Is God in Physics? Fine Tuning Scrutinized

[@WalrusRiderEntertainment]

God or no god, our very existence is incredible and worthy of praise and gratitude

[@repaleonhalo9754]

@@ArvinAsh i think you misread hes comment lol.. But your reply does make sense lose to the comment

[@tonybonestheproducer]

Arvin Ash free will

[@jakers0110]

@@ArvinAsh I don't have all the answers sir, nor do i claim to, but to think that God is indifferent towards us is reckless, and to think that all the suffering in this world is random and needless is short-sighted... Our existence is absolutely worthy of praise. From a biblical viewpoint, the suffering in this world isn't random, we caused it. Humanity caused the entire world to fall, and even completely "natural" things like cancer are a result of our own evil. This isn't to say that God punishes people by inflicting disease on them when they've misbehaved (though in some cases He can, and does, because He's God), but rather they come as a natural consequence of Humanity wanting to do things our own way. Suffering also isn't needless in any sense of the word. You should look within yourself, and examine where your personal sufferings have gotten you in life. Everyone grows, matures, from experiences both good and bad. And to your first question, we were created for the purpose of imitating and glorifying God. That's the essence of what it means to be created in His image. I hope this comment reaches you in good spirits and with an open heart. :)

[@juricakonsec2337]

@@ArvinAsh, that "infinite" as well as "omnipotent" and "caretaker" need to be understood in a proper way. God creates a being with free will and consciousness "in the image and likeness of their own". Of course the idea here is that God loves themselves and thus the created being. So, why to be grateful? To be able to be grateful to you, for example, for creating this video, for sharing and communicating with us. I am grateful to you, and this derives from being grateful for the universe, the life, the consciousness and the free will including the suffering. That's, for me, the basic belief in the objective truth - and God. Why do people love to believe in God and to be grateful? Because they love themselves, the life and the universe. Gratefulness makes happy.

[@justinhill2954]

​@@ArvinAsh He loves you, that's why. It isn't as if God idly stands by while we suffer. Jesus suffered for us for many reasons. 1) To show His love 2) To show his righteousness 3) To expiate sin 4) To propitiate God's justice (as lawgiver, God needs to uphold morality) 5) To influence us to achieve moral growth

[@omolemophaoe]

Funny how whenever the topic is about Newton they always show a falling apple

[@ArvinAsh]

Yeah, a story and image of the apple falling on Newton's head was spread around by his niece. Newton himself said, however, that an apple did fall near his feet which made him think about the forces that caused the apple to fall. The rest is history.

[@crazyteddy8789]

@@ArvinAsh i knew that and it's just confirm , and how much people stupidly joke the greatest isaac Newton.

[@tarkin1980apa]

Mmm.... Apples.....

[@kennethbransford820]

@@ArvinAsh Is that the same as George Washington saying that he can not tell a lie. That he did cut down the apple tree?

[@jeffsmoking]

@@tarkin1980apa I like apples falling or not they still give of dark radiation.

[@tarkin1980apa]

You didn't disable comments on this video? You're a brave man, Arvin.

[@ArvinAsh]

lol. I would never deny people the opportunity to express their strong opinions on a subject matter like this. Reading them is the best part, don't you think?

[@tarkin1980apa]

@@ArvinAsh It can be entertaining at least.

[@dfla5472]

@@ArvinAsh Yes, some of these comments really help me to see in different perspective and learn more. Btw your channel's amazing !

[@jkshallinheritearth3883]

@@ArvinAsh Probability to see your reply on this comment was 100%!

[@dorianrustik6880]

@@ArvinAsh my god. You're an international treasure. Much love from Peru.

[@MrPlayaVerde]

For years I've been watching physics videos by many renown physicist and cosmologists and I love them all, but no one explains things better than you. Thank you.

[@ArvinAsh]

Wow, thanks!

[@cephasrocks8516]

This video is actually really misleading...see why:kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJqYZYJ5fZhnprc

[@aucklandnewzealand2023]

What if the constants in our Universe don't allow for the accidental emergence of humans?

[@LostAnimal0160]

This is one of the best video on this topic. And I think this 2 sentences are the most important ones to understand this topic. 1) (10:53) "What we see could be a form of natural selection similar to evolution, if enough people buy lottery tickets, someone is going to win eventually." - Maybe if our Universe had different constants, there could be life that is even more complex and more advanced, something non imaginable to us in this Universe. 2) (12:27) "The Universe is not fine-tuned for humanity, Humanity is fine-tuned to the Universe." - Exactly!

[@chalcedonv6997]

Nice work, my friend. Not easy to treat this argument and avoid arguments/words/sentences that may be perceived as disrespectful by some. I think you succeeded.

[@ArvinAsh]

I know what you mean. Much appreciated

[@chalcedonv6997]

@@ArvinAsh and by the way Arvin, in the end you say: I don't know if there is a God. Important distinction here: we may have our opinion/faith on this but we should all recognize the fact that "we don't know". Also, it seems to me that humans sometimes create theories far more "incredible" even compared to what the Bible says. Just because we are good at math, sometimes we wake up early in the morning and create "many worlds"... many more than even God would ever bother to consider... :-)

[@chalcedonv6997]

@@_Egon it was more a joke than an attempt to be rational, as the smile at the end should imply. Being human I have opinions and prejudices. There are many things that I know I don't know and probably many more that I don't know I don't know, as Rummy would say. At least in this particular world. But who knows, if there are many others...and I can't rule out the possibility, in one of those I might even believe in Barnum-Physics... :-)

[@billnorris1264]

@@chalcedonv6997 Here's another opinion friend.. When a Scientist acknowledges their inability to be DECISIVE on a matter, it reflects some of the greatest strengths of science in general.. ALL theories are subject to change with NEW evidence, and out of an abundance of humbleness theories are rarely called facts, even when they are, LIKE the " Theory " of evolution.. I'm not speaking for Arvin, but it's MY opinion that his inference to not EXCLUDE the possibility of God, came from that SAME humble place..Even if the chances were 1 in a quadrillion...Peace..

[@sunilharrisonleemakurukula1558]

For such questions.. Best answer is "I/We don't know".

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

Fascinating. And exactly the information i was seeking. I particularly enjoy your non-confrontational, non-aggressive manner.

[@ArvinAsh]

Much appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Blalack77]

Exactly. For me anyway, it gets old being ostracized and belittled for believing in God/a god(s)/intelligent design/etc (everyone here seems pretty respectful but it's not always that way)... No matter what you believe, there is a point where knowledge ends and faith begins - and I think it will always be that way. Science and atheism are both religions in their own right too or at least have religious/dogmatic elements. And like I said in my comment above, I don't think God and science are or have to be mutually exclusive. I fervently believe in both. When someone asks, "How do you get around these things in religious texts?" - Metaphor, analogies, life lessons, human inaccuracies, etc...

[@joshuaisgreatgamail]

@@Blalack77 keep up your pursuit for accurate knowlege! Your opinions will change little by little over time. I fully grew out of god(s) when I was 20 or so. I have faith you can do it too someday! Best wishes on your journey to liberate your mind stranger!

[@johniec5282]

@@Blalack77 . Science and atheism religions? Then non-stamp collection is a hobby too .

[@pratikkumar3722]

@@Blalack77 For some, it is hard to admit there is no God. But everything pointing in the same direction.

[@CommodoreFloopjack78]

I love his little tag line: "The answer is coming up right now." These videos are absolutely fascinating to me.

[@adrianaadnan7704]

No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding) It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate. N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉 If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists. But just annoying lgbtq elements going. "Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋

[@thorny8013]

@@adrianaadnan7704 the problem of people who view stuff like you can be summarized by an example - You think Oxygen and Atmospheric pressure is suited AS PER living organisms, but you'd never consider that organisms SUITED THEMSELVES to these conditions

[@heinzii7834]

@@thorny8013 Que Dr Ian Malcom "life uh, finds a way".

[@cephasrocks8516]

This video is actually really misleading...see why:kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJqYZYJ5fZhnprc

[@asamanthinketh5944]

Cosmological constant must be tuned to 1:10¹²⁵ If it was larger or smaller than 1:10¹²⁵ of addition ie x(1+1/10¹²⁵) life would not form anywhere in the universe.In physics we study empirical Observations , is there any empirical observation that demands multi-verse ? Or is it just a hypothesis ? We can make endless hypothesis like solipsist hypothesis of universe !! Does not make that true ! Indeed if multi-verse hypothesis is true we have to to have a finely tuned multi-verse hypothesis universe generator have to be finely tuned so as to give universes that are finely tuned ! We do not multiply mass of neutrino 10 times lol everything in this video is a straw man

[@andylee4245]

Thank you for keeping the question “Was the universe intelligently designed?” open ended. I think true science means persisting into the unknown so that the truth can eventually be known. But too many “scientists” don’t persist through the unknown, and instead jump to conclusions like “God must exist” or “God does not exist.” Rash assumptions like these hinder scientific progress. I think you’re my favorite science communicator on KZbin!

[@stevenwilliams1805]

By definition, jumping to a conclusion and manipulating the data to match, is not the scientific method. Therefore those who do, are not scientists.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

The question is not open-ended. It can in fact be answered quite simply. Just start by considering the question: “Is life/the Universe/everything too complex to have arisen by itself?” The answer follows quite logically from there.

[@KRYMauL]

Lawrence D’Oliveiro No it doesn’t because you can either create the universe with a creator or without a creator, without a creator one only needs to figure out the probably of quantum states, which isn’t easy, and with a creator one would need to understand which creator it really was. Keep in mind the Abraham Religions edited out much of their history, and all the other religion use analogy to represent creation.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

@@KRYMauL Doesn’t matter “who” or “what” the creator was, or whether somewhat named “Abraham” was or was not involved, or whether it was actually “Slartibartfast”. All that matter is: is life/the Universe/everything too complex to have arisen by itself? Everything follows just from considering the answer to that question.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

@BananaJunior11 The fact that the answer could either be “yes” or “no”.

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

By God, you're a great communicator Arvin.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks my friend. Much appreciated!

[@OmniGuy]

I love this stuff. Watch a lot a lot a lot of it. This is one of the best videos I have ever watched. On any subject. Great job Mr. Ash.

[@adrianaadnan7704]

No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding) It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate. N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉 If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists. But just annoying lgbtq elements going. "Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋 Surrender to the lawhunmahfuz simulation

[@josephsmith6710]

I love your videos. You deserve as much recognition as big science channels like vsauce and kurgestagt. Always interesting to listen to and never avoid tough questions which nobody knows the answers to.

[@ArvinAsh]

That's high praise. Thanks my friend.

[@lev7509]

Unlike Vsauce, Arvin seems much less biased and more factual. I feel sometimes like Vsauce may be paid to say some things. Just a hunch, I didn't do a detective research.

[@realmush6794]

@@lev7509 lmao

[@adrianaadnan7704]

No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding) It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate. N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉 If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists. But just annoying lgbtq elements going. "Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋 Surrender to the lawhunmahfuz simulation

[@daytradersanonymous9955]

This channel is more informative with less theatrics. Keep it up👌

[@roblovestar9159]

Excellent video, and good explication of the measurement problem. One counter-argument I seldom see mentioned regarding the fine tuning argument: If God designed the universe to support (fundamentally human: think "created in the image of God") life, then why is 99.999999% of the universe utterly hostile to our type of life? It was billions of years, and the death and explosion of countless stars, that even created the atoms necessary for any life. There are billions of galaxies, and trillions of stars, and, extrapolating from what we've learned, countless planets. Yet we are not aware of anywhere in the universe that we can live, even for more than a few moments, except this planet. And only up about 4 miles into the atmosphere before we die from lack of oxygen. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the stage is unimaginably too big for the play. Further, science tells us that the Earth is only temporary; it will ultimately be scorched to a cinder, if not totally absorbed by the Sun. The universe will continue to exist for many billions of years thereafter. So life, our life, is not only limited to a remarkably tiny part of the universe, it is limited to a remarkably tiny amount of the total time of the universe... So really? Is this the universe an omnipotent God would create if its purpose was to support our type of life?

[@akostarkanyi825]

This is enough place and time to make a conscious decision from the part of an intelligent human person to love his neighbor selflessly or not.

[@jcinaz]

Ákos Tárkányi: Tongue in cheek, I guess you’re assuming there is an intelligent human who can reasonably deduce the purpose of life.

[@gladitsnotme]

Who said He created the universe to support life? Earth supports life, the universe supports the celestial bodies.

[@djehuti3]

if we were so important to God (as all religions seem to say) then the Genesis would make more sense than the reality.

[@unknowntexan4570]

Okay, I watched the video. It is the same old pablum. Even if one uses more appropriate units of measurement, the fine-tuning remains (straw doll). There is no evidence for a multiverse; even if there were more than one, it still would not account for fine-tuning in this one. He assumes necessity when he knows there is no fundamental necessity (which was just factually false). He uses what atheists accuse theists of and posits a "science of the gaps" approach. He ignores that the implication of eternal natural laws is not physical in nature but mental. Arvin is the best communicator of complex physics, but he isn't above blind loyalty to a paradigm.

[@skepticus123]

Terrific video. Positing god as the fine-tuner doesn't help, as this just leads to the question "well who fine-tuned god?"

[@BioChemistryWizard]

Why would god need to be fine tuned? A man becomes aware of himself 1 day and sometimes thinks he was popped into existence by unthinking random forces. Is it not possible that "unthinking forces" broke causality and was the effect- to god's cause? As in "god appeared in existence" without time existing and to unthinking forces AND THEN fine-tuned creation? Honestly since 90% of the universe's content isn't even observable its hard to debate this stuff at all.

[@leeroyjenkins0]

​@@BioChemistryWizardI don't think you need to go to "god appeared into existence", it's completely fine to assume "god always existed" just like one must assume anything else must have always existed. There's no such thing as "nothing", if there ever was nothing there wouldn't be something as by definition nothing can come from nothing. Just like a meta-universal Boltzmann brain that knows nigh infinite past and future despite only existing for a blip in time an infinite timeless god is acceptable in my opinion. But it still leads to questions like "doesn't something supports that complex intelligence?" On the other hand if your theory is that it's parameterized universes all the way up and down, there's no need to worry about "the next step up". I'd say either is as difficult to prove as the other, even if they weren't impossible to prove. Even if a god could unambiguously convince you it exists, you wouldn't have any way of know that it knows for certain there's nothing more to it. Like the Boltzmann brain has no idea it's a brief aberration in space-time. Of course maybe *it* would know somehow but there's likely no way it could convince you reasonably.

[@ghytd766]

I listen to ALOT of videos on the subjects you cover Arvin, and everytime I listen to your videos, I learn a nuance that I had not heard before. You're becoming a hero to me. Thank you.

[@ArvinAsh]

Much appreciated! Thanks for watching.

[@cephasrocks8516]

This video is actually really misleading...see why:kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJqYZYJ5fZhnprc

[@kritical_2638]

This might be the most truthful explanation of our existence I've ever heard

[@adrianaadnan7704]

No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding) It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate. N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉 If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists. But just annoying lgbtq elements going. "Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋 Surrender to the lawhunmahfuz simulation

[@TheSushiPlant]

Adriana Adnan reeeeeeee

[@theragnarok8896]

@@adrianaadnan7704 kzbin.info/www/bejne/f4nUhqykpq5jjtE kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3enZp-ImtaYbJY

[@zub41r75]

Billy Boffin but the question is why would people lie about this one God? What would they have to gain from it? They must have seen something. Also historical accounts say that Moses, Joseph, Jesus, Muhammad etc were all very good people I mean we’re so biased in our hate towards them but in terms of moral characters they were miles ahead of their time. There was no need for them to be they could make up what ever rules they wanted but they didn’t. Your arguments for religion being made by powerful men is flawed it was quite the opposite and that’s what makes it fascinating and unique. It’s near incomparable to modern day politics that is for sure.

[@greenprofile5755]

@@zub41r75 peace be upon them

[@richardvernon7019]

I always learn a lot from your videos, Arvin, and enjoy them very much. But,..... in this video, because you are a scientist, no doubt, I believe you are tipping the argument in one direction. The fine tuning argument is not the anthropic argument. It is about the the formation of basic matter that would be able to form more complex structures. There are about 26 measurements in play here, after all. One that was not mentioned, the cosmological constant, from my layman's understanding, is off by 120 orders of magnitude from theorist prediction when measured. It is such a tiny amount above 0 that any change, regardless of the size of the scale{Lebron explanation} is a total deal breaker for anything but an inert universe. I wish we had the technology to dig deeper but for now, I am a solid agnostic. After-all, when I hear the more detailed descriptions of the multiverse or many worlds theory, they make the intelligent prime mover argument seem just as reasonable as the ones that are described and totally not tested. Anyway, thanks for making the world a better place with your efforts to educate, you're great at it.

[@ArvinAsh]

Valid points! Thank you.

[@swxqt6826]

Here’s a simpler way to explain the fine tuning problem: if the universe couldn’t support life, we wouldn’t be around to tell. Nuff said.

[@swxqt6826]

DANKMANS yes and that’s the only way the universe can be observed to have life in it.

[@youwillwin7107]

*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded ( expands ) into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: _birth date of the star-planetary system_ _if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_ _if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_ _flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_ _if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_ _if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_ _rotation period_ _if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_ _if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_ _fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_ _if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_ _if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _ _if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_ _oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_ _if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_ _if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_ _Jupiter’s mass_ _if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_ _if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_ For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_

[@swxqt6826]

​@@youwillwin7107 Dang, you really went through all that just to prove... nothing. 1. _"1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer"_ No, you just started off with the assumption that the universe is designed. 2. _"Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed)"_ The universe is nothing like a watch, the only similarity is that they both have a definite shortest possible time; a second and a planck instant. _"to support human CONSCIOUSNESS on earth"_ Nope, consciousness exists so long as sensory organs exist, there are literal plants that are capable of traversing a maze. _"(Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:"_ Antony Flew was a philosopher who lost some of his mental capacity before becoming a theist, he didn't know anything about what he was talking about. After this, you just mentioned a bunch of bullshit that only lowers the chance, without hitting zero. By the same token, think of everything that happened yesterday, at those exact times. What are the chances? Nearly zero - but it happened. _"According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" ."_ That's according to you who has no idea how physics or math works. _"It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, ' For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse'"_ Religion is the definition of dogma; atheism is often caused by analytical and insubordinate thinking; critical thinking. Now tell me, what the fuck does a random dude named Paul know about my life experiences, the same guy that can't even tell me how many apps I have on my phone, or how much money I have in cash? Simple answer: he didn't know anything about me, or anyone else, he was just an ignorant bigot relying on presupposition. _"According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1"_ Of course, we know the many factors that were important here on earth, but how about other planets? We simply don't have a clue what kind of factors are able to contribute to the emergence of life; save a few.

[@ExecutiveChefLance]

@@swxqt6826 The assumption of the Universe as "Highly Designed". Which means the absolute Brutality of Nature is something that God designed that he had in mind. When a Pack of Wild Dogs eats a Gazelle alive God had that in mind. Every person that was ever Tortured, Brutalized, Beat, Abused, Raped. God had that in Mind. The infinite amount of Alien Civilizations wiped out by Supernovas, Gamma Ray Bursts, etc... God had that in Mind. If the Universe is highly designed God is Evil. Heaven God made as an Afterthought. After he realized how terrible of a Universe he made.

[@swxqt6826]

@@ExecutiveChefLance that too…

[@49regor]

I have been a fan and subscriber to Arvin Ash's channel for more than a couple of years. I have seen this video before, but I had not looked at the details closely. I believe that Mr. Ash chose a poor example to refute the Anthropic Principle. The Standard Model of particle physics I find, shows the Neutrino mass in eV and Mev (electron Volts and Mega electron Volts). The electron Neutrino is listed as

[@TheBruces56]

I took your advice and watched and enjoyed this. I have been using The Great Courses for years and have about 50 courses in my digital library. I seek knowledge at every level every day. One thing I can say is that the more I learn the more I realize I don't know, in many cases nobody knows.

[@FireBlaster3000]

except people who don't really know

[@cephasrocks8516]

This video is actually really misleading...see why:kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJqYZYJ5fZhnprc

[@abdullahbham2439]

Everything is by design ..just because we make assumptions does not mean our assumptions are correct ..reality is always pointing to design .

[@timo4258]

OK but the real question from this video: what did the cat do to you?

[@MattMajcan]

When I was really young I was raised as a catholic, but i never believed in any of it and eventually declared myself an athiest as I got more educated and into science. But then, I started learning more than just the fundamentals, and really got into particle physics, cosmology, and the advanced topics within.. and now, the older I get and the more I learn about physics, the more I feel like there's plenty of room for God to exist. I hate when athiest try to tell people to open a science book and see that god is made up. They are truly ignorant. The thing is, no matter how much we learn or understand about physics and the laws that govern our universe, those laws still exist and had to come from somewhere. I dont really get your refutation to this argument. for one thing the laws of physics are not necessarily eternal, that's just our assumption. Also as far as I understand it, the laws didn't exist until after the big bang. and furthermore, so what if god is more complex than the laws? there's no reason to believe that's not possible. the big bang may simply have been the moment when god decided "i'm going to write some laws and see what happens." Yes, god doesn't necessarily have to follow the laws of physics.. so what?

[@mohammedanwar7232]

Yes God exist, but cannot be explained, religion is for some extent only good, after ward's they start to manipulate

[@shaktika2189]

Okay who else found those appearing hands 0:47 from behind the earth weirdly unsatisfying. Idk i just felt like those hands were coming to grab me or i just wanted it to grab the earth

[@HerbertDuckshort]

It’s like trying to take a photo of your own camera in a locked room with no mirrors. We are intrinsically part of what we’re trying to investigate.

[@smashexentertainment676]

In GTA V you can take a selfie with the phone in a frame.

[@hollister2320]

Use your belt buckle

[@redbenada798]

@@hollister2320 how would that work?

[@hollister2320]

red benada The metal part of your belt also reflects light, so you could technically take a photo of your own camera if you point it there:/

[@redbenada798]

@@hollister2320 wouldn't that count as a mirror though?

[@jeffamos9854]

You said there is more then one way to skin a cat. Well my cat said there are 9 ways to skin a human

[@utkarshninawe97]

Criminally underrated 😂

[@KLiNoTweet]

So, in an other universe there would still exist taxes? Man

[@gorebello]

And they could be 5 orders of magnitude bigger

[@wayneyadams]

Death and taxes, you can't escape either of them. If you get the chance you should watch the movie "Meet Joe Black."

[@paulleader9532]

My intension is not to preach to anyone reading this but to help them have an open mind and a better understanding of what may help guide them through life. I shall not judge anyone who comments negatively against what I have written. I do not judge for I shall be judged. I do this for you, not myself. I can try to answer any questions that anyone might have but I am not going to pretend to have all of the answers. ------------- Instead of trying to find ways to discount God, one should try to find a way to understand the true meaning of the bible. When reading the bible it is easy to think that many versus don't mean anything viable. Gods words have multiple meanings that Transends time. This is because we can never understand the true meaning without knowledge or reference. Given the will to understand the true meaning one can begin to see much more. As we grow in knowledge we can find that the metaphors spoken by God for scripture can be realized as evidence. If you look hard enough you can see evidence of the description of the big bang theory and the different phases of life during mass extinction events in genesis. What makes it so obvious is the many versus that seem to be reiterations but they really are not when viewed as a sequence of events. No words are wasted. They all have meaning and it is a code to decipher. God uses the word "waters" in reference to hydrogen with emphasis on what it will become. It is a key life giving substance. The separation of light from the hydrogen proton cloud can be found as it is simply a matter of interpretation within genesis. This is when light escaped the hydrogen proton cloud when electrons began to bind with the hydrogen proton. You must have knowledge of both science and the bible to have any hope of translating the true meaning. It can be very difficult as we do not fully understand either. Many have the misconception that God is to provide us a perfect world filled with all that we could ever desire. We chose to fall from the grace of God much like a child moving out on their own. Falling from grace does not mean that we chose not to follow him or love him. It does not mean that he no longer loves us. In fact he loves us even more. He may or may not choose to assist us during dire times. We cannot expect to understand his reasons for assisting or not assisting us during those times. We are more special to him than his angels because we have shown the capacity to love and believe in him without his guidance or assistance. I hope this helps you and may God bless you in any case.

[@moonzestate]

Hi Arvin, I was wondering which scientists pointed out that if the mass of a neutrino was off by one decimal point, life would not exist? I’ve read a lot of arguments for fine-tuning, but I never heard about that one. Honestly, that argument for fine-tuning has to be one of the weakest I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, you are the only one to have expressed the mass of a neutrino in kilograms, omitting a decimal point to illustrate the fine-tuning; this hasn't been done by any scientist I know of. It seems strange also that you have picked one of nature's weirdest fundamental particles as an "argument for fine-tuning", while it's known that neutrinos very, very rarely interact with matter, they barely interact with matter at all. Also, they are incredibly light - a million times lighter than the next lightest particle, the electron. When the scientists talk about fine-tuning in Physics, they are not using misleading units of measurement, they usually use the unit eV, or percentage, and generally have much better arguments than those presented in your video. For example, “If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.” - The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking (p. 160). Speaking of neutrinos, there is a much better argument for fine-tuning than the one you showed in your video. Max Tegmark, Alexander Vilenking, and Levon Pogosian argue that if the sum of the mass of the 3 species exceeds just 1 eV (electron volts), then no galaxies would exist. This constraint is significant since neutrino masses are so tiny compared to other particles. Victor Stenger's arguments seem flawed to me because it's so obvious that he ignores many of the most discussed fine-tuning examples... Unfortunately, it seems that most of your arguments are straw man arguments and logical fallacies. The anthropic principle is not a view "that life has to be of the same kind that we see on Earth, in a universe that has properties of our universe". That is so wrong. The anthropic principle is not about human beings specifically. Rather, it's a principle that can be used by any physically-based context-sensitive observer. The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" is a misnomer. Any physically-based context-sensitive observer can run its own version of anthropic reasoning. So really it's an observer principle and not a human-centered principle. In other words, you cannot say “the Universe must be the way it is because we’re here.” That's not the anthropic principle at all; that's a logical fallacy. “Multiverse theory” is unscientific, and it may be a product of our ignorance. It doesn’t come with a recognized and accepted set of mathematical equations that can be used to perform calculations and make predictions, and so it offers no prospect of connecting in any meaningful way with empirical data. Another big problem is that not only is enormously speculative, but there's no reason, given the inflation and quantum physics we know, to presume that an inflating spacetime has different laws or constants in different regions. The fact is, the concept of multiverse didn't exist until the fine-tuning factor became an issue. Another example is an incredible fine-tuning between the mass of a Higgs boson and the cosmological constant - these quantities appear to result from an extremely fine-tuned cancellation of two much larger quantities - a fact that many physicists find implausible. The well-known cosmological constant problem. In order to get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse. As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other. Besides physical constants, there are initial or boundary conditions, which describe the conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10 (123). This ratio is vastly beyond our powers of comprehension. These are some examples of the fine-tuning I remember at the moment, but there are many, many other examples as well...

[@Desert_Man99]

"God" is everywhere humans look because they interject "him" into everything, but it need'nt be so. Funny seeing religious people's triggered, non-evidence-based comments on an evidence-based video. Wrong crowd, people 😂

[@Limbaugh_]

I can’t wait to go to college and be like the only Christian getting a physics degree 😂

[@markknackstedt]

I got my PhD in physics and I'm catholic. Metaphysics and physics are different. Just enjoy them both!

[@wayneyadams]

I got an M.S, in Physics and I am a devout Christian. I have seen nothing in physics that proves or denies the existence of God. So ou are not alone. In fact most of the scientists in olden times were religious men.

[@pizzaandmeth4538]

@@wayneyadams Yup,even now plenty of christians in science,many scientist tend to be agnostic or atheist because universitiea have become inherently leftist since the late 19th centure.

[@Quaggabagel]

@@wayneyadams Yeah there's not supposed to be proof in any kind of science, we're supposed to believe from the Bible not from physical proof

[@twenty-fifth420]

I doubt you are the only. Maybe the only or few in Gen Z or Y, but Gen X and Boomers tend to be christian. In fact, I just got around to getting a book from Stephen Barr, a catholic and a physicist. I also think cosmologists tend to be more religious and spiritual. So I think it varies.

[@adnelortiz]

Awesome video. Love how you can approach the cons and pros with such objectivity. It's hard to swallow how a neutrino, which is such an "insignificant" and please watch the quotes (small mass and it barely interacts), particle, can be so important in the fine tuning of the universe engine. To me, it's not that the universe is perfect, rather more that we evolved and adapted to the universe's conditions. It's mind-blowing!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!

[@vanscoyoc]

of course its fine tuned or the programmers and clients wouldn't be able to get their sick entertainment

[@garethwigglesworth8187]

This debate will run forever. Did the universe create itself or did a creator create it.

[@Godhood999]

@cyoungrun1 by that logic humans, animals, plants aren't intelligent then lol

[@Godhood999]

@cyoungrun1 And who created god if he created intelligence? How did god create itself and but not the universe? Get that nut ass religious shit out of here lol

[@TenTonNuke]

It will run forever if your premise is flawed from the start like that. You're presupposing a creation when one has never been proven.

[@corruptneedles3384]

There is not creator.

[@garethwigglesworth8187]

@@corruptneedles3384 it created itself from literally nothing...riiiight

[@andrewdouglas1963]

So did the multiverse have a beginning? Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin says a multiverse does not escape requiring a beginning. I agree with him as infinity is illogical. So then we can ask, what caused the multiverse?

[@ArvinAsh]

See my video on Quantum creation where I talk about Vilenkin's theory.

[@karekarenohay4432]

The problem is, if we need a Creator to explain the Universe because eternity is illogical, then it must to exist a Creator of the Creator. And if the Creator is eternal, well, then eternity exists as a fact, and the Universe (or some Multiverse) could be eternal too.

[@antonivanov1351]

@@karekarenohay4432 there is no need for the creator of creator as the creator is not material and beyond space and time. So by definition they do not obey laws of physics.

[@KenMac-ui2vb]

When I started delving into quantum I remember how profound an effect it was to discover they are so deep into this, that they need to use PHILOSOPHY to further theories blew my mind. And also made me realize that maybe Intelligent Design isn't as far fetched as I once thought. I LOVE your teaching style. Love this channel.

[@markjanesperanza7144]

"if enough people buy enough lottery tickets, someone will eventually win". That is because lotteries have set 6 number combinations out of 1-50 numbers. So what if the combination will be 6 numbers out of 1-50 quintillion? Will someone still win the lottery?

[@lawrencesimte753]

yes, there is still the probability of winning. And quantum mechanics states where there is probability, there is a way.

[@markjanesperanza7144]

@@lawrencesimte753 Probability is either possible or impossible. It doesnt give assurance that something will actually happen. It will always give you two ways. Or to simply say is it Fantasy? or is it the Reality?

[@luantuan1653]

@@markjanesperanza7144 Well, a particle only has a nearly zero probability to go through an energy barrier, however Quantum Tunneling happens.

[@tomschmidt381]

At this point we have no idea why the constants of the universe are what they are. It may be due to chance or they may not be free to vary, or if there are multiple universes some may have the correct magic numbers. Bottom line we live in a universe that we are able to exist, hard to extrapolate from an example of one. As to the fine tuning argument posited by theists I don't see how it makes any sense, Doesn't their god exist outside space and time, so given that a universe is not even required for life why would fine tuning be a requirement. Second depending of your definition of god if you assume the triple omni god posited by the bible why couldn't god create life in any universe? Bottom line, I find the universe fascinating and revel at our constantly expanding understanding of nature much more majestic then the beliefs of primitivize humans trying to make sense of what must have appeared to them as a capacious and hostile world.

[@johnduncan7484]

I think if there's a formula/equation for Free Will, I think that's IT. "If you're good at anticipating the human mind, it leaves nothing to chance." - Saw V (2008)

[@rits219]

Constants are physics that have yet to be figured out. They are fudge factors yet to be discovered. PHYSICS RULE.

[@ArvinAsh]

Probably, yes.

[@puirYorick]

@LordWhorfinX2 In the literal sense you are correct. However, I expect you used "wrote" in a non literal sense. Did some intelligent entity need to first decide or define how many ones (single unit items) make three? I don't care about the literal specific English names for these amounts. I'm asking about the actual amounts. These absurd "questions" posed for the exclusive reason of asserting that a god must be necessary can all be summarily dismissed as navel gazing. Nothing - meaning no entity - was necessary to *design* "one" into being one. It's axiomatic in this reality. Other realities may exist but we can't measure or assess them from within our own because they are necessarily gibberish in our terms and our experience. Suppose there was a universe with a fractional amount of dimensions of space and say time as well. What does two and three quarters spatial dimensions and three and one seventeenth time dimensions look like? Pure mathematics doesn't really care. It's outside of our brain's native capacity to imagine properly though, since we evolved from within our own (3 & 1) space-time universe. It's all moot. Just navel contemplation. Invoking a god is just using a personified *placeholder* instead of honestly saying, We don't know this thing yet. Some have called that The God of the Gaps argument.

[@puirYorick]

@LordWhorfinX2 I am not at all surprised that you'd think so. You are consistent at least. 😁

[@deathofanotion]

@LordWhorfinX2 How do we tell the difference between someone and something making the universe?

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@LordWhorfinX2 "You've yet to say anything intelligent. " Fits your posts. "God exists, " Unsupported assertion. " I won't argue for religion, " Since that IS what you are doing, that claim is dishonest. " but God created the Universe." Unsupported assertion. "Physics can't write themselves." The 'laws' were written by humans, the PROPERTIES of the universe are not written. They simply are the way it is in THIS universe. We cannot exist in one that does not support our existence BUT if a god created it, then that god has an inordinate fascination with vacuum, not life. Ethelred Hardrede

[@EpicFox]

I don't care if god exist or not in laws of physics or in the numerical constants. As a human I enjoy music, that gives me pleasure, that is GODLIKE to me. Really we are nothing more than a very complex chemistry. But after all, we have feelings that is enough for me. And the biggest thing is physics can explain these emotions and life too. Hats off Arvin

[@jesonlozil]

The conclusion without bais and giving the possibilities tells me you follow scientific method of explanation and are open to ideas. I can't thank you enough Arvin for this amazing content.

[@Azzinoth224]

Great video, but I think you made a mistake when you say they are using misleading units of measurements. A factor of 10 (smaller or bigger) is a factor of 10, it doesn't matter which units you use. What you say only applies if you vary the value by a flat amount dx such that x'=x+dx, but you vary the exponent, such that in fact you apply a factor x'=10*x, which is the same change in every unit system.

[@copernicus99]

If the constants weren't what they are, we wouldn't be here to wonder about them. Logically, it would be impossible for us to observe constants that are incompatible with our existence as observers.

[@aragon1253]

Arvin, I always look forward to your videos. You are very objective and informative and this is very refreshing. You obviously do your research. This video is one of my favourites now.

[@ArvinAsh]

I appreciate that! Thanks for watching.

[@picksalot1]

I liked your analysis on how the units of measurement affect the validity and relevance of the 19 constants. I've never heard that factor pointed out and challenged. Well done. Thanks

[@justtime6736]

All defined measurements are really just arbitrary. Even Planck's shit.

[@cephasrocks8516]

This video is actually really misleading...see why:kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJqYZYJ5fZhnprc

[@zeroxcrusher]

I cant express how happy I am that I found your channel

[@cephasrocks8516]

This video is actually really misleading...see why:kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJqYZYJ5fZhnprc

[@testname5042]

The measurement objection is interesting, but ultimately a red herring. "Alternative Life" postulates are completely off base, because "Life" is a rhetorical shortcut for "Us," and "We" would certainly not be here but for these parameters - that is admitted. Multiverse postulates are of the same kind as theological postulates - besides which, was technically contradicted by CERN (if I correctly remember the node).

[@schmetterling4477]

The multiverse doesn't have anything to do with fine tuning.

[@munchie967]

The problem I have with the fine tuning argument is, if it were true, I believe a God wouldn’t have to follow rules of particles, just create beings with no smaller building blocks. The fact that God would have to follow a set of rules and not create his own seems as if he’s not all powerful.

[@ArvinAsh]

That's a valid point.

[@bhuvaneshs.k638]

Fine tuning is easy to debunk. We say our universe is perfect thus these physical constants are finely tuned. But we haven't observed other possible Universe which might work far better than our universe. We say these physical constants values are correct for the universe to exists cuz we have witnessed only one Universe. It's highly likely Other value for physical constants would give rise to far richer and far superior Universe.

[@Distant_View]

Richer or superior based on what metric? If it had more matter, or faster light, or stronger gravity? Why would that make any other universe any more or less wondrous than our own?

[@bhuvaneshs.k638]

@@Distant_View yes u r ryt... The word superior might be inaccurate... Maybe exotic, strange but still exists. Let's say richer LifeForms. (Ofcourse LifeForm is the side product of the universe not otherway around. Universe doesn't have a purpose) but I was referring to richer LifeForms..

[@kitupv]

we can't even see and understand this universe properly and talking about multiverse. we can't see multiverse and can only be proved on paper but we are ok to believe it but not ok to believe in god. if there are multiverse then which machine created those other universes?

[@bhuvaneshs.k638]

@@kitupv we can't even see atoms. We can't see electrons. But without those there's no nuclear bomb,no Nuclear energy, no Electronics, no smartphones, no internet. Duhhh...

[@kitupv]

@@bhuvaneshs.k638 simple question, how u would prove multiverse and which machine is making so many universe?

[@wilfredoortiz3820]

The heavens and the earth declares the glory of God and his handiwork..

[@bigcauc7530]

If you have nothing logical to add, you might as well have not added a comment at all.

[@freshbakedclips4659]

@@bigcauc7530 The only illogical thing was a blind chance accepted by blind fools appearing to be smart.

[@bigcauc7530]

@@freshbakedclips4659 and so, explain to a fool like me, how the universe came to be?

[@bigcauc7530]

@@freshbakedclips4659 i mean, since I'm trying to appear to be smart and you must know better than me somehow.

[@bigcauc7530]

@@freshbakedclips4659 if not, thank you for wasting your time proving nothing. Lol

[@MeadowBrook2000]

You cannot explain the unexplainable but can hypothesize, that's why i believe god emerges from the underlying equations of nature, our equations cannot be necessarily correct but it gets close to the "mind" of god

[@ArvinAsh]

It's possible. But like I said in the video, the problem with that assertion is that you are replacing potentially eternal laws of physics with a more complex eternal being.

[@sussekind9717]

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Close, isn't science.

[@jimgraham6722]

If universe is infinite it is almost certainly a Boltzman brain.

[@1eV]

We can't be 100% sure that laws of physics are eternal. So, something has to be eternal for us, perishable beings, and potentially perishable laws of physics to exist. So, eternal God comes in naturally.

[@sussekind9717]

@@1eV We are a 100% sure they are not eternal, as the 4 fundamental forces that govern our universe did not come into being until after the Big Bang. So there was a time when different forces existed than the ones we observe today. One force replacing another force, or becoming multiple forces, obviously doesn't require a god.

[@contemplatico]

The "Fine Tuning" argument is indeed - as you so precisely illustrate it ( from 12:05 ) - logic in reverse. It is us who are shaped by the Universe and not the other way around! I would go further and say that the different "Many Worlds" or "Multi-verse" interpretations (or speculations?) are somewhat similar... Namely - Logic in reverse. To argue that the probability of the Universe, being as it is... or being different from what it is, or the potential of 'other' Universes - would require the capability of 'stepping' OUT of the Universe... No? - Observing it from the 'outside', and comparing it to...? What?... Something else ?? ... Since we are contained in the Universe, and cannot ever 'escape' it, this seems very speculative... And rather illogical to me. Love the vid's - keep 'em coming! 👍

[@johniec5282]

Exactly . It is just post hoc rationalization, drawing a bull's eye after throwing the arrow, or Monday morning quarterbacking if football is your thing.

[@rdc5129]

This channel is seriously underrated.

[@philochristos]

Part 2 of my comments (because they were too long): Tenth, you rightly point out that there’s no way to rule out multiple universes and that we would need some new principle in physics to rule out all but one universe. This is shifting the burden of proof, though. If you want to posit a multi-verse in order to solve the fine-tuning problem, the burden of proof isn’t on those who doubt the existence of other universes, but on those who posit them. And although other universes are possible, we currently have no evidence for them. Eleventh, you say scientists may one day come up with a theory that predicts all the constants. That’s true, but it doesn’t answer the fine-tuning problem for two reasons. First, because you’re basically punting to the unknown. This is no better than the “God of the gaps” argument. Second, even if there were some fundamental theory that predicts all the constants, that theory would, itself, have to be fine-tuned to have produced the precise constants that it did. Twelfth, you appeal what appears to be a version of the anthropic principle to explain fine-tuning. The problem there is that it begs the question in favour of the multiverse. So it doesn’t answer fine-tuning. The anthropic principle only explains why we find ourselves in a life-permitting universe instead of a life-prohibiting universe on the supposition that both exist. Obviously, we couldn’t have found ourselves in one of the life-prohibiting ones. But if there’s only one universe, and it happens to be a life-permitting one, the anthropic principle doesn’t explain why the one universe happens to be a life-permitting one. This is also the problem with the puddle analogy one of the other commenters brought up. Thirteenth, toward the end, you say that not many scientists would dispute that life “as we know it” couldn’t exist if the constants were different. But scientists actually make a stronger claim than that. They claim that life couldn’t exist AT ALL if the constants were very different. Nobody claims that our form of life is the only conceivable or possible life. The argument is that fine-tuning is required to make a universe capable of supporting any life whatsoever since any life whatsoever requires time and complex chemistry. Fourteenth, your claim that God is more complex than the laws of physics is ambiguous. In what sense is God complex? Usually, when we talk about complexity, we are talking about having a variety of physical parts that come together in such a way as to produce something capable of doing things. Richard Dawkins went into detail about this in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. But if there’s a God who exists outside of the physical realm, then he can’t be made of multiple parts operating in a mechanical way. So he isn’t complex in the same sense that biological life, for example, is complex. But even if we grant that God is complex in some other sense, that isn’t a problem if such complexity is necessary to explain fine-tuning. By raising this point, you are begging the question against the necessity of a super intelligence or engineer to explain fine-tuning. If you want to say the universe could’ve been fine-tuning WITHOUT God, you have to posit something else that could do the job. The multiverse could, but you can’t dismiss God just because God is complex. You need to point to something less complex that’s capable of doing the same thing. Fifteenth, you ask whether it makes more sense to say the universe came into being from pre-existing laws of physics or from God. Well, if we define the universe as being all of space, time, matter, and energy, then it’s not even possible for the laws of physics to produce the universe. The laws of physics are just descriptions of the universe, which means they can’t exist if the universe doesn’t exist. So they can’t produce the universe. Besides that, the fine-tuning argument is not an argument about the origin of the universe. That’s the cosmological argument you’re thinking of. Rather, the fine-tuning argument only looks for an explanation for why the universe is fine-tuned. These are my only complaints, though. Otherwise, the video was great!

[@geoffcunningham6823]

I did you the honour of reading your whole comment. 10 - not sure thats right. The claim is that the universe is fine tuned - therefore there must be an intelligent creator. To make that claim, you require fine tuning. For fine tuning to be a valid argument, you must show that there cannot be very many universes, otherwise the argument could be defeated by the anthropic principle. 11 - you could have a theory which eliminates the free parameters using just geometry, or just conversation of energy, for example. This vastly simplifies the assumptions. Geometry alone produces pi, for example, a parameter which is infinitely precise and cannot be anything else. Logical absolutes + definitions of counting can produce eulers constant, etc.. 12 is made redundant by 10 13 - I don't know which scientists are making that claim. It isn't one I'd make. You can trivially describe a universe which can't produce life (like one which collapses in nanoseconds) - but it's still life as we know it. Who knows what the countless interactions at t=10^-35 produce? Hypothetical life back then might think that once the universe cools so that atoms can form, processes are too slow for life as they know it. Or equivalently, that would be like us claiming life can't exist once matter decays and we have nothing but iron stars and black holes. We don't know that, it's just speculation. We don't even know what causes consciousness as we experience it, and you don't need consciousness for life. 14 - not sure you or how you can make the claim that god isn't complex. I guess you'd need to define god to make a claim like that, then provide supporting arguments and evidence. A normal person would probably agree that a god capable of creation and personal agency would require more than 19 numbers to describe it. Again, you'd need to prove that the parameters for the universe can't arise from simpler assumptions to leap to a god. Why isn't it possible that we just haven't figured out the theory needing simpler assumptions yet? After all, we are at 19 parameters, whereas we used to be at vastly more assumptions a thousand year ago, say. 15 - the pre-existing laws don't have to be the laws of physics as we know them. They could be a larger principle/theory we haven't discovered, or can't discover. Like an ant can't discover that the earth is roughly spherical. Or a species like us couldn't see galaxies or the CMB no matter how hard they tried in a trillion years time. Those are my only complaints, though. Otherwise your comment was great!

[@muh753]

thank you Sam , you said everything I wanted to say and more . the clip was really disappointing, it's rhetoric was close to religious fanaticism than science, a reminder that most people aren't really seeking truth as much as confirming their predisposed beliefs or their lack of.

[@mr-wx3lv]

Yes... very well said sir... let's say God exists, but religion has distorted the idea of who or what God is.. ?!

[@joeycoberly4820]

Extremely well said

[@ExecutiveChefLance]

I despise Religion not because of God but because of Humanity.

[@luisfilipe2023]

The problem with the multiverse theory is that there’s no evidence of multiple universes. It’s just as much a statement of faith as believing in God but a lot less likely

[@leeroyjenkins0]

How is it less likely?

[@sofnaji]

I agree with everything u said up until 13:30 where u use occams razer, deducing that the simplest explanation is the most likely is problematic because it biases critical thinking and discourages the search for a complex solution. Whilst occams razer is useful it should also be used with caution.

[@schmetterling4477]

In physics Occam's razor is almost always correct. I suggest you take a good look at the science history of the standard model or particle physics.

[@sofnaji]

@@schmetterling4477 that's not true at all. How does it apply to wave particle duality for example.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sofnaji There is no wave particle duality. There are only people who don't understand physics.

[@sofnaji]

@@schmetterling4477 that is so arrogant and reaks of dunning kruger. Assuming ur interpretation or an existing interpretation is a universal truth is not scientific at all. The scientific method is about questioning our own assumptions. Look in the mirror before u say there r only people who don't understand physics

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sofnaji The scientific method is also about learning, kid. Between the two of us I am the only one who spent 12 years on learning physics. ;-) You simply don't know anything about it. I will feed you anyway, since you are starving for attention. ;-)

[@joshpaige1722]

God is connected to our hearts more than our entire universe. Origins of thought and emotion satisfy more than the origin of time.

[@Towdadddy]

Pretty baseless assertion

[@joshpaige1722]

My basis of assertion is to help anyone curious of where God is to connect with our Creator by focusing inward. We are cut from the same cloth, brother. There's a universe of support pulling for the both of us. We are the reason why it all exists. Is your heart ready to receive the gift of salvation? All your sins are to be forgiven because Jesus has sacrificed himself for you. He has conquered death so that you may live. You will feel His presence in your heart and have the support of the truly supernatural each day of your life. Hope will inspire you to release negativity. You will strengthen your relationships and secure your potential. Plant the seed of faith in your heart and conquer eternity. God will show up at your doorstep to have as a friend, a confidant, a teacher and a Saviour. There's only one sin that He is not able to forgive, not believing with your heart that Jesus came to forgive us of our evil sins. The mind is a useful tool but the heart is our greatest gift. Your heart will rejoice and your mind will follow!

[@joshpaige1722]

God is both abstract and concrete. We very recently discovered that we are 1,000 light years closer to the center of our Galaxy than previously calculated. There is a massive black hole at our Galaxy's core. Was our previous assessment an abstraction? It did not hold true and therefore was only a thought. Do we only speculate on the existence of the outer limits in space or is there actually a concrete existence? A binding force existing whether we believe what we will or will not.

[@deepyaa3392]

@@joshpaige1722 Jesus sacrificed himself for my sins? The concept of inheriting sin is simply absurd. I have no reason to believe in books written by over 40 human beings who claim to have some sort of connection to God. Especially one that condemns homosexuals, and condones slavery. I have no reason to believe a God who says "A woman should not express authority over a man, rather she is to remain in quietness" (1 Timothy 2:12) is omnibenevolent. Also isn't it funny that somehow this God is the one you prescribe to, instead of the Gods in Islam, Hinduism etc.

[@joshpaige1722]

If you're interested in knowing who God is and His characteristics, the Bible is the Word of God. His expectations are very high for you and He is easily let down. In the Old Testament, He is wrathful and becomes merciful in the New Testament.

[@giorgirazmadze5102]

Your explanation of God doesn't exist is shockingly misguiding. There is absolutely zero evidence is multiverse yet you still lean on it to justify insanity of avoiding creator in the discussion. There was a guy (my classmate in Soviet Union) who was asked to say publicly that God doesn't exist. He didn't obey saying if God doesn't exist why even say it? And if he does then why worsen the relationship? The claim of intelectual creator not existing is probably the dumbest decision "science" made. It is so obvious that everything is designed

[@spikkelkip8128]

He never said that a god doesn't exist, he even stated at the end that he doesn't know if a god exists or not. This video explained why we wouldn't be able to find proof for a god in the constants of our universe, nothing more and nothing less. He also didn't lean on the multiverse to avoid a creator. If we create a hypothetical universe with different constants, it would mean that multiple universes exist and thus the multiverse theory is true in this hypothetical experiment. If we're going to discuss universes with different constants, there needs to be more universes, and since the argument of theists is that if the constants were different the universe wouldn't be able to harbor life, these hypothetical extra universes would need to exist for the purpose of the discussion. Nowhere did he claim the multiverse theory was correct nor did he say that he believed it, it was merely used for the discussion.

[@Henry-jp3mc]

Great video thankyou, your best yet. 15 minutes is a good length as well.

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@pboytrif1]

11:58 Love. All of Gods laws of nature are loving. To allow the human soul to exist.

[@bencrossley647]

"Love" is not a mathematical formula.

[@Towdadddy]

R/wooosh

[@derrekdevon2366]

@@bencrossley647 it is a mathematical constant

[@AverageAlien]

@@derrekdevon2366 No, it's not a mathematical anything

[@WorldLie]

@@derrekdevon2366 I suppose the comment refers to christopher nolans Interstellar.

[@saturn724]

It's the space expansion constant that's really the most sensitive constant, as Leonard Susskind says, it's on a knife's edge. If changed slightly, the universe would either collapse too early or expand way too fast for matter to clump into stars.

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

Maybe the problem is language... the word God means different things to different people. Maybe the creator is the Universe itself. Maybe God is the Universe itself, but we cannot see through it because we think of a deity who is separate

[@tariques5796]

Keep evolving in science and you will have a mathematical equation to prove the existence of God. As we have evolved from geocentric to heliocentric view And from everything is constant to everything is relative. And from atoms to sub atomic particles There's miles to go before u can find God

[@dominikudovicic3573]

Or you cant find him at all

[@AdamAlbilya1]

Capturing Christianity made a response video. Anyway, the easiest most obvious knock down to that argument is: however "amazing, special, etc." thus 'fine-tuned' by a creator, the universe is claim to be; so can the creator be just as much claim to have such improbably fine-tuned nature, created by a super-duper-natural God making the super-natural God creating that exact fine-tuned universe with such exact constants. Oh, they say, God's specific nature is a brute fact of reality? Awesome, so is reality's nature a brute fact. Ditch the redundant beings, and et viola.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

That has to be a joke right? Is that a serious objection you think works on the FT?

[@AdamAlbilya1]

@@joshuaphilip7601 Great objection to my objection, really touching the core issue 👏

[@AdamAlbilya1]

@@joshuaphilip7601 Were the fine-tuned variables determined randomly/arbitrarily by God, or were they determined by its nature? Randomly,? Bunk argument. Determined by its nature? Ditch the extra being, determined by natural causes as a result of reality's nature. Fine-tune arg simply pushes the self centered vanity one step forward, and fills is up with mystery. Game over, thank you for playing.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@@AdamAlbilya1 what core issue. Have you read Barnes or Collins? This is lightwork

[@luantuan1653]

Well explained and respectful to everyone's beliefs, hard to achieve. Congrats! My personal position: I used to be an atheist, now I'm more an open-minded agnostic; the more we know about the Universe the more compelling seems the Fine-tuning to me, not only the constants of Nature but also the laws, the unification of the forces, the weird quantum reign fuzziness that against all chance allows the emergence of causality, life and consciousness to exist at macroscopic scales. If one of those factors were much different life would not be possible as we know it. Other kinds of 'life' maybe, but so complex to achieve also consciousness with other laws... The Multiverse Hypothesis tries to explain it by adding lots of universes with different laws and constants, but looks to me harder to trust than a God. Yes, there are many planets very different to Earth, those we can detect them actually; but a nearly infinity of other universes? Need clear evidences of another one at least, beyond mathematics doesn't forbid them. So God exists? Although I think Fine-tuning has a point, the fact is I don't know. However if exists I don't think will have any resemblance to any Humanity's Gods at all. Maybe the whole Universe is God itself, some kind of Cosmic consciousness beyond our imagination. Then we would be a little part of that immensurable being, like cells are part of a human without their understanding. But who knows. The only fact we know is that we are here, and that alone is incredibly amazing and terrifying.

[@ArvinAsh]

I appreciate the thought. But not everyone believes I am respectful to their beliefs - just read some of the comments.

[@luantuan1653]

@@ArvinAsh Well, full consensus is impossible, even in science, you know. More in sensitive topics like beliefs. But vast majority of opinions are favorable, so I think you don't have to worry. Keep up your good work.

[@JOHNSON-wn7rq]

The universe came with ability to finetune from the Big Bang. Everything, including every law of nature we know and don't know emerged over time from the Big Bang. Finetuning is also inherent in material and biology. The first simple cells had finetuning abilities to make stronger communities. Human brains have abilty to positive and negative tune. The studies are out there. A human body has great ability to fine tune without a known body brain. A safe bet is to say the God isn't one of ancient bad ideas. We need to understand the importance of finetuning in emergence and evolution to know how to maintain and build the human species to survive by thriving.

[@trizarabia]

The best response to the wrong analysis and fallacies given in this video : The comment by Truth Elevates: "Hi Arvin, I was wondering which scientists pointed out that if the mass of a neutrino was off by one decimal point, life would not exist? I've read many fine-tuning arguments, but I never heard about that one. To be honest, that must be one of the weakest fine-tuning arguments I've ever heard. As far as I know, you are the only one who has expressed the mass of neutrino in kilograms and omitted a decimal point in order to show the fine-tuning, it hasn't been done by any scientist I am aware of. It seems strange also that you have picked one of nature's weirdest fundamental particles as an "argument for fine-tuning", while it's known that neutrinos very, very rarely interact with matter, they barely interact with matter at all. Also, they are incredibly light - a million times lighter than the next lightest particle, the electron. When the scientists talk about fine-tuning in Physics, they are not using misleading units of measurement, they usually use the unit eV, or percentage, and generally have much better arguments than those presented in your video. For example, “If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.” - The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking (p. 160). Speaking of neutrinos, there is a much better argument for fine-tuning than the one you showed in your video. Max Tegmark, Alexander Vilenking, and Levon Pogosian argue that if the sum of the mass of the 3 species exceeds just 1 eV (electron volts), then no galaxies would exist. This constraint is significant since neutrino masses are so tiny compared to other particles. Victor Stenger's arguments seem flawed to me because it's so obvious that he ignores many of the most discussed fine-tuning examples... Unfortunately, it seems that most of your arguments are straw man arguments and logical fallacies. The anthropic principle is not a view "that life has to be of the same kind that we see on Earth, in a universe that has properties of our universe". That is so wrong. The anthropic principle is not about human beings specifically. Rather, it's a principle that can be used by any physically-based context-sensitive observer. The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" is a misnomer. Any physically-based context-sensitive observer can run its own version of anthropic reasoning. So really it's an observer principle and not a human-centered principle. In other words, you cannot say “the Universe must be the way it is because we’re here.” That's not the anthropic principle at all; that's a logical fallacy. “Multiverse theory” is unscientific, and it may be a product of our ignorance. It doesn’t come with a recognized and accepted set of mathematical equations that can be used to perform calculations and make predictions, and so it offers no prospect of connecting in any meaningful way with empirical data. Another big problem is that not only is enormously speculative but there's no reason, given the inflation and quantum physics we know, to presume that an inflating spacetime has different laws or constants in different regions. The fact is, the concept of multiverse didn't exist until the fine-tuning factor became an issue. Another example is an incredible fine-tuning between the mass of a Higgs boson and the cosmological constant - these quantities appear to result from an extremely fine-tuned cancellation of two much larger quantities - a fact that many physicists find implausible. The well-known cosmological constant problem. In order to get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse. As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other. Besides physical constants, there are initial or boundary conditions, which describe the conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123) This ratio is vastly beyond our powers of comprehension. These are some examples of the fine-tuning I remember at the moment, but there are many, many other examples as well..."

[@burhannagasanagha6832]

Did you know that the number 19 is found in the Holy Quran? He said: It is a large number, and one of the greatest things, and it is a trial for the unbeliever. Do you know the Holy Qur’an, talking about the number 19? It said: It is a large number, and it is one of the greatest matters, and it is a trial for the unbelievers, and this number is one of the greatest matters.

[@trizarabia]

@@burhannagasanagha6832 What this has to do with the argument here?! The Holy Quran is true and righteous; no doubt about that. Number 19 is as it is, a prime number, not great or what ever, it is mentioned in the Quran as the number of guards of Hell Fire, that's it.

[@burhannagasanagha6832]

@@trizarabiaThey are not guardians of hell, as you say each angel has its own function. T If you continue to read the Quranic verses, you will find that he says, “And We have made their number nothing but trial for those who disbelieve.” Then God said: And let the faith of the believers be multiplied, until those in whose hearts there is a disease say, and the unbelievers say what God wants with this example. ?

[@agncxrx]

​@@burhannagasanagha6832 it's interesting, but the context says it's number of angels of hell I will drive him into Saqar. (26) And what can make you know what is Saqar? (27) It lets nothing remain and leaves nothing [unburned], (28) Blackening the skins. (29) Over it are nineteen [angels]. (30) And We have not made the keepers of the Fire except angels. And We have not made their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve

[@timmmyers1143]

An expose on fine tuning with no mention of the cosmological constant? Pretty glaring omission. According to Leonard Susskind, in light of the fine tuning argument, ultimately there are only two choices - either God or the multiverse - and there is no scientific proof of either. So from a purely scientific perspective, one is as valid or invalid a choice, depending on your inclination, as the other. Which would you be inclined to chose?

[@florincoter1988]

God is neither measurable nor model-able , hence has no place in Physics.

[@jcinaz]

But there is now a growing issue about the role of Consciousness in physics. Not just because “it exists because I see it,” or because “if I observe it, it changes.” The point seems to be that in some way the Universe is observing itself. I think Arvin made a video on this topic. If not, I would love to see how he handles it. So the real question is, is Arvin a cynic or a skeptic? Regardless, he’s a great reporter.

[@GoldSrc_]

@@jcinaz Keep in mind that "observation" in science, doesn't mean "you saw it". Observation in science just means "measure", be it with a camera or any other sensor. There is no funny business of "it changed because I saw it" or consciousness affecting stuff. Like that example of an electron, where you can never know its exact location, as every time you want to know its location you need to measure it with something, and lets say you use light, that photon of light will push the electron somewhere else so you will never know when it is.

[@florincoter1988]

@@jcinaz I beg to differ. One must not (not should not, it is mandatory IMHO) confuse personal opinions or personal interpretations with the Physics tools, i.e. experiment and modeling. Consciousness is not a physical entity being not observable, hence not measurable, hence not model-able. As to the real on unreal question, if one is truly searching for answers, one must not ask questions. Once a question is formulated the answer is formulated also, due to mind setting by the question. Being a cynic or a skeptic is irrelevant, as a Physicist employs impersonal tools and speaks Mathematics. Personal inclinations or interpretations are not a scientific activity. It clutters the reason. We do not have a proper experimental observation of the "Universe" or "Multiverse", we cannot have such a thing. Hence, one cannot express a anything about it. What expands is the general relativity model of time-space structure. We cannot know what was before the Big Bang, or "outside" it. There was no "outside", as there is no 3D observable world for the 2D Gamov's donkey.

[@jcinaz]

Florin Coter: I think every scientist needs to be something of a skeptic and be open to mulling over “possibilities” of any proposition. I am aware of the “what if” game - there is no end to that foolishness - so while “mulling over” something, it is not a matter of asking questions like “what if,” but a matter of “tinkering” with the environment, be it physical or mathematical or just plain thought experiments, to confirm that the given parameters of the proposition are valid (can be “falsified”). And I’m sure a lot of that tinkering looks a lot like “what if.” The rationale that the “answer is in the question” still begs the question to be asked to see it for what it is - as a fool’s game or as a serious inquiry. Inquiry is the scientist’s (and seeker’s) most valuable tool. Arvin Ash is a playbook on inquiry.

[@ronaldlatchman1268]

@@jcinaz it seems as though to invoke God is to commit intellectual suicide unless of course I settle for, like Einstein, Spinoza's god.

[@dilipdas5777]

God is not a person or field. It's something we don't understand with our scientific knowledge and general logic

[@michelbruns]

Dilip Das because “it” doesn’t exist

[@perry6208]

lemme guess and you know this because you read it in a book

[@puirYorick]

Dude, it's just a magical name for an imaginary placeholder in our current knowledge base. It's not a real entity in any way shape or form.

[@MrCOPYPASTE]

Yes, we do.... is a bronze age human construct... Sad that a lot of people don't know it...

[@MrCOPYPASTE]

And for f*** sake could you use a more detached sentence to validate the definition of a fallacy?

[@jcinaz]

So I shared this with the members of my Astronomy club and other friends and family. I got one backlash from a person who insists that I share his counter argument with the club. What? No counter argument needed. You did an excellent job of leaving the issue open on both sides while providing straightforward logic with known facts - for both sides. Yet some people think that the Bible is the last word on everything. Or that Consciousness is the last word. Or whatever their entrenched belief system is.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks my friend. I agree. Not sure what counter arguments would be other than pointing out flaws in the science, or logic I discussed.

[@adrianaadnan7704]

No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding) It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate. N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉 If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists. But just annoying lgbtq elements going. "Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋

[@lucas11723]

@@adrianaadnan7704 that was both extremely unscientific and surprisingly homophobic

[@jamesdavidian8451]

When the video above mentions the stars self-order, assemble into heavier elements, planets.. isn't that illogically unscientific according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? In nature we see the opposite, young stars turn into old stars that burn up into smoke; we don't see smoke turn into old stars that evolve into young stars. I think a God fine-tuned it all just perfect to enjoy a nice BBQ while marveling at the night sky.

[@lucas11723]

@@jamesdavidian8451 your analogy doesn't really work. Early stars formed in regions dense with matter (hydrogen atoms) which fused together as the gravitational pressure increased. It's not a violation of the conservation of energy, it's the product of it. Smoke doesn't turn into fire because the energy the system has is insufficient to do so; likewise, less dense groupings of matter don't form stars because they lack the energy to do so. If there were enough pressure from gravity, the atoms would fuse and form a star because it would be the natural product of the forces influencing it, if that makes sense

[@zetanought]

I am an atheist . God is not in physics , perhaps God is physics . Vishnu in hinduism , is Sagittarius A , the black hole in the galactic core . Hindus worship nature in the form of humans , truly a great religion

[@ArvinAsh]

You're an atheist but you believe god may be physics?

[@zetanought]

@@ArvinAsh hyperdimensional physics and pure mathematics , yes .

[@Jackson-rc3fo]

The universe isn't this way so that we could exist , We exist because the universe is this way.

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes with one caveat. It is not inconceivable that we could exist as a different kind of sentient life form in a different universe with a different set of constants.

[@paulmillbank3617]

There’s no evidence for a more complex unexplained system existing as an explanation for a less complex explained system. All you do is push the goal post backwards. The assertion that more complex unexplained system is timeless and outside nature is a worthless assertion because it doesn’t offer a model for how this came to be. If the constants were different a different universe would exist and we wouldn’t be here talking having this conversation.

[@virajelix]

When people perceive something through the mind, they think that their sight or perception alone is the factor, that which determines the existence of an object. This sort of presumption is not appropriate for intelligent people. They cannot understand that not only behind their intelligence but also behind their sensation there exists the radiant reflection of the Cosmic Consciousness. This radiance is reflected not only in matter but as well as in living beings and the universe itself, and is the perfect semblance of Cosmic characteristic identity. Normal people cannot think of anything beyond what little light reflection they see on their own selves; their sense perception remain confined within that very limit; and that is why the common people do not want to recognize anything beyond his observable world. This flagrant disregard on their part is simply a sign of ignorance. [Sentence extracted from my teacher’s lecture]

[@Wilhuf1]

And yet we learned to recognize the reality brought forth from hithertofore unobservable spectra, such as infra-red,X-ray,and gamma.

[@Seven_of_sixes]

All that just to say everything we see is not as it seems.

[@b.o.r.o]

U know what, nothing can be created from nothing, so everything is already there, only things changes and we are passing thorough all these stuff. So what about the laws. They were never created. Its like nothing has no laws and something has to have some law to make keep changing.

[@jamespowell4181]

This is the first time I've heard about using the correct measurements regarding the constants. That's a great point! Thanks. Now I'll think more deeply :) Here's a thought regarding God not having to obey the laws of physics... God created the universe based on the same laws by which God exists. Since God is an absolutely harmonious being, the laws of creation are also absolute and harmonious. An absolutely harmonious being cannot be in contradiction with itself. Disregarding or violating the absolute and harmonious laws of its own existence would be an act of self contradiction. Therefore, God would not disobey the laws of creation since to do so would be an act that is not in harmony with God. Additionally, God created human beings and gave us the mandate to govern the creation. We must earn our ownership over the creation. We are almost at the threshold of dominion externally, but we must also be able to rule it 100% with selfless love. God will never interfere in the human portion of responsibility. If God were to disregard the principle of human responsibility and interact directly with human beings before they've earned it, it would be tantamount to allowing a person drive who has not yet learned how to drive. God has absolute respect for the human portion of responsibility and will not violate it no matter how much it pains God - with perfect emotional sensitivity way more intense than any human's - to see us screw up the creation and each other. God is waiting for us to step up and be responsible!

[@louisuchihatm2556]

So, why do we pray to him then if he cannot interfere with our state?

[@louisuchihatm2556]

Why would He create us giving us a responsibility and a free will. If we do not follow our will, He punishes us for using it if our will does not coincide with accomplishing this responsibility.

[@jamespowell4181]

@@louisuchihatm2556 Think of it like wireless charging or data transfer. Both devices need to be projecting the exact same frequency of electromagnetic energy in order to be able to resonate with each other and couple. Based on this coupling, both devices can exchange information and energy. God is absolute and so (His) frequency is also absolute = unchanging. Therefore, it is humans who must match their frequency with that of God. If we do not, we have not set up the conditions by which to couple with God and receive (His) love. However, humans can achieve resonance with God for limited periods of time as individuals and collectively... such as when a sports team of lesser skilled players defeats their more skilled opponents, because they have more unity. God is a being of absolute unity and oneness and, through the sports team's condition of unity which resonates with God's unity, can bless this team with greater power to defeat their opponents. This unity thing only works when it's centred on goodness though, because God is absolute goodness and can only relate with good actions. Sports is essentially good. However, when the game is over and the team's unity fades, God is no longer able to relate with them because the condition for that relationship with God has gone. This is one of the purposes of prayer... for you to unite your mind and body to set up a condition of resonance with God for you both to be able to engage one another, even if only temporarily until you can make it permanent. So, God can be involved with us if we set up the condition of resonance to couple with God enabling (Him) to relate with us. But God cannot make us do this or do it for us, and so it is in this sense that God cannot interfere. It is us who must match God's frequency, and that is something we must do ourselves. Besides, would you be more fulfilled if your spouse or your children loved you freely by their own choice or because you force them to? It's the same with God. God doesn't want to force people to love (Him). God wants us to love (Him) because we want to love (Him). But that's also what makes it so painful, isn't it? ...when you want someone to love you, but they don't. What a sorrowful existence that is.

[@jamespowell4181]

@@louisuchihatm2556 God only punishes a people, nation or race that He is working through providentially to accomplish His will to bring humanity back closer to Him in the larger scale of His goals. Such providential figures are responsible for more than themselves and so must shoulder the burden of failing a greater responsibility. Whenever there's a failure there's also a setback, so by paying the debt of failure they are effectively helping God to continue moving forward without taking too many steps back. God is impatient to bring us back closer to Him, and will always look for the quickest way. But as regards your own individual personal responsibility = fulfilling your unique and good true human potential (and why wouldn't you want to do that?)... a failure means God cannot be actively involved in helping you so it may seem that God is punishing you since things may become more difficult, but it is that you must figure out a way to fix it and restore yourself to the place where God can step back in to help you. That is mostly if you do something actually bad rather than if you've just pushed yourself to your limit in goodness and can't go any further. In the latter case, God will 100% step in and help you at your point of failure because you've gone to your actual limit in goodness. But even then, it is up to you to recognize God's help and accept it when it arrives. If you don't do that, God's help becomes ineffective. Do you see how much God depend on us to do the right thing? How limited He has been because of us!

[@ronaldlatchman1268]

@@jamespowell4181 interesting way of describing God's attributes.

[@KS-tf6nw]

Speculations and believes. Play it again and count how many times Arvin said "scientists believe"

[@sussekind9717]

Scientists say believe, because in science nothing can be shown to be true, it can only be shown to be false. The best you can get in science, is that when a certain experiment or action is implemented under identical conditions, identical results have always occurred. But who knows? One day you might drop a pen and it might go up. It's never happened. It's never been observed that I know of. However, it cannot be ruled out. That just how science works.

[@ArvinAsh]

Susse Kind -- Precisely! Thanks for clarifying.

[@IvanChrisantus]

​@@sussekind9717nope , science is about facts , no real scientist would ever agree anything without facts

[@sussekind9717]

@@IvanChrisantus Facts are only facts until they're shown not to be so. Many a fact have shown to be wrong and then they ceased to be facts. That's why things cannot be completely ruled out. Sometimes, it turns out that there is an exception. Quantum mechanics is a perfect example. It has made a fool of many a scientist.

[@IvanChrisantus]

@@sussekind9717 actually there's no false facts , false predictions of quantum mechanics indicates the theory is wrong of flawed to some extent , there's is no science without research , science and research should should speak the same thing otherwise is not science but a blind faith !

[@kafirekufr]

What is the difference of a neutrino's mass needed in the right units for there to be no life as we know it?

[@MatthewBreithaupt]

Good point, I think it's a straw man argument to say that people who believe in God are saying that a change by one complete order of magnitude is a "small change". Show me where a Christian said that multiplying or dividing by a factor of 10 is similar to making a 10% change

[@wormhole331]

I'm going to figure out my exact height in light years and use that if anyone asks how tall I am

[@skronked]

.0000000000000

[@skronked]

Lebron is 8ft tall

[@dorianrustik6880]

I'm 2×10^-16 light years, so basically I'm very small.

[@irigm6132]

Divide your height by light year

[@johnnamtae9610]

God's presence are in the constants of physics. Because as we know, those constants can not change from there root. And if something can't change from it's root, then we know it was God's immediate creation. And that we use those root properties to create other things. Finding how that root came to existence is the work of God.

[@richardneel6953]

Did you watch and understand the points in the video? He directly addresses this claim.

[@youwillwin7107]

*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded ( expands ) into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: _birth date of the star-planetary system_ _if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_ _if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_ _flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_ _if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_ _if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_ _rotation period_ _if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_ _if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_ _fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_ _if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_ _if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _ _if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_ _oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_ _if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_ _if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_ _Jupiter’s mass_ _if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_ _if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_ For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, that was a lot of religious bullshit. It has nothing to do with physics. ;-)

[@youwillwin7107]

@@schmetterling4477 That means you don't know what physics is fine😐😐😐😐

[@schmetterling4477]

@@youwillwin7107 Yes, that is exactly why they gave me a PhD title in physics, because I don't know what physics is. What title did they give you? Creationist? :-)

[@youwillwin7107]

@@schmetterling4477 Prove it. I can also say these types of things😏

[@SenthilKumar-qq5te]

Why is God a "He" ? when we are talking in the scale of universe, God should be an "IT", since there is no reason to anthropomorphize God. Referring God as "He" or "She" reduces the scientific value of the argument and looks like religious argument.

[@paulgarrett4474]

I think it mainly comes down to the mysoginy inherent in the abrahamic religions. The people that wrote down the stories were all men, so God was always a man.

[@SenthilKumar-qq5te]

@cyoungrun1 Wow, so much crap. First , "Jesus Himself explained" has no merits in the world of science. Second, "males being (on the whole) larger, stronger", this is de facto argument of every male chauvinist. Given and also explained in this video, larger or stronger has no meaning in particular unless you mean how to physically overpower others. Third, " "seed", which is needed to "create" anything", why don't you put your "seed" on a petridish and grow one of your own ?

[@Xercister]

mmm..Science class for adults. Thanks Arvin!!

[@ArvinAsh]

I haven't looked at it that way, but sure, why not.

[@deathofanotion]

@@_Egon why suggest it's a who, when it could be a what?

[@ronaldlatchman1268]

@@deathofanotion The answer to who or what is simple. It's either a who or a what. Some people choose Who because while they are made of matter they realise that they are also distinct from matter. They have personalities/ whos. So a who is possible. Some people think that they are only matter so they can only conceptualize a what.

[@mizu1000]

Great video thank you - some of the best explanations and counter points to the fine tuning argument that I’ve heard!

[@michaelbartlett6864]

So even if you let yourself buy into the BS that a supreme being set the constants for our universe. which allows you to maintain a belief in a creator god, you must surely realize that the creator is not any of the many gods that man has created and worshiped on this earth. The system set in motion in this universe is not being tweaked or overseen by any omnipotent and all-knowing being, and he/she/it is certainly not listening to, nor intervening in response to, the everyday prayers of the nearly eight billion human animals on this speck of cosmic dust in the universe that we call earth. Forget gods because they just don't matter in the big picture. Do what you can while you can to make this a place worth living in while you are here and for future generations. God ain't gonna fix it! It's up to you!

[@tushardubey4838]

Congratulations for 300k subscribers

[@snake1625b]

This is by far the best video debunking the fine tuning argument

[@bikkyychaudhry4510]

Asking the right questions. Awesome stuff.

[@DeconvertedMan]

Thanks for this, just had someone mention Fine Tuning. If things were different, things would be different.

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad to help!

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@ArvinAsh ^_^ do you do interviews at all? Would love to ask you pesky questions on my humble channel. :D

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Hmmm...haven't seen you in a while. But yes expressing that tautology is mostly pointless. Asking what if the constants were different how would things look, is a nice musing, but for the ontological argument it really just sneakily changes what if into a must be, without addressing why or it must be,mor refusing to accept the only reason for the must be is because anything else is damaging to the presupposition.

[@m.h.744]

- "The sun is not fine-tuned for our eyes, our eyes are fine-tuned for the sun. Similarly, the universe is not fine-tuned for humanity, but humanity is fine-tuned for the universe" - If we presume the universe came from a pre-existing being who created eternal laws of physics which allowed the universe to come into existence, we are trying to explain the unexplained with something inexplicable. (David Johnson, Professor of philosophy in King's College)

[@hermitcard4494]

1- First debate point: *Is there God?* 2- Second point of debate and reasons for mankind to despise and kill each other: *Which of ALL THE GODS FROM EVERY RELIGION?* 3- Third point of debate and another reason for mankind to despise and kill each other: *Which particular interpretation of the same God of the same religion is the one?*

[@mementomori29231]

Thank you for this amazing video. Extremely high quality content in thought and reason.

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@STEMB0B]

Love your channel, deserves more followers

[@ArvinAsh]

I appreciate that!

[@bhuvaneshs.k638]

Can you a video on "Exotic LifeForms". Possible Lifeforms made of Strange Particles or Dark Matter or even Possible Extradimensonal Lifeforms... We assume LifeForms needs carbon and Water. But we are already designing neural network on Silicon chip. So Exotic LifeForms are highly likely...

[@HardKore5250]

Could there be cyborg aliens or transformers shape shifting out there or was out there?

[@lucas11723]

It's a pretty big leap to go from a silicon based "neural network" to life made of dark or exotic matter. Dark matter is dark for the fact that it only very weakly interacts with baryonic matter. It seems unlikely if not flat out impossible that dark matter could interact with itself in a complex enough way to have its own chemistry, and if that were the case it should be detectable. As far as I know, exotic matter with negative mass doesn't exist in the real universe, and if it were to exist it would be too unstable to keep existing, let alone form life. And "extradimensional" life sounds like a non-starter as well. If you mean life from another universe, at best we can tinker with physics to see what might be possible, but if you mean life existing in other spatial dimensions that are not the 3 we observe, then I suppose your best bet would be a dive into possible predictions of string theory. But even string theory's extra dimensions are coiled one-dimensional vibrational modes, meaning it's not thought that there's a mirror 3d (or 4d universe) coiled in on those dimensions, they still exist within our observable universe.

[@Draginx]

My whole family is christian, and my whole life I've tried to be as well. As a kid, I believed and all was fine until I started learning science. I have a very logical mind, so the idea of an invisible man who grants wishes in the sky just seemed fake. A part of me wants to believe in God, and another part of me cant even logically comprehend the idea. Ive looked for proof or arguments of god, and none have convinced me. I want to believe, but its hard for me. Im so confused and lost. Ive tried praying but it just feels off and like I'm talking to no one no matter how many times I try. One idea Ive had is that God isn't like a deist's point of view and that he's some neuter force we cant explain, just I'm confused, so some help would be nice.

[@ArvinAsh]

I empathize with you my friend. It is very difficult to tune out years of indoctrination and family and societal pressure, to look purely logically at the idea of the existence of God. Religions are referred to as "faith" for a good reason - it requires belief in things with no evidence. It requires faith. If you bring science into the equation, you will find that there is no theory of God that can be tested.

[@Draginx]

@@ArvinAsh wow this has been a long time. I’m an atheist now.

[@HADYNMSRA]

Mr. Arvin, you did not explain how the Universe came to be in the first place? and how Entropy is very low in the Universe beside, any one with a little sense will know that bang will cause only chaos not order (high entropy) ?

[@ArvinAsh]

See my video on entropy. It may answer some of your questions.

[@HADYNMSRA]

@@ArvinAsh ok i will see

[@HADYNMSRA]

but you still did not explain how the Universe came from nothing, as you know 0+0+0 does not give 1, did the Universe created from another Universe, or created itself ??

[@thecaptainsarse]

Now, this is the content I’m here for !!! Thank you.

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you enjoyed it!