spaghetti monster is covered in red sauce. I believe he's topped in chicken Alfredo. I'm surprised no one's started a war over this yet! xD

[@foodfrogs6052]

_Actually_ you're both wrong and all matter is made of very, _very_ small strands of spaghetti. So small that it's impossible to observe them, so don't even try. All of this spaghetti together makes up the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also known as the universe. I know, I've met the Spaghetti Monster in a vision once. You're gonna have to take my word for it.

[@foodfrogs6052]

alic seprin SHUT UP YOU'RE GOING TO BOIL FOR ETERNITY IN THE POT PIT, I HAVE A FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND MY RELIGION STATES THAT SAUCE LOVERS LIKE YOU ARE SIMPLY ANIMALS AND THEREFORE HAVE NO PROTECTION BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

[@ixamraxi]

Then scientists came to the shocking realization that it doesn't matter what the constants are, because they *had* to be something, and whatever they are is only impossibly rare when compared to what they aren't.

[@AdamBror]

I think you missed the point

[@ixamraxi]

@@AdamBror What is it that you think was my point, out of curiosity?

[@AdamBror]

@@ixamraxi " they had to be something, and whatever they are is only impossibly rare when compared to what they aren't." If the constants were something else, it wouldn't be different, it would be nothing at all since the universe would end up collapsing or ripping. It seemed like you thought that any constants would be able to create a universe.

[@ixamraxi]

@@AdamBror _"It seemed like you thought that any constants would be able to create a universe."_ Then you've misunderstood. Would you like to try again?

[@AdamBror]

@@ixamraxi How so

[@eventhisidistaken]

Here's another way of looking at the fine tuning argument - if things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

[@eventhisidistaken]

@@1999diehard Nothing you said makes any sense at all. We can just part ways now with one of us correctly concluding that the other is an idiot, and you with your incorrect conclusion, or we can continue. Your choice.

[@eventhisidistaken]

@@1999diehard A pineapple is certainly more at your level. Look for one that's not too ripe, and good luck!

[@Zelchinho]

If things were different, the universe wouldnt exist. Also, go outside, find some sand, throw it infinite amount of times, and tell me if uve ever made a sand castle from it. Also, can u measure something to perfection? Can u put something in a perfect place? What is the smallest thing in the universe? Ok, what is that made out of? Its so much proof, and its so logical, u just dont want to accept it. We blind ourselves from the truth, cause as we ve all learned, truth can hurt, truth can be hard.

[@eventhisidistaken]

@@Zelchinho As long as there is a nonzero probability of the sand landing in the shape of a castle, no matter how amazingly small that probability is, if I did it infinite times, with 100% probability it would form a castle, and not just once, but infinite times. If it's actually impossible for it to happen, then it will never happen.

[@Zelchinho]

@@eventhisidistaken thats the point, this universe has laws, and is bound by laws, there for by simple logic, it is impossible, even with infinite amount of times.

[@SamBskate]

All these "parameters" are for OUR life. If they were different, life would be different. It's only because we are the way we are, that some look at the environment and say "wow! this earth is finely tuned for me!" Well guess what, if any of those parameters were different, the life developed would be different.

[@stylis666]

SamBskate It's not easy to wrap your head around chaos theory and say:' Hey, it's all because it is.' ;)

[@terencekreft482]

SamBskate: you're right, it seems difficult for some people to understand that sometimes the answer is: "Because".

[@josephstalin9939]

SamBskate Yes! We are made for the earth, not the other way around!

[@biostemm]

Heck, one need only look at the so-called "extremophiles" to see just how wide of a range of conditions life can exist in.

[@maxwellsimon4538]

It surprises me when people are surprised to see organisms living in environments in which they can live.

[@Ryusuta]

The fine-tuning argument basically boils down to "If the universe or our solar system were different, then things would be different." What a fucking brilliant observation. >.

[@amadeusdebussy6736]

That's basically it, but with the addition of "but it's not therefore God" at the end.

[@subscriberswithnovideos-xw9xc]

@@amadeusdebussy6736 Godtards never fail to amuse me with their stupidity.

[@Ryusuta]

Exactly. If things were different, then they'd be different. You're taking the result we have and working backward to conclude that it was intentional. The only reason this result means anything to you is because you're a human and are therefore invested in the survival and continuation of humanity.

[@Ryusuta]

​@Tyler B #2 First: the creation of the universe and the existence of life on earth aren't the same thing. Second, "accident" implies there was some intent. Like there was an end goal and the current result was a deviation. Third, evolution is anything BUT random. the creatures that survive and reproduce best in their environments, survive and reproduce in those environments. And the traits that are beneficial for doing so are passed on so that more and more of the population has those traits because the ones that lack those traits are unable to survive in that environment. It's not even CLOSE to random. Finally, you feel like this result was unlikely because it has meaning TO YOU. This result is valuable TO YOU because you are a human and have a vested interest in it.And yes, the universe being just a bit different would mean that human life as we know it wouldn't exist. But there's nothing saying that some life of a different kind couldn't have thrived in that slightly different universe. Let me put it this way. Say that you took a 6-sided die and rolled it 1,000,000 times, recording each result. The odds of you being able to predict the exact result of each die roll in order are astronomically low. However, the odds of the die landing in SOME combination are 1 in 1. There was going to be *a* combination. This is the one we got, and as humans we want to assign meaning to it because it was favorable to us.

[@Ryusuta]

@Tyler B #2 You didn't listen to a word I said, did you?

[@LisaForTruth]

Gee, almost as if life developed on a planet that could support it! Imagine that! Also, they do realize that the earth has an elliptical orbit, don't they?

[@faroukkandsi2672]

So why doesn’t life evolve in mars or Venus or any other planet? So what if venus is extremely hot ? If evolution gave us the perfect abilities and feats to survive and thrive in earth why wouldn’t it evolve species that can withstand the heat? Withstand the cold?

[@LisaForTruth]

@@faroukkandsi2672 Life evolves where it can evolve; evolution does not "give" perfect abilities

[@ziodav7490]

How can something evolve without intelligence behind it

[@spaceman081447]

@@ziodav7490 RE: "How can something evolve without intelligence behind it?" It's called mutation and natural selection.

[@ziodav7490]

@@spaceman081447 you didn’t really read the question right? How can something mutate without any intelligence behind it?

[@Evolushaun]

"We have evolved to survive here, fine-tuning ourselves to this planet, not the other way around." :) *Best part for me*

[@dougoverhoff7568]

Why not both?

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

@Delon Duvenage Life evolved here on Earth, there is your proof.

[@dougoverhoff7568]

@@poozer1986 How do you know that there was no outside influence. What evidence do you have for making that assumption? That is a hypothesis, is it not?

[@dougoverhoff7568]

@@poozer1986 Did you get triggered, Alex? All I did was ask a civil question. I think you must be uncertain about your ideations, and your attitude shows you are very insecure in your beliefs. I could wrong, but I think you need your mommy. 😡😭

[@dougoverhoff7568]

@@poozer1986 Oh, and I don't have to prove anything to you or anybody else, as I'm entitled to my own opinions. And, btw, what the hell do you mean by "my own kind"? You don't know Jack shit about me. And, finally, what makes you so damn sure that I was bringing up religion as having an explanation in the inquiry? You sure make a lot of assumptions, but don't seem to have any evidence to back up your assertions.

[@jankopandza1072]

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning is the process in which parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to fit with certain observations. This had led to the discovery that the fundamental constants and quantities fall into such an extraordinarily precise range that if it did not, the origin and evolution of conscious agents in the universe would not be permitted . The fine tuning problem was first introduced by Nima Arkani-Hamed a theoretical physicist of Iranian descent, with interests in high-energy physics, quantum field theory, string theory, cosmology and collider physics.

[@Poseidon6363]

The puddle says"How nicely I fit in this hole, must have been fine tuned just for me, I must be a very special snowflake."

[@Poseidon6363]

All depends who's saying it, the puddle or the water molecules lol. in this case it's the puddle. Do you know where that saying comes from?

[@jointhe6461]

Douglas Adams if I am not mistaken.

[@Poseidon6363]

Bilge Khan Correct, but I am not sure which book it came from, used to think it came from the "hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy" but not sure.

[@munstrumridcully]

Poseidon63 it was from The Salmon of Doubt(book 3 of the Dirk Gently series)

[@xl3942]

I dont get it, is that the creations standpoint?

[@honeybison]

Going to become a patron(?) because the content you put out needs to be heard and is made brilliantly. You're able to de bunk irrational ideas eloquently and without sounding patronizing, which is a great talent to have.

[@HolyKoolaid]

Melina Snow Thank you so much! That's super nice of you. :)

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

“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!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’” - Douglas Adams

[@0607guy]

The puddle analogy works well until you realise you are not comparing apples to apples or oranges, you are comparing a simple puddle to the ACTUAL ENTIRE UNIVERSE. In reality the actual science and facts does not agree with an actual puddle.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

@@0607guy Uhm … the puddle analogy does not assume the puddle is the universe. It assumes it’s a puddle and that puddles conform to local laws of physics, regardless of what meaning puddles may ascribe to a limited set of observations. The puddle on the other hand assumes that the fact that it fits a whole in the ground so well is kind of miraculous, rather than simply the necessary outcome of the way the natural world is structured. From this feeling of being special, rare or improbably, the puddle concludes for no reason in particular that it must needs be the some type of teleology at play, which somehow implies safe from harm due to the meaning ascribed “meaning”. It serves on one one hand an illustration of incredulous puddle-centrism and by extension it illustrates why the idea of “fine-tuning for life” is fundamentally flawed. The argument from fine-tuning is puddle-centrism at it’s finest: it focuses on one possible order of things to the exclusion of all other possible orders (which are in fact unknown). It lables things unique and special, not based of a knowledge of all possible outcomes …

[@jessebrady2614]

​@@whynottalklikeapirat This puddle analogy keeps coming up in spite of the fact that it doesn't really speak to the issue at hand at all... Science has well recognized that the configuration and nature of subatomic particles somehow exist naturally in a way that creates the only possible conditions that we can conceive of for the existence of matter and ANY universe...not just this certain kind of universe, but any universe at all. This stupid puddle would be able to eventually observe other puddles, and realize that its "container" could take any number of different configurations, dispelling the myth that it was specifically unique... The same type of discovery will never be possible with our universe... It happens to be specific in the only way possible, based on actual observed, well substantiated, consensus-drawing proof. Even Stephen Hawking marvelled at it. The only save would be the multiverse...which is a hypothesis tailor made for this purpose, and is actual science-fiction. The guy in the video picks out a couple of the easy "issues" to refute... doesn't bother addressing the real meat of the argument, and doesn't really meaningfully dig into the specifics of any of the data behind his refutations....oh yeah....and then invokes the multiverse at the end...which is very...I don't know... scientific wouldn't be the right word.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

@@jessebrady2614 I’ll just repeat that the puddle metaphor is not a statement about physics or the nature of reality but about the type of puddlecentric error of cognition that is incidentally also at play in something like the fine tuning argument. It’s a reflection on epistemology not ontology.

[@jessebrady2614]

@@whynottalklikeapirat sure, I get that you're not supposed to think of the puddle as as actual universe... But it's still really ineffective... it's speaking to a really stupid version of the fine-tuning argument... Which is purposely misrepresented by the metaphor. I happen to think that "Fine tuning" is a really dumb name for the idea in general... It causes confusion about what's being said.

[@silvalinan4077]

Meanwhile, in another universe; "If objects didn't repel each other, life couldn't exist!"

[@CinematikNupe]

As soon as I get my money together, you definitely have a new patron. We need more of your videos.

[@tonyswanson9129]

So if my car can't fly, it wasn't intelligently designed? Your counter argument is stupid.

[@itsnessanunez435]

I'm always excited about Saturday and waking up to these videos !!

[@axelandersson6314]

ItsNessaNunez And here in Sweden it's 23:45 and I have to go to bed.

[@HolyKoolaid]

Sorry this one was a bit later than usual. I ran into some issues and had to upload it twice. I did a live stream about it just now on facebook if you'd like more info (should be public and at the top of my wall: facebook.com/hkthomaswestbrook

[@kevinmorgan_truth]

You are a good magician, Holy Koolaid. You make good use of distraction (your hypothetical description of what a fine-tuned universe would look like) to keep the listener from thinking about what IS fine-tuned about the universe. Then, while the listener is distracted, you perform your magic trick, and--VOILA!--you declare the fine-tuning argument debunked.

[@hmmm1317]

You must be trolling

[@kevinmorgan_truth]

@@hmmm1317 If that's what you call trying to get smart people to think smarter and not dumber, you got me!

[@hmmm1317]

@@kevinmorgan_truth who do you think you're making "think smarter" by giving your comment. You should atleast provide a reason why you find a single of koolaid's argument false, if you do.

[@kevinmorgan_truth]

@@hmmm1317 I suggest you actually look up the term "fine-tuned universe" among those who actually respect the term, then you will be thinking.

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

Because it HAS been debunked. Dozens of times. It is a weak argument which only the simple-minded and fervently gullible fall for.

[@jumbouex.460]

By far my favorite channel on KZbin, if I had a job right now you'd be getting my support man I really hope you can keep it up until I graduate and get one.

[@HolyKoolaid]

No worries. For now, you can really help a ton by sharing my content around, or by tweeting out my videos to other big youtubers, bloggers, authors, podcasters, etc.

[@stannislav5564]

#BlackHolesMatter

[@giarnovanzeijl399]

#blackholesmatter!

[@AnmlPeeweeIsHere]

Stannis Lav #BlackHolesMatter

[@ratamacue0320]

#BlackHoleSmatter

[@whitneyl.1856]

Ooooh I see what you did there. ;) Makes even more sense when you used the word "matter."

[@IlValentino100]

poor penguins :(

[@Catloves997]

But, hey. At least the oil companies are getting payed, right?

[@AnmlPeeweeIsHere]

fishlove69 Yeah dude. Money is more important than life am I right? I cant believe a stupid meaningless piece of linen and paper is worth more to people than life itself.

[@puirYorick]

Penguins are known to rape each other including their young, so the concept of morality seems like it hasn't quite caught on with them.

[@butterskywalker8785]

@@puirYorick and are you a penguin?if not then why tf would you care,it seems that humans are the outliers since they're the only living species that don't do cannibalism

[@puirYorick]

@@butterskywalker8785 Go ahead and do a tiny bit of honest research on your false assertion about human cannibalism... I don't really see where you were going with your remark in any case but, since you obviously aren't much for truth and facts, I shall ignore you. SMDH

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

Great video, as always. It is interesting how creationists accept the discoveries of science when they reckon it supports their idiotic beliefs, while denying those same findings when they suggest that their god doesn't exist.

[@damienthorne861]

Exactly !

[@ByGraceThroughFaith777]

The thing is that science is actually leading to the intelligent design therory, instead of disproving it. Not because I say it, it's them, the scientific community arriving to those conclusions

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@ByGraceThroughFaith777 LOL. What are you smoking? May I try some?

[@ByGraceThroughFaith777]

@@CNCmachiningisfun typical 🙄

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@ByGraceThroughFaith777 Grow up!

[@FrostyJim6969]

“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!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise." - Douglas Adams

[@mordec1016]

Pretty depressing to see so many atheists still misunderstand the fine-tuning argument and won't bother to even do proper research on it. At best they'll watch a short video about it, then ignore the entire philosophical and scientific debates that are written on the topic. It's so sad, a lot of atheists actually think "life has adapted to the universe" or "the puddle analogy" are good responses. Ehhhhhh, such terrible misunderstandings of fine-tuning and what the argument states. Disappointing.

[@WhoFarts112]

What they did here my friend, is called a strawman argument. It's beyond pathetic. But it's what atheists do best.

[@josephpostma1787]

How does the common Atheist misunderstand this teleological argument?

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

By "do proper research," do you mean "get a science degree," or do you mean "watch the same videos and read the same articles that I do"? Smug self-righteous is not a substitute for scientific data.

[@SelectedSpecimen]

@@AndrewJohnson-oy8ojgood response

[@xiul.s]

Love how you argued this. Just watched the first fine tuning argument you cited and had so many counter arguments to their reasoning.

[@kalew37]

For anyone here that is looking for honesty and to truly be studied go read Astrophysicist Hugh Ross’s work. He identified more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that are necessary for life.

[@Thatsaspicymemeball]

so? doesn't prove god. we can only observe a universe that can sustain life because if it couldn't, we wouldn't be there so of course out universe is turned for life

[@Thatsaspicymemeball]

@esmund ok What would the history of this finely tuned universe look like without an intelligence behind it all? I don't have to imagine it. I can read a history book. Your argument is what everyone in this comment section has already done.

[@Thatsaspicymemeball]

I find it funny how everyone arguing for some sort of deity have it in their profile picture and all over their channel. No other interests?

[@Thatsaspicymemeball]

@esmund You're very polite. I like that we can discuss this and keep civil. good stuff

[@Thatsaspicymemeball]

Anyway, if I were to follow your line of reasoning, why would that prove a specific god? I can see why it validates some sort of intelligence, but surely it can't pinpoint which to worship.

[@ManoredRed]

This reminds me of something Douglas Adams said: Creationists are like the water in a pond: They look at the pond and think: "Oh hey, I fit perfectly into this pond, it must have been made for me!"

[@dontworry4082]

That joke is on all you athiests, as you guys all believe we were created from a pond of chemicals!!!! STOP BITING THE BATE!!!

[@viranko7530]

You made the case for God stronger. To say that we exist after all these things proves God's work. Thanks

[@picmman]

Not at all. There is no god.

[@sumejividi6663]

You know what's funny.. scientist do the hard work, come up with observations after risking their lives and you stand somewhere near your phone and spit foolishness. It's unfortunate. The likes of the Josiah to taught through sun was revolving the earth and the likes of those popes who persecuted Galileo for saying the same thing.

[@sinedd62]

@@sumejividi6663 hard work ? What hard work 😂 A THEORY lmao

[@sumejividi6663]

@@sinedd62 how about you show me the tiniest of inventions you've made. Maybe a telescope or a scape ship is too much to say.

[@jmdomaniii]

I don't think this person actually understands the fine-tuning argument. Either that, or he's flat out lying about it. The fine-tuning is needed just for STARS to exist.

[@scotte4765]

You keep saying this in half a dozen comment threads here, but it's only half of the actual argument. That quote from Hawking that you guys like so much is only saying, "the existence of life requires certain parameters to be in certain ranges, and behold, they are in those ranges." Fine. Not every scientist agrees on the details of this (such as whether all the parameters are independent), but we'll work with it. The theistic argument ALSO requires this: "...and the probability of all these parameters falling in those ranges without the influence of a divine fine-tuner is astoundingly low, so there must be such a divine fine-tuner." This is the part theists are making up. Hawking certainly isn't going this far. You don't have any idea what that probability is, because you don't know what the values of those parameters could have been at the instant of the Big Bang. It's like playing some gamble with dice: you know the rolls that would win, and you know the roll you got, but you don't know how many dice there are, how many sides they have, or whether any of them are loaded or affecting each other. You can know you got a winning roll, but you don't know anything about your chances of having done so, and the same goes for the physical constants of the universe.

[@dougoverhoff7568]

@@scotte4765 Yep, too bad you don't know if there really even was a "Big Bang", and if there was, what or who caused that?

[@phr3ui559]

Deboonked

[@12jswilson]

@@scotte4765 it also just speaks to our ignorance about the origins of the constants. Perhaps they need to be pretty close to what they are for some undiscovered reason. Perhaps they need to be exactly what they are. Perhaps eternal cosmic inflation is correct and a perfect universe is bound to happen once every googolplex or. Perhaps we're a simulation of a higher order being we'll call "God". Shaquille O'Neal is finely tuned for playing basketball but if he were 10x smaller or 100x bigger, he'd be too small to hold a basketball or too big to move around the court with any precision. There's no reason life can't inherently be 1000x smaller or 200x heavier, but Shaq happened to fall in the Goldilocks zone perfect for basketball. Why isn't he an ant incapable of holding a basketball instead?

[@iansarmiento5991]

@@dougoverhoff7568 if there was a big bang, Plato's cosmic world order did it. Fiery beginnings, right?

[@nickwgarcia]

One huge issue with this... If the lifeforms on earth have simply adapted to the circumstances, then why don't we see lifeforms in abundance on other planets? Couldn't life simply have formed on Mars for example and flourished just as we have on earth?

[@tinashechaduka7202]

Exactly 🤣🤣🤣

[@dannygjk]

Logical fallacy.

[@rajashekarmiduthuru4075]

Woww excellent...only fools can't understand this logic and believing blindly..😂😂😂

[@-_--bp6nf]

Because that's just how our solar system works? not to mention how it's changed from when it was formed. It could be possible that Mars was once the habitable planet or had a civilization before we existed, we don't know. There could be billions of universes out there that do support life with much different needs than here on earth. Who knows, maybe they drink mercury over there

[@mr.purple2595]

@@dannygjkcould you explain?

[@TheCow-j1l]

my father said that the multiverse argument is false, because if it was real there could be a universe where superman exists

[@TheCow-j1l]

@@SmilingAgilityPuppy-pq1ok I literally have no idea, he spends all days arguing with people on the internet and when they have no response for him he believes he reached some type of truth. He said the same thing about life not being able to form on early earth because he argued with a chemist about it for hours and when he got to a question he couldn't answer he had proven it false.

[@chronenojysk5107]

Example of Fine Tunning argument: "If God doesn't exist then why are we perfectly in the exact position of earth from the sun?"

[@MrZaborskii]

Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! It's the perfect distance because God tried and failed seven other times in our solar system alone -- Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. And that's not to mention all the solar systems he created with suns too large/small/unstable for life. He had lots of practice from messing up so much. Omnipotent, omniscient beings tend to make a lot of mistakes. Oh! I'm sorry! I thought you wrote, "if God *does* exist!" By the way, *this comment is sarcasm.* I don't actually believe in God. If I did, it would be pretty important to my beliefs that all of God's actions have a purpose. Human tailbones have no purpose, though and the planet Mercury is not necessary for human life to exist. For these reasons, when I was a theist, I saw the fine-tuning argument as damaging to my point.

[@MrZaborskii]

@Joshua Creasey I get that the existence of those planets does not make your god impossible. All of the lifeless planets, the lifeless solar systems, the over 99% of species that went extinct, the 70% of the earth that is uninhabitable, the hundreds of religions that have died off, all making contradictory claims. All of these could be your god saying, "I want a more complex, beautiful universe." My point is not that our universe is incompatible with the idea of a creator. My point is that our universe is indistinguishable from one that had no creator. And the fine tuning argument only draws attention to how similar the two are.

[@jamespong6588]

Funny how so many people claim to answer without even getting it the first place. Waste of time

[@secularteejay]

Ah man, fuck! I was planning on covering this arguments in my next Common Religious Arguments 4: The Fine Tuning Argument. You and Cosmic Skeptic have beat me to it! The Origin of Satan #2 narration was completed on Saturday. I'm going to put it together this week.

[@HolyKoolaid]

You still can. It's not like my video is going to reach everyone in the US, and this message needs to get out.

[@davidrichmond21]

Basically atheists have faith that an explanation for the fine tuning of the Universe exists without an intelligence, even though we have no evidence for it currently. I would respect atheists more if they were honest instead talking nonsense.

[@shilasarkar6003]

Basically You think something is stupid because you don't even try to understand it.

[@davidrichmond21]

I think that what I was saying my friend, was it is not reasonable to rule out the possibility of a God when the evidence is consistent with there being a God. But really my point is if God was real in the life of Jesus then the Christian faith must be essentially true. Now clearly if God was at work in the life of Jesus he must exist. I mean he could not have been at work in the life of Jesus, if he did not exist. Thus the evidence for Jesus is also the evidence for God, and the evidence for Jesus is to put it mildly overwhelming.

[@TheRubyGamersTRG]

@@davidrichmond21the evidence is not consistent with god, my guy

[@masterbulgokov]

I always thought the "N constants are fine-tuned" argument felt like . . . Well, if you change one, then they all change accordingly and an equally probably version of life would pop up . . . just not us. It doesn't always have to be about us, unless you're a egocentric theist.

[@watcher99999]

Egocentrism is a hallmark of religious beliefs 😂

[@yufery5]

Fantastic video, I plan on using this to debunk those who use this fallacy! Just one quirk - could you provide a citation to the intelligent design video that you use to criticize the argument?

[@HolyKoolaid]

Done (added to the video description). Share away. :)

[@LaRossaSelvaggia]

“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!” ~ Percy Bysshe Shelley

[@sammiller3242]

Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the fine tuning argument

[@manofthehills5001]

This is true. Believe me, many videos that challenge modern theistic arguments give me trouble. While this one was interesting, it was not very compelling to me personally.

[@thecosmicprime]

I am not an atheist, but I find your presentation compelling.

[@Yurwastingyourtime]

Yeah he’s stupid Jesus is the way oh and btw I’ve seen the other side it exist don’t follow fools who lead you away from salvation he works for satan

[@kyorikusagami84]

You should've just said "your presentation is compelling" and it wouldn't make any difference

[@thecosmicprime]

@kyorikusagami84 wow, I became an atheist shortly after commenting on this a year ago.

[@thecosmicprime]

​@kyorikusagami84 you are right

[@drzaius844]

@@thecosmicprimewelcome!

[@stevecash83]

Nice work!

[@Thrna_1]

Miss you Steve

[@tedgrant2]

The garden of Eden is a brilliant example of fine tuning. If the tree was outside the garden or if the snake was mute, Eve would never have ate the fruit. This proves that God designed the universe for sin to exist.

[@StoutShako]

"If the earth were just 5% closer to the sun, it would suffer the same fate as Venus. [...] Conversely, if the Earth were just **20%** further--" Does anyone else get irrationally angry when they change up the units like this? Are you saying if the Earth were 5% further away, we'd be fine? Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of your argument??? 🤨

[@chrispaige8880]

In the end, you're still looking at a watch (at infinitely complicated watch) and declaring that watch spontaneously created itself, but nothing spontaneously creates itself (other than the universe itself in your theory). That is, at some point, the universe violated everything we know about physics, spontaneously creating energy and/or mass. Then, the universe started running through infinite iterations until it stumbled upon us -- and that's more logical and probable than a Creator because? Reasons, basically.

[@chrispaige8880]

Here’s what we know: Lots of variables determine whether or not intelligent life will emerge in any particular universe; Many, if not all, of those variables have narrow tolerances; All of those variables must be “right”; There’s no apparent advantage to a universe in which only some variables are right. In short, intelligent life is unlikely, and, from what we’ve seen of the universe, nothing rebuts that hypothesis; that is, we’d predict intelligent life is unlikely & it seems to be unlikely. As an atheist, your response is, “So what? This universe may be expanding and contracting ad infinitum and/or there may be multiple universes; therefore, problem solved, infinite variation accounts for any otherwise improbable event. Yet, that hypothesis isn’t consistent with what we know about statistics. Let me explain: First, we know that the multiverse (if it exists) interacts with this universe in ways we can observe (hence, our belief in the multiverse). But that, by definition, means the iterations are NOT independent, so we have a problem: we can’t explain how and why the multiverses interacted in a way that permitted life. That is, we have no way to determine how many of the multiverse interactions would permit life & how many would not, so we have no way to say whether or not it’s likely the multiverses would have interacted in a way that permitted intelligent life. To illustrate my point by analogy, if I can prove you are cheating, I can’t say whether your hand is probable or improbable unless I know more about how you are cheating. It really matters whether you’ve put in one extra Ace or two extra Aces & so on. Since we know NOTHING about how the multiverses interact and/or how that interaction affects life, we’re done - we can’t use statistics to analyze this problem. Finally, we may or may not be able to prove/assume infinite iterations across universes and/or time, but we can’t say those iterations would be different and/or that they’d be different in ways that matter to life. That is, even if we assume the universe expands, then contracts, so what? Why would it expand again? We know NOTHING about the universe prior to the Big Bang, so we can’t say if the contraction would permit another expansion. Even if we assume the universe collapses, it may not collapse in the right way to permit another expansion. And if it does, why would the next universe be any different (or, at least, different in any way that matters to life)? You can’t say the universe is a yo-yo that changes on each swing because there’s no reason to think that an explosion governed by certain laws would produce different results. That is, you can’t have it both ways: if the universe can “vary” on each explosion, there’s no reason to think it will KEEP exploding (the variances may end the cycle). If the universe can’t vary, then there’s no reason to think it will vary enough to affect the outcome of life. In other words, we may have infinitely identical universes - all of which, rather implausibly, permit life. Your argument (that we’ve had infinite chances to create a universe with intelligent life) isn’t actually based on any evidence as we have NO evidence whatsoever regarding the other universes, their interactions with this universe, or the time between/before big bangs. At best, you can prove the existence of other multiverses, but so what? Again, if I accused you of cheating at cards, you couldn’t clear yourself by pointing to other instances in which you won at cards because you could have cheated those time too - there’s just nothing about the fact that you often play at cards that suggests or implies your results were attained by chance. Likewise, the fact that other universes may exist doesn’t mean that those universes are infinite variations of this one. To put it another way, how would our universe be different if all of the other universes were just like ours? It wouldn’t - at least not in any way we’d be able to measure because we can’t step out of this universe to look back into it, and we can’t observe the other universes in any way. Science can’t tell us anything about things it can’t observe. And stats can’t tell us anything about DEPENDENT variables with unknown relationships; we might be able to say whether or not such things could vary together by chance, but we’d need more data & would you accept the conclusion? That is, by definition, when lots of variables have to vary together in a particular way, it’s not very likely that’ll happen by chance. Indeed, the whole point of circumstantial evidence is that lots of variables don’t all happen together by chance (we don’t actually use stats to make that inference). So, to use the OJ case, it’s certainly possible that your ex-wife, whom you abused, will get murdered at a time you can’t account for your whereabouts by someone who wears the same rare shoes as you do and who got cut, just like you did, and so on, but that string of variables happening by chance is really ludicrously improbable. Granted, you’d have to know more to calculate precise odds, but you’d never say that OJ’s case happened by chance - it’s just laughable. Similarly, this universe happening by chance is ludicrously implausible UNLESS you assume independence AND infinite iteration, but the first assumption is false and the second has no basis in fact - it’s just a guess/hope. Indeed, I think it’s a wild hope because the mere fact that the universe seems to cycle through expansion and contraction phases would suggest that the rules aren’t changing that much, that there’s actually some sort of law or laws outside of the laws of the universe, laws that govern all universes even before those universes began. Now where have I heard that idea before? John 1:1 Remember you’re entire argument is premised upon the idea that something outside of the universe governs the remnants of the old universe and the start of the new universe, thereby causing the former to give rise to the latter. That sounds like God. Even if it’s not God, it sounds like the universes can’t actually vary much. DNA varies because it has to copy itself; do the remnants of the old universe copy themselves to make the new universe, thereby creating a chance for mutation? I doubt it, so there’s no reason to think the “multiverse” isn’t repetitions of the same improbable event, rather than iterations that make the improbable, probable. Don’t get me wrong: I loved the video, but I think you oversold your point by making assumptions you didn’t acknowledge/recognize. As long as the multiverses interact, they aren’t independent, which means your response falls apart. Furthermore, I think you’re just guessing about the iteration thing - which I doubt because there’s no copying issue to introduce the variation you assume occurs.

[@scotte4765]

*In short, intelligent life is unlikely* I stopped right there and only skimmed the rest, because what you started out with doesn't lead to this conclusion. It's subject to the same flaw you give when talking about probability for multiverses. Why is intelligent life unlikely? The "narrow tolerances" you allude to? Narrow in respect to what? Take one physical constant as an example, the strength of gravity. Yes, we have estimates of how much weaker or stronger it might be and still enable the conditions that allowed life to arise in the universe. But on what basis can you say anything about how probable it was for gravity to end up in this range? You can't calculate or estimate a probability without three things: - your target value or range (e.g., we need gravity to be between 35 and 40 on some scale) - the full range the value _could_ have taken (e.g., it could have been anything between 1 and 100) - the probability distribution for that entire range (e.g., the individual likelihood of every value between 1 and 100) For gravity, we know only the first of those three. Can you tell me all the possible values the gravitational constant _might have taken_ at the instant of the Big Bang? Can you tell me how gravity got the value it did, so we can know the entire probability distribution? No, you can not. It's just like your card example where you don't know how many aces a cheater has, or like trying to determine the probability of a dice roll when you don't know how many dice there are, how many sides they have, or whether any of the dice are loaded. All you know is what rolls will "win". Good luck figuring out your odds. So no, you don't know anything about how likely intelligent life is, and without that you can't say it's so unlikely that it must have been God behind it. I'm not going to defend the idea of multiverses here, because I'm not a fan of it as an explanation, beyond being an interesting speculation. But the fine-tuning argument for God relies entirely on a probability estimation that can't actually be estimated, at all, and therefore it fails.

[@mrsulaiman19]

This is literally the least rational argument I've ever seen

[@j.donovanmitchell347]

mrsulaiman19 there are worse arguments but yeah I do think this isn’t a solid argument

[@Worshipsatch]

Why

[@noahdiluca9857]

@@Worshipsatch The fine tuning argument has nothing to do with the likelihood of life on any given planet. Every 'rebuttal' of it only focuses on how rare life is in the universe, giving that as an indication that it wasn't designed for it. What the fine tuning argument actually says is that if even one of the fundamental constants was modified even slightly then life could not exist anywhere. It would be literally impossible. Not just that "the earth would be too far away" but that stars wouldn't form, heavy elements wouldn't form, molecules wouldn't form, atoms wouldn't form. Imagine a universe that's just a giant ball pit. It seems crazy, but that is no more likely than our current universe existing. No matter how large the ball pit, no matter how many trillions of balls are in it, life would NEVER form. It just couldn't.

[@Worshipsatch]

@@noahdiluca9857 First off, the fine tuning argument fallaciously puts conscious life as the goal of the universe and states that the universe is finely tuned for life, owing to its constants, which here is shown that it's not, so I think this beautifully debunks the notion that these constants are ideal for the situation that is life. It also mentions the contradiction of an almighty God having to bow down to restrictions of mere constants of the universe. In around 3.58 he addresses this issue of constants more exclusively as he states that this margin of constants is only mere speculation and we are not knowledgeable enough to assert for sure the ideal conditions of life. So that further debunks it. He even gives the statements of Sean Carroll or Lawrence Krauss and many more in context to various constants along with the multiverse. He also debunks it by saying that this ',fine tuning' of constants may just be for other's things instead of life, there is no reason to hold ourselves as the sole goal.of it. I honestly don't know where your arguments are coming from but they have been exclusively debunked in the second half of the video. Kindly Watch it again.

[@noahdiluca9857]

​@@Worshipsatch The fine tuning argument does not put life as the end goal of the universe. It simply observes that were constants not within margins close to 10^-40% that planets, atoms and everything else would not form. I don't think any of us truly comprehend the scale of such numbers, and we all take for granted that something like a proton or gravity even exists at all. If the universe had literally no purpose whatsoever, then why would matter attract to itself? It could just fly off into the distance forever and no one would be any the wiser. If the universe was one giant ball pit for example, no matter how many trillions of balls you have in it sentient life could never form. Do you really think that just because a system is big a phenomenon like life must exist somewhere? That sounds like a statement from a being who only knows a universe with life, and so assumes it is inevitable. If life is so easy, do you think you could design a set of elementary particles and laws of physics that support life? I doubt it. Personally I don't believe in god nor do I think any religion on earth is the product of omniscience, but I find the fine-tuning argument quite difficult to grapple with and the idea that this video 'debunks' it is just ridiculous. I agree the second video about the goldilocks zone is stupid and pointless but mr. westbrook here doesn't even mention the first segment, instead resorting to oversimplified and ignorant 'analogies' to support his point of view. I 100% agree however with the 'infinite universes' point. If that is true, then the fine tuning argument means nothing. If there is only one universe though, then it means everything.

[@thendisnye7188]

Fined tuned for life? How do they explain that the sun is slowly getting brighter and hotter; the Earth's rotation is slowing; the Earth's orbital speed is slowing; the Earth and Moon will eventually become tidally locked; the Earth's core will eventually cool and solidify shutting off Earth's magnetic field. These factors and more will eventually render Earth uninhabitable.

[@stylis666]

Thendis Nye Sin, God's will, some mental gymnastics like that. Somewhere in the comments is a nice story about a puddle that wakes up and finds a hole it fits in perfectly and assumes that it's made for it. Then when the sun gets hotter he shrinks but won't let go of the idea that it was all fine tuned for it. Imagine thinking that morals and purpose only exist because of a god and that if there is no god there is no reason to anything and anything goes and that after you die your mind just fades away. Imagine how scary that is to someone who believes those things; to someone who can't understand that there already is no purpose than what we make for ourselves and that we already only have subjective morals that suit us personally and socially and that death most likely is the end of our mind and that we hold value to our legacies instead of to judgement by an eternal and infinitely fair judge. It feels much safer to rely on a perfect delusion than it is to rely on reality and to take responsibility for our actions.

[@gamesbok]

Setekh, The puddle story is used by Dawkins, but I believe it originated from Douglas Adams, the author of Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[@thendisnye7188]

I'll have you know that - the Great Green Arkleseizure is the creator of the universe. ;)

[@ryanwalsh5019]

By then it is much more likely that an asteroid or nuclear warfare would have wiped us out

[@gamesbok]

There is an important lesson for mankind in the extinction of the dinosaurs by an asteroid. Don't all stand in one spot. Many theories fit any data gathered at low energies. Newton is just as successful as General Relativity for low velocities or common gravitation. What happens at high energies. What theories fit best? Entering a black hole we first experience spaghettification, then we are crushed to meat-balls at the singularity. I'll run that pasta one more time. Spaghettification - meat-balls. I think the identity of the creator is obvious.

[@m.zangdar6987]

We are special, but certainly not in the way creationists think we are. We are special, not because we were created and hand picked by a bearded guy in the sky, but because we are the result of billions of years of evolution. Our ancestors, at all stages of life, struggled in the harshest environments on Earth, passed through natural selection, survived many mass exinctions to lead to the advanced homo sapiens that we are today. Many kingdoms, empires, land, worlds, universes feel between the first fire lit by apes and the advent of L.U.C.A. We are born from the shared efforts of millions and billions of animals through time, we live on the remains of long lost species that once roamed Earth before us. We are special because we stand here today after all that life has gone through. So tell me, which story is the best ? The tale of how humble organisms, not even as complex as a cell, managed to create so much diversity and complex organisms despite the deadliest and most violent conditions possible, all through billions of years of unsung history ? Or the story of fully grown people doomed to live miserably because an omnipotent being said so ?

[@robvalue]

Great vid :) If things were different, things would be different! Wow, what a great argument.

[@PraiseTheFSMonster]

"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!'" -Douglas Adams

[@troglodyte4207]

Nice Sydney opera house reference It makes me feel special since I live about half an hour away

[@wiseyoutube2078]

"Uncaused First Cause" is one of the last logic justifications for an non-specific Grand Creator. And it doesn't imply that this Creator is actively interacting with Existence, just that they pushed it into motion. That keeps me to the side of Agnosticism, the wiser form of Athiesm.

[@501stJackal]

Wasn't expecting THAT ending 😂

[@breambo3835]

I'm still waiting for the debunking of the fine tuning argument.

[@breambo3835]

Frances S If i find an artifact whilst digging in my back yard can i not know or presuppose that some one designed and created it. If its designed then it infers a designer. That's the argument. Design does not happen by chance.

[@dwaynemaroney7159]

Sand blown by the wind makes really interesting DESIGNS across the desert landscape

[@arturartur4669]

@@dwaynemaroney7159 Can your sand wind create a computer design?

[@dwaynemaroney7159]

​@@arturartur4669no

[@mollyN2112]

​No, but MAN can.

[@Anglomachian]

There's a simple little thing that can solve this insipid dilemma. When a creationist says "If blah-blah-blah was different, life could not exist", just add "as we know it." Creationists seem to believe that the universe is comparable to a garden, where a gardener has made their rounds implementing ideal conditions and directing the growth of what they choose to plant. But it's not. The universe is a massive slab of 10-inch concrete, and whatever life exists is a tiny little bud pressing defiantly up through the cracks.

[@SasukeUchiha-wm3jc]

Oh so we have fine tuned ourselves, Sure then please do tell why we can't see any other planet with life except ours, why not have life appeared there and "Fine tuned" themselves according to the environment.

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

It would be nice if theists could *PROVE* that their gods exist, but we all know THAT'S not gonna happen!

[@UNKLEnic]

@@CNCmachiningisfun well we try by simply seeing the universe fine tuned as even this video argues it is. Or Jesus fulling extremely narrow prophecies 600 years prior to his arrival. Atheist and skeptical historians all agree on these historical facts. 1. The tomb was empty 2. There were 500 plus eyewitnesses that saw Jesus after his death. 3. Believers died for claiming they saw Jesus

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@UNKLEnic Get a clue!

[@ErikJohnsonFMA]

this is a great video. patreoned.

[@NovasYouTubeName]

Thank you for this!!!!

[@jdetres01]

Still coming back to these, been an atheist for about 4-9 years and i truly do not have hell fears anymore, but i feel lost when i dont reground myself to these topics, ive been a computer/network engineer for a long time and that keeps me busy...but then i gata talk to a christian and boy do they ALL want to be friends and just talk about it so much and the volumes of disproven jesus stories are so massive its hard not to have a little PTSD from the fear of hell and they really want to show that I've been a christian all along... But like... Im a jesus mythicist entirely at this point... I just smoke my ganja, nerd out and raise my super son, stop trying to talk about hell, cus thats all religion is and has to offer at this point, fear of hell. Lol

[@devinmartinez2089]

Ask Jesus to reveal himself to you brother. He will soften your heart and show up. It’s probably sounds strange but i care about you and I love you. I want to see you in heaven one day brother. The science always points to God. This guys arguments are always philosophically and scientifically weak.

[@thiasarchery3331]

​@@jsea321 Jesus is the only way to salvation. By no other name can you be forgiven of your sin and set free. I can testify of how liberating it is to be free of all addiction which i failed each time when i tried on my own. God is good

[@kodiak1010]

@@jsea321there’s two sides to every coin but submission to either scenario is key. Freedom is also what God gives you to make the choice of salvation or damnation. Were you willing to submit to the King or more willing to submit to yourself?

[@kodiak1010]

@@jsea321 Simply, by satisfying your own will not the will of God.

[@kodiak1010]

@@jsea321I hear you, reading the Bible without understanding is not helpful and no more beneficial than reading a story. Sounds like you need a good teacher/mentor! I don't hear God speaking to me either. I follow the feeling of the holy spirit and how God has already spoken to everybody, the books of the Bible. Some people have different gifts of the spirit but not yet knowing yours doesn't mean God doesn't or can't exist!

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

5% and 20% of what? The entire solar system out to the Kuiper belt? That's huge. Besides, that can't be a fine tuning argument. That's the lottery fallacy. There are other planets, so with enough, one must be right. You have to use a fundamental force of nature for the fine tuning argument. Something like the force of gravity. But even there it's still pretty unsatisfying. Anything that lives within and is dependent on some thing has a thing that is fine tuned for it. So is the human body fine tuned for the AIDS virus? Or polio? Is the ocean fine tuned for fish? You see, there's an assumption that the theist makes when he or she makes this argument. The assumption is that there's something special about humans. We're just slime growing on a rock. We can be pretty amazing at times but there's nothing intrinsically special or wonderfully unique about us. We're just an ape species with an abnormally large brain that we usually don't even use to its full potential.

[@stylis666]

Paul TheSkeptic The whole fine tuning argument boils down to the lottery fallacy. We don't even know if this is the only universe or if there are infinite universes, perhaps even with different laws of physics where only those with laws that didn't cause the universe to destroy itself before life emerged have life. Which would still be an infinite amount of universes that sustained life, making not only our existence inevitable but that of infinite other universes as well, with infinite diversity.

[@HaydenTheEeeeeeeeevilEukaryote]

Paul TheSkeptic But we evolved into something spectacular. How awesome is it to be at a time where we know that there are galaxies and black holes and atoms and microorganism? How cool is it that we have "magic stone plates" that glow and change pattern when we touch them? That it can take pictures and communicate with anyone across the world and can discover any source of information even as a fucking teenager! Humans have big brains, and this allows us to do some pretty cool shit. The things holding us back aren't necessarily religions, but global warming deniers (if it is true, but based on how like every scientist and non-republican-American says it is, I'll put my bets on it being true), evolution deniers, flat-earthers, people trying to push false information into the classroom, etc. They are all products, but not religion itself. I don't know why I wrote this. Who the Hell was my intended audience? You were just making a simple point, and I had to come in and rant for no God Damn motherfucking reason....

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

Setekh That's certainly a possibility and one that's predicted by certain areas of modern physics but it's not yet a proven fact in the sense that a layperson means. In other words, I think most physicists would agree that it's still speculative. It still doesn't stand up in my opinion.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

Hayden the douchebag It's okay. I do it too. Sometimes you just need to vent and you're making conversation. Nothing wrong with that. I agree. It's an amazing time and what we've accomplished is amazing. We're a way for the universe to examine itself. We are part of the universe. We are made out of the universe and we can examine the universe. It is pretty incredible when you think about it. Not to mention art. That's a pretty cool thing. What I meant was that we're not inherently special. There's nothing about us that needs to exist. We're not beings of light, we're an ape species, a few steps removed from a slime mold. Chemical processes acting upon each other. One must assume that we're inherently special to make the argument that the universe was designed for us.

[@HaydenTheEeeeeeeeevilEukaryote]

Paul TheSkeptic _sniff_ i _sniff_ i ....... D,X AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i i i i want i i am i AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I need a hug...BWAAAHHHHH!!!! _sniff_ I'm just so empty inside and I need to let it out. Every morning I wake up, and part of....me, is missing. I am getting tired. I try to sleep, thinking that I just need more rest, but every time I do, I just wake up with more of me missing. I am getting tired. The void is consuming me....I am getting tired....and it looks like sleeping won't help.......but I need to rest..................................................... .....perhaps.....there is another way to rest.................................

[@johnpro2847]

true if the temp were 50 degrees hotter..it would be very unpleasant.100 degrees impossible so when this happened, life did not flourish.

[@CCP-Dissident]

Life will flourish. Only the fittest will survive

[@joshuacadavid871]

The Universe was so finely-tuned that an asteroid precisely hit the Earth killing 3/4 of all life on the planet during the Cretaceous.

[@paulwoolnough3770]

Well the theists will say that` proves God because then the mammals had a chance to thrive, instead of being eaten by a giant Lizard.

[@joevignolor4u949]

I once heard a theist refer to the early planetary collision that scientists believe created the earth and moon as a "miracle". In response I told her about how after the Battle of Gettysburg a few mini-balls were found that had collided in midair and fused together. Then I explained to her that this was no miracle either as millions of mini-balls had been fired in opposing directions during the course of the battle.

[@eyescovered]

Also consider: If these *exact* conditions of the universe are necessary for life to exist, then god is limited to those *exact* conditions. Meaning god is not all powerful. An omnipotent god could create and sustain life in any conditions. So, in my opinion, the fine tuning argument actually hurts the theist position.

[@amadeusdebussy6736]

Exactly. Conversely, if God *is* all powerful and wants to create life then he should be able to create life that would fit any universe and vice-versa. Which would be the opposite of fine-tuning. If you have a radio that plays Oldies 96.5fm no matter where the dial is, then moving the dial really can't be considered tuning anything.

[@eyescovered]

Another good point!

[@scotte4765]

eyescovered, I agree with your conclusion (the argument hurting the theist position), but not with the reasons you state. It's certainly logically possible for there to be an omnipotent god who nevertheless sets up a finely-tuned mechanistic universe to eventually produce life in the inefficient and risky way we see happening. So fine-tuning does not rule out omnipotence. But the theist making the claim I described saddles him- or herself with a much greater burden of proof by doing so. Instead of defending "omnipotent god with a clear and understandable purpose", they now have to defend "omnipotent god with some clear purposes and also some bizarre purposes who does things in ways that seem inconsistent with His character, but for secret reasons actually aren't inconsistent." The latter god is logically far less probable than the former god, and consequently requires greater evidence to be the most convincing explanation for what we see.

[@eyescovered]

I see your point. It's all just a parade of logical fallacies really. It's just fun throw another wrench in the already malfunctioning machine.

[@scotte4765]

Indeed. I find that every time you have to modify God in order to keep him as the explanation for things, it just gets harder to justify the existence of such a weird God. Certainly an omnipotent God _could have_ executed a thousand miracles to make all the animals go to the Ark, flood the Earth, keep the Ark floating, keep everything in it alive, redistribute the species, maintain genetic diversity, and finally erase all traces of the entire event, but why do it this way? We then need from the creationist an explanation and evidence for this bizarre divine behavior that's more compelling than thinking the story is just a cultural myth.

[@goalski134]

theists tell me that the universe is finely tuned. without that tuning, nothing could exist. they then tell me that miracles are god suspending the laws of nature. well, if they can be suspended whenever, why on earth were they needed in the first place?!

[@notsoaveragejoe2039]

Is there a reason this amazing channel doesn't have over 100k subs?

[@HolyKoolaid]

We'll get there! Especially with y'all sharing my videos as much as you are! :)

[@notsoaveragejoe2039]

Hey thanks for responding! Im a big fan, I share your videos to all my friends and on my facebook. Definitely only a matter of time before you completely blow up in size!

[@CRAFTE.D]

Cause the content is lame, regurgitated nonsense?

[@artistlie3608]

These Replies are laughable ..None of these deal with the fine-tuning of the universe or the precise equations. These are at best emotional responses. Of course, sources of energy (stars) are needed to drive life and evolution, and of course, you cannot live on them. Nor can you live in the, by necessity, frighteningly large stretches of empty space between them and planets. So what is the point? Nobody would deny that the light bulb is an invention that greatly enhances modern life. But when you would try to hold your hand around a light bulb that is turned on, you would burn it to pieces. Is the light bulb then "hostile to life"? Certainly not. Staw-man arguments that appear to be brought forth and rehashed solely in order to avoid the deeper issues.

[@safwane777]

Finally ! someone with a fucking brain ... you damn right sir

[@magicsinglez]

‘Finely tuned for human life’ is an acknowledgment that, ‘everything around us is trying to wipe us out’?

[@lucasregor542]

No, you just didn't understood the video. It's because everything is trying to wipe is out that the universe is not fine tuned.

[@misu73373]

This argument is so powerful because theists will say "I just cannot believe I am the product of chance", it gives them meaning, they are too emotional

[@misu73373]

@Maja, you're joking, aren't you?

[@misu73373]

@Maja, I don't believe everything just came out of nothing, I just accept I don't know. I do not claim to know more than I know. Also, what is nothing? If you ever heard that before the Big Bang there was nothing, I want to warn you that is not correct. We don't have enough information to find out what was before the moment the expansion began. Also, many people think about the supposed nothing that existed before the Big Bang as a state of nothing, which is wrong because nothing isn't a state. Absolute nothing cannot be a state of existence because absolute nothing means the absence of space and time and without space and time there is no existence. I would rather say that the universe doesn't need a cause, it just exists. Einstein showed us that all the points in space exist simultaneously. All the future "already" exists. The language here is tricky, so it may be a little hard to understand. But, of course, this is just a hypothesis, so I have to be humble and say that I don't know Edit: I realized you said something about design If your definition of design is something like deliberate purposive planning, then that's begging the question. If you say that the universe is designed, then you already assume a creator because design requires a designer, but you have the burden to prove the universe is designed. If by design you mean the complexity, then that's a non-sequitur because complexity doesn't require a creator

[@jakemay637]

@Misu Apolizon. I can't find any complex machine that didn't have a designing team, can you? Take an artic term that can navigate 1000s of miles with perfect systems even while sleeping (auto pilot). What would it take to create a robot tern? Money plus engineers plus materials, etc. After 5000 years I doubt the robot would resemble a real tern. The anti design argument is not compelling. To engineer a robot tree proved trees are complex mechanisms and I wouldn't bet one dollar anyone can replicate a tree, let alone the solar system with an ideal sun, moon, planets. As the saying goes, there are no coincidences.

[@UNKLEnic]

I only see this only arguing that there is no explanation for all these needed life permitting equations that need each other. I like how he had to assume there are infinite chances there for we must exist instead of realizing how crazy lucky we are.

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

It would be nice if theists could prove that their gods exist, but we both know that's NOT gonna happen!

[@joqiii3]

Even if were fine tuned, who says it was a Christian god who did it?

[@Indorm]

You've been using footage from dr William Lane Craig's video on fine-tuning, so why don't you publicly debate him? Come on, we're waiting.....

[@leebennett4117]

Because Debate is not about establishment of the facts its about winning, why do you think lawyer are trained in Debating they only give a Damn about facts the Rules the truth when it help them win

[@poozer1986]

Probably the sane train he wouldn't debate a child, on the existence of santa. It wouldn't have any point. You, and I, could watch the same debate, and come away with different ideas of who won. Debates, unfortunately, no longer work. Religious puerile, are so indoctrinated and confused, they don't see anything other than their side. We, as atheist, who have the ability to think for ourselves, see both sides of the argument, yet only one side makes any sense, and it isn't the one claiming a sky genie poofed everything into existence. Never forget, it's theists that claim everything came from nothing

[@Thyfun96]

*universe with hundred of fined tuned variables exists*, Holy Koolaid: "multiverse exists, we have no evidence, but it exists stop thinking about fine tuning". Also, for some reasons he doesn't speaks about the size and forces of elemental particles, and the rest of hundred of variables that are at stake. If the multiverse exists, shouldn't there be a universe where other life forms communicate with us and where they tell us about the existence of the multiverse? Maybe using a portal gun? Or another where life forms communicate with Holy Koolaid and they tell him that the multiverse exists? Maybe that's why he believe in the multiverse, well when there are infinite possiblities it would be NECESSARY that we already have proof of the existence of other universes, but in that case you need to start being a little bit of conspiratorial and start saying that the USA government is hiding that evidence for us... A multiverse is the stupidest atheist argument ever made guys, please grow up.

[@tarzankom]

The fact that constants are dialed in so precisely doesn't matter when you consider that the multiverse has the potential for infinite universes each with their own constants. There should also be an infinite number of universes where things are a match to our own universe. We are not unique. We are not special. We're just another result of a random multiverse.

[@jinglejazz7537]

that's all fine and dandy, however what this got to do with the square root of 9???

[@vinceoramycarter7832]

Obviously you haven’t done the research. Even the most skeptical scientists concede that the fine tuning of the universe is one of the greatest mysteries of science and the more we discover, the more finely tuned it appears to be for life on our planet.

[@scotte4765]

The curious thing then is how theists transform it from "one of the greatest mysteries of science" to "a completely non-mysterious thing that we have solved," all the while trying to make it look like they solved the mystery using the data, discoveries, and conclusions of science. And that's to say nothing of how far short they still fall in showing that some vague "fine-tuner" must really be the much more specific and idiosyncratic God they actually believe in.

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

As a scientist, I can assure you, no, we don't.

[@jackchesnut1956]

This was fantastic.. Subscribed.

[@HolyKoolaid]

Thanks. :)

[@pokeman7554]

koolaid i cant really help financially but i can send this to people xD

[@HolyKoolaid]

Thank you. Every share helps. A bunch!

[@PurpleKnightmare]

Same here, as I'm unemployed.

[@jgbee2726]

But that's what this is all about, getting suckers to pay him money.

[@allison4882]

@@jgbee2726 does educating people count for nothing?

[@butterskywalker8785]

@@jgbee2726 so you're saying you shouldn't get rewarded with money after spending days making something that helps people?you shouldn't get paid as a doctor because then you're proving that you're only doing it for money.

[@AlphishCreature]

Overall, I found the video argumentation to be mostly sound, but there's one significant mistake I'd like to point out: Around 7:19, you claim that if the chance of life in a universe is 1 in 10^24, and there would be at least 10^24 unique universes, the life would be a statistical necessity (i.e. at least one of these universes would be habitable), even showing a simple equation in form: (10^24/1) * (1/10^24) = 1 However, that's not how probability works. The life would be a statistical necessity only if there were only 10^24 possible universes to draw from in the first place, and exactly one of them would be habitable (and as you earlier implied, physicists have concluded that there are more variables allowing habitable universes). Otherwise, there's always a chance that from the universes you pick neither happens to be habitable. Similarly, if 1 in 13 cards are aces and I pick 13 cards, it doesn't mean there's 100% chance of me picking an ace. Instead, for the deck of 52 cards, the chance is roughly ~70% (1 - C(48,13)/C(52,13), where "C(n, k)" is the number of possible choices of k items from n-element set). In general, with the number of possible universes approaching infinity and 1 in 10^24 universes being habitable, the chance of picking a habitable universe among randomly chosen 10^24 universes would be about ~63% (1 - 1/e, where "e" is Euler number). It doesn't undermine the core of the argument, but I think it's still necessary to point out. People already misunderstand probability a lot, and we need no more of misconception that with 1:N chance and N tries the success is basically guaranteed. Even if the tries are unique, as long as 1:N chance applies not to N but 2N, 10N or 1000N options total, the guarantee is lost.

[@PepperGeorge]

Great video, keep up the good work brotha

[@richardgates7479]

The animation of 4 Earths around each star is all you need. If there are multiple races and countries, why not multiple Earths? Certainly a god could copy/paste.

[@HolyKoolaid]

I was reading something on reddit about a scientist who ran a simulation that demonstrated that the goldilocks zone could house as many as 5 habitable planets at once, but I couldn't find a link to any reputable, published papers about it, and my video was already getting pretty long, so I excluded it.

[@richardgates7479]

I've never encountered anything on it, but I'd think a little fine tuning on Mars, build up some atmosphere on it via algae or plankton, and you got a living planet. Might take awhile though.

[@Rebius]

just one little comment, there are not multiple races, if you talk about humans, all humans are one race.

[@richardgates7479]

I didn't know they dropped the word "race" from the dictionary.

[@Rebius]

what has the dictionary to do with it? Humans are biologicaly not different races, humans are one race

[@irrevenant3]

7:23 _"[...] our existence would be a statistical necessity"_ Whut? Math isn't really my thing, that math is like saying if you roll a six-sided die six times then at least one "6" is a "statistical necessity". It isn't. It's better than 1 in 6, but a long way from a statistical necessity. Not disagreeing with the general point, but that math seems hinky.

[@Jtngetabettername]

Yeah, it won't be 1, but 1-(1-⅙)^6 ~ 0.665

[@madams3478]

The chance of getting a non-six on a die rolled six times is: (5/6) x (5/6) x (5/6) x (5/6) x (5/6) x (5/6) five divided by six, multiplied together six times, which equals .335

[@johnroemeeks]

The constants are "fine-tuned" not for just Earth and Life, but for the Universe FINE-TUNING If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form. -Stephen Hawking Gravity The strength of gravity must be precisely balanced with the strength of the other 4 forces of nature, like the electromagnetic force, or the universe would be devoid of stars and planets -The Gravitational force is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 40th power precision -If changed that in either direction, we wouldn't be here The amount of Atoms in the entire known universe is 10 to the 80 Odds of Royal flush- 1 in 650,000 Odds of 2 royal flushes- 1 in 422,000,000,000 which is 1 in 10 to the 11 power Odds of getting 3 Royal flushes is 1 in 10 to the 16 The precision of gravity has the odds of getting 6 Royal flushes in a row Strong Nuclear Force One in 10 to the 37th power Illustration of dimes covering North America going to the moon a billion times, and blindfolding someone and getting them to pick the one red If you're off by a dime in either direction, CRITICAL DENSITY If the critical Density was off by just one part in 10 to the 15: The universe would either collapse or expand too rapidly for stars to form It's like taking ten trillion pennies and painting one of them red and blindfolding someone and getting them to pick the penny COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT Cosmological constant (which controls the expansion speed of the universe) 1 in 10 to the 120 If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse. PROTONS The ratio between the mass of an electron And the mass of a proton must be incredibly precise Protons are 1,836 times bigger than electrons, if they were a little bigger or a little smaller we wouldn't exist, because atoms could not form the molecules we require Neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Dark Energy The amount of dark energy in the universe Must also be carefully balanced or else the universe would rapidly collapse or expand. If the force was a little stronger, matter couldn't clump together. (Former Atheist) Sir Fred Hoyle- Astronomer “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" (Agnostic) Paul Davies- Physicist "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as if though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming" "Everyone agrees that the universe looks as if it was designed for life" "There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent and therefore equal contenders of reality" Stephen Hawking "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (Non-theist)Michio Kaku- Physicist “Scientists have, in fact, assembled long lists of scores of such “happy cosmic accidents.” When faced with this imposing list, it’s shocking to find how many of the familiar constants of the universe lie within a very narrow band that makes life possible. If a single one of these accidents were altered, stars would never form, the universe would fly apart, DNA would not exist, life as we know it would be impossible, Earth would flip over or freeze, and so on.”

[@k.jacksonethier9958]

Claims upon claims with no substantiating. Rather, lets use clips of video documentation without context.

[@subscriberswithnovideos-xw9xc]

Stick with your mumbo jumbo bullshit. This must have caused an headache in your ass's vulva.

[@AmanSingh0699]

@@subscriberswithnovideos-xw9xc Abe jaa na saale naxalite.

[@Shinigami00Azael]

Even better. Use clips of video with the scientist trying to debunk the fine tuning arguement, accidently gives an additional arguement for God's existance xD

[@leebennett4117]

@@Shinigami00Azael Which God would that be? Strangely the God that Fine turning seems to point to always seems to be the one that the person who pushing the Fine tuning argument believes in,No Conflict of interest at all😂😂😂😂😂

[@PraiseTheFSMonster]

Why is the environment so hostile towards us if it was fine tuned for us?

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

Because we live on a fallen world. Everything was perfect originally and everything will be perfect after the tribulation. There will be a new Heaven and a new Earth or everything will be perfect. Sin has impacted Our Time.

[@PraiseTheFSMonster]

@@Carpaintry_of_God Oh god, not one of you people again 🙄

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

@@PraiseTheFSMonster you asked the question.

[@tgstudio85]

@@Carpaintry_of_God so gowd didn't know that by creating humans world will fall;) Now that is on stupid engineer;)

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

@@tgstudio85 your statement is pointless. Because you are incorrect. God knows everything. It seems like you just want to start an argument. But if you actually want to have a in-depth discussion about this let me know. But by your winky face I'm assuming you just want to be a troll. But if I am incorrect let me know that way we can have an in-depth conversation about this. And if you do it'll have to wait until the weekend. Because I have other important matters to attend to throughout the week.

[@colbyharris7229]

I genuinely want to understand this better, the first half seems to be touching a lot on very emotional objections like natural disasters which the Biblical worldview has plenty of answers for so that has no real persuasive power to Christians. And secondly are all the counter arguments propositions for other potentially possible but still improbable universes? Also I don’t really understand how things like the multiverse and other unprovable theories are even a counter argument, isn’t making up potential causes of the universe without observing anything tangible to point to it exactly what atheists accuse theists of?

[@m.935]

Fine tuning is not about conditions on Earth, or life in the universe, but the whole fricking universe wouldn't exist without fine tuning. Infinite number of universes theory still need fine tuning to explain the origin, and it doesn't explain the origin, only potential mechanics we really have no proof of.

[@Blue.Diesel]

Such quality content

[@timothyvenable3336]

Soooo this is stupid. There’s a lot of arguments made here but none of them are fair. Someone ask me to address one and I’ll explain 😃

[@DoctorZisIN]

We appeared a blink ago and will become extinct a blink from now, leaving the vast majority of time and space completely devoided of our pressence. If that's fine-tuning for us, the fine-tuner is as incompetent as one can imagine.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

Another good Koolaid vid from 2017. You've gotten more subs but the quality was always good bro! Actually 5% and 25% sounds rather large to me, that's a 30% margin, how does anyone see "fine tuned" in a goldilocks zone that big? One third lol. But you know, one of your other vids nailed down my issue with creation: once you accept evolution (as I have since grade 1 schooling + my experiences looking at the hands of chimps, and the limbs and toes of cats) then _there's no original sin._ And without OG sin there is no need for Christ to redeem us. It's just a hop, skip, and a jump, from the fossil record to atheism. Although I am agnostic... I feel the universe is sentient and self-inquiring, but that's a whole other Koolaid flavor...

[@josephpostma1787]

Maybe we are the conscious part of the universe then?

[@kenkaplan3654]

Christian misguided primitive theology and fine tuning have nothing in common.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

@@josephpostma1787 It seems that we are. To what degree is up for debate, at least conscious enough to measure the properties of the universe and see patterns in it.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

@@kenkaplan3654 Douglas Adams has the final word on fine tuning with the puddle. It doesn't matter what universal constants will be, any life in that universe will think it had to be made that way for them.

[@vegandogs]

Elsewhere in a universe, a knarly looking alien species be like, "clearly the universe was fine tuned just for us"

[@meller7303]

The universe isn't fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned to the universe.

[@jerrypresley1234]

Ben Melindy yeah but the odds of life just being fine tuned for this universe are the same odds as flipping a coin and getting heads 10 quintillion times in a row

[@rockysandman5489]

jerrypresley1234 INCORRECT! We have no way of measuring those odds. What we do have is evolution which explains very well how life adapts to the environment.

[@tomooo2637]

eh ??? evolution is the process of directed change TOWARDS the environmental conditions at that moment in time. Therefore, life is evolved for this environment because it is a directed process that evolves to that environment - ie if life comes into existence - it is certain (unity, 1) that it will adapt over a long period of time to match the environment. sigh !

[@godofnothing428]

jerrypresley1234 the odds of this is still 50%