Puddle Parable and Fine-Tuning (Capturing Christianity Response)

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Oh, me, me!! Let me try: 1. The probability of a fine-tuned universe under theism is not very, very low. 2. The probability of a fine-tuned universe under fine-tuning multidimensional gnomes is actually quite good. 3. the fact that the universe is fine-tuned provides evidence for multidimensional gnomes over theism. Easy peasy lemon squeezy! On a serious note, the snow globe universe depicted in Genesis and other myths of ancient times, are far more fine-tuned for us than the actual universe we find ourselves in... Like the puddle.

[@1970Phoenix]

snowball --> snow globe or snow dome

[@Zzz-iz6jk]

Your argument fails at premise #2. Moreover, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It's this kind of sloppy thinking that makes atheists look quite ignorant and gives rise to the title, "village atheist".

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

@@Zzz-iz6jk read the comments below...

[@stylis666]

@@Zzz-iz6jk _"...sloppy thinking that makes atheists look quite ignorant..."_ Oh, sloppy thinking makes everyone look ignorant, boi. Read the whole comment again. Do you now still think that CheapPhilosophy was being serious? Or was he perhaps making fun of how flawed these kinds of sloppy arguments are? In Cameron's defence: I don't think Cameron was being sloppy, but that he is really that ignorant and unintelligent and that he lacks any self awareness to see his mistakes.

[@pdoylemi]

@@Zzz-iz6jk The argument fails because it was INTENDED to fail, you idiot! It was a parody of the the argument presented in this video! The idea is that this argument is basically the same as the one Cameron made, and it is stupid.

[@pRODIGAL_sKEPTIC]

It’s almost like every time apologists say something that’s ACTUALLY falsifiable.. the arguments get torn down to nothing

[@Jeff-gj7ko]

And yet it they never stay down for long.

[@peterkyrouac]

I love how you did the math with the 2 premises for the Fine-Tuning Argument. Your graphic actually helps illustrate not that Theism is wrong or that Naturalism is correct, but that the construction of the premise 2 basically begs the question every time.

[@andrewpeckham9950]

Oh thank you, yes...I was calling out "Begging the question" at the screen when he read that line out!

[@joshuaphilip7601]

You didn't notice that his parody was not analogous or that he used Bayes incorrectly? Or that he thinks frequentism is the only kind of probability??

[@poozer1986]

Maths*

[@TheDizzleHawke]

@@poozer1986 not in the USA.

[@poozer1986]

@@TheDizzleHawke no, in fact it's maths everywhere. Just because the US is too ignorant to see how wrong it is, isn't our fault. America, literally every day, shows the world how ridiculous it is

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

Thanks Paul, for listening to unwatchable christian videos, so we don't have to.

[@jaybird1596]

Translation: “Thanks for confirming my bias so that I can be secured in my belief and don’t actually have to think critically for myself!”

[@hindujon6903]

@@jaybird1596 I've thought critically about my belief and reached the conclusion that the universe has a creator and it's most likely Vishnu. How did you come to Yahweh?

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

@@jaybird1596 I fully admit my bias against stupidity and cult indoctrination.

[@jaybird1596]

God Equals the Square Root of - 1 At least you’re humble.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

@@jaybird1596 Being 'Humble' is irrelevant.

[@MirandolinaAmaldin]

"Would be a shame to let a good prediction go to waste" Oh this is going to be good. ^_^

[@DRayL_]

I was just about to say something similar. hehe

[@priapocalypse]

I'm here for this exact tea.

[@aladorngm]

@@priapocalypse : But do you have your towel?

[@kinglyzard]

@@aladorngm "Don't forget to bring a towel :):) ...Wanna get high??"

[@aladorngm]

Improbability factor of 10^0

[@Marconius6]

"Slightly different conditions" "Gravity doesn't exist"

[@Marconius6]

@@nonyabidness8676 G actually changes slightly over time too... a little bit.

[@Alex-0597]

@@Marconius6 Never heard that G changes. Citation?

[@Marconius6]

@@Alex-0597 phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html Although, of course, it's not that simple, and it seems scientists are currently working with a different explanation, so G might not actually be changing.

[@beautifulnova6088]

@@Alex-0597 If they meant G as in how much gravity earth exerts on objects, that doesn't change... technically. The actual gravitational force you'll feel from earth fluctuates based on everything from the movement of molten material inside the earth to your longitude on it, but the g used in calculations is defined based on a certain longitude and doesn't change because the fluctuations are negligible for most cases.

[@Alex-0597]

@@Marconius6 Interesting. Thank you for the link

[@jethro502]

Cameron's logic. Premise - If God Conclusion - Therefore God I have a compass that cant get such a perfect circle

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

Premise 1: God exists. Conclusion: God exists. There is nothing wrong with this argument. It's logically valid, so you're saying Cameron's logic is logically valid lol

[@KaiHenningsen]

I'm so tired of the claim that the universe "looks designed". Only to the blind. I mean, really. I can't think of anything that looks less designed.

[@PitterPatter20]

The deconstruction of the fine-tuning argument starting at 22:18 is probably the best one I've ever heard. I've listened to a lot of people tackle this argument, but I think this one is the most plain-spoken, digestible, and illustrative of the issues inherent in the argument. I especially like the use of the lottery ticket as an explanation of why FT has no real explanatory power. Well done Paul!

[@kevindavis5966]

The fine tuning argument as used by theists could be used to justify the existence of pretty much anything. Aliens creating the Earth and all life on it, for example. Or rainbow-farting unicorns.

[@jhmejia]

I think you’re right in the sense that it doesn’t prove God in any meaningful sense But I guess it shows a “higher power that seems to have some interest in us.” Although I don’t think it shows God is currently talking to us right now

[@the_polish_prince8966]

Yeah, sure. All that it’s meant to do is establish some form of design, the particular designer is established from other arguments.

[@kevindavis5966]

@@the_polish_prince8966 Which it fails to do, spectacularly. The arguments that come after don’t really matter at that point.

[@the_polish_prince8966]

@@kevindavis5966 I do think the one presented here is rather lackluster. Aristotle does a much better job.

[@benwil6048]

I had a Muslim creationist colleague with whom I had spent an entire night shift in discussion once about creationism. He pretty much used the fine-tuning argument so I told him about the puddle analogy, to then have my (panicked?) colleague scream at me that puddles don’t think so the analogy doesn’t make sense....

[@markcostello5120]

Well there you go then. God can't make thinking puddles.

[@stevewebber707]

Hmm, sounds like an amusing irony for him to accuse the puddle of not thinking.

[@benwil6048]

Steve Webber it was rather telling; I would come with arguments and counter-arguments. He with arguments and then loudly yelling as I made my counters after letting him finish his

[@oliverhug3]

Ben Wil , did you not tell him that ants don’t talk either?

[@benwil6048]

monika hug I did not know about that one but I did ask him about the flying horse. Answer: “we don’t know everything” This coming from a dude that doesn’t read fiction because it’s “too unrealistic” 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@JamesM1994]

"Sometimes water is boiling because an agent desired tea, but sometimes water is boiling merely because the temperature has reached 100°C" Boiling water does not prove the existence of Bertrand Russell's teapot.

[@sasilik]

20 seconds in and Cameron is already correct - he does not understand.

[@markcostello5120]

"Life is like a box of chocolates" It sucks when you get to the end..

[@Graeme_Lastname]

Being dead is OK.

[@timhallas4275]

Life is like a box of chocolates... you have to eat all the crappy ones to find those 2 that you want. .

[@godlessrecovery8880]

"Life is like a box of chocolates... it kills you slow and some parts taste like shit."

[@ziploc2000]

Life is like a box of chocolates. Mildly disappointing.

[@JCW7100]

@@timhallas4275 Amen!

[@kenthovindscpa9466]

Poor guy, he really really wants christianity to be true. His tweets are silly af

[@acronen]

He is one of the few apologists that actually makes me feel sad. He is capable, and intelligent, but so desperately attached to his indoctrination. It just saddens me to see that, knowing how much more he could accomplish if he wasn't attached to his presupposed position. Then again, my perspective on him could be wrong and he could just be another dishonest turd like Craig or Turek.

[@brianadams2613]

@@acronen I feel the same way. I refuse to believe that he cant see all the mistakes he makes. Or rather, let's just say that I do foresee him changing his views within a few years. That is, of course, unless the changing would be financial or social suicide similar to why we have the clergy project.

[@NonstopRam]

I just looked at his Twitter. He recently posted about having a severe panic attack. No reason seemingly given... I remember when I was still a Christian, I would get panic attacks since I did not know if I was being a proper Christian that would make it to heaven. Being uncertain in life is a very bad state of thought for a Christian to be in.

[@jklinders]

His tweets ARE silly except when they get to the point of not only being offensive but dangerous. The little twat blocked me after I told him off for saying that God cures depression. Christian counselors are literally killing people with depression and he says THAT?

[@jhill4874]

@Gabe Norman You demand only your one god as the alternate solution. Why not not the god from another religion as the source? Hmm? Our position is that we conformed to the universe has evidence. Our position is that there could have been an intelligent source, but there is no evidence, so less likely. Did you not listen to this video?

[@opalescence5544]

Who wins? An omnipotent omniscient super being, or One puddly boi

[@christinel6616]

I'll bet on the puddly boi.

[@elcangridelanime]

the only one that exist...the puddle

[@TazPessle]

The omniscient omnipotent being. But you have to prove it exists before it can win in the cosmic boxing ring. And you have to prove it exists otherwise i can hypothesise a better being without proof and that wins instead.

[@markhackett2302]

@@TazPessle Well one omnipotent god had to dickpunch in a wrestling match (and failed to win with that cheat, too). So even if we DO prove an omniescent omnipotent being, it might STILL lose against a puddle.

[@ericsbuds]

the puddle!

[@puirYorick]

Premise 2 is essentially an "I always win" cheat code, therefore, the thought process has no value for determining genuine truth.

[@PWN4G3FTW]

W. Craig likes to do it too. A & B is true thefore A is true, well done Einstein.

[@maingun07]

Exactly. It's thinly veiled question begging, inserting the conclusion into a premise.

[@williamdowling7718]

some SERIOUS question begging going on there... "given the fact that my preconception is true, my preconception is not unlikely." how does anyone take these clowns seriously?

[@PWN4G3FTW]

@@maingun07 "inserting the conclusion into a premise" Exactly that, well put.

[@Rick_MacKenzie]

It's more like: Premise 1 - Your side nearly always loses. Premise 2 - My side nearly always wins. Conclusion - Look at that! I'm more likely to win than you are.

[@williamdowling7718]

I had an idea while watching this video. I'm sure i'll never have time to make this, so if it sounds interesting to any of you, feel free. I'm also curious about people's thoughts on this idea... I'm imagining an expository video beginning by highlighting the environmental conditions at the bottom of the mariana trench and your choice of indigenous creature (though obviously i'd choose xenophyophores). After introducing this environment, and the animals in question, the video would proceed by steel manning the fine tuning argument, but in the context of the xenophyophores. How unbelievably fine tuned is that environment for xenophyophores?! the odds are astronomical against such a situation, and yet the environment still exists and . There must be some kind of xenophyophore God out there who fine tuned the mariana trench specifically for xenophyophores. Then I picture zooming out a bit, to just look at the ocean in general and consider how fine tuned the ocean is for sharks (while subtly, or not so subtly pointing out that even within the same ocean, sharks are unable to fraternize with the xenophyophores because of the wildly different conditions even in the same environnment). Zoom out again to look at some niche land creature.. then maybe a bird.. Each step up the ladder is the exact same fine tuning argument which supposedly proves the existence of a tri-omni god specifically for that individual species. (because if we conclude that the universe must be fine tuned by a god who created us in his image, then we must conclude that if any other creature seems fine tuned for their environment (especially one that humans cannot survive in) then it should follow that a god created those creatures in its image). And then if there's time, it's always fun to do a little math and figure out what percentage of this "perfectly fine tuned universe" is habitable by the beings for which it was supposedly specifically designed. (Thunderf00t has done all the calculations on his channel and if you haven't seen his 'Why People Laugh at Creationists" series, you need to go do that right now..) Leaving aside the unimaginable vastness of the universe, it's quite clear that this planet isn't even designed for us. Less than 30% of the surface is land and the rest is uninhabitable poison water as far as humans are concerned. of that 30% that's land, huge swaths are either far too cold or far too hot or far too barren to sustain human life. There is an absolutely MINISCULE percentage of this universe in which humans can survive... And somehow we're still hearing about how god made this universe specifically FOR us??? It's a complete joke.

[@jamierichardson7683]

Yep. I hope Paul agrees.

[@kinglyzard]

I just became like an *extreme* polytheist lol

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

"There is an absolutely MINISCULE percentage of this universe in which humans can survive... And somehow we're still hearing about how god made this universe specifically FOR us???" The entire universe wasn't specifically made for us. Earth was. Please be logical.

[@williamdowling7718]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT I addressed that in my comment. The vast majority of earth is uninhabitable by humans without technology to protect us from the elements. But setting that aside, I'm referring to the teleological argument which is not specific to earth. It's about how finely tuned THE UNIVERSE is.

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@TheSpacePlaceYTit's funny how you keep demanding others be logical while you show no logic or critical thinking. What's the point of making a universe that is so big that we can't even see all of it with planet sized telescopes and will never be able to fully explore? Let's see you use some logic.

[@banba317]

The Disciples were constantly scratching their heads over Jesus' parables... they often admitted they didn't know what he was talking about! There are arguably tens of thousands of denominations of christianity, many of them disagreeing over minutia... so much for clarity!

[@robjackson4050]

i think there are more denominations of christianity than other religions in the world

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

This demonstrated an extreme amount of ignorance. Islam also has denominations. Judaism has denominations, some believing Isaiah 53 was Messianic, and others not. Denominations are minor disagreements. These denominations aren't questioning the truth of Christianity, and if you're going to be an atheist, you should have logical reasons why you don't believe in God, not idiotic ones.

[@banba317]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT There is an absolutely fantastic and logical reason to not believe in gods; because there is ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SUPERNATURAL BEING. Believing in invisible beings without a shred of credible evidence and based on the word of primitive people who had no clue where the sun went at night is NOT heroic; it is idiotic. ONLY Christianity has over 40,000 denominations... no other revealed religion even comes close. Only a few even break double digits! These folks are absolutely questioning the true INTERPRETATION of what the christ story meant. It's an absolute fact that there have been opposing views of that story from the very beginning! The very first christian writings were the letters of Paul in which he argues his case against Jesus' successors in Jerusalem! Why does he repeatedly warn his readers of 'false doctrine?' Christian scripture, theology and doctrine were cobbled together over several hundred years and the disputes over what was "true" grew so deep and violent, the Emperor Constantine had to ORDER the bishops to settle things at the Council of Nicaea! In many cases the different interpretations are mutually exclusive. Vast numbers of christians have gone to war with each other through the centuries either defending their interpretation or imposing it on others. The Inquisition was all about which was the 'true church!' Christianity is alleged to be the product of an omnipotent being whose "word" and nature are alleged to be unchanging and immutable. The existence of so many denominations and rifts that began IN THE LIFETIME of alleged eyewitnesses to the events of the christ story kind of flies in the face of that little nugget. So, there seems to be a lot of ignorance going around.

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@TheSpacePlaceYTdo you consider Mormons to be Christian? What logic do you have for believing your denomination over any of the others?

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@GameTimeWhy Do I consider Mormons to be Christian? No. Their disagreement is more than a minor one. My denomination is purely based on the Bible and no external properties. I believe that's the best logical explanation I can give.

[@imjessietr29]

The parable of the seeds tells me that God and Jesus are incompetent gardeners. 🤪

[@1970Phoenix]

You mean I shouldn't be throwing seeds on my cement path? I knew I was doing something wrong.

[@kinglyzard]

Jesus sucked at farming (Mark23:20) but was a helluva fisherman (Matthew4:19).

[@aprylvanryn5898]

Amen

[@kenlogsdon7095]

@Practical Theist Or maybe simply blind?

[@papaunderwater3316]

clearly you've never been a true christian because any true christian knows that: 1 god is good 2 if for some reason it seems that god isn't good, go back to point No. 1

[@scienceexplains302]

The apologist is talking about the mind of the god he is trying to prove exists. That is circular reasoning in overdrive

[@jeffc5974]

It's kind of a slightly altered version of defining his god into existence.

[@xmillion1704]

Maybe god created us so he could take the redeemed to heaven to fuck their brains out for eternity. There is an awful lot of sexual stuff inexplicably in the bible. What about that mind of god?

[@sundayschoolflunkie3979]

I have little doubt that he fails to see the irony in any of what he says, though.

[@quantumrobin4627]

Poor Cameron, I hope his finances don’t depend on his apologetics.

[@atheistlehman4420]

Fortunately for Cameron there are lots of believers, and lots of believers who are willing to pay money to people who reinforce their beliefs. His movement to full time "ministry" will probably be able to support him, even if his defenses are completely lame to outsiders.

[@deluxeassortment]

He's constantly complaining about his indigestion and his back pain on his channel to try and appeal emotionally to his patrons, to up their game so that he can ultimately quit his job and answer his "call to go full time with apologetics".

[@jeffwatkins352]

Erm...something that can exist rather than something that can't? Just a guess.

[@robsengahay5614]

Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride God obviously wants him to have those pains so mere mortals should not attempt to override the Will of God.

[@bobyoung3857]

I was recently told thatWiliam Lane Craig is worth 11 million. If thats true then Cameron will be Ok. Believers tend to live by the creed that they must support other believers in their endeavors.

[@Grim_Beard]

We miss you Douglas Adams.

[@meej33]

I do not miss his later novels, though. Hitchhiker's goes downhill fast after the second installment or so.

[@kinglyzard]

He will be immortal thru The Puddle and all those Hitchhikers' Guide books. Douglas Adams rocks on!!

[@whatsaname4347]

@@meej33 read the books they are fine wine

[@clarencebent1263]

42 he he

[@geoffreysummerhayes4793]

I bought the boxed radio 💿s and have them in a playlist on my phone. Have the TV series and the movie on DVD as well. And the books Hmm, I just realized I might be a fan.😇

[@JTStonne]

The fact that nobody seems to defend is that the universe has had an eternity to hit all possible combinations to create our universe, which seems perfect.

[@funknelson87]

Awesome I was hoping someone would respond to that dishonest mess of a non rebuttal

[@walterbrooks2329]

I find myself having less and less patience for Cameron's conceited condescension. He's becoming quite smarmy and smug. I like alliteration.

[@cunjoz]

I like trains.

[@williamdowling7718]

Almost all alliterations are awesome. Alliterations are always allowed. Adios.

[@ta13s93]

BIKES!

[@matthewgagnon9426]

Becoming? The guy has always been a smarmy little shit while saying nothing of value.

[@kinglyzard]

@@cunjoz You like TRAINS?!? GET OFF MY TRAIN!! *MY TRAIN!* -Ghost, 7 13 1990

[@stiimuli]

Odd...Cameron's FT argument works equally well if we replace "life-permitting" with "life destroying". Wonder what that means....

[@kinglyzard]

Similar formula for why some prayers are answered while others aren't. Either way, it can be said that it's "God's will".

[@hsw268]

@@kinglyzard All prayers are answered. Mostly it's not the wanted answer.

[@kinglyzard]

@@hsw268 Praying is equivalent to wishing on a star. If you get what you wish for, it seems legit, but it's just odds and circumstances in your favor. You can get better results from a fortune cookie.

[@unit0033]

@@hsw268 lol

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@kinglyzard "You can get better results for a fortune cookie." How is that statistically valid?

[@tonydarcy1606]

1 ) The odds of it being the last day of the year in London is still pretty high. 2 ) The odds of it being 2020 in New Zealand is 100%. 3) Therefore it's time to book a table at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

!??!??!??!

[@russellward4624]

Youre giving Cameron way too much credit. He intentionally closes his eyes to the facts and take these weird interpretations purposefully because he knows he has no real argument to the actual arguments being made. So he comes up with these convoluted takes on them so he can argue against them.

[@julianprus83]

Russell ward absolutely. The strawmans he attacks are comical. Hell, even if he attacked nothing but steelmans it would still be pathetic and embarrassing, setting aside that first and foremost he would need to actually substantiate his worldview, which he can’t. No theist can.

[@stylis666]

I think you overestimate Cameron. I don't think he has the self awareness needed to purposefully close his eyes to any facts and for him to realize he has no argument, or the brain power. I think it all happens accidentally and only because he likes the fuzzy feelings of a god that loves him and only drowns and burns everyone else but him. I also think that he thinks that his arguments are air tight and brilliant. I will even go so far as to assume that he thinks that his "arguments" are new and that he came up with them all by himself.

[@julianprus83]

Setekh hahahahahaha this was excellent! Such a great spot on analysis 🤣😂

[@pdoylemi]

@@stylis666 Agreed, except that I think he has the brain power. That's why this is so sad - religion is great at making smart people believe really stupid things.

[@stylis666]

@@pdoylemi I think that's a great point. Perhaps I should watch Seth "stroopwafels aren't a food!" Andrews' talk again about how religion made him say stupid things. He still eats stupid things :p I love stroopwafels XD They're amazing! And definitely not a food! XD

[@NielMalan]

10:30 If the puddle found itself in a transparent container, it would be correct in assuming that the container was designef for it. If it found itself in a rubber boot, it would be wrong to assume that the container was designed for it. Designed or not, the puddle has no way of knowing the purpose of its container.

[@NYCFenrir]

Haven't finished watching the video but my newborn baby seems to love your voice. He calmed down and was just staring towards the computer.

[@ShannonQ]

Awwww

[@FiveAcres1]

I can relate to your newborn, even though I am over sixty. Paulogia's voice is wonderfully soothing. He could probably market it.

[@kinglyzard]

I've always enjoyed Paul, Hemet and esp. Aron. Minimal anger and swearing and smooth, level logic. (I love Babeez)

[@robertadsett5273]

“Physicists have calculated that the gravitational constant is fine tuned to 60 decimal places.” Citation needed

[@EngelsFermin]

Citation? How about the original video that paul is using?? Lol

[@Cheesesteakfreak]

@@EngelsFermin I think he means citation to the physicists

[@robertadsett5273]

Eng 613 😊 if so he’s made a metrology breakthrough and needs to inform the scientific community. I just checked NIST and they have the current relative uncertainty at a little more than 10^-5 so almost 5 significant digits. Sure it has 11 leading zeros (if you were to include the one before the decimal point) so if you have no idea what you’re doing you could interpret as 16 significant digits. Then someone could mishear that as 60 significant digits and not verify the source. No one would do that would they? 😂

[@blakeowens5996]

Turns out the more precise gravity measuring device/equation you use the more fine tuned the universe becomes! Amazing!

[@EngelsFermin]

@@Cheesesteakfreak yup i was just messing around have a great year

[@oscargr_]

Christian apologetics should be this: "I am sorry I was wrong"

[@amyliaclenny1866]

Oscar Gr Purhaps, yet this won't happen as long as Christianity is so *popular* a religion world-wide. Sorry

[@HEARTS-OF-SPACE]

@@amyliaclenny1866 it's because Christians are some of the proudest people on the planet. They're far too proud to admit the possibility of them being wrong...even with the plethora of evidence showing they are. Unfortunately, critical thought is not one of their virtues. Neither is humility.

[@Phourc]

Apolegetics would be so much better if it involved actually apologizing, haha.

[@Wistful77]

Hahaha-- that was good.

[@wallyjude3]

@@HEARTS-OF-SPACE Plethora of evidence? Perhaps you would like to share.

[@1970Phoenix]

Also, we know for certain that Douglas Adams existed. The same can't be said about Jesus.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

Facts

[@edwin6146]

So non Christian Roman, Greek, and Jewish documents were just lying about Jesus.. So you assume they are lying about Jesus but they most be telling the truth about Caesar.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

@@edwin6146 Caesar didn't claim to be the son of God, so it isn't exactly analogous.

[@edwin6146]

@@Джонатан-р8д Okay... And your point. The question was about the divinity of Jesus rather than his existence. So again I ask. Why would you assume documents about Jesus's existence (not divinity) are lying but documents about Caesar are true?

[@Джонатан-р8д]

@@edwin6146 You're assuming I have an issue with a Jesus fellow existing. I couldn't care less. Whether or not he was the son of god is all I care about.

[@bodan1196]

@21:10 (1) The probability that our universe would be life-permitting given Naturalism, is very, very low. (2) The probability that our universe would be life-permitting given 'Something even less probable', is NOT very, very low. /Religious logic explained.

[@richardgates7479]

2) is the point where reason hit the breaks and thinks "what?"

[@bitcores]

Imagine holding a winning lotto ticket and going "The probability that this lotto ticket would be a winning ticket is extremely low, therefore it's probably not a winning ticket and so I'm going to throw it in the bin".

[@wighty5860]

In premise 1, we know a universe exists with life. We know that universe seems to operate on natural laws and such laws can explain the formation of nearly every known object within it. In premise 2, we don't know how anything can exist outside of our universe. we don't know how anything can be "all powerful". We don't even know if anything that could be described as God could or does exist. Therefore, the "probability" that a universe exists based on natural laws is greater than one requiring God.

[@scienceexplains302]

Paulogia, you may be giving away a point in “the probability that a life-permitting universe will exist if there is an all-powerful god who wants life to exist” because there is a hidden variable there: are we talking about life-permitting according to the laws of physics? Because an all-powerful god would not need to restrict itself to the (descriptive) laws of physics. She could create her favorite life form to exist against the laws that restrict everything else. *That* would be a way a god would imply her presence .

[@siriuslywastaken]

I love your use of feminine pronouns to describe a creator god. Every religion i've seen with a creator god is obsessed with having a masculine, warlike god and we really need to spice it up once in a while.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@siriuslywastaken Thank you. I try to keep minds open. Most times when people discuss these issues, they are assuming a single, male deity. If anyone challenges me on sex, I will ask about their god's reproductive organs or sexual identity.

[@markgallemore8856]

I’m sure with the number of responses somebody’s already pointed out that you can’t do a probability calculation when you only have one of a thing that you’re trying to decide how probable it is to have something different. of a universe being different than our universe is, I don’t know, and neither does anybody else.

[@MrMalort]

I think reading Hitchhiker’s put the topping on my atheism.

[@Scyllax]

The probability of life in the universe is 100% because we already evidently exist.

[@jaybird1596]

If we were playing Texas hold ‘em poker and I was dealt 12 Royal Flushes in a row, would it satisfy you if I said, “Hey, man, the odds of me getting a Royal Flush 12 times in a row is 100%, because evidently I got 12 Royal Flushes in a row!”?

[@Scyllax]

Jay No. The odds of you getting each royal flush is astronomical, but, AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN THEM, they are certainties. Probabilities are only applicable before the event. The chance of you being where you are today, having had all the experiences you have had, relative to the possibilities when you emerged from mom’s vagina, are astronomically small, but they are certainties, NOW.

[@terryfuldsgaming7995]

Uhh, imaginary friends make the universe more likely? Citation needed buddy. That's a non sequitur if ive ever heard one.

[@Zzz-iz6jk]

Terry Fulds you're knocking down a straw man, as indeed you must because straw men is all the village atheist has to offer.

[@pdoylemi]

@@Zzz-iz6jk What straw man? How is god any different from an imaginary friend (assuming you imagine that friend to have great power)?

[@chrisgagnon5768]

What about the self created universe? Where does that fit in?

[@pdoylemi]

@@chrisgagnon5768 I am not sure what you are asking here. Self creating is probably not a great descriptor of a universe arising naturally. It's a bit like calling stars "self-creating". They really aren't - they are just a result of a natural process. But where does it fit in to what? Seriously, just curious.

[@chrisgagnon5768]

Pat Doyle So you admit we’re the result of mindless unguided natural processes?

[@knarf_on_a_bike]

If someone designed this great, vast, violent, tumultuous, mostly empty universe so one favoured species can live in very limited parts of this one little planet, it's the most inefficient design ever. Throw the puddle analogy out and the fine tuning argument still fails. We are "tuned" (by the natural process of evolution by natural selection) to live in the universe, not the other way 'round.

[@LPNurja]

Re: Parables. I've recently come across my new favorite one: Matthew 13:33 (ESV) : "He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”" I have zero idea what that means. Anyone? Cameron? Is that one oh so clear?

[@amaryllis0]

Pointing out that his own points work against his own position is so great

[@drlegendre]

I envision a 2020 where Paulogia finally breaks the 100K barrier! It's not as if he hasn't deserved it for years.. Happy New Year, Paul & family - best wishes to all of you this coming year.

[@Paulogia]

Thank you. Spread the word

[@mism847]

I got some bad news for ya...

[@cam387]

got some good news for ya

[@BrghtScorpio]

Boy, I have great news for you

[@lhvinny]

We can easily recognize design when we watch a designer design something, much like Slartibartfast, keeping in line with the reference to The Guide from earlier. If I were to watch Slartibartfast do a design project in his factory while I was on a tour, I would be highly convinced that he did what he claims to be able to do. Sadly, God seems to have a strict confidentiality contract which prevents the living from seeing these factories or processes and prevents non-living entities from providing pictures or other compelling documentation to justify the planet making claim. Or perhaps he is just shy about how messy his workshop would look to visitors.

[@johnanthony1141]

It's still sad to me that apologetics can't do any better than obviously flawed arguments that can be refuted by using math alone.

[@Ken00001010]

The so called "Fine Tuning" argument makes a fundamental map v. territory error. Physicists "fine tune" their models (map) so as to get results that match measurements in the real world (territory). Fine tuning the map so it matches the territory does not show that the territory is tuned in any way at all. It is along the lines of thinking sticking a pin in a voodoo doll is gong to hurt the person that inspired the doll.

[@dannysanchez7217]

Camerons willingness to leave out information to make his arguments sound better really angers me. Because at one point i found him convincing but as time went on, i saw what a snake he is.

[@sciencepatrol1650]

Paul, your demeanor and intellect are so strong I almost feel sorry for these poor zealots... Almost! 1/? = err.

[@kinglyzard]

I kinda feel sorry for and with Paul for having to bang his head against God's wall on a regular basis. These people are incapable of learning!

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

What could be more narcissistic than claiming to know things about imagined god(s) and the beginnings of the universe (if it is a 'universe' and did 'begin')?

[@loganleatherman7647]

What's even better than that is when theists, in the same breath, say that God is unfathomable then proceed to tell you exactly how God thinks and what he wants from us. That is arrogance at its absolute finest!

[@jonahworledge111]

If the God is imagined by you, you know everything it can or will ever think because you imagine what it thinks.

[@humanbn1057]

1:05 "This is the version of the fine tuning argument I like the best." And there you have it. Right at the start of the apologists video he basically says "I'll be cherry picking my points for today's discussion."

[@christophersandford5888]

Bit late to this one but you have managed to present really well something that I have seen others struggle to articulate when it comes to probabilistic arguments for a god or gods. Thanks that was very interesting.

[@UriahChristensen]

The problem with the premise, "the probability that our universe would be life-permitting given naturalism is very very low," is just false. First, naturalism is more about methodology: so, I'll be charitable and assume he means physicalism. We have life in this universe. So, the probability of life on both theism and physicalism is 100%. Number of observed instances of a universe with life is 1. The total number of universes that we have looked at is 1. So, the probability of "our universe" being life-permitting is 100% on physicalism. The probability of "our universe" being life-permitting is 100% on theism. Why this is the case boils down to the use of term "our universe" in the premise. An analogous example would be: The probability of the "rolled die that landed on 3" would read 3 is very low on "I am the roller," while the probability of the "rolled die that landed on 3" would read 3 is very high on "you are the roller." Who rolled the die and how it was rolled does not change the probability of a die that is showing a 3 after a 3 was rolled. This is exactly why the fine tuning argument is crap. Fine tuning arguments reduce to: 1. If the universe was different, then the universe would be different 2. The universe is not different 3. Therefore, God exists It is a non sequitur. The only conclusion that follows from those premises would be "the universe is not different." Informally, the argument would be "it is what it is: so, god exists." Dressing up an argument doesn't make it valid: it just demonstrates the dishonesty of the one dressing it up.

[@matejbludsky8410]

Paulogia rullezzzzzzz !!!! literally the best creator in the atheist community.. love the animations and your voice. I became patreon just the other week

[@chrisgagnon5768]

Matěj Bludský Congrats at throwing your money away into the trash

[@matejbludsky8410]

Topher congrats on being delusional 🤣

[@chrisgagnon5768]

Matěj Bludský Good one 👍 very original 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@matejbludsky8410]

Topher hmm seems like I'm not the first one to told you this 🤣 maybe you should listen to what people say .. :)

[@unit0033]

@@chrisgagnon5768 If you dont like the channel why are you here watching and commenting!!!! lol

[@nilsforsberg3364]

Hi Paulogia! Thanks for the great rebuttal on Cameron's misunderstanding of the puddle analogy. Even if a value is "tuned" down to the 60th decimal place, there still exists an infinite number of valid values it could take. There's an infinite number of values that share the same 60 first decimal places. Example: how many values exist between 0 and 1? Well... The answer is infinitely many. This means that both the numerator and denominator would be infinite. Hence, the probability is infinity divided by infinity. You could of course try to divide the derivatives, but that doesn't help in this case. The answer is undefined. Also, this assumes that any value for natural constants are possible in the first place, which is a completely unfounded assertion... Sorry about the wall of text...

[@acronen]

How do we tell if something is designed or not? Simple really: apparently we just make it up as we go along, as long as we cocoon our precious beliefs in an unbreakable shell ahead of time.

[@kenziewittkopf9526]

acronen lol. I feel that, wasn’t in Catholicism for a long time but I have friends that I have nice conversations with. But my ideas just DON’T match up. So I have decided to try to be a Druid. Thanks for listening to my PSA.

[@gwilliams5136]

I’m often astonished that theists do all this work to show the universe is “designed,” while ironically completely ignoring the question of how an omniscient being came to be. So…What’s the probability of a “perfect, omnipotent, all-powerful” being popping into existence? I’m thinking that probability is just a touch less than the probability that no such perfect being spontaneously came into being. But.. yea… let’s just focus on the “fine tuning” of physics.

[@SciPunk215]

Good work, Paul. I always ask about this process of "fine tuning". People often imagine a series of dials or knobs being rotated. When they say gravity is tuned to within 60 decimal places, find out exactly what that means. Then ask what the process would be to change the current value to a different value. Ask them if it is possible to change it. Ask them how they know whether or not is is possible to change it. This whole argument is a house of cards. It has no foundation.

[@thoperSought]

I'm really mystified that he came up with 5 different interpretations of the parable of the puddle. I'm reasonably confident that I've never heard it used any other way than the obvious one. Bertuzzi always seems to miss the point very aggressively-at least in the things I've seen with him. btw, I love that name for it. calling it a parable is perfect.

[@millenniumf1138]

The thing that makes Cameron's videos hard to watch is his fast-paced talking. It reminds me so much of Ben Shapiro, and it's such a turn-off. Paul going through it and analyzing each point though makes it much more bearable.

[@Carole-j3t]

Yup!

[@CharlesHuckelbery]

Good video. Thanks for sharing it with us. We appreciate your efforts. Happy New Year to you and your family.

[@weldabar]

Wow Paul, you presented some ideas around the puddle argument that I had not heard before. Well done.

[@grayintheuk8021]

I've watched Cameron before and sit ranting at the screen at his misunderstandings. Thank you so much for straightening him out, however, I doubt he will listen. Excellent video and well produced. Thanks.

[@gacomeau2000]

Let me understand this fine tuning argument. If we assume that one or more of the fundamental properties of physics are different then life would not be possible (under the current laws of physics). Why would he assume the current laws of physics when it is built into his premises that the current laws would not apply?

[@laurajarrell6187]

Paulogia, I love the puddle parable! And I especially love your gentle sarcasm. Excellently played. 👏💝☮️🎃

[@Paulogia]

Happy new year, Laura!

[@Scyllax]

The probability that a god exists is zero because the natural world is evidently devoid of the supernatural, so there are no odds.

[@C4lmaria]

Not exactly. The evidence for absence of supernatural events is completely inductive. Thus, we can only rule them out completely after we observe every event that ever was, is, will be or could be and find all of them to not be supernatural, much like Bacon's black swans. That said, after so many natural instances, we can safely conclude the inexistence of the supernatural as "knowledge" for now, with every new observed event strengthening it.

[@jeffnarum1373]

How did he find so many pictures of puddles that fit their holes?

[@ericsbuds]

i love your no nonsense, logical way of thinking, and you are great at getting your ideas across to viewers. thanks for the vid!

[@macleancn1]

We just need to find the label saying, "made in heaven ". That would prove design.

[@broddr]

But it would not stop the high volume arguments. Because every theist denomination would be screaming that the handwriting on the "made in heaven" label was that of _their_ god(s).

[@kennethkimbroug8087]

Babies ??

[@vincentsolis5149]

Been waiting for someone to comment on this video. Thank you!

[@mariochartouni]

"Prove to me that Nature doesn't suffice to itself, and I'll allow you to give it a creator" - Marquis de Sade.

[@comicbutserious263]

Mario Chartouni you know that the marquis de sade was a defender of incest pedophilia and rape? 😂

[@ianbraun271]

@@comicbutserious263 Has nothing to do with his position on Naturalism vs Creationism.

[@Vivi2372]

@@comicbutserious263 it's almost like people are complicated and can hold views that are both reasonable and unreasonable at the same time. Who knew?

[@comicbutserious263]

Ian Braun actually it does as his argument advocation for such acts is directly derived from his atheism but well, i was merely pointing that an argument of authority was a bit pointless in that case😘

[@comicbutserious263]

Vivi2372 Actually the whole philosophy of de Sade is reasonable, and follow a certain logical pattern. Coming from what i d consider to be a strong naturalist and nihilistic approach to existence. He was basically considering that since there is no superior moral standard, humans should follow their pulsions in order to reach a more satisfying life. Not saying i agree with it though. It s just that when using an author ideas it s better to check you consider his whole ideology to be in accordance with what you think.

[@FieldNurse]

Thank you! Your final explanation of the probabilities is the most concise and easily accessible I've seen to date. Please keep doing what you do!

[@Paulogia]

Thank you!

[@sandsand5483]

That was Simon Jones' voice btw. Arthur Dent from the TV series. You'll find the scrawlings for that quote in The Salmon of Doubt, the body of his letters and writings that were cobbled together after his passing.

[@ralphellis4569]

Exceptionally well done. The annihilation of his 1st premise was enjoyable, because it's congruent with claiming beyond what you actually know to tell us how all other universes must be, having never observed one. Pretty much everything about unfounded religious proclamations we have come to expect.

[@theosib]

The existence of god doesn’t guarantee life. What if god doesn’t want to create a universe? What if god wants to create an infinite number of random universes, and the existence of life in some of them is a fluke? The problem is that fine tuning and the existence of god have no connection. We have no basis for concluding that one might imply the other.

[@benroberts2222]

It's like the algae growing in my gutters that are acting like I had those gutters built just for them

[@theosib]

Ben Roberts 😁 Or how the trolls on twitter are acting like twitter was built specifically for trolls.

[@markhackett2302]

If his problem with the puddle analogy is that there are so many of them, then what does he think of the multiple versions of the fine tuning argument, given that this specific one he gives is the only one he thinks is worth discussing, showing that not only are there other versions of that analogy (making it, according to him, worthless), but that the other versions are BAD analogies too!

[@mnealbarrett]

Weak Anthropic Principle: the probability that we would be discussing this in a universe compatible with life is 100%. If it wasn't compatible with life, we wouldn't be here discussing it.

[@ajhieb]

"Five different interpretations of the puddle analogy. That's not a goof sign." he says, ignoring the thousands of Christian denominations each having different interpretations of what the inerrant word of God says. Is the inerrant word of God supposed to be ambiguous, Cameron? Is the inerrant word of God supposed to be clear and obvious, Cameron?

[@TGC40401]

Consider: An infinite god didn't have to create us. An infinite god could choose not create us an infinite amount of ways. Therefor, it is infinitely unlikely an infinite god would create us.

[@2019inuyasha]

no there is only one way to not create someone...LOL...infinite ways to create your.. you just would look different for example..

[@TGC40401]

@@2019inuyasha You obviously don't understand. I'll present a simple example for you... Could a creator have chosen to create another animal species and not humans? Could a creator have chosen to create another: star, planet, or asteroid and not humans? What is the limit to the other things which could have been created instead of humans? There are then infinite ways to not create humans.

[@bengreen171]

the early 80's BBC tv series was way better than the film - it was fairly closely adapted from the original radio series. The film could have been a lot worse.

[@Rune3100]

Honestly, i hated the film when i first saw it, but i developed an appreciation for it after reading the books. Don't get me wrong, i still won't say the film is great, but I oddly don't feel it's as garbage as before. Which i suppose is its own indictment of the film 😅

[@bengreen171]

@@Rune3100 I wouldn't say I hated the film - I was just a bit disappointed with it, but maybe that was just the nostalgic rose tinted feeling for the original series kicking in. I did like the film's Vogons - the fact that they didn't just cgi them. And i do have a soft spot for Zoe Deschanel.

[@Nirakolov]

23:00 ish: The odds of a universe containing a species intelligent enough to posit the odds of a universe containing itself is 1:1, 100%

[@Rime_in_Retrograde]

I really appreciate explaining the arguments and examples in the video as well as putting them up in text. I've often gotten confused or lost when people only verbally explain their points. So... thanks!

[@naysneedle5707]

Congratulations on a great analysis Paul, I think this is the best takedown of the fine tuning argument I've ever seen.

[@dwo356]

Loved it, Paul! Keep up the good work! And happy new year

[@Paulogia]

And to you, Dan

[@dropbearattack]

Cameron failed at the outset when he states that this is his favourite version of the argument. The argument is either able to be proven true, or it isn't.

[@paulschenkel1660]

The mental pretzels theists are willing to twist themselves into in defense of their beliefs is comical.

[@kinglyzard]

Scary and sad, too

[@violetfactorial6806]

To me the puddle analogy is primarily about evolution by natural selection. The "puddle develops naturally according to the characteristics of the hole" is meant to illustrate how "life develops naturally according to the characteristics of the earth". So when we see birds flying, we don't suppose that the properties of the air (density, drag, thermals, etc) were tuned for their wings, but rather their wings were tuned (via evolution by natural selection) to the properties of the air. Since we have a growing body of evidence of evolution by natural selection, it's settled for me. That's why the world seems to be fine-tuned to life - because life tunes itself to the world.

[@ProphetofZod]

An all powerful god could want any of an infinite number of universes to exist. Therefore it’s infinitely unlikely that an all powerful god would create ours... UNLESS we’re going to assume that either 1) something in God’s nature made this universe inevitable, or 2) this universe must be the one he wanted, since it exists. But if we make either of those assumptions, why not just skip the extraneous god, Sagan-style, and make the same assumptions about the universe?

[@Paulogia]

good point

[@JCW7100]

Love your videos Paul! Keep up the great content! :)

[@Paulogia]

thank you, Jordan

[@jwhite146]

the probability of something that has happen is always 100%

[@tqnohe]

“Jesus” had to explain all his “parables” because his disciple were really really dense.

[@ianbraun271]

Jesus had to explain his parables, because most people back then had no critical thinking skills. Much like today. Even I wouldn't be able to read the hidden message in the parables. In fact, i would argue that most people today wouldn't, though i have no statistics to show that.

[@johndemeritt3460]

It's much like explaining anything other than bureaucracy to Vogons.

[@benroberts2222]

Jesus had to explain his parables because the author of the gospel of Mark was an excellent storyteller. The entire thing sets up the reader to identify with Jesus, then overloads with irony as no one else around him can understand him. It's a key piece of evidence that it's all fiction.

[@tqnohe]

Yes, but the religious zealot here thinks that if something needs to be explained, it’s a bad analogy. And yet his mythical friend was always telling bad analogies.

[@oscargordon]

It is like why we watch things like "Jerry Springer". It makes us feel superior. We read the stories "Well at least I'm not as dense as Jesus' disciples!". Nice touch author of Mark.

[@marendameron]

26:13 to the end ->This is THE BEST summary of the problem with the Fine-Tuning Argument I've ever heard! Well done!

[@moodyrick8503]

*Limited or Limitless : **_Most Amazing_** ?* Imagine a God whose hands are tied by the forces of the cosmos, so that he could only create life, in a single specific universe. Now imagine a God that creates life in a universe/world that logically should instantly kill us all, but doesn't. Which God would be more _powerful & amazing ?_

[@JohnnyDrivebye]

The parable of the parable. I'll tell you that one someday Paul. Another good video mate! Cheers!

[@tpu55]

wait-in some languages ‘adam’ means ‘man’... the name Adams means ‘(son) of Adam’... son of Adam, Son of Man-that was how Jesus referred to himself! omg

[@kinglyzard]

Adam, pronounced a-DAHM, means clay or soil, from which he and Lilith were allegedly created, Golam style.

[@paulelkin3531]

@@kinglyzard That depends on the language. While you are correct for hebrew, it means other things in different languages. In a significantly smaller nit pick, the english word is spelled "golem."

[@catnerdadrian7601]

Me watching capturing Christianity: "Are you still so dull?"

[@insnprsn]

Cameron's favorite version of the fine tuning argument... it's so ambiguous as to appear witty and unbeatable by anyone already believes and isn't going to think about it, yet is instead just completely vacuous.

[@iluvtacos1231]

The problem is in his very first premise: the probability is very, very low. Very, very low is not zero. So you fail out of the gate, Cameron

[@earnthis1]

Trying to use "science" to prove religious writings is the most painfully dumb thing imaginable.